4 ms·

"Automakers from around the world are rushing to set up offices in the Bay Area to tap the engineering talent. " An honest question - is this really because of

"Automakers from around the world are rushing to set up offices in the Bay Area to tap the engineering talent. " An honest question - is this really because of the talent, or simply because people there tend to work more? When you have so many people competing for engineering jobs I expect that people, especially the ones with no kids, will work on average a lot more. Is that the case or am I wrong?

k-mcgrady 12y ago
I was under the impressions job supply was far higher than demand in the bay area (for engineers). Aren't people always complaining they can't get the talent? So I would guess that the hours you're willing to do above the standard don't matter as, if you're talented, you're in demand.
- joshstrange 12y ago
  As much as I'd like to believe they are being genuine (as a developer who benefits from being in high demand) I've heard that this statement can really be re-written as "We can't get enough talent at the price we want to pay" thus the push to try to make it easier to bring engineers into the USA (One's they conveniently leave out will accept less for the same job). I'm not saying this is all fact but just that I'm not sure how much I believe that they really are scrambling for talent.
  - GolfyMcG 12y ago
    I would agree with this with one caveat. The way I read your comment was, "Large software firms want to hire you for as little as possible" but I think it's more "Large software firms want to hire the best talent for as little as possible." I tend to believe that the throughput of the top 5-10% can be exponentially more than the next 5-10%. The objective for a lot of these firms is to get the top couple percent and get 4x as much value of out someone but paying 2x as much. As it relates to the parent comment, I think there is an incredibly high demand for the top 5-10% of tech talent and exponentially less demand for the subsequent talent. It's very similar in NYC for finance talent. I know people who work in SF and NYC both who work insane hours but they get paid SO MUCH MORE for it. So, no one is scrambling for good engineers or good bankers or good consultants but they are scrambling for that tiny sliver of the market that they believe will generate exponential returns and turn into leaders of the company.
    - sukilot 12y ago
      The 10x people thing is mostly a myth, or applies to vanishing view superstars -- not engineering employees at a large company. 10x producers are people who work on well structured and balanced teams with good management.
      - GolfyMcG 12y ago
        I completely agree with what you're saying about their needing to be context around those individuals. And I also agree that the 10x people are a myth. What I do know is that, in software, I have interviewed software engineers with VERY similar resumes, pedigrees, etc. and there are HUGE gaps when we've actually worked with them. Absolutely enormous gaps. Perhaps this is simply too anecdotal and I've had a poor experiences, but I can say, in my personal experiences, most candidates we've talked with are doing 1x and there are other candidates doing 2x, 3x, or better. Perhaps not 10x, but I have definitely seen very similar people on paper deliver on VERY different levels.
    - vonmoltke 12y ago
      I think that is a very good assessment. For all the complaining people do about "senior" engineers who can't code for loops and wanting to see more applicants who can code basic programs, there is a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon between being able to code a simple 100-line program and the point that most Valley hiring bars are set at. There are not now, and probably will never be, enough people above those inflated hiring bars to sate all the companies that have them, but none will back off.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  I don't believe they're scrambling for talent. I think a lot of the supposed "demand" for labor out here is a combination of your typical resume collecting from the larger organizations and bandwagon-driven "we need PhDs from Stanford to scale our shitty RoR b2b sales app; there aren't enough 'qualified' people to write code" nonsense. Furthermore, there are just more people who are qualified to write code out here. So there may be more demand than elsewhere, but there is also more (much more?) supply of labor to meet it.
div 12y ago
I think it's far fetched to believe this is because people supposedly work there more. It's probably got more to do with automakers chasing software engineers as cars start to become more like computers. Automakers are definitely looking at Tesla and trying to emulate some things.
- bkjelden 12y ago
  much like how walmart, target, and other retailers have set up offices in the bay area that seem to have the charter "don't let amazon kill us".
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
I suspect people without kids or other similar obligations tend to work more in any industry or location; it's not specific to the Bay Area. The difference is that in the Bay Area it may be that the ratio of those with to those without obligations is lower. It's certainly socially acceptable to implicitly discriminate against "older" (mid-30s and up) workers in certain sectors of the tech industry out here. That said, I briefly considered applying to Tesla. Then I did my homework and asked around: their pay is below what even a green "webdev" at some random startup might expect (well below in some cases), and the work/life balance seems to resemble something closer to the video game industry (lots of "crunchtime") than to anything respectable. (NOTE: Of course that is based on anecdotes from contacts and, e.g. sites like glassdoor.com; it's not a scientific survey of employment at Tesla.)
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  I suspect people without kids or other similar obligations tend to work more in any industry or location; it's not specific to the Bay Area. They might work "more", but that doesn't mean that their actual output is any better than that of their family-raising peers.
  - Iftheshoefits 12y ago
    I'm biased, being a family-raising person myself, but I agree. I'd go much further, but then this comment would be downvoted into oblivion, so I'll stop here.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> An honest question - is this really because of the talent, or simply because people there tend to work more? The latter is an aspect of the supply of talent (in terms of available labor hours of any particular kind and level of talent available), so those aren't really two opposed options.
- LoSboccacc 12y ago
  I think the equation should also factor in cost of finding good software engineers, especially the risk of getting bad hires. If you worked 3-6 year at Apple already or another company renowned for its quality oriented processes, there is probably a reduced risk in poaching you which offset the higher salary you can command. I see that more as a way of outsourcing the cost of vetting personnel.
  - sukilot 12y ago
    But you aren't hiring Apple's process, you are hiring someone who used to be there. Why do you assume he value you seek is particular to that person, and not to the Apple environment? Witness the massive number of startup teams that get acquired and assimilated and then do nothing of note after.
    - LoSboccacc 12y ago
      that's true as well, I wasn't aiming at a blanked statement covering every case, just adding one more thing to consider: the risk of hiring a passive engineer that goes task by task should be lower when poaching from highly demanding employer. acquihires are indeed risky, you have to factor in both the culture change and the sudden shift in middle management directives, but onboarding an apple engineer isn't the same as purchasing a whole company.
mikeash 12y ago
If you pay SV-scale salaries in Texas or Michigan you'll find people willing to put in 170 hours a week for you.
- droopyEyelids 12y ago
  Anyone who is willing to put in 170 hours a week isn't worth that kind of money.
cipher0 12y ago
I really would like to see a citation to back that claim "Automakers from around the world are rushing to set up offices in the Bay Area..."

