[HN Gopher] Sergey Brin: The Facebook phenomenon is a problem (2... ___________________________________________________________________ Sergey Brin: The Facebook phenomenon is a problem (2007) Author : mfiguiere Score : 103 points Date : 2022-03-29 17:07 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | > Finally, we (or basically I) have not done a good enough job of | high rewards for high performance. | | 15 years later, this is still a widespread problem everywhere. | People don't capture the full value of their labor (which makes a | sort of sense, given imperfect information and how risk is | allocated), which leads to people not being incentivized to | increase the value of their labor. | | We've all heard stories about people being extra efficient and | getting rewarded with raised expectations and maybe a paltry | raise. If people were really incentivized to do their best work, | I imagine we'd get a better world. | buzzdenver wrote: | > People don't capture the full value of their labor (which | makes a sort of sense, given imperfect information and how risk | is allocated), | | I think it is primarily due to de-risking. You agree with your | employer that the biggest percentage of your income will be | fixed and independent of how much value the company produced | (be it profits or share appreciation or whatever). This makes | sense because your life has high fixed costs, and your cash- | flow cannot allow for years when you make zero (or even a | negative amount), even if in the next one you would make 5 | times your current salary. | | > which leads to people not being incentivized to increase the | value of their labor. | | Don't think this is necessarily true. I would love to walk into | an apple orchard now and spend an hour picking if I could keep | 25% of the apples. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > People don't capture the full value of their labor | | Why would you expect people to capture the full value of their | labor? | | Imagine you operate a business. You do the math and determine | that hiring a new employee will cost you $100K/year, but it | will bring in $100K/year of revenue. In other words, the | employee would capture the full value that they create | (assuming nothing goes wrong). | | Do you hire that employee? Of course not. It doesn't make any | business sense. It's more work for you, more risk for the | company, and most importantly it provide $0 financial value to | the company. It's an easy no. | | Now if you can hire someone for $100K and their addition will | bring in $150K, that's a different story. | | You can't expect to capture the full value of your labor as an | employee. However, you're also free from capturing the full | value of the _losses_ you might create. If you fail to ship | your objectives or you accidentally drop the main DB and cost | the company $100K, you don 't receive a bill for the negative | value you created. You get to keep your paychecks. | | > which leads to people not being incentivized to increase the | value of their labor. | | This doesn't make sense at all. People increase the value of | their labor all the time because it leads to more and better | opportunities and gives more leverage in future negotiations. | | You don't have to capture the "full value" of your labor to | have an incentive to improve. | [deleted] | AussieWog93 wrote: | >Do you hire that employee? Of course not. It doesn't make | any business sense. It's more work for you, more risk for the | company, and most importantly it provide $0 financial value | to the company. It's an easy no. | | That's what the model predicts, but it's unfortunately not | how companies beyond a certain size work in practice. Hiring | decisions are not made by the business owner to increase | profit, but middle-ranking members of the hierarchy who have | their own parallel goals. | | Businesses can, and do, regularly hire employees that bring | in zero or negative value. Often, these people will make up | more than 50% of the company by headcount, and the only | reason the company still turns a profit is because their | existence is subsidised by a small minority of hyper- | productive people. | brokencode wrote: | There is usually no way to quantify how much value each | developer is contributing. I mean, if your job for 6 months | is to go through your company's software and update to a | new API since an old one is getting deprecated, how much | business value did you produce? Yet you did something that | needed to be done. | | There are people who take on big, flashy projects that | generate a lot of measurable value, and there are people | who do the boring stuff that needs to be done too. Without | one, you don't get the other. | whack wrote: | There's a theoretical response and a practical response. | | In theory, if you had a competitive and fungible marketplace | where a specific employee would boost profits by $100k, and | you offered her a salary of $80k, someone else would outbid | you with $90k, and someone else would outbid them at $95k | etc. Even if the "margins" are low, no one is going to pass | up on free money. | | In practice, the labor marketplace isn't nearly competitive | or fungible enough to expect the above. However, there is | still a very different problem. Even if the average salary is | "fair", people get rewarded a tiny fraction of the value they | generate. Imagine if I'm working at Google and I find a way | to save Google $10M/year via improved hardware efficiency. | Despite the fact that this isn't part of my job description. | How much of that $10M would I get in the form of a salary | increase or bonus? A pretty darn tiny amount. 