NationStates

Google and other tech firms treat their software engineers very well and offer them legendary perks that are unheard of in other industries.

I remember being absolutely shocked when I visited my brother’s workplace at Google. Free cafeterias with free food (of the highest quality), free swimming pools, arcades and gyms, free health drinks, free transport in and out of work, work in open sunlit and spacious spaces... enviable amounts of free time and lack of supervision (so long as turned in productive work and showed at the few meetings, no one cared about hours). He also said there were free haircuts and lots of subsidized/free health plans.

I asked him and he said that at Apple, Facebook etc this is standard.

Here are some sources on Silicon Valley style benefits:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/i ... google.asp
https://www.inc.com/business-insider/be ... efits.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/neilpatel. ... ccess/amp/

I’m very impressed but this has led me to think...

1. Is this approach (we can call it the Silicon Valley System) a profitable or unprofitable strategy in Big Tech? Another way to put it is... does Google/Apple etc experience increased profits from this strategy or do they profit in spite of the costs?

2. To what extent is this viable in other industries? Would it make sense for top law firms, accounting firms, teaching centers, government jobs etc to do this too and to the same extent as Silicon Valley? Should they?

It is only because of demand for the best software engineers outstrips supply. That won't last for ever because people train for the jobs that pay the most currently. As soon as there is sufficient supply all those perks at Google will disappear.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:It is only because of demand for the best software engineers outstrips supply. That won't last for ever because people train for the jobs that pay the most currently. As soon as there is sufficient supply all those perks at Google will disappear.

Correct.

For any teenager reading this. Please don't go into software engineering, it's a dreadful job. The benefits are totally not worth the stress.

The Blaatschapen wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:It is only because of demand for the best software engineers outstrips supply. That won't last for ever because people train for the jobs that pay the most currently. As soon as there is sufficient supply all those perks at Google will disappear.

Correct.

For any teenager reading this. Please don't go into software engineering, it's a dreadful job. The benefits are totally not worth the stress.

So they will be gone by the time teenagers on NS are ready to enter the job market?

The Blaatschapen wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:It is only because of demand for the best software engineers outstrips supply. That won't last for ever because people train for the jobs that pay the most currently. As soon as there is sufficient supply all those perks at Google will disappear.

Correct.

For any teenager reading this. Please don't go into software engineering, it's a dreadful job. The benefits are totally not worth the stress.

Lololol, talk about job protection

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:It is only because of demand for the best software engineers outstrips supply. That won't last for ever because people train for the jobs that pay the most currently. As soon as there is sufficient supply all those perks at Google will disappear.

Once they unionize all those benefits will disappear. As well as the unstructured time. The advantage to the employee is that it will be a bit harder for the company to fire them for cause

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:It is only because of demand for the best software engineers outstrips supply. That won't last for ever because people train for the jobs that pay the most currently. As soon as there is sufficient supply all those perks at Google will disappear.

Yup, basic demand & supply graph right here.

Ethel mermania wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Correct.

For any teenager reading this. Please don't go into software engineering, it's a dreadful job. The benefits are totally not worth the stress.

Lololol, talk about job protection

Yup.

Kids, go into archaeology.

You've seen how cool arch is. And by the time you become somewhat employable, you can buy his books and he can hopefully retire. No harm there

Picairn wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:It is only because of demand for the best software engineers outstrips supply. That won't last for ever because people train for the jobs that pay the most currently. As soon as there is sufficient supply all those perks at Google will disappear.

Yup, basic demand & supply graph right here.

How does this supply and demand thing work? I've never understood it. =(

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Picairn wrote:Yup, basic demand & supply graph right here.

How does this supply and demand thing work? I've never understood it. =(

My (albeit slightly vague) knowledge of it is essentially that when demand outstrips supply, supply is increased if possible to satisfy the demand. Then, when supply is higher than demand, it is no longer a rarity, and people will not pay as much, so demand vanishes. Hence, there is excess supply, so production decreases, eventually meaning that the graph will begin again, with demand rising because of less supply.


I used the example of production, but it works for anything renewable, I believe. If I'm wrong, please do correct me, I'd be interested to see how it actually works.

