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

Tell HN: Employers are not desperate to hire developers

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 385 posts

Re: Tell HN: Employers are not desperate to hire developers

#361

Post by [deleted] »

aiisjustanif wrote: post #359
anon50118810 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spot-checked some of the companies you listed. Problem is that they're a mix of not remote, have complex applications requiring logins which I assume are big time sinks into black holes, the software jobs aren't in the U.S., they use enterprise technology which is fine but just not my skillset, all that sort of thing. Also I'm assuming, maybe wrongly, that big enterprises have a hiring cycle of several months which…

> I spot-checked some of the companies you listed. Problem is that they're a mix of not remote, have complex applications requiring logins which I assume are big time sinks into black holes, the software jobs aren't in the U.S., they use enterprise technology which is fine but just not my skillset, all that sort of thing. Personally I don’t think this viewpoint does your point justice. There are jobs, good paying one…

[deleted]

Re: Tell HN: Employers are not desperate to hire developers

#362

Post by anon50118810 »

aiisjustanif wrote: post #359
anon50118810 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spot-checked some of the companies you listed. Problem is that they're a mix of not remote, have complex applications requiring logins which I assume are big time sinks into black holes, the software jobs aren't in the U.S., they use enterprise technology which is fine but just not my skillset, all that sort of thing. Also I'm assuming, maybe wrongly, that big enterprises have a hiring cycle of several months which…

> I spot-checked some of the companies you listed. Problem is that they're a mix of not remote, have complex applications requiring logins which I assume are big time sinks into black holes, the software jobs aren't in the U.S., they use enterprise technology which is fine but just not my skillset, all that sort of thing. Personally I don’t think this viewpoint does your point justice. There are jobs, good paying one…

I'm sure they are good jobs, but if they need enterprise skills I don't have or if they don't meet my essential requirements, then it's not worth it for me to apply. I expect enterprise employers are less forgiving to candidates than smaller employers, not more.

Re: Tell HN: Employers are not desperate to hire developers

#364

Post by abhaynayar »

anon50118810 wrote: post #256
TedKroft wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds nice, but it can be a bad really limiting to have high expectations of only getting jobs that initially appeal to you for multiple reasons. 1. Time spent researching or preparing for a job doesn't guarantee you anything. 2. Sometimes the most appealing jobs are the most competitive, meaning you might have less of a chance of getting them and they might have worse comp or quality of life 3. Some positions…

Yes, people at the typical small or midsized company you found on LinkedIn know they are not really special and are not going to be fooled or won over that you redesigned your resume just for them or that you talk about how inspired you are by this company you just found out about today. You either are a match or you aren't. If your work experience is 90% backend and 10% frontend, it won't make any difference to twea…

> fooled or won over that you redesigned your resume just for them

> talk about how inspired you are by this company you just found out about today

> tweak and fudge your resume to make you look like a frontend developer

Did not say fool anyone by redesigning your resume. Did not say apply to a company you just found out today. Did not say fudge your resume to a different role.

Your interpretation -- "that one should make oneself look different from who they are", is the polar opposite of what I actually implied. I literally wrote practice and develop your own skills. Fudging your resume to appease a company is the epitome of desperation -- something I strongly advocated against.

I don't know whether the expected return is better by focusing on yourself or by applying to as many companies as possible. I believe in the former, but it could go either way based on a number of factors based in reality. However, I only replied because I was surprised at the gross misinterpretation of my comment.

Re: Tell HN: Employers are not desperate to hire developers

#365

Post by anon50118810 »

abhaynayar wrote: post #364
anon50118810 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, people at the typical small or midsized company you found on LinkedIn know they are not really special and are not going to be fooled or won over that you redesigned your resume just for them or that you talk about how inspired you are by this company you just found out about today. You either are a match or you aren't. If your work experience is 90% backend and 10% frontend, it won't make any difference to twea…

> fooled or won over that you redesigned your resume just for them > talk about how inspired you are by this company you just found out about today > tweak and fudge your resume to make you look like a frontend developer Did not say fool anyone by redesigning your resume. Did not say apply to a company you just found out today. Did not say fudge your resume to a different role. Your interpretation -- "that one should…

Often when people talk about customizing applications, they mean rewriting your existing resume in a way that mirrors the job listing but without actually lying. Whether this is worth it or not depends on the situation, for example I understand this is really useful for U.S. federal jobs, but I don't think it's very useful for places where a recruiter skims resumes for basic fit and then passes them directly to a technical hiring manager. However it sounds like you were talking more about personal growth, which I misunderstood.

When you're unemployed and in the middle of a job search, you need to work with what you have, meaning you should make a resume that emphasizes your existing skills and apply to jobs that will value them. At the mid/senior-level no one will care much about any new skill you only know from a book or a Udemy course, so learning new skills is not a good use of time. At best you can hone your current skills, which might help in the interview but not with the resume, where the biggest drop-off happens.

Re: Tell HN: Employers are not desperate to hire developers

#366

Post by hnfong »

ruh-roh wrote: post #345
ryandrake wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of companies say "we're hiring" but are not hiring , defined as actually extending an offer and actually employing someone. They're fishing, but not catching, or they're catching and releasing. We need a more precise word than "hiring". Everyone can say they're hiring, but they're not actually hiring anyone--they're just fishing.

