[LucidLynx]

I have a serious question to anyone working at Meta and reading this: HOW can you still work at this company!?

Why don't you quit this very toxic company, and start working at another place or even on your own? I genuinely don't understand...

Let just Meta die!

[jjulius]

The number of people in these comments who would be happy to be "paid well" to contribute to what's inarguably a huge net negative worldwide is exactly how the company got to this point.

It's astonishing how many people value a ton of money over doing something good. Everyone who talks about setting values aside for cash is the problem. Gross.

[LucidLynx]

I am very very sad reading that, indeed.

It is absolutely not what I think about "job" and "contributing to society": I would prefer to be paid less but work in an ethical company than the other people of this thread...

This is maybe why I am feeling so "disconnected" with Tech and devs today.

[siren2026]

One of my good friend "Metamate" argument is that "if he doesn't do it, another engineer will do it. Might as well take the money".

But at least they all seem to acknowledge it is a terrible company and they know they are working on something terrible (which is beyond me why you would accept to do that).

[cvoss]

Your friend's argument holds no water. None at all. That's not how morality and ethics work.

[doublerabbit]

It doesn't matter, money is money. Without it your pretty much screwed in this world.

[jjulius]

Of which Meta is but one source of, among a sea of countless other places to obtain it.

[doublerabbit]

When was the last time you applied for a job and got an interview?

I was on a salary of $550 a day with a bank. I left because how grim banks are. I have yet to find another job that pays that much outside of a banking circuit.

If meta is paying you high-end why would you give it up for something that pays you less?

[soundworlds]

This is the same argument I hear about too-fast AI rollouts. "If we don't adopt AI, then we will lose to the business that does."

It is so obvious how competition dynamics naturally ends up as a fight to the bottom, and yet so many people are happy enough clocking in to this grind, then trying to forget about it the moment they clock off.

I totally understand this from a survival standpoint - but choosing to work at Meta is likely not "the only job you could get"

[wayeq]

> "if he doesn't do it, another engineer will do it. Might as well take the money".

You should introduce your friend to Kant. He’s taken a situational excuse and turned it into a general principle: ‘If someone else would do it anyway, it’s okay for me to do it.’

It's kinda like.. Kant's whole 'thing'.

[11101010010001]

There isn't a giant leap between the workers and the users. Stop using meta products period.

[yubblegum]

I have a dear friend who works at Meta. The conclusion that all meta workers are valuing money over "something good" is not reasonable. This fellow, who I know to be a good man of excellent character btw, for example has to support his family (which all together number 6), and be prepared to pay tuition for 4 kids starting in a decade and then one after another for the other 3! Is providing for your family and their future not "something good"?

> The number of people in these comments who would be happy to be "paid well" to contribute to what's inarguably a huge net negative worldwide is exactly how the company got to this point.

Sorry, have to call bullshit on this. As to the Meta products, who is forcing anyone to use it? They could have had armies of geeks working for them but if no one ever came, would Facebook cum Meta ever be this huge? I personally, from back when most people here would downvote you to oblivion when some of us pointed out the emergence of surveillance capitalism in "Web 2.0", recognized this company for what it is and have avoided every single product offering.

Who is forcing people to use Facebook?

And what was the role of websites like Hackernews in promoting the 'permissive' (irony alert) ethics of these 'ventures'?

[jjulius]

There are many, many ways to provide for one's family, Meta is but one. And I say this as a father providing for mine.

Additionally, putting the blame for using Meta products on the users in spite of all of what we know about how the company has strived to make the productive terribly addictive is a very wild take.

[bloggie]

After many years in research science I had an opportunity to work in applied sciences in the petroleum industry. This is an industry that knows that the writing is on the wall for them. Resources are finite and peak demand may well be behind us. (Almost everyone I worked with drove electric cars.) That does not stop the petroleum industry (drug dealers) from responding to economic demand (addicts). When I was younger I saw the petroleum industry as evil, but if there was no demand there would be no supply. Who is to blame? Working in this industry changed my perspective on addiction, drinking, gambling, infinite scrolling. I used to believe that the pushers were solely at fault, and some of them certainly are. But I find it hard to blame only Facebook for their practices.

[jjulius]

When the entire world has been built around requiring you to use petroleum to go places and build certain things, and requires you to use certain software to interact with everyone, I have sympathy for users whose hands are often tied from the get-go. I can't blame them when "the system" (a reductive phrase, but it works for this response) is setup as such.

That there's demand isn't necessarily the fault of the user, in many cases it's the fault of industry. At this point, at least for petroleum, it's a feedback loop - we built infrastructure around it, people became dependent upon it because alternatives are limited, the dependence creates demand, and that demand is used to justify continued production.

The petroluem industry then just has to work hard to squash alternatives, as it very much has, thereby leaving the user with little to no choice.

[yoyohello13]

> Working in this industry changed my perspective on addiction, drinking, gambling, infinite scrolling. I used to believe that the pushers were solely at fault, and some of them certainly are. But I find it hard to blame only Facebook for their practices.

