Why is it taking longer and longer to fill open jobs? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why is it taking longer and longer to fill open jobs?

#21

Post by hkmurakami » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 5:50 AM UTC

th0ma5 wrote: post #2

I think this misinterprets something deliberately, and misses some things entirely. It mentions that wages have been stagnant as proof that it isn't that people aren't applying for jobs that have low pay, but only uses wage statistics as evidence for that, which doesn't really indicate one way or the other that such is the situation. I think the thing it really misses is the increased conceptualization of open positi…

>I've read other studies drawing parallels to online dating and in the face of abundance you keep holding out for something better.

Commonly referred to as the "secretary selection problem" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

Re: Why is it taking longer and longer to fill open jobs?

#22

Post by smil » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 5:52 AM UTC

GreenPlastic wrote: post #12

alister wrote: post #6

> What's changed over the past fifteen years is that the internet has dramatically decreased the cost of identify in an open job listing and sending in an application. The stack of resumes you need to read through in order to start scheduling interviews has just gotten longer. The easier you make it to apply for jobs, the slower the hiring process becomes. The above explanation of why it now takes employers longer to…

Posted a senior iOS dev position to Indeed, LinkedIn, Glassdoor where the company is paying 25%(maybe 40% if you include RSUs) above market here (although we don't put comp in the job listing) and only got 3 applicants in a month.

So compensation is not relevant to your point at all since you didn't list it. Or were you looking for mind readers? The low response rate makes sense in that case.

Re: Why is it taking longer and longer to fill open jobs?

#23

Post by arkem » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 5:56 AM UTC

caseyf7 wrote: post #11

I would like to see someone quantify how many job listings are posted to meet H1-B requirements where there is no intent to hire. I've been hearing more and more stories of people trying to get interviews for jobs they see online only to find out the listing was to meet visa requirements for the person in the current role.

Job postings that are aiming to satisfy visa requirements are generally easy to identify.

Here are some indicators:

* They're usually listed in a Sunday newspaper rather than online.

* They will not be posted to the company's website.

* They'll require a specific education level

* They'll require experience that is oddly specific

Re: Why is it taking longer and longer to fill open jobs?

#24

Post by GreenPlastic » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 5:56 AM UTC

GreenPlastic wrote: post #12

alister wrote: post #6

> What's changed over the past fifteen years is that the internet has dramatically decreased the cost of identify in an open job listing and sending in an application. The stack of resumes you need to read through in order to start scheduling interviews has just gotten longer. The easier you make it to apply for jobs, the slower the hiring process becomes. The above explanation of why it now takes employers longer to…

Posted a senior iOS dev position to Indeed, LinkedIn, Glassdoor where the company is paying 25%(maybe 40% if you include RSUs) above market here (although we don't put comp in the job listing) and only got 3 applicants in a month.

Can't post the exact description but the jist of it was:

Strong understanding of objective C and iOS SDK Swift experience a plus Passion for design / UX Proven track record of quality apps in app store

That's literally all I had under qualifications.

Re: Why is it taking longer and longer to fill open jobs?

#25

Post by ryandrake » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 6:02 AM UTC

GreenPlastic wrote: post #24

GreenPlastic wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posted a senior iOS dev position to Indeed, LinkedIn, Glassdoor where the company is paying 25%(maybe 40% if you include RSUs) above market here (although we don't put comp in the job listing) and only got 3 applicants in a month.

Can't post the exact description but the jist of it was: Strong understanding of objective C and iOS SDK Swift experience a plus Passion for design / UX Proven track record of quality apps in app store That's literally all I had under qualifications.

What did you have under "here are some great benefits" or "why it's awesome to work here"?

Re: Why is it taking longer and longer to fill open jobs?

#26

Post by GreenPlastic » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 6:03 AM UTC

smil wrote: post #19

GreenPlastic wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, a lot of new grads don't know how little they actually know and expect the degree itself to qualify them for the job.

Sure, but this is not a relevant response to my comment unless you meant it as an insult.

Wasn't meant as an insult. Just have a lot of phone screens where people list 100 technologies on a resume and don't have a rudimentary understanding of any.

