What it's like working for American companies as an Australian

I worked in NZ for SV companies for the past 20 years (until I retired) - I essentially worked US time but NZ days - so I got up early (5am winter, 7am summer and worked US core hours 10am-6pm) but didn't work US Fridays and got a lot done on my Monday. After 5 years I switched jobs and they agreed that I'd never have to start work at 5am (so 11am-7pm CA time) - that worked really well

I currently work for a YC company based in New York, with myself in Australia after moving back to be closer to family and have switched my work schedule to be from Tuesday to Saturday to align with EST as you mentioned. Not exactly the most pleasant working hours but my coworkers have been pretty accommodating to make the essential meetings as early as possible.

One slight benefit that makes the Friday to Saturday shift more tolerable is that I won’t start the following work week until Monday night/Tuesday morning, so my weekend nights are Saturday and Sunday, so losing out on Friday night isn’t too bad. Definitely not a schedule for the faint of heart though.

Yeah, timezones (and different days) are an issue for regular meetings. At my last job, US east coast to Europe worked pretty well. We'd be reasonable morning time on the east coast and Europe would be reasonable mid to late afternoon time. But the (for me occasional) call to Singapore was always a pain for someone.

I think in the tech sector, as an engineer (what I am) I do not feel tied to my company for healthcare. I can snap my fingers and have another job with full coverage in a month, earlier if I’m willing to take a mid tier job rather than top tier. I’ve never thought about being without healthcare.

I also served in the Marines and grew up in Massachusetts, two places that really embrace sarcasm and gallows humor. Merging into the California tech sector, the enthusiasm, sunny demeanor and inability to take being picked on as a demonstration of affection… it was a difficult adjustment.

> Maybe I'm just a cynical aussie, but how can you possibly be enthusiastic for (eg.) putting ads infront of as many eyeballs as possible?

You can be enthusiastic about a job done well, even if it’s not necessarily one you believe worth doing.

> When your access to healthcare is directly tied to your enthusiasm for the company mission, it seems to me that you _must_ display that enthusiasm even if it's a facade.

I get what you're implying, but I want to point out that healthcare is not "directly tied to your enthusiasm." I'm sure somebody can post their anecdote about being fired for not having enough pep in their step at work, but enthusiasm for the company mission is not a typical requirement for employment. Furthermore, despite the pervasive online meme to the contrary, the US does have a substantial social safety net — we devote more of our GDP to public social spending¹ than Canada or Australia. It's completely fair to say that the outcomes can vary, but it's not fair to say that Americans are by and large left rudderless without help from the state if they lose their job.

¹ https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...

I joke with my friends that one day I am going to get a job with Lockheed, Raytheon, etc. and be uncomfortably enthusiastic about the mission. Some sort of workplace live art project.

However, I have luckily only worked at companies in my career that I could really get behind the mission and have in my view a reasonably positive work output. Letting people save money for retirement, or start a business is pretty good. I don't know how my view would change if I worked for something more morally gray.

>your access to healthcare is directly tied to your enthusiasm for the company mission

No, it's not. First, they're legally required to provide it so long as you work there, whether you're enthusiastic or not. Even if you got fired for not being enthusiastic enough, by law you can stay on the same health insurance plan for 18 months. If you still haven't found a job after 18-36 months, or just don't like the company's plan, you can get your own individual plan, or look for a plan for low-income people like medicaid.

The US healthcare system has its problems for sure, but you seem confused about what they are.

I can assure you, your US colleagues are as cynical as you are, but in America you fake a positive attitude because what the hell else are you supposed to do but make the best of it?

Generally, the West Coast of the US is the most fake positive and the East Coast is the most blunt and outwardly cynical. Middle America tends to be friendly yet direct.

The missing word is competitive. People want to win. So much of the rest of the world just wants to survive till the next day.

In my experience (outside of bigtech but in the B-tier of VC-funded startups), "change the world" hyperbole is rare, but most founders and founding devs are pretty confident they can improve some specific topic for some specific niche of people. And it's sometimes even true for the ones that provide real services.

> It always seemed to be that only the most weirdo Americans are blind to relative status, whereas for many Australians it's the norm?

As an Irish person, I have the impression that Australia is very similar to Ireland in this regard. I came across a survey years ago that asked a question along the lines of "in the workplace, is the manager/boss higher status or equal to the staff they manage?" (paraphrasing because it was years ago). Ireland scored amongst the highest that said the boss and other staff are equals. I imagine Australia would too, while the US would score lower on that scale (as did some other EU countries).

I now live in Vietnam, and somehow I've ended up being the boss, with a team of around 20 Vietnamese people. While they are diligent and skilled workers, the level of deference they show to me makes me deeply uncomfortable and I have to keep reminding them to talk to me like a human being - call me by my name instead of "sir", for example. But it's a losing battle.

I'd say thats due to:

(a) Australian culture being quite egalitarian, ie people there see other people just as people rather how much money or power they have, etc and

(b) American management being more of the power tripping variety, so they're more likely to wield their power in a threatening and retaliatory fashion, and so underlings tend to be more deferential, including the at-will employment, as you say.

Employment security has a lot to do with it. Obviously you can’t completely ignore leaders, and if you refuse reasonable instructions you can be fired. But you have a lot more freedom to rock the boat and share your opinion.

You can not be fired just because you hurt a managers feelings by disagreeing with them.

Hey! So did I! Macquarie Capital was my first employer out of college. Loved working for Aussies. Hilarious bunch.

What sector was the company in? I’m an Australian that has worked a lot with US companies.

The most boastful Australian companies I have worked with have also been the least effective.

Consultancies tend to be very boastful, but they have to be constantly selling themselves.

The other boastful culture I worked in was a big bank.

They had some of the worst over-complicated software, and a horrible culture, it seemed like the only way to rise in the company was salesmanship.

Suppose you very crudely modelled the spectrum of American attitudes on this topic using some kind of bell curve. I don't think many people across the pond realise just how far apart the American and Australian bell curve means would be. These kind of "the truth is unknowable" truisms may sound wise but don't really teach us very much about reality.

On average, Australian culture views anyone, who even passively demonstrates any significant level of achievement, with a high degree of suspicion. Australians make a national sport of cutting down people who excel in any way. Sure, there are sub-cultures there which can vary considerably from this general trend, but even they feel the influence of this prevailing attitude. The end outcome is that Australians tend to go to considerable effort to hide the things that may single them out as excelling among their peers, and emphasise those things which make them similar. (A few months ago the CEO of the most powerful retail company in Australia gave an interview attempting to reduce public ire at their price gouging tactics, dressed in the uniform of a shelf stacker from their supermarket chain. I'm not saying this could not have happened in America, but there it would have probably been seen as a stunt or a statement... in Australia dressing any other way would have raised eyebrows, and in fact most people initially failed to even notice it for the PR manipulation that it was.)

Geographic proximity will always play a role in bringing cultural norms together, and while the US is a big place, the US population throughout the 20th century had incredible mobility, going where the jobs were, which helped to tighten up that bell curve.

It's definitely a generalisation, but in my experience - and others who I've spoken to - this is broadly correct.

Matches my experience working with SF based companies.

You can also just refer to AC/DC as the second greatest band in history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJzzspiwK0