I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now(cushychicken.github.io)
cushychicken.github.io
I think I know why you can't hire engineers right now
https://cushychicken.github.io/why-you-cant-hire-engineers/
922 comments
I do not disagree with your take, but I think you may only be speaking for a subset of engineers that are already fairly well compensated. The article likewise seems to discard the importance of money in favor of three other more immaterial factors, but I do not think this is representative of the situation of the global job market right now. I also think such a perspective can not fully explain the difficulties that many companies are having with regards to hiring engineers at the moment.
If you look outside of coastal cities, there are plenty of job offers for engineering jobs that pay less than 6 figures. Over in Europe and East Asia, $50 to $60k salaries are the norm. And people job hop frequently for a few extra $k because that corresponds to a significant increase in quality of life for them. The difference between a 2 br and 3 or 4 br apartment, between another kid or not, etc...
People will absolutely leave your company if they think they can get paid more elsewhere. People will absolutely pass over your job offer if they think they can get more elsewhere.
You also see the reverse phenomenon which is that you'll find plenty of engineers doing soul-wrenching, boring jobs in toxic environment who still say because they are very generously compensated (hello FAANG).
If you look outside of coastal cities, there are plenty of job offers for engineering jobs that pay less than 6 figures. Over in Europe and East Asia, $50 to $60k salaries are the norm. And people job hop frequently for a few extra $k because that corresponds to a significant increase in quality of life for them. The difference between a 2 br and 3 or 4 br apartment, between another kid or not, etc...
People will absolutely leave your company if they think they can get paid more elsewhere. People will absolutely pass over your job offer if they think they can get more elsewhere.
You also see the reverse phenomenon which is that you'll find plenty of engineers doing soul-wrenching, boring jobs in toxic environment who still say because they are very generously compensated (hello FAANG).
> Over in Europe and East Asia, $50 to $60k salaries are the norm
Yes, and we have plenty of nice stuff that goes along with it
Healthcare, 30 paid holidays, unions, paid overtime, weekends and calls off work come extra (it is 40h week period, want more pay for it), retirement, flex time, ...
Like the OP, my expenses are more than covered, getting more isn't worth the hassle to change.
Ah, and in some countries having too many companies on the CV isn't well seen, it appears the candidate isn't able to fit-in anywhere.
Yes, and we have plenty of nice stuff that goes along with it
Healthcare, 30 paid holidays, unions, paid overtime, weekends and calls off work come extra (it is 40h week period, want more pay for it), retirement, flex time, ...
Like the OP, my expenses are more than covered, getting more isn't worth the hassle to change.
Ah, and in some countries having too many companies on the CV isn't well seen, it appears the candidate isn't able to fit-in anywhere.
Despite all of that, I think engineers are underpaid in Europe (and presumably East Asia).
I just left a job at a major bank where all the non-engineer roles got paid, or at least could be paid more than I got. There were 5 pay scales for engineers, the top 2 of which weren't even being used. I got there from a freelance contract, and I had to take a serious pay cut to continue working on the project. It was a really cool project, which I wrote the initial prototype for, and guided a growing team in its development, and I accepted the pay cut because I loved the project so much, but a year later I left to go back to freelancing. I think that's the only way to get paid your worth here. Meanwhile the company is wondering why they can't retain senior engineers. If I wanted to be paid more, I'd have to take on more organisational duties outside my team, and I just wasn't interested in that, so I left. For an interesting freelance project that pays even more than that bank paid me when I freelanced for them.
It doesn't have to be 6 figures, but I think senior software engineers absolutely should be getting manager-level salaries, without having to dilute their technical focus by taking on other responsibilities.
I just left a job at a major bank where all the non-engineer roles got paid, or at least could be paid more than I got. There were 5 pay scales for engineers, the top 2 of which weren't even being used. I got there from a freelance contract, and I had to take a serious pay cut to continue working on the project. It was a really cool project, which I wrote the initial prototype for, and guided a growing team in its development, and I accepted the pay cut because I loved the project so much, but a year later I left to go back to freelancing. I think that's the only way to get paid your worth here. Meanwhile the company is wondering why they can't retain senior engineers. If I wanted to be paid more, I'd have to take on more organisational duties outside my team, and I just wasn't interested in that, so I left. For an interesting freelance project that pays even more than that bank paid me when I freelanced for them.
It doesn't have to be 6 figures, but I think senior software engineers absolutely should be getting manager-level salaries, without having to dilute their technical focus by taking on other responsibilities.
In banks the technical people are, in my experience, always second class citizens. They are expected to shut up and do what the business people tell them to do. They are not really responsible for anything or making decisions and are paid accordingly. The best paid technical people in banks are not people who are working on some cutting edge technology developing new stuff, but people who happen to be the only ones who know how to maintain some piece of god awful critical legacy infrastructure. This is also the reason why the banking technology develops so slowly and why the infrastructure in banks suck so much.
Technical people are responsible for building and maintaining all the systems that handle the stuff that the business want done. And I also told business people what they should be doing. Seeing banks as a non-tech industry is a mistake in my opinion, and many banks do seem to agree that they should be a tech company. Many are active in tech communities, organise tech related events, and really seem to care about tech. And yet, tech salaries seem to be lagging.
Worked in several banks. "We are not bank, we are tech company with bank department" - was mentioned occasionally in each of them. What was also common - red tape, outdated software (tools, libraries, frameworks), restricted access to workstation, processes focused around pushing approvals around (instead of automation). That's why my response to "we are not a bank" sentiment above is "it's a bank, alright".
Saying that they are a tech company is popular amongst the big banks these days. Technically that's true - they (and most businesses these days) are driven by tech and would fall apart without it. But tech is most definitely a cost center entity at such firms and tech employees likewise treated as second class citizen. As my old engineering manager at a bank told us - "if a trader tells you to jump and dance like a monkey, you jump and dance like a monkey".
I've heard Goldman Sachs has attempted to make some strides in running their Marcus product more like a Silicon Valley tech company (within reason). But I've also heard that ultimately that it too fell prey to the burden of the old conservative bank culture. A friend who worked there until recently told me not to fall for the glitzy marketing, and that it was just all more of the same. Would be interested what someone who is actually working there now has to say, esp. someone that has worked in both SV tech companies and Goldman to compare.
I've heard Goldman Sachs has attempted to make some strides in running their Marcus product more like a Silicon Valley tech company (within reason). But I've also heard that ultimately that it too fell prey to the burden of the old conservative bank culture. A friend who worked there until recently told me not to fall for the glitzy marketing, and that it was just all more of the same. Would be interested what someone who is actually working there now has to say, esp. someone that has worked in both SV tech companies and Goldman to compare.
Banks definitely should be tech companies, and understand and embrace the important of tech for their business. But you're absolutely right; the banks where I worked definitely tried to be technologically progressive (sometimes even a bit too much in my opinion[0]), but it was undeniable that much of the company was slow and bureaucratic, and despite all the "empowering developers", we often got stupid decisions handed down to deal with. Often they were aware of the stupidity, but changing something was still a very slow process.
At one bank, I was in a team that straddled the line between the international and domestic sections of the bank, which used to be more independent from each other, but we had to deal with both. Getting a simple firewall opened up between two systems on either side took 6 months.
[0] One bank that arguably took the tech company most seriously, wanted to be a bit too much on the cutting edge in my opinion. They were very active in the Angular community, which was absolutely great, but they also wanted to do CICD, which just didn't fit with all the security checks necessary at a bank. Parts were moving very fast, and parts were moving very slowly.
At that same bank, we also had a very clear mandate that we could say no to business. At some point, after we felt we put too much in production in rapid succession with insufficient testing, we had to block a next thing that a business guy really wanted to see in production. Really pissed him off, and he threw a tantrum I hadn't seen before or since at any workplace, but we insisted and our manager backed us up, so that was definitely good.
At one bank, I was in a team that straddled the line between the international and domestic sections of the bank, which used to be more independent from each other, but we had to deal with both. Getting a simple firewall opened up between two systems on either side took 6 months.
[0] One bank that arguably took the tech company most seriously, wanted to be a bit too much on the cutting edge in my opinion. They were very active in the Angular community, which was absolutely great, but they also wanted to do CICD, which just didn't fit with all the security checks necessary at a bank. Parts were moving very fast, and parts were moving very slowly.
At that same bank, we also had a very clear mandate that we could say no to business. At some point, after we felt we put too much in production in rapid succession with insufficient testing, we had to block a next thing that a business guy really wanted to see in production. Really pissed him off, and he threw a tantrum I hadn't seen before or since at any workplace, but we insisted and our manager backed us up, so that was definitely good.
I personally can't speak to SV tech company. However I worked in msft and difference is staggering, it's two completely different universes.
>> ([..] most businesses these days) are driven by tech and would fall apart without it
Yup. It's like, is Coca-cola a "tech company with soda department"? Pretty sure they have programmers and some non-trivial IT infra as well.
>> ([..] most businesses these days) are driven by tech and would fall apart without it
Yup. It's like, is Coca-cola a "tech company with soda department"? Pretty sure they have programmers and some non-trivial IT infra as well.
Having worked in a fintech D2C app, the distinction I drew was that there were 2 'products'
- the financial product i.e getting 4% return on your money
- the digital product i.e the app
The 1st was the real product, the 2nd the nice-to-have
Obviously core tech in banking is infinitely more critical than an app but the point is the same; the tech in banks, unless its 'quant', HFT or ML is not the money maker and therefore won't be paid as such
The 1st was the real product, the 2nd the nice-to-have
Obviously core tech in banking is infinitely more critical than an app but the point is the same; the tech in banks, unless its 'quant', HFT or ML is not the money maker and therefore won't be paid as such
The app that people use to access their money is absolutely core tech. If the payment infrastructure goes down (or worse: is buggy), that's a massive problem. Banks that don't consider this core aren't keeping up.
The thing is, while reliability of payment infrastructure matters, the UX and convenience of it does not as much - "everyday services" are not the core business of the banks (for ordinary individuals, mortgages and consumer loans is, for high net value, investments), they are pretty much a loss-leader that needs to exist but it's neither a major revenue maker nor a determining factor for customers - e.g. they will shop around for the mortagage, and if they get a good deal, they'll switch to another bank without even looking at how convenient their apps are.
Yes, there are some consumers for whom those everyday services are everything and they'll go to some 'app only' bank that does that well and without excessive fees. From the point of a traditional bank, that's not a problem, good riddance - if they don't use other products and aren't willing to pay excessive fees for everyday things, there's no money in having them as customers, and when they'll want to do something profitable (e.g. take a mortgage) they'll come back from that app-only bank as that product (the financial product, not the tech product) is actually competitive.
Note: this is from an EU viewpoint. USA may have a bit different perspective as the regulations there allow quite a lot revenue streams (e.g. bounced check fees) from people with no money and no other products, in EU much of exploitative payment practices have become restricted, so these customers simply become unprofitable and not really desired, the main value of "having them" is that this might help you sell profitable products to them later when they have more money and/or more plans for credit.
Yes, there are some consumers for whom those everyday services are everything and they'll go to some 'app only' bank that does that well and without excessive fees. From the point of a traditional bank, that's not a problem, good riddance - if they don't use other products and aren't willing to pay excessive fees for everyday things, there's no money in having them as customers, and when they'll want to do something profitable (e.g. take a mortgage) they'll come back from that app-only bank as that product (the financial product, not the tech product) is actually competitive.
Note: this is from an EU viewpoint. USA may have a bit different perspective as the regulations there allow quite a lot revenue streams (e.g. bounced check fees) from people with no money and no other products, in EU much of exploitative payment practices have become restricted, so these customers simply become unprofitable and not really desired, the main value of "having them" is that this might help you sell profitable products to them later when they have more money and/or more plans for credit.
Many of our customers didn’t even use the app. They could phone up and get someone to do every action for them. If your product can operate without the app then the app is secondary
Financial transactions by phone? To me, that sounds inefficient, expensive, error prone and insecure. All banks I know provide an app and a website to their users. Having to talk to a person to handle your money is something from the 1980s.
Of course for very specific high-value transactions, it may be useful to talk to someone, especially when it's something that also involves advice, but most people only do that kind of thing two times in their life: for mortgage and pension.
Modern banking does not function without the app (be it web or mobile).
Of course for very specific high-value transactions, it may be useful to talk to someone, especially when it's something that also involves advice, but most people only do that kind of thing two times in their life: for mortgage and pension.
Modern banking does not function without the app (be it web or mobile).
Lol, if you say so!
He’s right. If customers are not able to do this themselves through an app, the required headcount would boom and no retail bank would be profitable.
What kind of customers are you talking about, investors or normal people?
[deleted]
True, In a bank tech is a cost center, that is why they are treated as second class citizens even though tech is actually enabling the business
Agree. They didn't get the memo yet that tech rules the world. These companies are very traditional. Top-heavy, where finance, purchasing and sales dominate the company. That's where all the hot shots are and the big salaries.
Meanwhile, IT is an internal "cost centre", a necessary evil, a bunch of resources preferably outsourced.
Meanwhile, IT is an internal "cost centre", a necessary evil, a bunch of resources preferably outsourced.
Slightly off-topic questions, because I've been thinking about freelancing lately:
- Where/how do you (as a freelancer) find your clients? (Do you focus on clients from the financial industry?)
- Where are those clients from (location-wise)?
- Do you work remotely? If yes, does your timezone need to match your client's timezone? Put differently: How flexible are you when it comes to working hours?
- Where/how do you (as a freelancer) find your clients? (Do you focus on clients from the financial industry?)
- Where are those clients from (location-wise)?
- Do you work remotely? If yes, does your timezone need to match your client's timezone? Put differently: How flexible are you when it comes to working hours?
In Toronto, Canada, freelancing or contracting is a way to pay senior engineers more than the company's standard fixed pay bands. The FTE pay brackets aren't great and we have a great public health care system so there's not much advantage to benefits packages.
Contractors are paid from the project budget (capex) and often don't have to go through the central HR department which allows projects to pay what they need to in order to attract the right people. We typically work alongside FTEs but we get "rolled off" projects as they ramp down at the end whereas the FTEs either stay on or get reassigned within the company.
For me, contracts typically last 1-3 years.
- I find my clients through my network of people I've worked with in the past
- My clients are usually based in Toronto like me
- I've been 100% remote since March 2020.
With respect to remote, my current client is trying to get people back to the office in a hybrid model. If they force it then I'll probably look elsewhere.
Contractors are paid from the project budget (capex) and often don't have to go through the central HR department which allows projects to pay what they need to in order to attract the right people. We typically work alongside FTEs but we get "rolled off" projects as they ramp down at the end whereas the FTEs either stay on or get reassigned within the company.
For me, contracts typically last 1-3 years.
- I find my clients through my network of people I've worked with in the past
- My clients are usually based in Toronto like me
- I've been 100% remote since March 2020.
With respect to remote, my current client is trying to get people back to the office in a hybrid model. If they force it then I'll probably look elsewhere.
It's a bit embarrassing perhaps, but I don't actually look much for clients. Recruitment agencies find me on LinkedIn and contact me about projects they're trying to fill. Doing my own acquisition would be a lot of extra work, and I'm not convinced I could do it better than these recruiters, so I just sit here and let them contact me.
My projects tend to be 1-2 years where I'm part of a team working on the same thing. A single client at a time.
My clients are mostly from Amsterdam, where I live. I want to be able to bike to work. Well, normally; these days I work from home, but we're in the same timezone and I work normal working hours.
My projects tend to be 1-2 years where I'm part of a team working on the same thing. A single client at a time.
