[padmrajravi]

Originally Posted by JediKnight

[b]

For Indian IT services guys who are thinking of hiring these guys: These guys are out of your league so forget about them. You are used to doing the lowest rung of technical work for which you pay peanuts. This business model will not work with them. Even if someone joins you in desperation he/she will run for their life when the market improves.

If at all any Indian IT service companies try to hire these people, it will not be to place them in a billable role. It will be for roles like heading a technology vertical, setting the technology roadmap for a domain, etc. Such roles do exist in Indian service companies and are well paid compared to billable roles. They will be customer exposed as well, but usually only in the beginning of signing a new customer or taking up a large engagement.

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by JediKnight

For ex-Google, ex-Amazon, etc., employee 40+ years age. CTC approaching crore or above: If you are laid off, you are royally screwed. Because companies that can give these kinds of salaries are either laying off or have a hiring freeze. So be prepared to cool your heels at home for next 6-8 months minimum and then hope the market scenario improves.

A crore? That is what they pay to 30 year olds. 40 year olds in these companies earn in multiples of crores thanks to huge amounts of stock grants .

They won't need service company jobs anyways. They'd rather sit at home and build a new idea and try to take the product to market.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

They'd rather sit at home and build a new idea and try to take the product to market.

Yeah, that would be the easiest thing to do.

Seriously, we were just discussing how over-specialized they are... Yet you expect them to do the most generalist job under the sun, which is becoming an entrepreneur.

[Latheesh]

Originally Posted by JediKnight

For ex-Google, ex-Amazon, etc., employee 40+ years age. CTC approaching crore or above: If you are laid off, you are royally screwed.

Not if they had saved and invested 50-60% of their salary at least between 30 to 40s age period.

[SoumenD]

Was just browsing trough r/DevelopersIndia sub on Reddit and came across an interesting post. So this person has 5 YOE and is laid off. His last CTC was 40LPA and now for new interviews he wants to ask for 60LPA.


Link

I don't think these highly paid professionals even if laid off, would even look at Indian service based firms if they have such expectations.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by SoumenD

Was just browsing trough r/DevelopersIndia sub on Reddit and came across an interesting post. So this person has 5 YOE and is laid off. His last CTC was 40LPA and now for new interviews he wants to ask for 60LPA.

I can only think of this scene...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOBZCd2hls8

And thinking of super-specialist who can do only one thing, this is what I can think of:

https://youtu.be/NT-mVVprnbs

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Yeah, that would be the easiest thing to do.

Seriously, we were just discussing how over-specialized they are... Yet you expect them to do the most generalist job under the sun, which is becoming an entrepreneur.

There is nothing like over specialized. They are intelligent folks capable of writing software and most have great background and credentials. If your basics are strong, then figuring out a new piece of tech doesn't take more than a few days. Why do you think they would be incapable of building things?

Most folks who leave these big companies like these anyways land up in small startups (either theirs or someone else) later in life and end up building cool stuff.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by SoumenD

I don't think these highly paid professionals even if laid off, would even look at Indian service based firms if they have such expectations.

A little later this fellow revealed his skill set, and now I am even more confused. How is this specialized knowledge requiring such high pay?

[bladegradev8]

Originally Posted by Samurai

A little later this fellow revealed his skill set, and now I am even more confused. How is this specialized knowledge requiring such high pay?

Attachment 2421543

It's not the knowledge set that matters in the IT market unfortunately. It's the capacity to pay, all coming from the pocket of rich investors or unsuspecting public.

You can raise the same argument for the entertainment industry. Do these heavily paid actors do a comparable amount of work to the other industries? Absolutely not. Yet they are paid heavily because the money comes from the crowd.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by bladegradev8

It's not the knowledge set that matters in the IT market unfortunately. It's the capacity to pay, all coming from the pocket of rich investors or unsuspecting public.

It is not just the capacity to pay, I had written about this in 2015.

Originally Posted by bladegradev8

You can raise the same argument for the entertainment industry. Do these heavily paid actors do a comparable amount of work to the other industries? Absolutely not. Yet they are paid heavily because the money comes from the crowd.

Actors have star power, they attract audiences. So I don't think the comparison is apt. These developers have no star power. They can be easily replaced by another with similar skills.

[bladegradev8]

Originally Posted by Samurai

It is not just the capacity to pay, I had written about this in 2015.

