I remember reading an article by Neil Strauss in Rolling Stone covering Jenna Jamison, the notorious adult film star and the adult industry in general.

Since Neil was sent "on set" while Jenna was filming, a lot of the article details him talking to people that work in the industry (journeyman/freelance make up artists, camera men, sound guys, Male "Actors").

One thing that stuck out to Neil that he drew attention to is what these guys bullshitted about at work: Sports. Kids. Health Care. Wages. Tax tips (since they're all contractors).

The reason I bring this up is to make this point: No matter how mundane or bizarre your industry, people still have the same genuine needs. A company that addresses those needs in a superb factor will have loyal employees. If Google is subpar in salary and puts people in jobs that're menial and they're overqualified for them, they will get bored and they will leave. I can't simplify it any more than that. Any company with 18,000 employees can't rely on "cool" to motivate. For an easy 17,000 of those workers, money (or stock options) is the biggest motivator.

A lot can be said about this, but I'll go out on this note: Not all of the world's greatest problem solvers are in their mid-20s and are motivated by the "cool" factor of a web app and think in Python.

The majority of people, in any field, are motivated by money. Microsoft pays in the 68th percentile for a reason. You'll never be rich, but you'll always be comfortable. And yes, intelligent 24 year old Standford CS grad should feel like there's something more to life than supporting Google AdWords code, which, according to other internet rants, is simply a frustrating experience.

Google's "official" hiring docs say that they pay in the 75th percentile, with stock options in the 90th percentile. I'm not sure if that's true, but then, I'm not sure if Microsoft's claim of paying in the 68th percentile is true either. From the Envy data someone else posted on the thread, it looked like Google engineers were being paid just slightly more than their Microsoft counterparts.

I have only ever heard of one person getting a better offer at Google, but I have heard countless times of people getting low offers or taking a pay cut to work for Google. So to see so many leave because of pay in the end isn't surprising. Working on cool things only gets you so far (six months? a year?) When your friend gets more then double your salary then you for doing something much easier and has a better out of work life it really makes you wonder if there isn't something better. Perhaps not Google, but a nice place to work now that google is on your resume.

Could be selection bias. People who got a better offer at Google tend not to trumpet it, they just work there and keep quiet about salary. After all, why make your employer think that they're overpaying you?

Is that 75th up or down?

75th up, i.e. 25% of the time you likely could find a better offer than Google, 75% of the time it'd be your best offer. I have no idea how they calibrate it.

Exactly - I expected more of the frustration to be about the menial work and how people weren't feeling motivated, not how annoyed they were when google skimped on snacks.

I haven't read it all, but only one person was complaining about snacks. Most complaints, as far as I can tell (having been shafted by companies, and also having found great matches) seem legitimate.

The big complaint about food is that it seems its expected to work after dinner, and that a lot of politicking happens after dinner as well. The people who go and be social at the dinners tend to get the "cool" assignments. Others tend to be multiple bosses, inability to shift projects, or just a better offer came along.

That said, I don't think these people are "bitching" or disgruntled. Google asked for their brutal honesty (which deserves credit) and they're being open about it. Not everyone is going to find Google to be a perfect match. And for tech firms that aren't Google, that's a good thing.