We Don't Have a Talent Shortage. We Have a Sucker Shortage • Hacker News Board

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

#641

Post by ravenstine » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 4:33 AM UTC

externalreality wrote: post #336

This is very relevant in software these days > Super Narrow Selection Criteria e.g. "We need nodejs, mongo, grpc, golang, etc - decades of experience in software is not what we need. We need exactly those things - and we are going to give you an online code challenge to solve an irrelevant puzzle while a 27 year old sits there watching you." And then when you get the job its nothing more than spending hours upon hour…

> Someone tried to hire me for 85K after decades of experience for a very early stage startup. They were offering equity but equity doesn't mean anything if the company folds in 2 years. I need more than that.

Wow. That's how much someone ought to make after a few years. You ought to have straight up told them why their company is going to be dysfunctional in a few short years.

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

#642

Post by x0x0 » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 4:36 AM UTC

areyouseriousxx wrote: post #589

x0x0 wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Searching for new employees is incredibly inexpensive == I now know you don't do any interviewing or hiring. Eg when we post a senior eng job on eg glassdoor, stackoverflow, or linkedin, we are deluged with resumes. Just the ad easily costs $250. Then we get applications who ignore that we don't sponsor visas, clearly don't have the skills required (6 year SAP programmer who wants to be a senior fullstack eng? No tha…

$1.5k is a significant expense for your organization? A $250 ad listing is a lot for your organization? I'm sorry, but this sounds very strange from someone claiming to know about interviewing and hiring. You need an engineering manager to filter out SAP programmers who want to be a senior full stack engineer? You need an engineering manager to figure out someone only has 1.5 years of experience? How many people are…

This should have been obvious, but buttresses my thesis: we do more than one ad. Run rate order of $140k for 2019. obviously $2k is not a significant expense, but that's per position per interview. So we pay that well more than once.

Also in this thread: piles of people complaining hr runs hiring. We have an eng manager run hiring for our eng. You: bring back hr to review resumes!.

We're hiring on the order of 15 eng over the next calendar year. Ask anyone who has actually done this (say, for example, the folks at yc) hiring is incredibly expensive. I saw an interview where an Asana founder said he spent perhaps 20% - I can't recall, but significant percentage -- of his time hiring. That's super senior executive time focused on getting employees in.

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

#643

Post by WalterBright » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 4:43 AM UTC

jkaplowitz wrote: post #626

Dylan16807 wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Notice how that doesn't depend on salary history info at all. Does that get you the same salary as showing off your previous good pay stub? If it does, then we're fine. If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter that it's voluntary, the system still strongly encourages discrimination based on previous pay. Imagine a similar system with a protected class. "You don't have to tell us your age, but if you prove you're under…

Yes, my suggested phrasing above should get you a fair salary without reference to previous good pay stubs, assuming you make inquiries as stated. If you weren't overpaid before, you should get at least a similar outcome, but you would get a better one if previously underpaid as many people in protected classes unfortunately still are. If you were overpaid, and want to try to keep being overpaid, see below for a scen…

Consider Fred and Bob:

1. Bob voluntarily supplies paystub for his last job.

2. Fred gives no hint about his previous salary.

Other things being equal, which is the less risky hire?

I.e. don't be too surprised if the law doesn't work out as intended.

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

#644

Post by aiisjustanif » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 4:43 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #527

cardine wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is "I got mine fuck everyone else" which I think is about as uncompelling as an argument gets. My argument is that getting more people into tech increases opportunities and raises the standards of living for everyone. When entire industries are disappearing due to automation I think it is rather ridiculous to try to restrict people from becoming programmers. You are right, it is not your choice, and tha…

We restrict immigrants to the US so we don’t flood the country with low skilled labor. Most first world countries do this. We’re reducing H1Bs, as they were used to depress wages. This is no different, and it saddens me that you think this is “I got mine fuck you”. Is that what you think of the GM workers losing their jobs in Ohio? I desire high wages for as many workers as possible.

Good point.

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

#645

Post by bcrosby95 » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 4:48 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #387

bufferoverflow wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's SV/NYC numbers. Plenty of great programmers in other parts of the country don't make that.

