← Back to context

Comment by drivebyhooting

18 hours ago

Given how inefficient Meta et al are, why do the pay so much more than the nimbler smaller companies? (Rhetorical question, I already know the answer: monopoly and regulatory capture)

Of course those engineers would rather have more meaningful work if it came with similar compensation and work life balance.

Hard to motivate people to work on things that destroy society. Money helps.

Want to see how motivated Meta employees are? Watch how fast their offices clear out at 5pm on the dot.

  • Meta offices are pretty full at 5pm lmao. In fact they are still decently full at 7pm after dinner at 6. Baffles me why people just make up random crap in areas they clearly know less than nothing about.

  • What do you think is an appropriate time for most employees to end their workday?

    • I am a terrible person to ask. My employers get their money's worth from me: I genuinely like my work and regularly work more than 8hrs a day. I also work in a field with others who, with some exception, do the same, so its strange for me to see "normal people" clock out on the dot.

Because you have to pay people more to do boring or evil work vs meaningful or exciting work

  • In my experience the pay difference was never that close that meaning and ethics played a role in the decision.

    Cool exciting and meaningful science job: 200k

    Big Tech surveillance capitalism job: 800k (at the low end)

    The calculus has only been about affording housing and providing for the family.

    • This is my experience too. I actually briefly took the cool exciting climate change related science job and then realized that I couldn’t actually support my family’s lifestyle on $160k so I left and went back to surveillance capitalism. I do feel guilt about that decision, but I like to imagine I’ll be able to go back to working on interesting and ethical things after my kids are out of the house.