1% if I'm | lucky. Is it worth it? Probably not. I might as well just do | what my manager asks me to do, and spend my extra time | learning Haskell and going to happy hours. This is pretty | much what GP was alluding to. If companies started giving | people a significant fraction of the value they generate, | corporate life would change dramatically. | vhiremath4 wrote: | > which makes a sort of sense, given imperfect information and | how risk is allocated | | This doesn't just make a sort of sense to me, it makes perfect | sense. | | People trade their labor at a lower rate for higher stability | (less risk). The people who start companies, find capital, and | distribute that capital in ways that increase the value of the | company have taken on more risk (how significant varies case- | by-case and usually is a natural market cap ceiling to the | total value the owners can extract ahead of employees). | | If the company I work at gives me shares in that company, I | want the company to pay less for my labor (and everyone's) if | my belief is that collectively all employees output will | accelerate my own wealth creation when I sell my shares in the | company. The share becomes a transitive store of value I | believe my own labor alone will never be able to keep up with, | and I want to make sure the value it's accumulating is not | diminished because the company is paying out the full capital | value of everyone's labor. Then there would be very little | incentive for me to take the shares in the first place, and, | honestly, very little incentive for anyone to start a company | (why take on that risk if there's no payout in excess of just | joining another company?). | myroon5 wrote: | Feels like many are stuck in this dichotomy between choosing | stable rates or venturing out on your own where more middle | ground should probably exist. Employee incentives should | probably align more | [deleted] | bushbaba wrote: | > If people were really incentivized to do their best work, I | imagine we'd get a better world. | | Assuming wages are a function of the free market. And the less | mobile people are, the less job-applicants exist, and the | higher wages need to be to poach. Incentivizing for good work | might have diminishing returns after a certain point. | SQueeeeeL wrote: | I love it, we need everyone to have poverty wages and be | insecure in case the poor multinational corporations might | have difficulty underpaying people | sytelus wrote: | This is the entire foundation of capitalism. The idea is that | people who own capital only reward other people for their | _time_ who help add to their capital. If companies distributed | all of the gains in terms of stock awards to employees, you | will see very different asset distribution in our society. | mrh0057 wrote: | It's suppose to be the value you added. The investors get | payment for the risk they take by investing in or loaning | money to the company. If a company has monopoly power and/or | gets bailed out by the government consistently there is no | risk to investors. What ends up happening is rent seeking a | behavior by theses companies and they will also take | unnecessary risks since they are incentivized to. | tw600040 wrote: | That would be fair if companies can also distribute losses if | any and are able to get money back from employees | steveylang wrote: | Maybe so, but stockholders aren't responsible for company | losses either. | tw600040 wrote: | They are. They lose their money / investment if companies | go bankrupt or don't do well. | gojomo wrote: | 'Capitalism' is neither theoretically, nor in practice, | limited to "only reward people for their time". Some | industries where the labor is low-skilled trend that way. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | The basic concept of capitalism is that there are capital | owners, and they hire workers who use that capital to | generate value. The capital owners receive all of that | value and then pay the workers for their time. | | This is not a comprehensive description of capitalism but | it is the low level idea. Obviously there is a distribution | of real world behaviors. | AYBABTME wrote: | Capitalism is about trade and industry being done by | private owners, instead of by the state. It's a | decentralized economic system that acknowledges a state's | inability to fully plan the economy due to imperfect | information. | | It's not anchored in labor exploitation. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | > Capitalism is about trade and industry being done by | private owners, instead of by the state. It's a | decentralized economic system that acknowledges a state's | inability to fully plan the economy due to imperfect | information. | | > The basic concept of capitalism is that there are | capital owners, and they hire workers who use that | capital to generate value. The capital owners receive all | of that value and then pay the workers for their time. | | These are both true. | [deleted] | davmar wrote: | capitalism cannot differentiate between efficiency and | exploitation | [deleted] | qsort wrote: | You would also see much fewer companies to begin with. Maybe | there's a better way to reward highly skilled people than | beating this extremely dead horse? | [deleted] | sytelus wrote: | Capitalism has nothing to do with fewer or more