My clients are mostly from Amsterdam, where I live. I want to be able to bike to work. Well, normally; these days I work from home, but we're in the same timezone and I work normal working hours.
Thanks so much for the insights!
[deleted]
We are talking about 50-60k before taxes here though (e.g. healthcare isn't included yet) - there really is not that much left in the end, especially compared to the US where quite some companies will match our European amenities (talking about software engineering jobs).
Also all inclusive contracts are quite common or some legal workarounds with payed overtime after x amount of hours (where x amount would be working 2 times as much per week), never heard of unions for this sector in DACH either.
Frankly getting a 10k salary bump in Europe is still pretty solid - for 20k I would bet most engineers around here would make a switch. (note that you tax down ~50% above the 60k you earn from now on).
> Ah, and in some countries having too many companies on the CV isn't well seen, it appears the candidate isn't able to fit-in anywhere.
True, but if someone switched jobs every year it feels like a red flag to me anywhere where the cost of hiring actually matters I would say.
Also all inclusive contracts are quite common or some legal workarounds with payed overtime after x amount of hours (where x amount would be working 2 times as much per week), never heard of unions for this sector in DACH either.
Frankly getting a 10k salary bump in Europe is still pretty solid - for 20k I would bet most engineers around here would make a switch. (note that you tax down ~50% above the 60k you earn from now on).
> Ah, and in some countries having too many companies on the CV isn't well seen, it appears the candidate isn't able to fit-in anywhere.
True, but if someone switched jobs every year it feels like a red flag to me anywhere where the cost of hiring actually matters I would say.
> specially compared to the US where quite some companies will match our European amenities (talking about software engineering jobs).
Debatable. In most European countries, if you lose your job you still have health cover. If you lose your job in the US you do not keep the company benefit health insurance (except as part of a severance package for a limited time). For H1-B visa holders, they must leave the country (this is relevant for anyone based in Europe who is trying to determine whether to stay in Europe or use a visa programme to relocate to the US).
Debatable. In most European countries, if you lose your job you still have health cover. If you lose your job in the US you do not keep the company benefit health insurance (except as part of a severance package for a limited time). For H1-B visa holders, they must leave the country (this is relevant for anyone based in Europe who is trying to determine whether to stay in Europe or use a visa programme to relocate to the US).
But it isn't hard to find a job, and there are other options for health care while you are looking.
I agree that it is stupid to tie health insurance to your job, but it isn't the big deal you make it out to be, so long as you have savings
I agree that it is stupid to tie health insurance to your job, but it isn't the big deal you make it out to be, so long as you have savings
I'm not an expert in american insurance policies (not even a novice, tbh) but if you have an ongoing condition and then lose insurance, and then get new insurance with your easy-to-get new job then would the ongoing condition be considered a pre-existing condition and hence fall into question regarding cover?
Not since 2009
so long as you have savings
That phrase is key. Most Americans don’t have savings. Even among the professional class, savings are often nowhere near high enough to pay OOP for insurance at market rate.
That phrase is key. Most Americans don’t have savings. Even among the professional class, savings are often nowhere near high enough to pay OOP for insurance at market rate.
As a 55 yr old with 3 dependents, the insurance is $25,000 per year.
That’s quite a hill to climb before I see a penny of income into my pocket.
That’s quite a hill to climb before I see a penny of income into my pocket.
Depends where in Europe. In Germany, if you lose your job you still have to pay for health insurance, at least the first three months until your unemployment kicks in (assuming you're eligible for it, like in most cases) and I don't know if unemployment covers your health insurance.
If you are married and you and your spouse were on the same statutory health insurance, then you're covered by your spouse. Which can be the case in the US depending on your spouse's coverage.
If you are married and you and your spouse were on the same statutory health insurance, then you're covered by your spouse. Which can be the case in the US depending on your spouse's coverage.
This is true, but not quite the full truth. You will fall on the minimum tariff, and both unemployment and social security cover your health insurance. IIRC, they will cover it retroactively for those 3 months, even if you quit. However that last line is from a conversation in a bar.
And yes, if you earn below 450€ a month, you're generally covered by your spouse or family's health insurance with many little rules and exceptions. None of those exceptions are deal breakers though.
This page (https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/german-health-insurance) explains more, and has a very accurate calculator that takes those edge cases into account.
And yes, if you earn below 450€ a month, you're generally covered by your spouse or family's health insurance with many little rules and exceptions. None of those exceptions are deal breakers though.
This page (https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/german-health-insurance) explains more, and has a very accurate calculator that takes those edge cases into account.
Once you are unemployed you do have to pay for your health insurance, but it's heavily subsidized, costing (as a 50 year old) around 200 a month. Compare that to 1200 per month in the USA.
It's a huge difference.
It's a huge difference.
It's a huge difference when you compare absolute numbers for sure. But also there is a huge difference in taxes. You could argue 1200 is not so bad when you pay 25% taxes instead of 40% for example.
You don't pay income taxes when unemployed.
That's not what I meant. When you are employed in tech and pay say 25% taxes, saving 1200 for a bad day (when you are unemployed and have to pay insurance yourself) is not so bad compared to when you pay 40 taxes.
You've gone full circle then. Someone was pointing out that salaries are lower in Europe, someone else replied that on the other hand costs are lower (for example health insurance). To which you reply that it's fine because salary are lower.
Get ACA, should be a lot lower than $1200/month if AGI isn't really high (assuming unemployed), now if you want CORBA that could be a different story.
Where did you get $1200/month in the US? At least where I live, it is $400/month.
it's impossible (i.e. illegal) in Germany to be uninsured. you may have to pay yourself depending on the situation (I had to do it once between jobs), but the amount you have to pay is not crazy, and there are no people who have no health insurance because they can't afford it. For example, if you are eligible for ALG II (aka Hartz IV, i.e. long-term unemployment benefits), your health insurance is automatically paid for.
If you're not eligible for ALG II (so I guess your first year of unemployment), do you have to pay for insurance from your unemployment benefits?
What's stopping you from choosing and paying for your own health insurance in the US?
A salary is like RAM, you only notice if it's too little. Once you reach this comfort level where you can cover your expenses and feed your lifestyle without having to think too much about it, getting some extra will make far less impact than the number might suggest. Not having enough money is like drowning and you'd do anything for a breath of air. Having just enough to live comfortably is like getting to the edge of the beach. Moving further up the beach a bit is nice but you certainly won't be willing to break your back to get there.
It's not only diminishing returns at work but simply crossing that comfort threshold severely drops the incentives from "survival mode" to "eh... yeah... maybe".
And sure, if you like living just above your means you'll always be in "survival mode". Always the better car, the better house, the better vacation, they need to be financed and every little bit will count. I think that's not where most people are.
It's not only diminishing returns at work but simply crossing that comfort threshold severely drops the incentives from "survival mode" to "eh... yeah... maybe".
And sure, if you like living just above your means you'll always be in "survival mode". Always the better car, the better house, the better vacation, they need to be financed and every little bit will count. I think that's not where most people are.
What you do get (speaking here from my experience in Belgium) is that the top of the wage scale is invisible because past a certain tier everyone works as a consultant to avoid the high taxes. It is not unusual in senior tech roles to charge 1K+ per day or 20K+ per month, and pay a lower effective tax rate on that income, while having long term engagements with the same companies so that little time is lost to churn.
> everyone works as a consultant to avoid the high taxes
You mean, to avoid the social security fees (health/pension/unemployment/…)? After all, as a consultant (whether incorporated or not) you still need to pay taxes and the rates are pretty similar to tax rates for employees.
You mean, to avoid the social security fees (health/pension/unemployment/…)? After all, as a consultant (whether incorporated or not) you still need to pay taxes and the rates are pretty similar to tax rates for employees.
The people that I know that are self-employed and earning high incomes generally are incorporated and have an accountant to set up tax avoidance strategies to have a lower effective tax rate. Effective tax rates seem to follow a gauss curve, low at the bottom, low at the top, highest for the middle earners.
That'll vary by country and won't be efficient everywhere in Europe. Certainly in Germany freelancers pay the same taxes as regular employees, and setting up a company means more taxes, not less.
There is literally an IT workers union in Austria (when we lived there every job came with a minimum pay based on Kollektivvertrag for the role - you could get more than the minimum of course).
Dunno where you live but in Belgium:
- That salary certainly does seem realistic, even though I'm on the higher end and have a base salary above that;
- I also get the same amount of paid holidays, might be even a couple more;
- we have great hospitality insurance, mutuality (general health care) has to be paid by ourselves however, even though that's cheap;
- they do help me save for pension in the form of a contribution, but it certainly isn't enough to retire of, I see it more like a nice base, but will definitely need money on top of that to actually keep living a good live (at least if I want to stay in Belgium);
- they are flexible in timing for sure, that is something I'm grateful for, as long as I get the work done it's cool;
- they do not expect work in the weekends or after office hours (if you do flexible hours it's of course up to you to do the promised hours at some point or another of course);
However, never ever:
- have I get overtime paid, in any of the companies I worked for in Belgium or the UK;
- have I get the chance to be in some kind of union that's standardised within the companies I work for, haven't even heard ever of a union for software developers;
Further more I'm always been told that despite the fact that they earn their 200k salaries they on top of that get also nice bonuses, options on stocks, 4k pension saving and premium health insurance covered. Or is that too much rainbows and unicorns I heard of?
- That salary certainly does seem realistic, even though I'm on the higher end and have a base salary above that;
- I also get the same amount of paid holidays, might be even a couple more;
- we have great hospitality insurance, mutuality (general health care) has to be paid by ourselves however, even though that's cheap;
- they do help me save for pension in the form of a contribution, but it certainly isn't enough to retire of, I see it more like a nice base, but will definitely need money on top of that to actually keep living a good live (at least if I want to stay in Belgium);
- they are flexible in timing for sure, that is something I'm grateful for, as long as I get the work done it's cool;
- they do not expect work in the weekends or after office hours (if you do flexible hours it's of course up to you to do the promised hours at some point or another of course);
However, never ever:
- have I get overtime paid, in any of the companies I worked for in Belgium or the UK;
- have I get the chance to be in some kind of union that's standardised within the companies I work for, haven't even heard ever of a union for software developers;
Further more I'm always been told that despite the fact that they earn their 200k salaries they on top of that get also nice bonuses, options on stocks, 4k pension saving and premium health insurance covered. Or is that too much rainbows and unicorns I heard of?
Not rainbows -- FAANG are out-bidding startups at every level.
If you have a modicum of talent and a flair for interviews, they will gladly buy your soul for $250k/year + bennies from heaven.
If you have a modicum of talent and a flair for interviews, they will gladly buy your soul for $250k/year + bennies from heaven.
Hmm a modicum of talent? It's pretty hard to get in. Doesn't necessarily take talent but it sure helps. Either that or the willingness and ability to grind out so many interviews you actually become good at it. Whatever the case not everyone is capable or event want to go through with it.
And its not as if FAANG are a good representation of the industry, maybe 5% of devs work there?
I see, so while not rainbows it does come with the fact that you're expected to be a slave on location for 24/7? So if I understand it correctly it is only rainbows if you wish to combine that with a family life and without having to move to us?
> while not rainbows it does come with the fact that you're expected to be a slave on location for 24/7?
Not at all. You're expected to be productive to a certain standard (and even that is sometimes iffy), not to be 24/7 available.
Not at all. You're expected to be productive to a certain standard (and even that is sometimes iffy), not to be 24/7 available.
That's just the first year out of school pay. It goes up to mid six figures quickly once you get a promotion or two.
Sorry for the flood, just a remark. As a devops engineer from Eastern Europe (with "senior" formal title) in a large international consultancy, these numbers sound like they are from another planet to me. $250k+/year to me sounds indistinguishable from $200000000000000000000/year.
FAANG employees, particularly on the West Coast, are an anomaly, even within the US. People also often include stock grants in listed comp, so be sure your comparing apples to apples.
DC/Mid-Atlantic salaries at an established (non-FAANG) company are more like $85-$100k for a recent grad, $130-$170 for senior developer positions. Most of those jobs are in the suburbs, where a nice house is in the $500-$1million range.
DC/Mid-Atlantic salaries at an established (non-FAANG) company are more like $85-$100k for a recent grad, $130-$170 for senior developer positions. Most of those jobs are in the suburbs, where a nice house is in the $500-$1million range.
While there is cost of living differences per region in compensation too, I imagine the typical senior+ software engineer in the US is lucky to retire after decades of work having broken $200k-250k total compensation. Meanwhile junior FAANG engineers are probably making that much.
I'd say this applies to HCOL areas too like NYC or even the SFBA. If you're working for a cludgy old Fortune 500 tech-is-a-cost-center enterprise company (where the majority of SWEs are working), you're probably not making more than $200k-250k at best as a senior SWE with many, many years of experience unless you have some niche specialty.
I'd say this applies to HCOL areas too like NYC or even the SFBA. If you're working for a cludgy old Fortune 500 tech-is-a-cost-center enterprise company (where the majority of SWEs are working), you're probably not making more than $200k-250k at best as a senior SWE with many, many years of experience unless you have some niche specialty.
To put a point on this, I saw an opening for a Chief Data Engineer (or something like that) at Ford. I asked my friend, a long tenured mechanical engineer there with friends on the software side, what that would pay...he said 200k! I bet it's closer to 300, but still, it's no wonder everyone hates their car software.
Important to note that "senior dev" here means title, not actual seniority, e.g. ~5 yrs experience gets you in that range even at an early-stage startup in the Midwest.
Correct. At my employer, Senior Developer is the 3rd (of 6) title in the developer hierarchy. Also the first where promotion upwards isn't mostly automatic. Though the comp ranges for Senior and up have a lot of overlap between levels - to earn beyond 150ish, you'll have to be really good, regardless of title.
A Senior Dev would be expected to operate mostly independently on day-to-day tasks, capable of contributing back to their immediate team (mentoring, working with product manager, etc), work directly with customers and leadership as needed, and be recognized as somebody with answers to problems within their immediate area.
A Senior Dev would be expected to operate mostly independently on day-to-day tasks, capable of contributing back to their immediate team (mentoring, working with product manager, etc), work directly with customers and leadership as needed, and be recognized as somebody with answers to problems within their immediate area.
> Also the first where promotion upwards isn't mostly automatic
In such cases is it still considered the terminal title, the one you either earn or are pushed out for not earning, but are not required to go beyond?
In such cases is it still considered the terminal title, the one you either earn or are pushed out for not earning, but are not required to go beyond?
Pretty much. We don't have codified up-or-out rules. I don't see many truly terminal Senior Devs, but have seen people "hang out" in that role for many years. Same thing for Lead Dev, which is one title more senior.
Assoc to Senior or Lead - being successful at normal tasks over time gets you there without much active career management.
Senior to Principal - you'll have to seek out interesting work, prove capable of working across product/business or technical boundaries, and start interacting with leaders outside you team.
Senior Principal - all of above, plus interacting regularly with VP, leaders in Product Management group, capable of high level design/analysis, trusted by peers and leaders across your organization. High level of ability mentoring and leading.
Assoc to Senior or Lead - being successful at normal tasks over time gets you there without much active career management.
Senior to Principal - you'll have to seek out interesting work, prove capable of working across product/business or technical boundaries, and start interacting with leaders outside you team.
Senior Principal - all of above, plus interacting regularly with VP, leaders in Product Management group, capable of high level design/analysis, trusted by peers and leaders across your organization. High level of ability mentoring and leading.
You haven't. That's the sad reality for devs living in the EU (or elsewhere but not in the States). 200k is also a bit generous, senior engineers that are specialized in <xyz> tech do earn much much more than that, anywhere from 2x to 5x. Yes, 5x that amount for an engineer. I didn't believe this myself but that's really how it is.
