My secondhand understanding was that Intel was losing top talent due to pressure to pay closer to median industry compensation. Top engineers recognized they were underpaid and left the company.
I've been part of a similar downhill slide at a smaller company in the billion dollar revenue range. To be blunt, once the [mediocre] MBAs start realizing that the engineers are getting paid more than they are, the pressure to reduce engineering compensation is strong. Frankly, there are plenty of engineering candidates on the market who are happy with median compensation. Many of them are even great engineers and great employees.
However, being a top company in a winner-take-all market requires the top engineers. The only way to attract and retain them at scale is to offer high compensation. I'm hoping that's part of what's happening here.
At Intel engineers are paid supposedly similar rates at similar levels and similar locations. And given my level (two levels above Senior Developer) I estimate I was paid better than at least 90% engineers.
Where I worked in R&D the doors were constantly revolving and many people admitted they wait to register enough of prestigious time at Intel on their CV to get hired at a much better rate for another company.
I don't see these moves as encouraging, more like signs of complete and utter panic. You go to these moves when whatever you do isn't working and you don't have strategy to do something new so you try to default on what has worked in the past (this both for the choice of CEO as well as bringing retired people).
This doesn't necessarily mean it is a wrong move (see Steve Jobs coming back to save Apple as a proof it doesn't have to be bad) but I wouldn't call it encouraging.
Rehiring retired people to me signals the new CEO has no trust in people that already are there. And that is usually bad news.
Add to it outsourcing CORE competency to competitor (https://www.eenewseurope.com/news/intel-TSMC-5nm) and it seems that if there is a plan it is to keep the ship afloat for a little while longer.
Hopefully the ship is going to be afloat for as long is necessary to reshape the organization, but I think we haven't yet seen any concrete moves to see what is the strategy.
Recruiter H/R: "We need to hear your salary requirements to move forward with this position".
me: "I would like to hear your offer".
Recruiter / HR: "We won't be able to consider your candidacy without your salary expectations"
Me: "Then, despite my interest in this outstanding company, and the high value I believe I can contribute to it, I will be forced to go with the employers that make a salary offer first".
Best fuck I ever had.
Not only this shows a little more negotiation savvy, but once in a blue moon this could give you an offer you have not expected. For example, they could just say "OK".
As the other reply pointed out, you are cutting yourself (a) out of the conversation (b) out of finding out what your actual range is.
Here's a dirty secret for you - very often the recruiters don't share the range because the range is broad, they may fill the role with a mid-level or a super-senior at 2x the comp. If they tell you the range, it's likely a more cookie cutter mid-level role and you don't even get to learn where you could land (or what your level doesn't hit and maybe you want to work toward)
You make it sound like if they don't tell you what the range is, they are somehow doing you a favor. No, if they don't tell you the range it's not because they're nice or whatever, but because they're trying to get you to sign on for the lowest amount possible. If you hear the range is larger than what you were expecting, you're gonna try to hit that upper bound. Both positions are understandable from their own points of view, no hard feelings here. But, in general, the recruiter is not your friend and not there to help you. Them not disclosing information is to their advantage, not to yours.
I think that's an unhelpful point of view in any but most commoditized-labor situation.
The more rare and hard to find your combination of skills and experience, the longer the recruiter has spent looking for you, and the more motivated they are to get you the best offer possible to get you in the door. It's not in their or your interest to lose you to save a few tens of thousands of dollars.
>> You make it sound like if they don't tell you what the range is, they are somehow doing you a favor. No, if they don't tell you the range it's not because they're nice or whatever, but because they're trying to get you to sign on for the lowest amount possible.
Again that kind of only works in the most commoditized situations (eg: "hire anyone with 6 months experience with React" or whatever.) The more specialized the recruiting search, the broader the range becomes: for example, "we need someone who knows technology X and Y, has been in industry A and has shown attributes B and C" they recognize they may end up hire a more junior or a more senior person and expect different things from them. So the role may pay 250 or it may pay 500 based on who you are. If you're in the 250-level experience range, it's meaningless for you to hear that it can go up to 500.
An employer, upon reasonable request, shall provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment. For purposes of this section, “pay scale” means a salary or hourly wage range. For purposes of this section “reasonable request” means a request made after an applicant has completed an initial interview with the employer.
Based on the wording, in that it appears to be addressing employers in the law's jurisdiction, I believe the answer is a).
1. The candidate will ask closer to the upper end of the range but will get declined. Both company and candidate lost because divulging the upper end created unrealistic expectation by the candidate.
2. The candidate will or will not ask closer to the upper end and if he asks, the company declines and proposes more realistic rate. Now, both still loose because the candidate is "tainted" by thinking the company did not think he is worth the money and that he could get so much more.
The alternative is to have very narrow range but this is also suboptimal, because it is better to be flexible and once you get to know the candidate figure out where he/she fits.
Asking for rate at the beginning also allows to fine-tune the recruitment process. The company should NEVER propose less than what the candidate stated as their minimum. That's just a way to get an unhappy employee from day one. So, by specifying your rate you also specify minimum requirements you have to pass for the company to be interested in you. If you say you are expensive, that's the standard you are going to be evaluated against.
Again, having a flexible rate but not letting the candidate know is better for the company, not for the candidate. Keeping the range a secret instead of defining the range correctly and specifying the job correctly seems like laziness on the part of recruiter/ HR.
I've spoken with (drunk to be honest?) recruiters that got a lower overall commission the higher the salary for the recruited person got.
Not to be an asshole, but that wouldn't suprise me. Maybe I got more cynical with age but anytime someone I don't know tries to tell me, implies, makes me feel that he/she is my friend and wants what's best for me, without a clear reason or incentive for it being so, I get real suspicious real fast.
I personally like it much better than having rigid positions and have to pass on a candidate just because he/she does not fit a rigid set of requirements.
What kind of seniority are we talking about here?
Which would that be, if you have multiple offers, where they name the first number, and then you offer them the opportunity to bid higher against each other?
So yeah sorry, not moving for a lower value
Probably the simplest strategy would be to always ask for the amount you curently make, plus 30% or 50%. And keep interviewing once in a while even if you are okay with your current job. If you asked for less than you could get, the next jump will fix it.
Then don't increase your expenses, save the extra money, retire early.
I’m well established in my career (and I don’t have SV costs of living to be fair) - but anywhere even in the galaxy of $200 an hour would be life-changing for me.
I think GP is worried this may not be the case, and he would lose purchasing power.