I guess it depends upon what you mean by "great". In my circle of friends, the people I would call great programmers make 500k+ total compensation regardless of where they live.

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

#646

Post by nsgf » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 4:52 AM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #595

physiker1990 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, can you kindly answer the following questions: How much experience do you have? What is your current technology stack? Is the salary which you stated based on an 8 hour workday 5 days a week schedule? How much late sitting do you do, if any? What is your typical work load, I mean do you solve complex problems all day long or do you just stitch libraries together? The salary which you stated looks a bit unbelievab…

Not the GP, but I make 10k a month, 15 years experience, Python/Django stack, 4 days a week 8 hours a day, no staying late at all necessary, I usually stitch libraries together, although solving complex problems all day long would be better. I hope that helps!

10k p/m in Greece?

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

#647

Post by bayesian_horse » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 4:52 AM UTC

That is a very popular sentiment, but entirely without basis in fact.

It requires there to be a large pool of highly qualified candidates who don't work in the industry right now (and more likely completely unemployed) who would want to work in the industry if the conditions were "just right".

But such a pool just doesn't exist. All employers can do, especially considering wages, is to try and poach candidates from competitors, other industries, other countries.

There clearly is a perception of depressed wages. I believe this mostly is an issue of a distorted labor market. There seems to be an issue of collusion among employers not entering into mutually harmful wage competition. Maybe regulations don't give employees enough power in the process. Unionization is also rare, and may not work in any case.

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

#648

Post by bayesian_horse » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 4:59 AM UTC

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…

They may honestly not have the money/resources to afford you.

Most startups and new businesses fail. Part of that is a lack of funding and a lack of information/knowledge about the specifics of the markets they are working in.

They may not know that they are looking for a Ferrari or what the market for Ferraris looks like.

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

#649

Post by FunkyDuckling » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 5:02 AM UTC

musingsole wrote: post #621

oblib wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say is true, but it's also true that the bar is lower than it was 20 years ago and it continues to move that direction, at least when we talk about simple "apps" as opposed to bleeding edge technologies now. For example, "Chart.js" makes it really easy to create beautiful charts in a web app. Because of tools like that it's much easier to learn how to build a feature rich app now than 20 years ago. Still, th…

> Still, the guy who can create "Chart.js" (an artist) should be getting paid a lot more than a guy who can only use it (a craftsmen). Why? One without the other is pretty pointless. I can accept the roles are different but not that either is particularly harder.

Because there is one of him vs thousands of the other

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

#650

Post by jkaplowitz » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 5:02 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #643

jkaplowitz wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, my suggested phrasing above should get you a fair salary without reference to previous good pay stubs, assuming you make inquiries as stated. If you weren't overpaid before, you should get at least a similar outcome, but you would get a better one if previously underpaid as many people in protected classes unfortunately still are. If you were overpaid, and want to try to keep being overpaid, see below for a scen…

Consider Fred and Bob: 1. Bob voluntarily supplies paystub for his last job. 2. Fred gives no hint about his previous salary. Other things being equal, which is the less risky hire? I.e. don't be too surprised if the law doesn't work out as intended.

I don't see why someone who makes no claims about their previous salary is riskier than someone who proactively provides a pay stub. If Bob is inclined to lie in general, either he could be giving a true pay stub to engender confidence and hide some other prior/contemporaneous/subsequent lie, or he could have doctored the pay stub.

Other things being equal, neither Bob nor Fred is more likely to be a liar. Should I want to verify salary history, I'd seek permission to verify directly with the former employer (a routine request for any HR department assuming employee consent). If anything, it might feel suspicious that Bob was proactively trying to give me the easier form of proof to render fraudulent; but that alone wouldn't seem concerning in the absence of other signals, I expect.

Note that before the new law, the employer could legally have insisted that both Bob and Fred give their salaries or refuse to consider them. If Fred was severely underpaid and Bob was not, the employer would almost certainly have given Fred a lower offer than Bob. Since persistent underpayment also correlates with a more precarious personal financial situation, and since any other employer could legally have insisted on the same policy, Fred would probably have ended up accepting a comparatively low-ball offer for lack of a better option, thus staying underpaid.

The law still helps.