191–200 of 1001 posts
There’s a company in between initial growth and stable company, which has become increasingly relevant. I don’t have any fancy name for it, but it’s the one where your company gets bought by private equity and “creates efficiency” by laying half of your company and limps across the 3 year tax mark as a tired old dog, changing hands again.
Hiring people (mostly engineers) has been my full-time job now for about 15 years and I found myself emphatically agreeing with a lot of Matt's criticisms of modern hiring. Most tech interviews are as relevant to job performance as if hiring a baker required interviewing them about how electron orbitals bind worked gluten together then rejecting bakers who don’t immediately draw a valid orbital configuration. Matt's…
except that referral hiring isn't a thing almost anywhere I know because I've referred people I KNOW are great SE's and I'm literally willing to vouch my own employment for, and they still get treated no different to any other candidate
It really sucks right now, but recent grads and juniors are suffering the most right now, to my understanding. There's an over-production of CS grads, as the industry looked very lucrative, so a lot of people decided to go software engineering route. It's hard to make a case for start ups to bet on inexperienced people. For mature companies, why pay for 2 juniors, when you can get a senior for 1.5 price, who might do…
> ” It's hard to make a case for start ups to bet on inexperienced people. For mature companies, why pay for 2 juniors, when you can get a senior for 1.5 price, who might do the same work. In the previous years even C-level companies had internship-to-full-time pipelines, but now it looks more scarce.” I agree with you, and think the value proposition for these companies to hire junior talent is especially unappealin…
It pertains to the build vs exploit cycle of managing opportunities, it’s in the workers interest to stay in the build phase, it’s in the companies interest to stay in the exploit phase. A case could be made where the difference would be split where the worker on average spends some time in the build phase and some time in the exploit phase. Accepting a lower salary for continuing training is one way to do that.
Training isn't supposed to be one and done, with a single build phase followed by a constant exploitation.
What companies are trying to do now is even worse by starting in the exploration phase and staying there.
What in the world is a poetry lockfile
Wild that explanations of the tech job market like this are still being written without referencing the tax consequences of Section 174 changes.
Will Trump reverse these changes? Will he lower interest rates?
It really sucks right now, but recent grads and juniors are suffering the most right now, to my understanding. There's an over-production of CS grads, as the industry looked very lucrative, so a lot of people decided to go software engineering route. It's hard to make a case for start ups to bet on inexperienced people. For mature companies, why pay for 2 juniors, when you can get a senior for 1.5 price, who might do…
> It really sucks right now For me, it's been the opposite: the last 2 years have been the best time I've had working in tech since the early 2010s. Around 2019 I was seriously considering leaving the field (if it didn't pay so much) as the entire industry had turned into a bunch of leet code grinding, TC chasing, mediocre drones. It was incredibly hard to find people working on actual problems let alone challenging/…
2023 was awful too because everyone stayed put — we somehow avoided layoffs — even though they were absolutely miserable.
Now in 2024, I’ve just started a job search and things seem much better. There’s actual innovation now and I feel a sense of optimism about the future of tech that I haven’t in 10 years.
It seems the author purposely tried to make this article as long as humanly possible. That's not going to make me want to read it more or think you, the author, are very smart because you write a lot of words. Edit your blog post down to a few hundred words and then I'll read it.
Yeah looks like they were hoping that if they maximize the word count they will automatically "win" SEO.
"we see correlation is causation and you can’t argue otherwise:" Right. Because none of us remember what was going on in the world at the time.