It depends on the work force. If you have the right folks good benefits drive the employees to work harder and more.

Google is notorious for their hiring practices, its that they hire folks who can work within their system that makes it work.

Infected Mushroom wrote:How does this supply and demand thing work? I've never understood it. =(

Study Economics in your university lol.

Basically, in a perfectly competitive market, demand and supply will fluctuate (in ways like Gerbelia explained) until they meet a point where the quantity of goods demanded equal the quantity supplied, resulting in an economic equilibrium for price and quantity transacted between the buyer and seller.

Of course, our current world is not a perfectly competitive market, and you have taxes and government regulations which interfere with the market for a more equal outcome for all parties involved.

Picairn wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:How does this supply and demand thing work? I've never understood it. =(

Study Economics in your university lol.

Basically, in a perfectly competitive market, demand and supply will fluctuate (in ways like Gerbelia explained) until they meet a point where the quantity of goods demanded equal the quantity supplied, resulting in an economic equilibrium for price and quantity transacted between the buyer and seller.

Of course, our current world is not a perfectly competitive market, and you have taxes and government regulations which interfere with the market for a more equal outcome for all parties involved.

Garbelia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
How does this supply and demand thing work? I've never understood it. =(

My (albeit slightly vague) knowledge of it is essentially that when demand outstrips supply, supply is increased if possible to satisfy the demand. Then, when supply is higher than demand, it is no longer a rarity, and people will not pay as much, so demand vanishes. Hence, there is excess supply, so production decreases, eventually meaning that the graph will begin again, with demand rising because of less supply.


I used the example of production, but it works for anything renewable, I believe. If I'm wrong, please do correct me, I'd be interested to see how it actually works.

And for the "Big Tech," this supply of workers/production (if you can somehow assign a number to it) sits below the actual demand (if you can somehow assign a number to it)?

How many decades will it take to clear this out?

And why's there such a high demand? I'm not under the impression we buy tons and tons of Big Tech stuff every year more so when compared to other products in other fields? My laptop and phone haven't been updated in years...

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Picairn wrote:Study Economics in your university lol.

Basically, in a perfectly competitive market, demand and supply will fluctuate (in ways like Gerbelia explained) until they meet a point where the quantity of goods demanded equal the quantity supplied, resulting in an economic equilibrium for price and quantity transacted between the buyer and seller.

Of course, our current world is not a perfectly competitive market, and you have taxes and government regulations which interfere with the market for a more equal outcome for all parties involved.

Garbelia wrote:My (albeit slightly vague) knowledge of it is essentially that when demand outstrips supply, supply is increased if possible to satisfy the demand. Then, when supply is higher than demand, it is no longer a rarity, and people will not pay as much, so demand vanishes. Hence, there is excess supply, so production decreases, eventually meaning that the graph will begin again, with demand rising because of less supply.


I used the example of production, but it works for anything renewable, I believe. If I'm wrong, please do correct me, I'd be interested to see how it actually works.

And for the "Big Tech," this supply of workers/production (if you can somehow assign a number to it) sits below the actual demand (if you can somehow assign a number to it)?

How many decades will it take to clear this out?

And why's there such a high demand? I'm not under the impression we buy tons and tons of Big Tech stuff every year more so when compared to other products in other fields? My laptop and phone haven't been updated in years...

And that assumes every tech worker or C coder is equal. You pay your better people more because they are worth more.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:


And for the "Big Tech," this supply of workers/production (if you can somehow assign a number to it) sits below the actual demand (if you can somehow assign a number to it)?

How many decades will it take to clear this out?

And why's there such a high demand? I'm not under the impression we buy tons and tons of Big Tech stuff every year more so when compared to other products in other fields? My laptop and phone haven't been updated in years...

And that assumes every tech worker or C coder is equal. You pay your better people more because they are worth more.

Oh? Hmmmm....

I have no idea how the math checks out. For me, economics is a giant black box of magic. The concepts are hugely unfamiliar. =)

Ethel mermania wrote:And that assumes every tech worker or C coder is equal. You pay your better people more because they are worth more.