So you changed your beliefs to ease some cognitive dissonance and help yourself sleep at night. Seems normal and expected to me, people do that all the time. These companies actively advertise and lobby to get their product into more peoples hands and quash alternatives.

[yubblegum]

Well, this fellow is a programmer, that's his trade and at his level he would be working for one of the fangs or whatever they are called these days and they're all creepy as far I am concerned. Which one of them is 'responsible'? Google and its pervasive tracking and selling of our data to all and sundry? Microsoft and "let's make our AI addictive"? Working for Amazon and contributing to the gutting of small businesses and bookstores? ... Really, you speak as if you have slept through the past 26 years in this field.

> Additionally, putting the blame for using Meta products on the users in spite of all of what we know about how the company has strived to make the productive terribly addictive is a very wild take.

Really? It's like me complaining that my pot and smoking habits were due to evil designs of their vendors. I take full responsibility for taking those initial puffs knowing full well that they were addictive and not good for me.

p.s. my general point is this: The entire industry was pushing developers to think nothing of 'ethical concerns' and 'just move fast and break things'.

And I find it disengenous to now pick on a single solitary entity, Meta, as if the rest of these newly arrived big techs were/are clean and ethical. Possibly some want to virtue signal while earning big $ at some other VC unicorn.

(Anyone working for "AI" companies here complaining about Meta? ...)

[jjulius]

>And I find it disengenous to now pick on a single solitary entity, Meta, as if the rest of these newly arrived big techs were/are clean and ethical. Possibly some want to virtue signal while earning big $ at some other VC unicorn.

This particular discussion is about Meta, hence the focus in these comments. My views (and I'm sure the views of many others here) do, however, apply broadly to much of what you refer to.

That comment about me sleeping through the past 26 years? I'd say the same about all of the companies you cited, they've all had their own broad negative impacts.

Edit: Further, the marijuana comparison is a bit weak (as an aside, I'm a former pothead myself, who made the choice to start and stop). The world hasn't structured itself to the point where most people are required to smoke pot to do everything they need to do. The world has structured itself to require Meta products be used in many instances, lest you lose access to information from certain sources or the ability to communicate with others. "The system" pushes people to it, and it tries it's damndest to keep you there once you arrive.

[qweiopqweiop]

I agree other comapnies are just as culpable as Meta, but you think it's childrens fault they get addicted?

We barely know the damage social media does yet, it's not comparable to taking the first hit of drugs at all.

Agreed that tech workers need to take a look at themselves too, but also it's the execs and governments more too blame.

[yubblegum]

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Children are on Facebook because adults like you used their surveillance product and made them a "must have" aspect of social life.

Facebook and Google and the rest were harming society long before '20s. This was obvious to some us and when we spoke up forums like this were used to silence informed voices.

That is the .

[rafterydj]

If you are trying to say that it's not just Meta but all tech giants, you have an oddly defensive way to make that point.

Just because the entire industry was doing bad things does not absolve the largest members of the industry from doing bad things. They were leading the charge!

[jmye]

> Is providing for your family and their future not "something good"?

No, intentionally giving kids depression and anger issues is not "something good" no matter how many bullshit platitudes someone throws out about their "family" and "excellent character".

[burner000333]

> Who is forcing people to use Facebook?

Pixels? Everywhere? Pre-installed FB mobile apps that harvest contact info and build shadow profiles of non-FB users?

Doesn't seem like serious analysis. Raising a family is important, but so is how you fund it, right? Still ok to fund it if you're robbing banks, but it pays for college? That is your logic it seems.

[rafterydj]

Facebook is forcing people to use Facebook. If there were realistic alternative social network systems that allowed account migration with contacts and messages, Facebook would be dead in the water.

You can't seriously argue that everyone can just drop a mainstream communication tool without acknowledging the lack of replacements.

[yoyohello13]

Come on now. You make it sound like this guy is “just scraping but trying to provide for his kids.” You don’t need an obscene salary to do that.

[Trasmatta]

There are no other companies that would pay your friend?

[unethical_ban]

The solution is for a country to have decent baseline social services. The idea of hoarding money to ensure you don't die on the street or working a menial job at age 75 would diminish somewhat.

[Computer0]

The comp-sci crowd has disgusted me since about when I graduated college. I do feel a certain sick sense of glee when these people who gloated they don't need worker protections and unions suddenly are left out in the cold. I hope the industry comes around, and stops acting 'better than' everyone who doesn't make 6 figures and get free catered lunch everyday.

[jojobas]

Well now it's money for doing something bad AND getting fucked, so something may change.

[AndrewKemendo]

I used to think there was a solution to this but theres not:

There is no limit to human greed

[yodsanklai]

There are tons of good reasons to work for Meta. You can work on interesting projects, build your resume and network, work on interesting engineering problems, learn from other people, and of course, they pay very well. People do need to support their family, secure their retirement and so on...

Is it perfect? certainly not. Is the company toxic? where do you draw the line? how much are you willing to compromise given the other advantages you get? Everybody has a different answer to these questions. Some people would tell you that even working in tech is wrong due to environmental concerns.

