It's a generic newspaper without a regional focus, unlike the NY Times, LA Times, etc. It's distributed nationally, and it's popular with travelers and companies who cater to travelers (airlines, airport kiosks, hotels, etc).
"Just try again in a year" is a good option when you're young. But it gets less attractive as you get older, especially if it means abandoning an interesting project or senior role you accepted after "Company X" rejected you. There are too many good opportunities out there to get hung up on any one company.
I've lost track of the number of times I've gone through the interview wringer at Google. It sounds like a great place to work, which is unanimously confirmed by a number of people I know who work there, but I'm no longer going to go out of my way looking for the chance. Prepping and going through the process is like a second full-time job.
And so unnecessary. Think about it--it's Google. They should have enough data on me by now to know my skills and potential with high confidence, to the point where their interview shouldn't even need humans in the loop.
> Think about it--it's Google. They should have enough data on me by now to know my skills and potential with high confidence, to the point where their interview shouldn't even need humans in the loop.
That's a good point. They should be able to determine all they need to with some machine learning based on my google searches for stackexchange and other related sites (with syntax checking filtered out).
Actually, that might be a good project. If you kept track of your google searches and presented that to your potential employer, let them see if the types of things you were working on were worthy or not.
No feedback has been the norm, in my experience. Can be frustrating when the company asks you to invest 4+ weeks on phone screens, take-home projects, and in-person interviews, and then emails you a form letter rejection and cuts contact.
The gap here is smaller ($30k vs. $50k) but still significant. And I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm more inclined to believe two surveys than a random person's claim.
You can't expect salaries to move (quickly) with currency fluctuations though. A couple years ago the US and Canadian dollars were at parity, and those $70k and $80k salaries would have still been about the same. So not much of a gap at all, especially considering healthcare costs. Yes, at the current exchange rate, Canadian salaries are quite a bit lower when priced in USD. Most day to day expenses are proportionally lower too. (Although not all. Things like electronics tend to be tied to the US price somewhat, although not 100%. Housing is also inflated, especially in places like Vancouver and Toronto, but that's largely a separate issue. You'll notice that, for example, you can buy cars cheaper in Canada right now. (In fact, if you're in the US shopping for a reasonably high-end car, you can almost certainly save money by importing one from Canada.))
So yeah, a lower dollar is somewhat bad for employees who see some of their costs go up (in CAD) due to the exchange rate, as well as those who are planning to spend their earnings in other countries. It's also bad for companies that need to import goods. Of course it's good for companies that export goods, especially those with costs (like employee salaries!) paid in CAD. If the dollar stays low (in a relative sense) for long enough, these things tend to be pulled back into equilibrium, but they never move as fast as currencies can fluctuate.
Marginally lower; certainly not proportionally to the difference in exchange rates. Also note the CAD figure was $70k.
I haven't researched the historical averages and correlated them with exchange rates, but I have been employing software developers in Canada for around 8 years now and so have kept current on market rates. In my experience, currency fluctuations, even on the order of 25-30%, have very little impact on market salaries.
Healthcare: We're talking about tech jobs. The healthcare coverage you will get from any tech company paying 6 figures is going to be essentially zero cost full coverage.
Stability: I have no idea what you are even talking about here, but it would be pretty hard to refer to the US as unstable from the perspective of someone working in a tech job. I suspect you pay too much attention to click-bait news and not enough talking to people that live here?
Democracy: again, what is this even referring to? The fact that the US is a republic? That's a pretty weak argument when comparing to a monarchy.
>> Healthcare: We're talking about tech jobs. The healthcare coverage you will get from any tech company paying 6 figures is going to be essentially zero cost full coverage.
This is not always the case, especially for small startups. I know engineers who make 6 figures in small startups and pay $1K a month for Health insurance for family of 2 young people.
>> Stability.
I think what OP refers to is stability of financial markets. Canada does not have major financial crisis every decade or so, that wipes out half of your 401K and real estate value.
>> Democracy: again, what is this even referring to? The fact that the US is a republic? That's a pretty weak argument when comparing to a monarchy.
Canada is not monarchy, it is "Federal parliamentary representative democracy under a constitutional monarchy", so essentially Canada has parliamentary form of government.