Neoclassical economics can only lead you so far. Still, they are the basis of economics, you need to understand it in simplistic terms before moving on to the real, complex world.

Infected Mushroom wrote:And for the "Big Tech," this supply of workers/production (if you can somehow assign a number to it) sits below the actual demand (if you can somehow assign a number to it)?

If they are being offered high salaries + huge benefits then I would say the price of a tech worker is currently very high, which means demand is exceeding supply and pushing prices up.

How many decades will it take to clear this out?

Until demand drops, getting supply to exceed demand and we're back to a lower equilibrium price. I'm not an economist (yet), so I don't know what year it'll happen, lol.

And why's there such a high demand? I'm not under the impression we buy tons and tons of Big Tech stuff every year more so when compared to other products in other fields? My laptop and phone haven't been updated in years...

I dunno what OS your laptop and phone uses, but Android and Apple install updates pretty regularly, every year they push out one or two new updates. Not to mention, the APPS market. New games and utility apps are created to satisfy customers' demand. Big Tech isn't just your hardware, it's also in your software.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:And that assumes every tech worker or C coder is equal. You pay your better people more because they are worth more.

Oh? Hmmmm....

I have no idea how the math checks out. For me, economics is a giant black box of magic. The concepts are hugely unfamiliar. =)

Does the employee make you money or cost you money?

Ethel mermania wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Oh? Hmmmm....

I have no idea how the math checks out. For me, economics is a giant black box of magic. The concepts are hugely unfamiliar. =)

Does the employee make you money or cost you money?

Hopefully they make you money? But if you're paying huge salaries and benefits... it may be hard to tell? I'm not sure? Depends? =(

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Does the employee make you money or cost you money?

Hopefully they make you money? But if you're paying huge salaries and benefits... it may be hard to tell? I'm not sure? Depends? =(

Making that determination is the job of the bean counters. A quick Google shows,, Google makes a net profit of about 20 points per year, which is very good.

It would be nice if my business just allowed us to wear hats. That would be an improvement, cause I'm tired of us being the guys who made the song Safety Dance.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Hopefully they make you money? But if you're paying huge salaries and benefits... it may be hard to tell? I'm not sure? Depends? =(

Making that determination is the job of the bean counters. A quick Google shows,, Google makes a net profit of about 20 points per year, which is very good.

Okay but can it make more of it paid out less benefits?

Or would it make less because the most important people would switch teams?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Making that determination is the job of the bean counters. A quick Google shows,, Google makes a net profit of about 20 points per year, which is very good.

Okay but can it make more of it paid out less benefits?

Or would it make less because the most important people would switch teams?

Thats the question, happy employees tend to work longer and harder and don't regard their jobs as burdens. If you keep them happy and if they are well directed and managed, it's worth the cost of the benefits. 20 point, net is pretty good. B If they don't care about the company and put forward a minimal effort, their work probably isn't going to generate those kind of profits.

Companies like Google can't make software developers from scratch anyways. Certain people either can or can't do the job. If you don't have the innate talent for programming or don't do so from a young enough age and truly have the interest in it- then you can't "learn to code" any more than an ex-coal miner can. Chances are if you try to learn it, it'll be too difficult or too much of an uphill battle for it to be worthwhile for that person.

I know I'm in the category of those who can't code. Even if I were to manage to get into the Tech sector. I'm more of a Technician than anything else- where I'd be more comfortable working with the wiring/hardware, if not doing some troubleshooting if it don't involve complicated programming languages.

Google provides benefits to their talented/skilled employees because objectively speaking, they're really worth that much and because chances are, they can get the same if not better perks working for rivals. It is a gambit by Google to retain those workers. Just that generally speaking, its almost always better for your resume or career progression/pay to always be switching companies or taking on some risks. The people who stay with one company for too long, tend to get paid the same or less the next time they do have to switch employers.

Though I agree that this wouldn't make sense in all sectors, it's time for us to have a serious discussion about improving work conditions on a universal basis

Compassionate Centrist Christians wrote:Though I agree that this wouldn't make sense in all sectors, it's time for us to have a serious discussion about improving work conditions on a universal basis

I think so. Yes.