companies. | A founder can currently be rewarded as much as 1000000X | than an average employee simply because the arrangement is | that employee gets paid for _time_ (a highly limited | quantity) while founder gets paid for _capital_ (virtually | unlimited quantity). Assume that you forced founders not to | capture all of the capital gains generated by employees | such that the founder was rewarded "only" 1000X more than | average employee. I don't think this is so badly under- | rewaeded that founders will just stop being founders. | zozbot234 wrote: | A founder that's rewarded 1000000X is cashing in on a | lottery ticket. That's all there is to it. Just as in | most lotteries, even most founders are losers. | tonyedgecombe wrote: | >If companies distributed all of the gains in terms of stock | awards to employees | | Then there would be no incentive for investment. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Exactly. And investment includes buying the tools that lets | the worker be productive enough to create a surplus. | | There's three people (or entities) in this: the one who | makes the tool, the one who buys the tool, and the one who | uses the tool. All of them need some of the rewards from | the increased productivity that the tool empowers, | otherwise we stop getting tools that let us be more | productive, and we're all worse off. So you have to pay | both the capitalists and the workers. | | Now, you can argue that the pendulum has swung too far in | the direction of the capitalists. That's a defensible | position. But the answer is not to move to "the workers get | 100% of the gains". That's going to leave everyone worse | off, including the workers. | rmbyrro wrote: | Problem is the employees aren't willing to bear the risk that | early investors were willing to. | | If the entire society had a similar level of appetite for | risk, we'd see a different asset distribution in society. | | Since most people are terribly averse to losing anything, | they also shut down the perspective of winning big. | noncoml wrote: | It's not about being willing, it's about being able too. | | Imagine there is a lottery where for every 10 million | tickets you buy you get one that is giving you 20 millions | back. | | No brainer, right? Except if you don't have the 10 million | to spare, buying lottery tickets instead of food doesn't | make sense. | | Labor/job is your single lottery ticket. | | Investors can afford to buy all tickets to make sure they | win. | robrenaud wrote: | Make a lot of friends, buy up the tickets together, and | split the winnings. | | Applied another way, everyone in a given class of YC | should share a bit of ownership with everyone else in | their YC class, and then everyone of them is likely to | end up a millionare. | twojacobtwo wrote: | This is where the analogy fails, I think, because it | assumes a static market price, or a lack of competition | for the tickets. Where the price changes or competition | changes availability, we run into the same issues where | those who already have power/money are more able to | exploit the system than those who have to collude just to | have a shot. | paxys wrote: | What this email doesn't say is that Google's solution for fixing | retention problems was to reach out to Apple and many other large | tech employers and sign illegal agreements to not hire each | other's employees. | | The subject of this email (Facebook) famously declined to | participate however. | gnachman wrote: | If you got an offer from Facebook they would beat it. I did | this in 2012 and instantly had 10x the RSUs. Some Googlers | thought it was immoral to do this. It was at this time that | comp for engineers radically changed. | paxys wrote: | I signed a job offer in late 2011 and was due to start a | couple months later. Two weeks before the start date, the | hiring manager emailed out of the blue to say that they were | bumping up my starting salary by 10%. It was a wild time to | be in tech (although the situation today isn't all that | different). | pavlov wrote: | Zuckerberg is widely despised on HN, but he should get some | credit for standing up to the Silicon Valley wage cartel. As | your example shows, it put potentially life-changing | compensation within the reach of a much larger group of | software engineers. | | Previously you pretty much had to get lucky as an early | engineer through IPO, but in the past decade it's been | possible to save millions by working at FAANGs. And those | millions trickle down into the ecosystem: people can afford | to start their own companies, do angel investments, etc. | Teever wrote: | You don't give despicable people credit for doing the right | thing because they happened to the right thing only because | it benefited them. | ALittleLight wrote: | Zuckerberg doesn't seem that despicable to me. Certainly | not in the company of companies like Google. What's the | worst thing you can say about him or Facebook? | | I think most of the bad press just comes from media | clickbait. Mainstream news identifies Facebook as a | competitor and threat on ideological model, see people | complaining about conservative news sources topping most | shared on Facebook lists, and on a business model basis | (Facebook controls a large stream of traffic). | LunaSea wrote: | I mean a good argument against Facebook (and by proxy | Zuckerberg) is that Facebook designs the product in a way | that benefits them rather than the psychological well | being of their users. | jonas21 wrote: | You've got both the direction and timeline backwards. It was | Apple who reached out to Google (if "reaching out" is a | euphemism for Steve Jobs yelling on the phone), and it happened | in 2005, two years before this. [1] | | [1] https://www.engadget.com/2014-03-24-emails-reveal-that- | steve... | ditonal wrote: | Then for years Google denied wrongdoing but said they couldn't | address it because it was in active litigation. | | Finally, the whole thing got settled (slap on the wrist but | something at least), so Google employees could finally get an | answer in the weekly all-hands (TGIF). | | Laszlo Bock was their head of people at the time, and claimed | that Google still did nothing wrong, and that they only settled | because they were caught up in the whole thing with other | companies like Adobe who did do something wrong. He said they | did nothing wrong because they only stopped outbound recruiting | towards employees at those companies, which had no effect, and | still accepted inbound applications. | | This raises the obvious question - if outbound recruiting had | no effect, why was Google so eager to put at end to it? And how | could Google act like they were caught up it the crossfire when | it was specifically emails by Sergey Brin that provided the | strongest evidence of illegal collusions? | | It blew my mind how Google insists they hire "the world's | smartest people" but then can have executives on stage spin | narratives with ridiculous holes in it and expect those smart | people to believe it rather than have their intelligence | insulted. | | But sadly, most Google employees did seem to buy it. There's a | strong cult of indoctrination, starting with calling yourself a | Googler and wearing the stupid hat, that Google execs just had | a halo effect. I think between 2010 and now that halo effect | has massively worn off, especially with all the dirty details | about misbehavior from Sergey Brin, Vic Gundtora, and Andy | Rubin. | | Nonetheless, it served as strong evidence as to how even really | smart people can get caught up in cult-like communities. The | "founder worship", the indoctrination into company culture, all | of that is super common in Silicon Valley tech companies and | for an obvious reason - it works. | MegaButts wrote: | > Nonetheless, it served as strong evidence as to how even | really smart people can get caught up in cult-like | communities. | | I see it differently. It seems like strong evidence as to how | smart the average googler really is. If you start with the | assumption these people are smart then you can reach your | conclusion, but if you discard that assumption you just have | a group of gullible employees. | solveit wrote: | Lol, every HN commenter knows Google was in the wrong but | the Googlers themselves didn't because they're gullible. | No, the Googlers didn't buy it but continued working | because when it comes to it, thinking your company does | shady things is very rarely sufficient to get you to up and | leave. Is your company bigger than, say, a thousand people? | Then they have definitely done _something_ as bad as Google | 's collusion and you know it even if you don't know what. | Are you going to leave? | MegaButts wrote: | I agree with you, and I'm very much of the opinion that | most techies are entitled assholes who only care about | enriching themselves. I was just pointing out what I | considered to be a flaw in GP's reasoning. | | > Are you going to leave? | | I did, actually (more than once). And it's what made me | realize how few engineers care about anything other than | their paychecks and ultimately themselves. When push | comes to shove, the vast majority of people I've met and | worked with have no qualms looking the other way for more | compensation. | Nextgrid wrote: | > When push comes to shove, the vast majority of people | I've met and worked with have no qualms looking the other | way for more compensation. | | When push comes to shove, those people would have no | power to change things anyway in the vast majority of | cases. You can either live in a terrible world rich, or | poor - in both cases the world wouldn't change but at | least your life will be better. | | A lot of problems are big enough that only governments | can deal with them by the use of laws and appropriate | enforcement (eventually escalating to violence if | needed). But if the governments themselves benefit from | the problem, or are owned by the corporations | (corruption, or "lobbying" as it's called in the US), | there's no chance for a few individuals to make a | difference. | MegaButts wrote: | I disagree that employees have no power to make a | difference. It's learned helplessness. By that logic, | unions are also ineffective at bargaining. The point is | you have to actually work together instead of for | yourself. | AYBABTME wrote: | If we all left every company as soon as they commit some | immoral things, there'd be no company surviving beyond a | few months. If we ditched all our friends as soon as they | commit some immoral thing, we'd have no friends. If we | ditched our countries as soon as they commit some immoral | thing, we'd have no countries. | | All entities, one day or another, commit some immoral | thing according to some relative morality. We can't | expect that they never will. Of course, a consistent and | repeat offender should not be rewarded with our support. | But it's unreasonable to hold people and groups of people | to unreasonable standards, such as "sustained