Google employees on Reddit answers questions.
reddit.com
reddit.com
1) For all the perks (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/clz1m/google_empl...) I believe I can 'buy' them myself for <$10,000 year (expensive lunches, gym membership, pay someone to wash my clothes, etc). Given that Google only pays average wages, this means that so long as I am working somewhere that is paying me over $10k above average salary, then I'm doing better than a Googler.
2) On bonuses, Google will give several $million to key folks who were instrumental in the success of high-profile google products (eg Google Maps folks walked away with several $million each). Don't forget, though, that unlike a startup the tax situation on that is probably rough - normal income rather than capital gains.
I guess both of the above indicate that, for me at my stage in my career, money considerations are a key part of where I place myself as a resource over 'cool place to work' - which is a reason I don't work for Google.
But I've managed to keep successful career in Silicon Valley/SF with startups and SME-sized internet companies doing interesting things.
My point is there is a a lot of middle ground between the insular world of Google with it's average pay and the suckage of banks.
That is totally true, if your goal is strictly money & material goods.
Google offers the perks mostly as a way to build community. And in this respect, it seems to work. There are lots of employers in Silicon Valley that will pay me good money. There are very few functioning communities - particularly in Silicon Valley, where it seems everybody's out for the gigantic payday.
As an alternative to a gigantic payday or not, though, I wouldn't want to be part of the Google world. I interact with it directly and it seems very insular and elitist (I have friends who work there, I'm involved with a number of Google initiatives, I visit the 'Plex a few times a year, etc.).
My experience is that Googler's end up down a rabbit hole of their own self-importance and loose touch of the rest of the professional world. A bit like college students at an Ivy-League school loosing touch with the real world.
Yes, even without a gigantic payday, I'll take the option that isn't the 'Google community'.
Money and material good are not 'strictly' my goal but I think everyone involved in entrepreneurial activities has to be focused on wealth creation as a considerable driver. I'm also double digit years into my career and done the "big co" thing already.
To say something directly though, I think that wealth creation is a distinct from money. Even if you yourself can get many of those perks with a higher-paying job, the total wealth in the world is less than if that company gave you those things outright, since a variety of economies of scale would kick in.
And maybe Google's society is overly insular. That said, I don't really want the forced walled garden of Apple or the short-sighted pragmatism of Microsoft to infect Google.
(That said, Google isn't perfect, and they do have a variety of areas where they seem to be falling victim at least to the forced walled garden stuff.)
In reality when you consider that Google will be buying said perks in bulk, and that people will stay even longer, it might be paying 5% more and getting 20% more work. At the end of the day Google is a corporation like any other. Just one with better PR.
The simple convenience of having a lot of good food options onsite is of significant value. If you have to spend your life going to the dry cleaners, driving to lunch, driving to the gym, and on and on and on, it can really reduce your use and enjoyment of those facilities.
I lived in Bulgaria for two years, and it was pretty common there for people to ask, straight up, "How much money do you make?" They'd seem genuinely perplexed if I didn't want to answer. Granted, Bulgaria's economic situation is pretty different than the US's, but there was something about those frank exchanges that made me wonder why we do what we do.
Any thoughts?
Personally, I was okay with divulging that information even when I was working for places that told me not to. I figure if a company is willing to fire or sue me over telling someone else how much they pay me, I wouldn't want to work there anyway. It seems like such a trivial bit of information.
Invariably followed by a 'how did we do' email asking for some kind of biscuit.
Incredible.
"Google employees on Reddit answer questions"
collapses in a heap
(not sure if the above sentences makes any sense either.)
My comment relates to angusgr's statement (which I now assume was a suggestion?)
You'll make more money, be productive, and have a happier life if you just process the information and shrug. The point of language is to communicate, not to obey grammar. That sentence isn't pretty, but you get all the information - google employees, on reddit, answering questions.
Most of the wealthiest people I know use bad grammar because the extra 10% of time to clear it up doesn't add as much value as doing more stuff. Sure, edit carefully if it's going to be something timeless or very important, but some people are being cool and answering questions random strangers on the internet ask them.
I do always notice, though. My mum is a former English teacher, and I have a history degree as well as a CS one. After you spend enough time editing text in your native language, it becomes second nature to notice errors and want to correct them. I accept it as the price for being able to write easily and clearly myself, without consciously worrying about grammar. In my opinion, this is a useful skill when you're a programmer. Plus I kind of like proof editing (when it's invited.)
The one thing that surprised me about your reply was the choice of 'money' as the metric that I can maximise by suppressing the habit. That has certainly never occurred to me. The thinking behind it seems interesting on a few levels.
(NB: The nature of this post, and the fact I had a few glasses of wine over dinner, mean that there is bound to be at least one grammatical error in this reply. Doh!)
I'm with you, I understand. I've got a heavy reading/writing background, so I notice too and used to be pedantic about it. Letting it go was huge for me, which is why I'm such an advocate of not caring about grammar. It really isn't so important to most people as long as you're communicating effectively.
> and I have a history degree as well as a CS one.
Ah, cool, I love history. Hey - want to recommend me a random history book or two you like? Obscure is cool, mainstream is cool too. I'm reading Julia Cartwright's "Baldissare Castiglione" right now - really wonderful reading. It's out of copyright and free here, really wonderful reading if you like that era:
http://www.archive.org/details/baldassarecastig02cartuoft
> The one thing that surprised me about your reply was the choice of 'money' as the metric that I can maximise by suppressing the habit. That has certainly never occurred to me. The thinking behind it seems interesting on a few levels.