k-mcgrady 12y ago

I was under the impressions job supply was far higher than demand in the bay area (for engineers). Aren't people always complaining they can't get the talent? So I would guess that the hours you're willing to do above the standard don't matter as, if you're talented, you're in demand.

joshstrange 12y ago
As much as I'd like to believe they are being genuine (as a developer who benefits from being in high demand) I've heard that this statement can really be re-written as "We can't get enough talent at the price we want to pay" thus the push to try to make it easier to bring engineers into the USA (One's they conveniently leave out will accept less for the same job). I'm not saying this is all fact but just that I'm not sure how much I believe that they really are scrambling for talent.
- GolfyMcG 12y ago
  I would agree with this with one caveat. The way I read your comment was, "Large software firms want to hire you for as little as possible" but I think it's more "Large software firms want to hire the best talent for as little as possible." I tend to believe that the throughput of the top 5-10% can be exponentially more than the next 5-10%. The objective for a lot of these firms is to get the top couple percent and get 4x as much value of out someone but paying 2x as much. As it relates to the parent comment, I think there is an incredibly high demand for the top 5-10% of tech talent and exponentially less demand for the subsequent talent. It's very similar in NYC for finance talent. I know people who work in SF and NYC both who work insane hours but they get paid SO MUCH MORE for it. So, no one is scrambling for good engineers or good bankers or good consultants but they are scrambling for that tiny sliver of the market that they believe will generate exponential returns and turn into leaders of the company.
  - sukilot 12y ago
    The 10x people thing is mostly a myth, or applies to vanishing view superstars -- not engineering employees at a large company. 10x producers are people who work on well structured and balanced teams with good management.
    - GolfyMcG 12y ago
      I completely agree with what you're saying about their needing to be context around those individuals. And I also agree that the 10x people are a myth. What I do know is that, in software, I have interviewed software engineers with VERY similar resumes, pedigrees, etc. and there are HUGE gaps when we've actually worked with them. Absolutely enormous gaps. Perhaps this is simply too anecdotal and I've had a poor experiences, but I can say, in my personal experiences, most candidates we've talked with are doing 1x and there are other candidates doing 2x, 3x, or better. Perhaps not 10x, but I have definitely seen very similar people on paper deliver on VERY different levels.
  - vonmoltke 12y ago
    I think that is a very good assessment. For all the complaining people do about "senior" engineers who can't code for loops and wanting to see more applicants who can code basic programs, there is a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon between being able to code a simple 100-line program and the point that most Valley hiring bars are set at. There are not now, and probably will never be, enough people above those inflated hiring bars to sate all the companies that have them, but none will back off.
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
I don't believe they're scrambling for talent. I think a lot of the supposed "demand" for labor out here is a combination of your typical resume collecting from the larger organizations and bandwagon-driven "we need PhDs from Stanford to scale our shitty RoR b2b sales app; there aren't enough 'qualified' people to write code" nonsense. Furthermore, there are just more people who are qualified to write code out here. So there may be more demand than elsewhere, but there is also more (much more?) supply of labor to meet it.

