| ▲ | avidiax 8 hours ago |
| Employers, even the rich FANG types, are quite penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to developer hardware. Limiting the number and size of monitors. Putting speedbumps (like assessments or doctor's notes) on ergo accessories. Requiring special approval for powerful hardware. Requiring special approval for travel, and setting hotel and airfare caps that haven't been adjusted for inflation. To be fair, I know plenty of people that would order the highest spec MacBook just to do web development and open 500 chrome tabs. There is abuse. But that abuse is really capped out at a few thousand in laptops, monitors and workstations, even with high-end specs, which is just a small fraction of one year's salary for a developer. |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Every well funded startup I’ve worked for went through a period where employees could get nearly anything they asked for: New computers, more monitors, special chairs, standing desks, SaaS software, DoorDash when working late. If engineers said they needed it, they got it. Then some period of time later they start looking at spending in detail and can’t believe how much is being spent by the 25% or so who abuse the possibly. Then the controls come. > There is abuse. But that abuse is really capped out at a few thousand in laptops, monitors and workstations, even with high-end specs, You would think, but in the age of $6,000 fully specced MacBook Pros, $2,000 monitors, $3,000 standing desks, $1500 iPads with $100 Apple pencils and $300 keyboard cases, $1,000 chairs, SaaS licenses that add up, and (if allowed) food delivery services for “special circumstances” that turns into a regular occurrence it was common to see individuals incurring expenses in the tens of thousands range. It’s hard to believe if you’re a person who moderates their own expenditures. Some people see a company policy as something meant to be exploited until a hidden limit is reached. There also starts to be some soft fraud at scales higher than you’d imagine: When someone could get a new laptop without questions, old ones started “getting stolen” at a much higher rate. When we offered food delivery for staying late, a lot of people started staying just late enough for the food delivery to arrive while scrolling on their phones and then walking out the door with their meal. |
| |
| ▲ | incone123 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | $3,000 standing desks?? It's some wood, metal and motors. I got one from IKEA in about 2018 for 500 gbp and it's still my desk today. You can get Chinese ones now for about 150 gbp. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The people demanding new top spec MacBook Pros every year aren’t the same people requesting the cheapest Chinese standing desk they can find. |
| |
| ▲ | baq 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > individuals incurring expenses in the tens of thousands range peanuts compared to their 500k TC | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 17 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Very few companies pay $500K. Even at FAANG a lot of people are compensated less than that. I do think a lot of this comment section is assuming $500K TC employees at employers with infinite cash to spend, though. |
| |
| ▲ | master_crab 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | There also starts to be some soft fraud at scales higher than you’d imagine: When someone could get a new laptop without questions, old ones started “getting stolen” at a much higher rate. When we offered food delivery for staying late, a lot of people started staying just late enough for the food delivery to arrive while scrolling on their phones and then walking out the door with their meal. Ehh. Neither of these are soft fraud. The former is outright law-breaking, the latter…is fine. They stayed till they were supposed to. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > the latter…is fine. They stayed till they were supposed to. This is the soft fraud mentality: If a company offers meal delivery for people who are working late who need to eat at the office and then people start staying late (without working) and then taking the food home to eat, that’s not consistent with the policies. It was supposed to be a consolation if someone had to (or wanted to, as occurred with a lot of our people who liked to sleep in) stay late to work. It was getting used instead for people to avoid paying out of pocket for their own dinners even though they weren’t doing any more work. Which is why we can’t have nice things: People see these policies as an opportunity to exploit them rather than use them as intended. | | |
| ▲ | humanrebar 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Are you saying the mentality is offensive? Or is there a business justification I am missing? Note that employers do this as well. A classic one is a manager setting a deadline that requires extreme crunches by employees. They're not necessarily compensating anyone more for that. Are the managers within their rights? Technically. The employees could quit. But they're shaving hours, days, and years off of employees without paying for it. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It’s basic expense fraud. If a company policy says you can expense meals when taking clients out, but sales people started expensing their lunches when eating alone, it’s clearly expense fraud. I think this is obvious to everyone. Yet when engineers are allowed to expense meals when they’re working late and eating at the office, but people who are neither working late nor eating at the office start expensing their meals, that’s expense fraud. These things are really not gray area. It seems more obvious when we talk about sales people abusing budgets, but there’s a blind spot when we start talking about engineers doing it. |
| |
