"In the end, our hiring standards that we use as gates to decide whom to grant high salaries and great benefits are only worth something if we also have great firing standards—i.e., if we retain and invest in people."
i don't totally disagree with the author. but i offer a different viewpoint:
- some "perks" fake-stock (RSUs), free food, unlimited time off, etc. are not necessarily there because of a “people first” focus. they are a subtle physiological con-game and relatively cheap to implement.
- others, the absurdly high compensation for example, are market driven. the author, imho correctly, points out reckless "hypergrowth" as a driver.
so to me there's no real contradiction, just instability. there are booms and there are busts. the less stability, the further the extremes go. theoretically in both directions. the oil/gas-field industry is another example with similar booms/busts and high compensation (on a good day). jobs like this can be great ways to make a lot of money if you can personally tolerate the downside risk (perhaps young and unattached).
i think the subtlety is that it's just a teeny bit unseemly to package these jobs as something they are not ("people first") when they are actually often cyclic market driven bets and the prospective employee is just a part of that speculative activity.
the author argues roughly that if you say people first, you should actually do that.
i'd argue, that if it isn't really, never was, and won't ever be, then they be more transparent about it. and since that won't ever happen, the best thing is to stop being deluded and see it for what it is; go in with open eyes.
is your long term economic value as a coder really 5-10x a teacher? or maybe some of it is a speculative bubble.
i don't totally disagree with the author. but i offer a different viewpoint:
- some "perks" fake-stock (RSUs), free food, unlimited time off, etc. are not necessarily there because of a “people first” focus. they are a subtle physiological con-game and relatively cheap to implement.
- others, the absurdly high compensation for example, are market driven. the author, imho correctly, points out reckless "hypergrowth" as a driver.
so to me there's no real contradiction, just instability. there are booms and there are busts. the less stability, the further the extremes go. theoretically in both directions. the oil/gas-field industry is another example with similar booms/busts and high compensation (on a good day). jobs like this can be great ways to make a lot of money if you can personally tolerate the downside risk (perhaps young and unattached).
i think the subtlety is that it's just a teeny bit unseemly to package these jobs as something they are not ("people first") when they are actually often cyclic market driven bets and the prospective employee is just a part of that speculative activity.
the author argues roughly that if you say people first, you should actually do that.
i'd argue, that if it isn't really, never was, and won't ever be, then they be more transparent about it. and since that won't ever happen, the best thing is to stop being deluded and see it for what it is; go in with open eyes.
is your long term economic value as a coder really 5-10x a teacher? or maybe some of it is a speculative bubble.