What do you think of the top employers that are hiring most? Would you want to work for one of them? Is your company hiring? Are you looking for a new job? Tell us what you think.

By now the headlines already will have covered the basics. Google’s (GOOG) fourth-quarter revenues were up 18% to $5.7 billion, a solid showing. Profits fell, but only because Google wrote down loser investments in AOL, a unit of Fortune parent Time Warner (TWX), and Clearwire, the Wimax company that’s also an embarrassment to Motorola  and Intel (INTC). On a day that Microsoft’s (MSFT) stock tanked by 12%, once again Google comes up smelling like roses. Not super fragrant roses. But roses all the same.

Google believes it is doing well because scarce advertising dollars continue to flow to search and because it keeps improving its search engine. (Google made 300-plus  search-quality improvements during 2008, says the company’s product pooh-bah Jonathan Rosenberg.) Microsoft, in comparison, can’t shoot straight online. Earlier in the day the company reported that its online unit’s operating loss had doubled to $471 million on flat revenue.

Google’s got almost $16 billion in cash now, compared with $28 billion for Apple (AAPL) and about $21 billion for Microsoft (which has given back oodles to its shareholders in the form of special dividends). Google ended the year with 20, 222 employees (one of whom is my wife), up about 100 people from the previous quarter. That’s a sea change for the company that previously couldn’t recruit people fast enough. (Larry Page, who likes to review every hire, must be at least a little relieved by this.)

If there was anything at all notable about Google’s results and comments to investors during an end-of-day conference call, it is the curious prudence that has crept into its collective voice. Google always used to say it was careful about costs and thoughtful about how it managed its resources. That was well understood to be code language for: “We spend willy nilly — wouldn’t you? — and we’re willing to try just about anything. Our core business is that good.”

Things have changed a bit. Credit this with new CFO Patrick Pichette, who has been at Google only six months and is carefully deciding where — and where not — to push. You can hear the tension in his own conflicting statements. “We have a lot of flexibility within our model,” he said Wednesday, meaning Google easily can cut more costs when it wants or needs to. And then, “We are managing this business for the long term. The mindset of the company is a growth company.” That latter comment signals Google will continue to invest and spend on things that may never see a return, just as powerful risk-taking concerns should — despite the professed commitment to prudence.

So where does the more measured behavior manifest itself? I’ve already noted the hiring halt. Capital expenditures declined 19% from the third quarter to $368 million. This is a huge deal in Googledom as capex goes primarily to data centers and other hardware that make the Google search engine hum.

One last item of note. Google is offering employees the opportunity to exchange underwater stock options for newly priced options due to the stock price having been hammered. (The only catch in the exchange is that employees will have to wait an additional 12 months before selling re-priced options.) The stock price is  currently around $300, compared with $700 in late 2007. The number of shares eligible for exchange is about 3% of the shares outstanding, and the exchange will result in a charge to earnings of $460 million over a five-year period.

One must re-phrase this last bit in English: Google is transferring almost half a billion dollars in wealth from shareholders to employees, and for what ….? Motivation and retention, says Google. This a well known farce, as old as the Valley, which tells itself first that it offers generous stock options as a form of incentive and then, when share prices plummet, moves the ball so its employees, whose incentives apparently didn’t work (as if the stock price were under their control) can be re-incentivized. Retention? Would someone please tell me where the average Google employee is going to go right now?

In conclusion, and as the headline says, Google is in good shape. Not fantastic. But plenty damn good. It’s also becoming more and more like other technology companies in so many ways.

There was a magical moment that had nothing to do with financial results Wednesday afternoon in Apple’s (AAPL) conference call with investors. What made the magic remarkable is that it came from Tim Cook, the supposedly uncharismatic, unemotional, uninspiring chief operating officer of the company, the guy whom Steve Jobs tapped to run day-to-day operations during his medical leave of absence, even though Cook already runs the company’s operations.

