> don't even know given the cost of living in the Bay Area if $300K is even really "high" anymore.
> If you max out 401k and IRA this is $275k, which is $168K take home or $14k a month.
> Left over: $7400
That sounds like a lot to me? I think the vast majority of the US would absolutely be ecstatic if they could save 7400 a month on top of maxing their 401k.
Just maxing my 401k (with employer match) I'll already have enough for my own retirement. Most people aren't able to do even that though =/
If you wanted to buy a place then your left over is probably closer to $3400/month.
I haven't added less regular expenses like personal travel costs (maybe another $400/mo on average), misc shopping/clothing ($100), and gym membership ($80).
Average tenure is heavily skewed by massive head count growth. When you add 20,000 employees in one year (Google, 2019) + replace the churn from the population of 100,000 people hopping companies for more compensation, it will drive your average tenure number way down. This is a commonly referenced but completely invalid argument. Very few people are pushed out at the large, stable tech companies.
The context here is "the price at which you sell out". You can simultaneously believe that 120k is a massive salary, and also a sad, disappointing level for a person to sell out.
> Does that not apply to most investments? The stock market, aftre all, only works as an investment because everyone is in on an elaborate confidence game.
I don't think this is true?
As far as I can tell, there is no reason for housing prices to increase on their own. I suppose you can make the argument for increased population growth but we haven't reached the point where this is a problem, at least in the US.
On the other hand, businesses exist for the sole purpose of making money. Literally everyone in the company is (supposed to be) working towards the goal of increasing profits.
I work at Google (not Search though sorry), opinions are my own.
> When you have the actual manufacturer being buried in the results, we have a major problem.
How do you know though? What if the majority users actually do what you describe in hopes of buying something and thus the shopping results are more relevant for them?
I imagine either there is a bug or this is the case, because I'm sure the links people actually click feed back into the algorithms and the results are modified accordingly.
This being said, it seems like the fact that your results aren't personalized enough to your liking is a shortcoming, assuming you were signed in.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Third-party shopping results are shown on page one and the manufacturer's store is on page two, and people rarely go beyond page one so naturally they will click the Amazon results. This in turn feeds the algorithm and reinforces its original assumption.
Are games not already legitimized? I feel like with the rise of casual mobile games, almost everyone plays them now.
> Really, the only downside I see with them is that they can displace exercise and face-to-face communication -- I know games can be social, but you really just need time talking to other people with no distractions. But if you balance your life appropriately, why not?
My issue with video games is that playing them too much, especially when young, increases your dopamine tolerance too much. Many of them are designed to be addicting.
I have mostly stopped playing video games and feel mental well being has significantly improved.
Of course, that's not to say I think they should be banned or anything but in my humble opinion you are ignoring the significant downsides of playing video games. That being said, I have many fond memories and friendships created through video games too! Like most things there's good and bad.
> And he is the most impressive CEO in this generation, perhaps in history, so long hours must work for some people.
Even if we assume the first statement is true, which is a big if, it still doesn't necessarily support the idea that working long hours is good. After all, you can't tell whether he was successful because of, or despite the long hours.
I think there's something to be said for the nature of the work you are doing. If you absolutely love what you're doing, you can burn hours long and fast and hard. I think Elon gets his head wrapped around a problem and just eats lives and breathes that problem to the point that the long hours are natural. I've been there on stuff, where I have to fight to tear myself away rather than fighting to keep myself doing it. The latter sucks and will destroy you quickly, but the former isn't so bad for the psyche.
I assume the thinking is that if the ROI is not high enough, then you might as well just invest that money into the more profitable portions of your business.
The problem is that there's no real way to measure and appropriately attribute expense and profit to cloud; most infrastructures are shared across Google products and cloud. Simply put, none of ads, search or YT cannot exist without the cloud infrastructure.
> I still lay claim that google is not hiring the talent that they think they are or claim to be.
Obviously I am biased. I don't think I'm particularly great or anything, but I find my colleagues to be by far the most capable I've ever worked with, and I did previously work at AWS, where engineers were also very smart.
> With such huge budgets and failed product after failed product one has to wonder what is the genesis of their failings.
Personally I think it's an issue with management structure rather than individuals. Frankly I don't think smart people matter all that much.. for the most part you only need sufficiently smart people to do their job, and good culture/management will make the team shine. I'd argue that engineers are individually significantly less important than product managers and managers.
That being said, I think the issue is that Google is just too engineering focused. This makes it a wonderful place to work, but I don't think it leads to great products most of the time. It's fine for products like search and ads, where you can literally measure if you are making improvements, but not so good for most products.
Engineers are more or less allowed to pick what they want to work on. Again, I enjoy this flexibility, but I think it also leads to a lack of focus, especially when product managers probably have a much better understanding of what customers want or need.
Of course, Google is a massive company so I don't know how reflective my own experience is of the larger picture! This is just my personal feeling.
> I’m amazed to hear this from programmers. You can learn this for free, anywhere, at any time.
Some people are more passionate about their jobs than others no matter the discipline.
I love my job but it's still just something I do to fund my actual dreams/passion. Why would I spend more time on it than I need to when I already feel like I don't have enough time for my own interests?
> If you max out 401k and IRA this is $275k, which is $168K take home or $14k a month.
> Left over: $7400
That sounds like a lot to me? I think the vast majority of the US would absolutely be ecstatic if they could save 7400 a month on top of maxing their 401k.
Just maxing my 401k (with employer match) I'll already have enough for my own retirement. Most people aren't able to do even that though =/