Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

cushychicken.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 927 posts

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#851

Post by lrem »

mcv wrote: post #455
0xfaded wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in startup land over in SF, so my salary topped out lower at 160k USD but with ~2% equity. I was in a partnership in a small plane, and one of the guys was "in his 20's making $500k+" at google as an L6 plus retention bonus. Several engineers in my circle (early 30's) are on $500k+. Currently I'm living in Europe but leaving back to SF. I tell people all the time about salaries in the US and point them to level…

I think the big question is: can you reach these salaries on a normal work week, or does this require sacrificing your personal life?

I'm L6 at Google. My work week is the 40 hours of my choosing. I spend Wednesday afternoons with my kids.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#852

Post by hiq »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #752
csunbird wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post really strikes me as ignorant. Most of the developers stay around 2 years in a company, because the companies usually do not make market price adjustments to the salaries and you start to lag behind if you stay too long. For example, after 2.5 years, I am looking for a new job, as the company is simply refusing to make adjustments based on the market prices, even after a promotion, I am making 20 percent le…

You are making a good point on one hand, but on the other hand you seem to have misunderstood me. Let me elaborate: > For example, after 2.5 years, I am looking for a new job, as the company is simply refusing to make adjustments based on the market prices, even after a promotion, I am making 20 percent less than I should be making right now, and this is not an isolated incident. OK, that is just one job change. It i…

> I am also not arguing about wanting to get paid a proper wage. Maybe I would argue a bit against always wanting more, because you can have more elsewhere. That does not really entitle anyone to "have a right to get paid more". Of course you are free to aim for money rather than solidity, but if you do it frequently, you will one day have to face the consequences. Those being, that people might have a hunch, that you will be gone at the first sign of higher pay elsewhere.

This is self-correcting though: if you end up with a CV with so much job-hopping that you don't get any more offers because of that, you'll just stay where you are until your last experience is long enough to prove that this is not a concern anymore. So I wouldn't worry about that.

No hard evidence here, but I think you really have to push it to end up in this situation, and I don't think 3 or 4 two-year stints put you in this position (especially not in SV, but even elsewhere as long as you have a story to tell). Talking about the market in general, of course some companies might have biases for candidates who only had longer experiences.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#853

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

salawat wrote: post #730
commandlinefan wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's the root cause of your bug Hang on, don't blame the agile manifesto here. Blame the management that adopted the agile manifesto as "do all the exact same things we used to do that didn't work, but call it 'agile'".

>That's not real Agile If I hear that damn mantra again, I'm going to puke. Xtreme Programming had it right If you aren't writing the damn manual, you aren't delivering an entire dimension of product to your user. I sat down a little while ago to an old 80's handheld digital business organizer. The device itself was meh. The manual tho! My God, I'd forgotten what it was like to read a primer on a product that had act…

The other issue is the "viable" in "minimum viable" often gets omitted.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#854

Post by ModernMech »

voakbasda wrote: post #841
ModernMech wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I’m just saying at some point your reputation should precede you, otherwise what have you been doing for 20 years?

Being an introvert? Becoming a better engineer? Learning new skills? Doing things that actually matter for my job?

Speaking as an introvert, introverts need networks too. Build a network - skip to the front of the line. Or better yet, get a job specifically made for you. Otherwise get into the funnel like everyone else.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#855

Post by hiq »

neilwilson wrote: post #428
hguant wrote: post #8

There comes a point where the money just isn't a motivating factor anymore, and companies are struggling to figure out how to work in that environment. This bit from the author hits the nail on the head: >Is an extra $10k per year worth learning a new org, a new skillset, a new set of expectations, a new set of coworkers, and a new boss? For many engineers, the answer is: “No.” Yes I could quit and get a ~20k raise b…

Money is always a hygiene factor, not a motivating factor. Classic Herzberg. Money just needs to be enough. After that you have enrich the job sufficient to hook people in. Perhaps the first thing a business needs to do before it starts hiring is learn how to hire.

> Money just needs to be enough.

