31–40 of 927 posts
That’s weird. I like money more than “work for cool stuff”. Cool stuff don’t pay bills. Heh, maybe this is why I am an average engineer.
Author here. Questions, comments, vitriol - all gratefully accepted.
Why not Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive:_The_Surprising_Truth_...
There are 2 hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-1 errors.
-- Phil Karlton, Leon Bamboogiewoogie @secretGeek, Martin Fowler
https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html
• Naming things
>> Technology -> Cool Stuff to Work On
>> Purpose — The desire to do something that has meaning and is important.
• Cache invalidation (forgetfulness)
>> Intellection -> Smart People to Work With
>> Mastery — The urge to get better skilled.
• Off-by-1 errors (self or greater Good)
>> Certainty -> Repeatability in Work Environment
>> Autonomy — Our desire to be self directed. It increases engagement over compliance.
I’ve gotten 7 recruitment emails since Sunday and none of them have come close to sufficiently explaining what the company or job is for me to even consider responding. It’s bizarre how secretive they are. I imagine the recruiters are looking out for their own interests. Recruiters are in the way.
The only roles I've ever accepted were roles that involved a hiring manager reaching out directly to me. There's a reason for this, namely that the only recruiters worth a damn seem to be working in boutique firms and want to take a significant bite out of my future pay.
Really, just avoid them if possible.
It's so weird to see an author express such disdain for Elon Musk, and yet still credit him repeatedly with something he hasn't actually done, which is start all of the companies he runs. He bought Tesla, he didn't start it.
I’ve gotten 7 recruitment emails since Sunday and none of them have come close to sufficiently explaining what the company or job is for me to even consider responding. It’s bizarre how secretive they are. I imagine the recruiters are looking out for their own interests. Recruiters are in the way.
I was once told recruiters did this because they didn't want you reading the email and heading straight to the company's site to apply. If you applied directly, the recruiter was out of the loop and thus out of a commission. I suppose I _might_ be able to negotiate that commission in the form of a larger signing bonus. I doubt that's a winning strategy. It seems like it would usually be in the best interest of the po…
Why would I skip the recruiter and apply directly unless the recruiter is a non-helpful middleman? I’d love to have a direct contact to negotiate the whole process.
as far as engineer or IT jobs are concerned, I have been wondering for years: is the root cause that we can't produce enough STEM graduates? starting from k-12.
I have no strong evidence, but my current company could not even find candidates(we're doing chip design), in the past it would have to work with H1B workers but covid19 made that a slow and impossible task.
some could argue H1B is just cheaper, per my understanding it's not always the case, it is more likely that we just don't have enough STEM graduates to fill the pipeline over the last 3 decades.
I’ve gotten 7 recruitment emails since Sunday and none of them have come close to sufficiently explaining what the company or job is for me to even consider responding. It’s bizarre how secretive they are. I imagine the recruiters are looking out for their own interests. Recruiters are in the way.
I was once told recruiters did this because they didn't want you reading the email and heading straight to the company's site to apply. If you applied directly, the recruiter was out of the loop and thus out of a commission. I suppose I _might_ be able to negotiate that commission in the form of a larger signing bonus. I doubt that's a winning strategy. It seems like it would usually be in the best interest of the po…
I've heard this a few times as well over my career, I wonder what-beyond missing out on that sweet contingency fee-recruiters have to lose by, as the article suggest: just being freaking transparent with candidates
Purely anecdotal: In my experience as a hiring manager seeing trends change over the past 10 years, and selecting from the top 10% of candidates by some vague metric, it's primarily about "does it pay a lot" and secondarily "does it offer full-remote"? A lot of my friends, former colleagues, and candidates I've failed to hire end up going to either a FAANG or a very successful brand-name company (typically a SV compa…
Compensation, WLB, and benefits matter FAR FAR more for the majority of people than "good projects" or "smart colleagues". If you want those and can't get it in your job, well that's what open source work is for.
There comes a point where the money just isn't a motivating factor anymore, and companies are struggling to figure out how to work in that environment. This bit from the author hits the nail on the head: >Is an extra $10k per year worth learning a new org, a new skillset, a new set of expectations, a new set of coworkers, and a new boss? For many engineers, the answer is: “No.” Yes I could quit and get a ~20k raise b…
If you look outside of coastal cities, there are plenty of job offers for engineering jobs that pay less than 6 figures. Over in Europe and East Asia, $50 to $60k salaries are the norm. And people job hop frequently for a few extra $k because that corresponds to a significant increase in quality of life for them. The difference between a 2 br and 3 or 4 br apartment, between another kid or not, etc...
People will absolutely leave your company if they think they can get paid more elsewhere. People will absolutely pass over your job offer if they think they can get more elsewhere.
You also see the reverse phenomenon which is that you'll find plenty of engineers doing soul-wrenching, boring jobs in toxic environment who still say because they are very generously compensated (hello FAANG).