
The Great Career Debate: Google Versus Goldman - chavesn
http://www.inc.com/kimberly-weisul/the-great-career-debate-google-versus-goldman.html
======
moocow01
"Would you rather have your children engineering the financial system creating
more problems for us, or having a chance of saving the world?"

Yep the financial system has a whole host of problems that everyone knows but
"saving the world" is just meaningless marketing mumbo jumbo for SV - lets be
clear that Google is not saving the world nor is any other SV company. We by
and large push ads in exchange for information - its a valuable business model
but lets get over ourselves.

~~~
lingben
Perhaps it is a bit exaggerated but I don't think anyone would argue with a
straight face that GS does more good in the world than Google.

To me this is a question not of intelligence, IQ, or ability but rather morals
and soul. There are so many great individuals who propelled the world forward
into a better state because they make a conscious decision to use their gifts
for the betterment of fellow human beings.

Goldman Sachs' culture does NOT encourage that. In fact, if you have even a
tiny amount of that within you, it will crush it with the power of a thousand
black holes.

~~~
CoolGuySteve
Not Google, but I did move from Apple to GS. At Apple I felt like I was making
toys for first world adults. Nothing I did really did much to improve the
situation of anyone unless they were interested in renting movies on iTunes.

Whereas at GS, I was writing software to sell municipal and corporate bonds.
Companies and city infrastructure were funded more cheaply as a direct
consequence of my work.

There was simply no comparison between the two, my work for GS was far better
for society.

~~~
lingben
You may find the work more rewarding personally but I seriously doubt that GS
is due any credit for it. If any good comes from work done by GS it is
certainly a by-product that simply can't be helped.

------
7Figures2Commas
> Wadhwa began by launching into the myriad recent sins of the financial
> industry: credit default swaps, a housing bubble, and widespread economic
> meltdown, for starters.

The "financial industry" may not be a brotherhood of saints, but someone who
is going to claim that CDS is inherently bad and the housing bubble and
economic meltdown were the sole product of the "financial industry" clearly
hasn't done his or her research.

> Gregory Ferenstein, a writer for TechCrunch and one of the moderators, then
> asked if there was any good in the great majority of the finance industry.
> Wadhwa answered a flat no.

Given that so much of the wealth in Silicon Valley derives from the ability of
founders and employees to turn equity into cash, this is an ironic position. I
mean, is Wadhwa completely oblivious to the fact that GOOG $1,000 gives Google
an even greater ability to recruit and retain the best and the brightest?

> He also claimed that the costs of starting a company have become so low that
> investment bankers are hardly needed to support them.

Starting a company is one thing, but growing a company is another. Look at the
amounts that were (and are being) poured into companies like Twitter,
Pinterest and DropBox in their later rounds. It's no surprise that names like
Goldman Sachs, Fidelity and Allen & Company are on the investor rosters.

~~~
atmosx
> _Wadhwa began by launching into the myriad recent sins of the financial
> industry: credit default swaps, a housing bubble, and widespread economic
> meltdown, for starters. The "financial industry" may not be a brotherhood of
> saints, but someone who is going to claim that CDS is inherently bad and the
> housing bubble and economic meltdown were the sole product of the "financial
> industry" clearly hasn't done his or her research._

Sorry, but I see that as entirely true. When they say _the industry_ I
understand, the industry's giants along with smaller players. And the Industry
Giants were the ones that gave Triple A to Lehman Brothers (Moodys, Fitch,
S&P). Lehman was owning on toxic assets, Goldman Sachs made a hostile take
over with the help of the US Gov, who choose to go against all sorts of neo-
liberal preaching to save GS because _it 's too big to fail_. I see that
industry as inherently bad for the USA and our planet!

And GS might be the worst example of corporate bullying, unethical acting and
government infiltration (by far), but European banks are acting with the same
disregard about anyone else except themselves.

So I don't think it's not far-fetched to say that: _The financial industry is
the root of today 's world trouble_.

------
atmosx
I firmly believe that Google "is Evil". But not _that-evil_. Nowhere near
Goldman Sachs[2]. GS is the Master of Puppets[1].

