|
hobbesmaster posted:so what should people working midwest cities do kill themselves and everyone around them
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
qirex posted:I think there's a cultural thing in a lot of companies that even a critical IC should never make more money than any management so if Flyover Widgets, Inc. is paying their dumb middle manager MBAs $80k they literally can't offer more than 75 to a mere employee this is one of the main things sv cos have got right, still need to figure out how to fix the "managers make all the promotion/stock/bonus/raise decisions" thing tho people are surprised this some how results in discrepancy in favor of managers over time
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
qirex posted:I think there's a cultural thing in a lot of companies that even a critical IC should never make more money than any management so if Flyover Widgets, Inc. is paying their dumb middle manager MBAs $80k they literally can't offer more than 75 to a mere employee this explains pretty much everything about the reticence of these flyover firms. the pay of an individual contributor will have effects all the way up the chain if you hire a programmer at 130k instead of 100k, then his team lead has to book 170 instead of 120, the cio/cto suddenly wants 250 instead of 150, ...and eventually all the new guy's teammates find out they're being underpaid by 30k and start asking for poo poo too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
pr0zac posted:people are surprised this some how results in discrepancy in favor of managers over time all business decisions involve principal/agent problems. "management" and "bureaucracy" are the solutions chosen for the problem. you know full well, going into it, that management will choose to overpay itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:medicaid and medicare aren't the same thing you're right, I misread. they still have money, not the kind of money you need to get really great health care though. America 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:kill themselves and everyone around them rude
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:you're right, I misread. they still have money, not the kind of money you need to get really great health care though. yeah dta
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:don't overlook the fact that they also are unwilling to invest any money in training their employees so the field of potential applicants is narrowed to the search for a loving unicorn. likely primarily driven by the fact that they skimp on internal raises so their retention rate is poo poo as everyone knows the only way to get back up to parity with the market rate or even just to keep up with inflation and cost of living is to switch employers. this is, to me, one of the most infuriating things about working in tech. I mean, nearly all of us enjoy learning and indeed our knowledge is how we make money. So you have a field where people want to learn and think creatively, then you get out into the world of work and nearly all the employers go "oh, that's great that you've learned all these skills because we didn't want to have to train someone who can figure out multivariate calculus or write a compiler from scratch any new skills". Because obviously why would you want a broader base of workers with more diverse skills. It's so loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
can we have a new york vs san francisco slapfight because those are always fascinating
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:this is, to me, one of the most infuriating things about working in tech. I mean, nearly all of us enjoy learning and indeed our knowledge is how we make money. So you have a field where people want to learn and think creatively, then you get out into the world of work and nearly all the employers go "oh, that's great that you've learned all these skills because we didn't want to have to train someone who can figure out multivariate calculus or write a compiler from scratch any new skills". Because obviously why would you want a broader base of workers with more diverse skills. It's so loving stupid. if you train someone then they'll want better pay and they'll be able to get it by switching jobs
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
carry on then posted:can we have a new york vs san francisco slapfight because those are always fascinating how is sf as dirty as the dirty parts of nyc i legit do not understand this
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
there are some good cities in the great lakes region. chicago, minneapolis/st. paul. i guess that's it really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:how is sf as dirty as the dirty parts of nyc which city has more public pooping?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Seattle is pretty awesome and we have legal weed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:how is sf as dirty as the dirty parts of nyc massive underinvestment in a lot of things
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:if you train someone then they'll want better pay and they'll be able to get it by switching jobs "what if we train our employees and then they go to other jobs" "what if we don't and they don't"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:this is the worst thing about flyover country, not the pay yeah id totes move back to kansas city despite the pay, but itd mean having to work somewhere like idk cerner meanwhile a few of the big names do have offices in toriville so id consider that a way better compromise in terms of options i sorta expect ill end up just saving a ton in sv then moving somewhere else and buying a place outright
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:i sorta expect ill end up just saving a ton in sv then moving somewhere else and buying a place outright cheap places are cheap for a reason i could fly out and buy a place outright in an ok mid-size market, with cash. but then i would own a house in a place where my career options are sharply limited. that's not a win, unless i intend to vacation there this is probably my retirement plan
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:this is probably my retirement plan i lie to myself too
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:this is probably my retirement plan same but not in america
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Elder Postsman posted:there are some good cities in the great lakes region. chicago, minneapolis/st. paul. i guess that's it really. yeah I feel like we're doing pretty well up here but I don't have sv or ny experience to compare it with