perfect | moral behavior". | | The average Googler most likely than not thinks that what | Google did is bad, but not bad enough overall to warrant | their quitting. | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: | "It blew my mind how Google insists they hire "the world's | smartest people" but the can have executives on stage spin | narratives with ridiculous holes in it and expect those smart | people to believe it rather than have their intelligence | insulted." | | If there are a limited number of "world's smartest people" | (truly, people willing to fiddle with computers for hours on | end), then an obvious strategy would be to hire as many of | them as possible if for no other reason than to prevent any | other company from having them. | | Most people I know would not want to fiddle with computers | for extended periods of time. That has no bearing on whether | they are "smart" or "intelligent". AFAICT, the notion of | Google employees as "really smart people" is one perpetuated | by a relatively small group of people wordlwide who are | content to fiddle with computers 24/7. The cult analogy makes | sense. The group cannot properly interact with "outsiders", | all of whom are, according to the group, not "the world's | smartest people", presumably because they have no interest in | playing with computers. Myopia. | | Make no mistake, I am not suggesting the Google group does | not contain some intelligent people however it is a narrow | band of intelligence associated with a circumspect view of | the world, seen only through the use of computers. The | "world's smartest people" idea sounds absolutely cult-like to | me every time it gets repeated on HN, as it ignores too many | intelligent people, far more than work for Google, who are | not computer nerds. These folks outside the Google cult are | easily intelligent enough to understand how computers and | programmatic advertising work, but they are not interested in | spending their time fiddling with such things, preferring | instead to work on other subjects that they find more | interesting and rewarding. Their work often has a tangible | societal benefit unlike mass surveillance and censorship for | the purpose of collecting advertising revenue. | qiskit wrote: | > It blew my mind how Google insists they hire "the world's | smartest people" but then can have executives on stage spin | narratives with ridiculous holes in it and expect those smart | people to believe it rather than have their intelligence | insulted. | | They don't hire the smartest people, they hire the greediest | people. The only thing people worship in silicon valley and | tech in general is money. That's it. An if your salary, stock | options, etc are dependent on believing and selling lies, | that's what you do. When an industry or group gets "saint | status" or proclaims to be the agents of good, your spidey | senses should start tingling. | holografix wrote: | No one believes it. It's called plausible deniability | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Not everyone who works at a company loves the company. A lot | of people might think things their company does is pretty | despicable. | | If it's the best place to extract maximum benefits (money, | experience, recognition, etc) - then you take the good with | the bad. | ditonal wrote: | This is certainly true for some Googlers, but there are | many true believers (at least when I was there). Many | people there sincerely think Google is a special company - | the company was even arrogant enough in their IPO to say | they "not a conventional company, and not intending to | become one". | | Even outside Google, the halo effect is insane. Look at how | much hate companies like Facebook and Uber get on HN. But | if you break down the scandals side by side, you'll realize | Google has by far the worst ethics in the industry. | | For example, Uber is accused of being sexist because a | woman wrote an open letter that she was excluded in various | ways as an employee there, such as not receiving swag in | her size as the only woman on the team. That sounds like a | shitty culture. Meanwhile, Vic Gundotra was credibly | accused of inviting 22 year old junior SWEs to exec | offsites to sexually harass them. Andy Rubin was found to | have sexually assaulted a subordinate, according to | Google's own investigation, and recieved a 90M payout. | | What's a worse workplace for women? Not getting swag in | your size, or being raped? | | Yet when I worked at Google when all these scandals took | place, ordering an Uber was a huge faux paus. You had to | order a Lyft because "Uber=sexist." | | Even now on a recent thread I mentioned how all these tech | companies are more evil than your typical crypto startup, | people said "only Uber and Facebook" look bad on a resume. | I would argue that's purely a function of PR because I | challenge anyone to debate me that Facebook or Uber had | worse ethics scandals than Google. | | Google has one of the strongest PR machines of all time and | its effect on sentiment inside and outside the company is | indisputable. