I'm 42. Most of the people I work with are in the 30s and 40s and have children. The stereotype of Google hiring nothing but Stanford grads has been over for a while.
As much as I like Aaron, here he is guilty of excessive generalization. Even in 2006 the claims don't match reality. I lived through the first dot.com boom in CA, where companies were falling hand over fist to offer perks, many of them financially unsustainable, because there was a huge competition to acquire and keep talent, as well as keep them in the office for long hours with the promise of striking it rich on what were often worthless stock options.
Google is pretty clear and upfront about what the compensation will be. Everything I was told about what to expect about stock grants, year bonuses, and benefits, has more or less hit the predicted windows. I was never really oversold on what my compensation would be and I was able to do financial planning around it because it was so transparent.
I also don't see what's wrong with 'infantilizing'. We lose creativity as we become adults because of the sheer numbers of rules, responsibilities, and requirements placed on us. If you want people to do good research or engineering, take away as much as possible impediments, like worry over money, laundry, or corporate politicking.
Do we also talk about Phd students and tenured professors in research labs being "infantilized" by an academic environment often isolated from the outside world? I don't view it as necessarily a bad thing. Although I guess you could claim that Einstein still did good work while working at the Patent Office.
All in all the essay is a rather convoluted and weak critique of Google culture and hiring practices based on anecdotal observations that don't match reality.
thanks. I also know people who work at Google who are hired straight of college just like described in the article. Can you or anyone provide us with
1. actual % of people in different age group working at google.
2. Please let me know what department you are working in. That might provide some insights.
Occasional Perks is great. However, if the company rely on that to retain its' employees than something rotten.
Google is just a new IBM, Dupon of our time.
I have heard that google will pay employee's family member $2000 every month after their death for 10, 20 years. I think that is great way to make people have great programming skills to stay with the company even if they are not doing anything exciting or creating values for humanities.
Even if I had the hard data, I doubt I would be at liberty to disclose them. I work on both infrastructure and on consumer facing apps stuff (like gmail). My role working on the GWT compiler means I interact with dozens of other product teams, so I have a pretty good idea of the average age of people I have to sit in meetings with.
Google used to be a youngish company with a low median average age, I'd say that started to change even as far back as 2005. The demographics of the company are greying.
I don't really stay at Google because of the food or other benefits, I stay because of the people, culture, and products. If it ever becomes a shitty place to work on those grounds, then a startup will start to look much better. Many Googlers have in fact encountered shitty politics within their particular area and left the company eventually.
That is, the idea that Google is not an interesting place to work, but a shitty workplace that needs to "bribe" people to stay because it's so rotten is so far from reality is hilarious. I think Google could drop a lot of the perks tomorrow, and there's be some disgruntled #firstworldproblems people whining, but they'd ultimately stay. As I mentioned and was quoted in this TechCrunch article (http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/25/sugar-water/) a lot of the problems that startups "solve" in the Valley are utterly trivial, and if you really want to work on stuff like flying stratospheric balloons, or grand mega-AIs, or whatever Jeff Dean is cooking up next, there aren't many places outside of academia you can flee to.
The perks by and large serve to keep employees happy and undistracted. Happy employees equals happy culture equals higher propensity to work together collaboratively instead of being shit balls to your co-workers because you don't have good healthcare, or must commute outside the office to get crappy subway sandwiches every day.
If you don't think Google is doing anything exciting, or creating value for humanities, than pray-tell, what company in this area that doesn't have great perks, is doing better in those categories?
Stating facts to correct erroneous claims isn't evangelization.
What is the moral of this story anyway? That your workplace shouldn't offer you free food, or have fun areas with cool statues, because a replica of SpaceShip One will "infantilize you"? And this is supposed to scare people into going to a "grown up" workplace and grey suits and expensive shitty food?
I used to pay high prices to eat lunch at IBM Cafeterias, and it was terrible food. But this infantilized me less?
Well, the whole point of TFA was that it's not really that easy to distinguish between the two notions, even if you consciously understand it.
That is, the employeer can use the "nice food / ping pong table" etc, in order to get people to work for free (unpaid overtime, crunch marches, uncompetitive pay, etc).
None of which are true for Google, which actually encourages healthy worklife balance even though many people don't take advantage of it. Google has many non-product related company objectives, for example, increasing the number of women in the company, or improving work life balance. Younger people without kids tend to avail themselves of the on-campus resources and stay late, I myself leave at 6pm. I do not sacrifice time with my kids in the evening for the sake of free food. (In general, I don't believe Google HR/People Ops believes that # of hours worked = increased output)
Here's the thing, you've got your view of the world, of Google, and then there's the reality, in which Googlers tell you that your model doesn't match the facts, or that Google is consistently rated one of the best places or work, or that Glassdoor rates Google in the top 50 companies for work/life balance. A sweat shop of induced labor via sweets and candy it is not.
But oh yeah, I might be completely brain washed and believe Larry Page is my best buddy, that's why I spend my nights on social media and hacking on game code, and not working on finishing up stuff at the office from home.
Thanks for the free gifts Larry, I promise from now on I will work long overtime hours for free.
As much as I like Aaron, here he is guilty of excessive generalization. Even in 2006 the claims don't match reality. I lived through the first dot.com boom in CA, where companies were falling hand over fist to offer perks, many of them financially unsustainable, because there was a huge competition to acquire and keep talent, as well as keep them in the office for long hours with the promise of striking it rich on what were often worthless stock options.
Google is pretty clear and upfront about what the compensation will be. Everything I was told about what to expect about stock grants, year bonuses, and benefits, has more or less hit the predicted windows. I was never really oversold on what my compensation would be and I was able to do financial planning around it because it was so transparent.
I also don't see what's wrong with 'infantilizing'. We lose creativity as we become adults because of the sheer numbers of rules, responsibilities, and requirements placed on us. If you want people to do good research or engineering, take away as much as possible impediments, like worry over money, laundry, or corporate politicking.
Do we also talk about Phd students and tenured professors in research labs being "infantilized" by an academic environment often isolated from the outside world? I don't view it as necessarily a bad thing. Although I guess you could claim that Einstein still did good work while working at the Patent Office.
All in all the essay is a rather convoluted and weak critique of Google culture and hiring practices based on anecdotal observations that don't match reality.