What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring? • Hacker News Board

Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?

#391

Post by cauliflower99 » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 3:29 PM UTC

Folks who are new in any role in any industry really need to understand that remote work is a huge disadvantage when you know nothing or nearly nothing.

Anecdotally, I've run an apprenticeship program for a few years now in software. We hire 5 apprentices at a time - usually people who have done some online courses in programming and want to get into the industry. They would be pre-junior.

The year we went fully remote for lockdowns, the failure rate of the apprenticeship went from 0% to 80%. We went to a hybrid policy of "you choose how many days you want in the office" - failure rate dropped to 40% with the top of the group being the 2 people who were in the office everyday. Today, it is a mandated 4 days a week in the office - failure rate is at 0% again.

Not only does nobody fail, but the folks who consistently turn up to the office and get involved talking to seniors are inevitably the ones who progress the fastest. The ones fighting to work from home because it's inconvenient consistently do worse.

All those opportunities to improve by 1% via a meaningful conversation or a whiteboard diagram disappear when working from home. The 1%'s matter the most when you're a junior.

Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?

#392

Post by class3shock » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 12:12 PM UTC

Grimburger wrote: post #127

class3shock wrote: post #118

Weak junior hiring is due to: - Longtime trends of companies trying to externalize training costs. - Avoiding hiring in general due to uncertainty in the economy. - Companies dumping tons of money into AI thus having to cut money from other places, particularly ones that don't add much value in the quarter (internships).

> companies trying to externalize training costs Why shouldn't they? You're commenting on a website where the common if not overwhelming view is that people should move jobs every 2 years or they are going to lose out.

But a big reason people only stay two years because we have had decades of companies gutting every incentive to stay somewhere longterm.

Whether or not companies should or shouldn't in their particular case is hard to answer generally. I am in an adjacent field to software and work on products that have lifetimes measured in decades. In that area short term thinking has been incredibly detrimental to organizations. I would also think investing in educating people that are going to work in an industry or are working in an industry will be a net positive to that industry. That is more a vibe based assertion than fact based though.

Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?

#393

Post by wnc3141 » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 8:55 PM UTC

duttish wrote: post #188

dpark wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the managers who can't hire a ton angle for more senior people instead This is a huge factor. I’ve seen teams admit that they are too “senior heavy” and then still hire senior engineers over junior when the rare position opens up. I’ve also seen teams cut college hiring and internships because head count is tight and they don’t expect positions to open up.

I'm in BigTech and these days we have to fight to even get backfill hiring. If we can get one head count per year we're aiming for someone that can handle a wider range of tasks. Which is a damn shame because most juniors I've worked with are amazing and the most recent junior hire 1.5-2 years ago is so much better than I was their age it's almost embarrassing. And my team is in an area termed "strategically importan…

A family member at a large tech has stated that their has been an effective hiring freeze for the last three-ish years in their department. To the point that they're letting major business lines rot on the vine.

Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?

#394

Post by wnc3141 » Sun, Jun 07, 2026, 9:09 PM UTC

The only thing that doesn't make sense: these companies are more profitable than ever. Google stock rocketed up last year. AI spend per employee is also up, many companies with a strictly enforced minimum AI spend. Surely that cost could have gone to entry levels?