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

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

resumeskills.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 810 posts

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

#131

Post by detaro »

unreal37 wrote: post #61

When I was hiring developers, I wrote the job role hoping for the perfect rock star candidate. "Must have experience with the Home Depot vendor system" I mean, what if someone fulfilled all my "musts"?!? That'd be the perfect person. But you hardly ever find rock stars. And so you hire the best person who doesn't have all the required skills. Don't let job requirements stop you from applying. And don't think that I'm…

Why write "must have" when it's not a "must have"? Why not admit that you'd consider people not ticking all the boxes?

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

#132

Post by mattnewport »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #96
mattnewport wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the positions are being filled and the offers accepted then why would anyone be complaining about a "talent shortage"?

Because companies will always want better talent at a better price - in that context, there will always be a 'shortage'. Markets for labour are obviously clearing - we're seeing tons of hiring (and laying off) - so people are getting hired. Many companies are also looking for specialized talent, for specific jobs, which are actually hard to fill. In some areas there is definitely a 'shortage' for opportunity cost. On…

Well yeah, companies will always want better employees that cost them less and employees will always want better jobs that pay them more. These desires are somewhat at odds with each other.

"Talent shortage" is the language employers use to imply that rather than this just being an eternal truth and their current situation being the current market equilibrium, there is some kind of societal problem that society should help them solve (at society's expense of course).

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

#134

Post by gist »

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.

> are effectively searching for a perfect match, rather than someone who could do the job well.

Maybe they actually aren't doing either. Perhaps they are simply building a log of candidates for a position that does not exist currently but may exist or another future hypothetical position related or unrelated. In other words doing the legwork way in advance and figuring if they dangle a large enough offer (at that time) someone will leave what they are doing and join the company.

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

#135

Post by detaro »

freewilly1040 wrote: post #117
detaro wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Neither does identifying the company and potentially identifying yourself

Sure, there's perfectly good reasons not to share the name. "being a better person" isn't one of them, IMHO.

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

#136

Post by kylecordes »

loteck wrote: post #69
toomuchtodo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few businesses actually matter, despite your opinion of the business. If your argument is you only want to work with other suckers (who “care” about the business over comp and tangible compensation), I suppose that’s an opinion that could be held. Is that a rational opinion to hold? I don’t come to work because I care about your business, I care because you pay me. I’d like to work with others who have the same…

Successful businesses support the livelihoods of all of the families that depend on that business's continued success, including employees and clients. All such businesses matter very much to those people, regardless of their industry.

One of the smarter folks I know makes this point repeatedly and firmly. Delivering reliable value to customers and a good environment and career path to employees is a worthwhile and valuable achievement. Even if in the process you aren’t “curing cancer”.

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

#137

Post by black-alert »

I think we do have a talent shortage, seriously, I see it all the time in the companies I work for. And if you run in an interview like the author describes, it is very likely that the interviewer just lacks talent and happens to be in that position, otherwise he or she would recognise the opportunity and go for a good deal.

But there are also good reasons why companies are often extremely careful hiring new staff. Many companies are desperately seeking the right dev's because they know that the wrong pick can cost them tons of money. The mess a wrong dev can create can do so much damage to the product while it often has to be released within a certain timeframe. I've seen a startup failing because of that.

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

#138

Post by ranci »

areyouseriousxx wrote: post #43
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 find it strange, as software developers, that we discuss the effects on automation all the time, but no one seems to understand that automation has made searching for new employees incredibly inexpensive and efficient compared to the past. So in technical roles there are a lot of companies that are always hiring. Recruiters work for free until they find you someone and placing job listings online is so inexpensive…

"I find it strange, as software developers, that we discuss the effects on automation all the time, but no one seems to understand that automation has made searching for new employees incredibly inexpensive and efficient compared to the past."

Yes, just like Tinder and other assorted dating apps and sites have made it incredibly easy and efficient to search for a mate, but relatively few people end up in a relationship because of it. The act of swiping endlessly appeals to people, apparently. I vaguely remember hearing that once you are given 2 or more options, it induces strong paralysis, whereas if you have one option you tend to just jump at it and move forward with your life. I imagine the dynamics of dating and hiring are quite parallel.

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

#139

Post by Aloha »

NotAnEconomist wrote: post #102
Aloha wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It becomes more absurd the further you get away from employment too

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

#140

Post by wrestlerman »

Based on my experience this is very true. It's very annoying when you want to find a job, but you don't want to be a sucker, so you end up looking for a job for a long time. I don't get it. You want to hire someone talented or smart, obviously, you are gonna have to pay them good money. What's the problem with that? I'm sure they will bring much more value than a usual sucker.

Personal story ahead. I've been looking for a job for around two months already. I'm Ruby/JS dev, so there are a few offers I can choose from. The problem is, half of that offers pay very little. Based on my experience, related to working with other people and to my previous salaries, I'd be a sucker to apply to those cheap offers. What I'm even more afraid is the people I'd work with. I'm pretty young and ambitious and I learn fast and I want to learn a lot, but if you don't have a good mentor you are not gonna learn that much.

Unfortunately, the offers, that interest me, require much more experience than I have. I doubt that I'd have a real problem with adapting and doing the job unwell. But I don't even get invited to any interview from that offers, because my CV has one year or two years of experience less than they expect :( How can I show that I could be a good fit then?

I know it's not that much related to the topic, but I've been a bit frustrated.

Post reply on HN