Hacker News Reader

Comment by home_boi | Hacker News Reader

1. Interesting tech problems

2. Smart coworkers (well before this came out)

3. Good compensation (I heard for top tier applicants, they give something like MSFT total comp as salary with a ridiculous amount of paper money)

4. Assumed less bureaucracy compared to Big Cos because of unicorn/start up status

5. Ability to develop the first X in the new ride sharing/autonomous car industry

Uber would be a good fit for someone who specifically wants to work at a big_unicorn with large scale technology problems.

Most engineers wouldn't be able to accurately evaluate the ability of the leadership of tech companies, so that negative is out the door.

For the ethics portion, that's subjective.

For the cut-throat nature of the company, I heard that it was worse than most tech companies but not terrible (60+ hr/wks) like some financial companies.

View on HN

I know 3 is wrong since I got offers from both companies. At least for new grads. Uber's Salary offer was actually pretty terrible compared to the other companies and they wouldn't budge on anything except stock options which are monopoly money. And when I say terrible, i mean the stocks were worth half and the salary was 12k less.

Comparing compensation for experienced engineers and new grads between companies isn't apples to apples.

I believe the parent of your post is referring to offers from both companies when he was a new grad. Inclusive of both offers.

Anecdotally, they have made some crazy high offers, even to new grads (I didn't interview, but I have it at one reliable remove).

Given the other stories about how they operate, I wouldn't be especially shocked if their starting offers varied wildly over time, even on no particular basis.

I've worked 60+ hr/wks ever since I was a junior engineer, wasn't aware it was considered "terrible." Most people here in SV are putting in at least 50, even in the employers that people would consider to be more laid back around here.

50 vs 60 is huge though. That's 2hrs extra work per day. 10hrs/day vs 12hrs/day

I did this a bit, as a younger man. It was fun, and an easy way to stand out from the crowd. Was nice to get the pat on the back from the boss in the morning "did you go home at all last night?". From a personal development point of view it was a valuable experience because it allowed me to get ahead of the curve and delve into some of the more intricate details of the work.

It's no way to live though, in particular on an ongoing basis. The cost is just too high. I still wouldn't be averse to the odd bit of overwork when it comes to the crunch but these days that's very much as a favour to my employer - and one I know is appreciated.

There is a huge difference.

If expectation is 60 hours, you would need to push 80 hours to stand out the way you did. 60 hours would not get you a pat on the back.

People in finance do it. The difference is that if you push 80 hours for 5 years and you are not culled, the pay becomes massive with senior developer level base salary with contractual guarantee of 150% salary as bonus. You can retire in your early 30's or continue working 80 hours. Except that now 80 hours becomes "management 80 hours" - i.e. just having your phone with you counts as working.

Well I guess it's all about context isn't it?

If you're working in a place where everybody is working 60 hours and competing to be the richest man in the graveyard then yeah it's not much.

But when you're working an extra 2 hours a day on your own then yeah - then that's something. It's all relative.

Also factor in while there is a chance you may be rewarded for a 60 hour week, you are also driving wages overall downwards as two people working 60 hour weeks work the same number of hours as 3 people working 40 hours a week. Thus increasing the total labor pool and decreasing effective demand.

In my opinion you are often doing yourself and your fellow workers a disservice by working that much for free. If you own the company this is a different matter of course.

Also arguably, you probably aren't as productive pro rata working 60 hours as you are 40. So following that to conclusion the 3 people working 40 would be more productive than 2 people working 60.

There are mitigating factors to this i.e. each additional member of your headcount incurs their own cost overhead; also that certain roles and responsibilities can't be serialised so easily.

To be clear, it seemed to be the mutual expectation of everyone in the office. I wasn't doing it for the sake of doing dog and pony tricks with my boss. If I tried to leave at 5 or even 6 (dinner was at 7), I'd get strange looks and raised eyebrows.

False economy.

Drop to 40. You'll get more done. Trust me.

When I read those posts I am really happy not to live in US. I am struggling to work even 40 hours week since my junior days (my typical week would be 35 - 37h). When I feel drained I just go home and don't sit in the office doing nothing. I am not doing less work or lower quality work than others (even if I compare myself to US team members). I also have some time to study new stuff at work so this is not problem with short hours too. I probably earn less money but I would not have time to spent US salary anyway with such working hours.

That is definitely not a problem with all of the US. In my field (advertising), most of the engineers are in at 10 and out by 5, or working from home.

Been in 4 SV companies and only some FT's work more than 40. Usually the ones that do are leads or really invested in the company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com