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

#761

Post by commandlinefan » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:21 PM UTC

salawat wrote: post #730

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'".

>That's not real Agile If I hear that damn mantra again, I'm going to puke. Xtreme Programming had it right If you aren't writing the damn manual, you aren't delivering an entire dimension of product to your user. I sat down a little while ago to an old 80's handheld digital business organizer. The device itself was meh. The manual tho! My God, I'd forgotten what it was like to read a primer on a product that had act…

> If I hear that damn mantra again ... never take Minimum viable documentation

But... you're not doing it right. Like, not at all. Where on earth do you get "don't provide user manuals" from the agile manifesto?

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

#762

Post by devwastaken » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:22 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #720

devwastaken wrote: post #259

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…

I call BS on this, at least in America. I went to community college and a middling state university. Pell Grants combined with various STEM and achievement-based scholarships covered my tuition and then some. When I graduated I applied for two jobs and had three offers (my current employer at the time also wanted to keep me).

Good for you, scholarships are non existent. There are very, very few, and are outside of the use of students in the middle class trap. Most scholarships want requirements that students cannot meet such as references and achievements.

Tuition and housing costs of university, at the cheapest of uni's just barely is covered by FAFSA federal and state grants + student loans at a $0 income. One of those grants are also dependent upon you working as a student. Private loans are a necessity and are not deferred, meaning you have to work even more. This does not include the cost of living in regards to buying lively goods.

When running the numbers it is a net negative. You cannot attend a university without an external income. That doesn't include anything else, no other costs.

Call BS as you wish, this is a fact I'm seeing infront of me. This is why people are up in arms about degrees and costs. This is why defunding universities is a necessary requirement to bring education back.

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

#763

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:23 PM UTC

freyr wrote: post #321

giantg2 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I apparently check the right boxes. I just suck at life.

You’re being too hard on yourself. You suck at interviewing, you suck at applying to high-paying jobs, or you don’t live near high-paying jobs.

I got about a 4.5% effective pay cut this year. I'm 10 years in with an MS and I'm only a midlevel making under $100k. I don't think those excuses apply.

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

#764

Post by cjbgkagh » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:23 PM UTC

sshumaker wrote: post #753

cjbgkagh wrote: post #749

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 m…

Why no equity?

It complicates things more than it’s worth. Plus veterans tend not to value Equity from speculative startups at all, perhaps those for which equity has worked have retired. Then there is the watering down shenanigans which get pulled on the unsuspecting.

Plus I find that the imagined value of equity tends to keep people together longer than ideal. He is free to leave the moment it no longer suits him to stay.

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

#765

Post by claytonjy » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:25 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #755

claytonjy wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important to note that "senior dev" here means title, not actual seniority, e.g. ~5 yrs experience gets you in that range even at an early-stage startup in the Midwest.

Correct. At my employer, Senior Developer is the 3rd (of 6) title in the developer hierarchy. Also the first where promotion upwards isn't mostly automatic. Though the comp ranges for Senior and up have a lot of overlap between levels - to earn beyond 150ish, you'll have to be really good, regardless of title. A Senior Dev would be expected to operate mostly independently on day-to-day tasks, capable of contributing…

> Also the first where promotion upwards isn't mostly automatic

In such cases is it still considered the terminal title, the one you either earn or are pushed out for not earning, but are not required to go beyond?

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

#766

Post by papito » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:26 PM UTC

Software engineering has become unenjoyable. There is no longer a feeling of control. I no longer come to work thinking - "yeah, I got this, I know exactly what is going on". I have no idea what's going on. It's all putting out fires and trying to figure out how complicated systems do simple things.

It's a hodgepodge of cloud toys, stitched together by multiple teams who do not want to talk to each other, hiding behind "microservices".

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

#767

Post by Dave3of5 » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:26 PM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #685

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…

> These things might be reasonable in a startup with a dozen people, but we have over a hundred thousand. My opinion is that once an organization is a certain size, everything really needs to be written down and easily accessible. I shouldn't have to regularly ask people how to do basic things, it should be on a wiki. If it's complicated, it should be in a training video, or a user manual. Here's the root cause of yo…

You're taking those statements out of context read just a tiny bit further and it says:

"That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more"

So it's doesn't say forget all processes and tools. Also I would say that most of these automated things the OP is talking about are processes and tools.

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

#768

Post by voakbasda » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:27 PM UTC

ModernMech wrote: post #727

kristopolous wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They ask questions that kids are taught at 18/19. It's almost shocking; this is how you're selecting? People that are in their 40s aren't confused by the question but are more confused by why it's the question as being able to answer it is so disconnected from any metric of competency or quality. It'd be like saying "so you have an engineering degree, oh a masters from 20 years ago. Cool, remember Lagrange multiplier…

I feel like by the time you’re in your 40s, you should be able to leverage your network to bypass the technical interview. What are you doing at 40 going through the same hiring funnel as 18 year olds with no discernible reputation or experience? Maybe if you’re doing a career switch, sure, but if you’ve got 15-20 years under your belt then that’s a different story.

You are proposing substituting a nepotistic process as a substitute for a discriminatory process? Personally, I do not think that would yield any improvement.

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

#769

Post by voakbasda » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:31 PM UTC

quickthrower2 wrote: post #596

voakbasda wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What?! Age discrimination in the software industry??? Say it isn’t so!!! Seriously though, your insight is astonishingly spot on: LeetCode is a perfectly legal means of practicing age/lifestyle discrimination. Yet another innovative Silicon Valley dark pattern. Why is this the first I’m hearing it characterized this way?

It’s possible for already wealthy people though. Poor people need $x per month. A bit more wealth and cashflow is not an issue and so you can look at $x per decade. In that scenario taking a gap year to bash leetcode and interviews is perfectly rational. Its a 10% tax at worst.

So you think it better to discriminate according to the size of a candidate’s bank account? From where I sit, you are saying the poor do not deserve the same chance. I think age discrimination would be less offensive to the masses.

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

#770

Post by leeoniya » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 3:31 PM UTC

natdempk wrote: post #678

leeoniya wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the implication is that most people have a limit to how much money they can reasonably spend before they start seeking things other than more money in life. even a poor person can tell you that an extra $10M in their pocket will be no more life-changing than an extra $1M.

I feel like there's a big difference between $10M and $1M. At $10M you're free to no longer work because of high returns from that money, you can effectively never worry about money again and live a comfortable life. At $1M that isn't true, you still need to work full time to maintain quality of life. $10M is obviously more life changing than $1M in terms of opportunities you can safely pursue.

i think it's a sliding scale.

if you were previously living on streets and frequently going hungry, then you can likely sustain yourself very well still without working. 1M translates to 27 years at $3k/month expenses. if you chose to supplement that with work, you can easily double that runway.

obviously it's not the same as $10M, which would allow you and your children to never work again, but jump between that and no food/no shelter is not as significant. for those who already have financial stability, $1M only serves as a safety net or retirement fund and cannot act as an early retirement plan without significant cutbacks, so the jump from 1->10 is significant. in the same way that 10M->100M extra income for Bezos is not gonna change much.