[jwilber]

Or, and hear me out here for a second, people go where they’re most valued. Why would someone volunteer to go work somewhere where they’ll get less money, have less flexibility, be treated as second-class employees, have less work perks, etc. when so many alternatives exist? Doubly so in this economy.

Maybe genetic companies should catch up in workplace etiquette instead of recommending that SWE’s lower their expectations.

[cratermoon]

> be treated as second-class employees

The pay isn't all that important to me, as long as I can live on it, but this. It was so obvious when I was working in academia that because I wasn't myself an academic that I was just lab help, no better than the person who washes the test tubes and beakers.

[cycomanic]

I don't quite understand this post. In my experience lab technicians in academia are highly valued (however I mostly have experience with clean room staff), however they are support for the researchers, who drive the research agenda (well actually it's the funding primarily). What exactly do you expect to not be what you call "a second class citizen"?

[rleigh]

Are you really, really serious?

Academia is a hugely elitist pyramid with well-demarcated layers, and the lab technicians are at the very lowest level of the pecking order, down with the cleaning staff.

They might be "needed", but by and large are they really "well respected" or "valued"? Not really, sad to say.

[clmcleod]

I agree. With that said, I do think we are getting there. The pay is becoming more comparable, and I think software engineers are becoming more and more valued in these companies/organizations.

[jghn]

At least one of the entities on that list is a nonprofit academic institution. Expecting pay equal to the standard software industry is misguided.

Whether or not that's a tradeoff you're willing to make is another question.

[tikhonj]

The problem is that it isn't just about pay, it's about everything: autonomy, flexibility, culture, work quality, respect... If an organization can reliably convince—show, not tell—that it will be a much better place to work overall, I'm certain they can hire highly skilled engineers even if they can't compete on pay.

My experience is that most non-tech organizations can't or won't.

[nine_k]

If you go to academia, you're certainly are not going for the money.

People can work for less if they are visibly valued, or where they are doing some heroic stuff that appeals to them personally.

People can for some time withstand being treated as second class, being overworked, etc, if they are paid a lot.

But if it's neither, why would anyone bother?

[jghn]

> But if it's neither, why would anyone bother?

Because they find it rewarding in some other way? I agree that that way is not the conventional wisdom, but it exists, it turns out that some people value doing things that provide a demonstrable benefit to humanity.

Also he second class citizen thing has diminished over the years. It still exists but there are plenty of companies where that's no longer true. This is in stark contrast to when the field was getting off the ground, for instance it wasn't uncommon for benefits like PTO to be tied to your degree level & not length of employment.

[zach_garwood]

And three of them are FAANG. They could certainly afford it.

[jghn]

And they pay their standard rates.

[zach_garwood]

Haha, thanks! This is much kinder than my response was going to be.