Personally, I would happily work for Meta. Many people use their services and like them. Is it the greatest thing for society? probably not, but neither is Netflix or Amazon or Apple...

[yojo]

Meta is straight evil. It undermines the institutions of democracy and it negatively impacts its users mental health, all in service of selling your data to advertisers so they can better goad unnecessary consumption.

If I learn you work at Meta, I will judge you as at best lacking a moral compass and treat you appropriately.

Apple has problems, but is a lot closer to morally neutral. Ditto for Netflix.

Amazon has hollowed out local retail/is also bad for society, though not on Meta’s scale. But you sell your soul more cheaply there.

[vanuatu]

not to defend zuck but its a common misconception that meta sells data

advertisers dont see the personal data they buy for ad placement

[jbuhbjlnjbn]

There is no misconception. Meta also sells data, next to selling advertising space.

[seattle_spring]

They literally don't. Data is their moat; selling it would be counter to their financial success.

[jbuhbjlnjbn]

Well not in bulk to its advertisement competitors as you seem to suggest. But as a different revenue stream, data collectors sell the collected information. Don't be naive, of course they do, first customer are governments.

[spongebobstoes]

no, it doesn't sell user data. or, where can I buy some?

[doublerabbit]

Brokers. Acxiom and Experian for starters.

Heck, you can buy facebook datasets right now from brightdata.

https://brightdata.com/products/datasets/facebook

Don't you recall the Cambridge Analytica scandal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

All corporates sell your data. You're a fool to think otherwise, data makes dosh, and you can sell any data for a price.

Data is a commodity.

There are current ten plus folk in the subway carriage I am sitting in right now. Toss me £10 and I'll give you a dataset of ten people of what colour tops they're wearing and what brand of shoe and colour.

And yes you can sell your internet data too.

https://www.moneymagpie.com/make-money/make-money-selling-yo...

[dbgrman]

its not a misconception. As an advertiser, I can go use meta's tools, target people specifically, and show them ads on meta's platform. While i don't get the CSV dump, but if i can target people with my message, its the same thing. Meta keeps the data AND the distribution. Data brokers have the data but no distribution of attention for that data. Newspapers have distribution but don't have the granualar data for direct targeting.

There are many, many use cases of having a CSV dump of the data, but in reality, all of it boils down to either reselling the data, or marketing a product to the demographic in the data.

The 3rd use case is that of palantir but let's not get distracted.

So, meta is not selling data is like saying netflix is not selling movies (its actually buying them). Technically true, but a shallow understanding.

[vanuatu]

i dont think targeted ads are necessarily bad, and definitely not has bad as the data freely shared vs. behind meta's walls

and what is this 3rd use case?

[mrguyorama]

Why should anyone at all care about this distinction?

[vanuatu]

i care that my data isnt being sold

i dont really care that i get targeted ads, in fact i prefer targeted ads vs. ones that are of no use to me

[adammarples]

Really do you care that your daughters are being advertised beauty products at the exact moment that they delete a photo because it's likely that they're feeling low self esteem at that moment? Because that's a service that you used to be able to buy from Meta.

[gobdovan]

Why wouldn't Meta also directly sell data if nobody cared about this distinction?

[mcdeltat]

I have learnt that very few in tech hold themselves to a complex moral standard. Most seem to have an attitude like "well company X is offering money, why not take it?" Some seem to genuinely believe large money = large societal value no matter what the job is. Quite blasé and pretty sad.

[jkl5xx]

This is a pretty uncharitable perspective. Most folks I know working at Meta or Amazon aren’t morally bankrupt. They just have kids, debt, poor parents with health problems, etc. They work at Meta to support their loved ones. And it’s not like you can walk onto the street and just wave down a morally superior job with similar pay and benefits. Blame the tech oligarchs, not the workers.

[gaiagraphia]

"Supporting their loved ones" is doing a lot of moral heavy lifting here, though.

History's littered with people trotting out this line when they've valued luxury and status over morals.

The more you interact with something, the more you are part of it and help it prosper. "Blame the kings!" is a little bit too simple, imo.

[jkl5xx]

Thanks for the level-headed response. Agreed, "blame the kings" is also an overly simplistic take. There's rarely a single entity to blame. Just wanted to bring some nuance to the hate getting thrown around here.

Redirecting frustration towards the systemic issues that drive perfectly normal people to work for a terrible company like Meta seems more productive to me.

I hate what Meta does just as much as the next guy, but shaming friends who feel like they have no better employment option doesn't seem like the best way to make a difference here.

[Jtarii]

When you are paid $500,000+ a year you lose the right to use the "I'm just supporting my family" excuse.

You sold your morals for a wheelbarrow of money, that is the end of the story.

[gaiagraphia]

People struggle with claiming responsibility for their actions.

They think a 6 digit salary is a god-given right, and that everybody else is to blame if their work results in negative externalities for the rest of society/the world.

It's quite ok to say "I chose the money and don't value x". I'd prefer the honesty, rather than people larping as moral crusaders and throwing blame around.

[adammarples]

If morality is only a consideration after similar pay and benefits are secured, then it's not really a high enough consideration to call the person moral

[p-e-w]

There are many, many tech jobs at many companies (at least there used to be, until very recently).

