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

Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 381 posts

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#211

Post by pseudocomposer »

pjc50 wrote: post #135
banannaise wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Structural unemployment happens when the perceived skills of the workforce don't match the perceived needs of employers, so there is both unemployment and difficulty hiring. A lot of engineers will tell you that companies are often expecting both too much (precise types of experience) and the wrong things (leetcode-type challenges, unnecessarily specific knowledge...), which leads them to pass over perfectly qualifie…

> Structural unemployment happens when the perceived skills of the workforce don't match the perceived needs of employers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons : when "buyers" cannot distinguish between good and bad due to informational issues, even the good products (or in this case employees) cannot find buyers. Market failure. It might be improvable by the relevant parties getting together and agreei…

Unions have historically solved this problem. Non-union accreditation programs don’t seem to have the same effect, though in some industries they do have a positive effect on salary.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#212

Post by pdimitar »

shagie wrote: post #163
ralphc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll throw in my personal example from 2012 when I was laid off. Senior dev, about 30 years experience at the time. A friend knew of an opening somewhere but they wanted GWT experience, I didn't have it so they wouldn't talk to me. 6 weeks later they were still looking. Like I couldn't learn GWT in six weeks? If they hired any decent dev after a good general screening and gave him the docs they could self-learn GWT i…

The risk is that they hire someone who doesn't know GWT and six weeks later (and six months later) they still don't know it. The ability to do self directed learning of a new skill / technology is something that is difficult to find (a lot of developers that I know don't know how to learn a new version of Java or framework and are still writing code exactly as they did when they graduated college... and they could pu…

You're basing your entire argument on an arbitrary deadline (six weeks).

I am giggling as I am monitoring several job forums and seeing several companies pop up periodically (once a quarter I'd say) looking for the same positions... 2.5 years later.

So let's change the example. Is it really worth it to be as picky for 2.5 years? I'd wager they lost money because of that. Any senior dev can learn GWT or anything similar in much less than 6 weeks even (though proficiency is another matter).

And ability to self-learn can be somewhat gauged by a take-home assignment.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#213

Post by cjbgkagh »

avmich wrote: post #199
cjbgkagh wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think previous work history is currently most used as a substitute. As in the hiring company assumes the previous companies have acted as a gatekeeper. Given the amount of money involved it would be difficult to maintain a formalization / certification process that would be both trusted and resistant to corruption.

No, I mean just like companies would like to see a sort of IQ test results for applicants, I'd assume applicants would like to see a sort of employment-worthiness test for the companies. Previous work history here could be the history of that particular aspiring company of hiring people and people leaving the company.

Ah, I see, I think companies being far fewer than people are more able to operate on reputation in a way that would be impractical for general mass of individuals. The companies can and do pay PR to try to influence that reputation, as can individuals, and many high profile individuals do in fact hire PR. Glassdoor is one public source of info, but there is generally quite a lot of gossip around companies. People can reach out to current employees of an company like employers can reach out to previous employers of an individual and I've never had an interview where I was unable to ask the interviewer questions about the company.

Perhaps a proxy for a corporate IQ test would be net earning per employee which is often pretty public information.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#214

Post by badpun »

danaris wrote: post #159
sokoloff wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leetcode (or hacker rank or others) and other algorithmic qualification (have recruiter ask for years of experience in exactly X) is an understandable response to the automated firehose tools that allow applicants to deluge companies with applications with relatively low effort per app. Companies have to find some way to filter out the percentage that have very low likelihood of succeeding. I hate it, but I don’t see…

My observation has been that the causality is the other way around: the pointless mindgames of employers trying to find "the best" people via interviews led to job-seekers finding ways to game a system that was rigged against them. However, regardless of "who started it" in this round, ultimately, it is unquestionably a situation we can lay at the feed of industry, which abandoned decades ago the practice of actually…

I think there's still training for positions (which often means - the company's specific tech stack) - it's what the "junior" positions are. If, on the other hand, the candidate more or less fits the tech stack and other requirements (domain knowledge etc.) already, the company can skip the training, and offer a "senior" position, for more money.

That's the reality of most software positions - they're hyper-specialized, and key competencies don't transfer between them. It's similar in medicine - a top cardiologist could at best be hired as a "junior" pulmonologist-in-training, even though he may be a doctor with 20 years of experience.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#215

Post by alephnerd »

JohnMakin wrote: post #86

Current job market reminds me of ~2016-2017 when you'd see absurd job postings requiring 5+ years of kubernetes experience (kubernetes wasn't released until 2015). I suspect it'll shake out, but I imagine a lot of people will have to learn new skills and adapt - that's how it's always gone in tech. The fact that people seem blindsided by it is a little surprising to me, we've seen this cycle before.

