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

231–240 of 381 posts

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

#231

Post by jaredklewis »

duxup wrote: post #13

I don't understand the hiring people industry. The questions thrown at me are trivia, if I knew the answer, or not, it doesn't mean anything. People are looking for weird specifics for things that ... really don't need it. The job inevitably doesn't even rely on those specifics. I'll learn whatever anyone wants, I like doing that ... no honestly I do. Can I just talk to the folks I'll potentially be working with / fo…

> Can I just talk to the folks I'll potentially be working with / for right away? No? Why?

Probably because those people are writing code and don't want to spend more than a couple hours a week interviewing folks.

If a role gets 500 applications in a week, it seems reasonable that there will be some sort of filter before candidates start talking with SWEs whose time is very expensive (compared with that of HR or recruiters). Whether that filter is an HR person doing a phone call, a take home assignment, or an automated code test, all methods are vehemently hated on HN.

I hate job hunting just like everyone else, but I'm also on the other side of it and kind of understand why things are the way they are. It's not a "cargo cult" or a conspiracy; it's just companies trying to balance a lot of different concerns.

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

#232

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

csa wrote: post #110
giantg2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You have to be lucky (including knowing someone, ie networking), not necessarily good." Yes, and the network effects are largely detrimental to minority groups since networks tend to be biased toward similar people.

> the network effects are largely detrimental to minority groups “… detrimental to low socioeconomic status groups, within which minorities are over-represented”. FTFY, not to be a pedant, but to highlight the fact that many white people from certain backgrounds also struggle with this, while well-connected minorities largely do not. In fact, connected minorities essentially have super-powered network effects since t…

> In fact, connected minorities essentially have super-powered network...

...in isolated pockets where those things exist.

Outside of those places, minorities have their slider set to something-other-than the easiest difficulty level.

As a white guy in generally good condition, my slider was slid all the way to easy. My road was still super hard - but it was easier than it was for women, brown people, etc.

In 1990 I moved to FL and ran headfirst into no connections=no work. I did the Make Your Own Luck thing. Hundreds of brief introductions led to a few relationships. A few of those became potential leads. It was a years long process. The eventual successes hinged on a few, key connections with people who saw something familiar.

If I hadn't been familiar, I wouldn't have been remembered past the introduction.

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

#233

Post by giantg2 »

alephnerd wrote: post #208
giantg2 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Of course, but companies have deadlines to hit and features to release." I mean, they're allowed to be shortsighted if they want. Burn through people and spend time and money hiring replacements.

This is about new hires. Not existing employers. The answer is simple - don't burn out your existing employees.

Yeah, but even as a new employee, my past experiences have conditioned me to expect that I will get screwed over the same way even at a new company.

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

#234

Post by paulcole »

duxup wrote: post #13

I don't understand the hiring people industry. The questions thrown at me are trivia, if I knew the answer, or not, it doesn't mean anything. People are looking for weird specifics for things that ... really don't need it. The job inevitably doesn't even rely on those specifics. I'll learn whatever anyone wants, I like doing that ... no honestly I do. Can I just talk to the folks I'll potentially be working with / fo…

> Can I just talk to the folks I'll potentially be working with / for right away? No? Why?

No! As many applicants as possible should be rejected before we start interrupting these people's days.

You might be a great candidate but what about the other 10 doofuses who aren't? Do they all get to talk to the folks they'll potentially be working with/for right away?

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

#235

Post by alephnerd »

pdimitar wrote: post #212
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…

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 simil…

> Is it really worth it to be as picky for 2.5 years

Yes as an employer.

> I'd wager they lost money because of that

No. If a role isn't filled in a quarter, that money is in most cases reverted back into the compensation pool used to either help hire a high performer, or give bonuses to the existing team.

99% of a time, an IC Engineering role will NOT make or break a company's entire financial future.

If this is one of those 1% roles, those are hired through internal networks because of how critical they are.

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

#236

Post by [deleted] »

pseudocomposer wrote: post #211
pjc50 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#238

Post by alephnerd »

giantg2 wrote: post #233
alephnerd wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about new hires. Not existing employers. The answer is simple - don't burn out your existing employees.

Yeah, but even as a new employee, my past experiences have conditioned me to expect that I will get screwed over the same way even at a new company.

And this is why the job market sucks.

Enough hiring managers and applicants have been screwed over by the other that it's become adversarial.

It is what it is.

-------

My two cents though to you giantg2, the mentality you have is not feasible in the private sector as neither employers nor employees have any loyalty anymore.

Either switch to a government programming job (plenty of those now and they are increasingly remote first - especially Federal) or a new industry.

Or start learning the game (how to market yourself, constantly upskilling with "hot" tech stacks, networking, etc).

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

#239

Post by tptacek »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #228
projectazorian wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any test that has disparate impact is in effect illegal Nope, it just has to be shown to be relevant to the requirements of the job. So you call it an "employment skills assessment," make 80% of it indistinguishable from an IQ test, and add some domain-specific questions related to the industry or the position. P&G has done this for a long time, among other companies.

This has been true for a long time but I would suggest that it's no longer true, or at least less true. Such aptitude tests, the opaque form of IQ tests, are now increasingly and effectively being challenged on the same disparate impact that IQ tests were. Rather recently the NY Teachers aptitude test was demonstrated to have disparate impact resulting in a payout of $1.8B. Perhaps one way to get rid of leetcode woul…

The teachers aptitude test involved errors in scoring the test, not a conceptual problem with aptitude testing teachers.

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

#240

Post by tptacek »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #220
tptacek wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

This NY Post story is speculative; the VC firm that did this (stupid) hiring thing, of asking people to take a free online IQ test and a Meyers-Briggs personality test(!), got called out on Twitter and backed down, blaming the process on an intern. They weren't sued. I'm not saying you won't get dunked on if you, for instance, Wonderlic-test applicants for your tech company. You will. But I don't think you're going to get sued.
Post reply on HN