“I work for one of the most evil institutions on the planet today because it is the only way I can support my sick parents” is an absurd excuse.

[Trasmatta]

It's not actually that hard, most companies are morally superior to Meta. Even the other evil ones.

[yoyohello13]

Lol, it's always. Oh, think of these poor software engineers making $400,000 a year. Just scraping by to support their family. Give me a break.

When you're pulling that kind of money, there is a choice.

[jmye]

Reads like "The poor kapos had kids! They weren't evil, they were just upstanding people supporting their families!"

Absolute bullshit.

> And it’s not like you can walk onto the street and just wave down a morally superior job with similar pay

Oh no! They might only have to make mid-six figures! Welp, better give some teenage girls depression. They really don't have a choice, do they?

Zero good people work at Meta.

[jjulius]

Hey, at least you're open and honest about being okay with contributing to such a global net negative as long as you get something out of it.

[poisonborz]

This an ad company that proveably, willingly targeted insecure children. You could write the same things about Northrop Grumman or Palantir. I mean corporations were never angels, but how software engineers can work anywhere else with similar features... just why.

[fourside]

Growing up, I’d wonder how people could work for companies like cigarette manufacturers even after it became well known that their products wreck havoc on your health.

This comment is a masterclass in the type of mental gymnastics people do to justify working for these kind of companies.

> Is the company toxic? where do you draw the line?

You couldn’t even answer the question you yourself posed.

[yodsanklai]

Meta isn't nowhere near cigarettes manufacturers in terms of damage. Tobacco kills millions every year. Meta may need even more regulation, and you can argue that social medias aren't the greatest invention, but I don't think they are that bad.

There's no mental gymnastics here. I draw the line differently than you, that's all. I'm not a big fan of Meta and their products, I would be happy to work there anyway for the reasons I mentioned. But I wouldn't work for let say Marlboro.

[psvv]

I think one could make a hypothetical case that working at a cigarette company in 2026 is a more morally justifiable position than working at meta in 2026, because cigarettes as they're regulated today generally only affect adults, only affects those who opt in, and kills people on average near the end of their lives.

Meta's decisions affect everyone, even non-users, because of their outsized impact on society. But they also have way more users than cigarettes, and deliberately prey on children and teens in ways that could affect them their whole lives (see recent lawsuit).

I would struggle to judge anyone working for either of these companies. I think the blame lies at the top, or is shared by all of us for failing to build a better society which prevents such exploitation.

Measuring damage to society, or the degree of moral bankruptcy in a company's leadership, is a very difficult thing to quantify.

So, I agree with you that these are personal choices, and everyone will draw the line differently based on who they're comfortable working for and what they're comfortable contributing to.

[jscd]

Maybe not in the millions, but Meta is certainly not free from bloodshed. For example, in efforts to promote "engagement," they left the rollout of Facebook in Myanmar dangerously unmoderated, and (at least according to claims by Amnesty International[1]) are at least partially responsible for the genocide of the Rohingya there, which saw the tens of thousands of deaths.

[1]: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa16/5933/2022/en/

[rafterydj]

Putting Meta next to Netflix in terms of moral culpability is in my opinion laughable.

I don't disagree that there are reasons people compromise on things like the morality of their employer - tale as old as society itself. I do disagree that many people like Meta's services - the only things I have seen people like about Meta is Facebook Marketplace (which is really just Craig's List or eBay if you are looking at technical problems) or the Meta Quest VR (which they've since gutted employment wise since the metaverse debacle).

Not only is it a morally bad employer, but it's also not a very good employer overall. They've just got institutional inertia keeping them entrenched, and are trying to buy their way into AI dominance to boot.

It's hard to imagine a tech company with more clear disdain for their employees than Meta. To me, that seems like a recipe for a dead company, but by all means, build your resume and network.

*Edit: people also use Instagram, but the engineering problems with that are also found in newer social networks like Bluesky, with a little less engagement addiction focus.

[rightbyte]

Yeah like, what evil does Netflix do other than autoplaying the next episode? Like ... it is not just not the same league but different fields.

[Nasrudith]

They commit the most egregious of sins, competing with established media industries so the knives come out in their portrayal.

[rybosworld]

People always answer this question with money. But if we think of it as a version of the prisoner dilemma (Meta is one prisoner, the employee is the other), the right move is probably to work somewhere else for a lower salary. By working for Meta, they are defecting against you (openly screen recording you to train your AI replacement). Choosing to work somewhere else would be like you defecting against Meta.

Extremely simplified example. Ignore inflation, raises, etc.

Which choice is better?

- $400k/yr for 5 years followed by a layoff, with the possibility that the thing you've helped Meta build rolls out everywhere, and there are next to no job opportunities

- $200k/yr for the rest of your career, and employment opportunities don't dry up because you didn't help build the thing meant to replace you

[singron]

After 5 years, you'll have an extra $1M in savings, and you can safely pay yourself 4% or $40k each year in perpetuity without doing any work.

