3 ms·

> At this point I'm starting to agree we should severely limit or outright ban stock-based or near-term performance based compensation. If Boeing employee comp

by dheera 3y ago

> At this point I'm starting to agree we should severely limit or outright ban stock-based or near-term performance based compensation. If Boeing employee compensation takes a hit, they will lose good engineers to Meta, Google, and TikTok which already probably pay 3X. You want safer planes? Help bid their stock up so that it attracts good engineers. This is the problem with public companies. Boeing stock value should be determined by safety, by FAA, and by actual passengers, not by some armchair investors who don't even fly on their planes.

deaddodo 3y ago
Uh, what? Did you just list two companies which had some of the most comprehensive layoffs this year and a third Chinese private firm for clearance-based US engineers (generally stereotyped as uptight and/or establishment types) to move to?
- happyopossum 3y ago
  You seem to be stuck in a weird news bubble / or some kind of layoff echo chamber. Google had a 6-7% layoff 12 months ago, and has been hiring steadily, almost aggressively since then.
  - acdha 3y ago
    They’re just better informed that you: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/technology/google-layoffs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/technology/google-layoffs... All of the big tech companies are going to have a risk of layoffs for a while: the Wall Street activist crowd is looking to cash out and those companies which have guaranteed income like ads will look great in the short term with lower costs on the same income stream. It’ll take time for the drawbacks to manifest, and often that stage will lead to more layoffs when they decide to get out of a particular business they’ve let themselves fall behind in.
    - oskarkk 3y ago
      Is a 0.5% layoff important?
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      The story is about a company with 180,000+ employees laying off hundreds, less than one one-thousandth. What does that mean? It would be like a company with an $1.8 billion budget losing < $1.8 million on something.
      - acdha 3y ago
        It means anyone considering working there has to think about how directly their work connects to one of the big strategic goals and assess the odds that they’ll be next. That certainly doesn’t mean nobody should take a job there but it adds to the absurdity of someone suggesting Google and Boeing are in a hiring competition given how different those jobs are.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        The odds are less than one in a thousand that they'll be next. They only have to be above the 0.1th percentile of Google employees.
        acdha 3y ago
        That’s only true if everything is determined at random. In real life, new hires are usually more at risk than people who’ve been around long enough to have a track record and allies. More importantly, layoffs also tend to involve shifts in business priorities which is why I mentioned needing to think about goals – it might be that 0.1% of the total staff are being laid off, but that doesn’t help you if it’s your entire project.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        And your odds might be better, depending on the project, etc. The average is less than 0.1% - some better, some worse. If > 999 out of 1,000 aren't good enough odds for you, where will you work? Lots of people dream of that kind of job security.
  - CableNinja 3y ago
    Many many many companies have had layoffs in 2023, and more are already on the chopping block for 2024. A lot of people i talk to regularly, including myself, have been laid off in the last 6-7 months. Google is not the only company in the world. You can even search here on HN for layoff discussions, which have spiked in the past year.
hef19898 3y ago
The engineers FAANG needs are usually not of the aerospace variety, are they? And no, please don't use more start-up or software dev thinking during the development of safety critical hard- and software.
- martijnvds 3y ago
  From FAA to FAANG
- nostrademons 3y ago
  Actually there's more crossover than you might think, but at an earlier point in the education process. One of my coworkers at the first startup I worked at out of college was an MIT-trained aeronautical engineer. He was re-training as a software engineer for quant hedge funds (at a salary lower than what I got), because aeronautical engineering didn't pay enough to support a family in the Boston area. Jumped ship for an actual quant hedge fund during my tenure there, for 3x the pay. Then the financial crisis hit and I have no idea what became of him. I think this is a pretty common story for the personality type that goes on to become software engineers. If it were the 70s/80s, when both defense and commercial aviation were hot, they would've gone into aviation. Many actually do go into aviation as their second career, eg. John Carmack, Phil Greenspun, or Sebastian Thrun. But the money has been in software from 2000-2020, and so that is where the smart engineers go.
  - evntdrvn 3y ago
    I got a MSc in Controls Systems, spent over a decade getting crap pay for highly technical and extremely stressful work, then made a conscious decision to go to the bottom of the software Eng ladder and climb my way up. Ended up getting 3-4x the pay for 3-4x less stress.
booleandilemma 3y ago
The engineers at Boeing are not going to trade planes for web apps.
- ptmcc 3y ago
  I personally know several that have, because Boeing pays shit for the level of work and the culture sucks. It's like the games industry. They underpay because people dream of working in the industry because they think it's cool.
cdolan 3y ago
“The government should set the stock price” Please don’t spread this dangerous line of thinking Government continues to fail. Let’s stop waiting for it to fix our problems
- lolinder 3y ago
  The government continues to fail because a certain segment of Congress consistently works to hamstring and defund important regulatory arms of government. They then point to the failure of government (which they caused) as evidence that more funding should be cut. It is the government's job to ensure that private companies don't sacrifice safety in the pursuit of short-term gains. Humans are extremely shortsighted by nature and the free market will always choose the short term over the long term without intervention.
- m_fayer 3y ago
  In a very broad sense, just like large enterprises are "us", the government is also "us". These are different ways that we organize to achieve our aims. As I see it, government continuing to fail can be seen as us continuing to fail. If I stop waiting for us to fix our problems, I'm giving up on us, which I'm fighting not to do.
- piva00 3y ago
  > Government continues to fail. Let’s stop waiting for it to fix our problems It continues to fail since your government adopted the policy of less government is better as an ideology, then a whole section of your political class completely embraced it and decided to hamstring government powers to sabotage it and let private companies take over. There are other governments in the world which suffer much less from this, even though the USA successfully exported this ideology no other country went so deep into this stupidity. Now you experience the side-effects of the Nixon/Reagan eras biting your asses, and since a large part of your society doesn't have much of a grasp of history and its consequences we end up with a large cohort believing that government = bad a priori. Bad government is bad, but bad government happened by design, not because government is naturally bad. Government in democratic countries is what the people and society under it makes of it, your society decided to make it bad by voting believing in lies from the past 40 years.
acdha 3y ago
> > At this point I'm starting to agree we should severely limit or outright ban stock-based or near-term performance based compensation. > If Boeing employee compensation takes a hit, they will lose good engineers to Meta, Google, and TikTok which already probably pay 3X. You want safer planes? Help bid their stock up so that it attracts good engineers. First, those are entirely different industries and skills, and the companies you mentioned all are doing layoffs so a steady paycheck at Boeing might be looking pretty good. More fundamentally, however, nobody said compensation would go away without being replaced but rather that it’d be restructured to avoid the incentive to juice short-term share prices. This would have little effect on Boeing engineers who are not given enough stock for that to be a huge deal but it’d have a big impact on the managers who have been making so many bad calls: if getting paid in cash means the financial engineers don’t find working there appealing and they’re replaced by real engineers, that’d be a net win for the company and the flying public.

