From what I've seen, I don't think $5K per year is a big chunk of a Facebook engineer's compensation. In any case, the bigger issue is that this situation exposes how utterly dependent these engineers are on their employer, not just for money but for basic life functionality. Only a tiny number of companies in the world offer this level of "service" to employees. What happens if and when they no longer work at Facebook? The company has seemingly turned its employees into helpless children, or at least never forced them to grow up after leaving college. If "continue to live like you're in the dorm" is a "perk", maybe it shouldn't be.
They haven't been in the office since March iirc. If they were utterly dependent on this perk, they would literally be dead by now.
If you think they're spoiled for ever having this perk, using it, missing it, and/or complaining about its absence, I won't try to convince you otherwise. I agree it's something the vast majority of people never had, much less get to enjoy during the pandemic. I'm just adding some context which I thought you might be missing when describing it as "snacks".
Anyway, I'm going to shut up on the topic now, as it's not as important to me as content moderation. I don't work for Facebook and don't plan to (sorry, recruiter who emailed me yesterday), so their employee perks affect me only very loosely as they shape industry trends. In contrast, I think the content moderation has a surprisingly huge effect on everyone. Facebook is where a lot of people find the content that shapes their opinions. It may sway the US presidential election.
I think thats an unfair, and frankly agist extrapolation. I can cook for myself every day and there is plenty of inefficiency in that action. Its wasteful, the food isnt as good as a professional, I have to shop and waste gas, I have to pay retail pricing. Or I could use the shared resource thats done professionally and efficiently. We are engineers, are we not programmed to reduce complexity and waste. I dont think its fair yo assume they couldnt cook for themselves if they thought it was needed.
> I think thats an unfair, and frankly agist extrapolation.
Is it ageist to point out that Facebook is ageist in its hiring and operations? Or that Facebook encourages its employees to be overly dependent on Facebook?
What some would view as a "perk" — the company providing every meal — others would view as a downside. What if you prefer to be home and have meals with your family?
"A major sell to candidates is our office perks include free food"
"with work from home, we’ve lost a huge financial part of our package"
For those who prefer not eating meals at the office, how fair is it that this is considered a significant perk of Facebook employment? I'd say that whole thing could be considered kind of ageist. It's certainly highly unusual, compared to most other workplaces in the world.
You mentioned "inefficiency", but it seems that efficiency is ruling out relationships with people outside of work. ;-)
I wasn't worried about facebook, mostly just commenting that its unfair to assume these individuals who creat 400k+ in value to their companies a year aren't able to cook for themselves if they have to because they are young. I think its more likely that they are taking advantage of economic incentives.
I dont really have an opinion about facebooks agism in their hiring.
I just think you are making an unfounded assumption.
> I think its more likely that they are taking advantage of economic incentives.
My question is, who is taking advantage of whom? As I said originally, "one may fairly ask whether Facebook's hiring process produced this result."
It seems like Facebook specifically targets people who are amenable to Facebook's "caretaker" benefits, and then encourages those people to become dependent on those benefits. If you work for Facebook, you may have the choice of "taking advantage" of those incentives, but most people outside of Facebook don't have the choice: they're forced to take care of themselves. This is not necessarily a bad thing though, because self-reliance is an important life skill. If short-term economic incentives prevent you from learning important life skills, this may actually be to your long-term disadvantage. I'm not sure Facebook is doing anyone any favors in this respect.
If you think about it, why would Facebook approach hiring and employment any different from how Facebook approaches everything else? The goal is ultimately to increase "engagement" with Facebook.
> I don't think $5K per year is a big chunk of a Facebook engineer's compensation
Whether it's <1% or >10% of their compensation, any cut should be acknowledged.
You could feed yourself well, delicious and healthy food, 2000 wholesome calories a day, for 5 days a week. 20 days a month where you effectively don't have to buy groceries or eat out.
Food is a part of the compensation package at FB and other companies where money sloshes around in giant buckets.
> What happens if and when they no longer work at Facebook?
They get paid less. Plenty of people have left companies like FB et al for smaller companies where you have to buy your own lunch and they're fine. Not sure why you're so excited to pull a "kids these days" here.
> Not sure why you're so excited to pull a "kids these days" here.
I wouldn't say it's kids these days. Facebook employees are not representative of the wider public.
The question that really made me shake my head wasn't the one about food but rather "Can we build a quarantined Facebook city? Like, buying an island and all of us working there?"
