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

The Junior Hiring Crisis

people-work.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 535 posts

Re: The Junior Hiring Crisis

#311

Post by HDThoreaun »

moregrist wrote: post #123
Herring wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What social contract? Companies have always been for shareholders. Do you people have some kind of contract with Tesla that I don't know about? This entire discussion sounds crazy to me. If you want socialism, vote for socialism. If you want raw unfiltered capitalism, vote for the billionaire. You can't vote for the billionaire and expect safety nets. That's madness.

Socialism is when the state (ie: the government) _owns_ industries. A social contract is an implicit agreement that everyone more or less accepts without anything being necessarily legally binding. For example, the courtesy of two weeks notice in the US is a social contract: there’s nothing legally requiring it, but there are _social_ consequences (ie: your reference might be less positive) if you don’t follow it. Ev…

There has never been an understanding that rising profits = no layoffs. Zero idea where that came from. Companies will reduce workforce when they dont think those workers are providing value, that has always been the case.

Re: The Junior Hiring Crisis

#312

Post by ryandrake »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #271
supriyo-biswas wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dealing with an intern at work who I suspect is doing exactly this, I discussed this with a colleague. One way seems to be to organize a face to face meeting where you test their problem solving skills without AI use, the other may be to question them about their thought process as you review a PR. Unfortunately, the use of LLMs has brought about a lot of mistrust in the workplace. Earlier you’d simply assume that a…

> Earlier you’d simply assume that a junior making mistakes is simply part of being a junior and can be coached; whereas nowadays said junior may not be willing to take your advice Hot take: This reads like an old person looking down upon young people. Can you explain why it isn't? Else, this reads like: "When I was young, we worked hard and listened to our elders. These days, young people ignore our advice." Every t…

> Old days: Get the O'Reilly book for that programming language. Lookup access modifiers in the index. 10 year ago: Google for a blog with an intro to the programming language. There will be a tip about what access modifiers can do. Today: Ask ChatGPT.

The answer to this (throughout the ages) should be the same: read the authoritative source of information. The official API docs, the official language specification, the man page, the textbook, the published paper, and so on.

Maybe I am showing my age, but one of the more frustrating parts of being a senior mentoring a junior is when they come with a question or problem, and when I ask: “what does the official documentation say?” I get a blank stare. We have moved from consulting the primary source of information to using secondary sources (like O’Reilly, blogs and tutorials), now to tertiary sources like LLMs.

Re: The Junior Hiring Crisis

#313

Post by johnnyanmac »

semiquaver wrote: post #182
Zarathruster wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adding to this: it's not just that the apprenticeship ladder is gone—it's that nobody wants to deal with juniors who spit out AI code they don't really understand. I keep hearing this and find it utterly perplexing. As a junior, desperate to prove that I could hang in this world, I'd comb over my PRs obsessively. I viewed each one as a showcase of my abilities. If a senior had ever pointed at a line of code and ask…

> embarrassed to check in a pile of slop Part of being a true junior, especially nowadays, is not being able to recognize the differences between a pile of slop from useful and elegant code.

It seems so obvious now, but it does make me thankful that my training drilled into my head to constantly ask "what is the problem I am trying to solve?". Communication in a team on what's going on (both in your head and the overall problem space) is just as important as the mechanical process of coding it.

I feel that's the bare minimum a junior should be asking. the "this is useful" or "this is slop" will come with experience, but you need to at least be able to explain what's going on.

the transition to mid and senior goes when you can start to quantify other aspects of the code. Like performance, how widespread a change affects the codebase at large, the input/outputs expected, and the overall correctness based on the language. Balancing those parameters and using it to accurately estimate a project scope is when you're really thinking like a senior.

Re: The Junior Hiring Crisis

#314

Post by chairmansteve »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #113
mooreds wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are some juniors who use AI to assist... and some who use it to delegate all of their work to. Hmmm. Is there any way to distinguish between these two categories? Because I agree, if someone is delegating all their work to an LLM or similar tool, cut out the middleman. Same as if someone just copy/pasted from Stackoverflow 5 years ago. I think it is also important to think about incentives. What incentive doe…

Dealing with an intern at work who I suspect is doing exactly this, I discussed this with a colleague. One way seems to be to organize a face to face meeting where you test their problem solving skills without AI use, the other may be to question them about their thought process as you review a PR. Unfortunately, the use of LLMs has brought about a lot of mistrust in the workplace. Earlier you’d simply assume that a…

The intern is not producing code that is up to the standard you expect, and will not change it?