Quotes like " _Finance is the place you can make your mark on the world. It
has to be a personal commitment, because you won’t get credit for it. . . But
you will know inside that you have made things happen on a bigger scale than
you could at Google._ " are plain ridiculous. I can think of several _good
things_ done by Google. Maybe not for the good of man-kind or some other
honorable cause, but I can't recall a single finance giant acting for the good
of ANY community.

Stiglitz and Krugman wrote many articles (and books) describing how wall
street is heavily flawed, praising arrogance and malpractices by paying huge
totally undeserved bonuses to people who never did any _real work_ in their
lifespan.

Working in finance, is like saying that you create money out of thin air,
because that's what you do actually. The better you are at convincing people
that shit is gold, the better you are, the more money you make and so on...

[1]:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEL6_SuQCu8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEL6_SuQCu8)
[2]: [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-
american...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-
bubble-machine-20100405)

~~~
riggins
_but I can 't recall a single finance giant acting for the good of ANY
community._

Consider another interpretation. I don't think Shiller is saying that finance
acts altruistically. I think that Shiller is claiming that finance does add
intrinsic value to world.

personally, I think that most banking professionals can't clearly articulate
the value of finance. But there is clearly huge value to society of having
skilled financial professionals.

The trouble is its usually intangible. The invisible hand and all.

To think up one hypothetical example ... say we had ethical and talented
bankers who foresaw the housing bubble and therefore steered their banks away
from financing home development in the Nevada desert. That could be immensely
valuable and could have saved society billions of dollars that was wasted on
homes no one wants.

------
CoolGuySteve
I guess I'm uniquely qualified to comment on this, having moved from Apple to
Goldman Sachs.

At Apple I made toys for rich people. The only people I helped where those who
rented a movie on iTunes.

At GS I wrote software to help sell corporate and municipal bonds. My work at
GS directly made corporate expansion and city infrastructure cheaper to fund.

Without a doubt, my work for GS was far better for society.

~~~
Link-
[Edited] You mean, you helped make rich people richer ..

~~~
Synthetase
As well as financing the construction of municipal infrastructure. Get over
yourself.

------
ballstothewalls
I think it is sad that our some of our brightest minds are hard at work trying
to get people to click on advertising links.

~~~
michaelochurch
For most of human history, the brightest minds were hard at work coming up
with new ways to kill people. (No, I'm not trolling you. For every brilliant
mind in science, there were scores in warfare.) Advertising and finance are
progress.

I agree that it would be better if those people were working on clean energy
and cancer research, but I don't think the situation is that bad, compared to
the historical norm.

------
yetanotherphd
One good point made on the finance side is that you have a huge impact because
of the size of the deals involved. The scale is much bigger than Google.

It also takes a certain viewpoint on free markets that most people lack, to
see the good that finance does. For example, buying a company with a low share
price and liquidating it would be a net plus, but seeing this relies on
rejecting common falsehoods, eg that jobs are an externality.

The best argument I saw for working in tech came from a promotional video for
an investment bank! One analyst is being interviewed, and she says how she
spends all her time analyzing companies, but it would feel more "honest" to be
actually doing the work that these companies do. While finance does add value
to the economy, being so far removed from the coalface may feel less
rewarding.