This is also a really extreme version of the prisoners dilemma. In the standard formula, there are 2 prisoners, so it's somewhat practical to not defect, but there are hundreds of thousands of qualified candidates for working at Meta in these roles, so your personal decision to defect or not has likely no effect on the ultimate outcome. I.e. for the second option to work, you actually need to organize a unified labor movement with no defectors, which is probably impossible.

[ProfessorLayton]

>After 5 years, you'll have an extra $1M in savings, and you can safely pay yourself 4% or $40k each year in perpetuity without doing any work.

The only way this could be remotely true on a 400k salary is by saving +80% of take home pay. After taxes that's only 40k/yr to live on.

In a HCOL area. This doesn't even touch on the fact that tenure at most tech places is well below 5y, especially at Meta.

[lbrito]

Those are easy choices, but unrealistic. Its also not like offer packages are a click away from showing into your email inbox, they are excruciating and highly random.

More realistic choices are: - $400k/yr for 5 years followed by a layoff, with the possibility that the thing you've helped Meta build rolls out everywhere, and there are next to no job opportunities

or

- 150k/year for 3 years followed by being laid off due to runway ending, Meta out-competing your company, or whatever. Despite you not helping build the thing meant to replace you, it still got built.

[josh_carterPDX]

This is a tough one because I've been there. I have worked for orgs that don't align with my values, but when you're in there you aren't thinking that you are contributing to the absolutely horrible crap they're doing. You just keep telling yourself, "I just do this one little thing." And that's enough to convince yourself that it's ok. You're keeping your values and morals intact.

Saying that, I'm sure if more of them had options they'd jump in a heartbeat.

[spacechild1]

> You just keep telling yourself, "I just do this one little thing." And that's enough to convince yourself that it's ok.

This is how I would have imagined most of these people think (except for the true sociopaths who just don't care).

> Saying that, I'm sure if more of them had options they'd jump in a heartbeat.

Are you saying the people who have been working for Meta had no other options? That would be a ridiculous claim.

The point is that there have been many, many options and yet they chose to interview for Meta and take the offer.

[josh_carterPDX]

> Are you saying the people who have been working for Meta had no other options? That would be a ridiculous claim.

The point is that there have been many, many options and yet they chose to interview for Meta and take the offer.

Bold assumption.

[spacechild1]

You can't tell me that someone took an offer from Meta because it was their only option. This is just absurd.

[josh_carterPDX]

I guess it would depend on the role.

[sidcool]

Gavin Belson:

The Scene: Gavin’s development team complains that his new tech ("The Box") is antiquated. He fires back in frustration: "Why did you all take my money then, you entitled little pricks? You all think you’re John Lennon until someone waves a dollar in your face!"

[root-parent]

Spy camera manufacturer workers complaining about office cameras....

[ryukoposting]

One thing I have observed so far in SV (haven't been here long) is that folks who work in big tech but aren't from the US don't fully understand the difference in costs depending where you live in the US. I have to wonder if that informs the decision to stay in SV no matter what the work is.

Like, intellectually they know that it costs less to live in Beaverton Michigan than it costs to live in Palo Alto. But the magnitude of that difference, and how that scales your income needs, they've never thought to do the math. It doesn't scale proportionally, and that's counterintuitive.

This isn't a dig against anyone, and exceptions abound. But when I told my foreign-born SV-lifer colleagues how much my rent was in Wisconsin, you'd have thought I was the one from a foreign country!

[siren2026]

But if you work in tech your rent barely makes a difference?

If you are a senior engineer and make 350k$/year (Meta is more like 500k$/year) and you pay 5000$/month for rent and could potentially pay 2500$/month instead in a MCOL, that's only 30k$/year of savings? Negligible compared to your income.

And on top of that most companies will cut your income for moving to a MCOL/LCOL by more than those savings.

If anything it is an argument to stay in SV!

[zeroonetwothree]

Apart from housing the costs aren’t that much more. You pay the same to travel. You pay the same to buy stuff online. Food is maybe slightly more but it’s not that significant.

Once you get past being able to afford housing it’s insanely lucrative. It’s harder for entry level people of course.

[siren2026]

I have had that discussion multiple times with people. They all seem to think you absolutely need to live in a 5 bedroom 5m$ house in Palo Alto (because how else are you going to live?).

But if you rent a normal 2BR for 4000$ in the Bay area, and could potentially rent the same for 1500$ in a LCOL, that is a minimal saving compared to your income. Everything else stays mostly the same. An on top of that most companies will give you a paycut.

But for some reason people think you are going to be a king just by moving to LCOL. I think it is the opposite

Now, if you get bamboozled into buying a 5000 sqft house like the average american does, then yes, big savings in a LCOL.

[ryukoposting]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

$1600 will get you a respectable 2-bedroom apartment in a decent neighborhood in Chicago, which most certainly isn't LCOL. If you want your 5-bedroom mcmansion in Northbrook or your artsy flat in Wicker Park, then yeah that'll cost more - see your point about houses in Palo Alto.

A downright nice 2-bedroom apartment in the heart of Rochester MN will run you $1300/mo tops, and $1000/mo is well within reason.

