Want Elon Musk to Hire You at Tesla? Work for Apple | Hacker News Reader

Want Elon Musk to Hire You at Tesla? Work for Apple

bloomberg.com

74 pointsAudiophilip82 comments

Seriously are $250,000 signing bonuses and 60% pay increases common in the valley. What level employee is this for. Clearly I'm doing something wrong or need to move to SV asap because I've never heard of that kind of pay here on the east coast outside of maybe NYC

Seriously are $250,000 signing bonuses and 60% pay increases common in the valley. What level employee is this for.

The kind that use proper spelling and punctuation, perhaps?

Right, because no talented engineer has ever spoken anything less than perfect english.

That's not what I was saying. Nor is it implied by what I was saying.

> The kind that use proper spelling and punctuation, perhaps?

Don't you mean "the kind who use proper spelling"?

If you're going to correct someone, at least get it right.

Impossible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

Don't you mean "the kind who use proper spelling"?

No. Both "who" and "that" may be used to anchor relative clauses with human antecedents. To quote [1]:

Most writers use 'that' and 'which' as the relative pronouns for inanimate objects, and who as the relative pronoun for humans. This widespread habit has led to the mistaken belief that using that in reference to humans is an error. In fact, while most editors prefer who for people, there is no rule saying we can’t use that, and that has been widely used in reference to people for many centuries.

In other words, my original sentence was perfectly grammatical, and in regard to the original commenter's presentation skills -- and their correlation to his employability and salary potential -- I was simply stating the obvious. But this being HN, I've been downvoted and/or flamed at least 8 times for it.

[1] http://grammarist.com/usage/that-who/

Both the Associated Press Stylebook and the Chicago Manual of Style recommend spelling out numbers less than nine and ninety-nine, respectively.

That's just a style recommendation. It doesn't mean that doing it the other way is wrong.

Which is, of course, hardly a comparable proscription.

Nor is it widely adhered to, in colloquial usage.

Why do you think real estate is unaffordable is some parts of the Bay Area? Some people are getting sky high pay and bonuses.

As they say: It's not how much you make, it's how much you keep.

Or because of zoning restrictions.

It's like Facebook. You never hear of the boring meals and activities. It's only at most 0.001% of a persons day, the crap they share.

That's how I feel about HN. Theres a large percentage of quality talent that comes here, as well as bullshitters. That combined gives you the illusion that you are stranded in the wrong hemisphere, when in reality 99% of us are here.

That situation is the 1%.

Thanks for your perspective. As a new grad, I sometimes feel guilty reading HN comments because I'll dwell on why I couldn't also "go to MIT and make a startup at age 22" or some nonsense. It's good to hear that not everyone here is a 10k-a-day coding savant.

There should be a SlackerNews for the rest of us. :)

With headlines like

"32 year old developer launches feature after a grueling 8 weeks"

"Entire company extremely surprised to see Mike come in on a Monday after last Friday's firing round"

Sign me up!!!

Increases relative to what?

Keep in mind that in the press, a "low level employee" is a senior director or vice-president. Not an engineer, nor a senior engineer. That's why the numbers you see feel so far off.

I know people on the east coast with $100k signing bonuses straight out of college. There are definitely coastal differences, but I don't think it's impossible to find some examples on the east coast as well.

From what schools, from what companies?

I went to Harvard, so most of the examples I know are from Harvard at the common hot employers. I know of some examples from other schools, though. It's also often the case that not all hires get a six figure signing bonus at a particular company from a particular school, but just some of the people at the top of the pay spectrum.

But is this in tech? I know several people who have gotten these type of offers but they have almost all be exclusively in the financial sector. And even more so in trading type positions as quants or analysts.

Yes, in tech. Your typical Googamafacesoft type companies. There are people with similar offers in finance, but they're not to whom I was referring in the earlier comment.

Off-topic: Any advice for a business school hopeful? I'm a financial analyst for a tech company but want to move into management/strategy consulting.

Cash or vesting equity?

The 100k was in reference to cash. I know people who have gotten up to $500k in vesting equity upon graduation.

