Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Bullcrap.

thunk.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Bullcrap.

#31

Post by martinkallstrom »

In Sweden, Google has aquired Marratech and Global IP Solutions. Both are all about hardcore codec innovation, not business model discovery. Google was licensing tech from GIPS long before they aquired it. If big companies are where heavy tech is developed, aquisitions like those would never happen.

NB. Another Google aquisition from Sweden was Trendalyzer, Hans Rosling's visualization technology famous from his TED talk, making Sweden the country with most Google aquisitions in Europe, Middle-East and Africa.

Re: Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Bullcrap.

#32

Post by thetrumanshow »

ced wrote: post #30
thetrumanshow wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even so, if you're a top performer, you end up subsidizing the paychecks of a lot of people.

Subsidizing is such a loaded word. Your comment is an example of the pie fallacy. Yes, your colleagues may get a bigger paycheck because you're a top engineer. But that doesn't necessarily imply that the additional money they get is "taken" from you. And obviously, doing a startup is no guarantee that your returns will be better.

Is it really a pie fallacy?

Here's what I really mean by subsidizing, in context, and you can decide if it fits, or if I am suggesting something else...

If you buy into the idea that a developer, for example, can be 10x more productive than another, which I do (and I'm not one of the 10x guys at all), then you tend to think that those people should be paid a heap more than the average IT guy... but in fact, they are bound by the same corporate salary ranges as everyone else on the team... so you end up with the delta between the bottom guy and the most productive guy is at most 70K.

Therefore, thanks primarily to the top performers, our overall team performs well and everyone benefits similarly... but they really shouldn't benefit similarly since the amount of value creation is wildly different from developer to developer.

Re: Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Bullcrap.

#33

Post by enneff »

thetrumanshow wrote: post #16
sparky wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flip side, much of the value you are able to create may come as the result of the infrastructure and colleagues provided to you by that same "someone else". Seems particularly true at a place like Google. When you work for yourself, you get to keep 100% (minus taxes) of (probably) a smaller number; whether that is best for you depends on your personality.

Even so, if you're a top performer, you end up subsidizing the paychecks of a lot of people.

And guess what - we need those lesser mortals so we can keep doing the fun stuff.

Re: Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Bullcrap.

#34

Post by thetrumanshow »

btilly wrote: post #25
thetrumanshow wrote: post #2

"...the value Google is getting out of my work is worth many multiples of my total compensation. And that’s a position that every engineer should strive for, since that’s how you can be confident that you will remain gainfully employed." As an entrepreneur, something about this statement bothers me... something about all the value I create getting skimmed off the top and taken away by someone else. Yeah, that's proba…

There is something important that you miss here. He's generating lots of value, sure. But it is value that can only be generated because his employer already has a lot of existing infrastructure to benefit. He couldn't as easily generate that much value on his own. And therefore being an entrepreneur isn't necessarily that attractive to him. Life is often like that. As an entrepreneur you should seek to understand an…

Thanks, you're absolutely right.

My intention wasn't to detract from his means of self-fulfillment, but perhaps that is what I have done.

Re: Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Bullcrap.

#35

Post by vladd »

thetrumanshow wrote: post #16
sparky wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flip side, much of the value you are able to create may come as the result of the infrastructure and colleagues provided to you by that same "someone else". Seems particularly true at a place like Google. When you work for yourself, you get to keep 100% (minus taxes) of (probably) a smaller number; whether that is best for you depends on your personality.

Even so, if you're a top performer, you end up subsidizing the paychecks of a lot of people.

Look at it this way: A and B can be freelancers and gain at most 100K yearly, or they can work for C, where they commonly create wealth for C in amount of 1000K; C pays them 150K each (and keeps the rest, 1000K-150K-150K=700K).

Economically, it would make sense for A and B to work for C, since they gain 50K more. Economically it makes sense for C to hire them since together they create wealth, and the 700K that C gets to keep is a reward for his willingness to risk hiring them and managing them into a productive team etc.

If A and B would like the risk, they could start pairing themselves together and attempt to create wealth independently. But they could fail. 10% chance of a 1000K is still just 100K on average (it just has an interesting distribution of the payout). The difference up to 1000K is a payout to C for the risk they took in growing their business up to the current level of scalability. (otherwise other companies would pay more for the value that A and B provide)

If A and B care only about technology and are risk adverse, the economy doesn't award them more than the 150K which they are already getting. For such people, creating wealth of 1000K for the companies where they work is not a result of their behaviour, but a reward for the founders that took the risks and had the vision to create organizations allowing that.