------
utopkara
Both Google and Goldman are corporates. How about adding Pfizer to the mix?
The result doesn't change. It doesn't matter what they do, their priority is
not saving the world, even as a side effect. If you want to save the world,
you are on your own. Non-profits? Maybe. Or a tiny company where you can have
influence on the company's direction. But, not in a corporate, unless you
drink your Kool-Aid everyday, then it is a different story.

~~~
marincounty
I'm glad you threw Drug companies in the mix. I used to think that was the one
industry that followed scientific principals--boy was I wrong.

------
atdrummond
Quants are a small fraction of the overall finance jobs landscape. At a
finance feeder school, like the LSE, there's not much overlap between those
who could work at Google and those who could work at a bulge bracket
investment bank. Most simply don't have the technical skills for the former.

------
cmao3
Most people here disdain finance. However, it seems to me finance is still a
pretty vital industry. It's not only about making money out of "thin air" or a
game of greedy shallow minds equipped with social capital. I will defend for
it that it's also a means of the society to distribute the limited resource to
where it sees the most promising future and payback. It's the people in
finance decide that if a billion dollars will be invested in a luxury hotel or
DNA sequencing research. Why do you want to leave these vital decisions to
those greedy and ignorant people instead of those brightest students who may
make a change with their knowledge and make wiser decisions for the society?

------
cletus
I may be biased (being a Google engineer in the New York office) but if you
actually want to contribute something-- _anything_ \--to the world, if you
want to enjoy your job, then Google wins hands down.

I have a finance background and previously worked for UBS and in retail and
wholesale stockbroking. I fully understand the role of, say, market makers in
the financial system (ie providing liquidity).

I hear those same arguments being used for HFT but honestly they don't really
stack up (IMHO). I don't really see HFT doing anything harmful however so
ultimately I don't really care. I can see the appeal from a technical
background of being a quant. It must be a challenge and I'm sure you can make
a lot of money, which is fine, but it doesn't really contribute anything to
the financial system.

The real problem I have with Goldman (and their ilk) is the serious crises
they've instigated all the while banging the drum of contributing to the
financial system.

This includes the subprime crisis [1] [2]. Goldman wasn't as guilty as some
but its hands weren't clean either. You'll often see the "don't hate the
player, hate the game" defense here. Sorry, no sale. You're accountable for
your actions regardless of the incentives.

More disturbing is that Goldman (and their ilk) is _killing_ people in the
name of profit [3] [4]. Sorry, but that's morally reprehensible no matter how
you look at it.

Now US regulators have made at least five mistakes (IMHO) when it comes to
financial regulation:

1\. 30+ years ago allowing investment banks, once partnerships with unlimited
liability, to incorporate and have limited liability for their actions;

2\. Not allowing investment banks to fail ("too big to fail" like Merrill
Lynch). Bailouts of investment banks could reasonably be described as welfare
for investment bankers;

3\. Allowing banks to take positions as well as operate as market makers.
There really should be strict separation here;

4\. The carried interest tax treatment of hedge funds that mean executives pay
less tax (as a percentage) than most of the population. Congress really has
been bought and paid for here, most notably Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who has
steadfastly broken with party ranks to resist carried interest reform [5]; and

5\. Strict regulation on commodities market to separate speculators from
hedgers. Driving up food prices causing untold misery even death should result
in criminal liability for the organization and key personnel.

So work for Google. Don't work for Google. Whatever floats your boat.
Ultimately (IMHO) I think Google has a net positive effect on the world.

Whatever you do, as an engineer, I strongly believe you should stay away from
investment banks and hedge funds as you're actively contributing to misery in
the world at this point.

[1]: [http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/in-one-bundle-of-
mort...](http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/in-one-bundle-of-mortgages-
the-subprime-crisis-reverberates/)

[2]:
[http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/24/news/companies/Goldman_Senat...](http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/24/news/companies/Goldman_Senate_documents/)

[3]:
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/23/goldman...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/23/goldman-
sachs-agm-drive-food-prices-up)

[4]: [http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/07/23/how-big-
ban...](http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/07/23/how-big-banks-are-
driving-up-the-prices-of-practic.aspx)

[5]:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30schumer.html?...](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30schumer.html?pagewanted=all)

~~~
dev_jim
> I have a finance background and previously worked for UBS and in retail and
> wholesale stockbroking. I fully understand the role of, say, market makers
> in the financial system (ie providing liquidity).

> I hear those same arguments being used for HFT but honestly they don't
> really stack up (IMHO). <snip> It must be a challenge and I'm sure you can
> make a lot of money, which is fine, but it doesn't really contribute
> anything to the financial system.

These two statements stand in direct contrast. If you understand the role of
market makers then you should understand that the most popular HFT strategy is
to be an electronic market maker. It's about competition for liquidity
provision which tightens spreads which reduce the cost of trading for
everyone.

> 2\. Not allowing investment banks to fail ("too big to fail" like Merrill
> Lynch). Bailouts of investment banks could reasonably be described as
> welfare for investment bankers;

This would have caused the collapse of the global economy. Google would have
suffered mightily from the following depression. Companies like ML might
"deserve" to be punished and that process is now working it's way through the
courts, but that bailout cost a lot less than 25% unemployment.