Nothing may happen, but I think we'll have to wait and see if this is the case or not.
I think the largest pay bump I've ever seen in a year was right at 2% or possibly even less.
And one would assume you'd see rents and housing prices very rapidly start going up, then presumably other prices over varying levels of time.
What would happen if we were to set the minimal wage at 100K so that we eliminate the poverty in one swift move and everyone is either equally rich, or as you are worried - equally poor :)
If the government offered jobs at the minimum wage there would be an effective price floor for wages. Better yet, if those government workers spend their income they can drive economic demand which ends up creating jobs above minimum wage. Eventually every job pays more than minimum wage and nobody is dependent on the jobs guarantee.
Your solution isn’t better. The government cannot be everywhere the way that Walmart is.
I really don’t think its impact is going to be that big. Low skilled labor will still find ways to get hired for less, off the books if the need is great enough...it happens all the time.
The government already offers jobs like that too, just that it's through the prison system and the floor is much too low
There are ways to move anywhere you want, and ways to get remote work at us companies, especially now, if you don't want to move. They are not easy, but they exist.
Not easily at all, clients usually avoid working with offshore freelancers directly, and established freelance platforms tend to cap the overseas rates (because they want their cut and also clients expect offshore devs to cost much less)
Or am I totally wrong here?
If someone has other solutions for out-of-the-US, non-US-tax-reporters to applying to US remote jobs that list "US based" as a requirement I would love to hear about it.
I'm not surprised Intel does this and the telecommunications side I have seen from them in Europe was rotten to the core. I have several anecdotes here just one: A friend got poached from Intel in a cushy job with great pay in a key role a lot of niche knowledge, they had to know how valuable he was, after the first week on the new job with Intel he got told that the department decided to reduce the headcount due to a restructuring and so he was the first to go.
If it sounds like "business as usual" let me add nobody else was fired, he had a 3 month long negotiation, 6 months notice period on the old job, 3 kids, and in his late 40ies in a specific market. What he was promised would have justified taking the risk. Later I heard they do this all the time from a guy who recruits for Intel. Also this was not in the enterprise market with lot of talent but telecommunications O&M (operations and maintenance plane). He eventually went to go beg to get his job back. He'll never have the same standing in the company tho.
> A friend got poached from Intel in a cushy job
> after the first week on the new job with Intel ... he was the first to go.
He got poached from Intel or should it be by Intel? Since his new job apparently was at Intel
> Later I heard they do this all the time
Why do they do that? Sounds like a waste of time for the recruiters (and him but apparently they don't care about that)
If nothing else, making 30% more and saving it would allow you to retire 30 percent earlier. Is half assed slacking for 10+ extra years really that good a proposition when instead you can actually crush it now and then be fully free?
Also, to be honest I've never seen the "he's underpaid so we expect less" dynamic in management. What I see much more often is "this guy is bad, not quite so bad that we can fire him but almost. We can't justify raising his comp so let's give him shit work that others would rather not do." Maybe your situation is as you say but seems odd.
But you're glossing over the downsides of trading your youth away for a hopeful payoff at a later date. Not all of us like that bargain.
I make a fraction of what people in this thread are saying they make. But what price do you put on being 30 and single on a beach in Mexico, happy, with a low stress job? You could look at it as if I paid half my salary to buy back my time.
We all value things differently, but notice that it's your youngest self that's most eager to bargain your youth away.
My experience confirms this. The least paid jobs I had were also the most stressful.
This is completely false.
You get paid more when the company values you more.
The company values you more, when they make more from what you are able to contribute, on average.
Highly paid engineering work environments are strongly correlated with interesting work and with good working conditions.
> This is completely false.
I wouldn't say it's completely false. For example, I'm guessing many enterprise software developers make more than many CS professors. Said professors are obviously qualified to make CRUD apps but they would rather do research or teach curriculums based on their interests.
> The company values you more, when they make more from what you are able to contribute, on average.
Yes, this is true. But your conclusion does not follow from that:
> Highly paid engineering work environments are strongly correlated with interesting work and with good working conditions.
There is probably some correlation between interesting work for the engineer on the one hand and profitable work for the employer on the other, but it's not nearly as strong as you make it seem.
Intel engineers design chips, used by billions of people. There is a certain value, placed on such jobs. And it appears, that Intel management is happy to exploit that value.
Simply ask for more in salary and benefits. When they ask why, state all the reasons why the increase is warranted. If they deny the request, look for another job that pays the higher amount.
When I was hired for my absolute first job, over two decades ago, I was asked how much I want. I did not know how much I can ask so I asked some minimum that I thought would pay for my expenses. The guy who interviewed me, who was to be my manager, said he shouldn't be telling this but I can ask twice as much.
Sounds like what happened at Intel, from the top comments.
Everyone is 15+ inches and making six figures minimum and if you're not, you're pathetic and are getting taken advantage of.
Not a very healthy situation, even now with everybody WFH
HN is great, but it really is not an accurate sample of real world wages.
A big piece of career advice I have for any folks that feel like they're in dead-ends or are just getting started is that, in modern society, you should be constantly expending time and energy to ensure you're in the most personally rewarding position - the world is a cruel place where the socially awkward and introverted have a constant uphill battle to not be exploited.
Oh and we're all super lucky to be in tech because in a lot of other fields there is just no way to advance yourself.
This was both uplifting and an apt commentary on how to survive in the modern age.
> Oh and we're all super lucky to be in tech because in a lot of other fields there is just no way to advance yourself.
I feel like this is a pretty cynical take. Really, what's happening is that more and more jobs are becoming tech jobs. It may not be as glamorous as going to stand-ups each morning, but there's plenty of opportunity out there and we're just in an awkward transition period where societies are trying to play catch-up with, historically-speaking, a lot of changes in a short amount of time.
Whether that transition ends with peace or chaos is going to depend on how easy the transition is made for everyone
I must have extremely different definition of glamorous to you.
It is also economically inefficient. If you are worth $100k/y and you sell yourself for $50k/y then you are basically doing charity for your company. If you really cared about charity you would ask for the higher salary and then donate the money yourself. What really happens is that you are keeping an economically inefficient company alive. That's not just bad for you but also for the economy as a whole because your "talents" are being wasted.
>Oh and we're all super lucky to be in tech because in a lot of other fields there is just no way to advance yourself.
It's the opposite. Low skill jobs are drying up. Most of them are going overseas. Getting a high skilled job is not luck, developed countries are restructuring their economies to specialize in high skilled jobs.