However, given that more and more companies are becoming more open to WFH setting, it will hopefully make the things better for the devs outside the States.
However, given that more and more companies are becoming more open to WFH setting, it will hopefully make the things better for the devs outside the States.
What tech do you have to specialize in to get $1 million a year?
Big-data, AI, HFT ... Basically anything that has been and is a hot topic and which generates a lot of revenue. But I am clearly not thinking of an average Joe level of expertise. It requires to have all around the stack skills including the ability to grasp the big picture of the product and drive it forward.
Technical skills wise, for areas from above, you'd usually be looking at the strong background in algorithms, math & statistics, internals of operating systems, underlying hardware but mostly about the CPU at the microarchitectural level and strong expertise in at least one programming language.
Technical skills wise, for areas from above, you'd usually be looking at the strong background in algorithms, math & statistics, internals of operating systems, underlying hardware but mostly about the CPU at the microarchitectural level and strong expertise in at least one programming language.
In general in Belgium if you work overtime that time is then alloted to "inhaalrust" up to a certain point (you're never able to work more then 11h/day or 50h/week). Only if you have like a specific agreement where you work "voluntary" overtime, which is not counted towards inhaalrust, but is the standard 50% extra or 100% extra on sundays/holidays.
More info can basically be found on https://werk.belgie.be/nl/themas/werkbaar-en-wendbaar-werk/a... (also available in French).
As for unions, normally if a company reaches 50 employees they are required by law to have a union rep. How exactly that works I don't know. Also while I personally also have never heard of a software specific union, you can always just go with the big normal unions if you want, it's not like they're going to turn you away.
More info can basically be found on https://werk.belgie.be/nl/themas/werkbaar-en-wendbaar-werk/a... (also available in French).
As for unions, normally if a company reaches 50 employees they are required by law to have a union rep. How exactly that works I don't know. Also while I personally also have never heard of a software specific union, you can always just go with the big normal unions if you want, it's not like they're going to turn you away.
> haven't even heard ever of a union for software developers
Now you have: https://prospect.org.uk/tech-workers/ or https://www.unitetheunion.org/ in the UK.
I had colleagues in both at a previous job, depending whether their jobs were more scientific (we'd call it data science now) or engineering.
Both unions are more general than just software/IT.
Now you have: https://prospect.org.uk/tech-workers/ or https://www.unitetheunion.org/ in the UK.
I had colleagues in both at a previous job, depending whether their jobs were more scientific (we'd call it data science now) or engineering.
Both unions are more general than just software/IT.
It’s very expected to get options, pensions (401k matching) and premium health insurance.
Basically DACH region.
I disagree. I also have all those things you mention. I own a house, but it's far from the city center and my commute is one-hour each way (which thanks to COVID I haven't had to endure for 2 years now, I can't even think of going back to that now). If I wanted to buy a house of similar level as mine, but much closer to the city center, it would cost so much I would need to earn something like twice as much as I earn now to be able to keep up with payments.
That, to me, shows that my salary is still well below the well off people in the city who can afford those houses (for an idea of what I'm talking about: houses in the more affordable areas around the city where you can get 20mins commutes or less, or even ride a bicycle to work, cost upwards of €700,000... with my current salary, the recommendation is that I shouldn't borrow more than €350,000 - around 4.5 times the yearly salary before taxes, so I need to first save around €350,000 or sell my current house and hope I'll make this much in return to be able to buy a house where I want... even then I would be playing with fire as interest rates are set to increase and any increase could get me just below water if I tried something like that). I would say that, given this, to be considered well off you need to make enough to be able to afford a house like I am talking about here, which would require you to probably earn at least €100,000 per year, which is well above my current pay and I don't know any companies here that pay this much for developers no matter how experienced (though I've heard it's possible - just never seen it concretely and never seen offers above 75,000).
That, to me, shows that my salary is still well below the well off people in the city who can afford those houses (for an idea of what I'm talking about: houses in the more affordable areas around the city where you can get 20mins commutes or less, or even ride a bicycle to work, cost upwards of €700,000... with my current salary, the recommendation is that I shouldn't borrow more than €350,000 - around 4.5 times the yearly salary before taxes, so I need to first save around €350,000 or sell my current house and hope I'll make this much in return to be able to buy a house where I want... even then I would be playing with fire as interest rates are set to increase and any increase could get me just below water if I tried something like that). I would say that, given this, to be considered well off you need to make enough to be able to afford a house like I am talking about here, which would require you to probably earn at least €100,000 per year, which is well above my current pay and I don't know any companies here that pay this much for developers no matter how experienced (though I've heard it's possible - just never seen it concretely and never seen offers above 75,000).
Have a Germany anecdote.
>Healthcare
That's definitely a you problem, the US is the outlier here.
>30 paid holidays
24. Based on 6 day workweek. So 20. More is optional.
>Unions, Paid overtime
Rarely are there Unions specifically for the IT department. Employers here like "Vertrauensarbeitszeit", which means count your own hours, which usually ends up with you doing more (unpaid) work.
>weekends and calls off work come extra
Also very much depends on the job, many people do it without asking for compensation. In one place just being on call got me a good extra 20% salary, in another they refused to pay for it and now it's "non-mandatory" - but they know someone will likely still pick up the phone.
>Retirement
Biggest scam in history. I get the need for such a programm, but I'll be getting maybe 10% of what I put in out. Fuck being a millennial I guess.
>Flex Time
Already said. Mostly a negative because your performance review will check if your projects, planned with way too little time, will be completed. At least that's the case in development teams. I stick to platform teams for this reason.
>Healthcare
That's definitely a you problem, the US is the outlier here.
>30 paid holidays
24. Based on 6 day workweek. So 20. More is optional.
>Unions, Paid overtime
Rarely are there Unions specifically for the IT department. Employers here like "Vertrauensarbeitszeit", which means count your own hours, which usually ends up with you doing more (unpaid) work.
>weekends and calls off work come extra
Also very much depends on the job, many people do it without asking for compensation. In one place just being on call got me a good extra 20% salary, in another they refused to pay for it and now it's "non-mandatory" - but they know someone will likely still pick up the phone.
>Retirement
Biggest scam in history. I get the need for such a programm, but I'll be getting maybe 10% of what I put in out. Fuck being a millennial I guess.
>Flex Time
Already said. Mostly a negative because your performance review will check if your projects, planned with way too little time, will be completed. At least that's the case in development teams. I stick to platform teams for this reason.
Pick companies that have IG Metal deals, for example.
Quite a well known names do it.
Quite a well known names do it.
>Pick companies that have IG Metal deals
Cherry picking a specific company/domains doesn't help your argument of "everyone in Europe has it so good".
Yeah, everyone knows IG metal in Germany has it good. Others? Maybe not so much.
Cherry picking a specific company/domains doesn't help your argument of "everyone in Europe has it so good".
Yeah, everyone knows IG metal in Germany has it good. Others? Maybe not so much.
Whatever I would have written, people would always nitpick one way or the other, so I simplified it anyway.
I am in a company which is part of IG Metal. Still does not work well. IG Metal does a lot of good for us though.
I second that... IG Metal companies have nice deals
35h/week is the norm, 30days paid vacation and a decent salary for germany...
> Healthcare, 30 paid holidays, unions, paid overtime, weekends and calls off work come extra (it is 40h week period, want more pay for it), retirement, flex time, ...
If you are in your 20's, it is totally worth moving to the US where you can get paid 500K+ per year if you navigate your career efficiently. I posit that making this much money more than covers any of these additional expenses that you call out.
If you are in your 20's, it is totally worth moving to the US where you can get paid 500K+ per year if you navigate your career efficiently. I posit that making this much money more than covers any of these additional expenses that you call out.
Anyone here earning $500k in their 20s like this person suggests?
I’m sure some can but this is not the norm and expectations need to be checked and called out when wrong.
I’m sure some can but this is not the norm and expectations need to be checked and called out when wrong.
I think it feels like a bit of an extrapolation from recent market conditions. But someone who’s 28 is still in their 20s and can have enough experience to be considered a senior engineer. Big tech companies will pay >$250k for that and recently those companies have done very well in stock markets so if you were offered $x of shares (at the current price) over 4 years at the start of the job, they would now be worth say $2x. If you combine that with a job market where those companies are all competing for the same people it is likely one could do well by being in the group that is being competed for.
So I think it is reasonably plausible for someone towards the older end of the range with a bit of skill and good fortune. It feels unlikely that the trend which I described above (of company stock going up 2x every two years) will continue so I would expect effective compensation to go down a bit. But on the other hand compensation can be pretty sticky and plenty of people will be willing to quit after reaching the 4 year cliff (where their stock awards would no longer be worth 2x what they were meant to be worth) to look for high pay elsewhere.
So I think it is reasonably plausible for someone towards the older end of the range with a bit of skill and good fortune. It feels unlikely that the trend which I described above (of company stock going up 2x every two years) will continue so I would expect effective compensation to go down a bit. But on the other hand compensation can be pretty sticky and plenty of people will be willing to quit after reaching the 4 year cliff (where their stock awards would no longer be worth 2x what they were meant to be worth) to look for high pay elsewhere.
Most of the devs at prop trading companies in Chicago or New York will hit 500k/yr after a few years if they can hack it and stomach it. Depending on how close to the money they are, it could be 2-6 years.
Unless it changed dramatically in recent years, when I was in Chicago prop trading firms were paying mid 200 to 300 after a few years. 500k was definitely not normal comp for most engineers at any trading firm, although obviously there are exceptions.
Thank you. This is really my point. People share these rumors of a small minority making huge sums and normalize it as what anyone can do, which just does harm to the industry and to individuals. People actually in the sector/area know it’s not true yet there are those just sharing things they heard like facts.
Entry-level SWE comp for top-end finance shops in Chicago & NY is 400k+, so, ah, no. See levels.fyi.
While I think salaries have gone up in recent years, I'm also going to call BS on 400k for entry level. I just looked at levels.fyi, and I'm not seeing that all. A couple unverified outliers for Citadel doesn't represent the majority of devs. I'm mostly seeing in the 100-200 region for the firms I checked, with Citadel at the top in the 200-300 region.
Also keep in mind bonuses are rarely guaranteed or part of packages, so they are completely speculative for new grads.
Also keep in mind bonuses are rarely guaranteed or part of packages, so they are completely speculative for new grads.
It's not a "couple" of unverified outliers for Citadel, it's like half of their offers in the last few months.
It's also baseline entry-level comp at Jane Street, and Hudson River Trading goes even higher.
First-year bonuses are generally guaranteed, and after that are "speculative" in the same way that stock compensation is speculative - largely dependent on firm performance (though personal performance can actually pull it them significantly in finance, unlike with stock).
I didn't say this was the majority of devs, I said this was entry-level comp for "top-end finance shops", which is true. It is also true that there are competitors in that space which pay much less, just like there are tech companies which pay much less FAANG & Co, but does not mean that FAANG & Co don't exist or shouldn't be relevant to people's decision-making.
It's also baseline entry-level comp at Jane Street, and Hudson River Trading goes even higher.
First-year bonuses are generally guaranteed, and after that are "speculative" in the same way that stock compensation is speculative - largely dependent on firm performance (though personal performance can actually pull it them significantly in finance, unlike with stock).
I didn't say this was the majority of devs, I said this was entry-level comp for "top-end finance shops", which is true. It is also true that there are competitors in that space which pay much less, just like there are tech companies which pay much less FAANG & Co, but does not mean that FAANG & Co don't exist or shouldn't be relevant to people's decision-making.
We're going from "It's easy to earn $500k" to "Top-end financial shops in Chicago and New York". And if someone gets a good offer they'll be more likely to put it up on Levels.
SBF earned what... $22B in the last three years in crypto by the age of 29? If he posted his earnings on Levels.fyi at Alameda Research can I start suggesting people can earn $1B by 30 by moving to Hong Kong and working for top crypto trading firms because out of the massive amount of people trying to do that, it happens to people from time to time?
SBF earned what... $22B in the last three years in crypto by the age of 29? If he posted his earnings on Levels.fyi at Alameda Research can I start suggesting people can earn $1B by 30 by moving to Hong Kong and working for top crypto trading firms because out of the massive amount of people trying to do that, it happens to people from time to time?
The original claim you were attempting to rebut:
> If you are in your 20's, it is totally worth moving to the US where you can get paid 500K+ per year if you navigate your career efficiently.
I don't want to say that it's "easy" to hit numbers in this ballpark as a senior engineer in the US, but the way to do it is relatively straightforward and doesn't require any particularly unusual skills, connections, knowledge, etc.
1) There is a set of companies which pay that kind of money
2) Those companies employ a non-trivial percentage of the software engineers in the country
3) Those companies are _always hiring_ more software engineers at those levels
4) The interview processes for those companies are public and quite similar
Obviously nobody is guaranteed to get a job paying that well at one of those companies. Some people simply won't be able to clear the bar (either technically or socially). But the bar is not "one in a thousand". These companies already employ something like 8-10% of the software engineers in the country, so "one in ten" is a hard _upper bound" on how strict they are (and obviously, since their selection process isn't perfect and they don't in fact have every single 10%ile engineer or better locked up, the bar is lower, probably much lower).
> If you are in your 20's, it is totally worth moving to the US where you can get paid 500K+ per year if you navigate your career efficiently.
I don't want to say that it's "easy" to hit numbers in this ballpark as a senior engineer in the US, but the way to do it is relatively straightforward and doesn't require any particularly unusual skills, connections, knowledge, etc.
1) There is a set of companies which pay that kind of money
2) Those companies employ a non-trivial percentage of the software engineers in the country
3) Those companies are _always hiring_ more software engineers at those levels
4) The interview processes for those companies are public and quite similar
Obviously nobody is guaranteed to get a job paying that well at one of those companies. Some people simply won't be able to clear the bar (either technically or socially). But the bar is not "one in a thousand". These companies already employ something like 8-10% of the software engineers in the country, so "one in ten" is a hard _upper bound" on how strict they are (and obviously, since their selection process isn't perfect and they don't in fact have every single 10%ile engineer or better locked up, the bar is lower, probably much lower).
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 levels.fyi, but these salaries are so detached from their realities that they seem simply unable to believe them. Go look at levels.fyi, it matches very well with what I've heard on the ground.
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 levels.fyi, but these salaries are so detached from their realities that they seem simply unable to believe them. Go look at levels.fyi, it matches very well with what I've heard on the ground.
I think the big question is: can you reach these salaries on a normal work week, or does this require sacrificing your personal life?
For some jobs, higher salaries correlate with worse working conditions. The warehouse worker who moves from day shift to night shift, or the oil worker who moves from onshore to oil rig work, can demand a higher salary.
But more broadly, higher salaries correlate with better working conditions. That warehouse worker will have targets to hit every single shift, get in trouble for being five minutes late, will get written up for taking sick leave without a doctor's note, and will have to pay for their own food and drinks.
On the other hand, most jobs that pay a six-figure salary? There might be quarterly department-level targets, but you won't get fired for missing them. Flexible working hours, and no checks you're putting in your hours. Illness? Take as long off as you need. Of course there's free tea, coffee and snacks. Maybe there's also free breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Just because a job is highly paid, doesn't mean it'll be particularly onerous - in fact, often the opposite!
But more broadly, higher salaries correlate with better working conditions. That warehouse worker will have targets to hit every single shift, get in trouble for being five minutes late, will get written up for taking sick leave without a doctor's note, and will have to pay for their own food and drinks.