| ▲ | master_crab 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | soft fraud mentality This isn’t about fraud anymore. It’s about how suspiciously managers want to view their employees. That’s a separate issue (but not one directed at employees). | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If a company says you have permission to spend money on something for a purpose, but employees are abusing that to spend money on something that clearly violates that stated purpose, that’s into fraud territory. This is why I call it the soft fraud mentality: When people see some fraudulent spending and decide that it’s fine because they don’t think the policy is important. Managers didn’t care. It didn’t come out of their budget. It was the executives who couldn’t ignore all of the people hanging out in the common areas waiting for food to show up and then leaving with it all together, all at once. Then nothing changed after the emails reminding them of the purpose of the policy. When you look at the large line item cost of daily food delivery and then notice it’s not being used as intended, it gets cut. | | |
| ▲ | master_crab 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This might come as a bit of a surprise to you, but most (really all) employees are in it for money. So if you are astonished that people optimize for their financial gain, that’s concerning. That’s why you implement rules. If you start trying to tease apart the motivations people have even if they are following those rules, you are going to end up more paranoid than Stalin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | forgotusername6 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just to do web development? I regularly go into swap running everything I need on my laptop. Ideally I'd have VScode, webpack, and jest running continuously. I'd also occasionally need playwright. That's all before I open a chrome tab. |
|
| ▲ | loeg an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think you're maybe underestimating the aggregate cost of totally unconstrained hardware/travel spending across tens or hundreds of thousands of employees, and overestimating the benefits. There need to be some limits or speedbumps to spending, or a handful of careless employees will spend the moon. |
| |
| ▲ | adverbly an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It's the opposite. You're underestimating the scope of time lost by losing a few percent in productivity per employee across hundreds of thousands of employees. You want speed limits not speed bumps. And they should be pretty high limits... | | |
| ▲ | loeg an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't believe anyone is losing >1% productivity from these measures (at FANG employers). |
| |
| ▲ | corimaith an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The cost of a good office chair is comparable to a top tier gaming pc, if not higher. | | |
| ▲ | kec an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Not for an enterprise buying (or renting) furniture in bulk it isn’t. The chair will also easily last a decade and be turned over to the next employee if this one leaves… unlike computer hardware which is unlikely to be reused and will historically need to be replaced every 24-36 months even if your dev sticks around anyway. | |
| ▲ | loeg an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are there any FANG employers unwilling to provide good office chairs? I think even cheap employers offer these. | | |
| ▲ | thenewwazoo 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | There are many that won’t even assign desks, much less provide decent chairs. Amazon and LinkedIn are two examples I know from personal experience. |
|
| |
| ▲ | BlandDuck an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Scaling cuts both ways. You may also be underestimating the aggregate benefits of slight improvements added up across hundreds or thousands of employees. For a single person, slight improvements added up over regular, e.g., daily or weekly, intervals compound to enormous benefits over time. XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1205/ | | |
| ▲ | Retric 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The breakeven rate on developer hardware is based on the value a company extracts not their salary. Someone making X$/year directly has a great deal of overhead in terms of office space and managers etc, and above that the company only employees them because the company gains even more value. Saving 1 second/employee/day can quickly be worth 10+$/employee/year (or even several times that). But you rarely see companies optimizing their internal processes based on that kind of perceived benefits. Water cooler placement in a cube farm comes to mind as a surprisingly valuable optimization problem. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | tgma 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| FANG is not monolithic. Amazon is famously cheap. So is Apple in my opinion based on what I have heard (you get random refurbished hardware that is available not some standardized thing, sometimes with 8GB RAM sometimes something nicer) Apple is also famously cheap on their compensation. Back in the day they proudly said shit to the effect of "we deliberately don't pay you top of the market because you have to love Apple" to which the only valid answer is "go fuck yourself." Google and Facebook I don't think are cheap for developers. I can speak firsthand for my past Google experience. You have to note that the company has like 200k employees and there needs to be some controls and not all of the company are engineers. Hardware -> for the vast majority of stuff, you can build with blaze (think bazel) on a build cluster and cache, so local CPU is not as important. Nevertheless, you can easily order other stuff should you need to. Sure, if you go beyond the standard issue, your cost center will be charged and your manager gets an email. I don't think any decent manager would block you. If they do, change teams. Some powerful hardware that needs approval is blanket whitelisted for certain orgs that recognize such need. Trips -> Google has this interesting model you have a soft cap for trips and if you don't hit the cap, you pocket half of the trips credit in your account which you can choose to spend later when you are overcap or you want to get something slightly nicer the next time. Also, they have clear and sane policies on mixing personal and corporate travel. I encourage everyone to learn about and deploy things like that in their companies. The caps are usually not unreasonable, but if you do hit them, it is again an email to your management chain, not some big deal. Never seen it blocked. If your request is reasonable and your manager is shrugging about this stuff, that should reflect on them being cheap not the company policy. |