Asked the inevitable first question about how the company would function without Jobs, Cook let loose the following, courtesy of Seekingalpha.com, a monologue I’m labeling the Cook Doctrine, that he appeared to deliver extemporaneously:

We believe that we are on the face of the earth to make great products and that’s not changing. We are constantly focusing on innovating. We believe in the simple not the complex. We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products that we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution. We believe in saying no to thousands of projects, so that we can really focus on the few that are truly important and meaningful to us. We believe in deep collaboration and cross-pollination of our groups, which allow us to innovate in a way that others cannot. And frankly, we don’t settle for anything less than excellence in every group in the company, and we have the self-honesty to admit when we’re wrong and the courage to change. And I think regardless of who is in what job those values are so embedded in this company that Apple will do extremely well.

This is fascinating at a number of levels. Some of it is stuff you’d expect from anyone in Apple’s senior management. Some ideas have been articulated at Apple for years. But this shows an executive who has given tons of thought to what it means to lead Apple. He couldn’t have been clearer that he’s in charge, at least for now. It also was a show of strength, as when Cook later threatened Palm (PALM) with patent litigation.

It raised so many questions too. Other than the company’s proprietary operating systems, what technologies was Cook referring to? What are some projects Apple has considered and rejected? When has the company been wrong — and been “self-honest” about it? What’s an example of the culture being so embedded that things work, even when Jobs isn’t involved?

There is so much to learn about Apple that frankly has been obscured for so long by the cult of personality around Steve Jobs. As Cook said before beginning his series of “We believes,” it’s a place with a deep bench. Yet few have heard of the supporting cast memebers, in part for fear of their being poached, in part because its always been all about Steve.

What’s clear is that Apple’s current leader — whom I’ve admittedly spent a lot of time thinking about – is eloquent, forceful and passionate about Apple. He may be a just-the-facts operations wonk with little experience in design, marketing for products. But he’s clearly so much more as well.

What perks do you wish your company offered? Post your thoughts here.

What do you think of the companies on the Best Benefits list? Do you wish your company offered such perks? Would you take advantage of them? Does your company offer benefits like this – or even better ones? Are benefits a big factor you consider when deciding whether to switch jobs? Tell us what you think. The best replies will be published here, and possibly in a future story on CNNMoney.com.

What do you think of the companies on the Top-Paying Companies list? Do you find the paychecks they offer enviable? Or should the salaries and bonuses be even higher? Is pay the main factor you consider when deciding whether to switch jobs? Tell us what you think. The best replies will be published here, and possibly in a future story on CNNMoney.com.

What do you think of this year’s Best Companies to Work For list? Which are your favorite companies? What makes them great? Have you worked for one of them? Would you like to? What do you think is most important when considering where to work — pay, benefits, company culture, bosses, location? Tell us what you think. The best replies will be published here, and possibly in a future story on CNNMoney.com.

Pattie Sellers and I are having a debate about board memberships. She intelligently argues that boards are good, especially for women, who have a disadvantage at the highest reaches of corporate America.

Still, you’ll know Carol Bartz, the incoming CEO of Yahoo (YHOO), is super serious about her massive task at hand if she immediately drops off the boards of Cisco (CSCO), where’s she’s the lead independent director; Intel (INTC) a board post she awkwardly shares with outgoing Yahoo President Sue Decker; and NetApp (NTAP).

I totally get that outside boards help the individual as well as, at least a little, their company. However, when you’re in crisis mode, which is what Bartz’s situation at Yahoo will be, there’s simply no time for anything else. There’s no room for a single 200-hour-a-year commitment other than the one company where you’re the chief executive.  (Never mind a personal life; that’s another story.) When the crisis passes, that’s a good time to join an outside board. (It took HP’s (HPQ) Mark Hurd three years before he joined the board of News Corp., for example.)

There’s no right answer to this question. It’s all opinion. And Pattie already is reporting that Bartz will exit the Intel and NetApp boards. Were she to drop Cisco too, I’d argue for boosting her odds of success at Yahoo exponentially.

Every time I watch a confirmation hearing or hear talk of a stimulus plan or find out about yet another inauguration to-do, I can’t help but think about how much work there actually is to do.

This, I’m told, is a very Gen Y impulse, the product of being young, sleep-deprived, and raised on Mr. Rogers, who told us we really could do whatever we liked. But I think it probably has more to do with getting older, and coming to grips with what exactly our future might hold. Sure, we’ve got the Wii, and HDTV, and Google, but those only go so far when you’re unemployed, drowning in debt and lamenting the plight of the polar bear.