On the other hand, most jobs that pay a six-figure salary? There might be quarterly department-level targets, but you won't get fired for missing them. Flexible working hours, and no checks you're putting in your hours. Illness? Take as long off as you need. Of course there's free tea, coffee and snacks. Maybe there's also free breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Just because a job is highly paid, doesn't mean it'll be particularly onerous - in fact, often the opposite!
That's true, but my impression is that many of those super high-paying jobs in the US expect 60-80 hour work weeks. That's a pretty hefty sacrifice. If you can also get those salaries on a 36 hour work week, then that's definitely better.
A lot of Google engineers seem to report working no more than 40h/w on average.
Amazon is obviously notorious. Facebook also seems to involve longer hours. Can't speak for Apple. My friend at Netflix reports working 40h/w on average as well.
I would argue that hours/week and salary are not necessarily directly correlated in the Silicon Valley tech companies.
Personally my most arduous job (50-60+h/w at a Korean conglomerate) was also the least paying (starting salary $35k, left after five years making $60k).
That said, while everyone's circumstances and desires are different, I would say typical quality of life making $300-500k at an above average 50h/w is arguably better than making <$100k USD equivalent at 35h/w even if you include all the European country social benefits. At some point an absurdly high compensation sort of lets you steamroll and acquire those benefits for yourself privately if you want them.
Amazon is obviously notorious. Facebook also seems to involve longer hours. Can't speak for Apple. My friend at Netflix reports working 40h/w on average as well.
I would argue that hours/week and salary are not necessarily directly correlated in the Silicon Valley tech companies.
Personally my most arduous job (50-60+h/w at a Korean conglomerate) was also the least paying (starting salary $35k, left after five years making $60k).
That said, while everyone's circumstances and desires are different, I would say typical quality of life making $300-500k at an above average 50h/w is arguably better than making <$100k USD equivalent at 35h/w even if you include all the European country social benefits. At some point an absurdly high compensation sort of lets you steamroll and acquire those benefits for yourself privately if you want them.
I'm L6 at Google. My work week is the 40 hours of my choosing. I spend Wednesday afternoons with my kids.
I live in Palo Alto so I’m aware - but it is not easy to get to that point. It’s not a case of “oh, move to the US and earn $500k!”.
are you interested in the norm in terms of raw numbers, or where you would need to work to achieve this? and are you interested in people who have won the stock lottery, or just people who have their total comp pegged at 500k+?
assuming the latter, you're looking at getting hired in at level as a senior engineer (maybe one level higher depending on the company) at most of your brand name tech companies that value engineering talent.
assuming the latter, you're looking at getting hired in at level as a senior engineer (maybe one level higher depending on the company) at most of your brand name tech companies that value engineering talent.
Okay sure, but it’s hardly the case one can just join a FAANG company at a senior level to earn $500k easily as OP suggests.
Want to retire early? Easy! Just become a managing partner at JP Morgan in your late 20s and you’ll be rich enough by 30.
Want to retire early? Easy! Just become a managing partner at JP Morgan in your late 20s and you’ll be rich enough by 30.
Although I have yet to see a person with no lifestyle creep in these kinds of jobs. You start earning, you start spending. Yes, some people don't, but I keep hearing sad stories on that front too (guy did FIRE only for his wife to leave him after 6 months because they didn't keep up with the Kardashians. Some people feel mega-excluded if they can't partake in casual conversations like 'we are shopping for a new expensive carpet' or 'we just got a 8k lamp'.
I don't know if this is who you were talking about, but this guy was a big FIRE proponent/blogger who posted last year about his divorce after not updating his blog for several years: https://livingafi.com. It took a few years of early retirement and his coming down with a medical condition, though: "During this time of physical rehabilitation, while I was struggling with the physical issues, my partner finally figured out what would make her happier. It was a relationship with another man."
i would guess as a percentage there are two orders of magnitude more senior engineers at an arbitrary tech company vs managing directors at an arbitrary investment bank. senior engineer is ~5 years of experience to achieve, with maybe 1-2 years extra if you're meandering.
I was being facetious - advising someone to become rich and retire early by getting a very difficult to achieve role in another country 10x that counties annual salary in their 20s is not much better than saying to someone if they want to become rich they should just become a world famous actor or something. It’s just unrealistic advice that does more harm than good (and it rubs me the wrong way hence these responses lol). It seems to be a view perpetually shared by someone who knows someone who heard something and then treats it as the norm.
It is actually a lot better. The hard part is getting into the US, not getting one of these jobs. People meme about practicing leetcode for months but the reality is you should be able to land an offer with no more than 50-100 hours of practice (sure, you might need to do more if you're not actually that strong, but FAANG literally employees 5%+ of the engineers in the country, their standards aren't _that_ high).
Is it really? I mean, you more than likely aren't going to get paid 500k+ per year, even if you "navigate your career" efficiently.
And in so many cases, you might be losing out. Did you want vacation time or do you simply want to work while you are young?
Do you want to have children in your 20's? If so, maybe not move to the US. Your child probably will have citizenship of your home country - but maybe not, especially if you don't move back. Worse, though, is that the child automatically becomes a US citizen. This means that if you move away, your child must have a US passport if they ever want to visit again... or must pay $2350 to renounce. It means that the child will, until they renounce, be taxed by the US government on their global earnings.
You probably won't get 4-5 weeks of vacation a year - and even if you do, it isn't a legal requirement that they let you use much of it. And they probably won't let you take 3 weeks off at a time.
Or you might find that you get sick and lose your job. You might fall in love and realize that your partner isn't eligible to move to your country with you. You might find that your retirement in your home country isn't as much because you haven't paid into it as much (depending on the system). Or you could very easily find that your retirement is tied up in a 401k that failed miserably, leaving you without.
If you have dark skin, you might find yourself dealing with a US police force at a traffic stop in ways you didn't in your home country. Good luck if you are trans, and in some places, a same-sex relationship will get you ostracized. Of course, the places in the US where that happens most aren't places paying 500k - in no small part because those places are few.
So no, it isn't totally worth it to move to the US.
And in so many cases, you might be losing out. Did you want vacation time or do you simply want to work while you are young?
Do you want to have children in your 20's? If so, maybe not move to the US. Your child probably will have citizenship of your home country - but maybe not, especially if you don't move back. Worse, though, is that the child automatically becomes a US citizen. This means that if you move away, your child must have a US passport if they ever want to visit again... or must pay $2350 to renounce. It means that the child will, until they renounce, be taxed by the US government on their global earnings.
You probably won't get 4-5 weeks of vacation a year - and even if you do, it isn't a legal requirement that they let you use much of it. And they probably won't let you take 3 weeks off at a time.
Or you might find that you get sick and lose your job. You might fall in love and realize that your partner isn't eligible to move to your country with you. You might find that your retirement in your home country isn't as much because you haven't paid into it as much (depending on the system). Or you could very easily find that your retirement is tied up in a 401k that failed miserably, leaving you without.
If you have dark skin, you might find yourself dealing with a US police force at a traffic stop in ways you didn't in your home country. Good luck if you are trans, and in some places, a same-sex relationship will get you ostracized. Of course, the places in the US where that happens most aren't places paying 500k - in no small part because those places are few.
So no, it isn't totally worth it to move to the US.
I would like to second that. I would even take education options into account, if I had kids.
I did the calculation for my current job (Germany, huge telekommunications company, city of 200.000 inhabitants). It goes like this
* 72'000€ a year * 38 hours of work per week, distributed to my choosing * 44 days of paid vacation per year * approximately 20 days of paid sick leave per year * 10 days of paid child sick leave per year * covered health insurance
To match those conditions, a job in the US must pay 180'000$ per year (in cash) plus health insurance for me, my family and their education.
Though I do not know what equity is worth. Can those 500k$/y earners get their compansation in cash?
I did the calculation for my current job (Germany, huge telekommunications company, city of 200.000 inhabitants). It goes like this
* 72'000€ a year * 38 hours of work per week, distributed to my choosing * 44 days of paid vacation per year * approximately 20 days of paid sick leave per year * 10 days of paid child sick leave per year * covered health insurance
To match those conditions, a job in the US must pay 180'000$ per year (in cash) plus health insurance for me, my family and their education.
Though I do not know what equity is worth. Can those 500k$/y earners get their compansation in cash?
Most vacation packages for software devs are unlimited or in the 3-4 week range. Plenty of time for a long vacation in the Spring and a shorter one in the fall. It's one of the only things that keeps me going through it all
In other words, you might be able to take a couple weeks in the spring - with some companies - and maybe a week during the autumn. Yet stories of folks getting vacation and not being able to actually use the vacation time abound.
It shouldn't be an issue to take all of your vacation time all at once if you should so choose.
It shouldn't be an issue to take all of your vacation time all at once if you should so choose.
It used to be like that. I was playing with the idea a couple years ago as well. But looking at the social climate in the states, I'll rather keep my low paying job (in comparison to the FAANG) and enjoy the general safety.
You say that like moving to the US is as easy as pie. Emigration to the US is incredibly difficult.
It depends. A friend of mine has been working for Microsoft in Ireland for a few years, and immigration to the US (green card track, two years if employed, I think) for him was practically a formality.
It goes both ways. Emigration _from_ the US to another western country is also incredibly difficult.
I will bite. Show me links to the data on this.
Looks like there are plenty of $200k SE jobs in Amsterdam. It's just that most of them are at Booking and Adyen.
Plenty idk. Could be that high earners really like reporting about their salaries? I mean it must feel much better to go into a salaries website and tell everyone you're making 200K than it is 70K, so it could be biased upwards.
Truth is these Dutch companies don't have to pay that much - so many people from all over the world want to work there 80-100K is more than plenty. Maybe super high management will get 200K.
That's possible, but if Amsterdam has big name tech companies, Booking and Adyen are definitely it, so perhaps it makes sense that they pay more. Sadly I'm not that interested in working for them; Booking uses way too many dark patterns for my taste, and I've been to Adyen's office, and they had dozens of programmers working in a single noisy room. That didn't appeal to me at all.
What are the big name tech companies in Amsterdam (sorry, dumb american here)
Well, Booking and Adyen mostly. I'm sure there are more, but these two are probably among the most famous.
Assuming success and a better career outcome away from home without support from anyone.
Yes, but, it is trivial to pack bags when young, show up for job, rent a furnished place, and just start living.
If the job doesn't work out, you can just pack and go home.
Worst case, you get to see a new city, meet new people, and have some memories.
If the job doesn't work out, you can just pack and go home.
Worst case, you get to see a new city, meet new people, and have some memories.
> Ah, and in some countries having too many companies on the CV isn't well seen, it appears the candidate isn't able to fit-in anywhere.
It is changing though in the tech field. Yes, it used to be that 10 years in the same company showed that you're loyal and dependable, but now it's more like "so you haven't learned anything new or been in a different environment in 10 years?". There's a difference between changing jobs twice a year and every few years.
It is changing though in the tech field. Yes, it used to be that 10 years in the same company showed that you're loyal and dependable, but now it's more like "so you haven't learned anything new or been in a different environment in 10 years?". There's a difference between changing jobs twice a year and every few years.
As a software developer, if anyone asked me something like "Should we hire this person, who has had 5 jobs in 10 years?" I would suggest caution. Not immediate rejection, but at least caution. Especially, if all they talk about in the interview is, how they introduced new tech xyz at previous employer. Even more so, if it is about some frontend framework of the month. For me 5 jobs in 10 years would still be some kind of an at least yellow to orange flag.
Many people just want to try out new tech and when that fun is over and they have introduced the cost of complexity for that new toy, they run off to the next job. "Improving" the world in another place.
Fun for them, maybe, but bad for the employer. 2 years is often barely enough to have experienced maintaining the full system of the employer for a while and have felt the costs of complexity. Someone who runs from that every 2 years ... I would be careful with that. I am not saying, that this is the case with everyone, who follows the 2 years strategy, but often it is.
In comparison, if I was visiting interviews and if someone interviewed me and asked something like: "So you haven't learned anything new or been in a different environment in 10 years?". I would probably start to laugh and mention to them, how I had a major hand in basically everything that was developed in the whole organization, have done everything from dev-ops to backend and frontend and more in my job and I have maintained it. If that is nothing to them, then they are probably do not value experience or have no idea what to look for.
Many people just want to try out new tech and when that fun is over and they have introduced the cost of complexity for that new toy, they run off to the next job. "Improving" the world in another place.
Fun for them, maybe, but bad for the employer. 2 years is often barely enough to have experienced maintaining the full system of the employer for a while and have felt the costs of complexity. Someone who runs from that every 2 years ... I would be careful with that. I am not saying, that this is the case with everyone, who follows the 2 years strategy, but often it is.
In comparison, if I was visiting interviews and if someone interviewed me and asked something like: "So you haven't learned anything new or been in a different environment in 10 years?". I would probably start to laugh and mention to them, how I had a major hand in basically everything that was developed in the whole organization, have done everything from dev-ops to backend and frontend and more in my job and I have maintained it. If that is nothing to them, then they are probably do not value experience or have no idea what to look for.
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 less than I should be making right now, and this is not an isolated incident.
Staying at a company for 10 years either means that the company is the perfect place (then, why are you trying to leave?), or you just acquired tons of skills in your job that are not transferable to your next job, which both do not look good. Especially, when the job market is so hot right now, it's either that you can not find a new job after withering your skills, or something unpleasant happened in your perfect company and you are looking your way out.
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.
Staying at a company for 10 years either means that the company is the perfect place (then, why are you trying to leave?), or you just acquired tons of skills in your job that are not transferable to your next job, which both do not look good. Especially, when the job market is so hot right now, it's either that you can not find a new job after withering your skills, or something unpleasant happened in your perfect company and you are looking your way out.
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 is not like 5 in 10 years. It becomes increasingly unlikely, that every company you work in behaves like that, the more years and job changes you add. As in 6 jobs in 12 years makes that explanation more unlikely than 2 jobs in 4 years. I think everyone is fine with a few quick job changes. Just don't let it become a pattern. And even then I mentioned, that I would not immediately reject, but caution. I am not seeing, what is ignorant about that, tbh. So yes, if the company does not want to adapt, or pay for experience, then I would not argue against job change. However, also one should consider, that most people make way less money in the job market and that they are not in the position to ask for a raise every so and so many years, just because those years have gone by. Software developers already earn good wages usually, in many areas, and I am not merely talking about the valley or stuff like that. Just compare your wage with nurses and similar.
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. (Exaggerating here, ofc.)
But now to the points, where I think you misunderstood me:
> Staying at a company for 10 years either means that the company is the perfect place (then, why are you trying to leave?), [...]
Well, I did use the conjunctive form there. I am not.
> [...] or you just acquired tons of skills in your job that are not transferable to your next job, which both do not look good.
And those are the only 2 options you see? That either skills are not transferable or that it must be the perfect place? Sorry, this is waaay to black and white. It is also possible, that you learn many skills on your job, which are indeed transferable. That is a possibility you do not consider.
> Especially, when the job market is so hot right now, it's either that you can not find a new job after withering your skills, or something unpleasant happened in your perfect company and you are looking your way out.
Why do you automatically assume, that everyone who works somewhere for a longer time has "withered their skills"? It's non-sense in that generality.
> 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 is not like 5 in 10 years. It becomes increasingly unlikely, that every company you work in behaves like that, the more years and job changes you add. As in 6 jobs in 12 years makes that explanation more unlikely than 2 jobs in 4 years. I think everyone is fine with a few quick job changes. Just don't let it become a pattern. And even then I mentioned, that I would not immediately reject, but caution. I am not seeing, what is ignorant about that, tbh. So yes, if the company does not want to adapt, or pay for experience, then I would not argue against job change. However, also one should consider, that most people make way less money in the job market and that they are not in the position to ask for a raise every so and so many years, just because those years have gone by. Software developers already earn good wages usually, in many areas, and I am not merely talking about the valley or stuff like that. Just compare your wage with nurses and similar.
