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

Exxon’s Exodus

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#71

Post by scottLobster »

ianbutler wrote: post #25
giantg2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this seems to answer the underlying question of why other companies need to compete on salary with big tech. I work for a financial company. We have tons of tech. We get paid peanuts compared to big tech.

I think that a lot of people in this thread are expecting too much. Spinning up REST services and some kube clusters and maintaining them isn't why FAANG/MAANGA whatever make 300k+ a year and like 450k+ at the staff level. They make that because they're architecting and scaling services to literally something like 50% of the global population, and theoretically with deep knowledge of the distributed systems algos and…

Having worked with people who both came from and went to Google and Facebook, that has not been my experience. Sure maybe a select few fall into that category, and all of the people I've worked with who went to/from FAANG were technically talented and decent to work with, but they got things wrong too. They weren't gods among engineers. At no point did I look at something they coded and think "no way I could have done that". In fact they generally produced over-complicated, poorly documented modules.

So maybe demanding 300-400k/year is a bit much just due to the difference in industry/business models, but even the entry level FAANG salaries can be superior. Managers at my company are constantly complaining in all-hands meetings about losing people to better paying positions in the more-private sector. So they are competing with SV to some degree, and should act accordingly or be generally happy with second-tier talent. Sounds like Exxon is fine with being in the second category. From my perspective the Exxon engineers in question are just asking why they aren't being paid market rate. Labor-scarcity often pushes salaries up more than talent.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#72

Post by gamblor956 »

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #64
stocknoob wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is whether you are a cost center to the company. In IT when your revenue doesn’t come from software? You’re a cost center.

Seems like any industry views its IT as a cost center by default until said otherwise, even if their revenue comes from software. There is no cure for shortsightedness.

IT is a cost center in every business, including software.

It contributes to the ultimate profit in the same way that HR, Legal, and Finance do. Indirectly, in support of the actual revenue-generating functions.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#73

Post by captainoats »

photochemsyn wrote: post #60

This is worth noting: > "One thing Woods didn’t cut was Exxon’s dividend, which is the third-largest in the S&P 500 and costs $15 billion a year. Employees recall the justification as basically this: A large portion of Exxon’s shareholder base comprised retail investors who relied on the dividend for income. “There might be many good business reasons to keep it, but don’t pretend to care about Grandma and her dividen…

Renewable energy investment makes up about 80% of investment in the power sector, and annual increases continue to outpace oil and gas investment (this year may be weird because of the Energy crisis in Europe). Renewables are not everywhere today because it takes time for the industry to mature and for utilization to increase, not because there is a conspiracy by Big Oil to somehow control investment flows.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#74

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

giantg2 wrote: post #31
shiftpgdn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those people will leave and take their knowledge with them to big tech?

The positions at big tech are limited. The vast majority of engineers work for "regular" companies who can't compete with the massive profits and easy money. The risk of losing people to big tech is relatively low. We've had about 35ish% turnover during the last two years. This is multiple times higher than normal. We still managed to retain the other 65ish%. I worked on a team that had over 100% turnover during that…

> She told me they expected to burn people out in 1-2 years and weren't going to compete with companies offering 50-100% raises.

I remember a manager at an SV startup we were working with, tell me, essentially, the same thing.

They burned their engineers out. Many were H1Bs. Worked sick hours, In the couple of years we worked with them, they had, probably, a 75% turnover. Their managers shrugged. I would have been fired, if my team had had that kind of turnover.

But I totally understand what is happening with Exxon. That kind of problem starts at the top.

And there is some crazy tech, used in oil companies. My mother was a geologist, and she was using crazy tech, back in the 1950s, for prospecting.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#75

Post by barbazoo »

politician wrote: post #49
throwaway5752 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to stand by my comment. Tobacco by comparison causes negligible harm, it's just the callous disrespect for harm to others in comparison to profit that they have in common. Fossil fuel is going to end human civilization as we know it within the lifetime of people born in this century, at current rates. Saying that it has lifted people out of poverty is like saying heroin makes people happy.

The device you are typing on is made from materials mined from the planet using the fuel sources you despise.

To me this comment falls somewhere between "No true Scotsman" and whataboutism. Just because we're benefiting from history, doesn't mean we can't criticize it.

Just today, this [1] came out. It's time we use our oil-derived products and wealth to demand change.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/world-cl...

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#76

Post by Mewit »

I think one factor the article doesn't mention is how alternative opportunities change at oil companies depending on the oil price. When oil is at $30/bbl, having a job at a big, boring, stable company like Exxon is very attractive. No one else in the industry is hiring, small companies are going under, there is motivation to keep your head down and ride it out.