I had to do this math fairly recently. For me, moving from a relatively pricey part of the midwest, the number was 2.2x my income for SV to be viable. Now that I live here, I find that I actually undershot a little, and it's more like 2.4x to break even. I thought groceries and restaurants and such would be roughly the same. They aren't.

[ryukoposting]

Groceries cost anywhere between 25% and 100% more depending on the item (200% more if you shop at Safeway). Gas costs ~50% more. Electric is 200% more unless you live in Santa Clara, in which case it's roughly normal. Water costs more.

All forms of labor cost more (handyman, mechanic, etc). Fast food costs more, normal restaurants cost more.

And that's all before you consider CA sales tax.

But yeah flights are the same so it's basically the same. Sure.

The only thing that's cheaper here than in a flyover state is lemons, as far as I can tell.

Also remember that your net income does not scale proportionally to your gross income. The math still works out, but "rent is more and that's it" doesn't even get close to an accurate picture.

And sure, a Porsche in California costs the same as a Porsche in Kansas, but if you're in "porsche ownership" territory then none of this matters to you, no matter where you live.

[siren2026]

>> Groceries cost anywhere between 25% and 100% more depending on the item (200% more if you shop at Safeway). Gas costs ~50% more. Electric is 200% more unless you live in Santa Clara, in which case it's roughly normal. Water costs more.

This thread is about someone working at Meta or similar FAANG. At those levels you make around 500k$/year as an engineer (a lot of times more).

What you are highlighting above is at maximum a difference of ~1000$/month of increase... 12k$/year. That is almost insignificant.

And you forgot to mention that those companies will bump your salary by 10-20% if you move to the Bay Area. Which covers more than the difference.

[ryukoposting]

> At those levels you make around 500k$/year as an engineer (a lot of times more).

...no? I've not been acquainted with anyone at any of those companies making more than $330k who isn't a senior manager. Rank-and-file devs (who aren't getting laid off left and right) are high-200s.

And to return to the original point, it's not that you take home more cash elsewhere, obviously that isn't true. it's that what cash you have left goes further than it does in SV. The number you see on a job listing in middle america looks a lot lower than it actually is.

[siren2026]

.... yes?

https://www.levels.fyi/?tab=levels&compare=Meta%2CSpectrum%2...

That is the starting package for a senior engineer at Meta. Most of them are in their mid-20s. Other FAANGs have similar pay.

Anyone that started more than 2 years ago also includes a crazy amount of stock growth as part of the package.

[brk]

Post some links to companies hiring at similar compensation levels. Or, are you suggesting that every Meta employee is in a position to just like off of any random job they can find, or even no income at all while they go off "on their own"?

[not_the_fda]

There is more to life than money. I've turned down FANG roles my entire career, especially Meta. There is lot of work out there.

[brk]

Of course there is more to life than money, but people still need some base amount of money to live safely, especially if you have a family. If you are working in SV then your "big" salary does not go very far, I know lots of developers making $350K and have very little savings cushion, and these are not people just blowing money.

Most big enterprises get really good at paying you just enough to live comfortably, but not enough to give you financial autonomy. This makes the "why do you still work there" question land as naive most of the time.

[spacechild1]

> This makes the "why do you still work there" question land as naive most of the time.

It's not a naive question. In fact, the question is mostly rhetorical. We know the answer is money.

> Of course there is more to life than money, but people still need some base amount of money to live safely, especially if you have a family.

Are you trying to tell me that this base amount of money equals a FB salary? Don't be ridiculous.

The very point of ethical behavior is that you stick to your principles even if it may cause you financial or otherwise disadvantage. Sure, many people prefer more money, but this doesn't make their decision ethical.

[not_the_fda]

Surprisingly, I managed to pay off a house early, retire early, and put kids through college, all without working for Meta. And I manged to build cool stuff that saves lives, instead of building an advertising engine that has made us more lonely, more isolated, and more divided.

[yodsanklai]

> There is more to life than money

That's what I told myself when I was in my 20s and early 30s. And then I realized that I had no savings and no opportunities to save, unless I switched to a more lucrative career (which I did, with zero regret).

We don't know what tomorrow will be made off, now I reached a stage where I think I should save as much as possible while I can. And I'm not a materialistic person at all.

[mathisfun123]

Lol you've turned down offers or recruiter reach outs? Two very different things lololol.

[AndrewKemendo]

I turned down a 285k/yr +MM RSU staff engr offer from Google in 2021.

I’d probably still be in that job and would have a few million in the bank (instead of $10,000) if I had taken it, but I would have sold out my principles.

So yes some of us live by principles

[mrhottakes]

Sometimes you need to realize you need to choose between having the cake and eating it.

[DonsDiscountGas]

Median pay at Meta is $380k. Median. I'm sure it's high variance but I would put up with a lot for that kind of money

[sidcool]

I think this is a unrealistic point of view. If Meta really were as draconian and toxic as many people make it seem, most smart people would have left. Market is tough right now, but then there were other times when jobs were booming. And people still joined Meta. Money is one big aspect.