Remember that the signing bonuses are often to pay people for equity that they're walking away from. This isn't common in east coast tech, but it used to be very common in financial services. 60% pay hikes - well, you have to get out of the cost-plus model of talent. If the 20 best engineers will dramatically increase your chance of getting to a $20 billion valuation, then the money being quoted is actually rather small. If the same guys are installing ERP systems on an hourly rate for a large company like E&Y, of course their value is much less.

They have become quite common now at the top tech companies.

Keep in mind, $250K doesn't go very far when real estate like this is considered a "bargain": https://www.redfin.com/CA/Cupertino/1157-S-Stelling-Rd-95014...

At $250k/year you can barely afford that house. I knew abstractly that SV real estate was expensive, but presented with a 1100 sq ft house on a medium size lot for $1.2M almost gave me a heart attack.

I know I live out in the sticks, but seriously the only house I know of that costs that much around here is 11,000 sq ft, on 30 acres of land and has both indoor and outdoor pools, a movie theater room and a gym.

"Automakers from around the world are rushing to set up offices in the Bay Area to tap the engineering talent. "

An honest question - is this really because of the talent, or simply because people there tend to work more?

When you have so many people competing for engineering jobs I expect that people, especially the ones with no kids, will work on average a lot more. Is that the case or am I wrong?

I was under the impressions job supply was far higher than demand in the bay area (for engineers). Aren't people always complaining they can't get the talent? So I would guess that the hours you're willing to do above the standard don't matter as, if you're talented, you're in demand.

As much as I'd like to believe they are being genuine (as a developer who benefits from being in high demand) I've heard that this statement can really be re-written as "We can't get enough talent at the price we want to pay" thus the push to try to make it easier to bring engineers into the USA (One's they conveniently leave out will accept less for the same job). I'm not saying this is all fact but just that I'm not sure how much I believe that they really are scrambling for talent.

I would agree with this with one caveat. The way I read your comment was, "Large software firms want to hire you for as little as possible" but I think it's more "Large software firms want to hire the best talent for as little as possible."

I tend to believe that the throughput of the top 5-10% can be exponentially more than the next 5-10%. The objective for a lot of these firms is to get the top couple percent and get 4x as much value of out someone but paying 2x as much. As it relates to the parent comment, I think there is an incredibly high demand for the top 5-10% of tech talent and exponentially less demand for the subsequent talent. It's very similar in NYC for finance talent. I know people who work in SF and NYC both who work insane hours but they get paid SO MUCH MORE for it.

So, no one is scrambling for good engineers or good bankers or good consultants but they are scrambling for that tiny sliver of the market that they believe will generate exponential returns and turn into leaders of the company.

The 10x people thing is mostly a myth, or applies to vanishing view superstars -- not engineering employees at a large company. 10x producers are people who work on well structured and balanced teams with good management.

I completely agree with what you're saying about their needing to be context around those individuals. And I also agree that the 10x people are a myth. What I do know is that, in software, I have interviewed software engineers with VERY similar resumes, pedigrees, etc. and there are HUGE gaps when we've actually worked with them. Absolutely enormous gaps.

Perhaps this is simply too anecdotal and I've had a poor experiences, but I can say, in my personal experiences, most candidates we've talked with are doing 1x and there are other candidates doing 2x, 3x, or better. Perhaps not 10x, but I have definitely seen very similar people on paper deliver on VERY different levels.

I think that is a very good assessment. For all the complaining people do about "senior" engineers who can't code for loops and wanting to see more applicants who can code basic programs, there is a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon between being able to code a simple 100-line program and the point that most Valley hiring bars are set at. There are not now, and probably will never be, enough people above those inflated hiring bars to sate all the companies that have them, but none will back off.

I don't believe they're scrambling for talent. I think a lot of the supposed "demand" for labor out here is a combination of your typical resume collecting from the larger organizations and bandwagon-driven "we need PhDs from Stanford to scale our shitty RoR b2b sales app; there aren't enough 'qualified' people to write code" nonsense. Furthermore, there are just more people who are qualified to write code out here. So there may be more demand than elsewhere, but there is also more (much more?) supply of labor to meet it.

I think it's far fetched to believe this is because people supposedly work there more.

It's probably got more to do with automakers chasing software engineers as cars start to become more like computers.

