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

421–430 of 810 posts

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

#421

Post by ed_balls »

le-mark wrote: post #202
jobthrowaway420 wrote: post #9

Made my first ever HN throwaway account to respond to this. I have been running a successful business, but it's not "tech". I want to get back into the software industry. I didn't have a software business idea, so I explored some tech company jobs. I am well-qualified at the VP/Director level for startups and even larger companies. I did go so far as to do an on-site interview for one company. I have verifiable proof…

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…

I was working at a company that went public. They hired a CTO that produced negative value. He decided we need to rewrite the software in .Net and left...

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

#422

Post by danieltillett »

revvx wrote: post #111
d4mi3n wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rule number 1, IMO, never discuss salary. I find listing your salary requirements before starting a process weeds out a lot of silly interviews. If you know your worth and have a goal for your salary, it is the most effective way I know to avoid dumb offers.

But that's exactly what I did? Sorry, I didn't phrase it right. My non-negotiable requirement was 20% more than I was getting. I gave a hard number and they said "yeah we can give that" before the interview. However the recruiter just assumed I was bluffing and went ahead with that colossal waste of time.

This approach has come up a number of times in the comment that it makes me think that many candidates are bluffing and so this might well be a rational (if very sleazy) approach.

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

#423

Post by koala_man »

detaro wrote: post #131
unreal37 wrote: post #61

When I was hiring developers, I wrote the job role hoping for the perfect rock star candidate. "Must have experience with the Home Depot vendor system" I mean, what if someone fulfilled all my "musts"?!? That'd be the perfect person. But you hardly ever find rock stars. And so you hire the best person who doesn't have all the required skills. Don't let job requirements stop you from applying. And don't think that I'm…

Why write "must have" when it's not a "must have"? Why not admit that you'd consider people not ticking all the boxes?

Why go to a restaurant and ask "can I get a diet Coke, please"? Why not admit that you'd consider other sugar free, carbonated, cola flavored soft drinks?

Because both parties should already be aware that it's a negotiation between people and not a blockchain contract to be mechanically evaluated according to a spec.

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

#424

Post by listenallyall »

sixtypoundhound wrote: post #405
ohyes wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like an incompetent recruiter. Recruiters make money as a percentage of your hiring salary, why on earth would they try to place you somewhere that you are making less? They should be shopping you to whoever will give the most money.

Actually, most recruiters I've run into tend to try to force a candidate to accept a "reasonable" offer rather than holding out for the best offer. They only get paid if a deal closes; while it may be in your best interest to hold out for another $10K, that will likely cost them a commission (and be opposed)

100% correct, recruiters want to close the deal, not let it slip away over salary negotiations. And they want to get hired again (they get paid by the company, not the recruit) so saving that company 10, 15k is definitely in the best interest of the recruiter.

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

#425

Post by paulcole »

phs318u wrote: post #401
paulcole wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll happily tell someone my current salary but I’ll never accept a new salary that I’m not happy with. I also try to accept 10-20% below market. You can get away with a lot when they think you’re the schmuck who didn’t know what he was worth.

What are you “getting away with” that makes a 20% discount off market rates acceptable?

I think I’ve said too much already.

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

#426

Post by sidlls »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #346
b212 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this an American thing? I live in Eastern Europe and make decent buck here (close to 5000 EUR/mo after taxes in a country where you can cover all expenses under 1000 EUR/mo). I never had any trouble getting quality work in my country but a few times I got approached by companies from the US and oh boy, weeks of tiring recrutation process and the pay was ALWAYS worse than local. I feel like they do it on purpose ma…

US salaries are on a whole new level when it comes to senior programmers. $200K+ base is normal, if you're good. $150/hr for consulting gigs is also normal if you're good. So your $5K after taxes wouldn't even register on my radar.

These are not normal base salaries even for senior programmers in the bay area. The 60th percentile for senior software engineers is around $180k per year in the Bay Area. Total compensation is commonly $200k or more, easily, but not base. Outside of the Bay Area, even in NY, Chicago, etc., base salaries are lower. In most places they're much lower--below $100k.

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

#427

Post by Trisell »

liquid153 wrote: post #383
throwaway9980 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m so tired of feeling constantly at war with the industry to justify my own existence. The business people desperately need you but they hate you for what they have to pay. They’re always thinking what if? What if we could outsource this to some magic 3rd world slave mine? What if we could hire some recent graduates or interns instead? What if we could get someone on an H1B and chain them to the desk? It’s the natu…

Wow I thought I was the only one. I dont know how many years experience you have, but with 5 years experience my sentiments are the same. When I interview now it feels like "Dance monkey Dance", or dealing with a gatekeeper. Had plenty of interviews that were a waste of time, or I personally felt I was just invited to interview just for the Hiring Manager to deny and say they couldn't find the right "Talent"

I agree every interview I’ve had has just been a variation of a coder wars puzzle with no help and asking for help renders you an inferior programmer not worth their time.

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

#429

Post by danieltillett »

This is not unique to the employment area. I got a buyout offer from one of my larger customers for my company. After a lot of back and forth the offer ended up being 2x EBITA (i.e. 2 years profit) but with a 3 year workout. Even they were sheepish after that offer. According to them this sort of offer was often accepted.

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

#430

Post by ScottFree »

jodrellblank wrote: post #400
Aloha wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I so dislike the ball-gargling exercise of "why do you want to work here?" It's often a "well, I need a job, you're hiring, and what you guys are doing looks at least marginally interesting to me" - I ought not need to find whatever product/service/market they're doing/in inspiring - I should just want to do it for the pay offered.

It's "why should I hire you, over anyone else?" Given two candidates for a Phd, which do you accept: - the one who needs a Phd because that earns more money (duh!) - the one who has been obsessed with X for years, did research into X, has burning questions and wants to dedicate some years to answering them, and found your place to have the researchers who publish the most relevant, interesting and insightful papers o…

All of that is true, but all of that is easily deduced from other parts of the interview. Why ask a question when you know 2/3rds or more of your candidates are going to lie? So much of the modern interview process is essentially filtering for highly skilled liars.
Post reply on HN