Also per my understanding they do not have electoral college. US has wired and extremely complex election system. In last elections Democratic candidate received 3M more votes, yet she lost election and Republicans control both House and Senate. Similarly Al Gore lost elections to Bush.
The healthcare coverage you will get from any tech company paying 6 figures is going to be essentially zero cost full coverage.
That's not been my experience. Microsoft used to offer a 100% plan, but that was unusual, and they dropped it a few years back. (Don't remember exactly when; I'd already left.) Google did not have a 100% plan, and no startup I've worked for has done better - in fact the startup I'm working for right now has no health plan at all.
Huh? I've never had a to pay a dollar in healthcare premiums at any employer. Granted, I've never worked for a tiny, tiny startup but even among white collar employers tech companies generally have top-notch health insurance.
I'm not talking about monthly premiums, I'm talking about what it costs when you actually need health care. How much is the deductible, what is the coinsurance rate, how steep are the co-pays, how weirdly restricted are the options for doctors, etc.? "Zero cost full coverage" sounds like the old Microsoft plan, where everything was paid for all the time. That defines "top notch" for me, and most health insurance plans I've experienced are nowhere close to being that good.
I think you're exaggerating the actual cost. I really don't think Google has a deductible plan, and I'd be surprised if the copays are more than $10 or $20. And remember, we're comparing this to Canada where you still have to pay for prescriptions (or at least a co-pay depending on your situation). Very, very few countries in the world actually cover 100% of healthcare costs.
All in all I don't really think it's a useful point of comparison when considering compensation between the two countries.
I wasn't trying to compare countries; I don't know anything about Canada's health care system. I'm just taking issue with the assertion that "the healthcare coverage you will get from any tech company paying 6 figures is going to be essentially zero cost full coverage", because that isn't, according to my experience and observation, actually true.
Why would you see them? Every move is different, and every person has their own motives. Often there are several. I'm not crazy about the direction the US is going, but regardless of the president I really like getting a month a year off.
If this is anything like Brexit affecting London, I don't see lots of people leaving, I don't even notice any difference in my workplace, but I know someone living the UK every month to the point we're not even one year since the referendum and half my friends already left, one by one.
So, point is, you might not see a sudden movement but it might still be there.
If you want a MacBook-quality laptop running Linux, the obvious thing to do is put Linux on a MacBook. There's only an issue if the MacBook is out of your price range, or they Apple doesn't support a specific build you want. But will this company be able to deliver custom-designed, high quality hardware at a lower price point?
If that's a genuine answer, the Family Guy segment is based on a long-running advertising campaign by the Pepperidge Farms brand of baked goods. I guess I'm old.
> but I'm very worried about what actually comes out of it given the media landscape
We've seen recently that some people believe what they want to believe, regardless of facts. This doesn't mean the rest of us should be deprived of facts, or that we should throw our hands up and give up on seeking the truth.
Not saying we should give up, but only saying that the truth doesn't matter unless the conditions for it to be useful exist. A Russian bureaucrat kicks your dog? It doesn't matter what the truth is if nothing can come of it.
> As someone who actually flies, the existing system works amazingly well, and delivers a service at a surprisingly low cost.
Are they really low cost? And having worked abroad recently, it's shocking how much cheaper European flights can be compared to U.S. flights. And maybe my memory's off, but it seems like domestic flight costs were much lower just 5-10 years ago. In college, I could get a round trip ticket to Las Vegas for under $100, and checking right now, the lowest price is $296.
You can get a round trip ticket from SF to Vegas for $57 if you leave May 13 and come back on the 17th or the 23rd. There are a lot of flights under $100 if you book 4-6 weeks ahead of time.
> Southwest is a great example that the current model is working.
Southwest is called out in the article as an example of an airline doing things right.
I fly Southwest and prefer it to other domestic airlines, but are they actually beating the other airlines? I just looked up their Q4 earnings out of curiosity, and they seem to be doing well compared to their competitors:
Southwest Q4 2016: $522M net profit on $5.1B revenue
United Q4 2016: $397M net profit on $9.1B revenue
American Q4 2016: $289M net profit on $9.7B revenue