> 3\. Allowing banks to take positions as well as operate as market makers.
> There really should be strict separation here;

By it's very definition, a market maker must take proprietary positions.

> 5\. Strict regulation on commodities market to separate speculators from
> hedgers. Driving up food prices causing untold misery even death should
> result in criminal liability for the organization and key personnel.

Hyperbole. There's never been any evidence that speculation on commodities is
"driving up food prices" let alone causing "misery event death".

------
dottrap
This Apple iPad Air commercial is timely. (Yes, I'm lumping Google and Apple
and all engineering companies together.)
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9gLqh8tmPA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9gLqh8tmPA)

Somebody should juxtapose this quote with this ad right after.

------
marincounty
I had a girlfriend in college who couldn't wait to put on the pants suit and
become a money manager. Whenever I get nostalgic I check out her corporate
picture, and cringe. She used to say if she was a man, "people would encourage
my desire to rise to the Top!" Yes dear, but don't expect me to be hang
around. On the other hand at least she didn't wear emo glasses and hide behind
some phony non-profit. Yes--how you make your wad does matter. Just because
it's legal doesn't make it copacetic.

~~~
yetanotherphd
What was your point?

------
lazyjones
False Dichotomy.

Bright people should start their own companies.

~~~
michaelochurch
_Bright people should start their own companies._

Yeah, I'm a real fan of that search fund made available to everyone with a
140+ IQ at age 23. I would have taken part, but I was too busy shitting golden
unicorns that weekend.

------
applecore
Interestingly, the largest employer of mathematicians in the world isn't
Google or Goldman Sachs.

It's the NSA.

------
xarien
I'd rather they become politicians and create a new order of technicrats.

------
chrisbennet
I suggest googling "Goldman Sachs starvation".

------
larsonf
Why not go meta?

Sure, a company like Google directly does more good than Goldman. (Although,
trivially, you could argue a taco stand does something arguably more important
than inverse-indexed search) Non-trivially, though, in order for a company
like Google to get financed, it needs to have investors. Now, you'd be right
that this doesn't necessarily require bankers, but it does present an
interesting problem.

When an investor makes an investment, she wants to make more money than she
put in. Else, why do it? Ok, so the simplest possible way to get more money
than you put in would be to just let the invested business produce cash from
profits and receive distributions over time. Ok, great, but what if that takes
20 years and you need the cash sooner?

The other option is to sell the stake to someone else. But the second you do
that, in fact, the second you even offer to do that, the person on the buying
end has the same worry. The only possible way for this to work is for there to
be a bunch of other people who are willing to buy or sell at a certain amount
at a certain price. That, my friends, is a market.

But what if there's no one out there to buy or sell your stake? Or what if
there's very few? You need a market but there is none. Well, what if a person
could somehow _make_ a market for you? Someone, who, because of their deep
knowledge of your company, companies like yours, the way markets work
generally, and a view of the future state of markets could come in and say,
"Hey, listen, I know there's not a lot of people out there right now who are
willing to buy or sell, but I'm willing to buy X shares of your company at Y
amount and sell X shares of your company at Y + Z amount." You, as the
investor, are loving it since you don't have to tell someone upfront, "Hey,
I'm saying my entire stake, what's the price?" Because that would be extreme
adverse selection and would lower your price. And further, you don't have to
say, "I'd like to double my share," thereby hinting you know something and the
price should be higher. A market is made: there's a standing price to sell at
X, and a standing price to buy at Y.

This actually happens all over the place. Facebook, amazon, google, et al.
make money by being platforms for other people to create content. Facebook as
a platform is obvious. For google, they are really the platform for the
internet itself. No matter what firm w're talking about, the only way for
content-creators to be willing to share is if there are enough people to
consume/listen. And for there to be enough people to listen, there has to be
someone who aggregates. And for someone to aggregate it necessitates a huge
amount of upfront investment. Meaning, for example, that Facebook had to build
itself before a billion people used it. Yes, this was in stages. But at each
stage, it required a huge amount of risk _before_ other people were there to
use it. The same with google. Same with amazon. You see, these firms are
_underwriting_ the act of sharing content. Their knowledge of the eventual
payoff allows them to buy the time, commitment, etc before there is an obvious
customer. They have made a market.