Just a bunch of sentences to say that $/hr isn't the end all, but a decent at-a-glance way of comparing.
$45 * 8 (hours a day) * 22 (days a month) * 12 (months) = $95k
You were getting paid the equivalent of $95k/year as an intern??
I was originally hired for the summer at $35/hr or so, and then got a raise at the end of the summer when they asked me to stay on part-time during the school year.
$45/hr|$90K would be too low nowadays. GP's experience could have been more than a few years ago.
The immigrant will agree to a low salary because the alternative is getting deported.
Well, Netflix might come close. I can count two principal-level architects pulling north of 700k/y, but I doubt they work just 40 hours a week.
That said, I think this is only achievable because of how relatively young and greenfield software is - the industry hasn't existed for more than a eighty years in any real sense (and arguably didn't really begin until things moved from academic to commercial in the seventies or so) and thus a lot of software can add massive value to society while doing relatively simple things. I think in a few hundred years all the low hanging fruit will be gone and software development will be extremely different from these wild-west days but right now yea - the value you can produce for a business can absolutely justify pretty ridiculous salaries.
I think the important counter point for humility here is that those folks aren't particularly special, maybe a 700k architect is a literal genius at the peak of their career, but there are other folks out there that are just as creative and making 80k. Maybe we just need to think of the strange wage imbalance in development as being as fickle and arbitrary as celebrity - could that actor at the local playhouse have been the next Jennifer Lawrence if only they'd gotten cast for the role? Quite possibly, but luck wasn't on their side and passed them over.
I'd say that people that command such high salaries are certainly worth it (in the cases I've seen at least) but they have also benefited from some fantastic luck in their career progression - they could've been someone else and be earning far less for the same set of skills.
If you write a webapp to solve a $5000/day problem, that’s worth $X. If your company sells that to 10 companies, your work is worth 10X. But if it’s sold to 10000, wow.
Think of your work in terms of value provided to the buyer, not in terms of cost to yourself. Thus you unlock career potential
If the webapp can solve $5000/day problem but there is literally millions of people that can do this, you are certainly not getting a share of that. Somebody else is maybe going to be rewarded for spotting an opportunity but the most you get is a "market rate".
The only way you can get paid proportionally is if you are literally the only one that can solve the problem and you know it and they know you know it.
Your goal is to maximize the value delivered. Their goal is to minimize how much of the value you capture.
You’ll find balance somewhere in the middle.
And ultimately there’s only so much a company will pay if they can’t extract value out of your work. Regardless of how good you are.
I think it's important to recognize the semi-arbitrary source of where this value is coming from and understand that while employees impacting a lot of customers are indeed creating a lot of value the work they are doing isn't significantly different from the work made by folks with more modest salaries.
Basically, at the core, I think there's a significant ethical question here and I would highlight the relative infancy of the industry. It's likely that in a few hundred years all this incredible value creation will be highly commoditized and that innovative development will be relegated to academic pursuits that companies only adopt and bring to market after a lot of investigation and research.
Uh hrm - as another parallel you might compare this to speed running. Right now we can do relatively simple things to dramatically create value (time saved off the run) but as time goes on and the run gets more "perfected" then the ability to shave time off the run (or create value for the business) will require a lot more investment of effort. I'm not certain if this will happen since everything in how development works points to this being a really hard state of the industry to accomplish - but looking at economic trends it feels inevitable that eventually it will be more profitable to, for instance, produce a cheaper better whatsapp then being the first market entrent into the coveted Deciduous Tree Vlog Platform market.
I worked at a startup, became amazed at the sales crew’s ability to find buyers. I could make the app (and Co. could find few willing & capable to), but in no way could find anyone to fork over that much for it.
Google for example makes about 7-figures per employee. That’s a loooot of room to negotiate.
In non-tech companies, IT is seen as a cost. Half the time your contribution is just saving the company from hiring x number of people to do the work manually.
Think of it as a $200k salary with $500k of "just to ensure you won't find a better offer elsewhere" on top.
These aren't the kind of roles you can work your way into. You have to be in the right place at the right time and be there for a long time.
Sorry for grammar. On mobile but wanted to quickly contribute.
I was incredibly lucky in my last role. Something I don't think I'll ever be able to match again.
When I joined the company as a sysadmin there were 30 staff, and they really liked the work I did and eventually they put me on this innovation incentive scheme that basically said "If you keep delivering innovative solutions and driving the technology direction in the way that you are, we will pay you a bonus of 1.5% of the profit made from e-commerce sales every 4"
At the time sales profit from e-commerce channels was about 250k for each period, so a very nice $3500~ bonus every 4 months.
When I left the company ~15 years later:
- 5000+ staff
- Had moved into a role managing a large team of sysadmins and was responsible for the technical innovation strategy/direction of the business overall.
- Same CEO and and my original "IT manager" was now the CTO who I still reported into.
- They kept me on the same bonus scheme for my whole time at the company.
- By the time I left online sales profit for each 4 month period was $50,000,000.
Right place, right time, right people.
I gave up a lot for that job and worked damn hard though. I let it consume me and ended up very unhealthy.
Short gigs where you being in a solution, point a team/company on the right direction and then jump off compensate for the accrued knowledge transfer more than for the hour worked
Think of it like a top end athlete, they aren't paid for the few hours of play, but for the years of training that keep them competitive
There are vanishingly few people getting $500/h and getting 40 hours worth of contract a week, 50 weeks a year. I don't think I've ever heard of one.
An oil man had a pump on the fritz and needed someone to fix it, fast. He sought the advice of the best expert he could find, and luckily when the expert listened to the problem he said, "let me spend a day with it and see what I can do."
The old expert pulls up in an empty pickup with only a hammer and nail in hand, calmly walks over to the pump, places the nail on the side, and taps it. Then, the expert dusts himself off and hands the oil man a slip of paper that reads,
"Total $1,000. Nail $1. Where to place the nail $999"
Ford, whose electrical engineers couldn’t solve some problems they were having with a gigantic generator, called Steinmetz in to the plant. Upon arriving, Steinmetz rejected all assistance and asked only for a notebook, pencil and cot. According to Scott, Steinmetz listened to the generator and scribbled computations on the notepad for two straight days and nights. On the second night, he asked for a ladder, climbed up the generator and made a chalk mark on its side. Then he told Ford’s skeptical engineers to remove a plate at the mark and replace sixteen windings from the field coil. They did, and the generator performed to perfection.
Henry Ford was thrilled until he got an invoice from General Electric in the amount of $10,000. Ford acknowledged Steinmetz’s success but balked at the figure. He asked for an itemized bill.