Automakers are definitely looking at Tesla and trying to emulate some things.

much like how walmart, target, and other retailers have set up offices in the bay area that seem to have the charter "don't let amazon kill us".

I suspect people without kids or other similar obligations tend to work more in any industry or location; it's not specific to the Bay Area.

The difference is that in the Bay Area it may be that the ratio of those with to those without obligations is lower. It's certainly socially acceptable to implicitly discriminate against "older" (mid-30s and up) workers in certain sectors of the tech industry out here.

That said, I briefly considered applying to Tesla. Then I did my homework and asked around: their pay is below what even a green "webdev" at some random startup might expect (well below in some cases), and the work/life balance seems to resemble something closer to the video game industry (lots of "crunchtime") than to anything respectable. (NOTE: Of course that is based on anecdotes from contacts and, e.g. sites like glassdoor.com; it's not a scientific survey of employment at Tesla.)

I suspect people without kids or other similar obligations tend to work more in any industry or location; it's not specific to the Bay Area.

They might work "more", but that doesn't mean that their actual output is any better than that of their family-raising peers.

I'm biased, being a family-raising person myself, but I agree.

I'd go much further, but then this comment would be downvoted into oblivion, so I'll stop here.

> An honest question - is this really because of the talent, or simply because people there tend to work more?

The latter is an aspect of the supply of talent (in terms of available labor hours of any particular kind and level of talent available), so those aren't really two opposed options.

I think the equation should also factor in cost of finding good software engineers, especially the risk of getting bad hires.

If you worked 3-6 year at Apple already or another company renowned for its quality oriented processes, there is probably a reduced risk in poaching you which offset the higher salary you can command.

I see that more as a way of outsourcing the cost of vetting personnel.

But you aren't hiring Apple's process, you are hiring someone who used to be there. Why do you assume he value you seek is particular to that person, and not to the Apple environment?

Witness the massive number of startup teams that get acquired and assimilated and then do nothing of note after.

that's true as well, I wasn't aiming at a blanked statement covering every case, just adding one more thing to consider: the risk of hiring a passive engineer that goes task by task should be lower when poaching from highly demanding employer.

acquihires are indeed risky, you have to factor in both the culture change and the sudden shift in middle management directives, but onboarding an apple engineer isn't the same as purchasing a whole company.

If you pay SV-scale salaries in Texas or Michigan you'll find people willing to put in 170 hours a week for you.

Anyone who is willing to put in 170 hours a week isn't worth that kind of money.

I really would like to see a citation to back that claim "Automakers from around the world are rushing to set up offices in the Bay Area..."

The IT workers should form a union. I'm not a fan of unions (they seem to devolve towards corruption here in Australia), but I'd prefer that over arseholes like Jobs et al making wage "agreements". How scummy is that, they're raking in billions, and they decide to be tight on the people that make them their cash? Scumbags.

Considering most labor protections in the US are written to create an "exempt" employee who is largely unprotected in labor matters, and that exemption is almost entirely for anyone working in the software industry... yeah, unionization and law change would be nice.

If software companies were forced to pay overtime instead of expecting it for no cost, I think work/life balance would look a lot different.

At the very least California has a minimum wage requirement to be OT exempt.

British Columbia imported the laws, but dropped the minimum. I know people who make less than they would at a call center.

Of course they're living at home, socially stunted, and don't understand the value they provide.

Due to the rampant hostility towards unions, a professional association like what doctors and lawyers have, while serving the same purpose, would be an easier sell.

Implementation is hell though.

How would union bureaucracy affect changes in the environments. From changes in hardware, software and organizational? Unions seem to typically act very protectively and hence allow change very slowly. I think while this would make for a more comfortable labor market for engineers in terms of labor, in terms of dynamism I suspect it would slow things down. After all automation (efficiency) is at odds with membership numbers.

Why would people who are being offered $250k signing bonuses and don't find it enticing enough (according to the OP) need a union?

Well, sign me up for that hehe. I honestly don't know anyone that gets that kind of cash.

Its probably a bit of a supply/demand thing, but that seems like a pretty obscene salary. This is what I don't understand - if you have in excess of 1-5m dollars, why do you want more?

