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

We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

resumeskills.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 810 posts

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#31

Post by doctorpangloss »

Aloha wrote: post #18
burtonator wrote: post #5

I had a recruiter call me a year ago with what sounded like a really amazing offer. Working for a well funded startup on a problem in which I happen to be a domain expert. They're aren't many expects in my field with my background and skill set and they said the right things to get me to interview (compensation won't be a concern). Anyway... Went in for 4-5 interviews. Took me about 10 hours in total to interview wit…

Yeah, I see this all the time too, they offer 50-60% of market rate and wonder why they get no takers.

There's a possibility that someone agreeing to work for less than market, in software, given everything else about them is stellar, is a phenomenally positive signal.

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#32

Post by Roritharr »

no1youknowz wrote: post #27
jobthrowaway420 wrote: post #9

Made my first ever HN throwaway account to respond to this. I have been running a successful business, but it's not "tech". I want to get back into the software industry. I didn't have a software business idea, so I explored some tech company jobs. I am well-qualified at the VP/Director level for startups and even larger companies. I did go so far as to do an on-site interview for one company. I have verifiable proof…

If no equity was available, but profit sharing was? i.e if you brought in X million you get a % of that. Would you have taken the position? I'm starting a company, but want to retain 100% ownership. I don't want to give equity as I don't want to lose control. Been there, done that. I'd much rather go down the road of profit sharing based on the results.

The problem with this is defining what profits are when you're reinvesting them or take VC and burning. At the end of the day you can't control how the CEO intends to spend the profits.

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#33

Post by cheschire »

raghava wrote: post #19
Aloha wrote: post #3

I broadly agree with the basic point this guy is making, we have an issue where the HR gatekeepers (who don't have the knowledge to make accurate technical assessments) are effectively searching for a perfect match, rather than someone who could do the job well. Don't put box tickers in charge of a critical function unless you want every thing they touch to be turned into an exercise in box ticking.

> HR gatekeepers (who don't have the knowledge to make accurate technical assessments) are effectively searching for a perfect match, rather than someone who could do the job well. IMO, that's just a symptom. The real problem is that the hiring managers/engineers find the job of "recruitment" beneath them. All of us know the recruiter might not really understand the difference between "java", "scripting" and "javascr…

Have you ever had to sift through 300 resumes for an open position? Did you ever have to do it multiple times in a quarter?

If you have time to do that, and do it well, and still hit your numbers, congrats.

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#34

Post by dsparkman »

iliketosleep wrote: post #25

I've always assumed that the so-called "talent shortage" was an excuse to get cheap labor from abroad. They make job ads such that it's improbable that a local will meet the highly specific requirements, after which they complain of a skills shortage, and then they have their excuse to import cheap labor.

Nailed it :)

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#35

Post by mavelikara »

burtonator wrote: post #5

I had a recruiter call me a year ago with what sounded like a really amazing offer. Working for a well funded startup on a problem in which I happen to be a domain expert. They're aren't many expects in my field with my background and skill set and they said the right things to get me to interview (compensation won't be a concern). Anyway... Went in for 4-5 interviews. Took me about 10 hours in total to interview wit…

Orthogonal to the point of your anecdote, but this:

> They're aren't many expects in my field with my background and skill set

contradicts the title of the submitted post.

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#36

Post by phamilton »

polskibus wrote: post #24
Aloha wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I see this all the time too, they offer 50-60% of market rate and wonder why they get no takers.

Aren't most startup founders straight out of school and never worked anywhere full time in software? Maybe that's why they behave like they do with only small guidance from their VCs that could well be detached from reality too.

Or, as the title of the post suggests, the VC guidance is to look for suckers.

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#39

Post by Ecco »

no1youknowz wrote: post #27
jobthrowaway420 wrote: post #9

Made my first ever HN throwaway account to respond to this. I have been running a successful business, but it's not "tech". I want to get back into the software industry. I didn't have a software business idea, so I explored some tech company jobs. I am well-qualified at the VP/Director level for startups and even larger companies. I did go so far as to do an on-site interview for one company. I have verifiable proof…

If no equity was available, but profit sharing was? i.e if you brought in X million you get a % of that. Would you have taken the position? I'm starting a company, but want to retain 100% ownership. I don't want to give equity as I don't want to lose control. Been there, done that. I'd much rather go down the road of profit sharing based on the results.

There’s a huge difference between losing control and giving equity. Namely, 50% (and that’s assuming equal voting eight per share). Why do you not want to give equity at all then?

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#40

Post by loteck »

As an employee, it is valuable to me that my company will not hire someone who doesn't think our business does something important ("get over yourselves, you're not curing cancer"), or who thinks the right way to ask business decision questions is to ask if "you're morons", or who has a problem with the company asking very basic probing questions, such as confirming you've thought through the challenge of changing from remote work to a commute.

In short, if this post is representative of the way workers are thinking and communicating, then we do have a talent shortage, it's just not the talents you're thinking of.

Post reply on HN