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. (Exaggerating here, ofc.)
But now to the points, where I think you misunderstood me:
> Staying at a company for 10 years either means that the company is the perfect place (then, why are you trying to leave?), [...]
Well, I did use the conjunctive form there. I am not.
> [...] or you just acquired tons of skills in your job that are not transferable to your next job, which both do not look good.
And those are the only 2 options you see? That either skills are not transferable or that it must be the perfect place? Sorry, this is waaay to black and white. It is also possible, that you learn many skills on your job, which are indeed transferable. That is a possibility you do not consider.
> Especially, when the job market is so hot right now, it's either that you can not find a new job after withering your skills, or something unpleasant happened in your perfect company and you are looking your way out.
Why do you automatically assume, that everyone who works somewhere for a longer time has "withered their skills"? It's non-sense in that generality.
As I explained in a sibling comment, unfortunately, the 2-3 year stays are now the norm and 10 year stays are the outliers.
Doing the same job in the same company does give you blind spots, as 90 percent of the companies do not allow novelties in their processes and tech stacks, e.g. you might not be allowed to do containerize your applications, as the current procedure "just works". If your job allows you to sharpen your skills, keep up with the tech stack, allows you to learn new algorithms and add new skills to your arsenal, even after 10 years of work: Congratulations! You have the perfect job, please let me know of the company, so that I can apply.
>OK, that is just one job change. It is not like 5 in 10 years. It becomes increasingly unlikely, that every company you work in behaves like that, the more years and job changes you add. As in 6 jobs in 12 years makes that explanation more unlikely than 2 jobs in 4 years.
Exactly! The frequency needs to be slower, as with more experience, you are supposed to have a good sense what works out for you and choose a job that you won't be leaving after a year or two. That is why you are expected to stay longer as you get more experience, from what I understand with my measly 6 years of experience in the field.
But, maybe you should also consider that the job market has changed and 2 year turnovers may not present a huge red flag, as long as the candidate can explain why they wanted to switch jobs. Although, many companies are now optimizing their salary/perks/promotion structure and their culture for developers staying for 2-4 years, instead of 10 years as it is used to be. All my three companies were like this, maybe I am just too unlucky, I guess.
Doing the same job in the same company does give you blind spots, as 90 percent of the companies do not allow novelties in their processes and tech stacks, e.g. you might not be allowed to do containerize your applications, as the current procedure "just works". If your job allows you to sharpen your skills, keep up with the tech stack, allows you to learn new algorithms and add new skills to your arsenal, even after 10 years of work: Congratulations! You have the perfect job, please let me know of the company, so that I can apply.
>OK, that is just one job change. It is not like 5 in 10 years. It becomes increasingly unlikely, that every company you work in behaves like that, the more years and job changes you add. As in 6 jobs in 12 years makes that explanation more unlikely than 2 jobs in 4 years.
Exactly! The frequency needs to be slower, as with more experience, you are supposed to have a good sense what works out for you and choose a job that you won't be leaving after a year or two. That is why you are expected to stay longer as you get more experience, from what I understand with my measly 6 years of experience in the field.
But, maybe you should also consider that the job market has changed and 2 year turnovers may not present a huge red flag, as long as the candidate can explain why they wanted to switch jobs. Although, many companies are now optimizing their salary/perks/promotion structure and their culture for developers staying for 2-4 years, instead of 10 years as it is used to be. All my three companies were like this, maybe I am just too unlucky, I guess.
> 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.
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.
That's a pretty harsh categorization. I am a hiring manager at my company and I echo GP's thoughts almost exactly. An extended history of 2-year engagements is not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it requires explanation. The hiring and onboarding process is arduous enough without having to repeat it every two years for every position.
I get what you're saying about the salaries -- our company just recently started a program to normalize salaries with the market and it was certainly sorely needed as we had become notably out of sync. But from the perspective of the business, we don't start getting a strong positive ROI out of a new hire until about a year in. To turn over staff after less than two years is a real cost to us and potential employees that are prone to that are often not the best choices when that risk is factored in.
I also reject your false dichotomy. There are not just two reasons to stay at a company for 10 years. You could, as just one example, strongly care about the mission of the organization and/or the work that you are doing. People do work at nonprofits despite their generally lower salaries.
I'm sure you have pursued all avenues with the company you are currently at, but on the off chance you haven't tried it, I suggest talking frankly with your manager about your market value (backed up with hard numbers from reputable sources) and pointing out that their cost to replace you _and train your replacement_ would greatly exceed the cost of bringing you up to a competitive salary. If the manager has latitude and a brain, this might work for you.
I get what you're saying about the salaries -- our company just recently started a program to normalize salaries with the market and it was certainly sorely needed as we had become notably out of sync. But from the perspective of the business, we don't start getting a strong positive ROI out of a new hire until about a year in. To turn over staff after less than two years is a real cost to us and potential employees that are prone to that are often not the best choices when that risk is factored in.
I also reject your false dichotomy. There are not just two reasons to stay at a company for 10 years. You could, as just one example, strongly care about the mission of the organization and/or the work that you are doing. People do work at nonprofits despite their generally lower salaries.
I'm sure you have pursued all avenues with the company you are currently at, but on the off chance you haven't tried it, I suggest talking frankly with your manager about your market value (backed up with hard numbers from reputable sources) and pointing out that their cost to replace you _and train your replacement_ would greatly exceed the cost of bringing you up to a competitive salary. If the manager has latitude and a brain, this might work for you.
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" culture continues. The HR team believes that (as this is what they have been doing pre-COVID), they can just import people below the market value abroad and replace the people asking for more salaries, although this is just a false notion right now, and they are having extreme problems with hiring.
> You could, as just one example, strongly care about the mission of the organization and/or the work that you are doing. People do work at nonprofits despite their generally lower salaries.
Yes, but this is something that needs to be explained to the hiring manager. Leaving after 2.5-3 years are now the norm, and staying for 10 years is now an outlier, unlike what the GP trying to picture 2 years stays as red flags. I do not feel pressured to explain why I want to leave the company, mostly what I am being asked is what I am looking for in the new company.
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" culture continues. The HR team believes that (as this is what they have been doing pre-COVID), they can just import people below the market value abroad and replace the people asking for more salaries, although this is just a false notion right now, and they are having extreme problems with hiring.
> You could, as just one example, strongly care about the mission of the organization and/or the work that you are doing. People do work at nonprofits despite their generally lower salaries.
Yes, but this is something that needs to be explained to the hiring manager. Leaving after 2.5-3 years are now the norm, and staying for 10 years is now an outlier, unlike what the GP trying to picture 2 years stays as red flags. I do not feel pressured to explain why I want to leave the company, mostly what I am being asked is what I am looking for in the new company.
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 not a job, in which one can sit back and do a lot of busy work. We have new challenges often and are developing the core product, while the organization is growing and there are more customers all the time. We are thinking about scalability of the product and such things. Many things are in the making. Is it the perfect job? Maybe not. It depends on what you value in a job. Pay, work-life balance, what you work on, co-workers, office setup. There are many things, so the answer might look different for different people.
Best wishes for the future and hopefully you will get that raise.
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 not a job, in which one can sit back and do a lot of busy work. We have new challenges often and are developing the core product, while the organization is growing and there are more customers all the time. We are thinking about scalability of the product and such things. Many things are in the making. Is it the perfect job? Maybe not. It depends on what you value in a job. Pay, work-life balance, what you work on, co-workers, office setup. There are many things, so the answer might look different for different people.
Best wishes for the future and hopefully you will get that raise.
> 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.
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.
Depends, there is a big difference between staying at the same role or having moved between roles while at the same company.
Also better have a good answer why having changed so much between companies, saying it was for more money isn't going to be a good outcome on an interview.
Also better have a good answer why having changed so much between companies, saying it was for more money isn't going to be a good outcome on an interview.
This has never been a problem for me. The job I stayed the longest was almost 4 years, most were 2 years or less. Switching jobs is good for your development and growth.
If you want a good answer for that question, tell them you switch jobs once it's become clear that there's not enough room for growth in a company anymore. And this growth isn't just about salary; it's also about learning new skills, new technologies, new responsibilities. If they want to keep you longer than that, they need to keep investing in you.
If you want a good answer for that question, tell them you switch jobs once it's become clear that there's not enough room for growth in a company anymore. And this growth isn't just about salary; it's also about learning new skills, new technologies, new responsibilities. If they want to keep you longer than that, they need to keep investing in you.
I'm from Europe and I don't find unions particularly attractive, especially when they want to function like guilds, as they do in my country. That's basically gatekeeping and they want to have the power to specify salary ranges based on qualifications (e.g. university degrees, certifications, etc). A lot of people in the tech community are self taught and don't always take well to the idea that the only way to prove your worth is with a piece of paper they'd have to pay for.
In my current situation (UK) I have all the benefits you mentioned with none of the drawbacks, especially not the salary $60k salary cap (which I think is a misconception since some jobs I looked at during the whole Brexit fiasco were in Europe and paying closer to €90k).
In my current situation (UK) I have all the benefits you mentioned with none of the drawbacks, especially not the salary $60k salary cap (which I think is a misconception since some jobs I looked at during the whole Brexit fiasco were in Europe and paying closer to €90k).
I don't know about unions in the UK, but in some other European countries your union won't have anything to do with your salary negotiation or setting industry-wide salary ranges.
They might if you're in a teacher's union, or working in some minimum-wage job with a mandatory union.
But for any high-paying position like software engineering your union is there to have your back if you're being screwed over on your employment contract, to bust the balls of employers who worked you for 41 hours, but only paid out 40 etc.
It's essentially a form of collective employment insurance for your industry, for which you'd pay a small monthly fee.
They might if you're in a teacher's union, or working in some minimum-wage job with a mandatory union.
But for any high-paying position like software engineering your union is there to have your back if you're being screwed over on your employment contract, to bust the balls of employers who worked you for 41 hours, but only paid out 40 etc.
It's essentially a form of collective employment insurance for your industry, for which you'd pay a small monthly fee.
I'm not saying software devs have it necessarily bad in Europe, but a talented individual in Europe is better off doing something in finance (accountant, tax advisor), medicine or law. The salaries will be better, the work more appreciated, and probably better job security.
The fact that giving options is so rare in Europe is mind blowing for such a so called socialist continent. It's actually the U.S who is socialist for its tech workers.
>30 paid holidays
I'm always angered by these over-generalizations for the whole of Europe. Europe is not a single country with identical laws and working conditions but they differ wildly by borders.
The minimum amount of vacation days by EU law is 20 per year for every full-time worker in the EU but workers can get more based on union negotiations of each individual country or individual company perks that wish to attract talent.
In Austria, the norm is 25 paid vacation days a year for all full-time workers including tech workers. I rarely saw more that 25 days of vacation offered for tech workers here even at supposedly "top" companies which Austria doesn't have many of.
>paid overtime
Same for this. In Austria, most tech jobs don't pay overtime (thanks to shitty "all-in" contracts) but, factory style jobs with clocked shift-work do, since those are usually unionized and the metall workers union is one of the strongest in the country. Also many jobs, especially in public healthcare sector do a lot of unpaid overtime due to underfunding and staff shortages. In low-skilled jobs with high competition, like hospitality and cleaning services, unpaid overtime and your boss being abusive is pretty much the norm.
>Ah, and in some countries having too many companies on the CV isn't well seen
Gee, let me guess, hyper-conservative, 100-year-old German boomer companies(factories)? They're free to expect that, but staying 10+ years at the same company was good way-back-when there wasn't rampant inflation, and rampant real-estate prices, and a factory worker could support a family and buy a home from his income and he'd be employed till retirement and the company would always invest in his training. Those days are long-gone now thanks to globalization, offshoring of jobs and unrestricted immigration, so any company is happy to keep your wage growth below asset inflation levels as you loose out and the company wins as inflation is eating their loan paybacks and the salary they have to pay you, so the only way for you to claw back some of those losses is to job-hop (if you can).
And if you don't like it, there's nothing you can do about it if you don't have skills in high demand in a filed suffering from a shortage in your domain, as unlike the 1960's when even workers with basic education(high-school) had leverage, the company can now hire through a plethora of more candidates thanks to easy immigration, or offshore your job completely to a palace with less employee/environmental protection, while paying fuck-all in taxes through their shell company registered at a post-box in Luxembourg, basically depriving workers of most of their leverage they had in the past. That's why political parties on both extremes of the spectrum are seeing a resurgence in Europe. If we don't fix the rampant wealth inequality yesterday, we're gonna see political extremes and civil unrest growing stronger in Europe. Which is why I guess the EU nation states are so keen on gaining more surveillance powers and banning encryption, to make sure they stomp out any civil unrest before it happens.
The biggest perk we have in most EU countries is paid sick leave and health insurance if you lose your job. If your health ever declines and you end up loosing your job this is invaluable to not becoming homeless. Although many of those social benefits suffered cutbacks and receiving them became stricter in some countries after the 2008 recession.
I'm always angered by these over-generalizations for the whole of Europe. Europe is not a single country with identical laws and working conditions but they differ wildly by borders.
The minimum amount of vacation days by EU law is 20 per year for every full-time worker in the EU but workers can get more based on union negotiations of each individual country or individual company perks that wish to attract talent.
In Austria, the norm is 25 paid vacation days a year for all full-time workers including tech workers. I rarely saw more that 25 days of vacation offered for tech workers here even at supposedly "top" companies which Austria doesn't have many of.
>paid overtime
Same for this. In Austria, most tech jobs don't pay overtime (thanks to shitty "all-in" contracts) but, factory style jobs with clocked shift-work do, since those are usually unionized and the metall workers union is one of the strongest in the country. Also many jobs, especially in public healthcare sector do a lot of unpaid overtime due to underfunding and staff shortages. In low-skilled jobs with high competition, like hospitality and cleaning services, unpaid overtime and your boss being abusive is pretty much the norm.
>Ah, and in some countries having too many companies on the CV isn't well seen
Gee, let me guess, hyper-conservative, 100-year-old German boomer companies(factories)? They're free to expect that, but staying 10+ years at the same company was good way-back-when there wasn't rampant inflation, and rampant real-estate prices, and a factory worker could support a family and buy a home from his income and he'd be employed till retirement and the company would always invest in his training. Those days are long-gone now thanks to globalization, offshoring of jobs and unrestricted immigration, so any company is happy to keep your wage growth below asset inflation levels as you loose out and the company wins as inflation is eating their loan paybacks and the salary they have to pay you, so the only way for you to claw back some of those losses is to job-hop (if you can).
And if you don't like it, there's nothing you can do about it if you don't have skills in high demand in a filed suffering from a shortage in your domain, as unlike the 1960's when even workers with basic education(high-school) had leverage, the company can now hire through a plethora of more candidates thanks to easy immigration, or offshore your job completely to a palace with less employee/environmental protection, while paying fuck-all in taxes through their shell company registered at a post-box in Luxembourg, basically depriving workers of most of their leverage they had in the past. That's why political parties on both extremes of the spectrum are seeing a resurgence in Europe. If we don't fix the rampant wealth inequality yesterday, we're gonna see political extremes and civil unrest growing stronger in Europe. Which is why I guess the EU nation states are so keen on gaining more surveillance powers and banning encryption, to make sure they stomp out any civil unrest before it happens.