That's a moving target though, if your market value changed and you could now easily get +50%, your current comp won't be enough anymore.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#856

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

loeg wrote: post #815
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forecasting your spending rate far enough into the future, however, is a very tricky problem if you're trying to retire at 30, especially if you're living through turbulent times. I'd rather work 3 days a week until I'm dead then let my skills start deteriorating now and live the next 60 years in fear that my fixed income won't be able to sustain me.

The riskiest years are the first few after retirement. I.e., your skills should still be pretty relevant, even if you go full luddite in retirement. I would also love to work 3 days a week, but no employer I've encountered is interested in this.

Well then I guess we'll have to find ways to make it clear that they'll like the alternatives less.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#857

Post by gyulai »

mbar84 wrote: post #830
gyulai wrote: post #515

The theme that resonates most with me here in the comments is lack of willingness on the side of companies to actually develop talent. For example a personal career goal of mine is to finally bridge the gap from individual contributor into management. But nobody seems to be open to taking on a manager unless they have X-years of management experience, and the companies I've worked for have always preferred hiring man…

> lack of willingness on the side of companies to actually develop talent. Do you have any ideas about how to match the kind of compensation so that it is aligned with that investment. If I employ somebody and build up their skills, what's to stop them from just jumping ship and capturing the payoff for my investment all for themselves?

> jumping ship and capturing the payoff for my investment all for themselves?

Tragedy of the commons. Coase theorem.

> what's to stop

Reciprocity. If an employer is good to me, I'm inclined to be good to that employer in return. If an employer acts like a greedy self-interested econ, then I, too, will act like a greedy self-interested econ.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#858

Post by csunbird »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #838
csunbird wrote: post #788

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have discussed this with my team leader, but, unfortunately, my company's HR/People organization do not believe in opening up Pandora's box by increasing salaries. The discussions with my team leader/manager has been going on for more than 6 months now, and it always hit up the same wall: The salary bands are inflexible and the short sighted approach of "making an offer after the employee puts their notice in" cult…

I feel sorry, that you are in this situation. Consider this: If they are willing to raise wage when employees put their notice in, then perhaps that has become the normal flow in the organization, towards higher salary. Or also: If they are willing to pay higher salary then, why not before one starts drama? I am talking from a position of never having had to ask for a raise, so I am probably biased as well. My job is…

> I feel sorry, that you are in this situation. Consider this: If they are willing to raise wage when employees put their notice in, then perhaps that has become the normal flow in the organization, towards higher salary. Or also: If they are willing to pay higher salary then, why not before one starts drama?

Well, interestingly, they are not being logical at all. I am not sure why, probably they think that they are making some kind of "savings" by underpaying their employees, as long as they can get away with it.

> Pay, work-life balance, what you work on, co-workers, office setup.

Exactly. I would be lenient on salary if the other factors were nice, but they are pushing heavily on not making working from home available. They are now pushing for a hybrid model, but, from their actions and the messages they are conveying, when the pandemic ends, they will ask everyone to return to the offices and cancel the hybrid model once and for all.

> Best wishes for the future and hopefully you will get that raise.

Thank you very much! I hope that as well.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#859

Post by baobabKoodaa »

caddemon wrote: post #760
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #418

The biggest reason companies can't hire right now is that there is more demand than supply. No matter how much you improve pay or working conditions, in the short term that only leads to talent moving from one company to another. If there is not enough people to do the work, there is nothing an industry can do to fix that.

Better in-house training would allow companies to increase their potential candidate pool.

Sure, most forms of education will increase the candidate pool in the long term. But in the short term there isn't much you can do to increase the candidate pool, you can only shift candidates from one company to another.

Re: I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now

#860

Post by kristopolous »

ModernMech wrote: post #818
voakbasda wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are proposing substituting a nepotistic process as a substitute for a discriminatory process? Personally, I do not think that would yield any improvement.

No, I’m just saying at some point your reputation should precede you, otherwise what have you been doing for 20 years?

Not only do some companies strictly have the policy regardless but also some people (like me) want a consistent challenge as in going from say security research to hardware to web dev.

I don't advocate for a free ride nor am I saying the tests are hard (they really aren't), just that they have a very weak correlation with building strong teams of the right people

Post reply on HN