Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 495 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#221

Post by flexie »

pascalxus wrote: post #136

First of all the shortage of devs is mostly a myth. Companies that know how to hire don't have problems hiring. the problem is most software companies don't know how to hire and thus have a lot of problems. Or they're located in some impossible location like palo alto or San francisco and try to low ball everyone with salaries under 200K in a location where housing costs 3million$ plus. About hiring junior devs. You…

It is far from a myth. If it was a myth, salaries wouldn't be increasing so much, while the number of developers also increase. The demand for developers exceeds the supply so much that this is possible.

Do you know any other major industry, where people with little or no formal training can get in and up so fast? Where people in their early or mid twenties routinely make 6 figures? I don't.

The median salary is now above 100,000. https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/software-develope...

That's roughly on par with chemical engineers but whereas (almost) all chemical engineers have at least a bachelor's degree, an increasing amount of software developers have no other training than online courses and still make salaries that would make other professionals with 4-5-10 years of education envious.

I love online courses, but try get a job as a chemical engineer (or any other engineering job) with just some online courses. As a software engineer that would only be an issue with some of the most sought after places, like Google.

Yes, I am sure there are a few thousand petroleum engineers in Texas and other niches that make more than software engineers, but generally, engineers make less.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#222

Post by GordonS »

throwaway3265 wrote: post #199
oh-kumudo wrote: post #103

I think the reason is simple: once the junior dev is trained, they will leave. To be clear, I am not saying that they are obliged to stay in the company that trained them or being ungrateful in any sense, I am simply implying this is a common outcome from such training. In software industry, the first job switch in 2 years seems pretty common and reasonable, and the dev by that time would be able to strike a better j…

There is a schema that I've seen used in Nestle which is quite bad TBH: they offer a course that you have to pass for a position this guy was trying to get to. This training course was fairly long (4 years) and expensive for an individual, however the company would pay for it. BUT only on the condition the student/employee would finish it and stay in the company for at least 1 more year. Now I hear you, they cannot f…

This is actually quite a common arrangement at larger companies in the UK.

I don't have a problem with it myself - it's simple to understand, and the company is giving you something of high value, and retaining your services for a minimum period in return.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#223

Post by gammateam »

pascalxus wrote: post #136

First of all the shortage of devs is mostly a myth. Companies that know how to hire don't have problems hiring. the problem is most software companies don't know how to hire and thus have a lot of problems. Or they're located in some impossible location like palo alto or San francisco and try to low ball everyone with salaries under 200K in a location where housing costs 3million$ plus. About hiring junior devs. You…

Also the devs are going to be there for less than 18 months so there is no reason to think in terms of ROI

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#224

Post by odiroot »

EZ-E wrote: post #60
rubicon33 wrote: post #12

False premise. There is no shortage of devs. That has been a complete fabrication, made up entirely by big tech companies, in a propaganda push to promote more and more people getting into CS. It's entirely so they can pay developers less.

Depends where, the world is not USA Europe has a real shortage in some countries

In Europe it's even more like GP said. They salaries are even less adequate than in the USA.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#225

Post by mixmastamyk »

coder543 wrote: post #188
nradov wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually market economies are exactly that simple.

If market economies are that simple, why are wages that bad in parts of Europe? Are the business owners just greedy? Is that really what you think? see this reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18508361 If you think they're that simple, why don't you move somewhere dirt cheap, then call up some developers elsewhere and offer them competitive wages to move to that area? Show us all how it's done! You have that…

It’s a common misconception but there are rich folks in poor countries, and they can be potentially be persuaded to invest locally.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#226

Post by coder543 »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #225
coder543 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If market economies are that simple, why are wages that bad in parts of Europe? Are the business owners just greedy? Is that really what you think? see this reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18508361 If you think they're that simple, why don't you move somewhere dirt cheap, then call up some developers elsewhere and offer them competitive wages to move to that area? Show us all how it's done! You have that…

It’s a common misconception but there are rich folks in poor countries, and they can be potentially be persuaded to invest locally.