The biggest perk we have in most EU countries is paid sick leave and health insurance if you lose your job. If your health ever declines and you end up loosing your job this is invaluable to not becoming homeless. Although many of those social benefits suffered cutbacks and receiving them became stricter in some countries after the 2008 recession.
Yeah same in the UK. 25 days is the norm. 28 days is good. 30 days is very rare. Also nobody gets paid overtime, the company's pension contribution is 5% of your salary.
Yes benefits are better in Europe, but not so much that you're better off earning $100k here than $200k in America.
Yes benefits are better in Europe, but not so much that you're better off earning $100k here than $200k in America.
And you will rarely even earn $100k.
Like I live in a European capital and am just below $100k after almost 8 years of experience.
We're just colonised by massive US corporations which ship the profits back to the US (and avoid as much tax as they can!).
Like I live in a European capital and am just below $100k after almost 8 years of experience.
We're just colonised by massive US corporations which ship the profits back to the US (and avoid as much tax as they can!).
> We're just colonised by massive US corporations which ship the profits back to the US (and avoid as much tax as they can!).
We're colonized by the over-regulation that doesn't appreciate entrepreneurship and stifles innovation. That's why big tech almost never starts in Europe. For better or for worse.
We're colonized by the over-regulation that doesn't appreciate entrepreneurship and stifles innovation. That's why big tech almost never starts in Europe. For better or for worse.
100K is really high for Europe unless you're in Switzerland/UK. Was living in Netherlands and 85K Euro is really really good, that's probably the top 10% of engineering earners.
But does this include bank holidays? We have 8(?) paid bank holidays in the UK so even 22 days is in reality 30. There are much fewer in the US.
The UK implementation of the WTR requires that (full time) works have a minimum of 28 days paid leave (including the Bank/Public holidays - of which there about 8).
Contract normally specify the paid leave excluding such Bank Holidays, so will be a minimum of 20. It is only the days above those 20 where the employer is giving one something extra.
Contract normally specify the paid leave excluding such Bank Holidays, so will be a minimum of 20. It is only the days above those 20 where the employer is giving one something extra.
Err, what? The company I work for (in the US) has like 13-14 paid holidays, and recently gave everyone an extra 3 days off right before the New Year. I think we probably have one or two more than average, but not by that much.
It doesn't, so yeah standard is 33 days including bank holidays. How many are there in the US?
Why would you include national holidays into vacation days? National holiday is more like an extra sunday. You can't move it for example if you're on a medical leave through it.
I worked for a company in the UK who allowed the option to work on Bank Holidays and take those days in lieu, was great way to actually get some developing done without the constant interruption of working in an open plan office.
You can't move it, but you do get paid. So it's worth something.
Just wanted to add that in Austria you have:
* 25 paid days off (vacation)
* + 13 paid days (national holidays/bank holidays)
* + 1 personal paid day off (this is quite new)
* + 5-10 paid days off to care for a sick child
* + 1-3 paid days off for moving/wedding
* + up to 40 days paid sick leave (per case)
* + 40-80 days paid off for pregnant women (Mutterschutz)
* + some companies/contracts offer more than that
additionally to that you have:
* Karenz - up to two years maternity leave (paid, but capped)
* Bildungskarenz - up to one year education leave (paid, but capped)
* Arbeitslosengeld - unemployment insurance for at least six months, but up to 5 years (paid, but capped)
All this stuff does not depend on your employer. For some
(everything based on 5 day workweek)
* 25 paid days off (vacation)
* + 13 paid days (national holidays/bank holidays)
* + 1 personal paid day off (this is quite new)
* + 5-10 paid days off to care for a sick child
* + 1-3 paid days off for moving/wedding
* + up to 40 days paid sick leave (per case)
* + 40-80 days paid off for pregnant women (Mutterschutz)
* + some companies/contracts offer more than that
additionally to that you have:
* Karenz - up to two years maternity leave (paid, but capped)
* Bildungskarenz - up to one year education leave (paid, but capped)
* Arbeitslosengeld - unemployment insurance for at least six months, but up to 5 years (paid, but capped)
All this stuff does not depend on your employer. For some
(everything based on 5 day workweek)
Just to add some information for Poland.
The standard is 20 days of holidays, although if you've been in the workforce for long enough (I think it's 10 years) or completed tertiary studies and worked for a few less years you'll get 26 days of holidays each year.
There is paid overtime with a maximum number of days and hours that you can work per year. Though in my industry some people end up chewing through that within the first few months. Things are better in this company for now.
As far as job hopping on the resume, I think the optimal thing to do is to hop every few years, but I don't see that as a negative.
The standard is 20 days of holidays, although if you've been in the workforce for long enough (I think it's 10 years) or completed tertiary studies and worked for a few less years you'll get 26 days of holidays each year.
There is paid overtime with a maximum number of days and hours that you can work per year. Though in my industry some people end up chewing through that within the first few months. Things are better in this company for now.
As far as job hopping on the resume, I think the optimal thing to do is to hop every few years, but I don't see that as a negative.
Sure it was a stereotype, still there is contract negotiation, there is the law for all cases and what one can manage to put into their contract.
Also get knowledgeable about work law and have a legal insurance.
Even downgrading my example to how things go back home in Portugal versus DACH where I have been for the last 20 years, I would pick our conditions over FAANG salary without the social part.
Also get knowledgeable about work law and have a legal insurance.
Even downgrading my example to how things go back home in Portugal versus DACH where I have been for the last 20 years, I would pick our conditions over FAANG salary without the social part.
>Sure it was a stereotype
Claiming everyone in Europe gets 30 vacation days when that's obviously false is not a stereotype, but a gross over exaggeration. Just because you get that perk doesn't magically make it true for the whole EU.
Claiming everyone in Europe gets 30 vacation days when that's obviously false is not a stereotype, but a gross over exaggeration. Just because you get that perk doesn't magically make it true for the whole EU.
> unrestricted immigration
The effect of immigration on wages is overblown.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-wages/
The effect of immigration on wages is overblown.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-wages/
How so?
If you have more people competing for the same job, then the wages go down, and vice-versa, the less potential employees you have, the higher the wages have to go to fill the position.
The supply/demands fraction is basic math. Are you saying math doesn't work?
If you have more people competing for the same job, then the wages go down, and vice-versa, the less potential employees you have, the higher the wages have to go to fill the position.
The supply/demands fraction is basic math. Are you saying math doesn't work?
No, I'm saying research has shown that wages are depressed for some workers, but not by the levels the anti-immigration brigade would have you believe.
>research has shown that wages are depressed for some workers, but not by the levels the anti-immigration brigade would have you believe.
That statement is pretty vague and pretty obvious on some levels but provides no concrete numbers and evidence that's generally applicable (basically it's easy to cherry pick some results and make generic claims afterwards that don't hold water).
I'm not pro-immigration and I'm not anti-immigration but I know math and personally experienced that whenever you have a lower supply of candidates then I have much more leverage for negotiations and better work conditions and have experienced the opposite, of employers being dicks due to over-supply of labor.
I therefore take those "research" findings with a generous train load of salt.
That statement is pretty vague and pretty obvious on some levels but provides no concrete numbers and evidence that's generally applicable (basically it's easy to cherry pick some results and make generic claims afterwards that don't hold water).
I'm not pro-immigration and I'm not anti-immigration but I know math and personally experienced that whenever you have a lower supply of candidates then I have much more leverage for negotiations and better work conditions and have experienced the opposite, of employers being dicks due to over-supply of labor.
I therefore take those "research" findings with a generous train load of salt.
At the risk of asking a stupid question, did you read the linked article? Are those 3 studies it links to invalid? (genuine question)
edit: sorry, just seen your edit. Care to elaborate why you think they are dismissible?
edit: sorry, just seen your edit. Care to elaborate why you think they are dismissible?
Beautiful, you put into writing what has been on my mind for quite some time.
> Like the OP, my expenses are more than covered, getting more isn't worth the hassle to change.
But (in Western Europe at least) all jobs offer the same nice things: tons of vacation days, unions, paid overtime, healthcare. So switching jobs becomes only about: am I going to get significantly more money or not?
But (in Western Europe at least) all jobs offer the same nice things: tons of vacation days, unions, paid overtime, healthcare. So switching jobs becomes only about: am I going to get significantly more money or not?
Some of those are nice things, indeed, but when you ballpark the hourly rates, you’re paying a very high price for them.
30 days PTO instead of 15 or 20 and being paid overtime instead of just being paid 3-5x as much with overtime being “included” isn’t obviously better to me.
30 days PTO instead of 15 or 20 and being paid overtime instead of just being paid 3-5x as much with overtime being “included” isn’t obviously better to me.
Faang engineers have most of that plus a few million extra to play with in retirement.
In the USA we describe this problem with the Laffer curve.
I would posit that the OP underestimates the impact of his second point: remote-first in a covid world opened up a large swath of opportunities to get very large total compensation bumps everywhere. I'm part of a slack group comprised of ex-employees of a company I used to work at and some folks there expressed that it is entirely feasible to land jobs today that pay a full 100-200k over their current or previous compensation, thanks to big tech companies expanding engineering operations outside of Silicon Valley.
Considering that each of these tech companies are trying to hire in the order of hundreds of engineers, and willing to accommodate remote work from locations that they previously did not consider, is it really a surprise that other companies with less competitive compensation packages are struggling to find talent?
Considering that each of these tech companies are trying to hire in the order of hundreds of engineers, and willing to accommodate remote work from locations that they previously did not consider, is it really a surprise that other companies with less competitive compensation packages are struggling to find talent?
As a Belgian those salaries look like rainbows and unicorns to me, I would love to earn it do not get me wrong but as a good earner in Belgium I earn like 35% of that or so, nowhere near getting close.
How realistic is it really to get such remote jobs for that salary. My skill set, attitude, passion, professionalism and devotion certainly isn't the issue. From what I remember from some job hunts in the past the issue seemed to be mostly that I needed the following conditions:
- Live in US and have permission to work there, OR have a US passport;
- And on top of that be in or around the same time zone as the company's location;
So how feasible is it really to live in Europe and still earn such salaries remotely? I do not mind do the work or hours, sign me up for it, but so far it mostly looks like dreams to me. At the moment my best best to earn that kind of money in the future is to become an indie consultant while also making some software of my own on the side, I haven't found any realistic way so far to earn such money in a stable full-time permanent employee job.
Anyone who can point to some real data on such opportunities rather than just the usual statement that they earn "easily" 200k+ in the bay area and around. I can only dream of it, and while money certainly isn't my main motivator, it would be nice if I could actually have a home and land of my own at some point...
How realistic is it really to get such remote jobs for that salary. My skill set, attitude, passion, professionalism and devotion certainly isn't the issue. From what I remember from some job hunts in the past the issue seemed to be mostly that I needed the following conditions:
- Live in US and have permission to work there, OR have a US passport;
- And on top of that be in or around the same time zone as the company's location;
So how feasible is it really to live in Europe and still earn such salaries remotely? I do not mind do the work or hours, sign me up for it, but so far it mostly looks like dreams to me. At the moment my best best to earn that kind of money in the future is to become an indie consultant while also making some software of my own on the side, I haven't found any realistic way so far to earn such money in a stable full-time permanent employee job.
Anyone who can point to some real data on such opportunities rather than just the usual statement that they earn "easily" 200k+ in the bay area and around. I can only dream of it, and while money certainly isn't my main motivator, it would be nice if I could actually have a home and land of my own at some point...
A good way to approach these opportunities is to understand the nature of the opportunity pool. Perhaps the most famous resource on this topic is a video about trimodal compensation distribution by Gergely Orosz[0] (a former Uber engineering manager), which talks about the different types of companies operating in Europe (i.e. local, european, global) and their compensation bands
A thing to note is that even though tech companies are now more open to hiring outside of SV, in the grand scheme of things they still represent only a minority of employers as you travel further out the globe. Which is to say: the opportunities do exist in Europe, but they're not going to come on a silver plate for everyone. As a software engineer, you'll need to put some work in a) finding these employers and b) preparing for their interview structure (which is often said to be difficult to pass)
It is true that these companies used to prefer relocation to US (which require a visa w/ bachelor degree requirements, in addition to the actual willingness to relocate), but now thanks to covid, companies are often willing to hire in Europe (and even as far as India) even despite the timezone challenges. This was brought up by a combination of market dynamics, internal pressure from employees looking to leverage LCOL areas to maximize personal gain, as well as a related shift in the job market overall based on the emergence of tech pockets like in the Netherlands (because real talent grows and eventually needs to grow teams to support their ongoing success). With this said, there are logistical challenges that prevent companies from being truly remote-from-anywhere (e.g. the need for tax entities in the countries where they hire) so there's still going to be some amount of magnetism towards specific tech-oriented locations (albeit better than Bay-Area-or-nothing).
As for real data: one of the most cited resources is the levels.fyi website. It's heavily skewed towards Bay Area, but you can also find information on other tech hubs, correlated to their respective gravitational pull for talent (e.g. Toronto, Canada has a pretty decent amount of data). Another thing to keep in mind is that job postings are often stale (sometimes by years) and they may be more open to remote than they seem.
Compensation is not equal everywhere, and a 200k bump isn't necessarily a given. It's more of a ballpark. The context is that a L5 role (roughly a 5-10 yr senior developer) pays a salary of USD ~150-200k/yr in the Bay Area. For comparison, a similar position for the same company in Bangalore might pay USD ~80k/yr, but Toronto might have very similar pay to the Bay Area pay range. Note that this is only the salary portion. A typical job offer from these companies usually also has an equity portion (i.e. stocks), and equity packages of 100-200k/yr are fairly normal in SV. Adding the salary and equity numbers plus a yearly bonus amount is typically referred to as "total compensation" (or TC) and is what these 300-400k numbers refer to.
In these conversations, typically we talk about L5 as the baseline because that's the level at which there are the most number of job openings for big tech, but there are also opportunities at L4 (junior level) as well as L6+ (staff level), with corresponding adjustments in pay. L6+ roles can in fact pay well north of 500k/yr TC, but needless to say, these are significantly harder to land roles, even in the Bay Area.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Xpapy6I9E
A thing to note is that even though tech companies are now more open to hiring outside of SV, in the grand scheme of things they still represent only a minority of employers as you travel further out the globe. Which is to say: the opportunities do exist in Europe, but they're not going to come on a silver plate for everyone. As a software engineer, you'll need to put some work in a) finding these employers and b) preparing for their interview structure (which is often said to be difficult to pass)
It is true that these companies used to prefer relocation to US (which require a visa w/ bachelor degree requirements, in addition to the actual willingness to relocate), but now thanks to covid, companies are often willing to hire in Europe (and even as far as India) even despite the timezone challenges. This was brought up by a combination of market dynamics, internal pressure from employees looking to leverage LCOL areas to maximize personal gain, as well as a related shift in the job market overall based on the emergence of tech pockets like in the Netherlands (because real talent grows and eventually needs to grow teams to support their ongoing success). With this said, there are logistical challenges that prevent companies from being truly remote-from-anywhere (e.g. the need for tax entities in the countries where they hire) so there's still going to be some amount of magnetism towards specific tech-oriented locations (albeit better than Bay-Area-or-nothing).
As for real data: one of the most cited resources is the levels.fyi website. It's heavily skewed towards Bay Area, but you can also find information on other tech hubs, correlated to their respective gravitational pull for talent (e.g. Toronto, Canada has a pretty decent amount of data). Another thing to keep in mind is that job postings are often stale (sometimes by years) and they may be more open to remote than they seem.