I am not saying Meta is a paradise. I completely want Meta to face their reckoning for what they have done to the world, but painting it as like a prison camp is misplaced I feel.

[spacechild1]

OP is not talking about the working conditions but the negative effects on society.

[shimman]

How can you say the smart people haven't already left? The only people comfortable working at Meta are comfortable with a company that enabled then profited off a genocide, has mass teenage girl misery machines, invested in companies whose products caused users to kill themselves, worked on systems that helped erode democracy across the world.

I'm sorry but if you're at meta it's not because you are smart, it's because you are a human that derives money from ruining lives. Thinking has very little to do with situation outside of deciding how much greed you're entitled to for the human misery you personally create by enabling such a system.

[sidcool]

I understand your point of view. It's not possible to execute a high growth company like Meta without extremely smart, high IQ individuals. And they are OK with the harm Meta is doing. My point was that Meta is bad, but the perception that it routinely abuses employees is misplaced.

[shimman]

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that people purposely choosing to work at Meta are evil individuals that deserve public scorn and mocking.

[baddie_twoshoes]

It's because it's a job that is known to pay very well, I don't know what's so difficult to understand about it? Like someone is just going to give up their $300K - $500K job over something like that; the kind of thing they'll put hand over heart and claim they'll do in posts like this one, but in practice people won't actually do, because the money is good.

[metamate100000]

I work at Meta, on a key system in one of the main products.

I think when I went in, it was too interesting a system/opportunity to not do it. I was open to many roles and interviewing, and I just really wanted to understand how it works.

I don't touch ads, I don't touch integrity, or any of the "dodgy" stuff. I used to hate Facebook (and then Meta), and not have accounts on any of their platforms (bar Whatsapp), until I joined. I care about doing good and making a positive impact in the world (don't think I'll do much at Meta though). I'm probably the closest to a 180 on this you can imagine.

And... I don't have a good answer to why I still work there? It's an interesting anthropological exercise? My everyday is working with great people on a facet of a product that is entirely wholesome and inoffensive? When I came in, I found that my coworkers (locally, in my team/sister teams) were extremely talented, hard working, and cared a lot about the systems being good. Yes we are all pissed off by the recent changes, a couple people left (not mainly due to these changes though). I mean, the people just seem entirely normal? I don't imagine it's so different to working elsewhere. People are not obsessed with money or in any kind of dire situation, they are not grappling with hard moral questions about the value of money versus corrupting the world.

I guess I just feel like I'm not contributing to the awful stuff? I think you tend to get used to your everyday life and see the stuff around you in your little bubble. I guess if my part of the product gets better, Meta sells more ads and then has an incentive to do bad stuff, I suppose?

Anyway, yeah. Open to other convincing opinions about why I should feel awful for what I do and quit my job, and the right way to think about this (genuinely!).

[yoyohello13]

Even if you're not working on the 'bad part' you are still contributing to the success of the company as a whole. When you work for a company, it is tacit agreement with 'everything' the company does. If Meta is doing something you don't agree with, it behooves you to quit or try to change it. If you continue to work, head down then you are complicit in everything they do.

[crymeth0t]

Have you tried finding a new job recently?

[LucidLynx]

Yes, and I found one. It pays enough for having a very stable life, and in a company with ethics!

No reason to be that sarcastic, the job market is not dead (at least not in Europe).

[vander_elst]

The salary gap in Europe is *huge*, at Meta and other big tech you can easily make 3x (after taxes) of what you'd earn in a European company for the very same position, same amount of actually worked hours. It might not be fair or might not be ethical, but in particular if you have dependants, such a gap *does* make a difference.

[LucidLynx]

Thanks, but I don't need this 3x more. I just need ethics.

[dfxm12]

In the US, if you quit your job, you lose access to many benefits, including affordable health care. It might be hard to get a loan for a car, to find an apartment, etc. This is systemically set up this way, including making sure employment doesn't get too low, which would give more power to employees.

[SoftTalker]

$$$,$$$

[baggachipz]

more like $,$$$,$$$.$$

[JKCalhoun]

All the more reason to head out.

A few years on a salary like that and you may find that you can live fairly comfortably for a long time… in a place where the cost of living and housing are inexpensive.

I have an aunt who is quite old, who has been living for decades in a trailer in Eloy, Arizona. I suspect few people reading this will think that's any kind of an "escape plan", but I have been jealous of her seemingly contented and relaxed retirement for a long time now.

Perhaps you have to weigh it against, "working in the industry you hate for an other decade or two." Could you enjoy yourself in your retirement in your trailer? Is there something more you need to enjoy your retirement?

[siren2026]

Most people at Meta (or other FAANGs) are caught up in the game. I have witnessed this first hand in the bay area.

They forgot what the end-goal is. They are just on the hamster wheel waiting for the next vest or next promo so they can brag they were made "staff" or "director". Every other discussion was about artificial levels and other corporate BS that those companies put in front of you to keep you grinding.

Meanwhile when you ask why not retire now that they saved 10M$. Most of them have no idea what they would spend their time doing. Their biggest achievement and satisfaction is to play that artificial money game.

