This is sarcasm, right? All of these things are clear warnings that it's time to flee that company for your life.
You get paid what you get paid because someone else is willing to pay you more. The market is competitive and you're being hired by your peers, who recognize the value of "making the backup 50% faster".
If you wear a tie and are trying to become a Managing Director at Merrill Lynch, then yes, you need to play this bullshit game. But in that case, you're not getting a "pay rise" for your value to the engineering organization, you're getting paid for your ability to keep the status quo alive and well.
Sadly, every company of a decent size I have worked for seems to fit the profile perfectly. I get the feeling the transition takes place when inertia hits a point that the company can coast on bad decisions and the dedication of a few employees doing the right thing while everyone else plays games.
No. This is non-fiction in finance. "Dominic Connor is a City headhunter at QF Search with a sideline in teaching C++ to bankers", he's also a well-known and respectable enough online personality.
Such evidence also provides a basis for many explanations (appealing to the financial products being to complex) of the 2008 global financial crisis.
I've once played with the idea of a career in quantitative finance, but subsequently fled for my life. Yet, attesting to the wonders of biodiversity, many kinds of life have evolved to thrive in the harshest of conditions.
No, it is not. This is the reason big conglomerates should be split with an axe and left to the vultures.
They are super inefficient because they have incompetents in place that can't measure the real value created by their workers but also because as a company grows bigger and bigger you forget who is your customer and start playing the Soviet Russia central planning trick of "looking like you work is more important than working".
When those big companies like banks show looses, we join them together creating bigger monsters that parasites real economy even more. They then use tricks and more tricks to hide the reality(GM or Enron) so the party continues one more day.
Big companies are incredibly efficient at generating wealth. Look around you.
>They then use tricks and more tricks to hide the reality(GM or Enron) so the party continues one more day.
You cherry pick two large companies, only one of which can actually be considered a failure (if you think GM has been a failure, I don't know what to tell you). You don't think fraud goes on on a massive scale at the small business level? And what about the other 498 companies in the fortune 500?
GM was at least on the verge of bankruptcy a few years ago, but I'm pretty sure that can be attributed more to massively underestimating how much healthcare would cost in 2008 during a union negotiation several decades prior than to any sort of dirty tricks.
Right. And prior to that they produced trillions in revenues over 100+ years of being in business, selling more cars worldwide than ANY other company.
The 2008 bailout is naught but a blip on the radar, so implying that GM hasn't been a good company, and putting them in the same sentence as Enron is sort of out to lunch. GM has been a wealth generation machine for a long time. That's my point.
You get paid what you get paid because someone else is willing to pay you more. The market is competitive and you're being hired by your peers, who recognize the value of "making the backup 50% faster".
If you wear a tie and are trying to become a Managing Director at Merrill Lynch, then yes, you need to play this bullshit game. But in that case, you're not getting a "pay rise" for your value to the engineering organization, you're getting paid for your ability to keep the status quo alive and well.