div 12y ago

I think it's far fetched to believe this is because people supposedly work there more. It's probably got more to do with automakers chasing software engineers as cars start to become more like computers. Automakers are definitely looking at Tesla and trying to emulate some things.

bkjelden 12y ago
much like how walmart, target, and other retailers have set up offices in the bay area that seem to have the charter "don't let amazon kill us".

Iftheshoefits 12y ago

I suspect people without kids or other similar obligations tend to work more in any industry or location; it's not specific to the Bay Area. The difference is that in the Bay Area it may be that the ratio of those with to those without obligations is lower. It's certainly socially acceptable to implicitly discriminate against "older" (mid-30s and up) workers in certain sectors of the tech industry out here. That said, I briefly considered applying to Tesla. Then I did my homework and asked around: their pay is below what even a green "webdev" at some random startup might expect (well below in some cases), and the work/life balance seems to resemble something closer to the video game industry (lots of "crunchtime") than to anything respectable. (NOTE: Of course that is based on anecdotes from contacts and, e.g. sites like glassdoor.com; it's not a scientific survey of employment at Tesla.)

dreamweapon 12y ago
I suspect people without kids or other similar obligations tend to work more in any industry or location; it's not specific to the Bay Area. They might work "more", but that doesn't mean that their actual output is any better than that of their family-raising peers.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  I'm biased, being a family-raising person myself, but I agree. I'd go much further, but then this comment would be downvoted into oblivion, so I'll stop here.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> An honest question - is this really because of the talent, or simply because people there tend to work more? The latter is an aspect of the supply of talent (in terms of available labor hours of any particular kind and level of talent available), so those aren't really two opposed options.

LoSboccacc 12y ago
I think the equation should also factor in cost of finding good software engineers, especially the risk of getting bad hires. If you worked 3-6 year at Apple already or another company renowned for its quality oriented processes, there is probably a reduced risk in poaching you which offset the higher salary you can command. I see that more as a way of outsourcing the cost of vetting personnel.
- sukilot 12y ago
  But you aren't hiring Apple's process, you are hiring someone who used to be there. Why do you assume he value you seek is particular to that person, and not to the Apple environment? Witness the massive number of startup teams that get acquired and assimilated and then do nothing of note after.
  - LoSboccacc 12y ago
    that's true as well, I wasn't aiming at a blanked statement covering every case, just adding one more thing to consider: the risk of hiring a passive engineer that goes task by task should be lower when poaching from highly demanding employer. acquihires are indeed risky, you have to factor in both the culture change and the sudden shift in middle management directives, but onboarding an apple engineer isn't the same as purchasing a whole company.

mikeash 12y ago

If you pay SV-scale salaries in Texas or Michigan you'll find people willing to put in 170 hours a week for you.

droopyEyelids 12y ago
Anyone who is willing to put in 170 hours a week isn't worth that kind of money.

cipher0 12y ago

I really would like to see a citation to back that claim "Automakers from around the world are rushing to set up offices in the Bay Area..."