A company makes a good product, gets successful. Hires a ton more people, because they can afford to. Original staff turns over, because that's the way of things. All these new people have to be given things to do whether the product needs a lot of new work or not. Even if the product is in an optimal state, it can't be seen as standing still.
Like it or not, Google is consistently ranked near the top or #1 on all of those "Best places to work" lists that get published from time to time. Everyone I know who has managed to get hired there sings its praises, and none of them have left (yet). I think it's unlikely that each one of their opinions is fueled by Kool-aid. There's something to it.
I don't think this guy is sad at all. I really admire what he did. It's pretty inspiring/motivating actually.
What makes Google better than, say, Dropbox? Github? Facebook? Etc?
Disclaimer: former Googler. Currently FB.
Nothing, but they all pay well and are extremely rigorous in interviews.
[0] http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/07/28/turno...
The question you really want to ask is: what's the percentage of people leaving each year?
PS: Median tenure of 1.1 years + company sizes this and last year gives you a good estimate of turnover.
You can look at cohorts: of all the people who joined Google in 2013 (eg), what percentage left within one year, what percentage within two years, etc.
I'm 25, and I think I speak for a lot of folks my age when I saw that Google is the 'Bell Labs / IBM / whatever big influential company that makes a mark on you as a young adult" company of our time. Now I know that may not be the case now, but when I was deciding that being in technology was what I truly wanted to do (teenage years), Google was coming out with Gmail, and was the 'key' to the internet with search, and bought YouTube/Android, and was everywhere, so I really saw them as a pillar of modern day technology, and to a sense I still do. So whenever I get a call from a recruiter I can't help but be excited. I know their hiring practices are not perfect, but they are still a company who I look towards with bright eyes.*
* Albeit less bright as time goes on.
It's premium branding, plain and simple, and the fact that Google employees have to justify the effort and time they put in to get hired in the first place partially explains why Google is rated so highly by current/past employees.
I'd be really curious to learn how much Google spends in man-hours for each hire in comparison to other tech companies.
And it's "worth it", if they really have what you're after. For banking and consulting, analyst training is truly great. The signaling after those few years when you're a bright kid who studied history in undergrad, is pretty good too. And with Google, you can't deny that they're one of the highest paying employers around for tech.
It's not for everyone but I think it's fine for folks who have those priorities.
Well, competition for jobs (especially the top ones) has never been so fierce. I remember my first job out of undergrad was programming for a (then) pretty well known hardware company. I cracked open a book on "how to write device drivers" the day before my interview and breezed through the interview and got the job. This would literally never happen today. Interviews (even at no-name "dog" companies) are so much tougher these days and there is so much competition that there is no longer room for mistakes.
These top employers are seen as kingmakers for engineers' careers. It's totally believable that one would spend months (or even years) preparing for a single company's interview.
How long ago is this?
When I was in school 10 years ago, I know I spent ~3 months studying for my upcoming interviews. I memorized all the big algorithms, and an entire book of programming puzzles.
Prior to that, in HS, I remember reading on /. about programming puzzle interviews.
i remember having a stark realization one day that i probably couldn't get hired to do the same damn job again with any reliability, so thats when i took things into my own hands and started a company so i could deal with a different set of problems other than ace-ing stupid interviews.
that was right when i heard questions about interviewees being left in a room alone for 30 minutes, were being asked idiotic questions like "how many ping pong balls..." or being put in uncomfortable situations on purpose to test their reaction, dumb riddles, or any of a number of other non-work-related questions.
as someone who now has interviewed hundreds of people and hired dozens, i can unequivocally say that the above techniques are a stupid, idiotic, fucking dumb and counterproductive waste of time for hiring good people _for anyone who does not have the time and luxury (read: cash) to indulge in it_.
i would fire anyone who worked for me that insisted on doing interviews like that, because we are not google or mckinsey or goldman sachs and we do not have a never-ending supply of money.
1) Go to finance for the money
2) Stay there because work and people are interesting
Smart techs go to tech companies. Smart & ambitious techs go to finance.
If you're at Google, you certainly won't participate in conversations with coworkers about how Google just tried to poach you with an offer soooo ridiculously low it's laughable.
It's certainly true that almost all finance software jobs pay much less than the big tech companies, and I've yet to personally run into one that clearly paid more (at best, similar or slightly more for some but not all algo trading). So I never exactly know what these comments mean.