Can't we put a cap on this kind of greed?

This is a colossally bad idea. As a Chicagoan I can tell you unions only cause more problems. They make damn sure that patronage and favor systems rule, not meritocracy. That you can't fire terrible people and that all promotions are done via just seniority. That's on top of the eventual corruption, dues, and worse outcomes and being run circles around by non-union shops.

> but I'd prefer that over arseholes like Jobs et al making wage "agreements".

Under existing law this is collusion and illegal. The real question is why the, ironically, union-friendly Obama administration didn't crack down on this with an iron fist? I think Obama's DOJ needs to be held accountable here. Its clear they let Jobs become an untouchable man and this attitude hurt a lot of people's lives, moreso than anything Gates did and he was nearly destroyed by Clinton.

Unions have their place, though they seem more suitable for situations where there isn't any potential for employees to accelerate their careers on the basis of merit.

The transportation sector is an especially good example of this. A cab driver, airline pilot, and train engineer are all expected to operate their respective vehicles safely and efficiently. The opportunity for rapid career advancement that creatives in the tech industry enjoy is simply not present.

Therefore, the meritocracy-breaking overhead often associated with unions isn't nearly as much of a concern as it would be in an industry that's heavily dependent on the meritocratic dynamic.

If unions somehow become a thing in Tech, I suspect it will have been due to their implementation being so radically different so as to resemble the traditional model in name only, if that.

Yeah sound points. I guess I'd just say it feels like we're relying on the foxes to regulate the henhouse, when its really not in their best interests.

Any advice as to getting hired with SpaceX?

I had these posts bookmarked because I was curious myself. You may have already googled these, but thought I'd share. I'm a web developer myself but would love to work here someday :)

http://www.quora.com/Can-I-get-a-job-at-SpaceX-after-graduat...

http://www.quora.com/How-did-you-get-an-internship-at-SpaceX...

SpaceX has a lot of open positions for web developers. It's kind of a misconception that it's all embedded work here or that you need an aerospace background. The web work is a little different because it's usually internal-facing but there are a lot of interesting problems. Definitely check it out.

Thanks for the response. From my perspective, SpaceX is probably the coolest company on the planet right now :) I looked for web dev jobs a while back (that's when I bookmarked those quora posts). Unfortunately, I'm staying in my current location for about another year so won't be able to move.

Any tips on what sort of people they're looking for? Particularly what technical areas they look for in a web position?

The discussions I've seen online are all related to the product engineering side of things.

On the front end it's pretty cool since you are targeting internal tools you can assume modern browsers and use the latest frameworks and tech with zero legacy support to worry about. We look for people who have full stack experience and can be flexible and help out on any area of a large web application (including a some ops and continuous integration). Communication skills are super important - usually these projects are on small teams that need to work well together and support people within the company who use the tools. We also try to make sure people are good with details and are thorough in their ability to properly build and test their stuff - these tools are critical for the success of the mission so they are every bit as important as the code on board the vehicles.

Thanks for your detailed response!

I would be happy to chat, get in touch: msorrenti at spacex dot com

That extends to any other HNers :)

HNers with US citizenship only I presume?

I guess so, every job listing at SpaceX I've seen is US citizen only. @mikesorrenti please prove me wrong :)

Would that not be illegal? Or is SpaceX required by law to do so?

The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_citizenship.cfm

They are probably required to. Space launchers and intercontinental ballistic missiles are pretty much the same thing after all.

SpaceX is guiding rockets into space which I'm guessing is a lot like guiding missiles. SpaceX is probably required by law to guard some, if not most, of their technology.

there may be a need for clearance.

Yes. Since SpaceX deals with rockets that can potentially have ICBM capabilities workers need to be US citizens to conform to ITAR regulations

Any demand for computational E&M? :-)

I'd be happy enough just working at Apple.

That "happy enough" feeling would eventually wear off. Like anywhere else, it is just a job.

Yeah, there's a lot of less fun jobs in any company.

Oh I'm sure it would, but it would be far better than my current situation.

Hopefully you can get out there and find something better then. Plus, Apple will work you 50+ hrs a week. You can make the same money or more somewhere else, working less hours.

I'm happily working towards that now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com