Live data from Hacker News

Great developers are raised, not hired

sizovs.net

271–280 of 341 posts

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not denying that different people have different goals. But if you already are living a life free from worry, can work part of the year, doing what you enjoy, paid off house, what’s really the difference between 2 million and 15 million? (not saying I am there yet). It’s not like I go to work everyday hating software development and hating what I have been doing since I was 12 years old. My wife works for the gov…

2 vs 15 depend on the person. If you're a single? none. Married couple with no child? none. Married couple wanting more children? yes, it matters. Parents who want their kids to enjoy life? yes, it matters. Parents who need to take care both in-laws and kids? absolutely, it matters a lot. 2 mills can get you a Duplex (closer to center) /House (further away) in the suburb of Vancouver/Toronto (Canada) with probably 10…

2 mills can get you a Duplex (closer to center) /House (further away) in the suburb of Vancouver/Toronto (Canada) with probably 100-200k left. Certainly not enough for retirement. In Seattle (USA), I suppose it depends on the area of your chosen.

That was kind of the point of my replies. I live in metro Atlanta. Not exactly small town America. We just bought a house in the burbs two years ago - 5 bedrooms, 3-1/2 bath almost 3000 square feet, brand new build for less than $350K.

Parents who want their kids to enjoy life? yes, it matters.

And somehow kids manage to “enjoy life” where the average household income in the US is $60K a year.

How long do you have to work to reach the point of no-mortgage (nice house), kids done college paid by parents, and $2 mills for retirement?

Let’s talk about a stereotypical couple. Someone brought up that they were making $120K in a low cost city and they were in their early 30s. Let’s also say the spouse was grossing $50K (about average for a college educated person in the US).

According to paycheckcity.com. The lower earning spouse would bring home $3400 a month. The higher earning spouse would bring home a little over $6000 after maxing our his 401K (pretax) at $19K a year for retirement. Many couples I know in that situation live completely off the higher earners income. That’s what I would have done if I got married at the average age of around 30.

If they were just hitting their stride at 30 with no kids. That $350K-$400K 5 bedroom house could be paid off in around 10-12 years.

If the developer just put $2083 a month (that includes the $1583/month in his 401K) in an S&P Index fund that historically earned 11% a year, they would have 2.1 million in today’s dollars adjusted for inflation (2.9%) by the time he was 52.

Getting the kids through college? Let’s add some variables. The wife could take a year or two off when they had kids and the house would still be paid off by the time they graduated from college and they could put her income toward cash flowing the kids through college. I also didn’t take into account that hopefully they will get more than inflation adjusted wages.

We both live in different cities. I don't know your city as well as you do but where I live, there's definitely a ceiling to that technical challenges. Now before we go further with examples... I live in a city that certainly have huge hi-tech ecosystems and quite well known internationally.

While the numbers for income I quoted above were theoretical, the fact that I have plenty of opportunities to work for a consulting company after my youngest graduates in two years and I’m willing to travel isn’t. I live in the same city as the world’s busiest airport. Getting a direct flight to almost anywhere isn’t a problem. Even Amazon is hiring AWS consultants who live in most major cities.

I personally would love to work on tackling scaling challenges. These opportunities just don't exist here

Even if the challenges don’t exist where I live, one or two of my friends/former coworkers work remotely. As I said above, I’m willing to travel.

But I know people, like my former manager who is in his late 50s, that wanted and did just the opposite, he changed jobs, self demoted to a developer and is doing your basic Microsoft/Azure full stack development. Once you have “enough”, you can get off the hedonic treadmill and make different life choices, you can take a pay cut to have a less stressful life, a better work life balance, etc.

I didn’t make nearly the same “good life choices” as the idealized couple I wrote about above but even I can say no to consulting companies that would pay me more than I am making now because I just really don’t want the headache at this point in life.

One final point. My parents are in their 70s, they retired in their mid 50s in the small town south with less than a million in the bank. My mom was a teacher (with a pension) and my dad was a factory worker (no pension). They aren’t struggling. They had 5 years left on their 30 year mortgage when they retired - they were paying $600/month for their mortgage.

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are perhaps too focused on the immediate salary, and not thinking long-term. Yeah, $300k in the Bay Area isn’t that much. But if you work for a Tier 1/2 company for a few years, it can have a drastic impact on your future employment prospects and salary levels. Furthermore, the street cred can open many doors that otherwise would remain closed to you.

> Furthermore, the street cred can open many doors that otherwise would remain closed to you. The assumption here is that technical screenings actually work. As many here have pointed out, technical interviews today are highly capricious and pretty have no correlation with actual technical qualifications. "Street cred" and even superb interview performance don't seem to matter anymore.

