Tech, especially big tech which tends to be about software innovation, is fundamentally different than most work.

When you build the right things (according to the market needs) your reward is extremely disproportionate than the second place winner (typically). The network effect of software innovation is extremely strong, and the first to win typically wins big. Google did with search ads, MSFT with operating systems, Amazon with web services, LinkedIn with their professional big data, Salesforce with the cloud based CRM, the list goes on.

This means that companies are always either 1) jockeying to beat their competitors if they have a lot of them, thereby necessitating the race to the top with talent attracting salaries and perks or 2) trying to maintain their dominant monopoly if they don’t have any serious competitors, which still basically means the same.

Couple this “can’t be second place” mentality with the fact that software product engineering really is an art that has not been fully decoded, most executives treat engineers as R&D that they MUST invest in at all costs, especially to compete against others.

This is why you see a race to the top with perks; your partner might be useless or not, but in aggregate these tech folks represent the best chance for their company to win that outsize profitability and dominance in the market for years to come. So yeah, the free lunches and generous time off, the massages and onsite laundry and pet days and mental health days and whatnot are all factored into the calculation that IN AGGREGATE these people basically print money.

This is also why typically big tech cuts everything BUT R&D, so sales and marketing and recruiting go first. It’s also why the rest of the industry don’t tend to pull an Elon and cut R&D to the bone- you can do that in manufacturing because you don’t need R&D to crank out the value but doing so in software is like cutting off your own future money makers.