Live data from Hacker News

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

resumeskills.us

701–710 of 810 posts

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

#701
post #210
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.

My favorite was something that happened 2+ years ago. I had closed down my business, and was speaking with folks, including a well funded startup in Milpitas area. I was in the area for a different interview, and spent the evening before that interview with this startup. I knew the CEO from a previous effort. After much discussion, I thought they had something interesting, though I was hard pressed to find real diffe…

My company has no investors. The first years were a bit hard revenue wise. The first engineers were paid a lot more than myself and the other cofounders until we got proper traction. Never had any issue with that.

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

#702
post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a former "VP of X" at a startup, titles don't mean shit at startups. If a startup can hire a janitor for less if they call him a "VP of Janitorial Services", they will offer that title to a janitor. I'm exaggerating, of course, but not by very much. The corrolary of this is: not everyone knows this, so _after_ you're done negotiating salary, equity and benefits, it might be a good idea to inquire about a grandiose…

And as result of title inflation, a lot of titles are losing meaning even in big companies. I know people becoming principal eng at FAANG who are just playing their cards right.

Playing your cards right is a prerequisite for becoming principal.

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

#703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> The more an employer has to guess, the more risk there is in hiring someone.

An employees current salary is only barely correlated with a employees skill. They have a multitude of other, much much better factors that they can use to determine if someone is a "risk" or not.

> Also, if you wind up getting a salary that's more than you produce for the company

You are describing something that is close to impossible to measure, for the vast majority of situations. A company does not go around making exact measurements on programmers, and thinking to themselves "Is this person *really 18.2% more effective than the lower paid employee?".

Thats just not how it works. Instead, a person might be 3 times more effective, or half as effective, as the other employees, and salary will be almost entirely unrelated to how much they "produce", which can't really be measure very well anyway.

And this is without even getting into more complicated things, such as sunk costs, and the replacement costs. IE, you may be 10% less effective, but the costs to replace you are equal to 6 months of your salary, so in reality, it makes zero financial sense to do so.

And finally, you are ignoring the fact that an employee can just lie about their previous salary, and there is basically nothing the employer can do about this. I have never, in my life, had someone demand my tax returns, or call up a previous employer to verify my salary, and in many places this can even be illegal. I can just lie about my current salary, and easily get away with, as I have done so multiple times in the past, as well as has many other people that I know.

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

#704
post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might have not experienced it and if you didn't, congratulations! I'm happy for you (honestly!). But these problems exist all across the board. My last job hunt (signed a new contract just a few weeks ago) has taken me 3 months and I've seen all of the issues OP (and some of the comments) mentions, not only in startups, but also in fortune 500 companies and everything in between (including quite a few companies i…

> I've probably sent about 60-70 cv's and most of them have gotten me at least a phone interview (about 50? I lost count but in the document I was using to keep track of open processes I have 30 companies). Genuine question: why are you applying to so many companies? Are you just coming out of school or unemployment? That seems like a ton of work to juggle and you can't possibly be interested in them all. In this hot…

No, I'm not fresh out of school and I wasn't unemployed (...well, see below). I have about 20 years of experience and have worked in 5 countries. However, my situation was... well, not unique (unfortunately), but challenging:

- Yes, I was employed. In a startup paying me about 60% of the current market salary, no benefits of any kind (they promised shares and many other stuff, never delivered), with incompetent managers and going downhill towards bankrupcy (I don't understand why the only investor they have keeps giving them money). Obviously I wanted to leave.

- I joined said startup because of my personal situation. I was diagnosed with leukaemia in 2015 and spent almost a year in the hospital. When I finished that part of the treatment, even thinking was difficult (chemo brain is a real *&%#) and I still had 2 years in front of me of daily chemo ("only" tablets) and weekly visits to the hospital. Even after I finished the chemo, it took me almost a year to go back to normal. The founders of this startup were friends of a friend, gave me a lot of flexibility and the minimum salary that I needed to live (pay rent, utilities, food...). I started going to the office to help with database queries and ETL processes, ended up managing the data science and data engineering teams and looking after most of the infrastructure of the company. But neither my salary or benefits changed.

- I made many mistakes in my first interviews. I hadn't done an interview in 9 years and even then I used to interview for engineering roles while now I was going for senior manager/VP level roles (basically, what I've been doing for the last 7 years). It took me a while to learn the lingo, to identify the red flags and prepare good answers for all the common questions. Funnily enough, not many people asked me about the obvious 1 year gap in my cv.

- Hot market depends on your location and what roles you look for. Developers with a couple years of experience? Sure, way more companies looking to fill in roles than people wanting to move. Specialists in a niche field? Might have problems finding a new job. 40 year old generalists looking for management positions? Not that many open positions that are posted online and not filled in by personal recommendation (and yes, most of the jobs I've applied to have been through my network).

- Many of the companies I interviewed with had all the issues OP mentions and a couple more. Some gave me topcoder-style interviews, where I had to come up and code efficient algorithms for complex problems. I understand (and welcome!) a technical test to prove that I'm not lying and I do have a technical background, but asking a VP of engineering to code an efficient solution for the knapsack problem in 1 hour is stupid, any way you look at it. Personally, all the code I've written in the last 6 years has been either a) as a hobby, b) small, non-critical-path tasks that helped me maintain some familiarity with the different environments and reduced a bit of load from my team(s) or c) stuff that no one else in the company understood (mostly around infrastructure). Ask me about sofware architecture, data storage, distributed systems and machine learning and I can easily argue with you pros and cons of different stacks and approaches. Ask me how to manage fully remote/distributed teams and I'll talk about lessons learnt, things I tried and worked and mistakes I made. Ask me about hiring, mentoring, budgeting, project managing, investor relations... Whatever you want, and I'll be completely honest about what I know, what I've done and what I don't know/haven't done. But ask me to write a java class and I'll need to google the correct way of declaring a constructor ("public void"? "public static void"? How did you declare the args parameter? an array of Strings?).