Then why aren't they already investing? Why does their local economy not already have companies paying high enough wages to attract highly talented developers, due to their careful investments? Those wealthy individuals can be convinced, perhaps, but only if they're open to idea and the risk to their own personal estate.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#227

Post by ErrantX »

ivansavz wrote: post #118
oh-kumudo wrote: post #103

I think the reason is simple: once the junior dev is trained, they will leave. To be clear, I am not saying that they are obliged to stay in the company that trained them or being ungrateful in any sense, I am simply implying this is a common outcome from such training. In software industry, the first job switch in 2 years seems pretty common and reasonable, and the dev by that time would be able to strike a better j…

A friend of mine runs a web dev shop and I have seen him train at least six people from zero-to-pro (very smart, fast learners with a math background) and what you described is exactly what happens. Once they become medium/advanced-level proficient they often quit and move on to other, bigger companies. If there was some formal, or informal understanding that candidates "trained on the job" would stay for a few years…

Graded salary based on a mix of tenure and experience, with clear performance goals tied to moving those salary grades up sooner. This works very well for our grad programme.

Also; most people leave managers not companies. So if pay is right, and the people are otherwise a good fit, it might be company culture that pushes them out.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#228

Post by zeroname »

coder543 wrote: post #212
zeroname wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm no professional economist or anything, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the nuances of the situation... You could've just looked up the economic definition of "shortage". What you're describing is not an economic shortage, it's market equilibrium. Of course there's always more demand than supply for something at a cheaper price than what the actual market price is.

Your reply isn't helpful. It's not market equilibrium. It's a shortage, because they need access to a limited resource to achieve something, but that limited resource isn't there. Google definition of shortage: "a state or situation in which something needed cannot be obtained in sufficient amounts." Huh, that's exactly what I said. In this case, the resource is being consumed by higher paying consumers outside of th…

Look, if you want to talk economics and get taken seriously, you need to get your terminology straight.

It's not an economic shortage when you're in a store full of goods that you can't afford. It's a shortage when the shelves are empty.

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#229

Post by why_only_15 »

ivanche wrote: post #187
ivansavz wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine runs a web dev shop and I have seen him train at least six people from zero-to-pro (very smart, fast learners with a math background) and what you described is exactly what happens. Once they become medium/advanced-level proficient they often quit and move on to other, bigger companies. If there was some formal, or informal understanding that candidates "trained on the job" would stay for a few years…

Some companies in my home country have a clause in the contract which says approximately this: "The company will provide $FOUR_TIMES_MONTHLY_SALARY worth of training to employee. If employee leaves the company within first 2 years he will have to pay $TWO_TIMES_MONTHLY_SALARY back".

What country is this from? In the US the case law is iffy and in practice it seems like companies aren't willing to go to court for it [0].

[0]: https://www.hrdive.com/news/when-an-employee-leaves-can-you-...

Re: Ask HN: Why not more hiring of junior devs, then on-the-job-training?

#230

Post by coder543 »

zeroname wrote: post #228
coder543 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reply isn't helpful. It's not market equilibrium. It's a shortage, because they need access to a limited resource to achieve something, but that limited resource isn't there. Google definition of shortage: "a state or situation in which something needed cannot be obtained in sufficient amounts." Huh, that's exactly what I said. In this case, the resource is being consumed by higher paying consumers outside of th…

Look, if you want to talk economics and get taken seriously, you need to get your terminology straight. It's not an economic shortage when you're in a store full of goods that you can't afford. It's a shortage when the shelves are empty .

The shelves are empty because all of the goods are elsewhere. We've already established that.

By your self-contradictory definition, the term "shortage" loses its meaning and ceases to exist. Because with enough money, you can always buy what you need.

If you need a few tons of platinum to do something and discover that (hypothetically) there isn't actually that much here on Earth, you could build spaceships to go mine it from the asteroids with enough money. Bam! No shortage.

In the absence of sufficient money to go mine the asteroids, though, there would be a shortage of platinum on Earth. Except, your definition doesn't allow for shortages, because someone just needs to come up with the money. Maybe no human can afford to access it, but it's out there in the universe somewhere, so there can't be a shortage, right? I don't think that's a useful definition.

It doesn't really matter if you take me seriously, though, so I'm not going to keep expending effort trying to convince you to change your mind when you're not willing to consider my ideas.

Post reply on HN