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
pr0zac posted:this is one of the main things sv cos have got right, still need to figure out how to fix the "managers make all the promotion/stock/bonus/raise decisions" thing tho my experience at FB is that it's harder for a manager to get a high rating or promotion than for a peer IC. substantially so, in fact. partly it's that there needs to be a role of sufficient scope for the new level, and we have more E7 technical challenges than we have M2 management scope slots. (I've never had a promotion at FB, and don't expect that I'll get one at this point. similarly, I've taken a minus-one rating for delivery gaps that I would definitely not hold as strongly against an E8.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:cheap places are cheap for a reason
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:my experience at FB is that it's harder for a manager to get a high rating or promotion than for a peer IC. substantially so, in fact. partly it's that there needs to be a role of sufficient scope for the new level, and we have more E7 technical challenges than we have M2 management scope slots. intel had "parallel" tracks for management & senior technical people, and there was a lot of reassuring talk about how people didn't have to choose ... still saw people choose
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:intel had "parallel" tracks for management & senior technical people, and there was a lot of reassuring talk about how people didn't have to choose 3m does the same thing, is intel a matrix org by chance? i think only matrix orgs can pull this off because nobody has a direct manager
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
no, I had direct lines my whole time there were dotted lines for a few select people, but by and large it was a pyramid. if i try to talk more i devolve into the local politics of the design team and groups within it, but the Standard Story was parallel tracks were available actually, the first 4 years of my career i went through 4 managers, all of whom quit managing people after a year of me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
makes sense, intel seems too functional to be a matrix org
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:makes sense, intel seems too functional to be a matrix org what's a "matrix org"? does that mean managers can boss around anybody?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
prefect posted:what's a "matrix org"? does that mean managers can boss around anybody? it typically means you have at least one manager for your overall area, and one manager for a specific project you're working on. the overall area manager is managing on everyone in allt he projects, the project manager is managing everyone in the same project regardless of division.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:makes sense, intel seems too functional to be a matrix org now i'm remembering them throwing that word around for some of the cross-functional teams reporting structures, pls don't make me remember
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:it typically means you have at least one manager for your overall area, and one manager for a specific project you're working on. the overall area manager is managing on everyone in allt he projects, the project manager is managing everyone in the same project regardless of division. is that different from having a project manager?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:it typically means you have at least one manager for your overall area, and one manager for a specific project you're working on. the overall area manager is managing on everyone in allt he projects, the project manager is managing everyone in the same project regardless of division. also you can be assigned to multiple projects. someone may have you set in microsoft project to be 30% on project a and 70% on project b what happens when project a and project b's PMs both come at you with a crisis?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
prefect posted:what's a "matrix org"? does that mean managers can boss around anybody? you have a dozen or more dotted-line bosses all competing for your attention, and each assigning you different work because none of your bosses ever get anything done or really give a poo poo what happens to you, promotions and raises are determined by how much impact you make on your bosses bosses, i.e. people you see like ten times a year
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:also you can be assigned to multiple projects. someone may have you set in microsoft project to be 30% on project a and 70% on project b roll a d 10?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:it typically means you have at least one manager for your overall area, and one manager for a specific project you're working on. the overall area manager is managing on everyone in allt he projects, the project manager is managing everyone in the same project regardless of division. so basically it allows for an exponential number of managers as the business grows instead of a merely linear number sounds awesome
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:so basically it allows for an exponential number of managers as the business grows instead of a merely linear number imagine doing a 360 review process to assign and monitor every single piece of work
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:imagine doing a 360 review process to assign and monitor every single piece of work i did a 420 review process with the vp of my group once, it was pretty chill, we had whisky too
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
i have never once in all my professional experience seen a matrix model work out well for the medium or long term. not once. it's like the simpsons communism joke. in theory it may sound nice but in practice...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
the second time I interviewed at yahoo they tried to explain their matrix org structure and I was just like  I talked to like 35 people that day
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:i have never once in all my professional experience seen a matrix model work out well for the medium or long term. not once. lmao wow it's like exactly how oldjob was set up. no wonder things were so hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:38
|
|