Re: Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Bullcrap.

#36

Post by benblack »

Google, like almost any other company of sufficient size, has a problem retaining great engineers who prefer smaller companies. Those preferences are not about the false dichotomy between "engineers" and "entrepreneurs". Mr. Ts'o enjoys a job in an established company where he can be paid well, work only on specific technical problems, work reasonable hours, etc. That's a fine choice, and the right one for many. It is, however, still exactly that: a job. People who start companies are not often looking for another job. Mr. Ts'o should be thankful that is so. Had Larry and Sergey taken his advice the company for which he works would not exist.

Re: Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Bullcrap.

#37

Post by jshen »

thetrumanshow wrote: post #32
ced wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subsidizing is such a loaded word. Your comment is an example of the pie fallacy. Yes, your colleagues may get a bigger paycheck because you're a top engineer. But that doesn't necessarily imply that the additional money they get is "taken" from you. And obviously, doing a startup is no guarantee that your returns will be better.

Is it really a pie fallacy? Here's what I really mean by subsidizing, in context, and you can decide if it fits, or if I am suggesting something else... If you buy into the idea that a developer, for example, can be 10x more productive than another, which I do (and I'm not one of the 10x guys at all), then you tend to think that those people should be paid a heap more than the average IT guy... but in fact, they are…

so that developer decides to try his hand doing his own startup and quickly realizes that the market generally rewards those that are best at marketing and not those that are best at writing code 10x faster than the average.

Re: Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Bullcrap.

#38

Post by jshen »

nostromo wrote: post #8
thetrumanshow wrote: post #2

"...the value Google is getting out of my work is worth many multiples of my total compensation. And that’s a position that every engineer should strive for, since that’s how you can be confident that you will remain gainfully employed." As an entrepreneur, something about this statement bothers me... something about all the value I create getting skimmed off the top and taken away by someone else. Yeah, that's proba…

I agree with your comment, but would like to point out that this is almost always the case. As an example, I used to work at a SaaS company, and we generated more value for our customers than we charged in fees. Well, duh, otherwise they wouldn't be our customers for long. Same goes for every lasting business model: your cut <= your value generated.

"Same goes for every lasting business model: your cut Not if you sell weight loss pills, or run a demand media style content farm, or do cash for gold, or ...

Sadly the amount of money you make is rarely a function of the value you create. How much money has linus torvalds made vs the value he's created compared to someone like jason CalAcanis?

Re: Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Bullcrap.

#39

Post by jasonmcalacanis »

jshen wrote: post #38
nostromo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your comment, but would like to point out that this is almost always the case. As an example, I used to work at a SaaS company, and we generated more value for our customers than we charged in fees. Well, duh, otherwise they wouldn't be our customers for long. Same goes for every lasting business model: your cut <= your value generated.

"Same goes for every lasting business model: your cut Not if you sell weight loss pills, or run a demand media style content farm, or do cash for gold, or ... Sadly the amount of money you make is rarely a function of the value you create. How much money has linus torvalds made vs the value he's created compared to someone like jason CalAcanis?

fyi: it's CalAcanis.

Re: Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Bullcrap.

#40

Post by mathgladiator »

thetrumanshow wrote: post #32
ced wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subsidizing is such a loaded word. Your comment is an example of the pie fallacy. Yes, your colleagues may get a bigger paycheck because you're a top engineer. But that doesn't necessarily imply that the additional money they get is "taken" from you. And obviously, doing a startup is no guarantee that your returns will be better.

Is it really a pie fallacy? Here's what I really mean by subsidizing, in context, and you can decide if it fits, or if I am suggesting something else... If you buy into the idea that a developer, for example, can be 10x more productive than another, which I do (and I'm not one of the 10x guys at all), then you tend to think that those people should be paid a heap more than the average IT guy... but in fact, they are…

The problem of being super productive is that the organization can't exactly support it.

Just because you are 10 or 100 times more productive doesn't mean the company can sell 10 or 100 times more.

Post reply on HN