So from the three factors that you talk about here:

• Cost of silly mistakes committed by an employee
  While I agree that the cost can be significantly brought down by hiring someone with supposedly 2X skill, the crux here is that highly paid engineers don't always translate to higher quality. Even more so today where cracking DSA is a smooth gateway into high pay as opposed to 2015.
  Also this triggers the whole 10X engineer discussion where gauging quality of work is itself questionable. The only good way to measure this in my experience is to directly work with someone for a couple months.
• Cost of disruption when an employee leaves
  The average retention period in big tech for junior roles (upto senior engineer) is ~2 years. So even the top dollar doesn't really help with this. And to me, the reason seems to be that there is always someone willing to pay higher. All that still comes from the capacity to pay and the fact that there is no simple way of determining if someone is worth the additional pay until you hire them.
• Attracting talent
  I completely agree with you on this one. But don't you think this still comes from the fact that companies can pay that they choose to pay without truly vetting the justifications for the higher pay?

Ofcourse all of this is subjective and like you point out in your case, a lot of factors affected the pay that you could afford, but that is not true for most well funded companies which do make up the majority share of high paying jobs on offer.
It is also the misconception that more engineers means more work done or faster work done and since a lot of founders or leaders are hungry to get things done faster, they hire quickly at exorbitant rates thus raising the market price. IMO, all these layoffs due to overhiring are just a course correction that was due since long and I don't think it will end here either.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Actors have star power, they attract audiences. So I don't think the comparison is apt. These developers have no star power. They can be easily replaced by another with similar skills.

No absolutely. I was drawing a parallel between the work done vs the pay, not why the additional pay. I still feel IT talent is grossly overpaid for what they bring to the table but I guess that just happens when any new industry breaks the trend.

[coolmind]

Originally Posted by warrioraks

- Android: Controls 70% of the real estate when it comes to smartphone market


In the short term, Google as a company might see hiccups but they are going nowhere for the next 5 to 10 years irrespective of what ChatGPT does. Especially when they are about to launch a competitor soon.

Google is a verb when it comes to internet search, but let's not forget it is an eco system as well. And it takes a lot to bring down an eco-system.

An argument with devil's advocate.

How long has it taken for Nokia to go vanished, who was holding about 35% of market share and double that of next competitor in mobiles? So in my opinion, technology/ecosystem does not need much time to change when the new technology is so engaging/meeting the needs of users.

[chandu]

Originally Posted by sunnsood

Mods: a small request that we can change the topic to "Jobs, attrition, layoffs in IT companies".

Attrition is where employee leaves as per his wish
Layoff is where employee is terminated with any reason.

Layoff is not a term used when an employee is terminated for any reason, it is a specific term used when multiple employees are terminated for no "employee specific" reasons, these can be "Poor market environment for company / High losses / need to trim costs to stay competitive / insert other reasons".

It is not a term used when an employee or a group of employees are terminated for poor performance.

[kaushikduttajsr]

I have a question. How many folks advising laid off MAANG employees have worked at one of these companies?

I'll tell you folks why I'm asking. I work at one of them and the specialisation discussion is not relevant. MAANG companies offer the best internal transfer policies - startups are not even close. This allows employees to gather a range of skills way beyond what any non-MAANG companies offer. This is one of the reasons why many employees stay back in the company. Easy internal transfers allows employees to have a fulfilling career while not churning on the company culture (a non value add IMO). So, like non employees in this thread are portraying, money is not the only reason. Ofcourse a lot of employees choose to stay within their comfort zone and end up getting too spcialized. But it's on then and not on the amount of opportunities available.

I have personally switched between completely unrelated teams (Supply chain operations to Fintech product). This wouldn't have been possible at any other company internally or for that matter externally.

[warrioraks]

Originally Posted by coolmind

An argument with devil's advocate.

How long has it taken for Nokia to go vanished, who was holding about 35% of market share and double that of next competitor in mobiles? So in my opinion, technology/ecosystem does not need much time to change when the new technology is so engaging/meeting the needs of users.

Sure, let me indulge in the argument.

Nokia and Google is a very unfair comparison. Nokia was not an eco-system. It was just a hardware (phone) seller.

For contrast, Apple is an eco-system where it sells diversified hardware (phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, watch), controls the operating system, dictates the terms around how third parties can provide apps, controls and harvests the user data generated and provides a unique experience across the eco-system through seamless integration.

Similar holds for Google where it has multiple products across different categories which form an eco system - Mail, photos, Google drive, chrome, etc etc.

Worst case scenario - Google search will be dead tomorrow due to ChatGPT. Does that mean people will change their e-mail ids to something non-gmail, move out their photos and files from Google drive to Microsoft OneDrive, stop using Googe Maps and Android phones as well?

I do not have any predictions on whether ChatGPT will kill Google search and honestly don’t care till the time as a user there is an equivalent or a better product out there. But I strongly believe that Google eco system is not going anywhere overnight.