Steinmetz, Scott wrote, responded personally to Ford’s request with the following:
Making chalk mark on generator $1.
Knowing where to make mark $9,999.
Ford paid the bill.
Edit for background: I have 9 years experience, an MSIS working at a financial company.
A recurring issue I've found is, "Jack the EE picked up programming in a week, why are you worth as much or more than him when you aren't even a 'real' engineer?" Substitute another field for EE based on industry. Software is simultaneously too easy for them to take seriously, and too hard for them to fathom its depths.
The company should definitely be paying more out of their pocket to employ good tech talent, but I'm not so certain whether it's good for society for all that created value to be given to the developer who happened to create it. I think there is a big value gap in how much developers can produce with relatively little labour compared to, say, a car mechanic - but I think that it might be best for everyone if a really big proportion of that value gap was sliced up and distributed more evenly across society in the form of social programs to benefit us all.
And since management teams in large companies tend to grow out of whichever departments are the primary domains, if software is always seen as tertiary then managers with software background are consistently absent or too few to clear up this confusion.
Just because an arbitrary person can learn how to do X, it doesn’t change the fact that there is a huge shortage of people who can competently X. The price paid for software development is a product of supply and demand, not how “special” software developers are.
Sometimes I think about becoming a mechanic. They make good money.
I definitely would not work at a dealer or chain. Being part of a small company or your own would be great. Not moving up wouldn't be a big deal in that kind of role.
On a side note, I'm confused why everyone is obsessed with moving up. Can't people just be happy where they are? I really don't see much difference in my company between the various levels, nor is it a very big promotion at 7%.
Software engineering and development field is extremely difficult. There are many opportunities in this field, because there are so few candidates that can do the work. HN is self selected group of people with experience in the field. But they are actually very few in number.
The average worker does not have in demand skills in tech sector.
Its not so much that the skills themselves are in demand, its the enormous experience that someone who can command that kind of fee has. The skill set you're talking about can be learned probably in a year or two of 8-5, M-F self-guided learning from Udemy / Coursera / YouTube, but its the experience of using those skills to build something of value that is driving that hourly rate, not so much the skills themselves.
If you feel I'm missing something here, please go into more depth, because I find this all quite fascinating. :)
$200/hr in the UK would put you in the top 1% of earners.
That roughly equates to $400,000 a year. Which may seem like a lot, until people actually see what the market rates are in west coast tech hubs.
Also, Mark Zuckerberg is worth $100 Billion, for creating basically a CRUD app in php.
In west coast tech hubs, that's about half of median salary alone. If you factor in bonus, stock options, etc. That's about 1/3 or 1/4 of total comp.
He may still be underpaid, but it's not apples/apples.
That said, 45 is really low for any position in an engineering company, unless it’s ancillary support services that get farmed out. Something like ‘Lab Admin’ type of thing.
It works out for some people but it will not work out for everyone.
And, honestly, I think that after the pandemic companies are going to have a lot of trouble trying to pull employees back into in-office full time work.
Or did you mean this is $45/hr post-tax rate?
Had a flat. Not a big deal; got the spare on, schedule some time at the mechanics to get a new tire. Tire gets put on, everything is great, time passes.
Later, come back for a regularly scheduled tire rotation. "We can't get the lug nuts off. They've been over tightened." the mechanic says. "Well, how do you suppose that happened?" I ask. Of course, it goes a. completely over that their head, (they were the last ones to touch the lug nuts) and of course, b., it's my wallet that pays for their error.
They were not the mechanic for a while after that. Aside from that gaffe they did good work, and everybody else I tried for a while was all around worse. Eventually returned to them, and that was really the only problem I ever had…
Having contracted a lot in the past, the fact that Intel is hiring contractors signals a hiring crisis.
Either nobody wants to work there, or work is ramping up. But a company full of contractors might not be too healthy.
>Rehiring retired people to me signals the new CEO has no trust in people that are already there.
And why should he, given the conditions you just outlined? I certainly wouldn’t. They’ve demonstrated they can’t advance either the process tech or the chip architecture in any meaningful way.
And I don’t even fault the engineers, but rather a finance-oriented CEO who managed for the bottom line, to goose stock prices and executive comp, while cannibalizing the engineering corps of the high-output talent and experienced technical leadership and mentoring necessary to advance one of the most complex, difficult technologies.
One possibility here is that Gelsinger is reversing that, rebuilding the original proven team from the top down, starting with the people who both know how that works, and have the connections to and respect from additional top technical talent to bring them on as well.
If Gelsinger also restructures compensation for these folks to ensure they’re appropriately compensated (way above “market rate”) then that’s confirmation that this isn’t panic but the right strategy of rebuilding Intel’s talent base.
And that report you linked was discussed yesterday, unclear how reliable it is:
The reason I made more money than them was Marc Andreesen. Someone got wind of how much they had been compensating him not to leave and they put the kibosh on it, but they were smart about it. They sugar coated the change by compressing the pay scale toward the middle, instead of squashing it down. If you weren't Marc Andreesen (and he'd been gone for over a year and the people he had poached gone for ~8 months at this point), then your pay didn't change. If you were new, like me, you were better off with the change.
You can keep top end people by giving them autonomy instead of more money, but I don't know if, in the long term, that's in Intel's best interests either. People generally trust that my heart is in the right place, but I'm human. Some of my decisions are wrong, and some are just so abstruse that they appear wrong, so I get push-back on both. I've worked at places that are 'top-heavy', where enough people have been Peter Principal-ed into MAX_RANK and there's no room in the org chart to dilute them with more promising people. In fact I work at one of these now. To a first order approximation, I'm just collecting the pay while I convince myself what I want to do next, which is proving to be more difficult than it ever has before, so I'm just here.
At this point, suspect it’s nothing but dregs. Would not hire any of the people I left behind who are still there. Period.
That's right. Any time an organization goes with "let's bring back the band," I become a little more skeptical than before. Not just because of what it implies on the quality of the bench, but I'm also wary of this halo effect of the good old days masking what's really needed today instead of living in yesteryear.
Gelsinger seems like a pretty good pick for Intel given how disastrous their last CEO search went, but in the earnings call today, there was a lot of invoking the Old Gods and Intel history. I get why they're doing it, but it's a different competitive landscape and Intel today.
Again with this location based compensation trend. Maybe it works for flipping burgers but it seriously break down when you are a global player hiring from a pool of global talent.