by dheera 3y ago

deaddodo 3y ago

Uh, what? Did you just list two companies which had some of the most comprehensive layoffs this year and a third Chinese private firm for clearance-based US engineers (generally stereotyped as uptight and/or establishment types) to move to?

happyopossum 3y ago
You seem to be stuck in a weird news bubble / or some kind of layoff echo chamber. Google had a 6-7% layoff 12 months ago, and has been hiring steadily, almost aggressively since then.
- acdha 3y ago
  They’re just better informed that you: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/technology/google-layoffs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/technology/google-layoffs... All of the big tech companies are going to have a risk of layoffs for a while: the Wall Street activist crowd is looking to cash out and those companies which have guaranteed income like ads will look great in the short term with lower costs on the same income stream. It’ll take time for the drawbacks to manifest, and often that stage will lead to more layoffs when they decide to get out of a particular business they’ve let themselves fall behind in.
  - oskarkk 3y ago
    Is a 0.5% layoff important?
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    The story is about a company with 180,000+ employees laying off hundreds, less than one one-thousandth. What does that mean? It would be like a company with an $1.8 billion budget losing < $1.8 million on something.
    - acdha 3y ago
      It means anyone considering working there has to think about how directly their work connects to one of the big strategic goals and assess the odds that they’ll be next. That certainly doesn’t mean nobody should take a job there but it adds to the absurdity of someone suggesting Google and Boeing are in a hiring competition given how different those jobs are.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        The odds are less than one in a thousand that they'll be next. They only have to be above the 0.1th percentile of Google employees.
        acdha 3y ago
        That’s only true if everything is determined at random. In real life, new hires are usually more at risk than people who’ve been around long enough to have a track record and allies. More importantly, layoffs also tend to involve shifts in business priorities which is why I mentioned needing to think about goals – it might be that 0.1% of the total staff are being laid off, but that doesn’t help you if it’s your entire project.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        And your odds might be better, depending on the project, etc. The average is less than 0.1% - some better, some worse. If > 999 out of 1,000 aren't good enough odds for you, where will you work? Lots of people dream of that kind of job security.
- CableNinja 3y ago
  Many many many companies have had layoffs in 2023, and more are already on the chopping block for 2024. A lot of people i talk to regularly, including myself, have been laid off in the last 6-7 months. Google is not the only company in the world. You can even search here on HN for layoff discussions, which have spiked in the past year.