It’s a topsy-turvy world out there, and while every generation has experienced some of that, the real grown-ups in my life say that feeling does seem more pervasive than ever, reaching into just about every aspect of life – from foreign policy to the domestic struggles of young vets, from student loans to the greatest economic instability since the Depression, from joblessness at home to the perils (human rights, environmental and otherwise) of globalization abroad. Or maybe we just hear about it more.

Regardless, I know this worldview might appear a tad extreme, so in the spirit of sharing, I thought I’d give you a little insight into what I saw and heard this week to put me in such a lovely frame of mind - a small snapshot of one Y perspective.

5 signs of the apocalypse, and why they made me think of you…

1. Gold might as well be fur. Last night, I told my boyfriend I’m off gold. I’m not that flash to begin with – and I’ve been off diamonds for a while for obvious reasons – but after reading National Geographic’s January cover story, “Gold: The True Cost of a Global Obsession,” I couldn’t believe I hadn’t already known to eschew gold. “For all of its allure, gold’s human and environmental toll has never been so steep,” author Brook Larmer writes. At this rate, I’m going to have to take up an ascetic lifestyle. I already had to stop eating shrimp. My sister’s even done with Coca-Cola. And if anyone ever marries me, it’ll probably be without a ring (and not because I’m easygoing). It’s easy to dismiss as a whole lot of fanatacism, but with the amount and visibility of information that’s out there, we’re going to learn some things we don’t like. Ignoring them won’t make them go away. On the contrary, we should be grateful we do know, and doing our best to act on that knowledge when we can.
2. Everyone owes $50k! According to a financial aid counselor at a well-known Washington, D.C., university who my siblings chatted up last week, $50,000 to $60,000 in educational debt from undergrad is just about expected these days for her institution and schools of its caliber. There’s so much to say about that, and yet, no need to say anything at all. Because, as the College Board says, educational debt is an investment in your future, and a bachelor’s degree is all but essential these days just to be competitive (someone with a B.A. will earn $800,000 more than someone with a high school diploma over a lifetime), so young people hardly have a choice. But that doesn’t make it any less shameful.
3. Kids use Facebook for (not annoying) good. Believe it or not, and whatever you might think of the situation in the Middle East, I found the following rather encouraging: The 14-year-old daughter of close family friends recently updated her Facebook status – which people use to say everything from “Joey is ‘eating spaghetti,’” to, “Sarah is ’so, so, so excited to be engaged!’” – to read, “R. is ‘702 Palestinians murdered by Israel in Gaza (more than 230 children & 100 women) & 3100 injured. Donate your status.’” Now this is a little girl I’ve known since she was a baby, and whose young adulthood I’m so in denial about that I assiduously avoid her Facebook page, lest I find anything I don’t want to know. And Facebook is running out of ways to surprise me. But unlike the 101 groups for this or that cause, or messages from people actively proselytizing, this just had an earnest, honest, youthful sincerity to it that grabbed me. And  how nice to find that on Facebook.
   
4. The government hates animals. New York’s Governor David A. Patterson has proposed “an immediate 55 percent cut and elimination of zoo and botanical garden funds altogether in 2010,” writes Andrew C. Revkin on the New York Times’ Dot Earth blog. All right, I get it — the state’s in trouble, and the $5 million it’ll save by slashing the zoo’s funding will no doubt go a long way in stabilizing things. Doom a hedgehog, feed an investment banker, and all that. But really, how sad. It isn’t enough that we’re destroying natural habitats all over the world, now we have to target the artificial ones we’ve created to shelter the few animals who might survive us. What difference does it make if my kids never get to see a red panda or Bengal tiger? (Never mind the American pika, a cute-as-a-button rabbit relative that’s on its way to becoming the second animal to join the endangered species list because of global warming, behind the polar bear. NatGeo can be such a downer.) Sheesh. The Wildlife Conservation Society’s pithy but pointed video response to the budget cuts is perfect. I hope someone listens.
5. And I love my Mom, but what about the elderly? And in what could have been my own personal apocalypse, on New Year’s Eve, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. And last week, she had surgery to remove it. It’ll be a few months of recovery ahead, but the way she handled it – bouncing right back better and bossier than ever – reminded me of that Boomer resilience that some say (and I hope) we’ve inherited. But it also underscored how important excellent health care is: While watching doctors dote on my mom was a relief, I couldn’t help but think about all the people who don’t have that, not just all over the world, but right here at home. And while nine million uninsured children is a disgrace, our aging population will be larger than ever in the coming years – because of both the number of Boomers, and their lengthening life span – and adequate health care will be essential for them. Not meeting those needs would be a disgrace, too.

