Google hasn't become a terrible place to work, it's just not as great as it was 5 years ago. I think most people would agree with that.
Also, why can a burger company not be as good or better then an ad company to work for?
Also, why can a burger company not be as good or better then an ad company to work for?
And as for Google, no not terrible, but no longer good enough that I'd accept a position there.
It only wins because you're excluding some of the most important criteria. Stay at the pizza place for 12 years and see how you feel about what has happened to your life and well-being. Did you buy a house? No, you couldn't afford one. Did you get married and have a family? No, you couldn't afford one. Did you have amazing health insurance? No. Did you save anything for retirement? No, your bills are pretty close to your wages and the pizza place provides squat for benefits.
The only way the pizza place wins is if you work there for a short amount of time, otherwise entropy will particularly badly eat away at you (in every regard). Low paying jobs are brutal on people over long periods of time, living at the line of existence perpetually is very harsh. You can't fix things that break, you can't acquire values that you want.
It's also infuriating because you'd expect these large tech companies, with all their surplus resources, to be able to do better for their employees' happiness and well-being. Yet this would also be a money-focused way of looking at companies. I suspect employees' overall well-being has less to do with money and more with their bosses' attitude and the work environments they create. Many of these tech giants sound hellish to me, with their relationally-unenlightened, cutthroat, misanthropic corporate cultures. The maxim that "A players hire A players but B players hire C players" also applies to the human decency side, regarding the kind of managers a company's bosses hire or cultivate (as well as the policies they establish.) Some of these bosses may be A players on the technical/business side, but are B or C players on the human-decency scale (as with Steve Jobs, for example). Thus their company, though bursting at the seams with money, struggle to provide other things their employees need or want.
Employees who worship their company might be overjoyed that they're one of the chosen ones, but other employees who don't drink the Kool-Aid might not be as happy with the cult's toxic aspects, regardless of the money they're making.
"The typical In-N-Out Burger Store Manager salary is $84,315. Store Manager salaries at In-N-Out Burger can range from $55,134 - $130,157." — Glassdoor.com
That's pretty good for most of the US, particularly so outside of major cities, and especially if you've been making money — even just mediocre money — for 4 years, while skipping student debt.
I think it's just saying if both jobs paid the same, the pizza place would be a more rewarding, fulfilling and pleasant place to work.
FWIW, I loved my years at Google, and I think of going back from time to time. Is it an ideal workplace? No. But it's the best I have worked at by quite a margin. Why do I think that? Because Google is able to offer competitive pay and the projects that don't make your eyes glaze over right from the start, with the potential for truly breathtaking pay and world-leading projects with a little bit of effort and moving around internally, if you have the chops. It's not the best paying place anymore (that'd be FB), but not far behind, and on the balance it more than compensates for that by offering more meaningful work and beyond state of the art dev infra.
Disclosure: I no longer work at Google, and hold no positions in its stock. They treated me well when I was there, so I wish them well.
In theory, a place could be so great to work at that people would pay to be there. That would be negative pot sweetening with money.
But the wage is determined by the least amount a suitable employee is willing to accept, which is affected by how interesting the work is and how "good" the environment is.
Then it's no longer a job, it's an expensive hobby / education / retirement activity.
Most people work jobs to support themselves (or others) financially, you can't do that on negative income.
And having more income than you need means you can retire sooner and do more of your desired hobby then, so it absolutely is a pot sweetener.
I've been in the $300s a couple of times, but my ability to get much useful done, joy of workmanship was completely washed out by the fairly nasty politics of the groups I was part of.
(I've never worked at Google, but after reading the internal message traffic surfaced in the Damore lawsuit, it's difficult to imagine enjoying it.)
I'm not 100% sure why Google keeps those people around, but they are fairly easy to avoid: just don't engage, no matter how insane their ramblings are on any given week.
My highest-paying jobs generally lacked most or all of those qualities.
With shift work, you have the luxury of turning your brain off work at the end of every shift.
It could very well be age related, but I was never more relaxed than when I worked a retail-eqsue job. Even when on vacation.
2) Free buffet style breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The quality is not as good as it was, but still better than anything in&out would give, no?
3) Clear ladder and career growth. While in in&out you would be lucky to move up to any job higher than $22/h
4) Much more interesting job. Say what you want to say about how bad Google is, I can't imagine how working in a burger shop would be more rewarding than working at your desk in Google, with all interesting challenges, good resources, and the smart people to learn from.
Google has problems, but this list is not a good list if it puts in&out over Google. It's misleading at best.
How many of your team members are fully remote? If the answer is 0, it sounds like there are some "questions asked".
Blasphemy! I'd eat In-N-Out every day if I could.
Which is a bit of hyperbole, but higher pay is one way to get people to accept years of schooling, and soul-crushing busywork. You’re not paid for virtue or happiness.
>The typical In-N-Out Burger Store Manager salary is $84,315. Store Manager salaries at In-N-Out Burger can range from $55,134 - $130,157. This estimate is based upon 11 In-N-Out Burger Store Manager salary report(s) provided by employees or estimated based upon statistical methods. When factoring in bonuses and additional compensation, a Store Manager at In-N-Out Burger can expect to make an average total pay of $114,271 .
Not sure what the "total pay" means exactly but that averages 114k. Still way below the 160k you quoted which I think was from this article: https://medium.californiasun.co/in-n-out-store-managers-earn...
The California Sun article gives no sources for the claims of an average salary for in-n-out managers of 160k. Which is amusing as the article does reference Indeed.com for the "architect" salary it compares to in-n-out. According to Indeed.com the average salary is 42.8k [1]. I also saw that the story was picked up by USA Today, so I'm sure most people will forever more think In-N-Out store managers are making 160k on average, truth be damned.
[0] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/In-N-Out-Burger-Store-Manag... [1] https://www.indeed.com/cmp/In--n--out-Burger/salaries/Manage...
84,315 + 82,701*5/11 + 10,345*2/11 = 123,787
It's weird to make a list flat out ranking In-n-Out as an overall better place to work.
Because I can't see how else you'd end up with that number.
https://medium.com/@cfatechblog/bare-metal-k8s-clustering-at...
It's like making a lawyer compare his workplace to that of a surgeon at a private practice, you are comparing apples to oranges. In part, because the chosen field in itself affects the workplace environment, and there isn't really a good way to separate the effects of the field vs. the individual workplace environment for the purpose of that chart.
At In-and-out, you don't get any of those things. Not that I don't like I&O - their burgers are great, and I'm sure work environment is better than other fast food companies. But it's just not comparable to Google.