Also pushes the new business-friendly narrative that it's good for companies to pay their engineers less.
Well done, I hope the author's boss is proud.
/s
Ughh... reading this is ridiculous. Do we think bankers' salaries prevent them from staying at banks? Doesn't the first sentence answer the question of what really happened?
> For the past year, Google's car project has been
> a talent sieve, thanks to leadership changes,
> strategy doubts, new startup dreams and rivals
> luring self-driving technology experts.
The people who left didn't STOP working on self driving cars. So they still love the work and are engaged by the dream of doing that. So theoretically - if Google had adapted to their needs & wants they could have retained the employees. Instead poor leadership drove them out the door.
I think a more typical response would be, "Hmmm. That wasn't so hard, let's see if they do it again next year." And when they don't -- that is typically when you walk.
I can pretty safely say a single $5M bonus would amount to an instant lifestyle change (namely less pressure to work) for me.
I think I would keep working.
Two things to note: 1) this is different than winning a lottery, because with a lottery there is no expectation of a change in wages; 2) your first week of leisure is worth much, much more than your 50th, as is your 1st dollar worth more than your 5 millionth. There is some level at which you stop working. I think it's much higher than you realize.
That's anecdata. Not everyone is the same. I know friends who would quit in a heartbeat and pursue other passions (music, teaching, non-profit work, etc.) if they got F-you money.
The important factor here isn't the money.
2. If you work at Waymo you'll quit only if you're unhappy
On Wall St, there's always a bigger bonus to aim for at the same firm next year. At Google, if you wanted to take your big bonus and turn it into more millions, you'd better try starting a new business.
The usual path from "I don't like X" to "X is objectively false" to "no one would ever X in good faith" to "How much did they pay you for X, asshole" (not that you said that, but it's the flamewar end-state) never actually consults with reality. Since substantive discussion depends on looking beyond our pre-existing opinions, this is a problem for substantive discussion. Worse, it feels like being a champion of truth, so a lot of intense energy flows into it, so flamey passion goes up as substance goes down—a perilous combo.
I don't know what a full solution would look like, but at a minimum, HN comments on such issues—if they're to be good HN comments—need to show some sign of breaking out of that self-referential cycle. That's why we tell users that they're not allowed to accuse others of astroturfing or shillage without evidence, and always add "an opposing view is not evidence".
I don't know if this is a submarine article--it's impossible to know for sure, of course. It really, really reads like one though, and if pointing that out is unacceptable, then feel free to detach my comment and mark it as off-topic. I won't be offended.
It's hard to think of something Paul Graham wrote that has done more damage to discussions on HN than his piece about submarine PR pieces.
When people thought every published article was some propagandist's attempt to sway public opinion, they were wrong.
But the second view is a lot less wrong than the former.[1]
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations." -- George Orwell.
[1] Didn't feel like following Asimov's pattern for the third line.
I think that your comment might be the damaging one because it attempts to delegitimize the opinion of another community member without any reasons given.