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

The real reason you can't hire developers....

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 271 posts

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#181

Post by geebee »

nirvana wrote: post #76

I think the fundamental problem is that companies want a "Sr. Software Engineer" with >7 years of development and >4 years of development in their particular language, who also is young enough to think that "Nerf guns" and "xbox's" [sic] are an appealing "Benefit" and that aren't going to ask anywhere near $115k a year. (a totally reasonable salary, by the way, but I think you lose edge in negotiations by putting tha…

another thing that irritates me about these claims of a shortage is that almost all of the companies doing the hiring take pride in their challenging interview process and acknowledge a high rate of "false negatives" - ie., that that they are very conservative about making an offer, and that this does result in a "no offer" to developers who probably would have worked out.

I made this point in a previous thread, and ended up in a lengthy debate/unrelated-parallel-point-making back and forth with someone who pointed out that there's a good reason to set up a hiring system that results in false positives - bad hires are so destructive that it's worth losing out on good hires to avoid the occasional really bad one.

I agree, and I think that companies should be allowed to have as high a standard as they please, and accept as many false positives as they like. I just think that if a company has decided to be selective and accept many false positives, then they've more or less decided to put themselves in a difficult hiring position. Sure, it may be worth it - I certainly think it's worth it. But if that's the case, why on earth is it newsworthy that hiring is difficult? Especially if you aren't offering far above market rate pay?

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#182

Post by rachelbythebay »

jemfinch wrote: post #126

I'm going to say it because it seems no one else is. I apologize ahead of time for my brutal honesty. You need to consider the possibility that you're not as competent as you believe yourself to be. Dunning-Kruger[0] is real, and your post doesn't demonstrate the self-awareness the best developers seem to possess. Your writing is sprinkled with emoticons and rife with reduplicated punctuation, both of which (especial…

Your company interview training included "horns and haloes", right?

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#183

Post by jemfinch »

bigohms wrote: post #157
jebblue wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Dunning-Kruger" "doesn't demonstrate the self-awareness the best developers seem to possess" "requisite introspective capability" "I do interviews" Really? Do you pay bills with your code? "To put it bluntly" "you're less competent than you think you are" To put it bluntly you sound like a pretentious arse.

And looking back on the posters comment history, I would tend to agree. There is tons of absolutes, argumentation and quite a lack of tact.

I'm interested in which particular comments you think demonstrate a lack of tact, and how you would improve them to be more tactful, if you have the time.

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#184

Post by devs1010 »

Timothee wrote: post #107
bengl3rt wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, $115k for a senior engineer? Really great "entry level" (i.e. recently graduated but mostly self taught with lots of internships under belt) is going for $110k... most of the "seniors" I know are running $200k plus.

It's funny how every single time there are discussions of salary on HN, there will be wild differences in opinion. You're saying an entry level engineer is getting $110k while some comments later are saying $115k seems high for a senior engineer. I never know where the truth lies…

It depends on location, in Arizona, 115k for senior is looked at as good, in the Bay Area its crap

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#185

Post by chollida1 »

thematt wrote: post #58
thinkingthomas wrote: post #19

You didn't post your full resume, but as a hiring manager I can tell you that the telecommuting preference and the previous listed experience as CTO might have disqualified you from a number of companies, even if they are presumably open to distributed development and multiple levels of talent. On the other hand, the fact you didn't receive a response at all from so many (we typically send a note to every applicant w…

Why would the previous listed experience as CTO have disqualified him?

I'm only guessing but I can see how someone would view him as being overqualified.

Leading from that, someone who is overqualified for their current job is probably bored and looking for a new job.

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#186

Post by jrockway »

The reason companies can't hire good people is because good people already have good jobs, and many of these companies suffer from "sticker shock" when they see how much money good developers are already making.

I recently interviewed at a major online retailer and cloud computing provider (heh). The person interviewing me said, "wow, you're the best person of the last 50 we've interviewed". They followed up by making me a shit offer. If you want me to move to a different state to work for you, I want a 25% raise and an extra week of vacation. Not a salary match and two fewer weeks of vacation. Their justification was "it wouldn't be fair if you negotiated a better offer than other people on your team".

That's why you can't hire people.

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#187

Post by jrockway »

geebee wrote: post #181
nirvana wrote: post #76

I think the fundamental problem is that companies want a "Sr. Software Engineer" with >7 years of development and >4 years of development in their particular language, who also is young enough to think that "Nerf guns" and "xbox's" [sic] are an appealing "Benefit" and that aren't going to ask anywhere near $115k a year. (a totally reasonable salary, by the way, but I think you lose edge in negotiations by putting tha…

another thing that irritates me about these claims of a shortage is that almost all of the companies doing the hiring take pride in their challenging interview process and acknowledge a high rate of "false negatives" - ie., that that they are very conservative about making an offer, and that this does result in a "no offer" to developers who probably would have worked out. I made this point in a previous thread, and…

I disagree. I've interviewed people that failed on our rather easy interview questions but had other redeeming qualities. We ended up hiring these people and nobody has ever turned out well; it would have been better to have no position than to have them. My new rule is, "would I go into business with this person". If not, no hire. Sorry.

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#189

Post by jrockway »

davidhansen wrote: post #115
bengl3rt wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, $115k for a senior engineer? Really great "entry level" (i.e. recently graduated but mostly self taught with lots of internships under belt) is going for $110k... most of the "seniors" I know are running $200k plus.

Interesting, are you in NYC or the Bay Area? In our local market, a 7 year ruby developer would command on the order of $75k.

What is your local market?

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#190

Post by efsavage »

up_and_up wrote: post #130
jemfinch wrote: post #126

I'm going to say it because it seems no one else is. I apologize ahead of time for my brutal honesty. You need to consider the possibility that you're not as competent as you believe yourself to be. Dunning-Kruger[0] is real, and your post doesn't demonstrate the self-awareness the best developers seem to possess. Your writing is sprinkled with emoticons and rife with reduplicated punctuation, both of which (especial…

So in general I totally agree with you. The issue is the communication style conveyed in the post above is no way similar to the communication style conveyed in to email and resume. My email was much more professional. I think your tome is somewhat off base.

If that's your natural communication style, your "more professional" style is probably drone-ish and fake. The probe most active on that first contact with an applicant is the honesty one, and it's pretty easy to trip when you're not in your natural voice.
Post reply on HN