So that’s what I’ve been thinking about, guys. What does it all mean? I don’t know yet, except that there’s a long road of recovery and rebuilding ahead for us, too. Have I fallen off the maudlin cliff, or do you feel it, too?

Just before the new year a Silicon Valley financial type pointed out to me that August Capital, an old-line but quiet venture firm, had invested twice in disc-drive leader Seagate (STX), once as a venture investment and again alongside Silver Lake and TPG in a going-private transaction in 2000. “Who knows,” this investor quipped, noting Seagate’s plummeting stock price, then and now below $5 per share, “maybe August will get another chance.” (August’s co-founder, David Marquardt, is on Seagate’s board.)

Seagate this week dumped its mouthy CEO, Bill Watkins, whom Jeff O’Brien describes nicely here. If you don’t follow the drive business carefully you don’t know who’s up and who’s down. Apparently, Western Digital (WDC), which I profiled at least one complete cycle ago, is up, and Seagate is down. A Seagate spokesman gave O’Brien an unusually clear answer as to why Watkins got the boot, explaining that “everyone here is focused on fixing the execution issues and regaining the technology leadership that we let slip. That means improving time to market, [and] getting the customers the right products at the right time. It’s been apparent that we’ve let that slip, and we’ve got to get that back.” That’s industry code for: The competition released faster, better products more quickly than we did, causing us to lose share and profitability.

So would Seagate go private again? It’s worth less than half  its 2002 IPO price and a sixth of its post-IPO peak. Former and now new CEO Steve Luczo is a congenital investment banker who loves to do deals. Then again, a new LBO would be problematic. First, there’s little leverage (debt) to be had right now.  Second, the 2000 deal was unique because Seagate owned a weirdly highly valued stake in Veritas, now owned by Symantec (SYMC). Third, the drive business itself faces a crisis in the substitution of flash memory in devices that use hard drives, like music players.

But good luck, Steve. Really.

Some other thoughts on the week so far …

* At the risk of piling on a departing executive who ought to have been shown the door a ways back, I had a different reaction to what Pattie Sellers refers to as outgoing Yahoo (YHOO) President Sue Decker’s “breadth of experience” and “impressive resume.” Sellers notes that Decker is on the boards of Berkshire Hathaway, Intel and Costco.  My thought on being reminded of that? How the hell did someone in a grueling and overwhelming job and who happens to have a punishing commute to work maintain memberships on the boards of three such significant companies? Here’s another question: Why did the board tolerate Decker’s willingness to be even the slightest bit distracted for so long?

* David Swensen, the legendary head of the Yale endowment, sort of answered the question I raised this week about endowments, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal Tuesday. Asked if his lousy performance in 2008 would cause him to alter his approach, he said: “I don’t think it makes sense for an institutional investor with as long an investment horizon as Yale’s to structure a portfolio to perform well in a period of financial crisis. That would require moving away from equity-oriented investments that have served institutions with long time horizons well.” The introduction to the article notes, however, that Yale will cut its operating budget as a result of the performance of its endowment. Swensen’s the genius. But I don’t care how long your time horizon is if your failure to protect near-term earmarked money causes your single client to cut its near-term spending.

* Kudos to First Round Capital, the pioneering angel/VC firm that specializes — like many, many other new firms — in smallish investments in truly early-stage companies, for hosting its “CEO summit” in an inexpensive venue:  meeting rooms at a community center on the Mission Bay campus of the University of California at San Francisco. No, I wasn’t invited to the meeting. It just so happens that First Round’s welcome table was set up right outside the UCSF gym, where I worked out Tuesday morning. The foyer was lousy with late thirtysomethingish men dressed in sport coats, blue jeans and lots of hair product. The VC business may be freaking out, but you wouldn’t know from observing the breakfast chatter among frugal First Round’s CEOs.