You can play CoL games and count beans as much as you want, but the engineering talent Intel is after are also pursued by companies like Apple that are wat above market rate.
So I can believe Apple doesn't pay non-SW folks that much.
I read the GP more in the lines of since everything is on fire and most of the house has already turned into coal, they demonstrating some panic is a much better behavior than the previous indifference about the fire, and a signal that they may decide to do something about it. Thus, expectations on Intel improved.
One dev can spend 2 weeks automating some process or building a prototype web app that goes on to generate tens of millions for the company with no overhead.
Your hypothetical EE can spend 2 years designing a chip. The chip will then require 100s of millions of dollars to be spent on testing, manufacturing, and sales in order to be economically useful to the company (note that none of those functions involve the EE who designed the chip).
Sad? I dunno, maybe. True, yep. Nonsensical? Definitely not, there's clear logic to why certain kinds of work pay what they do.
Consider the reality shows The Voice, America's Got Talent, game shows etc., that generate millions of dollars of revenue for the studios. But the people who are performing the acts, aren't compensated highly (unless they "win").
Frankly I think that many of these highly paid SWEs are really not worth what they are paid, and that many people could be doing their jobs.
I think this is part of the reason of my struggles in the job market since being laid off in June. There has become an obsession that if you're not in the "top 1% of SDEs", you are in essence, worthless and shouldn't be hired.
That is... downright absurd. God, it's enough to make one wonder where we'd all be if Intel weren't asleep at the wheel.
Intel has grading system which you can try to google. You are paid according to your grade (+ benefits based on performance, etc.) Also, you are evaluated against your grade and you can gain or loose a grade based on performance (but more likely than loosing a grade is that you will be let go).
I have been given a grade that was over my head at the time and would require me to technically advise and coordinate multiple projects, have outside presence (ie present at tech conferences, take part in opensource projects, etc.) and basically work at a level that I have not been ready for. And yet I was not able to make ends meet.
I guess when I was hired I got absolutely excited about what I am going to work on and plans for bright future, that I have completely ignored the possibility that I may be over my head and that I may not be able to advance so quickly.
Your one company gentrifies the hell out of some things, not everything, and ultimately all fates are tied to their fortunes. They do a layoff, hiring freeze or even a salary squeeze and eight months later a few restaurants and one of your favorite stores shut down. You find out they've been late on payments to people and vendors for the past 6 months.
I recall the first time I heard someone interviewing at Intel and I asked why they were, 'in the middle of nowhere in Oregon' and nobody had a good answer to that.
What I've learned about manufacturing since then makes me think, "lax environmental rules and watchdogs".
Also, I imagine Intel would gain very little from being located in, for example, the Bay Area or NYC. It isn't like they are some little startup that needs to go out to bars to find new developers or whatever.
It is much easier now with remote work being prevalent.
When the MBA consultants and salespeople from the acquirer found out, they couldn’t believe he made that much — all while they personally managed $2MM-$3MM books of business.
What do you think happened? He was slowly stripped of responsibilities and eventually forced out, for the crime of standing out as an exceptional performer.
>Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":
>First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
>Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
>The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
For anyone else reading, I enjoyed it tremendously and highly recommend it. It's a very fun book to read.
I love that dynamic /s
It's not really conducive to communication to fill in the blanks like that, even though any person in someone else's work story could be one of Them walking among us... ;)
He was incentivized to hustle harder, until incentives were stripped, out of spite.
Just about every week I comb through my inbox unsubscribing from all the companies' mailing lists that I most certainly did not subscribe to.
I don't mean some trading-only companies like Cargill who have extra prostitues budgets (at least 5 years ago that was true, and with expensive alcohol parties was the only way to do any business in places like Russia or most 3rd world countries). I mean any kind of bigger corporation. Banks have it. Any kind of finance business does. You won't get far without it.
There are obviously rules, but often they go the other way - employees shouldn't accept bribes in forms of these gifts. But getting clients, that's a free for all, the winner takes all (and biggest bonus).
Just want to call out that the multi-million dollar salespeople I know wine and dine their spouses and friends far more lavishly than their clients. The people being sold to, similarly, aren’t alien to fine dining. For two people who enjoy that (versus a baseball game), it can be a genuine way to bond far from bribery. Gifts, on the other hand, yes.
We need to get people out of this kind of thinking, and the sooner the better.
MBAs, in my experience, is the worst example of it. They treat themselves as some higher order creatures, without actual skills or understanding of things.
"Microsoft recently came to my graduate school to recruit for user experience design and user experience research positions. 10 folks out of my program (about 25% of us) scored and interview.
Every single one of us had no intention of working for Microsoft and joked about it intensely. Microsoft had be relegated to the realm of other boring places to do our type of work but that you interview at for practice (and, you know, just in case that job at google doesn't pan out).
In my interview, the topic of digg.com came up and neither interviewer had heard of them. I said they were like a type of slahsdot, or maybe magnolia. Never heard of those either I quipped "oh, maybe you're not involve much in the web / web development world".
"Actually, I'm one of the project managers for Internet Explorer."
The interview went downhill, from Microsoft, from that point forward. My heart wasn't even in it "just in case" anymore."
Hard to believe Microsoft was so utterly reviled by competent people in 2007. Nowadays I look at some of the things they're doing (mostly Surface line) and I would love to be involved with that. I feel like, even though they're not always hitting the bullseye, Microsoft is really aiming for the target with Surface devices. I know the Surface Duo got a lot of hate, and I really wanted to get one, but I feel like it just isn't "there" yet. Microsoft has been on that sort of track record for the past 5 years or so... the first version of a new product is a little questionable, the second is decent enough, but the third iteration, they're really nailing it.
My Surface Book 3 is the best laptop I have ever owned, and I've had many.
As someone who was there, I have no problem believing it.
If you were doing _anything_ that touched anything unixy in the 90s until the mid aughts MS wasn't just "uncool", they were actively "the enemy" directly competing against everything you did. After a while that adversarial relationship turned into joking with your peers about every mis-step they made. It didn't help that they seemed to make a lot of mis-steps and put a lot of effort into things that turned into dead ends.
They had to put a _lot_ of work into re-establishing their reputation this past decade.
Combine "my way or the highway" stance of Google when it comes to tech and standards, Oracle's utter corporate ruthlessness, turn it up to eleven, and consider they had a lock-in in the entire IT market similar to how Apple now controls the iOS market, and you'll start to get sense why.
You know which ones still have them, because on Zoom calls, they'll occasionally have their audio sound like a demon trying to murder them very loudly.