When oil goes to $100 a barrel, there is a sudden explosion of opportunities for people with the right education and experience at a company like Exxon. They're looking at all these alternative things they could be doing for similar or better pay and start thinking about all the things that have annoyed them at the company.

In other words, maybe Exxon has an unusually stuffy or toxic environment for the industry, but I think a bigger factor might be that Chris Rock line "Men are as faithful as their options." Workers are as loyal to their employers as their options.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#77

Post by prottog »

thefaux wrote: post #58
prottog wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing two fossil fuel companies (Exxon and Peabody) to a tobacco company (Marlboro). I get calling the latter a "fundamentally harmful company", but to say that fossil fuel companies are fundamentally harmful is ridiculous the point of satire. Cheap energy from fossil fuels have done more to lift people around the globe out of crushing poverty than any company you think is above "unbelievably harming" the…

> Cheap energy from fossil fuels have done more to lift people around the globe out of crushing poverty than any company you think is above "unbelievably harming" the planet. I would actually argue that cheap energy has been one of the dominant factors in _creating_ poverty in the first place. It seems extremely unlikely that we could sustain the current global population without cheap fossil fuels, and other modern…

> If we consider that the suffering of animals, and perhaps even plants, has any meaning

Would you have been against cavemen cutting down trees and burning them to stay warm, then? Would you stop cows from eating grass, to alleviate the suffering of plants?

Why exist at all, when existence itself consumes resources that some other creature might have used?

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#78

Post by ianbutler »

scottLobster wrote: post #71
ianbutler wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that a lot of people in this thread are expecting too much. Spinning up REST services and some kube clusters and maintaining them isn't why FAANG/MAANGA whatever make 300k+ a year and like 450k+ at the staff level. They make that because they're architecting and scaling services to literally something like 50% of the global population, and theoretically with deep knowledge of the distributed systems algos and…

Having worked with people who both came from and went to Google and Facebook, that has not been my experience. Sure maybe a select few fall into that category, and all of the people I've worked with who went to/from FAANG were technically talented and decent to work with, but they got things wrong too. They weren't gods among engineers. At no point did I look at something they coded and think "no way I could have don…

"were technically talented and decent to work with" that is my point in it's entirety.

I didn't say they were gods among engineers I said they had skillsets general engs don't have or learn just from working at normal co. Getting things wrong is still very much a human thing, which everyone is, technical talent -- which is what these tech cos look for means they can pick up the skillset while at whatever acronym co they're at.

To be clear I don't idolize these engs or anything.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#79

Post by prottog »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #44
prottog wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing two fossil fuel companies (Exxon and Peabody) to a tobacco company (Marlboro). I get calling the latter a "fundamentally harmful company", but to say that fossil fuel companies are fundamentally harmful is ridiculous the point of satire. Cheap energy from fossil fuels have done more to lift people around the globe out of crushing poverty than any company you think is above "unbelievably harming" the…

I'm happy to stand by my comment. Tobacco by comparison causes negligible harm, it's just the callous disrespect for harm to others in comparison to profit that they have in common. Fossil fuel is going to end human civilization as we know it within the lifetime of people born in this century, at current rates. Saying that it has lifted people out of poverty is like saying heroin makes people happy.

> Fossil fuel is going to end human civilization as we know it within the lifetime of people born in this century

And New Yorkers in the 1900s thought that the existential crisis facing their city was too much horseshit in the streets, and scientists in the 1960s thought an ice age was imminent. But sure! Civilization will collapse because of fossil fuels.

Mark my words: more people will suffer and die in the coming decades from the fallout of so-called "green" policies and the increasingly authoritarian approach to achieve those objectives, than ever will from climate-related disasters. Just look at Sri Lanka for a sneak peek.

Re: Exxon’s Exodus

#80

Post by giantg2 »

ianbutler wrote: post #78
scottLobster wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked with people who both came from and went to Google and Facebook, that has not been my experience. Sure maybe a select few fall into that category, and all of the people I've worked with who went to/from FAANG were technically talented and decent to work with, but they got things wrong too. They weren't gods among engineers. At no point did I look at something they coded and think "no way I could have don…

"were technically talented and decent to work with" that is my point in it's entirety. I didn't say they were gods among engineers I said they had skillsets general engs don't have or learn just from working at normal co. Getting things wrong is still very much a human thing, which everyone is, technical talent -- which is what these tech cos look for means they can pick up the skillset while at whatever acronym co t…

"To be clear I don't idolize these engs or anything."

That's good. I think I probably have a deep latent jealousy or dislike for how much they make. Maybe that's just midlife regret.

Post reply on HN