Meanwhile, their top line salary is a starting point for calculating the bottom line, which is how quickly they can build up their own financial safety net for contingencies such as getting laid off, old, sick, raising kids, etc. Or, for starting their own business.
Granted, I'm probably guilty as charged. I keep tabs on my total wealth, as I inch towards retirement and my kids race towards college. Also, I haven't gone to the extreme of working 80 hours per week, as I've managed to maintain my career progress while guarding my work hours and living in a fairly pleasant -- dare I say more European-like -- city. I also have a second job and a side business.
Perhaps in Europe, having a mandatory safety net (health care, etc.) means that workers don't have to be as aggressive about building their own safety net, and tend to negotiate differently.
She replied that the young tech talent that they recruit
doesn't demand it they only look at the top line salary and
don't calculate the amount that they are earning per hour.
The explanation doesn't make sense.1. At the "large tech employers," the young talent couldn't demand it as they have limited power. There's plenty of substitutes at the margins. Both parties know this.
2. Employees surely calculate $/hour. It's cute to derive a minimum wage salary when you spread wages across more hours, but earnings/career comparison stops there.
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook (and probably others) are competing for that same pool, and if they could increase their acceptance rate of offers by 10% by offering better work-life balance they would do it in a heartbeat.
In my experience, the two main things that 22 year old tech graduates are looking for are money and future career potential. I doubt more than a few percent of the young interviewees at those companies even ask about vacation time. I have a fairly small data-set, but not one of several dozen right-out-of-college interviewees have asked me about how many hours they would be expected to work.