I saw a situation like this many years ago. The newly hired midlevel engineer thought he was smarter than the supervisor. Kept on arguing about code style, system design etc. He was fired after 6 months.

But I was friendly with him, so we kept in touch. He ended up working at MSFT for 3 times the salary.

Re: The Junior Hiring Crisis

#315

Post by johnnyanmac »

ike2792 wrote: post #174
andrewmutz wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not helping that in the last 10 years a culture of job-hopping has taken over the tech industry. Average tenure at tech companies is often ~2 years and after that people job hop to increase compensation. It's clear why people do it (more pay) but it sets up bad incentives for the companies. Why would a company invest money in growing the technical skill set of an employee, just to have them leave as soon as they…

When I'm hiring an engineer, HR will easily let me bump up the offer by $10-20K if the candidate counters. It is nearly impossible to get that same $10-20K bump for an existing engineer that is performing extremely well. Companies themselves set up this perverse incentive structure.

Yeah, companies broke the career structure decades ago. There's no seniority rewards nor pensions to look forward to, and meanwhile companies put more budget in hiring than in promoting. They look at the high turnover rates and executives shrug. Money is being made, no changes.

It's no surprise the market adapts to the new terms and conditions. But companies simply don't care enough to focus on retention.

Re: The Junior Hiring Crisis

#316

Post by jmye »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #269

>> we’ve spent a decade normalizing senior engineers opting out of developing the next generation. This seems like a deeply flawed take on the dual track IC-management ladder. Senior ICs don't keep plugging away by themselves because they're not managers, they just don't get people-management tasks. I think the leadership & mentorship they provide is harder than for me (a manager) because they don't have the hammer o…

Yes! Had the same instant reaction to that line. A lead engineer doesn’t get to lock himself or herself in a closet and ignore the team, and any team/company allowing that is failing its team as a result. They should be out there helping level up tech skills, and influencing code/behavior just as much as a people manager should be guiding career trajectory.

Re: The Junior Hiring Crisis

#317

Post by chinaexpert1 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #271
supriyo-biswas wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dealing with an intern at work who I suspect is doing exactly this, I discussed this with a colleague. One way seems to be to organize a face to face meeting where you test their problem solving skills without AI use, the other may be to question them about their thought process as you review a PR. Unfortunately, the use of LLMs has brought about a lot of mistrust in the workplace. Earlier you’d simply assume that a…

> Earlier you’d simply assume that a junior making mistakes is simply part of being a junior and can be coached; whereas nowadays said junior may not be willing to take your advice Hot take: This reads like an old person looking down upon young people. Can you explain why it isn't? Else, this reads like: "When I was young, we worked hard and listened to our elders. These days, young people ignore our advice." Every t…

Yeah Ive got to agree with this hot take. Put yourself in the junior's shoes: if s/he wasn't there you'd be pulling it out of Claude Code yourself, until your satisfied with what comes out enough to start adding your "senior" touches. The fact is the way code is written has changed fundamentally, especially for kids straight out of college, and the answer is to embrace that everyone is using it, not all this shaming. If you're so senior, why not show the kid how to use the LLM right, so the work product is right from the start? It seems part of the problem is dinosaurs are suspicious of the tech, and so dont know how to mentor for it. That being said, Im a machine learning engineer not a developer, and these LLMs have been a godsend. Assuming I do it correctly, there's just no way I could write a whole 10,000 line pipeline in under a week without it. While coding from outputs and error-driven is the wrong way for software Juniors, its fine by me for my AI work. It comes down to knowing when there's a silent error, if you haven't been through everything line by line. I've been caught before, Im not immune, its embarrassing, but every since GPT was in preview I have made it my business to master it.