hef19898 3y ago

The engineers FAANG needs are usually not of the aerospace variety, are they? And no, please don't use more start-up or software dev thinking during the development of safety critical hard- and software.

martijnvds 3y ago
From FAA to FAANG
nostrademons 3y ago
Actually there's more crossover than you might think, but at an earlier point in the education process. One of my coworkers at the first startup I worked at out of college was an MIT-trained aeronautical engineer. He was re-training as a software engineer for quant hedge funds (at a salary lower than what I got), because aeronautical engineering didn't pay enough to support a family in the Boston area. Jumped ship for an actual quant hedge fund during my tenure there, for 3x the pay. Then the financial crisis hit and I have no idea what became of him. I think this is a pretty common story for the personality type that goes on to become software engineers. If it were the 70s/80s, when both defense and commercial aviation were hot, they would've gone into aviation. Many actually do go into aviation as their second career, eg. John Carmack, Phil Greenspun, or Sebastian Thrun. But the money has been in software from 2000-2020, and so that is where the smart engineers go.
- evntdrvn 3y ago
  I got a MSc in Controls Systems, spent over a decade getting crap pay for highly technical and extremely stressful work, then made a conscious decision to go to the bottom of the software Eng ladder and climb my way up. Ended up getting 3-4x the pay for 3-4x less stress.

booleandilemma 3y ago

The engineers at Boeing are not going to trade planes for web apps.

ptmcc 3y ago
I personally know several that have, because Boeing pays shit for the level of work and the culture sucks. It's like the games industry. They underpay because people dream of working in the industry because they think it's cool.

cdolan 3y ago

“The government should set the stock price” Please don’t spread this dangerous line of thinking Government continues to fail. Let’s stop waiting for it to fix our problems

lolinder 3y ago
The government continues to fail because a certain segment of Congress consistently works to hamstring and defund important regulatory arms of government. They then point to the failure of government (which they caused) as evidence that more funding should be cut. It is the government's job to ensure that private companies don't sacrifice safety in the pursuit of short-term gains. Humans are extremely shortsighted by nature and the free market will always choose the short term over the long term without intervention.
m_fayer 3y ago
In a very broad sense, just like large enterprises are "us", the government is also "us". These are different ways that we organize to achieve our aims. As I see it, government continuing to fail can be seen as us continuing to fail. If I stop waiting for us to fix our problems, I'm giving up on us, which I'm fighting not to do.
piva00 3y ago
> Government continues to fail. Let’s stop waiting for it to fix our problems It continues to fail since your government adopted the policy of less government is better as an ideology, then a whole section of your political class completely embraced it and decided to hamstring government powers to sabotage it and let private companies take over. There are other governments in the world which suffer much less from this, even though the USA successfully exported this ideology no other country went so deep into this stupidity. Now you experience the side-effects of the Nixon/Reagan eras biting your asses, and since a large part of your society doesn't have much of a grasp of history and its consequences we end up with a large cohort believing that government = bad a priori. Bad government is bad, but bad government happened by design, not because government is naturally bad. Government in democratic countries is what the people and society under it makes of it, your society decided to make it bad by voting believing in lies from the past 40 years.

acdha 3y ago

> > At this point I'm starting to agree we should severely limit or outright ban stock-based or near-term performance based compensation. > If Boeing employee compensation takes a hit, they will lose good engineers to Meta, Google, and TikTok which already probably pay 3X. You want safer planes? Help bid their stock up so that it attracts good engineers. First, those are entirely different industries and skills, and the companies you mentioned all are doing layoffs so a steady paycheck at Boeing might be looking pretty good. More fundamentally, however, nobody said compensation would go away without being replaced but rather that it’d be restructured to avoid the incentive to juice short-term share prices. This would have little effect on Boeing engineers who are not given enough stock for that to be a huge deal but it’d have a big impact on the managers who have been making so many bad calls: if getting paid in cash means the financial engineers don’t find working there appealing and they’re replaced by real engineers, that’d be a net win for the company and the flying public.