Hacker News Reader

Comment by fnfjfk | Hacker News Reader

I understand that layoffs are a blunt instrument and it is unlikely that all of the “right” people were affected, but Google has long been known as the FAANG to go to if you want to chill, coast, and vest. No Facebook PSC, no Amazon stack ranking, no Netflix “sports team”. Obviously it is team dependent, but it really has that reputation. The well-known tradeoff is that getting a promo to a post-senior level is borderline impossible.

I dunno, something had to give at some point? Leadership sent the message last year but it wasn’t well received: https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/google-ceo-faced-intense-push...

Like, blame definitely falls on leadership here, ICs didn’t come up with the ten chat apps or streaming gaming failure, but the chilling couldn’t last forever.

View on HN

Google had that reputation when compared to Amazon and Facebook, but that is hardly a bad thing considering the culture at those companies (and it's not like they are doing too hot right now either despite all that stack ranking and overwork). There are plenty of large tech companies with real "retirement home" reputations – Microsoft, Cisco, IBM, Oracle, VMware, Adobe, Intel, HP, Dell... There's no comparison between this tier and Google in terms of tech standard, productivity and really anything else.

Are places like HP and Dell really comparable to Google on TC?

You can also chill out working at a quiet local bookstore or other “BaristaFIRE” jobs that people like, but you’re not getting paid $500k to do it…

(Microsoft definitely competes now)

There's probably a significant difference when you factor in stock appreciation (particularly for the long timers), but I'd wager base salary stays within 10-20% at all these companies for the same level/experience/location.

you might be pretty far off, even at the new grad level I've seen 50% difference between peers at a FAANG vs. other large tech co.

You would lose that wager.

can you provide some data for those who are absolutely not "in" the stock market? how did you interpret that wager? what starting date and what sell price?

The wager wasn't about the stock market, but about base salary being within 10%-20% for all companies for the same position. This is absolutely not the case. Check levels.fyi for more information

Sp what is your metric, amount of chill per unit compensation?

Seems like you are putting quite subjective segmentation of the market there.

The layoff didn't particularly target the rest-and-vesters, though. It frankly appears mostly random based on what I've seen.

How can you have any real opinion on it without knowing people’s comp level?

Levels are public at Google, unlike Meta, or Netflix that (formerly) did not have them at all.

> Levels are public at Google, unlike Meta, or Netflix that (formerly) did not have them at all.

Well, yes, before they had levels, they did not have levels.

I'm not sure this is much a a statement however - Meta has had levels for many, many years.

Meta does not have public levels. Everyone’s title is Software Engineer, from IC3 to IC10. Some senior ICs do have a view into levels, since they are involved in performance reviews.

At Google, you can see other people’s levels, and they have titles: “Senior”, “Staff”, and so on.

When I was there, I knew peoples levels and we were encouraged to tell people “I’m a staff engineer working on foo” for interviews etc.

Plus, almost everyone E5 and above posts their titles on linkedin.

That's an interesting observation and something I somewhat suspect myself.

Google's long been criticised for byzantine and ineffective hiring and ranking processes. The thought occurs that perhaps management have decided that unbiased random staff reductions are the least-harmful way to go about this.

The problem remains that under circumstances of layoffs, those with options to do so are still more likely to leave, resulting in a net negative selection against the most effective and productive workers. (Or at least those who can make a case for appearing to be same.)

I'm not utterly convinced of the above, though it's a working hypothesis and will be interesting to see how it plays out over time.

Google itself benefited from that image. Many people chose an offer from Google with total comp X instead of another company with total comp Y when X is lesser than Y by a significant amount. In the future, seldom any one will make any such decision. Google has to pay more for the same caliber of people.

Of course, I am assuming that the market will turn around some time in the future. If the market remains this bleak forever, tech candidates no longer have any choices so Google doesn't have to care.

> I understand that layoffs are a blunt instrument and it is unlikely that all of the “right” people were affected

Layoffs in this case are merely done to manipulate the metrics used by wall street analysts. That's the only reason they are being done.

I personally know someone that joined Google and had some bug fixes or something ready in their first couple weeks and their team told them they don't work that way, don't be competitive. Sounds great! :)

"but Google has long been known as the FAANG to go to if you want to chill, coast, and ves"

Is that a fact or just your perception?

