The numbers I've seen on blind are mostly accurate. The issue is that people only report on blind when their comp is at p95 of market. Making $350k is a bit of a trope on blind. You either make $350k, or peanuts.
> Hiring standards must have fallen if they added people so rapidly
I have been hearing this about Meta / FB for the last 10 years. This line of thinking is overly simplistic. If a company like FB wants to ramp up hiring, they have many tools at their disposal. Hiring bar isn't the only tool, or even a very important one. Things they can do:
1. They can really jack up the compensation package and signing bonuses
2. Open offices in places where they didn't have any presence
3. Open up to remote work
4. Allow flexible hours
5. Increase retention through outstanding perks and benefits
6. Scale hiring efforts - expand the recruiting org, train more employees to conduct interview, reward employees for referrals and conduct interviews
7. Expand outreach into communities from where we historically didn't get much applicants
Meta tried everything above, and possibly more. Hiring bar doesn't matter when you have boatload of money.
Ok maybe you're right (I have no experience of trying to integrate huge numbers of people coming from outside big tech in a way that doesn't devalue their skills), but I would feel a bit concerned for my future compensation regarding #2, #3 and #4 in your list if I wasn't extremely bullish about the future of the business (especially #3).
Almost certainly not. In aggregate - may be, but looking at individual user search history without strong business reason and approval would be a quick way to get fired.
Generally, people have very little to be scared of big tech rank and file employees. It's not worth losing our job to satisfy morbid curiosity.
I can only talk about one of the letters in FAANG. Just my observation.
We definitely hire 50+ or even 60+ people. In my experience, all of the internal processes are designed to remove individual bias. You can get hired and be successful.
The problem arises when there's a mismatch in expectation. Suppose you look at your years of experience and shoot for IC7+. The bar for IC7 is _high_. From and IC7, they expect to see org-wide impact in your current role. An org is 1000+ people. Most ICs can spend an entire lifetime and not have that level of impact.
Basically, experience has little to do with level or comp. If you can lead a small team with a few people, are willing to come in at IC5, and fine with making 450k+, I don't see a problem with age.
> Antivaxxers are probably not highly intelligent.. But they will think they are because of Dunning-Kruger effect.
DK is basically “people of all ability levels tend to see themselves slightly closer to the 70th percentile than they are”, not “people at the bottom see themselves at the top”.