I have a friend who is a dev, a very senior one at that, who spins up 4 Claudes at once and does the whole enterprises work. Hes a "Senior AI Director" with nobody beneath him, not a single direct report, and NO knowledge of AI or ML, to my chagrin.

So now I'm whining too...

Re: The Junior Hiring Crisis

#318

Post by ryandrake »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #303
ryandrake wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea a lot software developers I’ve worked with, across the full spectrum of skill levels, didn’t have a strong preference about what code they were writing. If there is a preference, it’s usually the parts they’ve already worked on, because they’re already ramped up. Strong desire to work on a specific piece of the code (or to not work on one) might even in some cases be a red flag.

Why would having an idea of where to direct their career be a red flag?

I didn’t say anything about career direction. I’m talking about what project or part of the project. I have worked with developers who insist that they only want to work on this very narrow section of the code, and won’t consider branching out somewhere else, and that kind of attitude often comes from people who are difficult in other ways to work with.

Re: The Junior Hiring Crisis

#319

Post by shagie »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #283
andrewmutz wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not helping that in the last 10 years a culture of job-hopping has taken over the tech industry. Average tenure at tech companies is often ~2 years and after that people job hop to increase compensation. It's clear why people do it (more pay) but it sets up bad incentives for the companies. Why would a company invest money in growing the technical skill set of an employee, just to have them leave as soon as they…

> culture of job-hopping When using this phrase in this context, is your sentiment positive or negative? In my experience, each time I have a job offer for more money, I go and talk to my current line manager. I explain the new job offer, and ask if they would like to counteroffer. 100% ( simultaneously emotionally hurt ("oh, he's disloyal for leaving") and unsupportive of matching compensation. In almost all cases,…

I'm unsure about how long your career has been.

At Taos, there was a monthly training session / tech talk on some subject.

At Network Appliance ('98-'09), there was a moderate push to go to trainings and they paid for the devs on the team I was on to go to the perl conference (when it was just down the road one year everyone - even the tech writers - went).

At a retail company that I worked at ('10-'14), they'd occasionally bring in trainers on some thing that... about half a dozen of the more senior developers (who would then be able to spread the knowledge out ... part of that was a formal "do a presentation on the material from the past two weeks for the rest of your team.")

However, as time went on and as juniors would leave sooner the appetite for a company to spend money on training sessions has dissipated. It could be "Here is $1000 training budget if you ask your manager" becoming $500 now. It could be that there aren't any more conferences that the company is willing to spend $20k to send a team to.

If half of the junior devs are going to jump to the next tier of company and the other half aren't going to become much better... why do that training opportunity at all?

Training absolutely used to be a thing that was much more common... but so too were tenures of half a decade or longer.

Re: The Junior Hiring Crisis

#320

Post by johnnyanmac »

parliament32 wrote: post #258
ike2792 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I'm hiring an engineer, HR will easily let me bump up the offer by $10-20K if the candidate counters. It is nearly impossible to get that same $10-20K bump for an existing engineer that is performing extremely well. Companies themselves set up this perverse incentive structure.

This has been a thing for a long time and I've thought about it quite a bit, but I still have no solutions. I'm pretty sure it just comes down to bean-counting: "we have a new fulltime permanent asset for $100k" vs "we have a new fulltime permanent asset for $120k" is effectively the same thing, and there's a clear "spend money, acquire person" transaction going on. Meanwhile, "we spent $20k on an asset we already ha…

>What are you buying with that $20k exactly?

This incentive is entirely backwards. It should be "what are we losing with not spending that 20k?". You lose out on someone used to the company workflow, you waste any training you invested in them, you create a hole that strains your other 3-4 100k engineers, and you add a time strain to your managers to spend time interviewing a new member.

if you really believe you can buy all that back for 120k as if you ran short on milkk, you're missing the forest for the tree.

>Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to just fire staff for a week then re-hire them at a new salary.

if society conditions a workforce to understand the issue, sure. But psychologically. you'd create an even lower morale workplace. Even for a week, people don't want to be dropped like a hot potato, even if you pick it up later as it cools. People want some form of stability, especially in an assumed full time role.

Post reply on HN