Even the best phones and laptops won't match a DSLR, so I don't try to.
The old "Personnel Department" did that perfectly well long before HR was a thing.
Maybe it is because I've never worked in the valley, but I can't think of a positive 401k plan experience. I do remember a lot of onboarding powerpoint with regards to penalties and limitations. The whole thing feels coercive, having to participate in the market when you aren't interested in managing the position - simply to protect your savings from intentionally set inflation rates. All those "unsophisticated investors" (no joke, that is what they call you) are arguably the cause of the dot-com bubble as well, not because people were daytrading pets.com, but because fund managers had to put that surge of disinterested capital somewhere. I imagine that if powerpoint was around back in the day, the guys managing company store credit schemes would have functioned much like today's HR reps.
In my experience, there are many great leaders with MBA degrees. However, you never hear about their MBA degree because they have so many other accomplishments to lead with. They are managers who happen to have completed an MBA program in the past.
The troublesome people are those who lean on credentialism in the hopes that merely having the MBA degree will allow them to skip to the head of the compensation structure. Anyone who builds their identity around the university they attended or the degree they received will raise a lot of red flags.
99% of MBAs give the rest a bad name.
That's the usual MBA mistake when dealing with IT. Most of what you've been taught applies to ditch diggers or bottling Coca Cola.
That's gotta count for something.
Happens on many levels though, it's not as if engineers don't get credit for team efforts.
CompSci -> Work in industry -> MBA usually produces the best managers.
In the case I described, the issue was literally that having an MBA put you on a lower payscale than being a mid-tier engineer.
The problem was that we had several people who invested years of their lives and six figures into post-graduate MBA education with the expectation that it was a cheat code for moving them up to the top of the payscale. It was a shock to land in a company where that was not true at all, and furthermore that it was codified into the payscale.
Having an MBA is certainly not a negative signal like HN tends to suggest. The bigger issue is resistance to the modern dual-track career ladders. Many people still want the management title (or an MBA credential) to guarantee them higher compensation, and they're resistant to any system which doesn't match those expectations.
My pet theory is that they just have more time to spent scheming, and influencing others. While engineers are busy trying to get shit done.
and/or too busy arguing with product/engineering managers (for better or worse)
They all share the same "pointless" features:
- lawyers: reason for hiring: the company doesn't get sued for breaking laws (boils down to reducing costs even if you only consider the statutory damages)
- accountants: reason for hiring: the company doesn't hide deficits / key employees can't divert money (boils down to reducing costs)
- MBAs: reason for hiring: so that existing processed are optimized, and employees don't slack off too much (boils down to reducing costs)
To which I'd add HR:
- HR: reason for hiring: so that the company doesn't get sued for discrimination or gets bad PR that will reduce sales/good hires (boils down to reducing costs) -- connected to lawyers, except HR may also care about stuff that doesn't directly break laws.
So I think all of them are important! Then again, I'm now a capitalist pig, so feel free to dismiss my concerns.
But even if you only care about the visible features of a product, understand you can't innovate or even excel on a budget - which means reducing costs and trimming expenses whenever possible.
> reducing costs
yeah, or risk mitigation. Haven't decided which is truer.
> Then again, I'm now a capitalist pig, so feel free to dismiss my concerns
Yeah I own a company with ~50-60 employees (call me Mr. Pig). Business owners need to take input from these risk-mitigation roles into consideration but, ultimately, they shouldn't be decision makers. Taking risk is important.
Decision makers should be creators (eng, design) and the sellers (sales, marketing).
Businesses aren't built on reducing costs, they are built on making money. But, then again, you can use money you save by reducing costs and feed it into the creation->sales machine. It's a balance.
Hello Mr Pig, nice to meet a fellow pig :)
> yeah, or risk mitigation. Haven't decided which is truer.
Same thing to me. What do you "risk", except not making money? It all boils down to money.
> ultimately, they shouldn't be decision makers. Taking risk is important
Agreed - as long as you can take said risk, because again it all boils down to money. These people help you do that by not spending as much while achieving the same (or better) outcomes.
> It's a balance.
Totally! As for MBAs and the likes, I see them as XOs: I decide on the direction and give the orders. They implement them.
Their perspective is different from mine - which is surprisingly closer to the first line workers, who hold a lot of valuable insights (about optimization, client needs, etc) that may be lost due to the middle layer (of MBAs etc)
But the middle layer has its own role to play, to save money and keep operations smooth and reduce costs (risks) whenever possible.
I’ve had some great market research done by providing assignments to MBA students (though when I did my engineering MS and we had joint classes I stayed as far away from group work with them as I could - different grading gives different incentives), I just feel they sometimes might have difficulties understanding concepts like opportunity cost, probability or non-linear developments.
I regularly pay engineers more than I pay myself as a CEO (granted: I am not really interested in draining the company's coffers for my own benefit, since I have equity). It just seems obvious that, at the end of the day, so much of the business's success turns on the engineering quality of the product, of the production lines, of the efficiencies, of the final delivered product quality.
While I take time to try to understand engineering issues, I am not an engineer by training and recognize that these people are much, much better at it than I am. So it's strange to see all these MBAs -- the types of people I used to work more closely with -- simply not get it. In most industries, you simply can't paper over operational and engineering incompetence with a slick marketing plan. So you need great engineering and operational chops. For many industries, more than a slick marketing plan.
I worked once for a company where I was doing a product for the iPad. I literally, could not get the company to buy the newest iPad for us to test on. The only iPad we had for development had a bad sensor and would throw errors constantly.
One day, marketing brings me 12 new iPads because-- they want me to install a beta of the app on them, because they're going to Fiji for a company-paid vacation (with their families!).
I have the flip side story:
We had spent almost 6 figures on factory experiments and needed to get some customer feedback from Europe at the behest of marketing.
Being mischievous and predicting the response, I actually asked marketing if they could purchase our engineering team a pelican case to protect the marketing samples ($300 cost).
They said it wasn’t in their budget to support, so we used bubble wrap.
First, it has nothing to do with MBAs.
And of course we don't really know how budgets are allocated? That they might have just bought their iPads as part of the purchase cycle whereas 'Eng guy' already had one, and 'the sensor' wasn't enough to justify a new one? And that everything customer-facing has to be relatively new? And that 'the trip' they were on has nothing to do with anything?
If he's complaining about a bad sensor it means that sensor was hindering his testing, otherwise he wouldn't have even noticed.
