231–240 of 400 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You just do it. On the job. Without asking for permission. And hope your boss is forgiving.
Perhaps, but I have NEVER heard of somebody getting fired for "up-skilling" while still getting work done.
Recently had a recruiter call me, interview me over the phone once, in-person once, and via skype once. The job seemed to be a great fit, the pay was there, everything seemed to be lined up. The recruiter called me again to tell me that they were going to be taking the next steps with me very shortly. A week of silence goes by, then another. I email, inquiring about the position. "Oh, we gave that to someone we had b…
I feel like there's two tiers of the software industry: those employable at AmaFaceGoogFlix or a competitor, and everyone else; but the "everyone else" is completely unaware that the first tier exists. It's like if minor league baseball had no idea about major league baseball. You even see it on HN. Someone will come along and talk about how a senior dev at Google can expect $250k a year. You'll get two categories of…
Insert comment about requiring 5 years of experience in a 3 year old language HR gating really is the worst thing going in American hiring practices today. "Do you have multiple years of experience with 99.9% of the skills listed as requirements, which only a handful of people in the country have? Yes, but I see that on our web form that you had to use to submit your resume you didn't check the box next to 'Degree in…
The problem, of course, is that trait X could be anything. Technology, trivia, personality, Microsoft Excel Whiz, X years of experience, Causation, correlation, it doesn’t matter. “Reasonable” does not mean “fair” or “logical” or “causative.” It’s just a statistical trick.
I suspect that the “CS Trivia Interview” is just a more nuanced version of this. Knowing now to invert a binary tree doesn’t make you a better programmer (no causation). But many good programmers happen to know how to do it (or want the job enough to learn it just to please you). So it’s an easier metric than trying to define what “good engineer” means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second one, but if you're not thinking about salary in terms of total comp, you're doing it wrong.
Sure, but $1 of stock isn't worth $1 of liquid assets. It may be worth more than $1 in the long run, but when you're first handed it, you have to undervalue it, compared to hard cash. I'm a theoretical millionaire several times over, from stock options in startups that suffered the fate of the 99%. You can obviously put more value in the stock of a SV megalith, but even then, you're putting a lot of eggs in one baske…
Er, why not? Only difference is I have to pay a $5 trading fee on Schwab to turn stock into cash. So I guess $10,000 in stock is worth $9,995 in liquid assets.
> even then, you're putting a lot of eggs in one basket.
Only if you hold the stock. Which nothing forces you to do. I can (and do) sell all of my tech company stock on the day it vests and buy other assets instead.
I think you must have the wrong mental model of how RSUs work. Nothing forces you to hold the stock once it vests. It's yours, you can sell it and do whatever you want with the money.
Usually when people at a public company say "I make X", X is the sum of base salary, cash bonus, and the value of RSUs that vest in a year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about 100$ bread? Is that a shortage? People literally starving to death, because they can't pay for food? But supply is meeting demand at that point, right?
But supply is meeting demand at that point, right? It implies a shortage, because of the price point. Because demand far outstrips supply, which drives price up.
Recently had a recruiter call me, interview me over the phone once, in-person once, and via skype once. The job seemed to be a great fit, the pay was there, everything seemed to be lined up. The recruiter called me again to tell me that they were going to be taking the next steps with me very shortly. A week of silence goes by, then another. I email, inquiring about the position. "Oh, we gave that to someone we had b…
That's it in a nutshell. There are people here who'll do the work, do any work, for the right money. Employers don't want to pay, though. You've seen those charts about productivity graphed against worker pay, and how for the last 40 years, the productivity has gone up while the worker pay has stayed mostly flat? That's the problem. And why pay more, when you can sink a tiny fraction of what you would be spending on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what if the value is less than $50k?
You want to work for a company where you cost them $150k in salary and benefits and only add $50k in value? That's a very insecure position to be in, it doesn't leave much room for growth, and it means you have very little leverage overall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's something I wrote on a different discussion about hiring: Imagine I cost my company $50 an hour in salary, and earn them $150 an hour (revenue of 3-5x salary is ballpark for most companies, we'll go for the low end for some perspective). As a senior dev, I have to sit in all the interviews of people potentially joining my team. Imagine we have 10 people that make it through the HR round. I have to participate…
I don't get why companies can't just hire a bunch of more "questionable" applicants at a lower rate, say $45k - $60k or so for junior devs in most cities. No need to spend much effort on the interview process, just make sure they can solve a couple standardized problems, and then "hire" them as contractors for a 90-day trial. Put them onto teams and throw them in the deep end, then get rid of all the ones who can't s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like there's two tiers of the software industry: those employable at AmaFaceGoogFlix or a competitor, and everyone else; but the "everyone else" is completely unaware that the first tier exists. It's like if minor league baseball had no idea about major league baseball. You even see it on HN. Someone will come along and talk about how a senior dev at Google can expect $250k a year. You'll get two categories of…
The main reason for this is RSU. The base salary at those companies is not much more than rest of industry. But at senior levels the RSU matches or exceeds the entire base salary. Other companies have a hard time matching this. Startups try but the common wisdom now is to value those at zero. It seems only public traded companies stock is now considered as having value. And only public SV tech companies give these ma…
Then you add in stock, bonus, etc... Adds up to a huge package.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what if the value is less than $50k?
You want to work for a company where you cost them $150k in salary and benefits and only add $50k in value? That's a very insecure position to be in, it doesn't leave much room for growth, and it means you have very little leverage overall.