> their compensation packages may no longer be competitive
They're competitive cash-wise. But the career hit is unmistakable.
(My friends who had other options eventually got tired of carrying around reputation that comes with that place. If you have no other options, that's one thing. But not everyone loves broadcasting that fact.)
There is no career hit associated with Facebook. That’s just ludicrous wishful thinking. People love to complain about Goldman Sachs too, but that still looks good on a resume.
Having witnessed it personally, yes there is. It's not evenly distributed. And if you do something amazing later on, people will look past it. But it's there in a way it isn't for e.g. Apple or Google or Amazon.
> People love to complain about Goldman Sachs too, but that still looks good on a resume
Goldman is universally respected within finance. Facebook is not universally respected within tech.
(Neither Goldman nor Facebook care about public opinion, outside of managing political risk, since neither sells its product to the mass market [1].)
Yes, I've seen it too. As you say, it's not evenly distributed, and it also depends on other factors such as when you started working for them and what your role was.
But there's definitely some amount of stigma associated with having Facebook on your resume. The interesting question is whether that's temporary, or whether it will become even more pronounced over time.
Personally, I wouldn't overlook someone who worked at Facebook. I don't really like them as a company, but it doesn't mean everyone who works there is a bad actor.
They're competitive cash-wise. But the career hit is unmistakable.
(My friends who had other options eventually got tired of carrying around reputation that comes with that place. If you have no other options, that's one thing. But not everyone loves broadcasting that fact.)