We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage • Hacker News Board

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#101

Post by pault » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

AznHisoka wrote: post #90

pault wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many new companies are profitable, and if they are, why would you want to work for a new company that isn't plowing all of its profits back into research, product development, and growth?

Because I get a share of their profits? If they plow all of its profits back into R&D, assuming I got no equity, what do i get as a reward? A potential chance to say i worked for a company that IPO’d? More coworkers? Profit sharing means money in the pocket for me. Actual hard, green cash.

That's exactly my point. Ideally, you should take a competitive salary. If you have to take some kind of alternative compensation because you believe in the mission or whatever, most startups aren't profitable even at IPO/aquihire stage, and in the case of Amazon, could have been profitable years earlier but reinvested everything and then some. I just can't see a scenario where it makes sense to take profit sharing at a new, growing, unproven company.

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#102

Post by NotAnEconomist » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #82

loteck wrote: post #40

As an employee, it is valuable to me that my company will not hire someone who doesn't think our business does something important ("get over yourselves, you're not curing cancer"), or who thinks the right way to ask business decision questions is to ask if "you're morons", or who has a problem with the company asking very basic probing questions, such as confirming you've thought through the challenge of changing fr…

I so dislike the ball-gargling exercise of "why do you want to work here?" It's often a "well, I need a job, you're hiring, and what you guys are doing looks at least marginally interesting to me" - I ought not need to find whatever product/service/market they're doing/in inspiring - I should just want to do it for the pay offered.

I just try to imagine it in other contexts.

"Well, your construction firm is well-established and routinely delivers projects on time and under budget, but for this job, we need to know that you believe in our mission -- that deeply impacts your ability to frame walls and pour concrete!"

Why can't I just be a professional tradesman?

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#103

Post by mooreds » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #92

areyouseriousxx wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current data we have about hiring practices seem to disagree with you. So either, this process is not as expensive as you think it is, or companies believe it is less expensive than it actually is. Either way, the effect on hiring is the same.

searching is easier in terms of internet ads and reviewing candidates. But hiring dev candidates is extremely hard. Virtually everyone has a job who is experienced already, college students get offers somewhere in the early junior year, so you hire them with at most 2 internships. It's very difficult to pull people out of an existing job, it's kind of begging them to consider you. Then for random applicants to a comp…

Are you in the Bay area or Seattle? That's higher rates than what I have seen for new college hires (I have seen in the 40-60k range).

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#104

Post by d4mi3n » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 6:39 PM UTC

revvx wrote: post #98

burtonator wrote: post #5

I had a recruiter call me a year ago with what sounded like a really amazing offer. Working for a well funded startup on a problem in which I happen to be a domain expert. They're aren't many expects in my field with my background and skill set and they said the right things to get me to interview (compensation won't be a concern). Anyway... Went in for 4-5 interviews. Took me about 10 hours in total to interview wit…

I had the same thing happen to me a couple times. Long and tiring process. Blackboard, make a project, lots of dirty laundry about "long gone incompetent developers" that made the current system a giant mess. Lots of red flags but lots of promises including a large maximum salary, including bonuses and stock options. The final offer, however, was 60% of my current pay. Lower than the average for someone with my exper…

Rule number 1, IMO, never discuss salary. I find listing your salary requirements before starting a process weeds out a lot of silly interviews. If you know your worth and have a goal for your salary, it is the most effective way I know to avoid dumb offers.

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#105

Post by rightbackatyou1 » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

jobthrowaway420 wrote: post #9

Made my first ever HN throwaway account to respond to this. I have been running a successful business, but it's not "tech". I want to get back into the software industry. I didn't have a software business idea, so I explored some tech company jobs. I am well-qualified at the VP/Director level for startups and even larger companies. I did go so far as to do an on-site interview for one company. I have verifiable proof…

I really want to understand your situation here.

When u say equity - do u mean they wouldnt offer u a standard options package ? Or was it too low ?

Or do u expect to get couple of % of a $10M ARR company?

I am curious because HR is hard and broken for everyone. But expectations are also very high.

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#106

Post by Frost1x » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 6:42 PM UTC

amenod wrote: post #17

Aloha wrote: post #3

I broadly agree with the basic point this guy is making, we have an issue where the HR gatekeepers (who don't have the knowledge to make accurate technical assessments) are effectively searching for a perfect match, rather than someone who could do the job well. Don't put box tickers in charge of a critical function unless you want every thing they touch to be turned into an exercise in box ticking.

Yeah right! This is not a problem of the HR, this is a problem of the upper management. HR is only doing what they are paid to do, and if there is no oversight how they do it the it's an issue with the leadership. But I don't buy that. I think they are trying to buy "suckers" and only shell out for "experts" when they really need to. Unfortunately I think they are hurting themselves, but hey, it's a free world...

The theory is that the market adjusts to compensate so in theory, competitors will offer reasonable opportunities.

The practice is that a culture had been subscribed to across the board and there's no shortage or urgency because if there was, these positions would loosen or employers would be more aggressive and even offer training instead of leaving needed positions unfilled.

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#107

Post by capsulecorp » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 6:42 PM UTC

loteck wrote: post #40

As an employee, it is valuable to me that my company will not hire someone who doesn't think our business does something important ("get over yourselves, you're not curing cancer"), or who thinks the right way to ask business decision questions is to ask if "you're morons", or who has a problem with the company asking very basic probing questions, such as confirming you've thought through the challenge of changing fr…

>In short, if this post is representative of the way workers are thinking and communicating, then we do have a talent shortage, it's just not the talents you're thinking of.

Cute and snarky, but lets not misdirect. The article isn't a representation of how people communicate to REASONABLE employers, so your comment doesn't make much sense. Its in response to the pervasive disconnect that is prevalent in the current hiring industry.

And if after that clarification you still think the article takes an unjustified tone, I'd say you are just as much a part of the problem.

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#108

Post by lostgame » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 6:43 PM UTC

I had a ludicrous experience with an AR startup in Toronto last year where I was offered $35 an hour - worked a week, and then was told they could only afford to pay $20/hr.

They made me work 60-80 hour weeks and didn’t pay me overtime.

When I criticized them, they fired me after a month.

I’d love to expose them here, but I’ll be the better person than them.

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#109

Post by abledon » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 6:44 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #55

cheschire wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever had to sift through 300 resumes for an open position? Did you ever have to do it multiple times in a quarter? If you have time to do that, and do it well, and still hit your numbers, congrats.

I've done that, and during peak hiring periods it does get a bit intense, but I think it's essential it's done by a coder, not an HR person. It's also something to give your day a bit of variety. And the big plus is you get to decide who you want to work with.

Do you think Resumes made in LaTeX get screwed by the HR robot screening programs that scan documents for keywords? I mean, if your document has some weird formatting going on, I could see the program miss some crucial keywords buried inside a nested table or something

Re: We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage

#110

Post by detaro » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 6:44 PM UTC

lostgame wrote: post #108

I had a ludicrous experience with an AR startup in Toronto last year where I was offered $35 an hour - worked a week, and then was told they could only afford to pay $20/hr. They made me work 60-80 hour weeks and didn’t pay me overtime. When I criticized them, they fired me after a month. I’d love to expose them here, but I’ll be the better person than them.

Covering for them doesn't make you a better person.