Which are the big payers -- just algo trading? -- and does everyone get paid that much or just the high performers, or even just the high performers at the high performing firms? How does high performer compensation compare to high performer compensation at tech companies (who start at, say, $400K-$500k for what I'll call "entry-level high performer")?
SV and Wall Street in the same place = an interesting playing field.
---
I wouldn't say it's fair to compare ALL finance jobs to a few big tech companies.
If you're doing over $500k somewhere in the USA, you should stay there. There are very few places on the planet that offers that for engineers. (and they're probably all big companies).
I almost never hear of London developers making >$200k.
Let's just say that if you want easy money in London, you should get into consulting. It's also very tax friendly. (200k = 1000 daily rate, don't expect that for most people).
> I almost never hear of London developers making >$200k.
Yeah. £150k is extremely rare (pre-brexit exchange rate)
I dunno know about the costs of living in SF but it is my understanding that at $100k you can barely afford a one bedroom. At £100k in London, you're doing incredibly well.
With $100k you can easily afford a one bedroom. Don't listen to all the griping on Hacker News—it's an exaggeration. Yes, prices are exorbitant but you're still doing incredibly well.
It's not like London is especially cheap. $100k in SF is $70k in London. [0]
[0] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
$100k in SF = $70k in London = £55k in London - is that what you're saying? In that case, we both agree, the costs of living are a lot cheaper (so are the salaries).
Google top salary is 85k base for senior developers, which is shit (numbers from the guys I know, some of which are openly mocking Google and advising people to never go there because of the pay).
Not sure about the other big 4 (Facebook/Microsoft/AMZ), not much more allegedly.
Quants make a shitload more than developers. The standard in finance institutions is £130k base + variable bonus. (Well, now that I think about it, the difference might be the industry, not the role :D)
As for what the top developers make in the top few financials institutions. I need to get a few guys drunk to get accurate numbers. But I already know that it is definitely higher than at Google.
What's your numbers for top performers in NY and SF? In London, there is no money in the usual valley companies. That's just how it is.
Yes.
You're right that European developers (even at the big 4) make far less. My comparison was more with SF/NYC salaries, where big 4 developers will easily break $200k and reach $250k without excessive effort.
In the USA, obviously SF against NYC, you need to get information from Americans. I can't help you.
In case anyone wonders: inter-continental comparison are worthless so don't bother. It's [almost] impossible for Europeans to get VISA to work in the USA, and even if they get one they won't have the leverage to get the top range salaries.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm based here and making those comparisons myself.
Specifically, NYC has both finance and tech. For developers (not quants), big tech pays better.
Finance you're typically looking at $180k total comp.
It's easy to get $200k for ANYONE in the NYC/SF. Please re-read the first message from ceras that started this conversation:
"How does high performer compensation compare to high performer compensation at tech companies (who start at, say, $400K-$500k for what I'll call "entry-level high performer")?"
$200k is absolutely achievable, but claiming that ANYONE (and EVERYONE?) is getting it is farcical. The vast majority of developers are making less than that.
The notion that entry-level developers are getting $400k-500k is a joke. Not even quants start at that.
----
Since you'd apparently like to be an asshole about markets you know nothing about, I'm done with this conversation.
$200k is a classic "senior" package. It's good but it's nothing outstanding.
No offense intended but finance comp doesn't stop at $180k, you're not looking at the right place or you don't have the profile.
They just need to pay more than everyone else. Which they (along with a select few other giants) do.
Attracting droves of applicants really isn't hard. Just pay above market and advertise that.
The fact that he has started 2 successful businesses both of which are still generating revenue is what he should be looking at for confirmation. That is hard and a skill that many developers will never acquire.
He may be disappointed when working for a big company especially after running his own businesses. But it is something else he can say he has done and has learned from. Plus, after he has Google on his resume, he can probably start doubling his contract rates.
Until a recruiter from Facebook contacted me and sent me a list of teams at Facebook to pick the ones I'd be interested in.
http://imgur.com/9p7QJ5s (just an excerpt)
Then I figured out there aren't many places in the world where I could do cache infrastructure "to handle over a billion requests per second" or storage datacenters to store "350+ million photos uploaded per day to Facebook -the largest photos site on the Internet-".
Next thing you know. I'm interviewing at yet-another-big-company. Damn, they got me with their marketing //(^-^)//
You want to know the reality? Whatever's special about Google is long gone. Management let the smoke out a long time ago. Nowadays, Google is just another big software company, with all the opaque politics, purposelessness, and random nonsense that comes with being a big company. It's sad to see people strive to be a faceless drone.