| |
| ▲ | likpok an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The soft cap thing seems like exactly this kind of penny-foolish behavior though. I’ve seen people spend hours trying to optimize their travel to hit the cap — or dealing with flight changes, etc that come from the “expense the flight later” model. All this at my company would be a call or chat to the travel agent (which, sure, kind of a pain, but they also paid for dedicated agents so wait time was generally good). | |
| ▲ | beachtaxidriver an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Google used to be so un-cheap they had a dedicated ergo lab room where you could try out different keyboards. They eventually became so cheap they blanket paused refreshing developer laptops... | | |
| ▲ | walterbell 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Some BigCos would benefit from <Brand> version numbers to demarcate changes in corporate leadership, culture and fiscal policy. |
| |
| ▲ | fmajid 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | iOS development is still mostly local which is why most of the iOS developers at my previous Big Tech employer got Mac Studios as compiler machines in addition to their MacBook Pros. This requires director approval but is a formality. I read Google is now issuing Chromebooks instead of proper computers to non-engineers, which has got to be corrosive to productivity and morale. | | | |
| ▲ | PartiallyTyped 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not sure what you are talking about re amzn. I have a pretty high end MacBook Pro, and that pales in comparison to the compute I have access to. | | |
| ▲ | tgma 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The OP was talking beyond just compute hardware. Stuff like this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/womenintech/comments/1jusbj2/amazon... | | |
| ▲ | PartiallyTyped 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s fair criticism. I only corrected the hardware aspect of it all. | |
| ▲ | sincerely 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All of OPs posts in that thread are blatantly Chat GPT output | | |
| ▲ | gruez 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because.. em-dashes? As many others have mentioned, ios/mac have auto em-dashes so it's not really a reliable indicator. | | |
| ▲ | brookst an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s so annoying that we’ve lost a legit and useful typographic convention just because some people think that AI overusing it means that all uses indicate AI. Sure, I’ve stopped using em-dashes just to avoid the hassle of trying to educate people about a basic logical fallacy, but I reserve the right to be salty about it. | |
| ▲ | Snarwin an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Several things: 1) Em-dashes 2) "It's not X, it's Y" sentence structure 3) Comma-separated list that's exactly 3 items long | | |
| ▲ | gruez an hour ago | parent [-] | | >1) Em-dashes >3) Comma-separated list that's exactly 3 items long Proper typography and hamburger paragraphs are canceled now because of AI? So much for what I learned high school english class. >2) "It's not X, it's Y" sentence structure This is a pretty weak point because it's n=1 (you can check OP's comment history and it's not repeated there), and that phrase is far more common in regular prose than some of the more egregious ones (eg. "delve"). |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | laidoffamazon 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How do you know someone worked at Google? Don’t worry, they’ll tell you |
|
|
| ▲ | createaccount99 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Isn't it about equal treatment? You can't buy one person everything they want, just because they have high salary, otherwise the employee next door will get salty. |
| |
| ▲ | hamdingers 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I previously worked at a company where everyone got a budget of ~$2000. The only requirement was you had to get a mac (to make it easier on IT I assume), the rest was up to you. Some people bought a $2000 macbook pro, some bought a $600 mac mini and used the rest on displays and other peripherals. Equality doesn't have to mean uniformity. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I saw this tried ones and it didn’t work. Some people would minimize the amount spent on their core hardware so they had money to spend on fun things. So you’d have to deal with someone whose 8GB RAM cheap computer couldn’t run the complicated integration tests but they were typing away on a $400 custom keyboard you didn’t even know existed while listening to their AirPods Max. | | |
| ▲ | hamdingers 7 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That's probably another reason why we were limited to a set menu of computer options. |
| |
| ▲ | bobmcnamara an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I've often wondered how a personal company budget would work for electrical engineers. At one place I had a $25 no question spending limit, but sank a few months trying to buy a $5k piece of test equipment because somebody thought maybe some other tool could be repurposed to work, or we used to have one of those but it's so old the bandwidth isn't useful now, or this project is really for some other cost center and I don't work for that cost center. Turns out I get paid the same either way. |
| |
| ▲ | dfxm12 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If we're talking about rich faang type companies, no, it's not about equal treatment. These companies can afford whatever hardware is requested. This is probably true of most companies. Where did this idea about spiting your fellow worker come from? | |
| ▲ | loeg an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think so. I think mostly just keeping spend down in aggregate. |
|