I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now • Hacker News Board

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#741

Post by mydlyfecrysys » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:01 PM UTC

hguant wrote: post #8

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…

> >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.”

Not too long ago, I was at a Very Large Tech Firm. Base pay was great, and the RSUs were really great. I ended up leaving for a smaller company where IT is considered a cost center. The tech stack isn't all that exciting, total comp is a significant step down, and the only way to stay here and get a substantial raise is to get promoted... but I get along well with the people there, and I don't have to worry about off-hours emergencies. The only companies that might be willing to offer enough for me to take the jump away from that, would likely be a well-capitalized tech firm, of which few have a physical presence here.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#742

Post by headmelted » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:01 PM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #722

commandlinefan wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's the root cause of your bug Hang on, don't blame the agile manifesto here. Blame the management that adopted the agile manifesto as "do all the exact same things we used to do that didn't work, but call it 'agile'".

> Hang on, don't blame the agile manifesto here. I totally can, and will. It's on them if they popularized slogans that can be too-easily misunderstood. That's meant that agile, in several respects, has been an exercise of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. > Blame the management that adopted the agile manifesto as "do all the exact same things we used to do that didn't work, but call it 'agile'". That's clear…

So very much this.

We’re now at a point where the widespread and rampant destruction that’s been wrought in the name of agile is so bad that it’s not reasonable to say “oh you’re not doing it properly”.

That excuse could be used to avoid responsibility for literally anything.

Hype bros use that to defend token scams (“you just don’t get it”).

There’s an increasing mountain of evidence that shows agile just doesn’t work, makes things actively worse by forcing the creation and then concealment by neglect of engineering problems, and (as discussed above) actively reduces documentation so that agile cheerleaders can pin their incompetence on the engineers that inherit their mess when they cruise on up the ladder oblivious of their failures.

All of this and not a shred of empirical evidence, ever, that it actually achieves anything other than obscuring management stupidity.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#743

Post by Consultant32452 » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:04 PM UTC

hguant wrote: post #8

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…

You nailed it for me. Once I met a certain pay level I just started leveraging for lifestyle. The way to get me to jump to your org is less work for the same pay.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#744

Post by rthomas6 » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:07 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #687

elihu wrote: post #559

I think there's something else that's necessary that doesn't align well with the things in the article, and which is currently lacking in my current work environment, but which is kind of hard to describe succinctly. Basically, my job requires using a lot of tools and technology and processes created by other people, but none of those tools are easy to use or well documented. In order to get stuff done you have to ha…

> Basically, my job requires using a lot of tools and technology and processes created by other people, but none of those tools are easy to use or well documented. When I first moved into management roles I didn’t fully understand how much of my job would be simply saying “no” to a constant stream of engineers wanting to write or rewrite custom tools, libraries, frameworks and platforms when otherwise sufficiently go…

It also helps to find the one extra weird engineer that loves to write documentation, then have them do that for a while for everything.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#745

Post by cloverich » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:08 PM UTC

tjpnz wrote: post #179

didip wrote: post #87

The article is concise but missing a lot of real-life examples: * The highest paying software companies employ LeetCode style interview. That is off-putting to a lot of people even though the money would be super sweet to have. * Some wannabe startups also employ LeetCode style interview even though they don't pay anywhere near FAANG/Unicorns. * You know what's worst than LeetCode style interview? LeetCode style inte…

>* The highest paying software companies employ LeetCode style interview. That is off-putting to a lot of people even though the money would be super sweet to have. Not only off-putting but out of reach to older engineers with family responsibilities. I would also add that the value proposition for working at a FAANG isn't nearly as competitive if based outside the US.

In the US, thats not generally true. It takes longer to prep from scratch if you have a young family. If you have an older family (and are even older yourself) that constraint is reduced. Realistically you can prep doing a few questions a week, it will just take longer. It’s not pleasant. But it’s more about the commitment, the plan, and enough research to justify it. If you can reasonably expect a 50%+ pay increase and that would translate into a better life, most people at most ages can make time. It’s about experience and practice with generally well known algorithms on well known problems. It’s not rocket science or intelligence nor nearly as much prep as many other high paying jobs (my MD took a decade of study for instance). Yes, annoying as hell. But not insurmountable.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#746

Post by lkxijlewlf » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:08 PM UTC

hguant wrote: post #8

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…

> There comes a point where the money just isn't a motivating factor anymore,

True. But... When I hear "Best year ever!" But then hear, "Sorry, we can't give more than 3% raises". Someone is getting theirs. I want mine, too! I helped make this the best year ever, in very substantial ways.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#747

Post by konschubert » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:09 PM UTC

gyulai wrote: post #521

Companies nowadays seem to have a fixed expectation that if they're not rejecting 99 candidates for every candidate they hire, they are somehow not doing it right. Looking at it from the candidate's point of view: Being rejected is actually something that psychologically kind of sucks a lot. Even if at the level of higher cognition you are perfectly aware that it's just a numbers game, and that you shouldn't let reje…

Rejecting 99% of candidates doesn't mean that the average developer gets rejected 99 times before being hired.

It could equally well be that some candidates get rejected 1000 times, while others get hired pretty quickly.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#748

Post by Kon-Peki » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:09 PM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #737

elihu wrote: post #559

I think there's something else that's necessary that doesn't align well with the things in the article, and which is currently lacking in my current work environment, but which is kind of hard to describe succinctly. Basically, my job requires using a lot of tools and technology and processes created by other people, but none of those tools are easy to use or well documented. In order to get stuff done you have to ha…

How many of us agree but haven't yet read our companies Confluence pages?

My company is probably doing Confluence wrong. Because if you haven't bookmarked the page, you'll never find it again.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#749

Post by cjbgkagh » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:10 PM UTC

I just hired an IC dev away from google at a ~%50 pay cut, no benefits and no equity. I run a fledging ‘startup’ in a highly speculative field requiring massive upfront investment and risky enough to scare away VCs. A lot of what we talked about during the interview was why he would want to give up so much money.

His view was that he didn’t need the money, he is a 25 year veteran, pre 2001. He was sick of incessant meetings, being a bum on a seat, a pawn to empire building, a body to throw at a problem. He became an Engineer to build cool shit and was being kept from doing it.

I did promise post grad level Engineering problems day in day out and that sealed the deal.

If the company becomes successful I would bump up pay as best I can, but it’s so risky ATM that I wouldn’t make a promise of better future pay part of the offer.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#750

Post by decafninja » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:10 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #648

demosito666 wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry for the flood, just a remark. As a devops engineer from Eastern Europe (with "senior" formal title) in a large international consultancy, these numbers sound like they are from another planet to me. $250k+/year to me sounds indistinguishable from $200000000000000000000/year.

FAANG employees, particularly on the West Coast, are an anomaly, even within the US. People also often include stock grants in listed comp, so be sure your comparing apples to apples. DC/Mid-Atlantic salaries at an established (non-FAANG) company are more like $85-$100k for a recent grad, $130-$170 for senior developer positions. Most of those jobs are in the suburbs, where a nice house is in the $500-$1million range…

While there is cost of living differences per region in compensation too, I imagine the typical senior+ software engineer in the US is lucky to retire after decades of work having broken $200k-250k total compensation. Meanwhile junior FAANG engineers are probably making that much.

I'd say this applies to HCOL areas too like NYC or even the SFBA. If you're working for a cludgy old Fortune 500 tech-is-a-cost-center enterprise company (where the majority of SWEs are working), you're probably not making more than $200k-250k at best as a senior SWE with many, many years of experience unless you have some niche specialty.