It's a matter of who is valuable and who is not, in the eyes of the people making the budget.
When they joined a company and realized that their graduate degree was not a guarantee that they'd be at the top of the payscale, they interpreted that as an error in the compensation structure.
The challenge is that many (though not all) MBA programs virtually promote this idea that an MBA is a key to unlocking the highest salaries. MBA program advertising material often implies that an MBA will have huge ROI and greatly increase their compensation. It can be a shock to land at dual-track companies and realize that compensation is a strict ordering according to credentials.
I work in a different industry, but it's the same story everywhere. MBAs are the worst thing to ever happen to American business. We've created an entire class of people with large egos and expensive credentials who don't actually know anything practical, and we've put them in charge.
We've come up with this weird idea that you can abstract running a business away from the nuances of a particular business and industry, but that's completely untrue. Business are not these clean theoretical constructs you see in business school or an economics class, they're real, they're messing, and it's not always crystal clear why a particular business works or doesn't work.
Unfortunately, this feels all too true. I believe this kind of mental bias trap is true and widespread.
The engineer working on CAD, layout, specs, RFQs, Suppliers, Equipment, etc are hardly going to revolutionize anything. Their work is valuable but they’re entirely replaceable.
For every top engineer, you need 20 minions to execute. Folks who think otherwise haven’t really worked in a large company. In the words of Jim Keller - “It’s craftsman’s work. It’s fun.”
You just named all specialist who would get N-times the salary outside of the industry.
That's the problem of the industry.
A man who can "just write a CAD plugin" in semi industry would probable be an instant senior hire in any CAD vendor.
A mid-level semi PM would be a senior PM, GM level manager, or a COO anywhere else.
Analog IC designer is by default a top-tier EE.
A fab "junior technician" is likely an engineering, or physics master, or more likely a PhD in Taiwan.
And so on, and on.
I think this is a very elitist mindset that unfortunately many people have.
To me engineering is primarily a learning process on how to build better tools. And you can probably always build a more suitable tool on top of existing tool.
So saying, this is "boring work", that requires "just minions" is akin to saying that the existing tools cannot be improved, or people who use these tools cannot figure out a way to improve them themselves, they need to be told by somebody.
Intel is replaceable.
Basically, I was saying that top-engineers are irreplaceable but they need replaceable engineers to execute menial, boring, repetitive work. There is a lot of this to be done.
 - AMD
 - Apple
 - Microsoft
If you have good engineers the relationship between amount of work and number of engineers needed is non-linear.
Top-tier companies have to pay top-tier compensation.
If you are/become a leader, this mentality can seriously hurt your org. Pay for the talent you want to attract and keep. Pay generously for performance.
Having a boring or menial job is not an indictment of a person's potential or capabilities.
Anyone remembers Blackberry?
That's pretty much what killed them. Going there typically meant you weren't good enough to get a callback from Apple.
I am extremely interested in this long and irrelevant story.
Graduated with my MS and three internships with Intel into what I thought would be my 'rest of life' job. I wanted Brian's job, which at that point was the head of the fabs. Got less than one month of training and then told 'all yours now'. Worked my ass off for like 18 months, made a name for myself in the factory, was literally on call 24x7 by myself for 11 months. Got an annual review were I was told 'we had limited budget for bonuses and raise budget, and we gave it to XX because he has kids'. Sucked it up, told myself I was playing the long game and to just put my head down and work. Hacked together software that made stuff which never worked work. Worked and worked and worked. Lost a marriage over it...who would want to be 25 and married to someone who works over 100 hours a week and gets woken up by a phone call almost every night?
I had been working an issue for months, got no buy in, got told it was no big deal/no budget/ignored. The fourth time the same thing broke, suddenly it was an emergency. I was supposed to leave on vacation that day...a vacation I had given 10 months notice on because I had no coverage. Got asked to cancel the vacation. I walked out.
I've learned, I'm smarter than that now, I respect myself in new ways I wasn't ready to understand. Now when I mentor undergraduates I am laser focused on quality of life mattering and learning to respect yourself beyond how someone else evaluates your work. I still know what my ring tone on my on call cell phone there was...and I know that it still cause anxiety when I hear it (but not panic attacks anymore). The ring tone is in a James Bond movie, I don't watch that movie.
I discovered a kid out in Utah on YouTube named Joshua Fluke and his story is very similar to yours, and he often says much of what you say in terms of quality of life, the corporate attitude of most companies, etc.
I've only ever worked for someone else twice in my life (I considered military service to be just that - serving the nation, not so much "working" for the American people, although I suppose one could make that argument), so many of these tales are pretty foreign to me, and since I also have "fuck you" money now, they're made all the stranger to me that anyone would tolerate such behavior. I don't accept the, "I have bills to pay," mantra - to me its more akin to, "Either you respect yourself or you don't."
EDIT: Glad to see you did come to respect yourself in a healthy way.
It's a bad leadership thing, not an MBA thing.
The handful of Apple engineers I know are incredibly happy and devoted to their work at Apple and being paid 50% more to work for Google would feel like a step backward to them.
That, in combination with their business results is, to me, evidence of excellent leadership at Apple.
I think your point misses a crucial distinction.
The issue isn't whether or not "holding down the costs of your key inputs" is good or bad, all other things being equal. Rather, the issue was that Jobs formed an illegal cartel to accomplish that goal.
It’s bad, because good leaders are supposed to take sacrifices for those they are protecting. Our system doesn’t necessarily promote good leaders though.
Maybe they reasoned that they're located in a lower cost of living market and so those big paychecks aren't necessary. Or maybe the policy people just get sticker shock because of that.
Either way, making rational decisions 24 hours a day is very different than being able to consistently make them 8 hours a day 5 days a week. I've known plenty of trustworthy coworkers who make irrational personal decisions. You can't use 'econ brain' to price employee salaries and benefits.
SV is so familiar with the cheaper, irrational solutions that they're a cliche that occasionally rises to the level of self parody.
These 'useless MBAs' 'only engineers are worthy beings' generalisations on HN are getting seriously tiring. A lot of people have both backgrounds fyi. There's bad Apples in every profession.
"MBA" is being used here as a shorthand for a professional management class who don't have any other skills, I don't think it means explicitly the qualification. And because they don't have any specific non-management skills, they think they can manage anything, which makes them mediocre managers at anything they do (at best).
In other words MBA has become a label for such people because the programmes appear to promote that worldview. But of course you can get people who have an MBA and who could also do their teams work, there's no rule that says you can't. And the discussion would probably not apply to those people.
