601–610 of 699 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My time at Google was the easiest/most relaxing of my career by far. Hell, that's why I left. Would you mind if I reach out to you? I'd be curious to learn more about your life/career path, if you're willing to share.
Sure, how can I reach you
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2-hour commute? I'll take the pay cut anytime, like is too short... (and maybe start looking for another job, easier to do with all that "extra" time)
Yeah no way I'm doing a 2 hr commute just for a 10% higher pay if there's another option available. That's months of life gone just on commuting that can be regained by paying 10% of pre-tax income? Seems like a no-brainer. Time is money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People collectively don't seem to know how to value their labor. If anything, they should argue for a pay increase to offset the costs Google is externalizing in utilities, on-site benefits, need for security, food, space, etc. If Google is progressive, they should buck the trend and do something like build sound-proof office-apartments that employees can hotel in for a few days at a time, and allow children. That wo…
Workers collectively dont get to value their own labor. There price is the market price, and remote work always paid a lot less than in-office work, for obvious economic reasons.
For some reason, I don't see anything economic (do you care where stuff is made? I don't, really, only that it gets made, the rest is irrelevant detail), nor obvious here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on the commute mode. It sounds like these are people in expensive urban areas, so they probably have transit access. So if they’re commuting by train or bus the morning commute can be spent working and the evening commute streaming TV shows or scrolling through social media.
Is this supposed to be an argument in favour of the 2 hour commute? Because that still sounds like a miserable waste of time to me. I would take the pay cut, look for a new job, or move closer to work. No job in the world is worth putting up with that kind of a commute to me.
The ride is beautiful and the interior of the ferries are very nice; you can sit at a booth and drink coffee and eat breakfast. If you're lucky, you might see some orca whales while you're out on the water.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The example I gave involved information persistence, lawyers and and government national security apparatus i.e. way above my pay grade. So many issues transcend the narrow scope of some product, which is why 'the effect' as you say, generally goes pretty far, meaning, executive leadership input which is essentially necessary. It's also a good example of how circumstances can create existential scenarios that have no…
"The example I gave involved information persistence, lawyers and and government national security apparatus i.e. way above my pay grade." My reply still stands. "Hey soandso, we need to change our persistence strategy for this information due to regulatory compliance" "Uh, okay. What are the specifics?" "I'm not entirely sure; I've already reached out to soandso in legal/whatever to let them know we're working on th…
'The situation' involved legal overview of ambiguous legal statutes, to the point wherein we had to engage specialized, outside law firms. Even just making that determination, and the wherewithal to know hat we needed outside help, the type of help, the firm to use ... way beyond me. We're dealing with a government agency using those 'backdoor' channels within the bureaucracy, very sensitive, political, relationship based.
In that context, the 'product part' (my job) was frankly the easiest, most obvious thing. It was all of the 'other things' that made it very difficult to navigate.
In the other anecdote, where I was 'blindsided' by an executive requiring a specific thing for a product without much discussion, there were broader issues at play, I think your assessment of 'context' might have helped, but even then, it still would have required coordination.
So these things all touch each other, and where they do, there's an VP involved, having to make decisions, every day.
I'm really wary of some of the commentary here that is dismissive of the kind of work executives do, I think those comments lack a kind of organizational maturity. Director and VP level jobs are the most brutal kinds of work, they're very stressful and operationally oriented, they are not these 'big office grand strategy' type jobs that I think maybe some people think they are. Though obviously 'it depends'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have over 3,400 stores at ~180,000sqft. There are three within a short drive from my home. They have ~190 around 40,000sqft. The ~800 mid-sized "discount" stores are mostly closing and don't have groceries, they're ~100,000sqft. Big American stores are absolutely massive , and they're all over the place. https://247wallst.com/retail/2014/03/22/walmart-now-has-six-... You mentioned you had like one of these massi…
I'll update the size of American supermarkets in my mind by 100% : ) There are broadly 5 big shops within comfortable distance of me - one of them is between 150-200,000 sqft [1], so I guess a mid-sized American store. But I've only been to one of them, when I needed some electronics, because I don't see the point otherwise. Presumably other people do or the shops wouldn't exist... Unrelated - does "town" mean someth…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas%E2%80%93Fort_Worth_metr...
I just checked Google Maps, there are almost a dozen of these 180,000sqft Walmarts within a 10min drive (a "comfortable distance" here) from my home. And that's just Walmart, there's also probably another six or so Target locations of similar size. I do agree this is absolutely excessive and insane though, there's such a massive amount of real estate of just big box retail.