This is interesting - I have been passively monitoring LinkedIn and a few others for senior engineering management roles for the last year or so (VPE, DoE). I am not really looking, I have only pursued a couple of them, but my feed/inbox is noteworthy. Many of the "openings" have been out there for multiple months, some a year+. A good handful are tweaked slightly every few weeks to appear new. I can understand fishi…

If I were a C-level executive planning to extend business to a new area, and none of my reports are quite up to the job, I'd probably be looking to hire a senior manager to fill that spot.

But if I can't find the right person in a couple months time, I have a choice -- do I put some unqualified person there to do the job, or do I wait? I think there are strong arguments to wait, especially if the project is not time sensitive or a huge priority.

Or maybe to replace a person who has left. There's a gap and perhaps a not-quite-qualified (or a qualified-but-too-busy) person is temporarily taking care of things while the company tries to hire. There's a choice here too -- do you hire the least-bad person after say 3 months, or do you wait? Given the impact of bad hires at this level, I think I'd definitely wait.

Re: Tell HN: Employers are not desperate to hire developers

#367

Post by hnfong »

P_I_Staker wrote: post #309
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #168

Ever tried negotiating budgets between the CEO, division managers, and CTO? You basically run into a few arguments: 1. Can't hire Juniors as they cost a lot to train, and keep leaving for better paying firms 2. Can't hire Seniors as they cost too much, and tend to be a challenge to manage 3. Why don't we keep piling on the ticket queue till the existing teams starts to burnout, as they will burnout in a year anyway 4…

Seniors are tougher to manage? I see some ways how, but this seems wrong overall.

Probably correct in that specific context: "till the existing teams starts to burnout".

Seniors would just call out on your BS and let your ticketing queue burn.

Re: Tell HN: Employers are not desperate to hire developers

#368

Post by P_I_Staker »

hnfong wrote: post #367
P_I_Staker wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seniors are tougher to manage? I see some ways how, but this seems wrong overall.

Probably correct in that specific context: "till the existing teams starts to burnout" . Seniors would just call out on your BS and let your ticketing queue burn.

Yeah, I can see a number of scenarios where seniors can be more difficult. They're indoctrinated by a different process.

If you want to do something they didn't do in the passed, they'll throw a fit, and insist it isn't needed; after all would a genius senior engineer like them fail to do something? No, they're too smart and accomplished for that.

Similarly, if you don't want to do something that they HAVE done in the passed, they're liable to raise a big stink, maybe go over your head, or try to rally the team to their side. If someone so smart and senior like them was doing something before, it must be crucial, and a prudent use of time.

Re: Tell HN: Employers are not desperate to hire developers

#369

Post by hnfong »

digitalsushi wrote: post #135
dariusj18 wrote: post #28

My experience is it's impossible to find people who's experience actually matches their resume.

We try to hire seasoned linux admins for our ops team. This has become difficult. I start with this technical interview question so I can calibrate quickly: "If I run the following two commands: mkdir a b c;mv * What happens?" One person so far has asked if globbing was active. Like half of people get the answer right if they assume it is. This question is deemed as "not fair", though, because it assumes a linux admi…

If half the people get the answer right, what's the problem?

Re: Tell HN: Employers are not desperate to hire developers

#370

Post by hnfong »

anon50118810 wrote: post #205
JohnBooty wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any developer with a "mediocre but solid portfolio" would know if they bombed a tech screen. Frankly I think even somebody with zero experience knows if they've bombed an interview. So I've no reason to doubt OP there. I'm choosing to trust OP here - after all this is HN and we assume best intentions. If you're not passing tech screens, why are you assuming this means lack of demand on employer side? Well, perhaps no…

OP here, thank you. I've given many tech interviews from the hiring side and know what bombing looks like. In my case as a candidate it's less bombing and more a bad feeling after struggling with trivia questions or a time crunch. Of course I don't know exactly how it's perceived on their side, only that they get back to me later saying they don't want to proceed. However between the various parts of my portfolio it…

To be honest I'm not sure you really know what you claim to know about hiring.

On the hiring side, the condition for extending an offer is not "didn't bomb the interview", but rather, being the best applicant that passes the hiring bar (the bar may or may not be reasonable).

Perhaps other candidates were indeed better in some of the cases. Perhaps the interviewers thought they saw some red flags. Or even some other stupid reason. For all I know about hiring processes essentially the planets have to align and maybe a company would make an offer to some random candidate that they believe is the most suitable.

Also, I'm not sure I agree even in principle that an interviewer could obviously see from a portfolio that a candidate could write high quality code in reasonably complex projects. Unless the code available to inspect on github, claims about past work on a CV (or during interviews) don't really mean much. It's not so much about "lying" but rather that it's hard to get an accurate picture from a couple brief descriptions. I've had similar misunderstandings from colleagues reporting their work progress during stand ups (eg. Bob says he completed tasks X and Y. Turns out they didn't work for the difficult case of interacting with Z, which he wasn't aware of and would take another two weeks to complete). The other thing is that when people talk about past work, I get no information about how much support their team or company gave them, how much credit should be given to their colleagues, and how robust the project would be upon stresses, etc.

There's also the well-known Dunning–Kruger effect.

As for github, nobody actually spends significant time reading a candidate's code in github, that's what the interview is for.

Post reply on HN