I think this principle is important, but question using Amazon as a positive counter example, and I think the reasons why are indicative of why this is hard.
My Amazon info is out of date. But back in 2015 I had many friends there, and it was a miserable place to work. The at-desk crying was past its peak, but stupid applications of frugality were so common they had a word for it (frupid).
Highly paid developers were given underpowered laptops that slowed down their work. The savings on the laptops were clearly OOM less than the cost of the developers time (even though Amazon paid less than other bigtech), but they wanted to send a message to employees. They would occasionally spend more money for a worse solution because it signaled frugality, like door desks that cost than real desks.
And that’s for highly paid developers. Amazon requires warehouse employees leave all valuables in cubbies rather than bring them on the floor, but won’t buy locking lockers for them.
The overwhelming message from Amazon is “fuck you, we will hurt our own interests rather than make your life easier”.
Maybe this level of malice is necessary to maintain mission alignment. Maybe it’s necessary with programmers spoiled by perks, but not other office staff (my non-programmer friend at Amazon Offices tend to find Amazon no worse than their last employer, maybe better, and with a salary boost that buys a lot of forgiveness). But I do think it’s important to track what it takes.
Especially because EA has an ~extractive thread through it. Things like paying only enough to get by, while having a work set up that will require periods of non-payment, such that you have to spend down runway acquired elsewhere. I’d much rather solve this by paying fulfilling salaries, in part to spare us all debates about what counts as a necessary work expense, but it’s important the salary be based on demands as a whole and not cherrypicked bits of the demands.
I think this principle is important, but question using Amazon as a positive counter example, and I think the reasons why are indicative of why this is hard.
My Amazon info is out of date. But back in 2015 I had many friends there, and it was a miserable place to work. The at-desk crying was past its peak, but stupid applications of frugality were so common they had a word for it (frupid).
Highly paid developers were given underpowered laptops that slowed down their work. The savings on the laptops were clearly OOM less than the cost of the developers time (even though Amazon paid less than other bigtech), but they wanted to send a message to employees. They would occasionally spend more money for a worse solution because it signaled frugality, like door desks that cost than real desks.
And that’s for highly paid developers. Amazon requires warehouse employees leave all valuables in cubbies rather than bring them on the floor, but won’t buy locking lockers for them.
The overwhelming message from Amazon is “fuck you, we will hurt our own interests rather than make your life easier”.
Maybe this level of malice is necessary to maintain mission alignment. Maybe it’s necessary with programmers spoiled by perks, but not other office staff (my non-programmer friend at Amazon Offices tend to find Amazon no worse than their last employer, maybe better, and with a salary boost that buys a lot of forgiveness). But I do think it’s important to track what it takes.
Especially because EA has an ~extractive thread through it. Things like paying only enough to get by, while having a work set up that will require periods of non-payment, such that you have to spend down runway acquired elsewhere. I’d much rather solve this by paying fulfilling salaries, in part to spare us all debates about what counts as a necessary work expense, but it’s important the salary be based on demands as a whole and not cherrypicked bits of the demands.