Slashdot Mirror
Has Google Lost Its Mojo?
CWmike writes "Google looks as if it's on top of the world right now, holding an ever-increasing lion's share of the search market. So why do I think it's lost its mojo? Let's start with the way it treats its employees, writes Preston Gralla. Another example: Google employees, such as Sergey Solyanik, have started deserting the company. And its share price is down double that of the Dow or Nasdaq since November 2007. Even if Google has lost its mojo, why should you care? It won't make your searches any less effective, will it? Nope. But Google has its eyes on bigger things than search, notably your IT department. It's looking to displace Microsoft with hosted services like Google Apps, Gmail and Google Docs. Solyanik warns that Google's engineers care more about the 'coolness' of a service than about the service's effectiveness." Of course Google employees version of being mistreated is often laughable, and quite a shock when they look for their massage therapist at wherever they end up next.
Google has lost some of it's Mojo. But the good news is that they still have plenty of Mo-Nay. They are also high on the "X does not suck as bad as Y" matrix.
[signature]
...is one guy who returned to Microsoft, the price of an employee service was raised, and the stock price is lower than it was at a point in the past.
I don't think that's enough to declare that Google has lost its mojo. Think of how many times Apple was "dying" according to the press. I think this author is just bored with Google and wants to cause a stir.
"Sufferin' succotash."
This actually reminds me of a story of the wandering engineer. They'd work for google, then move to MS because they lack quality control.
And because MS offered a 10% higher salary than they were making at Google.
The engineer would then transfer to Yahoo because MS isn't doing anything interesting.
And because Yahoo offered a 10% higher salary than they were making at MS.
They'd then move to Google and start the cycle anew because Yahoo wasn't on the cutting edge.
And because Google offered a 10% higher salary than they were making at Yahoo.
such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them
Because, as we all know it is impossible to raise children if one of the parents doesn't stay at home.
Other than that, I'd say your argument is pretty solid. Employers aren't responsible for an employee's children.
such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them
Because, as we all know it is impossible to raise children if one of the parents doesn't stay at home.
Other than that, I'd say your argument is pretty solid. Employers aren't responsible for an employee's children.
Yeah, technically all of you are right. What has been found is that having childcare greatly reduces the stress of workers: they don't have to worry about working late, they can visit their kid on lunch breaks if the daycare is on site, company care is just one trip, it's usually cheaper, etc...
Having company sponsored childcare doesn't mean other employees are getting paid less, is just means the stockholders are not seeing as big of a profit as they could have. If Google really had to pay less because of childcare then they wouldn't be able to get anyone good, especially the childless - they'd all go to higher paying companies, wouldn't they?
As for me, I like in house childcare because you don't get the BS (most of the time) of folks with kids having to run home every time their kid is sick; which makes my life less stressful because then I don't have to make up for them.
What about their laundry service? Why should they provide that? What about the people who have their own washers at home?
What about the car servicing thing? What about the people that don't have cars?
What about the bus service with Wifi? What about people who live close and don't need the bus?
By your logic all these are discrimination against people who don't need these services.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
There are good and bad aspects to both. Choose your poison.
Yeah! And while we're at it, why should I have to pay taxes that go to old, sick and young people I don't even know! It's unjust!
May the Maths Be with you!
[...] or who responsibly make arrangements for them to be cared for (such as *gasp* having Mom stay home and actually raise them)
Because having Mom stay at home is the "responsible" thing to do? So the choice for women is motherhood XOR employment? I won't deny that having someone at home fulltime is the optimal situation (definitely not always possible), but maybe *Dad* could stay home...?
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun
Seriously? "Women should abandon their careers to beome housewives" gets modded +5? WTF is wrong with this website?
If you really need an answer to your stupid rhetorical question:
1. The vast majority of women in the US have little interest in permanently abandoning their careers.
2. Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet.
3. On-site daycare is a good way to attract employees, because it provides a benefit (having your kids in the same building) that is worth a lot more to the employees than it costs to the company.
4. If you lure those employees in with this benefit, thus potentially drawing them away from another job with a better salary, and then ditch the benefit, you're screwing them. I dunno if it's "age discrimination," but it's at least somewhat a dick move.
Pardon me, but I would be very surprised if Google, unlike the vast majority of all daycare centers (daycare, mind, not pre-k or kindergarten) allowed sick and potentially contagious children. The better daycares I've had experience with will insist that you come and get your child if they have made it in with such an illness. Any illness, no matter how minor it might seem, spreads so quickly amongst kids of that age, especially in close proximity. Plus, though I really don't know if it's a stated or valid reason, I imagine that allowing visibly ill children to remain at the daycare presents some degree of liability that would rather be avoided. But I do think you are right about in-house daycare being a great deal more efficient, especially for a company of sufficient size, especially in terms of worker-parent efficiency.
You think Google would offer a higher salary? Not if your just a normal engineer guy. They'll give you what they want to give you, and you better be grateful you're getting the offer in the first place, buddy.
I made probably about 20-25% less than my similarly-employed friends. Google likes to say that it compensates in other ways. I calculated that the free food alone was worth about $8000 per year to me. The yearly bonuses were beyond generous. I negotiated a good stock grant when I was hired. But the actual pay pretty much sucks, and they're cutting back in all sorts of ways. I saw it happening starting in late 2006, and it kept on rolling. They'll cut back on perks and then try to convince everyone they have the best thing going regardless, especially with regards to recruiting (keep pushing that 20% project myth, guys...). A certain TGIF is a good example (TGIF is a big gathering in Charlie's Cafe every Friday at 4:30, where Larry and/or Sergey and/or Eric talk about company issues and take questions).