The mean became the end. Very sad.

[SoftTalker]

You're saying the average dev at Meta is making 7 figures?

[Anon1096]

There are quite a few making that much yearly but not the average. Median swe at meta is almost surely >1MM net worth at least and maybe even 2.

[baggachipz]

I'm exaggerating for (poor) comedic effect, as Meta has to pay more to attract people. Every time they've ever tried to recruit me I've lol'd at them and said I would never work there under any circumstances.

[seattle_spring]

I mean... their stock is up more than 1,000% since 2014. Anyone who has been there for a few years should have multiple refreshers that have grown significantly in value.

[wombat-man]

If you can hang, it pays great. I don't work there but I know some who do.

[vander_elst]

The kind of issues that you might face if you have dependants could be something along the lines: well Timmy, we'll need to cut your leg instead of trying solution x that might save it, because I preferred not to accept a job that would have allowed to pay for that, due to the fact such a job didn't follow my ethical standards.

This is of course a very extreme and hopefully rare case, but I think that there's a large range of cases where unfortunately money does make a difference I a significant way. Additionally, I think that it also does make a huge difference if you are the only one affected by you decisions or someone else is.

I think when going for a decision for such a position, these and other points that consider the more practical implications might weight in.

[matheusmoreira]

Money. Even I would put up with this if they paid me enough.

[jjulius]

Ick.

[officehero]

I'd down vote this if I could.

[matheusmoreira]

Why not sponsor my free software work instead of downvoting? I wouldn't have to choose between getting rich and doing the right thing if I was making 200kUSD/year on my AGPLv3 programming language work. I'm currently making around $24/year.

https://github.com/sponsors/matheusmoreira

[officehero]

Like others have pointed out, there are other options in life than work at Meta. Would you have worked at Krupp or Mitsubishi during WW2 if they paid enough, compared to say cleaning toilets?

[cute_boi]

Meta is still better than 80% of the companies. Other company spies on you, do micromanagement and still pay way less.

Pick your poison.

[LucidLynx]

Then I would prefer the 20% that pay less, but do something good for humanity.

[roncesvalles]

Imposter syndrome is extremely common and a lot of people in high-paying tech jobs don't believe they can get something just like this elsewhere.

Also, Meta interviews are generally not regarded as too difficult, which further fuels the imposter syndrome (everyone has a sense that they're overpaid considering how easy it is to get in). I almost suspect this is a deliberate strategy.

[nicce]

In the end, most people choose money.

[u1hcw9nx]

This seems like rhetorical question where you know the answer.

Despite corporate propaganda, work is not self-fulfillment, moral quest, or meaning for most people. It's money and future. When you earn $191K-$4.36M+ and don't want to move your family to some cheaper neighborhood, you put your head down and keep working.

Unless you are hardcore libertarian, these questions of workplace privacy are solved individual by individual. They are political questions. Improve labor laws, privacy laws etc.

[ergocoder]

Company devices are always tracked 100% of the time.

I don't understand why this is news.

[georgeburdell]

Maybe you should be asking that question on 1.3 acres and not here

[OrangeMusic]

Which non profit do _you_ work for?

[fullshark]

Money and/or visa sponsorship obviously. Some things are more important than internet cool points.

[tencentshill]

I would take a fat raise to work on some dumb tracking feature that probably won't make it to production. It's a huge bureaucracy, most people probably coast (as shown in HBO's Silicon Valley) and do very little actual work.

[glaslong]

Well I used to be pretty passionate about the work I was doing, and especially because I was learning from some incredible people.

....but both of those are gone to layoffs and restructuring, so it's basically just money, and I'm hanging on by an actively fraying thread of cowardice and burnout.

[new_account_104]

You need to be more cruel if you actually want these people to quit.

Make them fear for their professional and personal reputations.

Make them embarassed to show their face or state their place of employment.

We need to treat these people like Nazis.

[foobar_______]

I am not sure about all your talk about Nazis and such - seems a bit much.

But I do agree with the general premise. Instead of Meta being seen as a signal for being a high-quality engineer, I hope the signal being sent is more like: engineer who is so money hungry they are willing to abandon almost all sense of responsibility and reasonable character.

[keybored]

Nazis or not, I’m pretty fed up with that glaze of a quote that goes something like the most brilliant minds of my generation are occupied with optimizing ads. There’s no condemnation, just a wistful yearning for the big brains to be unfettered from their big wage enslavement to save us. It speaks to a craven culture where intelligence is the only praiseworthy trait and character is not even a concept.

You think people raised in such a culture will save you? More likely they’ll be hooked by the next moneybag or hoodwinked by some insane philosophy (Libertarianism, AI Singularity, Effective Altruism...).

[__MatrixMan__]

We need to make Nazis fear for their personal safety.

We need to make engineers who work in surveillance or advertising ashamed enough to avoid putting that work on their resume.

I think that's a pretty big difference.

[Alifatisk]

> I genuinely don't understand...

Really? Its quite obvious to me. They get astonishing resume and salary. That is until they get fired or burned.

[nicce]

> astonishing resume

Not sure about that one.