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

681–690 of 810 posts

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

#681

Post by TuringNYC »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #648
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.

This is totally fine, but it isn't a "shortage". It is poor product market fit, poor pricing, or just a bad business. If a business cannot support input costs, the business is just a bad business.

If I start a business that sells Ferraris for 20k, then complain how I cant buy them cheap enough wholesale, there isn't a shortage.

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

#682

Post by TuringNYC »

antt wrote: post #356
rubicon33 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. And they're missing the point that this isn't 1985 anymore. A high school student with a week of JavaScript and HTML could write AirBnB. Or at least, JavaScript and similar languages make programming much, much easier (and hence the barrier to entry much easier). As coding difficulty drops, and supply increases, the net effect will be a much higher demand for jobs than supply. And that's exactly where big tech w…

>Yup. And they're missing the point that this isn't 1985 anymore. A high school student with a week of JavaScript and HTML could write AirBnB. Sorry is this a joke? Because I'm missing it.

I dont think this is a joke -- because sellers (workers) believe it and because buyers (employers) believe it...until they realize the project

- crashes under load,

- cannot scale to even 5% the traffic,

- doesnt have all the myriad required compliance and transnational side systems

- has underinvested in accounting and all support systems

- is un-maintainable, etc. etc.

And that is when serious businesses realize you get what you pay for and that you need to pay for real experience to real systems.

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

#683

Post by hellisothers »

sidlls wrote: post #616
droithomme wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His statement that: > $150/hr for consulting gigs is also normal if you're good. Is fairly ridiculous. I was pulling in that rate in 1995 for hourly consulting. Now in 2019 anyone competent as an independent expert in a specialized field should be pulling down $600/hr at a minimum. You'd be a fool to work for less. Sounds like this guy is simply not all that.

$600/hr is the equivalent of about $1.2M/year salary. That's exceptionally rare. Unless you're being cheeky with "should be", I think you have beliefs that are misaligned with reality.

Most contractors I know don’t work 40hrs day, every week. Also if you look around at advice you’ll find that you shouldn’t quote an hourly rate, you should quote “for the job”. If you’re good and the work you’re doing is even mildly specialized you can get a job done quickly enough that the effective hourly rate is pretty absurd.

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

#684

Post by aaronbrethorst »

misterman0 wrote: post #661
deepsun wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What’s wrong with the American market? Well, here in SV, everyone kinda knows what other companies pay. You just didn't have friends in SV to tell you before the interview how much that company pays. In general, there are top-tier companies, FAANG + Uber + Lyft + AirBnB, that pay X. Then there are lower-tier companies and startups that pay roughly X / 2. So, you're unlikely to get FAANG total comp at a no-name star…

>> You just didn't have... >> So you're unlikely to get... You have crafted a strange model. What are the upsides to such a system, to you, the employee?

What are the upsides to such a system, to you, the employee?

You get to learn first-hand why being a non-founder at a startup is almost always a bad deal in terms of compensation.

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

#685

Post by oceanghost »

pm90 wrote: post #81
robertAngst wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the people that would accept that are 'lifers'. Where they get comfy, rationalize that they know their job, and the company never has to spend more than 98k on this person for the next 35 years. Weirdly enough, it seems like Fortune 500 pays best for the brightest and they have them working on high level concepts and paying suppliers to perform the nitty gritty engineering. I don't quite understand the rati…

Its not that hard if you've worked in corporate america. Executives like to work with people that they "like", so its frequently people who went to similar schools, have a similar sense of humor, don't say stupid shit etc. Even if these people are totally ineffective and have no skills, they will keep getting hired. Then, they make use of the new labor markets, where you can just outsource everything and hire consult…

The single most valuable attribute in a corporation is loyalty. Skill is an illusion.

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

#686

Post by JanisL »

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…

Reading the original post it seems to say 1.5K plus "tons of eng time", I'd imagine that it's the opportunity cost of the engineering time that ends up being by far the most expensive part in this and that the 1.5k figure was just the other fixed costs.

"Seems like you would realistically need about 5-10 phone screens plus 1 or 2 in person interviews to fill a position. 3 if your phone screens were really off the mark." Just curious what your thought process is to arrive at these numbers?

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

#687

Post by dmode »

ycombonator wrote: post #97
mr_cyborg wrote: post #2

One of the things that always surprised me at a previous company was seeing the H1B hiring notices posted for easily-trainable positions. I have nothing against people coming to work in the United States, but I thought those visas were specifically for roles where the skills weren’t available. In this case, by making the skills super specific, like that Home Depot sales portal in this article, they made them rare.

The super specific skill requirements is usually a sign its being posted either for Green Card application or H1B. Both require "recruiting attempts".

H1B doesn't require any recruitment nor does it require any specific skill. So the OP has no idea what he is talking about. H1 only requires bachelor degree and a job in the same field. The PERM process in green card requires the recruitment process, but that has been around since forever and it is for someone internal whose greencard is being filed

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

#688

Post by Hydraulix989 »

areyouseriousxx wrote: post #312
NotSammyHagar wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> We do the usual 5 or 6 questions But what metric are you determining that those 5 or 6 questions are correct? For example, have you put together a pool of current workers that are successful at your type of work at different companies and seen how many can pass your interview test? Its pretty easy to find a recruiter that will reach out to their network and you pay 10 employed quality engineers $1,000 that do simil…

I think it’s illegal to hire based on IQ score.

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

#689

Post by WalterBright »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #650
WalterBright wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> I don't see why someone who makes no claims about their previous salary is riskier than someone who proactively provides a pay stub.

Because the person not giving salary information likely believes such will negatively affect their offer (as you say), and the one who does likely believes it will positively affect their offer.

Sure, a lower salary may have nothing to do with job performance. But it is an indicator, and a good one.

BTW, paystubs are "stubs" because they are on the same paper as the check which is more difficult to forge.

> The law still helps.

Not providing salary info makes one a riskier candidate, and risk means a lower offer.

It's like buying a car. The less you know about the car's condition, the less you're likely to be willing to pay for it. That's why having receipts for work done on the car by a reputable shop, being the original owner, owner is a grandma rather than a teenager, etc., commands a higher price for the car.

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

#690

Post by WalterBright »

stale2002 wrote: post #663
WalterBright wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> illegal The inevitable result of that is the people making bank will be sure to tell you, and ones making low salaries will not. The employer will therefore still know if you're making above or below the usual salary. Businesses don't like risk (just like employees don't) and hiring a new person poses a lot of risk. It's expensive, and the employee may not work out at all. The more risk there is in hiring someone,…

> The employer will therefore still know if you're making above or below the usual salary. Thats still way better than being forced to give an exact number. Now the employer has to kinda sorta guess. Instead of getting underpaid by 30%, you might only get underpaid by 20%.

The more an employer has to guess, the more risk there is in hiring someone. Risk is mitigated by lowering the price, i.e. you get a lower offer.

Also, if you wind up getting a salary that's more than you produce for the company, you'll be first in line to get laid off.

Post reply on HN