391–400 of 927 posts
For one everyone is looking to hire talent but not develop them. This means that most companies don't have talent development plan.
There are huge amount of engineers who have kids and mortgage that they need to pay off, so for the right price they will work on any none cool tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Healthcare, 30 paid holidays, unions, paid overtime, weekends and calls off work come extra (it is 40h week period, want more pay for it), retirement, flex time, ... If you are in your 20's, it is totally worth moving to the US where you can get paid 500K+ per year if you navigate your career efficiently. I posit that making this much money more than covers any of these additional expenses that you call out.
Anyone here earning $500k in their 20s like this person suggests? I’m sure some can but this is not the norm and expectations need to be checked and called out when wrong.
assuming the latter, you're looking at getting hired in at level as a senior engineer (maybe one level higher depending on the company) at most of your brand name tech companies that value engineering talent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have been bitching about LC interviews for 10 years. That's eons in tech, yet companies continue to use it. Maybe, because it works extremely well? Tech companies are taking it in more every year.
Depends on how you define works. It does effectively filter the people that can't code, but it also filters a lot of people that can code and just can't or don't care to do it under time or environment pressure. In the past that was fine, candidate pool was large enough that a heavy-handed filter was okay. That may be changing.
It is much more important for a company to filter out likely low performers than it is to avoid filtering out likely high performers, because the costs of hiring an incompetent person are enormous. Not only do they not produce as much, they eat up others' bandwidth by asking too many questions, implementing super buggy code, or not communicating effectively. They make other people on the team feel like they're not pulling their weight. They're a pain to fire depending on company culture and laws.
This process is designed to overfilter and maintain an A-player roster as much as possible, vs putting butts in seats. It's hard to tell whether the pool is exhausted here - by some indications, there's a lot of attrition but also a lot of hiring...
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…
Also, I feel like engineers are much more likely to be attracted the FIRE mentality and tend to have the incomes and low spending habits that can get them retired easily by their mid 30s. I'm personally in that boat, and frankly, I'm a little bored but not bored enough to go back to work as an SE full time. If companies offered more part time work and highly flexible work, it might be enough to drag me back in. Even…
The cause is companies refuse to fund education and refuse to take on graduates. The system is meant to be that new engineers learn from experienced engineers. This doesn't work when all the company wants is experienced engineers. It naturally leads to applicants abusing the hiring process. This is the plain fact that those well off with their jobs just don't understand. Education is far too expensive, causing anyone…
The problem with offloading it to universities is you turn the academic and foundational theoretical into the practical, thus making them vocational schools.
There needs to be a system of apprenticeships in software, not just internships for some and co-ops for University of Waterloo students.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most? As in over 50% of all senior folk in the Seattle industry make 300-450k?
Definitely not. Total comp of senior engineers at Microsoft in Seattle is nowhere near this. (I am one of those at this point in time)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not disagree with your take, but I think you may only be speaking for a subset of engineers that are already fairly well compensated. The article likewise seems to discard the importance of money in favor of three other more immaterial factors, but I do not think this is representative of the situation of the global job market right now. I also think such a perspective can not fully explain the difficulties that…
I would posit that the OP underestimates the impact of his second point: remote-first in a covid world opened up a large swath of opportunities to get very large total compensation bumps everywhere. I'm part of a slack group comprised of ex-employees of a company I used to work at and some folks there expressed that it is entirely feasible to land jobs today that pay a full 100-200k over their current or previous com…
How realistic is it really to get such remote jobs for that salary. My skill set, attitude, passion, professionalism and devotion certainly isn't the issue. From what I remember from some job hunts in the past the issue seemed to be mostly that I needed the following conditions:
- Live in US and have permission to work there, OR have a US passport;
- And on top of that be in or around the same time zone as the company's location;
So how feasible is it really to live in Europe and still earn such salaries remotely? I do not mind do the work or hours, sign me up for it, but so far it mostly looks like dreams to me. At the moment my best best to earn that kind of money in the future is to become an indie consultant while also making some software of my own on the side, I haven't found any realistic way so far to earn such money in a stable full-time permanent employee job.
Anyone who can point to some real data on such opportunities rather than just the usual statement that they earn "easily" 200k+ in the bay area and around. I can only dream of it, and while money certainly isn't my main motivator, it would be nice if I could actually have a home and land of my own at some point...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Internal recruiters as they currently are should not exist . That's the hiring managers job, including negotiation of pay. 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 i…
As a hiring manager I’ve worked with internal recruiters and a good one is invaluable. - the transactional part of setting up interview loops, coordinating schedules, etc is extremely tedious for a field of 3-5 serious candidates for a given role. Internal recruiter takes all of this away from a hiring manager who has other duties. - an internal recruiter can plow through LinkedIn to find solid candidates, identifyin…
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…
I think that "pay a lot" and "full remote" are basically the dream for anyone who's currently responsible for supporting a family. Your company sounds like it offers some great things, but those things would be much more valuable to single and empty-nest folks. At this point in my own life, with four growing kids and an overwhelmed spouse, I don't have the luxury of being able to trade time and money for "really cool…
Most of my colleagues have children or grand-children, and have been working here for at least 10 years.
Many, many middle aged people with families actually say they prefer the office because it's impossible to get any work done at home with 4 kids. That may be a consequence of their home or their family, but it's what I hear very frequently. In any case, we have a WFH policy, so we are very flexible and accommodating to family needs.
Statistically, fresh college grads vying for excellent resume decor aren't attracted to stability, 401k's, etc. So we see proportionally fewer.