Certainly is public opinion.

I remember people trying to make the claim that Google paying smart people to not work was a good strategy because it prevented those workers from creating start-ups that would compete with Google.

The Blind app is an interesting place.

Idk if I would call blind public opinion

> I remember people trying to make the claim that Google paying smart people to not work was a good strategy because it prevented those workers from creating start-ups that would compete with Google.

That's from Silicon Valley, the parody show

_Silicon Valley_ is well-known to an extrmely accurate portrayal of SV culture. It is a hit parody because it's accruate.

When I was in college years ago, I knew a guy whose plan was to turn his Amazon internship into a FTE offer, work there a couple years, and then go to Google and quote "sit."

It worked. Not a bad plan in the early/mid 2010s ;)

When I started 10 years earlier just being able to get paid to program was amazing. My first job in 2001 was for minimum wage. I wonder how many developers exist who wouldn't if pay wasn't so high.

We are likely about to find out. In the end this could be a good thing, shake out a lot the bootcampers and leave the people who like to code. On the downside, people like me like to code and also rest n' vest. :/

You're assuming that management can and does differentiate between the two and only fires the sitters.

Life experience tells me this is highly unlikely.

If that is true (managers cannot filter for sitters), then I know which wins: random layoffs vs. surgical firings at scale

I think neither? Or rather, it's a function of 1) the accuracy of managers knowing who is a sitter and 2) the percentage of your company is sitters. If the percentage is, say, 20% and the manager hit rate is, say, 20%..I'd say both moves end up firing more useful people than sitters.

Even if you take it to say managers cannot figure it out and always get it wrong (0% hit rate). Random layoffs are still a net negative even if they outperform managers picking the firings.

It's pretty funny how even without unions, companies have no recourse to me barely working and collecting a quarter mil a year.

Remember when people used to say this kind of behavior is why the Soviet Union fell behind the capitalist world?

The layoffs are the capitalism part coming into play now

It's a fact that it is the collective perception. Whether people actually get to chill is team dependent but from my understanding you can't really do 30 hour weeks at Facebook, Amazon or Netflix, but it's more possible at Google.

And I think almost no one really works 30 hours productively at any company.

"Collective perception" is not meaningful evidence

The statement you challenged was "Google has long been known as the FAANG to go to if you want to chill, coast, and vest". Additional people chiming in saying they, too had this perception is evidence that that is something Google is known for, and not just by OP.

Obviously it is impossible to measure this sort of thing objectively, but if you know enough people that bounce around in FAANGs or check Blind, this is pretty widely the opinion.

Blind turns into the worst version of a company pretty quickly. It would have you believe that both anyone can get a job at certain companies and that others fire their entire staff.

My understanding is that google historically simply didn’t give raises or approve projects for under performers. As long as someone didn’t rock the boat or put up low quality CRs, or stop working entirely, they would be left alone - and maybe google wouldn’t bother to give them any new stocks when their grant expired.

While I was at Google, I witnessed several people be put on "performance improvement plans" for three perf rounds, and then get fired.

Living and working in tech in Bay Area 2010-2020, rest & vest google perception started circa 2013-2014.

That's what people there tell me. I'm sure it depends a lot on what part of Google people work for, but yeah, come in late, leave early, long lunches, work-outs, meetings to discuss meetings... I don't know how they got things done. In plenty of companies things that took a team of seven with a manager could be accomplished by two. So, yeah, the reputation has some known basis but may not reflect all of Google.

They don't get things done. They buy companies that got those things done: YouTube, Google Docs, Android, etc.

Are you enjoying using Writely and Cupcake, which haven't changed in 15 years?

> meetings to discuss meetings

Thats not chill, that's exhausting and common at many dorectionless organisations with poor leadership. As an IC its not something yoy can fix

Everyone in the Bay knows that Google is the retirement home. I knew people who worked there who left because no one on their team would write anything. Show up at 11, lunch at 1, leave at 4 after meetings.

And you know that when people call it "best WLB" they're talking about something specific.

I heard the same about Ericsson in Europe. Any other known retirement places?

LinkedIn also has that reputation.

Linkedin and Salesforce PM's tend to be the stereotypical answer (products that haven't changed for years).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com