A lot of newer HN members seem to be junior ICs who never experienced the job market in earlier times.

I've mentioned this fact multiple times before, and you can see this with the ages that most of the accounts are. Half of the accounts on this thread (and much of HN) are from 2020 onwards now.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#216

Post by pdimitar »

alephnerd wrote: post #188
shagie wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk is that they hire someone who doesn't know GWT and six weeks later (and six months later) they still don't know it. The ability to do self directed learning of a new skill / technology is something that is difficult to find (a lot of developers that I know don't know how to learn a new version of Java or framework and are still writing code exactly as they did when they graduated college... and they could pu…

> The risk is that they hire someone who doesn't know GWT and six weeks later (and six months later) they still don't know it. 100% THIS. If I wanted to fire someone I just hired, it ends up taking 2-3 quarters (1 Q realize they suck, 1-2 Qs managing them out/building a case) AND looks very bad on the hiring manager because you wasted $1.75*BASE_SALARY of company money and have nothing to show for it. I understand so…

Or you know, you can just hire them as contractors and fire them tomorrow if they don't perform. Every company I worked with in the last 8 years does just that.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#217

Post by tptacek »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #187
tptacek wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not illegal to give candidates IQ tests. There are huge firms that do so openly. The practice isn't widespread because it doesn't work well, not because it's proscribed.

Any test that has disparate impact is in effect illegal. Leetcode at least makes this process more opaque which helps limit liability. I have edited my post to note that there is no explicit legislation making IQ tests illegal in the US.

I don't need to litigate this, but they're not "effectively" illegal either. Again: big firms with huge HR departments and lots to lose use then, and brag about it.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#218

Post by JohnMakin »

alephnerd wrote: post #215
JohnMakin wrote: post #86

Current job market reminds me of ~2016-2017 when you'd see absurd job postings requiring 5+ years of kubernetes experience (kubernetes wasn't released until 2015). I suspect it'll shake out, but I imagine a lot of people will have to learn new skills and adapt - that's how it's always gone in tech. The fact that people seem blindsided by it is a little surprising to me, we've seen this cycle before.

A lot of newer HN members seem to be junior ICs who never experienced the job market in earlier times. I've mentioned this fact multiple times before, and you can see this with the ages that most of the accounts are. Half of the accounts on this thread (and much of HN) are from 2020 onwards now.

Ah, yea, that makes a lot of sense. I guess I don't really consider myself "old" or a graybeard yet but I could see how my perspective could differ from someone 15 years younger.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#219

Post by alephnerd »

JohnMakin wrote: post #218
alephnerd wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of newer HN members seem to be junior ICs who never experienced the job market in earlier times. I've mentioned this fact multiple times before, and you can see this with the ages that most of the accounts are. Half of the accounts on this thread (and much of HN) are from 2020 onwards now.

Ah, yea, that makes a lot of sense. I guess I don't really consider myself "old" or a graybeard yet but I could see how my perspective could differ from someone 15 years younger.

Yea. For a lot of Gen Zs, this is the first "bleh" market they've experienced.

Tech has become commodified like how Teaching became by the 1990s, Accounting became by the 2000s, and Law by the 2010s.

Everyone pays (relatively) good money for an experienced Teacher, Accountant, or Lawyer but pays peanuts for green talent.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#220

Post by cjbgkagh »

tptacek wrote: post #217
cjbgkagh wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any test that has disparate impact is in effect illegal. Leetcode at least makes this process more opaque which helps limit liability. I have edited my post to note that there is no explicit legislation making IQ tests illegal in the US.

I don't need to litigate this, but they're not "effectively" illegal either. Again: big firms with huge HR departments and lots to lose use then, and brag about it.

Those I assume also have big legal departments, for smaller companies such lawsuits can be extinction events.

This has been previously discussed in detail on HN 12 years ago; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2414135 I would suggest that times have changed since then and disparate impact lawsuits are now more likely to prevail in 2024 than in 2012, so the in-effect aspect has increased since then.

I know quite a few CEOs who confide in me that they would rather give IQ tests but do not because of their concerns over legal consequences. Clearly this is anecdotal but this sentiment does seem to be pervasive and extensive and repeated throughout the internet over a long period of time.

It would be helpful if you could list some of these companies that publicly state they give IQ tests. I've only heard about this as a practice at hedge funds and even then it was public knowledge / gossip but not publicly stated.

In my brief search for such companies I came across this; https://nypost.com/2022/03/15/silicon-valley-firm-apologizes... which is a company that has now apologized for giving IQ tests and is being warned about the legal consequences for having them.

Post reply on HN