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

Great developers are raised, not hired

sizovs.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 341 posts

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#241

Post by std_throwawayay »

Fordec wrote: post #25
msluyter wrote: post #20

I officially mentored someone at my previous company and helped him move from a support tech role into a software dev position. It was incredibly rewarding. But to play devil's advocate for a moment, isn't there something of a natural disincentive to level up one's employees in such a tight labor market? To follow the author's analogy, by mentoring someone, we're effectively "adding a fish" to the pond, and if someon…

"CFO: What happens if we train them and they leave? CEO: What happens if we don’t and they stay?"

An employee wants more than money. If I have the feeling that I grow, I stay longer. If I get the feeling that they want to keep me down, I leave sooner. Simple as that.

If you increase the skillset of your employees you get back something along the way, so it's not just money wasted but also collecting a lot of interest. Also you become attractive for employees who want to grow. It's easy for the beancounters to count all the wasted money but it's not so easy to evaluate the real productivity that such employees give back. Maybe if companies were allowed to trade employees like cattle that mindset would change.

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#242

Post by cableshaft »

vetinari wrote: post #227
brandall10 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simple - pay people by the value they bring to the company upon every annual compensation review. Yes, it costs money to train people. Consequently they get paid less during that period. But once they can fly on their own, treat them as if you hired them like that.

> Consequently they get paid less during that period. But once they can fly on their own, treat them as if you hired them like that. That's too early. You made an investment, that investment has to break even. With your suggestion, it would never break even.

If they keep leaving because you won't pay them what they can get elsewhere, you won't ever break even that way either.

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#243

Post by aiisjustanif »

luminati wrote: post #88
salarycommenter wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently switching jobs for a personal record 57% increase in total compensation. And I was NOT poorly compensated before. I was already in the 99th percentile for individual income. The harder I push on comp the more I get each time. I am not going to lie and say that it didn't take years to build to this point in terms of skill, work record, professional network, and interview ability. It took three FAANG companie…

Off topic - but your username and the vast majority of your commenting history is primarily on salaries. Curious - is there some backstory to it? Feel you got severely underpaid? To each and his own, but bay area engineers pissing about making ONLY 300K has always come off as being a bunch of spoilt brats - especially considering the vast majority just gem/npm/pip install this and that and glue all the code together.…

Excuse me, but define a CRUD developer.

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#244

Post by scarejunba »

chrisseaton wrote: post #80
rb808 wrote: post #79

> Your mentees will support you and promote you for the rest of your life. The problem I've seen is that this is rarely true. We've had a big set of grads we've trained that quit for a 20% pay rise, or a project that they happen to like better. Many regretted it but it didnt stop the next guys from doing the same. I'm really burnt out over teaching green newbies again and again.

Why don't you match their pay rise? Or give them projects they're more keen to work on?

Takes a while for people to learn. That time is way more expensive for everyone involved because it also costs you on the mentor side. I've figured out a thing: lots of strong engineers want to work with other strong engineers. They want to execute. So I give them that and they leave places where they spend most of their time trying to support or teach other people.

And if someone is too junior based on our initial phone call, I just direct them elsewhere and hit then up two years later when those guys have mentored them. Way easier.

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#245

Post by aiisjustanif »

hello_moto wrote: post #180
luminati wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off topic - but your username and the vast majority of your commenting history is primarily on salaries. Curious - is there some backstory to it? Feel you got severely underpaid? To each and his own, but bay area engineers pissing about making ONLY 300K has always come off as being a bunch of spoilt brats - especially considering the vast majority just gem/npm/pip install this and that and glue all the code together.…

> but bay area engineers pissing about making ONLY 300K has always come off as being a bunch of spoilt brats - especially considering the vast majority just gem/npm/pip install this and that and glue all the code together. Of course the market deserves to pay accordingly but I think it's just a big bubble that's going to crash soon - since there is a huge mismatch between demand and supply of CRUD glue programmers (w…

Excuse me, but define a CRUD developer.

I know what CRUD is but what exactly are they doing?

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#247

Post by shoes_for_thee »

azangru wrote: post #207

As a developer, I want to work with people who are at least as knowledgeable as me, and preferably much more so. I want to spend my time learning what I do not know, not teaching what I do.

> As a developer, I want to work with people who are at least as knowledgeable as me, and preferably much more so.

If they embraced the same sentiment, people who you prefer to work with (eg, those who are much more knowledgable) would prefer to not work with you.

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#248

Post by x2f10 »

squallleonhart wrote: post #139
msluyter wrote: post #20

I officially mentored someone at my previous company and helped him move from a support tech role into a software dev position. It was incredibly rewarding. But to play devil's advocate for a moment, isn't there something of a natural disincentive to level up one's employees in such a tight labor market? To follow the author's analogy, by mentoring someone, we're effectively "adding a fish" to the pond, and if someon…

#2 doesn't work if the company can't get anywhere close to #1. With no work experience, I was hired as a junior dev with a $40k salary, which I gladly accepted. A senior dev mentored me throughout the year and it was fantastic. Coming up on my 1-year anniversary with the company, I was thoroughly enjoying my job, the people, and the culture. I was hoping to get a raise up to at least $60k, though, since I was signifi…

Do you have a mentor at your new job? If not, what would you consider his continued mentorship worth?

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#249

Post by robwilliams »

rooam-dev wrote: post #240
jsty wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, all other things being equal, wouldn't you move for a 20% pay rise? Especially at the more junior level, where that kind of increase could probably afford them a significant boost in living standards.

I don't want to sound harsh, but junior devs that think about living standards while being junior will remain junior or average at best.

I don't understand. Shouldn't everyone care about their standard of living? Are you implying that junior developers shouldn't?

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#250

Post by Aeolun »

z3t4 wrote: post #217
oarabbus_ wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any advice on learning your true worth? Assume for a minute that Glassdoor is useless, as the "salary range" it displays shows that the maximum is 2-2.5x the minimum.

The only thing that matter is what they think you can get elsewhere. eg. what others are willing to pay. Think of it as an auction. Something might be worth $100 but if the highest bid is $10 you are only going to bid $15 not $100.

I don’t know. If I really want that I might bid $110 initially just to put off others from even attempting a bid.

Might cost me money, but I don’t feel bad about that, since I still get my moneys worth.

Post reply on HN