I don't have a Reddit account as I've never found the inclination to be part of that community, but the two thoughts on the topic I would raise here (which pertain to engineering jobs):
1) For all the perks (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/clz1m/google_empl...) I believe I can 'buy' them myself for <$10,000 year (expensive lunches, gym membership, pay someone to wash my clothes, etc). Given that Google only pays average wages, this means that so long as I am working somewhere that is paying me over $10k above average salary, then I'm doing better than a Googler.
2) On bonuses, Google will give several $million to key folks who were instrumental in the success of high-profile google products (eg Google Maps folks walked away with several $million each). Don't forget, though, that unlike a startup the tax situation on that is probably rough - normal income rather than capital gains.
I guess both of the above indicate that, for me at my stage in my career, money considerations are a key part of where I place myself as a resource over 'cool place to work' - which is a reason I don't work for Google.
Agreed, but worth noting that a lot of places that pay more than average also suck your soul away in the bargain. That's of course not true of all places, but banks, for example, tend to be a whole lot less fun to work at than Google. The "is it a fun job" factor should not be underestimated (unless you really just care about money, which is the case for some people - and I'm not saying this as a negative).
> For all the perks (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/clz1m/google_empl...) I believe I can 'buy' them myself for <$10,000 year (expensive lunches, gym membership, pay someone to wash my clothes, etc). Given that Google only pays average wages, this means that so long as I am working somewhere that is paying me over $10k above average salary, then I'm doing better than a Googler.
That is totally true, if your goal is strictly money & material goods.
Google offers the perks mostly as a way to build community. And in this respect, it seems to work. There are lots of employers in Silicon Valley that will pay me good money. There are very few functioning communities - particularly in Silicon Valley, where it seems everybody's out for the gigantic payday.
Assuming you mean community in the sense of employee community/camaraderie than I think you are astute and absolutely right with your observations.
As an alternative to a gigantic payday or not, though, I wouldn't want to be part of the Google world. I interact with it directly and it seems very insular and elitist (I have friends who work there, I'm involved with a number of Google initiatives, I visit the 'Plex a few times a year, etc.).
My experience is that Googler's end up down a rabbit hole of their own self-importance and loose touch of the rest of the professional world. A bit like college students at an Ivy-League school loosing touch with the real world.
Yes, even without a gigantic payday, I'll take the option that isn't the 'Google community'.
Money and material good are not 'strictly' my goal but I think everyone involved in entrepreneurial activities has to be focused on wealth creation as a considerable driver. I'm also double digit years into my career and done the "big co" thing already.
You said it twice, otherwise I wouldn't note it: the phrase is "losing touch," not "loosing touch."
To say something directly though, I think that wealth creation is a distinct from money. Even if you yourself can get many of those perks with a higher-paying job, the total wealth in the world is less than if that company gave you those things outright, since a variety of economies of scale would kick in.
And maybe Google's society is overly insular. That said, I don't really want the forced walled garden of Apple or the short-sighted pragmatism of Microsoft to infect Google.
(That said, Google isn't perfect, and they do have a variety of areas where they seem to be falling victim at least to the forced walled garden stuff.)
It's simple maths. Let's say that in SF an average programmer makes $100k and works 50 hrs/week. If Google can spend $10k on perks and get its people to average 56 hrs/week then it's onto a winner.
In reality when you consider that Google will be buying said perks in bulk, and that people will stay even longer, it might be paying 5% more and getting 20% more work. At the end of the day Google is a corporation like any other. Just one with better PR.
Seems to be paying off. I wouldn't be at all surprised if at Google HR they have a graph of man-hours worked vs perks budget. Or velocity, in Agile terms vs perks.
>I believe I can 'buy' them myself for <$10,000 year
The simple convenience of having a lot of good food options onsite is of significant value. If you have to spend your life going to the dry cleaners, driving to lunch, driving to the gym, and on and on and on, it can really reduce your use and enjoyment of those facilities.
1) For all the perks (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/clz1m/google_empl...) I believe I can 'buy' them myself for <$10,000 year (expensive lunches, gym membership, pay someone to wash my clothes, etc). Given that Google only pays average wages, this means that so long as I am working somewhere that is paying me over $10k above average salary, then I'm doing better than a Googler.
2) On bonuses, Google will give several $million to key folks who were instrumental in the success of high-profile google products (eg Google Maps folks walked away with several $million each). Don't forget, though, that unlike a startup the tax situation on that is probably rough - normal income rather than capital gains.
I guess both of the above indicate that, for me at my stage in my career, money considerations are a key part of where I place myself as a resource over 'cool place to work' - which is a reason I don't work for Google.