The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting • Hacker News Board

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#11

Post by whimsicalism » Sat, Nov 14, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

centimeter wrote: post #10

notacoward wrote: post #6

I find two things to disagree with in this article. First is the premise that equally high compensation is offered elsewhere in each industry. I don't know about finance or consulting, but at least for FAANG it doesn't seem to be true. Second is the overlooked explanation that it's headroom - not prestige - that accounts for the difference. I'll provide an example that illustrates both points: me. When I went from Re…

I find it surprising that people still consider FAANG prestigious, given that these companies collectively have probably 1-200,000 engineers in their employ. Even if they managed to perfectly select for the cream of the crop (they don't), that still has to be like 10-20% of all programmers/engineers in the US. Being top 20% isn't that impressive, and in reality they're probably mostly hiring from the top 30-40%.

Top 20% of one of the most intellectually challenging jobs in America, also if you exclude Amazon it is not 20%.

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#12

Post by dehrmann » Sat, Nov 14, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #5

Much of this blog post speaks to my experience (probably because we went to the same school at pretty much the same time). That said, I think the thesis is a bit overstated. The reason many more Harvard CS students talk about Google > Stripe is not because Stripe is not prestigious (it obviously is, and plenty of super talented students go there). It's because Google hires a ton of Harvard CS grads, whereas many late…

It's definitely easier for large, profitable companies to take on the risk and training cost of interns and new grads.

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#13

Post by ackbar03 » Sat, Nov 14, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #6

I find two things to disagree with in this article. First is the premise that equally high compensation is offered elsewhere in each industry. I don't know about finance or consulting, but at least for FAANG it doesn't seem to be true. Second is the overlooked explanation that it's headroom - not prestige - that accounts for the difference. I'll provide an example that illustrates both points: me. When I went from Re…

In general though from what I read on hn I get the impression that it sucks to be an early employee at most startups, especially early stage. From what I've read a lot of compensation seems to be in equity and not cash, and unless it takes off like faang, you end up severely ubderpaid relative to what you could be making

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#14

Post by tudelo » Sat, Nov 14, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

centimeter wrote: post #10

notacoward wrote: post #6

I find two things to disagree with in this article. First is the premise that equally high compensation is offered elsewhere in each industry. I don't know about finance or consulting, but at least for FAANG it doesn't seem to be true. Second is the overlooked explanation that it's headroom - not prestige - that accounts for the difference. I'll provide an example that illustrates both points: me. When I went from Re…

I find it surprising that people still consider FAANG prestigious, given that these companies collectively have probably 1-200,000 engineers in their employ. Even if they managed to perfectly select for the cream of the crop (they don't), that still has to be like 10-20% of all programmers/engineers in the US. Being top 20% isn't that impressive, and in reality they're probably mostly hiring from the top 30-40%.

Yeah, that's something that I have been a bit confused on too. People talk about how hard it is and the "prestige", but there are 20k+ other engineers who did the same thing (at your company alone!). It's really not all that impressive.

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#15

Post by ryanmarsh » Sat, Nov 14, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

samfisher83 wrote: post #7

config_yml wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Steve Blank said, in 5 years, having FB on your resume will be like Enron. I hope he’s right.

I think most people did ok. Enron had a lot of really smart people. Morally bankrupt, but very smart. No different than any of these big tech companies. People like money, smart people will be attracted to it. Companies like smart people so I don't think they will have a hard time getting another job.

As with many corrupt organizations Enron was full of good people who had no power and never did anything morally wrong.

A select few held the power or agency to act selfishly and did so.

It didn’t become apparent to many employees that something was amiss until shortly before the FBI raided them.

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#16

Post by wayoutthere » Sat, Nov 14, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #6

I find two things to disagree with in this article. First is the premise that equally high compensation is offered elsewhere in each industry. I don't know about finance or consulting, but at least for FAANG it doesn't seem to be true. Second is the overlooked explanation that it's headroom - not prestige - that accounts for the difference. I'll provide an example that illustrates both points: me. When I went from Re…

I work in consulting, and I’d say the top-end in consulting is still higher and much more of a safe bet. It’s not uncommon for people in consulting to be making $500k-$1m annually by the age of 40. If you’re a partner, compensation can be significantly higher than that; in the $2M-20M range.

I think there was a golden era of startups capturing value from the old guard, but that era is largely over IMO. All of those tech darlings are hiring consultants to help build corporate functions and product strategy — turns out there is significant value in knowing how to manage a company of 30,000+ employees and revenues in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Even a fraction of a percent gain in efficiency translates to enormous sums, which the consultants capture some percentage of in fees. As the unicorns continue to evolve into mature enterprises, more of that value will shift into the consulting / finance realm.

If I were graduating in 2020, I would not go into tech as an engineer if my goal was to get wealthy. It’s still a great career and you’ll be able to live a very comfortable life regardless, but if building wealth is your goal you need to follow the prestige (aka political power).

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#17

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 14, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #6

I find two things to disagree with in this article. First is the premise that equally high compensation is offered elsewhere in each industry. I don't know about finance or consulting, but at least for FAANG it doesn't seem to be true. Second is the overlooked explanation that it's headroom - not prestige - that accounts for the difference. I'll provide an example that illustrates both points: me. When I went from Re…

[deleted]

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#18

Post by tudelo » Sat, Nov 14, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

config_yml wrote: post #4

pmoriarty wrote: post #2

I find many of these companies the opposite of prestigious. They are shameful. It's a symptom of how screwed up this world is that people would actually want to work for them and consider it an honor to do so.

As Steve Blank said, in 5 years, having FB on your resume will be like Enron. I hope he’s right.

For the qualities that you consider a negative, some may consider it a positive.

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#19

Post by notacoward » Sat, Nov 14, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #2

I find many of these companies the opposite of prestigious. They are shameful. It's a symptom of how screwed up this world is that people would actually want to work for them and consider it an honor to do so.

> I find many of these companies the opposite of prestigious.

I agree, but perhaps not for the reasons you'd think. The "moral stain" of having worked for these companies only matters if hiring managers elsewhere make it matter. They don't. Throughout the industry, they're looking at potential return on investment and little else. Having worked at Facebook might matter if you want to go work for the White House or New York Times, but not for another tech company.

The reason I think working at those companies is anti-prestigious is that they're such unique self-contained worlds. If I see that somebody only has experience at FAANG since college, I know that they've become accustomed to having a vast array of systems and libraries and experts and other kinds of support available to them that aren't so available anywhere else. Maybe they'll learn to adjust to how computing is in the rest of the world. Maybe they'll be absolutely helpless, functioning at a one- or two-year level despite five or seven years among "the best engineers in the world" or whatever they're saying nowadays. I don't attach a premium to that experience. I attach a discount.

Re: The Prestige Trap: finance, big tech, and consulting

#20

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Nov 14, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #6

I find two things to disagree with in this article. First is the premise that equally high compensation is offered elsewhere in each industry. I don't know about finance or consulting, but at least for FAANG it doesn't seem to be true. Second is the overlooked explanation that it's headroom - not prestige - that accounts for the difference. I'll provide an example that illustrates both points: me. When I went from Re…

I don’t know why the article’s author thinks prestige is about anything other than money/power (for the population as a whole).

People would rather work at FAANG than Stripe because FAANG will get you a lot more pay and connections. And people know that, so they will value people from FAANG for it. But it comes from the root fact that FAANG makes a ton of net income per employee, same as some finance/consulting firms, and that net income is more attributable to you specifically, rather than say someone at General Mills.