Compensation is not equal everywhere, and a 200k bump isn't necessarily a given. It's more of a ballpark. The context is that a L5 role (roughly a 5-10 yr senior developer) pays a salary of USD ~150-200k/yr in the Bay Area. For comparison, a similar position for the same company in Bangalore might pay USD ~80k/yr, but Toronto might have very similar pay to the Bay Area pay range. Note that this is only the salary portion. A typical job offer from these companies usually also has an equity portion (i.e. stocks), and equity packages of 100-200k/yr are fairly normal in SV. Adding the salary and equity numbers plus a yearly bonus amount is typically referred to as "total compensation" (or TC) and is what these 300-400k numbers refer to.
In these conversations, typically we talk about L5 as the baseline because that's the level at which there are the most number of job openings for big tech, but there are also opportunities at L4 (junior level) as well as L6+ (staff level), with corresponding adjustments in pay. L6+ roles can in fact pay well north of 500k/yr TC, but needless to say, these are significantly harder to land roles, even in the Bay Area.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Xpapy6I9E
In Europe it seems to have changed too. Salaries are still of course low compared to the US, but it seems the salaries are stabilising across the continent.
I've been speaking to recruiters recently and a lot more companies are open to fully remote, even across borders. 10 years ago if you wanted the best salary in Europe you would need to go live in London, now there are plenty of companies hiring remotely across Europe and paying salaries close to what you'd get in London.
I interviewed for a similar senior role in London and Berlin companies this week, and was really surprised the German company was paying more. Even working for local companies in Eastern countries you can often get good enough salaries, so that relocating to traditional tech hubs in Western Europe isn't really worth it, once you take into account cost of living adjustments.
I've been speaking to recruiters recently and a lot more companies are open to fully remote, even across borders. 10 years ago if you wanted the best salary in Europe you would need to go live in London, now there are plenty of companies hiring remotely across Europe and paying salaries close to what you'd get in London.
I interviewed for a similar senior role in London and Berlin companies this week, and was really surprised the German company was paying more. Even working for local companies in Eastern countries you can often get good enough salaries, so that relocating to traditional tech hubs in Western Europe isn't really worth it, once you take into account cost of living adjustments.
Mmm.. I think it’s unlikely.
London salaries at the top of the scale are not that far from the equivalent US.
In Europe I don’t think it is the case, depending on your definition of close obviously.
some rough numbers from last year... very senior tech role - fully remote :
* London : >100k pounds = ~120k E
* Berlin : >90k E
* Sofia : >50k E
but, when applying the taxes thereof:
* London : >120k E - 45% taxes -> 66k E
* Berlin : >90k E - 45% taxes -> 50k E
* Sofia : >50k E - 10-15% taxes -> 45k E
Which means.. it mostly depends where you (want to) live.. as differences in price/culture of life are much more than above differences.
* London : >100k pounds = ~120k E
* Berlin : >90k E
* Sofia : >50k E
but, when applying the taxes thereof:
* London : >120k E - 45% taxes -> 66k E
* Berlin : >90k E - 45% taxes -> 50k E
* Sofia : >50k E - 10-15% taxes -> 45k E
Which means.. it mostly depends where you (want to) live.. as differences in price/culture of life are much more than above differences.
Your calculation is way off, UK taxes are progressive but you don't just get a 45% once you reach the threshold - otherwise there would be salaries where it would be better to earn less than slightly more.
Here, the calculation: https://listentotaxman.com/?year=2021&taxregion=uk&married=f...
120K EUR is 79.7K E
PS: Also 120K EUR in the UK is NOT very senior.
Here, the calculation: https://listentotaxman.com/?year=2021&taxregion=uk&married=f...
120K EUR is 79.7K E
PS: Also 120K EUR in the UK is NOT very senior.
I haven't checked the other two numbers, but your UK tax calculation is off. A more accurate after-tax number (applying correct income tax bands and national insurance) is €80K.
>but, when applying the taxes thereof:
And once you apply the CoL adjustments, the numbers further skew in favor of Eastern Europe.
And once you apply the CoL adjustments, the numbers further skew in favor of Eastern Europe.
100k-200k on top of let's say 100k? So they would be making 250k per year? How common is this?
100k is below starting salary in the Bay Area or Seattle. Most senior folks make 300-450k with Staff level engineers making 600-800k.
I don’t know if that’s true. I live in Palo Alto and know a fair few people at a fair few companies. Outside of a handful of companies they’ll only be hitting those with illiquid highly-valued stocks - not with base & bonus.
Sounds like someone who invested in property in the Bay Area or Seattle and is trying to get its value to go up. I would need to see numbers on that.
Most? As in over 50% of all senior folk in the Seattle industry make 300-450k?
Definitely not. Total comp of senior engineers at Microsoft in Seattle is nowhere near this. (I am one of those at this point in time)
The point that kinda got lost here is that outside of the big tech circles, equity packages are basically non-existent. So, whereas in, say, Google Canada, you might make CAD 150k salary + 100k equity, in CGI[0], you might only make a CAD 120k salary with no equity grant for a similar level of seniority.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGI_Inc.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGI_Inc.
It is an unfortunate truth that Microsoft's pay between entry level to somewhere around principal is not competitive with a substantial number of companies. That is not to say that Microsoft doesn't provide other benefits, but top tier compensation is not one of them.
I don't mind. When I look at the vast majority of software engineering jobs out there even Microsoft compensation is good, and perfectly fine for Seattle.
I used to work at Google too (in Mountain View). Believe it or not I liked working at Google and I also like working at Microsoft.
I don't need to chase top tier compensation. I just do things I enjoy where I'm learning and my career can progress. Right now I'm mostly writing in Go working on an OSS project managed by the Cloud Native Compute Foundation.
As an aside, early retirement is not a goal of mine.
I used to work at Google too (in Mountain View). Believe it or not I liked working at Google and I also like working at Microsoft.
I don't need to chase top tier compensation. I just do things I enjoy where I'm learning and my career can progress. Right now I'm mostly writing in Go working on an OSS project managed by the Cloud Native Compute Foundation.
As an aside, early retirement is not a goal of mine.
to be clear i don't think you should mind if comp-maximization isn't your sole focus now (or ever).
[deleted]
Keep in mind that in conversations about big tech compensation, the baseline is typically Bay Area salaries. This is the area where you can find the most public info on (e.g. levels.fyi). In my specific case, I'm talking about Toronto, where a senior dev salary for a local shop is around CAD 120k/yr. For comparison, a L5 role in Bay Area job offer is around USD 150-200k/yr salary plus another 100-150k equity (plus a few more thousands in yearly bonus). For Toronto specifically, these number more or less translate 1:1 (i.e. you could expect a CAD 150-200k salary + CAD 100-150k equity, for a total compensation of CAD 250-350k). In Bangalore, the total compensation after currency conversion is going to be significantly less than Toronto's in terms of absolute dollar value, though it'd still be quite above the local average.
For a public big tech company, USD 250k total compensation for a L5 in Bay Area is pretty low ball. For a pre-IPO company, you might be looking at USD ~200k/yr cash, and if you're lucky to go through an IPO while holding RSUs, you'd see a huge income spike on the IPO year. Note that pre-IPO companies still count paper equity in their TC numbers, so a 300k total compensation number might actually just be 200k cash + 100k paper money.
For a public big tech company, USD 250k total compensation for a L5 in Bay Area is pretty low ball. For a pre-IPO company, you might be looking at USD ~200k/yr cash, and if you're lucky to go through an IPO while holding RSUs, you'd see a huge income spike on the IPO year. Note that pre-IPO companies still count paper equity in their TC numbers, so a 300k total compensation number might actually just be 200k cash + 100k paper money.
It also opened the door to get more offshoring, why pay SV salaries when they can pay Infosys rates (pick your favourite offshoring company name).
While this is true and there are some good contractors to be found in that bucket, I’d say we are bound to rediscover the lesson that you mostly get what you pay for… minus cultural and language barriers.
> engineers doing soul-wrenching, boring jobs in toxic environment who still say because they are very generously compensated (hello FAANG).
This is also what a lot of europeans do with FAANG jobs.. get a FAANG job, move to america, live there for 3-5 years in a 4 bedroom apartment with 12 roommates, eat ramen, come back home, and buy a house.
There's also a question of how much more money do you get... 5% more to do something shitter than now... not worth it... but 50% more, is enough to think it through, if nothing else, how much sooner can you retire with that.
This is also what a lot of europeans do with FAANG jobs.. get a FAANG job, move to america, live there for 3-5 years in a 4 bedroom apartment with 12 roommates, eat ramen, come back home, and buy a house.
There's also a question of how much more money do you get... 5% more to do something shitter than now... not worth it... but 50% more, is enough to think it through, if nothing else, how much sooner can you retire with that.
There is the proverb: The engineer is the mule, business people ride on towards (their) success.
> $50 to $60k salaries are the norm
As a newly graduated CS student in Denmark I got a job earning $74k a year. I got warned by my union that my salary was on the low side and, come the first negotiation round of the year, I should ask for a larger raise than simply a yearly adjustment. And based on my union's numbers I don't think almost any developer is working for $60k or under in this country.
As a newly graduated CS student in Denmark I got a job earning $74k a year. I got warned by my union that my salary was on the low side and, come the first negotiation round of the year, I should ask for a larger raise than simply a yearly adjustment. And based on my union's numbers I don't think almost any developer is working for $60k or under in this country.
> If you look outside of coastal cities, there are plenty of job offers for engineering jobs that pay less than 6 figures. Over in Europe and East Asia, $50 to $60k salaries are the norm. And people job hop frequently for a few extra $k because that corresponds to a significant increase in quality of life for them. The difference between a 2 br and 3 or 4 br apartment, between another kid or not, etc...
In my eyes, this is a good point.
Currently working in Latvia and getting a net salary of around 2k euros a month now - staying at the same company makes it increase by a few hundred euros per year. Actually provided more information in another comment of mine, compared some of the public sources for software dev salaries in the adjacent countries too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29595158
Also wrote about my savings and financial circumstances on my blog a while ago as well: https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/on-finances-and-savings
Thus, job hopping even for comparatively small increases is the smart thing to do, as well as looking for opportunities like side hustles and attempting to take advantage of a globalized economy that lends itself well to remote work (something that i'll inevitably need to explore once i'll have finished a pretty large enterprise migration and some pilot projects in my current place of work).
Now, my salary is still liveable and certainly better than those of who work for the local government, who receive about half of what i do (according to https://www-visasalgas-com.translate.goog/valsts-iestades?_x... which is a site that displays the published data per government org) and many other seemingly essential jobs (like teachers, medics, firemen, policemen all of which are comparatively underpaid). Even as a software dev, buying my own house anytime soon is unlikely, as is buying a new car, or many other luxuries that others take for granted.
In short: the original argument definitely holds true for those who are well compensated, but yours is also valid for those less so. Already, there is talk locally of not having enough engineers, especially in those aforementioned government jobs.
In my eyes, this is a good point.
Currently working in Latvia and getting a net salary of around 2k euros a month now - staying at the same company makes it increase by a few hundred euros per year. Actually provided more information in another comment of mine, compared some of the public sources for software dev salaries in the adjacent countries too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29595158
Also wrote about my savings and financial circumstances on my blog a while ago as well: https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/on-finances-and-savings
Thus, job hopping even for comparatively small increases is the smart thing to do, as well as looking for opportunities like side hustles and attempting to take advantage of a globalized economy that lends itself well to remote work (something that i'll inevitably need to explore once i'll have finished a pretty large enterprise migration and some pilot projects in my current place of work).
Now, my salary is still liveable and certainly better than those of who work for the local government, who receive about half of what i do (according to https://www-visasalgas-com.translate.goog/valsts-iestades?_x... which is a site that displays the published data per government org) and many other seemingly essential jobs (like teachers, medics, firemen, policemen all of which are comparatively underpaid). Even as a software dev, buying my own house anytime soon is unlikely, as is buying a new car, or many other luxuries that others take for granted.
In short: the original argument definitely holds true for those who are well compensated, but yours is also valid for those less so. Already, there is talk locally of not having enough engineers, especially in those aforementioned government jobs.
> If you look outside of coastal cities, there are plenty of job offers for engineering jobs that pay less than 6 figures. Over in Europe and East Asia, $50 to $60k salaries are the norm.
Indeed, the population of people who post on this board are very binomial, and it often causes blanket statements to be confusing to one side or the other.
Indeed, the population of people who post on this board are very binomial, and it often causes blanket statements to be confusing to one side or the other.
It seems you are over-generalizing. Maybe people are not like you.
> People will absolutely leave your company if they think they can get paid more elsewhere.
Maybe you will. Maybe they won't. Everyone has his own bar for "enough" money. For some there is no such bar.
> People will absolutely leave your company if they think they can get paid more elsewhere.
Maybe you will. Maybe they won't. Everyone has his own bar for "enough" money. For some there is no such bar.
> but I think you may only be speaking for a subset of engineers that are already fairly well compensated
Didn't the parent directly say that? Money not matering after a certain point means that it still matters before that point.
Didn't the parent directly say that? Money not matering after a certain point means that it still matters before that point.
None of your points are untrue, but "engineers that are already fairly well compensated" is exactly who OP and the article are referring to:
> Read any publication that cares about business, from the NYT to the Wall Street Journal, and you’ll see a ton of hand wringing about The Quittening, and the accompanying talent shortage.
These publications aren't talking about the workforce in general, they're pseudo-gossip articles about the wealthy top engineers and how well-off they are that they can focus on things other than how much they put into savings each paycheck.
> Read any publication that cares about business, from the NYT to the Wall Street Journal, and you’ll see a ton of hand wringing about The Quittening, and the accompanying talent shortage.
These publications aren't talking about the workforce in general, they're pseudo-gossip articles about the wealthy top engineers and how well-off they are that they can focus on things other than how much they put into savings each paycheck.
Also, I feel like engineers are much more likely to be attracted the FIRE mentality and tend to have the incomes and low spending habits that can get them retired easily by their mid 30s.
I'm personally in that boat, and frankly, I'm a little bored but not bored enough to go back to work as an SE full time. If companies offered more part time work and highly flexible work, it might be enough to drag me back in.
Even large six figure salaries just aren't enough money for the soul crushing reality of renting out my brain full time to solving someone else's problems now that I have enough.
I'm personally in that boat, and frankly, I'm a little bored but not bored enough to go back to work as an SE full time. If companies offered more part time work and highly flexible work, it might be enough to drag me back in.
Even large six figure salaries just aren't enough money for the soul crushing reality of renting out my brain full time to solving someone else's problems now that I have enough.
"that can get them retired easily by their mid 30s"
Maybe a small subset. The median dev salary is $110k. So no, only a very small number are able to retire in their 30s.
Maybe a small subset. The median dev salary is $110k. So no, only a very small number are able to retire in their 30s.
The absolute value of your salary doesn't tell you anything about how long it takes to get to retirement (or more accurately, financial independence). That's exclusively a function of your spending and saving rates. https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-si...
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.
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.
spot on. Energy prices are going to rise in Europe for the years ahead so will inflation and then your savings will dwindle... In my country inflation is already around 2.5% years on years.
As someone who's been working for +10 years now for 3 day's a week I can say: spot on!
I've got savings enough for fun projects or holiday's, and my 3 day job simply pays the rent/gas/electricity bills.
I've got savings enough for fun projects or holiday's, and my 3 day job simply pays the rent/gas/electricity bills.
[deleted]
If I may ask, what work do you do / what company do you work for that allows you to only work 3 days a week?
When you forecast your spending rate, you naturally take some security margin, for example by retiring when your passive earnings gets 1.5x times larger than your targeted spending. And that security margin (which won't be spend most years) will compound.