- Why I applied to so many? Because I had to. I would have loved to get an offer from the first 2-3 companies I applied (and I applied and got interviews from some really cool companies, including the one I've signed with). But I didn't. So I had to continue searching in a race against time before the place that I was working at imploded. After how my life has been the last decade, I have no safety net and can't afford to be unemployed.

- Interested in all of them? Of course I was. I didn't apply to any company I disliked, for example consulting companies, offshore/nearshore and most of fintech. Either you are much pickier than I am (at the end of the day I mostly look for a few things: Good, professional people, a company that values its employees and a decent compensation package, anything else is a bonus) or seriously underestimate the amount of companies out there that are doing interesting things even in the most boring environments.

- A lot of work? Well, yes and no... I've spent most of my vacation days on half-day offs to go to physical interviews and working evenings to recover time spent in phone/video interviews. But in general it's being easy managing the latter and if you look at it as a time management problem, there's plenty of tools out there to help you keep track of everything (calendar, trello, job alerts...).

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

#705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC it's becoming illegal to ask about current salary. IMHO it should be irrelevant. The question is, what is the market rate for someone w/ your skills and experience?

> 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,…

> people making bank will be sure to tell you

Actually if you work a while and are lucky enough to have done well, you may want to pick a place to work for reasons other than it has the highest salary. In that case you may not want to advertise your salary history because it can scare away employers. It shouldn’t but it does.

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

#706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The more an employer has to guess, the more risk there is in hiring someone. An employees current salary is only barely correlated with a employees skill. They have a multitude of other, much much better factors that they can use to determine if someone is a "risk" or not. > Also, if you wind up getting a salary that's more than you produce for the company You are describing something that is close to impossible to…

> I can just lie about my current salary, and easily get away with, as I have done so multiple times in the past, as well as has many other people that I know.

You're not fooling employers, they likely know you and your friends are lying, and discount the offer accordingly. Try bringing a paystub next time, your prospective employer will appreciate it. It's worked out well for me.

There have been some high profile cases of people who've worked for decades for a company, rose to the top echelon, and were discovered to have lied on their resume. They were out the door without their severance package.

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

#707

Making a throwaway to share my anecdote. What I find interesting is that if you point all of this out to HR/management, sometimes they don't believe you! I just left a company for which I was the random unicorn (perfect intersection of 3 different skillsets and relevant past experience) after one year. I was referred because someone at the company knew I had the exact skillset they needed, and ended up joining right…

Earlier in my career I saw exactly this situation come up with a manager of mine, had the perfect overlap of a few skills that don't frequently come up together but this was completely taken for granted. As a result there was an amazingly bad plan for expansion/handover/etc as it was taken for granted that it would be easy to hire a replacement.

> This experience has made me wonder if cognitive dissonance plays a larger role in blinding HR/companies.

I think cognitive dissonance was also at play in the case I'm referring to. There's probably a lot of biases at play when people are trying to estimate what skills someone has. Also its easier to delude yourself into thinking the Bayesian priors are different when you have someone who has the rare combination of skills on staff, I remember hearing a few versions of: "how rare could it be when we already have this manager on staff?".

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

#708
post #660

> I'm 45 and have gray hair. /.../ It apparently indicates I am completely ignorant about technology and social media. One has to be on serious drugs (or profoundly ignorant on the not-very-bright-kindergartener level) to think somebody 45 years old working in tech is ignorant about tech or social media. This is the generation who had computers since they were 10. And back then computers required real investment of t…

Thankfully there's not many people like this but I have met a few over the years.

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

#709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as result of title inflation, a lot of titles are losing meaning even in big companies. I know people becoming principal eng at FAANG who are just playing their cards right.

Playing your cards right is a prerequisite for becoming principal.

I mean, it is not even wise politics. It is just hold on to their seats and let management know they know HR knows the attrition rate...

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

#710
post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as result of title inflation, a lot of titles are losing meaning even in big companies. I know people becoming principal eng at FAANG who are just playing their cards right.

Becoming principal engineers is usually just playing the cards right in general. Very rarely does anyone get this far on technical merit alone. I know several people at Google who easily deserve the title based on quality and volume of their contributions, and several "principal" engineers who do not. Life isn't fair, what can I say. In addition to being good, you have to be at the right time at the right place, plea…

Very true, I see that the higher one goes with the increasing requirement of greater influence radius turns into politics.

However what I have noticed recently is that title inflation has arrived to big companies too; mostly to increase retention. So, when I mention played their cards right, I wasn’t referring on how they leverage the soft skills, etc. It was more on individual ability to do salary negotiation each perf review, bluffing/threatening to leave, etc.

At the end of the day I guess it is good for them and everyone who is in those markets. But again, my main point was around title inflation is not exclusive to startups, although director level and above seems still to be hard to get in FAANG (at least in the companies I worked for those require board approval) while in startups they are given more freely.

Post reply on HN