Now, while Google, Amazon, and Facebook are doing this for things on the
internet. Goldman is doing it for the Googles, Amazons, and Facebooks
_themselves_. Goldman is providing a platform for the businesses _in general_.
And, not only that, for anything that has substantial future cash flows!

It might seem that anybody could do this. Like why not Tim Ferriss on
Angellist-Underwrite? That isn't so clear. The only reason Goldman can afford
to post a bid and offer (i.e. make a market in cash-flows generally) is to
have a better idea of the value of that something than whomever they are
transacting with. Goldman has to think, "Ok, we'll buy/sell at x/y price
because we know the real price that is z and so we can make money by offering
the spread x - y." And guess what? In order to know that, they have to spend
what seems like a life-wasting amount of time getting into the minutiae of
esoteric financial knowledge. Because, remember, it's not that the market-
maker is just connecting buyers and sellers. The market-maker is actually
fronting the money--bearing the risk, by posting a bid and offer--in order for
there to be a guarantee of the market. So the stakes are huge.

Now, in the future, it _will_ be Tim Ferriss on AngelList-Underwrite. But he
will hire 10 guys/gals to help him analyze markets. And then will he will get
a lot of software to help aggregate information. And then he will want to be
near the action, so he'll get an office in SF. And before you know it, he will
be Goldman Sachs in jeans.

In the end, the only way for a platform to exist of any type is for someone
somewhere to bear the initial risk on an unconditional (not knowing if a
person is buying or selling) basis. It doesn't matter if it's a Facebook, a
taco stand, the Hoover Dam or asset-backed securities. Goldman (and the other
mega dealer-banks) are facilitating a platform for the entire world to unload
cash-flows: the platforms' platform. And if you pick Finance as a career, it
will be thankless, often boring, hard and people will likely not understand
what you do and will demonize you for it. But _you_ will know that you are
doing something special: you are building the platform for everything.

------
michaelochurch
The OP is more about which is socially more useful. Fuck that. It's not an
individually relevant discussion. It's for people who are comfortable, and
that's not our generation, not yet. People in their early 20s need to
concentrate on things like getting paid, making contacts, what they'll learn,
and building the credibility necessary to do what you really want to do, as
soon as you can get there. If you're not at the point of being able to change
the world for real and on your terms, then don't settle for the indirect
substitute of working for a macroscopically "world-changing" company (but
likely in a subordinate role). Instead, go and get what's right for you. No
one should feel ashamed just because he works in finance-- this is especially
true for the young, who have no real influence anyway.

Who wins between Google and Goldman? If you're coming into Google without any
contacts or a pre-established national reputation, you better head to Mt.
View. Anything else is like working in Goldman's Atlanta office (if they have
one). Also, get your project allocation _before_ you sign the offer letter. If
you land on the right project-- one with new development (not legacy
maintenance) and interesting work where promo every 2 years (up to Staff) is
common-- then Google's a pretty good option for people who know they want to
be in tech. It will set you up very well to have 4-5 years at Google with good
projects and promotions.

On the whole, though-- taking this discussion away from company specifics--
I'd advise young people to go with finance if they can get it, at least in
their early 20s. Why? If you do tech, you only gain credibility if you work on
the interesting projects. If you do bottom-half crap work in technology,
you're a nobody, and after 10 years, you'll be shat out. On the other hand, if
you have Goldman or RenTech on your resume, you have a credibility that can't
be taken away. (In New York, at least, most startup founders did their 20s in
finance.) If you got assigned crap work, you can say "that's why they pay so
well." You aren't seen as a loser if you were assigned crap work in finance,
because you can blame the industry; whereas if you worked at a software firm
and were assigned junk-pile work and never got beyond a junior role after 4
years, you're cooked. Relatedly, everyone will assume you made a lot more
money than you actually did.

Working in finance builds credibility, and that's really fucking important
when you're starting out.

~~~
nilkn
> if you have Goldman or RenTech on your resume

RenTech is in a completely different league from Google and Goldman. I've
never met a single person to even get an interview there.