This is what happens when you're run by bean counters who don't understand your core business or industry.
Two stories that still annoy me to this day:
1. We had been complaining about our slow machines for a while and my PM told me to write up a proposal to send to his boss for new parts. Which, side note, was the last time I went out of my way to /beg/ for equipment to do my job better. Anyway, I write up an email with the reasoning for why we needed new hard drives (SSD's, we were still on spinning rust) and/or more RAM (I think we had ~16GB but we were running VMs). I explained how each part would help and even found cheap versions of both online that would be sufficient for our needs (we are talking <$1-2K total for all of it for the whole team of 4). I specifically said that if it had to come down to one or the other that the SSD would help more than the RAM (and it was cheaper). I never got a reply to the request and then a few weeks later we got new RAM... Like why even pay people with the knowledge/skills if you aren't even going to listen to them or even engage/discuss it.
2. The company was going to buy the developers new machines (finally) and they were testing out various machines (with hardly any input from the developers). All of the developers (4, this wasn't a huge company) had personal Macs they used for meetings/WFH (we only had desktops from work) but the company refused to even consider buying Macs because someone up the chain had a vendetta against Macs. They were looking at crappy laptops that cost the same or more than the MBP's we all wanted but it a complete no-go. This was also the company where I used my personal MBP for work (with begrudging approval) because it was way better than the Dell desktop they gave me (to run Linux on). What made it infuriating was we did cross-platform development (iOS/Android) but I was the only team member who could build/test the iOS builds because I had a Mac. The company provided an old cheese grater Mac Pro (pre-trashcan) that couldn't even be updated to a new enough OS to build apps that could be submitted to Apple...
It was astounding how large the disconnect had grown between management and the front line. And also astounding how cheaply the employee morale was fixed once he wrote that cheque.
My dad ran a software consulting company eons ago and he had a new programmer start but he didn't have a laptop so my dad took him to Best Buy (that's where you bought computers back then) and told him to pick out a laptop. They guy picked one and my dad was like "How about this one, isn't it better?" and the guy said "Yeah, but it's more expensive". My dad bought the better laptop and gave it to the guy and told him it was his now (as in not the companies). That guy was over the moon and my dad told me that it was the best money he ever spent. Not only did he effectively "buy" a ton of loyalty with that move but he would make up the cost of the laptop in a week or so off that programmer alone (difference between what he paid the employee and what he billed them out at).
I also remember going to Sam's Club with my dad to buy snacks for the office. He kept snacks, candy, drinks, etc well stocked at all times and told his employees they could have as much as they wanted, no limits. Happy employees are productive employees, why more people don't get that I'll never know...
One of the best pieces of advice I got early in my career was "Whatever you end up doing, make sure the company sees you as a profit center rather than a cost center, because companies are much more free with their checkbooks to the people they think are directly responsible for making the company money," and though things aren't nearly that black and white, it's definitely been a good general principle.
That's just the nature of leadership positions. As people get high up in the position, the view of the company is shaped by their staff and reports. The VP never hear of the problem simply because no one ever told the VP. VP never asked about it because again no one ever told the VP. That's why corporates seem to ask a million surveys and reports because there is no other way to know that information.
What if employee surveys were never conducted? The VP would only know about the employee satisfaction issue if everyone left, well beyond the point that it's fixable. If you are on the ground, it's easy to ask your coworkers for that information. But if you are the VP, that's not possible.
Isn't this the core of the MBA-hate argument ?
That they occupy middle-layer positions, and actively obfuscate messages and merit from front line in order to redirect all the benefits for themselves ?
There is also a darwinian component there, where such behavior is beneficial to game company evaluation, so that only people with similar principles end up being promoted, then actively scuttling any other middle managers that don't adhere to the same set of principles since they are effectively representing a dangerous rival set of values, thus ensuring that after a few cycles, only they remain.
That's how culture evolve in (most) big companies where upper management don't make an active effort to keep middle management in check. A begrudging hard work, that most prefer to skip (get the quick compensation, and move on).
That's also why there is a big difference when companies still have their founders in, as they tend to pay more attention to these issues since they are personally invested in company's future and brand, than recently promoted middle managers which are just temporarily in for the check.
Then loaded so much security crap on it that all cores are maxed out without me even touching machine. Base vim nearly unusable.
Then they made it so I could only access things via a double Remote Desktop tunnel.
Basically an expensive space heater.
3 months of nothing done until security software suffered an unfortunate accident.
scheduled or unscheduled?
To be fair, I can assure you that developers give very little thought to the experience of people who have to support their software too.
Time to switch job?
I was helping an intern out, and they had him using literally the worst laptop I have ever seen. It had about as much power as a Chromebook, and it was running the same spyware that I had. No wonder he couldn't get anything done.
Same for the current COVID situation. Providing every engineer with minimum dual monitor and a proper desk is only going to provide you with output gains for very little investment.
(i use this cmd a lot!)
Have you tried running git gc (maybe --aggressive) and similar commands?
Lemme call this BS. Apple's hardware is expensive crap compared to other. I can make at least 50% cheaper from parts desktops/laptops having the same performance.
Quote 2: "...but we were running VMs...but I was the only team member who could build/test the iOS builds because I had a Mac."
I call this another BS. My machine is running Windows as host OS. My VMs are Linux(Ubuntu and Mint)/Android(both Vm and emulators - Bluestacks an Memu)/Raspbian and MacOS (at least 10 MacOS VMs starting with Mountain Lion 12 years ago and copy/upgrade a new one every time a new MacOS was released). I can run any flavor I want and do cross-platform build at the same time.
Conclusion - you're lying.
so, the new old guys are brought in at market and higher - otherwise how you'd bring them in? - ie. it sounds like at the scale of at least 3x+ of the current engineering comp at Intel. Lets see how that would sit the the current engineers at Intel. I don't think it would result in high collaboration and team cohesion.
Also Intel issue seems to be process node, not the "architecture" per.se., and one can wonder how several years gap may affect one's utility at solving intricate issues of current node.
Anyway, fab to fabless is a classic paradigm shift , and Intel just fails to grasp it and to adapt.
Ringing up elderly chipmakers to help shore up a company that's been run into the ground by marketing and management only confirms the same disastrous management practices are still at play
As a leader trying to resuscitate a brand, eschewing new talent for old is just going to get you handfuls of engineers familiar with corporate ladder climbing and various no wake zones that might challenge the status quo. It also sends a clear message to newly minted PhD and graduates: Intel is closed for new ideas.