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

281–290 of 810 posts

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

#281

Post by stevbov »

mooreds wrote: post #103
NotSammyHagar wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I made 52k fresh out of college 16 years ago. Seems really low today.

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

#282

Post by retiredcoder »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #237
retiredcoder wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s another hot topic here in HN. Not claiming is the GP case but interviewing nowadays feels like human Tetris.

I do know we must miss some good candidates. We have been discussing lowering our bar, I'm in favor of changing it. We do the usual 5 or 6 questions. One thing that is interesting about our company is we have a list of x questions (x is less than 20), and we generally ask the same questions, everyone is calibrated on them the same way. Most people who make it through the screening pass the interview loop and get an o…

Sorry, I didn’t mean to deflect the convo towards your company’s hiring practices.

What I was trying to say that lot have been said about hiring metrics and standards around here and elsewhere. Yet, at the end of the day still like arbitrary in both ends and makes the job transaction cost higher than what could possible be.

Anyways, as I read your company’s interview process. Something came to my mind, why not let the candidate decide which questions to pick? I say so because I find the a lot of interviews are so hit or miss but if I was given a bit of control over the process, things could be different (or at least I would like to think this way).

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

#283

Post by sokoloff »

hopler wrote: post #187
sokoloff wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if this screwing is happening, would that make you more or less likely to use LaTeX to create your resume? It would make me more likely to use it...

Sure, if you enjoy being unemployed because you only want to work at a mythical company that tailors their HR processes to your obscure formatting preferences, or is so undesirable that they have time to read all resumes that come in.

I don't know if enjoy is the right word, but prefer is certainly correct. Sending someone a resume as a PDF file generated from LaTeX is far from an obscure format.

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

#284

Post by sverige »

pm90 wrote: post #259
Scarblac wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we're talking about someone who already has a job, and the new company wants to entice away from that. What kind of negotiating tactic is it to start at 60% of current salary?

Well, the OP mentioned that the recruiter thought the candidate was lying which is why they low-balled. So that explains the logic at least. They're not stupid, but they don't trust candidates I guess. Which is a whole different thing.

> the recruiter thought the candidate was lying

> they don't trust candidates

...which is a great tell for what kind of relationship you would be starting if you did take the offer.

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

#285

Post by chiefalchemist »

Two thoughts:

1) The majority of companies don't understand what they want and/or need in terms of personnel. Why that is can be a discussion some other time.

Of course there are exceptions. Typically they are the successful companies, the industry leaders, etc. Those who fail to make this cut believe these companies are auccessful because of open floor plans, ping pong tables, etc.

Collins said "Get the right people on the bus."

That's kinda true but also incomplete. It's actually: "Get good people on the right bus and get rolling in the right general direction. No ping pong tables required."

2) What most job posters don't seem to realize is that better / great people typically have a well serviced bullshit detector. Post your nonsense all you want. The ones you wish you could get can smell your turd-scented confusion and won't bother. It's not them. It's you. Suck it up and deal with it already.

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

#286

Post by geezerjay »

pm90 wrote: post #259
Scarblac wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we're talking about someone who already has a job, and the new company wants to entice away from that. What kind of negotiating tactic is it to start at 60% of current salary?

Well, the OP mentioned that the recruiter thought the candidate was lying which is why they low-balled. So that explains the logic at least. They're not stupid, but they don't trust candidates I guess. Which is a whole different thing.

The OP also mentioned the offer was below the average market price for somenone with a similar work experience, which is simply absurd if their goal is to entice you away from your current job.

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

#287

Post by _57jb »

Although I agree that HR is totally jacked and merely reading the yearly buzzwords to detect for "good candidates"...

I couldn't get beyond this sounding like: Old Guy Yells at Cloud https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/019/304/old...

Coming from an older guy myself.

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

#288

Post by retiredcoder »

antoinevg wrote: post #260
le-mark wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to admit there are loads of unscrupulous people out there who will take the compensation you're referring to, deliver nothing and leave. I've seen it myself at one start up I was at. The founders recieved a generous investment (on the order of $40m) to grow the business. They hired sr vp of sales and a sr vp of marketing who did exactly zero to move the business forward after 12 months. Both left having acco…

There is a difference between promising a unicorn and having a proven track record. That you are too lazy to verify the background your potential hire is providing you is 100% your problem. Bite me.

Specially at VP level...

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

#289

Post by mgleason_3 »

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…

This - we really need a law requiring companies post what the jobs pays. It would solve so many problems - including ones like this, gender discrimination, etc.

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

#290

Post by geezerjay »

pathseeker wrote: post #215
mcv wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They promise that amount up front, and then renege? That's not even deceitful, that's just intentionally wasting your time. I would send them an invoice for the time spent on the interview. What a bizarre way to run a business.

>They promise that amount up front, and then renege? "we can give X" is not a promise to give X.

If they replied that they could match the asking price but after all the song and dance they actually low-ball with an offer of 60% what the candidate was already earning, which is nearly half of what they initially mentioned, then that's pretty close to fraud.
Post reply on HN