The reason why these stores are seemingly dominating local retail is the same reason why cars are dominating travel in the US or why Amazon seems to be dominating internet retail. Apparent convenience. Why bother going to a clothier, then go to a cobbler, then go to the electronics store, then go to a video store, then go to the furniture store, then go to the auto parts store, then go to the butcher, then go to the baker, then go to the grocer. Instead, you can do practically every bit of your shopping in a single store, all at once. Find some new linens for your bed, then go grab a new pair of shoes, better stock up on some fresh underwear, maybe that 40" TV we got a few years ago isn't cutting it get a bigger one, then grab some milk and eggs and we'll check out in the Auto department to pick up the car after the oil change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not everyone picks jobs based on top salary. I wouldn't work for Google even if they doubled my salary. So? I don't really like this kind of non-response response. It's like the guy who joins every conversation to point out that they don't, in fact, own a TV (Onion article, look it up). I mean, sure, there are people who have enough that they won't take a new job for double the money, but they are so few and far be…
Don't be ridiculous, you're just making assumptions based on your value system. I have children and I've passed on higher paying jobs (perhaps not double but 50%) out of principle. I also wouldn't work for Google whatever the compensation, and there are plenty of people who don't value money above everything else.
The point here is whether there are a large number of people who would refuse a job Google for 2x their salary. On that specific point, I agree with the parent post, that there aren't that many.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The problem is the whole american lifestyle" We're not Europeans here, Raphael. We don't want to be. Secondly, I've been on business trips to the UK, and the motorways are jammed in the morning, as someone else said here. Maybe 20-somethings live in apartments and take the bus, but even in your country, home ownership is high and many people drive their cars.
> We're not Europeans here, Raphael. We don't want to be. Speak for yourself. Almost everybody I know would be thrilled to see better transit, walking, and bicycle options even if it means getting rid of their car and yard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Home temperature is fairly consistent over the day. Not having an office to heat or cool more than compensates for the difference. Commuting costs completely dominate in terms of energy costs. As to getting delivery for lunch, that’s well outside of most peoples price range. The vast majority of people are going to simply buy more food on their normal shopping trips. The running the same computer hardware at home or…
Isn't it more productive to have a kitchen staff produce food for 1000s of people vs. every person ordering delivery, cooking for themselves, etc.? Surely cooling/heating 1000 separate homes would cost more than an office space optimized for it, right?
Depends on the comparison, someone microwaving lunch at home or the office is basically identical. Restaurants can be more efficient than cooking at home, but for example the open air style refrigerators used in some restaurants have terrible energy efficiency. https://www.kitchenall.com/open-air-merchandisers.html?p=2 At the extreme end when talking out door heating for guest comfort etc restaurants can be shockingly bad because it’s generally the least important aspect of the business.
> Surely cooling/heating 1000 separate homes would cost more than an office optimized for it.
Depends, the comparison might be to not having an office and therefore not needing to heat or cool it at all. There is some opportunity to let empty homes get closer to ambient temperature and therefore reduce heat gain or loss, but it’s not clear cut. We can say that total electricity demand dropped in the pandemic which suggests WFH is likely more energy efficient even with empty office space.
So, sure in some cases it’s better and in some cases worse, but that really doesn’t cover the commute costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The example I gave involved information persistence, lawyers and and government national security apparatus i.e. way above my pay grade." My reply still stands. "Hey soandso, we need to change our persistence strategy for this information due to regulatory compliance" "Uh, okay. What are the specifics?" "I'm not entirely sure; I've already reached out to soandso in legal/whatever to let them know we're working on th…
So you wouldn't be in a position to know this - but that would be a dramatic oversimplification of the situation, though my anecdote is specific, I think it highlights how scope is often broader than we think in general. 'The situation' involved legal overview of ambiguous legal statutes, to the point wherein we had to engage specialized, outside law firms. Even just making that determination, and the wherewithal to…
I would not call "telling me what/how to do something in an area I am completely lost in" as "by fiat". By fiat implies they're telling you what/how to do something by the authority in their title.
And when it comes to giving details, I am not trying to say there isn't coordination or similar involved. This, again, has to do with the level of delegation. There are 10 I've seen discussed in coaching literature, and they range from "I am literally telling you ever step to take", up to "I gave you a broad desire I have, and now I walk away". What is right in a given situation varies, but the way you figure out what amount is right is by having a respectful conversation.
But I agree, operating at that level is not cushy. At the same time, I don't think it has to be as hard as it oftentimes is...but I think that to be true at every level. When a given position is really hard, it's because of bad management above them, I've generally found, but I've not observed many C-levels so can't comment there.