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Why are you convinced that ethics is all people care | about? | | Some people think Google is a good product. Nearly | everyone on HN hates Facebook and I think most people | hate Instagram, too, now? | JasonFruit wrote: | See also 'mercenary'. | solveit wrote: | See 'anyone working at a large company ever'. Any large | group of people with any kind of goal and any amount of | power(doesn't even have to be a company) will do | despicable things, it's almost a law of nature. Google's | collusion is barely a blip on the bad stuff people do. | caboteria wrote: | Someone who works at a company that does things that they | find despicable because they're optimizing their benefits | sounds like a textbook psychopath. | AnonymousC1421 wrote: | Google isn't nearly as nice of a place to work at as people | make it out to be. | | As an example they will finally increase vacation from 15days | to 20days on April 1st this year. | | The media reports this as "on top of already lavish perks | Googlers are now getting 20 days of PTO a year!". | | Gee whiz amazing. An increase from 15 days of PTO. If only we | didn't much more than that in my much lower quality of life | home country as a standard for tech workers. | | And sorry if this sounds a bit spoilt. I should be grateful to | work at a large megacorp in this economy right? It's just that | Google isn't any better in terms of working conditions than any | other big tech company. In fact in general it's a little bit | worse yet there's propaganda movies (The Internship) about how | great it is to work at Google. | | It's a job. No one else seems to want to acknowledge it. | paxys wrote: | It isn't about being objectively good or bad but how it | compares to everyone else. | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | > As an example they will finally increase vacation from | 15days to 20days on April 1st this year. | | That change is for junior employees. It's still overdue, but | vacation bumps up to 25 days per year after you have some | tenure, and has done for more than a decade. I'm not saying | that 25 days is anything to write home about -- I've heard of | places that give 30, or unlimited -- but 25 is not bad. | AnonymousC1421 wrote: | Lets put the numbers out there objectively for others | reading this. | | Previously after 4 years you got 20 days per year. Then you | got 25 at year 6+. | [deleted] | colonelxc wrote: | This might just be an impreciseness of language, but it's | actually 20 days after you've been there 3 years, and 25 | after you've been there for 5. | | So if you're saying 'year six' starts the day after | you've been there for 5 full years, then yes, we are | saying the same thing. | | (Source: have been at Google almost 8 years, and went | through both of those bumps) | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | It's been a long time since I went through these bumps, | but I had thought that _in_ your third year you got 20 | days? Is that not right? So odd to make you wait for | three years for your first increase and then only two for | your next one. | [deleted] | skeeter2020 wrote: | unlimited vacation is typically advertised as this amazing | perk but in reality _cheaper_ than many alternatives: | | * you carry no vacation liability on the books year-to-year | | * if you don't encourage people to take it, or provide | slack when they can take time off they use less vacation | jasode wrote: | _> and many other large tech employers and sign illegal | agreements to not hire each other's employees._ | | I don't remember reading about any _formally signed | agreements_. Executives aren 't going to create an | incriminating paper trail like that. Instead, it was some | complaints in emails and an implied understanding. E.g. Steve | Jobs and Eric Schmidt emails: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#Role_in_illegal_n... | karaterobot wrote: | What does "rainy weather and a few GPS misalignments" mean? | SnowHill9902 wrote: | I would understand that some employees are not following the | exact path that they wish. | dekhn wrote: | After this Google started giving $1K in cash every christmas and | one year gave everybody at the company a 10% bonus. Those times | are gone. | jeffbee wrote: | Wasn't the year of the surprise 10% only because the unlawful | collusion between Google, Apple, and others was on the brink of | becoming public? | emtel wrote: | The $1K christmas bonus started no later than 2002. | | You say those times are gone, but have you seen what FAANG pays | people now? | paxys wrote: | Yeah, back in the 2000s or even early 2010s a $1K+ employee | holiday bonus would be a "holy shit!" event that would make | the news. Doing so today, even after adjusting for inflation, | would be met with "yeah, whatever" by everyone, including new | grads. | thaumasiotes wrote: | I don't get the phenomenon of piddling bonuses. I worked | for Amazon in the 2000s. And we got an employee discount. | | 10% off anything on the site. | | Capped at a maximum of $100 / year. | | This is a discount that feels like they're going out of | their way to spit in your face. What if you raised my | annual pay by... $100? Who would notice or care? | dastbe wrote: | for good or for bad, one of the things amazon does is | focus on providing benefits that can apply to ALL | employees, i.e. the six figure devs all the way down to | the fc employees. | jacquesm wrote: | Amazon would notice because paying their whole workforce | $100 extra per year would cost them significant money | whereas that sum of all those discounts would work out to | a small fraction of that amount. | Barrera wrote: | That part about "a social networking bubble of imitations and tag | alongs" is ironic, given Google's numerous failed attempts to tag | along on the social networking bubble. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-29 23:00 UTC)