31–40 of 75 posts
Does this make anyone else feel extremely underpaid? I'm a software engineer at Fortune 200 company in a major metropolitan city, making about 30K less than these guys. It's not a technology company, so that must be the difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why the level of negativity about Google? Do you have prior experience there?
Let's just say I know enough Googlers who are currently fed up with the influx of subpar nooglers. It's not just one data point -- at least 4 of my googler friends complained about the new employees. They mention that Google stopped hiring around the economic crisis, and when the economy picked up again, they had to hire twice as fast to make up for the lost time and in doing so, they let in people who should have be…
Google's a big company, so I'm sure that some pockets err on one side, some on the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
May be it has to do with the fact that number of employees in google are many times more than that of Facebook, bringing down the compensation avg as well as the avg job satisfaction.
They're also a younger company, and pre-IPO, and probably have cultural differences too.
It's keeping them that way over the long haul that's the trick (particularly after the 'sexiness' has worn off).
Is Facebook rated higher because it is the new cool kid in the neighborhood or because it is doing something different? After all, Google was considered the best place to work less than 5 years ago.
Why would being "the new cool kid" affect job satisfaction ratings by employees? Unless you're suggesting they are more satisfied due to the coolness of the idea of working there.
I know this doesn't exactly explain why facebook does better in the surveys than google, but I think part of the reason facebookers feel more satisfied, is because they know they get paid more than googlers.
Does this make anyone else feel extremely underpaid? I'm a software engineer at Fortune 200 company in a major metropolitan city, making about 30K less than these guys. It's not a technology company, so that must be the difference.
I honestly don't understand why anyone would work for someone else for peanuts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is rated higher for a number of reasons: 1) High impact. Most team sizes are 5 people or less. Those 5 people are handling big systems like photos or memcache. You know you're doing important things. 2) Move fast. Example: Facebook Groups went from concept to release in 3 months. In other companies, it would take 3 months just to get through release engineering. 3) Hackathon! People here love to code, and th…
Here's another data point: Googlers hate doing partner stuff. Google has lots of APIs they have to maintain -- everything from Android to GData and that puts a burden on SWEs who spend half the time writing new code, and the other half supporting partner companies who rely on google engineers to help fix their shitty code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is rated higher for a number of reasons: 1) High impact. Most team sizes are 5 people or less. Those 5 people are handling big systems like photos or memcache. You know you're doing important things. 2) Move fast. Example: Facebook Groups went from concept to release in 3 months. In other companies, it would take 3 months just to get through release engineering. 3) Hackathon! People here love to code, and th…
Here's another data point: Googlers hate doing partner stuff. Google has lots of APIs they have to maintain -- everything from Android to GData and that puts a burden on SWEs who spend half the time writing new code, and the other half supporting partner companies who rely on google engineers to help fix their shitty code.
Does this make anyone else feel extremely underpaid? I'm a software engineer at Fortune 200 company in a major metropolitan city, making about 30K less than these guys. It's not a technology company, so that must be the difference.
For example, the range of reported salaries for "Software Engineer" at Google is 70k to 133k. Titles like "Senior Software Engineer" and other variants are reported in different groups.
In this study, is "average base pay" basically equivalent to "midlevel salary"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's just say I know enough Googlers who are currently fed up with the influx of subpar nooglers. It's not just one data point -- at least 4 of my googler friends complained about the new employees. They mention that Google stopped hiring around the economic crisis, and when the economy picked up again, they had to hire twice as fast to make up for the lost time and in doing so, they let in people who should have be…
I'm a Googler with the opposite complaint: in my neck of the woods we seem to be so picky that you start to wonder how any of us ever got hired. A person can do 10 or 20 interviews and have none of them (even the ones who seemed good) get an offer. Google's a big company, so I'm sure that some pockets err on one side, some on the other.
That's actually fairly common in the Silicon Valley. It's 10 to 20 people on the market, not 10 to 20 programmers selected at random: some are specialists in fields other than the ones you're looking for (or their resume is misread by the recruiter e.g., someone who has experience with enterprise search but is being interviewed for a web search position), others lack certain specific knowledge you do want, yet others are looking for a place where they can be "promoted to their level of incompetence".
A rate of 1/10 or 1/20 (5-10%) is actually very good and indicates an ability to recruit and screen well.