I’ve found that people who work for large companies are often not a fit for smaller companies. They may be good developers, but most of the time they come in with prebuilt infrastructure, processes, separate departments to handle the infrastructure parts etc.

Most small companies I’ve worked for, I’ve had to go back and forth between every layer of the stack - currently including the infrastructure set up. You just don’t get your hands dirty with multiple parts of the stack at a large company.

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Of course not, they should be comfortable to be able to pursue this, but I don't think it's a recipe for becoming great developers. They may become great managers, CEOs, etc.. but not craftsmen.

Would you rely on someone that started their tech career thinking about pay instead of engineering challenges, problems and solutions?

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#275
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

His point may be that devs that are constantly job-hopping for better pay will "experience the same year 10 times" and not grow in skills. I'm not sure I agree with that viewpoint.

Not devs, but junior devs in particular. Jumping 10 times a year may be for different reasons for experienced people, although some may see it as a red flag.

There is a huge difference between devs that do development for the money and devs that do development because it's engineering. Nothing wrong with this, but it's not a recipe for becoming great developers.

Would you want to work with code monkeys that do whatever they are told to keep/get job or craftsmen that care about what they do?

All of the above is IMHO of course.

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#276

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.…

Excuse me, but define a CRUD developer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Create,_read,_update_and_delet...

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This the technically true, but also a very tough starting position. If my six person startup has issues squeezing as much value out of my Dev than FANG companies with all their support structure and research into this, this is only to be expected, imo. So yeah, it's a problem, one on the list of many problems most companies have though, so it's oversimplified to simply say:"Let's just pay for expensive training and h…

I’m not sure I understand your point. Let’s imagine that I work a job for three years, and a company spends $30,000 training me over that time period, when I then leave because that training helped me reach a better career position. If they hadn’t paid for that benefit, I would have left after only two years — because the need to transfer for career advancement would happen sooner. This would save them $20,000-30,000…

> If they hadn’t paid for that benefit, I would have left after only two years — because the need to transfer for career advancement would happen sooner.

That depends on whether employees will switch just to get training, and not just for a bigger salary. If not, then training you will just increase your market value, making you more likely to switch.

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Usually, the teaching/mentoring is not free either. So you can a) hire someone who needs training and then train them, or you can b) hire someone who is productive since day 1. The people in a) cannot expect the same salary as b). Otherwise, there would be no point in incurring the costs of training them. Unfortunately, once you train them, someone can snatch them as people in b). You incur the loss, someone else ben…

Your outlook is causing you to lose.

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#279

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…

>To follow the author's analogy, by mentoring someone, we're effectively "adding a fish" to the pond, and if someone else "catches" the fish, that effort is largely wasted. Even more curious is that IT culture is basically that if you want to get paid what you're worth, you have to quit and go to another company. So these companies put all this effort into raising a better developer, and then refuse to pay them what…

> Even more curious is that IT culture is basically that if you want to get paid what you're worth, you have to quit and go to another company.

This is not just IT, this is the entire job market. The reason is because jobs are "sticky" — it's a pain to apply for jobs, arrange interviews, deal with the possibility of getting rejected. If you're successful you also have to deal with possibility of leaving colleagues that may be friends, the risk that the new position is less stimulating, or having to move house or deal with a new commute.

There is a very real salary range between "low enough that I'll think about applying for other jobs" and "so low I'll actually start applying for jobs". Employers are aware of this and are paying salaries accordingly. It sucks for everyone in that salary band but — ethics and long-term viability aside — it's still the rational economic choice for employers. Every now and again someone will quit and get their deserved 40% increase, but many will delay leaving for years, or simply put up with it indefinitely.

edit: Side-note: if you happen to find interviewing and changing jobs more tolerable than most then congratulations! — You've won the job-market pain-of-change-vs-salary arbitrage game and will enjoy above-average year-on-year salary increases.

Re: Great developers are raised, not hired

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CEO: What happens if we don’t and they stay?" It's quite simple, you lay them off. I've seen it happen more than once.

Maybe in US you do. In UK "laying off" a programmer for anything other than major breach of contract(like being caught red handed stealing) and without making the position demonstrably redundant, takes about ~6 months and it's not a pretty process. Laying off should be the option of last resort, purely because of how incredibly costly it is(not just financially - going through the right steps takes time from both HR…

> ...takes about ~6 months and it's not a pretty process.

This fact is clearly expressed in the UK contractor market which seems to consistently pay a 2x premium over salaried employees. Whilst some of this premium may be based on skills I'd wager a lot of it is buying the right to end employment at short notice (either due to poor performance, or simply in response to changing business requirements making the role obsolete).

https://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/

Post reply on HN