The real reason you can't hire developers.... • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by jrockway » Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 10:09 PM UTC

wyclif wrote: post #194

jrockway wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems to me that the unspoken issue here is the dichotomy between founder and employee. Not every employee is going to be someone of whom you would say "I would go into business with this person." While I agree that companies should keep standards high, at some point (and I would maintain that point is not very far out on the curve) if you can only hire people you'd form a business with you are going to hit a wall…

I'm not a founder though, I'm employee eight billion at Bank of America. It's just that hiring people that are bad at programming is so demoralizing that it's better to not hire someone unless you're 100% sure they will turn out awesome. Otherwise, you'll spend all your time "helping" them, and neither of you will get any work done. (Nobody ever gets fired because it makes you look bad, or something, so if you make a bad hire, they're here for life. Especially since they are getting paid above market.)

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

#212

Post by bengl3rt » Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 10:15 PM UTC

dsolomon wrote: post #163

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.

Credible citation needed.

A few data points:

I was told by someone with lots of experience that I worked with for a few years that I should expect $110k when I graduate.

Someone I know just left $200k at a multinational megacorp for the same at a 50-person company.

A team of co-founders I know was acquhired by a different multinational megacorp, and they now make $350k-$500k before bonuses, although they've moved up from pure engineering to running teams and managing other developers.

So $200k is the lowest salary I've heard for people I consider "senior".

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

#213

Post by mason55 » Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 10:16 PM UTC

MartinCron wrote: post #152

mason55 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: weird extra steps: the idea isn't that they're cool. The idea is that if you are willing to attempt it and solve it successfully, it says something about your problem-solving skills. It's not the be-all end-all, but it seems like a decent first-pass filter. The problem is that you're asking candidates to spend 1+ hour before you've even given them a personal response. I've seen positions with well known companies…

I fought really hard to keep my hiring process from requiring a time intensive hoop for candidates to jump through. I felt that it would put off all but the most desperate. Desperate isn't what I was looking for.

The people who have time for an 8 hour coding puzzle are the people who aren't doing anything else with their time.

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

#214

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 10:16 PM UTC

pdovy wrote: post #114

waterlesscloud wrote: post #35

A lot of comments here miss the point. 80% did not respond at all . They did not acknowledge his contact attempt in any way whatsoever. Not a canned response confirming contact, nothing. Nothing. I'm willing to bet very heavily on this representing complete incompetence at the organizations contacted.

Definitely. I did a lot of applying and interviewing when I was first looking for a job out of school, and it's amazing how disorganized some companies are. I will always specifically remember the companies that may have said "no" but were timely and polite, and I'd recommend them to my colleagues. On the other hand I also remember the companies that were rude or disorganized and recommend against them when asked. Bo…

I had a similar experience. The most egregious was a company that got back to me 8 months later. My answer was basically "Um, I got a job now, and why would you want to hire me if I couldn't find a job in 8 months of looking?"

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

#215

Post by jayzalowitz » Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 10:29 PM UTC

I applied to YC a few times ago with something to the ends of "In order to apply, you have to rate 3 other resumes for this position" Does anyone else think this is a good idea? I feel like there are too many people applying that suck, and it would be better to know where you stand/get feedback from other seekers?

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

#216

Post by MartinCron » Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 10:30 PM UTC

PthorStorm wrote: post #196

MartinCron wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I state I am willing to relocate eventually. Even though the positions claim to be open to telecommuting, a lot of people (like myself) may have a strong bias for local talent. It's just profoundly easier overall.

Telecommuting is a lie. It is not easier than being local or even commuting more than an hour one-way, unless the weather is too bad to make it on a particular day. The biggest reason that telecommuting doesn't work is due to being part of the team. You really can't get to know the team without being in the same office with them. Maybe after you get to know the team, and how to communicate effectively with each of th…

Telecommuting is a lie

That's a bit stronger than the wording that I would use. But I totally see where you're coming from. There are organizations (such as WordPress) that seem to rely heavily on telecommuters successfully.

I'm going to stand by "strong bias for local talent" :)

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

#217

Post by lookhard » Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 10:49 PM UTC

bhavin wrote: post #159

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…

You said you found the writing style immature, but have you considered the job ads of the companies OP might have applied to? "Xbox's PS3 Nerf guns Starcraft/Rock band competitions !!!".. How mature is that? I am not talking about the 20% interviews where it didn't workout, but the other 80% where there was no reply, I am sure many of those job ads won't classify as "Mature" in your view. Some of the best programmers…

I keep writing to men, but they're not responding even though our dating ads are both significantly male!

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

#218

Post by groby_b » Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 10:59 PM UTC

marshray wrote: post #207

groby_b wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to know where seniors command a market rate of $200k+. (Possibly if you figure in benefits, bonuses, etc. - but a salary of $200k+ is still not that easy to get)

Hint: Look at places where 3br houses start at $750K.

I'm right in L.A. Nobody would give you the time of day for $750k, much less a 3 bedroom. :)

I _am_ a sr. dev., and I'm fairly certain I'm not making $200k.

But let's assume I'm not as senior as I like to think I am, and check glassdoor.com instead: http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/los-angeles-senior-softwar...

The absolute top of the senior ladder lists $200k. At one single company, for one job. (And checking the same thing for Mountain View doesn't yield a significant difference)

So I don't think $110k is "half the going rate" :)

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

#219

Post by dpe82 » Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 11:24 PM UTC

jemfinch wrote: post #183

bigohms wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This one. The tactful thing would be to first accept the possibility you may at times come off as a bit conceited before asking for evidence and advice.

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

#220

Post by mgkimsal » Wed, Dec 14, 2011, 11:26 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #193

mgkimsal wrote: post #20

Hrm... I tend to agree with the OPs thoughts - companies often don't respond, even when, in general, the industry (and perhaps some of those same companies) publicly moan about not being able to find people. When did having 7 years of experience make someone a sr level developer? I don't think I started using that level for myself until I had 10 years experience. I guess to each his own. Just like everyone's a "found…

Senior, these days, means something like "I can create a working computer program without any auto-inserted boilerplate".

I can't tell if that's serious, or cynical, or what.

Perhaps a different thread, but what does "senior dev" mean to people these days? What did it used to mean?