During the QA portion, a guy got up and asked about our health care plan. Apparently, it wasn't as good as Microsoft's, yet in a then-recent magazine article, Eric said that we had the best benefits in the world and was really talking up the perks - even as they were routinely being scaled back. So this guy was comparing notes with his MS buddy and our health plan wasn't all that great (the dental in particular was worse than some government jobs I've had). Eric said he'd look at it and get back to us. (One of the things I really liked about working there was that sort of transparency and openness.)
Couple weeks later, same guy gets up to ask about what they found out. Eric says they did the numbers, and it was going to cost a few 10s of millions more per year to implement a comparable health plan. So, no dice. The crowd generally grumbled, and Eric was quick to pipe up with "But just think, by working here, you get to change the world!"
Was shortly after that I gave serious thought about examining my options. I'm not sure if/how that influenced my decision to leave, but some kool-aid you should never drink.
No, the only way to get more money at Google is to work 80 hours a week or sleep with someone important. Leaving and coming back won't do it, unless you're a high-flier and they're trying to headhunt you back for some particular reason.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
I pay way more into the system than I get back.
...for now.
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
2. Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet.
Ahh, we are in "America", land of needless consumption.
The VAST majority of my coworkers who think/thought they NEEDED a second income, really did not. They CHOOSE the lifestyle.
I am not criticizing the choice, it is not my business, BUT, We really need to learn the difference between the words NEED and WANT.
Full disclosure, my wife has "halted" her career to raise our kids.
Because you live in a society, not a deserted island, so you can't always have your way.
On the other hand, by providing a basic living to the poor, you keep them from getting desperate enough to decide that they have nothing to lose since they're going to die of hunger anyway and can thus as well kill you and loot your corpse for spare change.
Social welfare keeps financial inequality from destroying the society. Humans are beasts, and starving beasts are dangerous. It's much more practical and cheaper too to simply feed them rather than trying to control them by force of arms.
Besides, all the rights you have are ultimately based on your perceived value as a human being. A society which doesn't value humans is unlikely to respect their rights either, and a society which lets its members starve to death obviously doesn't value them much. So, to answer your question: you have to pay taxes that support the weak because you live in a nice, touchy-feely bleeding-heart near-utopia rather than the hellpits of ancient Rome or modern-day third-world nations. You poor bastard.
Oh, sorry: even the Roman emperors provided bread to the poor, so they wouldn't riot and kill them. I guess modern-day libertarians can't quite live up to Caligula's or Nero's standards of morality and statesmanship skills.
And yes, that last bit was pure flamebait, triggered after reading one too many "My taxes support the poor ! Waaah !" post.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Even if they wanted to, a lot of households NEED two incomes to make ends meet. Even though, in the vast majority of cases, each parent by themselves earns a lot more in real terms than households with a single earner typically did, say, fifty years ago? It would be more accurate to say they need to incomes to keep up with the lifestyle of other people with two incomes.
Ok, I live in england, and I'm pretty sure our house prices are way higher than the states, but here's my two cents...
I'm 22, and I work full time in banking in london. Its a long commute, a long day and often means working late and at weekends. I have a girlfriend and an 18mo boy. She stays at home because a) she hated her job and didn't want to go back after maternity, and b) we decided that having a parent around all day was better than daycare.
These are our lifestyle choices, and I accept that. HOWEVER, because of the number of two income families, if you want to buy a house you need two incomes. I have a pretty well paid job and live in a pretty cheap area, and I'm still forced to rent the scummy flat I live in now. If we were to say... double my salary, we could afford to BUY a small nice house. The Problem is that because the MAJORITY of families are dual income, people can afford to buy nicer houses, until it gets to a point where you NEED two incomes to buy ANY house.
The "sexual revolution" has been the best thing for the economy and "growth" since the industrial revolution. I'm happy with the choices our family have made, but we are very poor, financially because of it. The trade off is a happy healthy son and home life. I'd rather my son had a parent all day than we had a nicer house that none of us ever saw because of work/daycare.
Having company sponsored childcare doesn't mean other employees are getting paid less, is just means the stockholders are not seeing as big of a profit as they could have. If Google really had to pay less because of childcare then they wouldn't be able to get anyone good, especially the childless - they'd all go to higher paying companies, wouldn't they?
For employees without children it certainly does mean they get paid less unless the company puts that added compensation/benefit it costs them for providing that care for people with children directly onto their salary in cold hard cash.
so, if I don't wear glasses, no one should have eye care?
If I don't have any health problems, no one should get a medical plan?
If my parents are rich, no one should get social security?
Christ, do you people have any concept of what "society" actually is? Maybe we should all go back to living in caves, and the person with the best spear aim gets all the meat, and everyone else starves. And yes, in most companies I've worked in, you get a certain amount of benefit dollars, to use as you see fit, and if you don't use them all, you get a credit on your pay. But it still doesn't subsidize the entire cost.
The whole point of shared benefits, or car insurance for that matter, is that you average out the cost for some peoples care amongst the whole pool, resulting in lower average costs for everyone. The "value added" is that these people don't go bankrupt, default on their mortgages, clog up emergency rooms for minor illnesses, become criminals and rob others to support themselves, or otherwise become a burden on society. (and by "burden" I mean "cost". You're either going to pay up front to help them, or pay at the end to deal with them.)
That's a concept you either believe in, or you don't. If you don't, then go ahead and opt out. If you ever find yourself or your children with cancer or a serious illness, well you can just take a couple aspirin and go to bed until you feel better.
What's that? You don't have any paid sick days? Aww, that's too bad. Maybe we should have forced euthanasia for people who can't take care of themselves? Fuck 'em if they can't make it on their own.