[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Nissan1180

........
There's also a sentiment that startups are paying a lot because they have VC money. Not true. The have VC money because they have the right set of people to make that money grow. VC's are the smart people (most of them-exceptions are always there). They look at a team before putting down a cheque. Yes, startups will fail. That has happened in the past (everywhere) and will continue to happen.The winner takes it all. But the winner is usually the company with the smartest people, who know how to think and not just what to think.......

While I'd agree it's unfair to generalize all startups as cavalier with VC funding, it's also misleading to believe the opposite. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

There's a reason start-up failure rates are what they are, even though all failures may not be directly attributable to financial mismanagement alone.

[VeyronSuperSprt]

Originally Posted by Nissan1180

..I really don't see why it's a problem..

I'm trying to guess whether you're articulating antediluvian management thinking or aren't aware of what's been happening with Uber.

So at the cost of repeating myself:

1. Uber is losing money FASTER THAN ANY TECH COMPANY EVER.

2. Uber's losses pile up to $1.27 billion for 6 months.

3. They're out of China already.

Now if you call all of that "smart", then you're certainly redefining the term.

And you really wouldn't see why it's a problem.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Nissan1180

There's also a sentiment that startups are paying a lot because they have VC money. Not true. The have VC money because they have the right set of people to make that money grow. VC's are the smart people (most of them-exceptions are always there). They look at a team before putting down a cheque. Yes, startups will fail.

What is interesting is how they fail. This isn't my first rodeo, as in not my first glimpse at startup shenanigans. I have seen boat load of them during the Dot-com bubble in USA. Some of the ways people used to burn money was hilarious. I knew friends in such companies, who couldn't stop talking about it. They would compete at who can manage a bigger check at lunch everyday where they supposedly entertained imaginary clients.

Originally Posted by Nissan1180

You'd be surprised to know that in Singapore a Safety officer who goes around ensuring that everyone working in the lab wears the right set of personal protective equipment gets a salary that is a few multiples of what an average software engineer earns here.

Why should I be surprised, considering it was the first reason I gave for why they are paid highly.

[Acharya]

As per the last data released by Income Tax department, Bangalore tops the chart for having highest number of salaried people (18k+), who earn more than 50 big ones (LPA).

Salaries in IT are certainly growing and I frequently hear from European folks that salary difference at mid and senior levels have disappeared between EU and India, to a large extend.

[Vishal.R]

Hiring process is also one important aspect here.

I have observed that hiring mangers creates a virtual template of profile (Number of years + very specific levels of technical exposure) and tries to find the person who exactly fits the profile, without having any flexibility.

HR team members / consultants need to be explained requirement properly or somebody with technical background needs to be part of screening process. I have been asked recently about by a consultant that how many years of experience I have in “open stack” and he/she was not referring to OpenStack cloud platform but the requirement was for somebody who has worked on all layers of application (databases / middle-ware / front end etc.)

Some technical interviewers also look for the answers in very specific way instead of checking overall level of understanding / attitude / aptitude.

These factors narrow down candidate pool and creates a false sense of talent deficit for particular skill / location.

[LoneWolf9]

Originally Posted by VeyronSuperSprt

I'm trying to guess whether you're articulating antediluvian management thinking or aren't aware of what's been happening with Uber.

So at the cost of repeating myself:

1. Uber is losing money FASTER THAN ANY TECH COMPANY EVER.

2. Uber's losses pile up to $1.27 billion for 6 months.

3. They're out of China already.

Now if you call all of that "smart", then you're certainly redefining the term.

And you really wouldn't see why it's a problem.

What uber is going through is what Amazon has gone through earlier so don't call someone idiot just cause they are making losses.

They were making huge losses in China so now when they are out of China, expect the losses to cut down big time. I see it as a blessing in disguise.

It will also help to see their cash reserves. I don't see any reason why they should hold themselves back to acquire market. its an interesting game and I wouldn't write them up just yet.

[adimicra]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Oh, boy. You are the first guy who asked me for an example. Most jobs done in Indian IT industry can be done by high school graduates. Yet, they hire engineering graduates for that role.

No harm in asking for example..it helps to clarify the other person's perspective and though process.

I never spoke of the IT industry as whole.. it's too broad a term.
I was mainly referring to decent product development companies where I have spent most of my career. I don't think most of the work can be done by high school grads.

I agree that there might be jobs where we do not required highly skilled or smart people and if companies are hiring engineers for doing stuff which high skill grads can do, that's their issue.

If you remember, the discussion started with why some big product development companies are paying so much. Your article which you quoted seemed to suggest it's all about work life balance which I don't agree with.
Obviously, these companies are not fools and I don't think the work is so mundane that it can be done by anyone. I feel there's a need to attract talented and smart people if you are going to work on market-leading or market-defining products.What I don't know for sure is whether they need to be paid such high salaries. Most of these companies can pay 20-30% more than the market and still attract smart people but they are paying 60-100% more than the market (considering only product dev companies).

If I start my own company, I will be wiling to pay more for hiring smart people as long as the work done requires some intelligence but I am not sure how much more

[VeyronSuperSprt]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf9

What uber is going through is what Amazon has gone through earlier so don't call someone idiot just cause they are making losses.

Looks like you haven't read the BOLD print despite repeating it. They are LOSING MONEY FASTER THAN ANY TECH COMPANY EVER. Amazon, included.

Originally Posted by LoneWolf9

They were making huge losses in China so now when they are out of China, expect the losses to cut down big time. I see it as a blessing in disguise.