The majority of candidates have never used source control or haven't spent the time to brush up on basic data structures questions.

Re: Why is it taking longer and longer to fill open jobs?

#27

Post by mc32 » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 6:05 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #13

mc32 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is more likely to happen if the employer can legally keep the worker after training, like say when the gov pays for your med school and gets you to commit x years at below market rates in exchange for paying your tuition (and training) otherwise the employee has little incentive to stay in the face of better offers given the added skills the prev employer paid for.

So, make sure there are no better offers out there. If you think your employees are going to leave after you train them, that's a problem you can solve.

Yes, but you have already invested money into them by hiring "green" (underproductive) workers. Someone else didn't have that burden so it's easy for them to pay a bit more to get the trained worker. So everyone is trying to get this trained worker "ready to hit the ground running".

Re: Why is it taking longer and longer to fill open jobs?

#28

Post by Buzzzz » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 6:05 AM UTC

dba7dba wrote: post #17

ryandrake wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extreme pickiness. Every hiring manager is convinced that they must only hire A+++ players or their business is doomed. They'd rather a position go un-filled for 6 months than take a risk on someone simply hungry and enthusiastic. Companies are holding out for that unicorn employee (but, strangely enough, not offering unicorn salaries).

They need to wake up. They are not google or apple.

Sometimes I wonder if even Apple and Google are Apple and Google :)

Re: Why is it taking longer and longer to fill open jobs?

#29

Post by commandar » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 6:09 AM UTC

th0ma5 wrote: post #2

I think this misinterprets something deliberately, and misses some things entirely. It mentions that wages have been stagnant as proof that it isn't that people aren't applying for jobs that have low pay, but only uses wage statistics as evidence for that, which doesn't really indicate one way or the other that such is the situation. I think the thing it really misses is the increased conceptualization of open positi…

>After harassing HR at my company, I finally made a lateral move where my manager told me he thought at the time of hiring that they needed someone and they thought I might be able scrape by, but now they want me to find someone else just like me.

I so relate to this.

I was specifically poached from one department by another for a new position within my company. HR process requires internal transfers to apply for the posting on the company website. I did so overnight, and about 15 minutes after HR got in for the day the next morning, I got an email telling me thank you for the application but I would not be considered or interviewed for the position.

My new manager had to fight with HR to even get them to send the application she had requested from me on to her because I didn't precisely tick all the checkboxes on the posted job description. This despite the fact that A. she'd specifically gone after me because her people knew the work I was already doing and knew I'd be a good fit with them and B. the position had gone unfilled for months, was badly needed, and the apps HR had passed on were a far worse fit for the job.

I mean, I had the odds about as stacked in my favor as you can get and it was still an uphill battle to get me hired on. Makes me cringe to think how many solid people we have to have missed out on because HR rejected them out of hand.

Re: Why is it taking longer and longer to fill open jobs?

#30

Post by ryandrake » Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 6:10 AM UTC

hkmurakami wrote: post #21

th0ma5 wrote: post #2

I think this misinterprets something deliberately, and misses some things entirely. It mentions that wages have been stagnant as proof that it isn't that people aren't applying for jobs that have low pay, but only uses wage statistics as evidence for that, which doesn't really indicate one way or the other that such is the situation. I think the thing it really misses is the increased conceptualization of open positi…

>I've read other studies drawing parallels to online dating and in the face of abundance you keep holding out for something better. Commonly referred to as the "secretary selection problem" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

From that Wiki (interesting by the way, thank you):

> 5. Immediately after an interview, the interviewed applicant is either accepted or rejected, and the decision is irrevocable.

Many companies actually think this is the way things have to be done in the real world!

I once worked somewhere they were trying to hire a software engineer with a very particular technical skill. They interviewed a few people and then interviewed Candidate X. He was very good, but not a "unicorn A++++ hire" so the company decided to hold out for a better candidate. 6 months pass, and none of the subsequent applicants were better than Candidate X, so they finally swallowed their pride and called him back. Luckily, he was still looking to change jobs and we got him, but that was 6 months we could have had another person powering our (then) 3 person team.