Hacker News Reader

>"...because nobody can tell the good from the bad."

This has been one of the most persistent and extreme frustrations in my working life - working for people who are so out of touch with the technology which they ostensibly manage that you'd have to stage an internal marketing / education campaign to establish ideas that would be self-evident to someone literate.

Wow, that's atrocious. You should seriously consider giving this feedback to them (if you haven't already). Even an anonymous letter would be helpful. If they're truly intent on changing their ways to value tech more, they'll take your words to heart. If not, nothing can save them.

There are some of us who do give feedback. Nothing good has come of it so far :(

They're a big, established, bureaucratic company.

The odds are 100:1 that they aren't truly intent to change any of their ways.

The people who work at that kind of company pick them for status and/or security, not innovation and change.

A big company is typically sitting on a stable formula for printing money. Why should they change? (Because the world changes and that formula isn't perfectly stable, but the problem is to get them to know that.)

But that's how companies go out of business. They kill all the calves that compete for grass with the cash cow, and when the cash cow finally dies, they are left with no cow at all.

You should have said: "the steakholders are left with no cow at all."

* Uncompetitive compensation. Google pays me twice as much as BAC. The peer bonuses I've received at Google sum to more than I ever got in real bonuses or raises at BAC.

* No perks whatsoever. People got notes from building management for having too many figures on their desks. Want coffee? Leave and buy it. Want food at 6pm? Leave and buy it, except you're in the financial district, so just give up and go home.

These are the big two. People may put up with a crappy work environment if they really need the money, but with Twitter/Google/Facebook paying more, why bother?

That's exactly my thought. I would have stayed at BAC if they paid me the same as Google.

In retrospect, that would have been a poor choice, but I guess it all worked out in the end.

You just aren't going to be rewarded for doing a good job, because nobody can tell the good from the bad.

That right there is the crux of the matter. Lots of big companies use office politics as a (very poor) proxy for the evaluation of a programming group. Numbers are fictionalized and "old sayings" and programmer memes are used in decision making as if they were facts. Actual numbers that don't fit in with the party line are automatically questioned -- just because.

Oh how I wish Google would have a financial arm and stomp out corporations like BAC. I mean, banking is all about big data, no?

Banking is all about billions of little transactions (every single one must go well) and great customer service. Google has a long way to go.

Somehow, I have confidence that Google > BaC with regards to technology.

Agreed on the customer service. Maybe acquire Zendesk?

Oh technology, I agree. It's just that it's a different problem, and Google has very little experience at it. Also, I don't think people would be depositing too much money at Google Bank.

I want to add that banking is heavily regulated, and the Google Boys would probably chafe under that.

If they had solid support, I'd sign up for direct deposit today. They don't have solid support though, hence why I'm at Simple.

Google has started down the path to become just another giant company that's a refuge for the mediocre. It'll take a decade or two to get there, but the early signs are already visible.