They are losing money in every country. So they can increase their blessings by replicating their China business model.

Originally Posted by LoneWolf9

It will also help to see their cash reserves. I don't see any reason why they should hold themselves back to acquire market. its an interesting game and I wouldn't write them up just yet.

Reserves are cash out of generated profits. Which in this case is zilch. Right now they are throwing around someone else's money.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by adimicra

If I start my own company, I will be wiling to pay more for hiring smart people as long as the work done requires some intelligence but I am not sure how much more

Perfect, this is the exact sentiment I had back in 2004 when I started the company. Then I ran into a brick wall called REALITY.

See, when you start a venture, you expect not to make profit in the first 1-2 years. You expect to survive that period with good financial discipline. Then you start hiring and realize that "paying more" is a relative term. There are always somebody who will pay more and take your people away. And if you get into that pissing contest, you will start burning your funds much faster, and still lose people.

Originally Posted by VeyronSuperSprt

Looks like you haven't read the BOLD print despite repeating it. They are LOSING MONEY FASTER THAN ANY TECH COMPANY EVER. Amazon, included.

They are losing money in every country. So they can increase their blessings by replicating their China business model.

The way Uber is burning money reminds me of the Phantom of the Opera song. Uber is Christine Daaé, and the Phantom is telling her Burn... Burn for me.

Here is the song for those who are not familiar, just replace Sing with Burn. Jump to position 3:15 directly to see it.

https://youtu.be/8fKKiaSLLEY

[VeyronSuperSprt]

Would be appropriate for the movie "Phantom of the Uber Era" when it's released a few years from now.

[LoneWolf9]

Originally Posted by VeyronSuperSprt

Looks like you haven't read the BOLD print despite repeating it. They are LOSING MONEY FASTER THAN ANY TECH COMPANY EVER. Amazon, included.

They are losing money in every country. So they can increase their blessings by replicating their China business model.

Reserves are cash out of generated profits. Which in this case is zilch. Right now they are throwing around someone else's money.

I think you did not read what I said earlier. Even Amazon in the past has lost billion dollars but that did not stop them from turning profitable.

Can you please provide reference for your statement that they are loosing money in "every" country. The UBER CEO says they are profitable in US and were loosing $1BN in China.

Now we can all debate that the CEO is not speaking the truth.

Peace out.

[VeyronSuperSprt]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf9

Can you please provide reference for your statement that they are loosing money in "every" country. The UBER CEO says they are profitable in US and were loosing $1BN in China.

Uber supposedly made profits in the US alone during the first quarter of 2016. However by the second quarter the losses totalled $1.27 billion and they are no more profitable even in the US.

Originally Posted by LoneWolf9

Now we can all debate that the CEO is not speaking the truth.

It's going to be difficult to debate this, but you could give it a try.

[V.Narayan]

Have been following this thread with curiosity and interest and a what salaries are these - Indian, American or Qatari. I am a brick & mortar industry wallah. Some years ago we decided to develop our own proprietary software to sell to our aviation world customers as a subscription. Now better known as SaaS (Software as a Service). We gave up after some painful false starts and coping with attrition amongst the vendors team and the nightmare of trying to get the s/w youngsters to learn enough about a very niche area to write the code. We finally set up a our own small s/w development unit in Ohio, hired folks who knew s/w and enough of aviation to understand the customer (us). All of them are in the 35 to 55 age bracket, attrition has been almost zero over 6 years and they own the product as their own and only 1 of the 9 is a graduate engineer. As an Indian I am proud of what our IT industry has achieved and the way IT/BPO have put India on the map. But our costs and attrition will be our Achilles' heel.

Originally Posted by VeyronSuperSprt

UBER is a classic example of IDIOTS running a business on hype rather than real cash flow.

Well said. Very well said. I don't know why these PE guys measure EBITDA when the only thing worth measuring is net cash flow. You can conjure up profits quite legitimately but you can never fake cash.

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Sorry for being off-topic but I am regretting my career choices after seeing the kind of salary figures being thrown around in this thread. How I wish I could rewind and opt for a Non-medical career.

Doc, hang in there. The IT, e-commerce and investment banking sectors have thrown salaries in India out of gear making it a little difficult sometimes for other industries too. And it gives young folks the incorrect impression of what their services are really worth. Recently one of my offspring graduated as a hardware electronics engineer. He had a choice between a world class chip design company offering him 8L and a big new e-commerce retailer offering him 26L!! No wonder young heads spin. Fortunately he went for the former and is learning some real engineering.

Originally Posted by vrprabhu

Title of the thread indicated that I best keep away, but curiosity got better of me....


Having worked 30+ years in a PSU, I guess I am not fit to contribute to this thread, but this where I stand, in comparison with IT : CTC of about Rs. 15 lakh per year.

Brother, we often hire ex-IAF, ex-Public sector folks. They are often the best we have. If you select well the PSUs have a lot of gems in their system who flourish in the private sector.

[devil_klm]

Hello techies. I am having 8+ years in IT. My currently CTC in lacks is not near to double digit. Thanks to the IT majors 1:1 salary policy . Now working in Big data and cloud. I got my H1B this year and will be shifting to US soon. I am undergoing AWS Architect Associate certification now. Considering all these if i make a switch in career in US, how much salary i can expect. I may get around 70-80K/Year dollars from my current company.

[girimajiananth]

Originally Posted by devil_klm

Hello techies. I am having 8+ years in IT. My currently CTC in lacks is not near to double digit. Thanks to the IT majors 1:1 salary policy .

What exactly is 1:1 salary policy ?