81–90 of 385 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was under the impression that a PIP was nearly always a "here's your chance to get another job" warning, and never really an earnest chance to improve. Does anyone understand differently?
I was "put on a PIP" by my boss at AMZN, but it turned out it wasn't really a PIP (i.e. - HR wasn't involved). It was just my boss trying to pressure me to work 50 hours per week during the holidays instead of the typical 60.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having Amazon on your resume probably opens many doors. True, there are other companies on par or better than Amazon on many different metrics. Many of them are at least as hard to get into as Amazon though. If my choices are Amazon, or a bunch of lesser known, less prestigious, or lesser paying companies, I'd take the shot at Amazon and do whatever possible to last at least a year so I could put that Amazon name on…
"the kind of rockstar ninja wizard that can glean multiple offers from all sorts of top tech companies" I don't think this is a helpful stereotype. I know lots of these people and they're quite normal. "Rockstar ninja wizard" makes these jobs sound a lot more unattainable than they really are.
So someone who can get offers from multiple FAANGs is someone that I would seriously consider to be on a whole another level, i.e. a wizard, for lack of a better term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Valid point. The system can be gamed.
Not can, actively is. If you as as manager know that you have to fire x% of your employees no matter how good they are as a whole, you are always going to hire certain people just so you can fire them in order to protect your most valued people. Also, because each hire costs thousands of dollars, the company is literally wasting millions each year because Bezos had this dangerously ignorant and dehumanizing idea that…
Wouldn't the most valued people get retained at the end, whether the new hires were "hired to fire"? If so, a manager has no incentive to do bad hires.
This rate seems high. They're pushing 1 out of 3 people (30%) out of their workforce every 5 years. Is that sustainable over the course of, say, 20 years? 1-2 percent, I could understand. But I would think the labor force simply isn't large enough for this to work, long term, at this high rate.
There's the "old fart" tool internally that tells you how many people were hired after you. I think after 9 months or so, I was senior to 30% of the corporate jobs. After 12, I was senior to 50%.
The amount of people that I saw leaving matches that attrition rate. Many were put on unjustified PIPs.
The 6% in the article is incredibely underestimated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having Amazon on your resume probably opens many doors. True, there are other companies on par or better than Amazon on many different metrics. Many of them are at least as hard to get into as Amazon though. If my choices are Amazon, or a bunch of lesser known, less prestigious, or lesser paying companies, I'd take the shot at Amazon and do whatever possible to last at least a year so I could put that Amazon name on…
>If my choices are Amazon, or a bunch of lesser known, less prestigious, or lesser paying companies, I'd take the shot at Amazon and do whatever possible to last at least a year so I could put that Amazon name on my resume for future prospects. I don't disagree with your assessment, but this illustrates just how broken the software labor market is. If you'd work in a dumpster fire culture as a capable developer just…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By those metrics, IKEA fits the bill as well. But at what point do we qualify productivity with some measure of quality? You'd be hard pressed to argue IKEA produces quality . For all the laurels and new features and gadgets and gizmos have produced, very few AWS offerings or new Amazon products are considered best in class.
What cloud provider is better than AWS?
I use it for some small businesses of mine but I wouldn't use it for a medium company. I would just get some servers from smaller provider in different data centers and deploy whatever I need.
AWS, was definitely the service that convinced everyone they needed the cloud. Most of the companies I've seen move to aws are just wasting money, don't need the scalability and are massively over-provisioned.
A few unicorns needs the cloud's powers to scale massively now - and, given how much it costs, they'll end up rewriting it anyway to save hundreds of millions a few years down the line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By those metrics, IKEA fits the bill as well. But at what point do we qualify productivity with some measure of quality? You'd be hard pressed to argue IKEA produces quality . For all the laurels and new features and gadgets and gizmos have produced, very few AWS offerings or new Amazon products are considered best in class.
What cloud provider is better than AWS?
That said, AWS is solid and best in class in many areas, and to paraphrase the old saying: "no one ever got fired for choosing AWS"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worker productivity is measured as "amount of goods" over number of employees. If you say "revenue" is the same as "amount of goods" then Amazon gives you: 386.1b dollars / 798k workers = $483,834.58 / worker That's impressive, but... Alibaba: $717.3b / 251k workers = $2.8m / worker FlipKart: $436.2b / 30k workers = $14.5m / worker Texas Instruments: $14.38b / 30k workers = $468k / worker G.E.: $75b / 174k workers =…
436B$ for flipkart? Something is wrong!