• phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    1 month ago

    I really do wonder if Amazon will run out of people willing to work for them someday. Their approach assumes there is an infinite supply of workers to burn through. Given everything I’ve witnessed from the company, I’d never work there. Do they at some point poison the labor pool against them?

    • EnderMB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 month ago

      When I joined Amazon, I was told that for some roles in the US Amazon received more applications than corporate employees worldwide - so I assume 1M+.

      That number has probably reduced significantly, given we’ve now had two rounds of RTO. I know some recruiters are really struggling to find external candidates to join, and rightly so, but I don’t doubt that Amazon can find someone to fill these roles, or can find someone outside of North America or Europe to take that role.

      The FAANG acronym was the worst thing to happen to tech, because people will flock to Amazon to say “I worked for FAANG”. Prestige is a powerful thing to some, and they’ll deal with some insane shit for the clout that comes from being here.

      (FWIW, I’ve been at Amazon as a software engineer for close to four years now, and I’ve noticed zero improvement in opportunities afforded to me)

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        The FAANG acronym was the worst thing to happen to tech, because people will flock to Amazon to say “I worked for FAANG”. Prestige is a powerful thing to some, and they’ll deal with some insane shit for the clout that comes from being here.

        The problem is that the clout boost is real. I never worked for a FAANG/MANGA company, but just having one relatively well-known company on my resume opened up options I never would have had. All my interviewers would mention it, even though it was almost 20 years ago.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s real and it can suck.

          Any time someone has one of the ‘big names’ on their resume, they get to skip the line and call the shots. Problem is in many of these cases, they got fired from those big companies for very blatantly obvious reasons once you work with them. They will tank their new projects, and executives will just say “this can’t be right, Google is such a success” yeah, because they fired that guy…

        • roofuskit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah, I’ve gotten multiple jobs in my industry based on a company I worked for like 15 years ago. Just because they’re a major player who is well respected.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          MANGA

          MANAA. If you’re going to swap Facebook for Meta, you also need to swap Google for Alphabet.

        • EnderMB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          It might have been a few years ago, but having Amazon on my CV has offered almost nothing. If anything, I get fewer legitimate interview offers than I did before.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        “FAANG” is interesting because it was initially only used to represent high-growth stocks that were leaders in their respective fields. It was originally just “FANG” - Apple was added later.

        At some point, it changed to mean the best tech companies to work at. I’m not sure I agree with the list, though. I’d swap Netflix for Microsoft (TC is lower but it’s a more prestigious company and work-life balance is better), and I’d swap Amazon for another company. Not sure. TSMC, Nvidia, or AMD maybe?

        • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          It’s funny that Apple was added later given that it is the most valuable company by market cap … it’s seen the highest stock growth of any company on earth.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Apple’s stock wasn’t growing a lot a decade ago when the FANG term was coined.

    • daddy32@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 month ago

      You could also think this applies to all corporations in some degree. But no, there’s a fresh batch of bright eyed optimistic people out of school every year.

      • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        1 month ago

        You could also think this applies to all corporations in some degree. But no, there’s a fresh batch of bright eyed optimistic people out of school people desperate to not be homeless or starve every year.

      • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Another company I had contact with did a few layoffs. Afterwards the recruitment department had a lot more issues finding people. Experienced people would ask a premium because of that company’s reputation in the industry and the experienced people would usually stay a short time and leave. The other option was hiring fresh graduates and put effort in training them.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Also a sea of people looking to put in a respectable time at a recognizable employer to dress up their resume.

    • Curious Canid@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      I saw an article a year or two back that talked about this very thing. It was actually management people at Amazon saying that they predicted they would be “out of employees” before the end of this decade.

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Iirc, didn’t the article say that was one of many hypothetical scenarios they try to plan accordingly for? Like you said, it’s been awhile since it came out, so I could easily be wrong. I imagine it won’t be a problem any time soon, though. There are always desperate people, and simply changing policy to allow rehiring people that had previously been fired/quit would open eligible candidate pools back up.

        Or, y’know, they could just make working there not be miserable.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      I never understood why anyone works for them at all. And I’m not even talking about warehouse workers. I’m talking about the tech staff. Amazon is known as a cutthroat workplace that drives people like a hammer drives nails. I would never choose to go there.

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        FAANG looks good on the resume so people go there with intention to eventually leave for another company willing to pay for FAANG experience. unless you work in a very focused team (e. g Occulus) youre better off jumping companies for higher pay.

        if you go to tech career fairs, especially in the silicon valley, the biggest example of this is working for Cisco. they have huge turnover and youre only going to work there to have Cisco on your resume because of how ubiquitous they are at networking for companies.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s pretty hard to beat FAANG pay though. Probably there are other factors involved as well. Like maybe they can command 90% of the pay but have 2x better work-life balance or something. But people do stay at these companies for long periods. I’m sure some are there to stamp their passport but not all.

          • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            theres definitely people in there for the long haul, but most people are just job hoppers jumping onto companies paying more till they land into one with the perfect work/life balance for their preferences. Part of the reason why unionization int he programming sector is hard, because most of the people already willingly leave jobs for higher paying ones.

      • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Agreed and they have an average tenure of like 1.2 years, but their stock vesting schedule gives you 5% in year one, then 15%, 40%, and 40%. So you’re pretty likely to never get whatever carrot they dangle in front of you.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Their strange stock vesting schedule makes me think that they’re aware that people won’t actually want to stay for four years. A back-loaded vesting schedule never benefits the employee, only the employer.

          Other companies usually have an even schedule, for example Meta vests 25% per year (actually it vests quarterly instead of yearly). Google is an outlier too, but they do the opposite of what Amazon does - 33% in year one, then 33%, 22% and 12%. I suspect Google do this so they can list a higher total compensation (since initial total comp is salary, stock, and benefits for the first year), but getting more of your stock sooner is a good thing.