Well, it's the most concrete, but I mentioned producing more and being happier too.
Have you read Stephen King's "On Writing"? It's worth checking out. The first half about his life is a mixed bag, but his writing advice has some really excellent points in it. The thing that's interesting to me about King is that so much of his work is trash - I mean, really bad and cliche. "Oh, the overbearing mother just did something morally wrong to try to protect her weak son - I wonder if the son is going to die in an ironic way for that?"
But it doesn't matter, because King comes up with interesting premises and writes things that are interesting. He's not a master of language most of the time, but he sells books. And in a literary dogfight, I'd take The Stand straight up versus 95% of the works from "serious writers." King produces - he gets stuff out the door. Sometimes it's cliche, sometimes his grammar or structure sucks, but you know what? It doesn't matter, because he delivers stories that people want to buy and read. So King is getting stuff out the door that people wants. It's made him more wealthy, able to create and produce, and from reading his autobiography he seems a lot happier now with money than he did when he was struggling.
Making grammar not very important as long as you're understood - the reason you do it is so you can put your attention on what people really want. Almost nobody wants grammar, they want the message to get across. I intentionally break grammar rules a lot with commas and dashes in inappropriate ways - it's the fastest way for me to write something that can be understood. Grammar be damned if it's getting in the way of speed or communication or what we really want.
> ...mean that there is bound to be at least one grammatical error in this reply. Doh!
See, that's the beauty of it - I understood you so I don't care! :) Now if you have a free minute, I would be much obliged if you'd recommend a couple favorite history books of yours. :) Cheers and best wishes.
I will make time to check out 'On Writing', I've always avoided it basically out of snobbery. Still, I bet Stephen King can actually throw a sentence together reasonably well, despite turgid prose and bad themes!
If you haven't read it, I'd also recommend the essay "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell. You can even read it online for free: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm (or for a couple of bucks at pretty much any second hand bookstore, as part of a collection of Orwell's essays!)
You have also called my bluff on history. I don't actually have a 'history degree', I have an Asian Studies degree with majors in Asian History & Indonesian. I shorten that to 'history degree' cos it gets more mainstream approval, and most computer people don't care less about the difference. It gets less negative responses than 'arts degree'.
So, most of the non-Southeast-Asian history study I've done has been historiography (theory of history writing.) A lot of which borders on the deconstructionist stuff that you posted the discussion of, today. So, given that you seem to be interested by that, I'll try and remember some good reads or at least ideas...
Max Weber's Ideal Type is an interesting idea, and an important one in the history of postmodernism's precursors. I also find it a useful conceptual tool to keep in mind when generalising or reasoning. I can't remember the name of the essay of his that I read, sorry, but there are a few linked from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_type
I've only read a chapter of Foucalt's early work Discipline & Punish but I'd like to go back and read the rest. It's pretty heavy going though, from memory (translation from French doesn't help.) His ideas are really interesting and influential (at least the ones I can follow.)
Orientalism, by Edward Said. This is, from memory, another really dense book but it also has some really illuminating and rewarding sections in it.
The best "real" history book that I've read since uni is probably Howard Zinn's Peoples History of the United States. It's politically fairly extreme, and unashamedly biased. It's the unashamedly biased part that I really like about it, even though I don't always agree with the politics. I think it's both healthy and honest for an author to give up any pretext of being "unbiased" or "objective" and admit "this is my theory, this is what I believe, here is my thesis laid out, make your own mind up." Which is exactly what he does.
Homage to Catalonia, also by Orwell. Not really a history, but a personal account of a historical time.
History of Modern Indonesia, by Adrian Vickers. A very readable history of Indonesia.
I'm actually embarrassed at how few other authors and book names I can remember. I know that in my notes and reading bricks there are some really good books and articles, but I can't remember any names...
There's an absolutely gigantic literature in management, economics, and other areas on pros/cons of bonuses and specific bonus schemes in all sorts of contexts, though, so I'm not sure it's fair to say there's any consensus on them being considered bad for knowledge workers. My recollection is that there are some arguments about it coming from an intrinsic/extrinsic motivation perspective, arguing that knowledge workers are most motivated intrinsically (because they like the job, find it engaging, like problem-solving, etc.), and that extrinsic motivation like bonuses might not help, or might even harm motivation (there's evidence from some psych studies that the presence of extrinsic rewards can reduce previously existing intrinsic motivation).
The Founders' Awards aren't really a "bonus scheme", but more like a Nobel Prize (which may or may not be a good way to motivate "knowledge workers"). Regarding intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, I can't help but feel it's oversimplifying things: where does social recognition fall? I'd need to think a bit about it before having a coherent answer.
Maybe my assumption that this is a widely held belief was wrong.
It seems to work for Google. I'm just curious what it is about their implementation or culture that makes this the case.
This TED talk summarizes the book: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
Speaking generally again, I think Pink's ideas oversimplify "work" when they label it as "creative" or "manual". This goes doubly wrong when if we try to incentivize one or the other. At least from my experience, successful projects require both great creativity and a hell of a lot of grunt work.
Once an employee has a certain amount of financial security and a track record of making things happen (traits shared by a number of Google employees), the employee might be motivated to leave for a startup where there is an opportunity for a big payday. The Google awards provide an opportunity for a big payday while staying at Google.