Google senior execs getting 30 percent raises

It will last as long as the CFO is in the room when that decision is made and the engineer is not. (Psst: there is a fairly straightforward way to make sure you are always in the room when compensation decisions are made.)

why is "Rod"'s reply "dead"?

---

1 point by Rod 13 minutes ago | link [dead]

\begin{sarcasm} How dare you criticize the status quo? Don't you know that the job market for top executives is perfectly efficient, and that their compensation reflects their contribution to the company they serve? \end{sarcasm}

Four decades ago, during the Nixon administration, the powers that be talked about the lack of technical talent in the United States. Clinton revived the discussion in the 1990s, and Obama talks about it now.

In the big defense contractors (e.g., Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, etc) the most senior engineer makes less than the most junior manager. It does not matter if the senior engineer has a PhD from Caltech and the junior manager was a business major at Cal State.

This reality exists also in the Silicon Valley, but in a more subtle form. If the job market is efficient, then (in theory) the lack of qualified engineers should lead to an increase in pay for top engineering talent, right? Well, the job market is not efficient. Engineering is viewed by many as a blue-collar profession, and the pay gap exists to differentiate the ruling class from the working class.

---

People leaving for potential higher pay (IPO) says more about those people than Google not being an interesting place to work at. Nothing that facebook has recently done that suggest to me that facebook might be more interesting place to work at.

Facebook and twitter might have the "momentum", but they are on a niche (social) thats unstable at best. Google on the other hand is not only on several stable niche, but they are trying new things all the time.

People who are leaving for facebook/twitter are riding the horse while its still fat. Nothing more, nothing less.

As a programmer from the outside Google seems like a far better proposition overall given the diversity of what you could end up working on. Not every programmer at Google though can work on the most interesting stuff though so for them it could be about the work interest.

Disagree.

Some people are leaving to Facebook to get rich, so by offering them more money, Google is setting up appropriate incentives for them to stay.

Fight fire with fire!

Are you sure the appeal is that it's a better place to work? Rather than a place that's pre-IPO?

Don't forget the "grass is always greener" in people's minds rather than reality. And supply and demand tells us something too, these people are some of the best in the world and the economy needs/wants them elsewhere and is sending a price signal. The company is showing them that it values them, needs them, and responding with a price signal of their own. What's unusual? Google has tons of cash, their main infrastructure is their people. I don't see why people start wringing their hands and buying into the tech journalism hyperbole over all this. What other actions could Google take that wouldn't have people filling out blog posts with breathless speculation? I suspect none.

Also, Facebook's "vision of the web" is pretty crummy if you ask me, so I am surprised they have so much buzz. The only worse thing I can imagine than Facebook becoming the dominant player on the web would be Apple somehow acquiring or merging with them in an unholy alliance of evil.

Don't know about this particular case - but increasing employee pay by a significant amount is one very direct way of the company showing it's dedication and value to you - more direct than free espresso and other trinkets. Money talks.

People are reading too much into raises given after a good financial year.

In general there's less friction when shifting jobs in California due to non-compete clauses being (mostly) banned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California

The article mentions a case in 1998 where out of state non-compete clauses cannot be enforced in California.

They are enforceable in Washington state, Microsoft's main location:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Washington

This might be one reason why you haven't seen something like this at Microsoft.

Excellent point. Back during the 1990s and the dot com boom Microsoft couldn't compete at all with startups, but moving to the Valley was a big barrier to a lot of people.

More recently a lot of Microsoft people have gone to Amazon or Google (which has done a lot of hiring in Seattle and for a while was aggressively recruiting MS folks) ... it'd be interesting to see how the numbers compare with FB/Google crossover.

More so, there was a recent legal hullabaloo in regards to anti-poaching that google, facebook, etc. had with each other. Now that those anti-poaching agreements are no longer in force, having been deemed illegal, those companies now have a much greater chance of losing their employees to their major competitors.

From the last quarter's numbers the overall headcount is up, they added the talent from the metaweb, on2, slide (Levchin and co.) and ITA when that passes through, and the other 36 talent acquisition they did this year. If some long time employee wants to try something new or join a pre-IPO startup that is normal, but since the Lars departure everyone got ultra-hyperbolic about the whole thing, casting every bounce or raise as some sort of desperation rather than an award after a decent financial year.

My point being that departures are normal, but as Google is a high-profile company, and a great link bait, people start reading too much into these stories.

A cynical individual would describe most companies this way. On multiple levels: Founders work hard, and 30% of the value goes to VCs. First employees work hard, and founders get 60% of the value. Interns work hard, and first hires get 10% of the value.

It's the way of the world.