Sure, you might encounter a black swan event which force you out of retirement only 3 years after you started, and at that point your security margin won't have increased your stash by much, but at the same time your skill won't have deteriorated much in 3 years.
It also work even if the black swan even happens 20 years after your retirement. You just need to take a security margin your are comfortable with, and project how much you will have after 3, 10, 25 years to see how much you have for unforeseen events.
Sure, you might encounter a black swan event which force you out of retirement only 3 years after you started, and at that point your security margin won't have increased your stash by much, but at the same time your skill won't have deteriorated much in 3 years.
It also work even if the black swan even happens 20 years after your retirement. You just need to take a security margin your are comfortable with, and project how much you will have after 3, 10, 25 years to see how much you have for unforeseen events.
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.
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.
The absolute value of your salary does highly correlate with cost of living, unfortunately. Which may have an effect on your savings rate.
Yes it does.
If you have a high salary, you are probably living in a HCOL area.
If you have a low salary for the same kind of work, then you are probably living in a LCOL area.
The savings rates of these different individuals could be the same if the salary difference is proportional to the cost of living difference.
If you have a high salary, you are probably living in a HCOL area.
If you have a low salary for the same kind of work, then you are probably living in a LCOL area.
The savings rates of these different individuals could be the same if the salary difference is proportional to the cost of living difference.
But 20% of $200k/yr is $40k/yr, while 20% of $100k/yr is $20k/yr. If you make twice as much while saving the same rate (i.e. cost of living goes up proportionally), you'll still end up saving twice as fast. Then move to a LCOL area, and you've got twice as much saved as the people who've lived there all their lives.
Yep - this is what a lot of people who suggest moving to a cheaper area as a solution for not being able to buy a house don't seem to think about.
Earning (made up numbers because I don't even live in the USA and I don't know what is reasonable) $100k and spending half of it on rent with no hope of buying a house is still better than earning $50k in an area with much cheaper housing.
Of course if you can score a remote job then you can have the best of both worlds, but that isn't always possible (and some companies seem to pay differently based on your COL now).
Earning (made up numbers because I don't even live in the USA and I don't know what is reasonable) $100k and spending half of it on rent with no hope of buying a house is still better than earning $50k in an area with much cheaper housing.
Of course if you can score a remote job then you can have the best of both worlds, but that isn't always possible (and some companies seem to pay differently based on your COL now).
I think it's a pretty big unsourced assumption that savings rates are similar between LCOL and HCOL areas. I'm curious if that's really true; I wonder if there's any research/polling done on this.
Even if the saving rates are the same, the higher salary in a higher COL wins because you can always move before retirement.
However, today’s high inflation rates make all these computations iffy, and if you rely too much on inflation beating stock market returns, you won’t be able to ratchet down on risk as you get closer to your preferred early retirement date (a crash can dump you back in the workforce at a bad time). Also, many people in HCOLs don’t want to downgrade to LCOLs after they retire.
Too bad Medicare doesn’t transfer to low cost but nice southeast Asian countries.
However, today’s high inflation rates make all these computations iffy, and if you rely too much on inflation beating stock market returns, you won’t be able to ratchet down on risk as you get closer to your preferred early retirement date (a crash can dump you back in the workforce at a bad time). Also, many people in HCOLs don’t want to downgrade to LCOLs after they retire.
Too bad Medicare doesn’t transfer to low cost but nice southeast Asian countries.
Why do you assume a LCOL area is a downgrade. Those asian countries have still have pretty cheap private healthcare.
Many people in HCOL areas think LCOL areas are a downgrade, and…they are cheap for a reason. If it’s just lack of jobs, for a retiree that’s fine, but high crime bad weather poor infrastructure bad schools bad scenery are also possible. You don’t want to stop living in retirement, especially if you retire early.
Desirable places to retire like Santa Fe are already getting expensive.
Cheap private healthcare works for small things, but you are paying out of pocket for everything and if something big comes up you might not even be able to access the care you need. Guam might work instead, but they aren’t cheap and are pretty far away from anything.
Desirable places to retire like Santa Fe are already getting expensive.
Cheap private healthcare works for small things, but you are paying out of pocket for everything and if something big comes up you might not even be able to access the care you need. Guam might work instead, but they aren’t cheap and are pretty far away from anything.
I still don't see you mention a reason for the (rather US centric) assumption. Fact is many LCOL areas are upgrades if you don't need to work.
> Fact is many LCOL areas are upgrades if you don't need to work.
Sorry, having lived in Mississippi for 4 years, that is not really true. Or I guess it depends on what you mean by "many", because there are many bad cheap places out there (e.g. Gary Indiana, Port Gibson Mississippi, Monroe Louisiana, ...). It also depends on what you mean by upgrade: many people like big city amenities (food and cultural options) and would see moving to the sticks as depressing, just like many would see the opposite (they love the country side, hate big cities).
Internationally, LCOL areas are generally in developing countries, and even a city like Bangkok will get expensive after awhile (though big cities in the west might get more expensive faster). It is still a trade off, many can't make (and many can, good for them).
Sorry, having lived in Mississippi for 4 years, that is not really true. Or I guess it depends on what you mean by "many", because there are many bad cheap places out there (e.g. Gary Indiana, Port Gibson Mississippi, Monroe Louisiana, ...). It also depends on what you mean by upgrade: many people like big city amenities (food and cultural options) and would see moving to the sticks as depressing, just like many would see the opposite (they love the country side, hate big cities).
Internationally, LCOL areas are generally in developing countries, and even a city like Bangkok will get expensive after awhile (though big cities in the west might get more expensive faster). It is still a trade off, many can't make (and many can, good for them).
[deleted]
I don't think that is accurate. I would say it is a combination of both.
The article you link to obviously makes it sound like it's an exclusive function. But it simply dismisses the fact that not everyone can reasonably sustain the savings rates mentioned.
Sure, there's reports of very motivated people that live on next to nothing and have a huge savings rate for the first 10 years of their working life, abstaining from everything including having a family and such. For the vast majority of people this is not something they can achieve and that is not taken into account by the 'simple math'.
I would agree with the author that having Starbucks coffee twice a day is not worth retiring later. I'd even give him Cable TV. But I'm not going to live like a hermit. Different people are on different places of this gradient. If I increase my take home pay, I can stay on the same savings rate as before and retire earlier (assuming that I don't want to make a certain percentage of my last pay during retirement and instead have a fixed goal for my retirement income).
The article you link to obviously makes it sound like it's an exclusive function. But it simply dismisses the fact that not everyone can reasonably sustain the savings rates mentioned.
Sure, there's reports of very motivated people that live on next to nothing and have a huge savings rate for the first 10 years of their working life, abstaining from everything including having a family and such. For the vast majority of people this is not something they can achieve and that is not taken into account by the 'simple math'.
I would agree with the author that having Starbucks coffee twice a day is not worth retiring later. I'd even give him Cable TV. But I'm not going to live like a hermit. Different people are on different places of this gradient. If I increase my take home pay, I can stay on the same savings rate as before and retire earlier (assuming that I don't want to make a certain percentage of my last pay during retirement and instead have a fixed goal for my retirement income).
We all have to make the choice between prioritizing creature comforts and freedom.
I chose freedom. While my colleagues were living in fancy high rise apartments, buying new gaming rigs and cars, taking extravagant international vacations, and getting married and having kids, I was living in a basement studio with my college mattress on the floor and no car for several years while biking to work.
I'm retired and they're still slaving away with no end in sight.
No risk and sacrifice, no reward.
I chose freedom. While my colleagues were living in fancy high rise apartments, buying new gaming rigs and cars, taking extravagant international vacations, and getting married and having kids, I was living in a basement studio with my college mattress on the floor and no car for several years while biking to work.
I'm retired and they're still slaving away with no end in sight.
No risk and sacrifice, no reward.
You call it creature comforts. Starbucks every day I would definitely count as that. I don't count having a family as a creature comfort.
FWIW, I'm completely with you on living below one's means. I don't think the math is as simple as the article makes it out to be. It's missing a few value functions that need to be taken into account that influence what savings rate are reasonably possible at various absolute salaries. Your value functions are different from mine though mine are much closer to yours than the ones your colleagues seem to have with a few key differences.
I'm with you on the fancy high rise. Strike that, nobody needs that. Basement studio with a mattress on the floor? Not worth the <$200 savings for a proper bed frame if you ask me. I've lived in a basement apartment for some years as well and it definitely wasn't bad at all. Very livable but it depends on where. One of my colleague's basement studio is not something I could've lived in. The house I now live in is the "cheapest house in the fanciest neighbourhood I can afford" (i.e. no, we did not buy a house at the top of what the bank would lend us).
I'll give you gaming rigs (and games) as well. I've never been a fan of consoles. Regular "business laptops" for not much money can run reasonably good games that are a few years older perfectly fine. And you get to pick and choose the good ones as you have a treasure trove of information from people that have already played them. I would add cell phones to this (and laptops/computers for that matter). Buy a generation or two behind the new fancy one and you're not worse off at all but save a ton of money. Nobody needs the newest iPhone or fancy MacBook.
(International) vacations is something that our value function would assign a relatively high value to. Can't do without. They aren't extravagant. Nobody's gonna get me to shell out 10k to go to Disney Land, sorry. But yes, we will spend the money to make memories together on a backpacking trip through some exotic country. Best ~500EUR flight and very cheap living costs while there that we ever spent. You can use simple math all you want to tell me how much earlier I could've retired if I had not spent the 500EUR and it won't change my mind.
Which brings me to the next value function: family. Definitely worth it. Even retiring later is worth having a family.
FWIW, I'm completely with you on living below one's means. I don't think the math is as simple as the article makes it out to be. It's missing a few value functions that need to be taken into account that influence what savings rate are reasonably possible at various absolute salaries. Your value functions are different from mine though mine are much closer to yours than the ones your colleagues seem to have with a few key differences.
I'm with you on the fancy high rise. Strike that, nobody needs that. Basement studio with a mattress on the floor? Not worth the <$200 savings for a proper bed frame if you ask me. I've lived in a basement apartment for some years as well and it definitely wasn't bad at all. Very livable but it depends on where. One of my colleague's basement studio is not something I could've lived in. The house I now live in is the "cheapest house in the fanciest neighbourhood I can afford" (i.e. no, we did not buy a house at the top of what the bank would lend us).
I'll give you gaming rigs (and games) as well. I've never been a fan of consoles. Regular "business laptops" for not much money can run reasonably good games that are a few years older perfectly fine. And you get to pick and choose the good ones as you have a treasure trove of information from people that have already played them. I would add cell phones to this (and laptops/computers for that matter). Buy a generation or two behind the new fancy one and you're not worse off at all but save a ton of money. Nobody needs the newest iPhone or fancy MacBook.
(International) vacations is something that our value function would assign a relatively high value to. Can't do without. They aren't extravagant. Nobody's gonna get me to shell out 10k to go to Disney Land, sorry. But yes, we will spend the money to make memories together on a backpacking trip through some exotic country. Best ~500EUR flight and very cheap living costs while there that we ever spent. You can use simple math all you want to tell me how much earlier I could've retired if I had not spent the 500EUR and it won't change my mind.
Which brings me to the next value function: family. Definitely worth it. Even retiring later is worth having a family.
> getting married and having kids
i have not met anyone yet who is married with kids but would have preferred an earlier retirement instead. kids are more expensive than all the other things combined that you listed - no amount of living in the basement or saving 30k on having no car is going to make up for that.
i have not met anyone yet who is married with kids but would have preferred an earlier retirement instead. kids are more expensive than all the other things combined that you listed - no amount of living in the basement or saving 30k on having no car is going to make up for that.
People regret having kids all the time. It's just not socially acceptable to talk about openly.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/m9vh8a/serious_p...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/1wvx04/serious_d...
https://www.reddit.com/r/regretfulparents/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/m9vh8a/serious_p...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/1wvx04/serious_d...
https://www.reddit.com/r/regretfulparents/
Nothing worth doing is particularly easy, but let me give you a different way to think about it.
You're only on this planet for a few years. You can only taste so much of the human experience. A huge part of the human experience is raising a child. Not experiencing it means leaving a big part of what's possible to experience on the table.
If it's a choice, and you choose, and you're secure in your life, and financially / emotionally / mentally stable, I think regret isn't likely.
You're only on this planet for a few years. You can only taste so much of the human experience. A huge part of the human experience is raising a child. Not experiencing it means leaving a big part of what's possible to experience on the table.
If it's a choice, and you choose, and you're secure in your life, and financially / emotionally / mentally stable, I think regret isn't likely.
if you read the links you posted, a large portion of these are from people who weren't ready, or had kids with disabilities or adopted without enough vetting, or were not financially ready, etc.
all parents go through difficult periods where they do regret not sleeping, or the work. but on the whole, the vast majority would not trade their kids for lonely family-less early retirement.
just because you found 10k comments on the internet doesnt imply this sentiment applies to 7bn people.
it's great that you'll have no regret about never having kids but instead have a ton of money and free time to spend on something else for 40 years.
all parents go through difficult periods where they do regret not sleeping, or the work. but on the whole, the vast majority would not trade their kids for lonely family-less early retirement.
just because you found 10k comments on the internet doesnt imply this sentiment applies to 7bn people.
it's great that you'll have no regret about never having kids but instead have a ton of money and free time to spend on something else for 40 years.
> just because you found 10k comments on the internet doesnt imply this sentiment applies to 7bn people.
No, but at least the parent provided some kind of source to back up their assertion. Where's yours? I don't think it's safe to assume "nearly everyone who has kids don't have regrets".
I went through a phase 5+ years ago where I was reading a lot about this sort of thing, and found that there are more people who regret having kids (entirely) than I would have expected, and way more people who regret the timing of when they had kids than I would have expected.
As the parent points out, it is very very taboo -- especially for a mother -- to admit this sort of thing, so we can expect this to be under-reported.
No, but at least the parent provided some kind of source to back up their assertion. Where's yours? I don't think it's safe to assume "nearly everyone who has kids don't have regrets".
I went through a phase 5+ years ago where I was reading a lot about this sort of thing, and found that there are more people who regret having kids (entirely) than I would have expected, and way more people who regret the timing of when they had kids than I would have expected.
As the parent points out, it is very very taboo -- especially for a mother -- to admit this sort of thing, so we can expect this to be under-reported.
i've met plenty who have regretted the timing, or having 3+ kids instead of two. but never about having 1 kid instead of zero and it preventing their otherwise early retirement.
having one kid will delay any kind of FIRE strategy significantly for all but the top 0.01%.
the GP's argument is that people just dont have the willpower to make the necessary sacrifices to retire early...such as simply skipping having those pesky, retirement-draining offspring!
having one kid will delay any kind of FIRE strategy significantly for all but the top 0.01%.
the GP's argument is that people just dont have the willpower to make the necessary sacrifices to retire early...such as simply skipping having those pesky, retirement-draining offspring!
As said earlier, this is a sentiment that is not socially accepted, so you will have a hard time finding examples or people admitting to it.
I have 2 daughters, I love them but in hindsight if I had to start over I don't think I would have kids. And it is not necessarily about the money. I realize I give up waaaay to much of my own needs and freedom. It may just be also about how I am. While many people will tell their kids to litterally go fuck themselves (well with different words) while they are watching football or leave them unattended while they go for a bicycle ride, I am one of those who will never say no when my daughters ask me to play or require assistance for some creative stuff. Yes I enjoy doing stuff with them but I'd rather go for a bicycle ride, play music or do carpentry. Thanksfully there are a few things we have in common, like playing basketball. Now that I am divorced and we share custody of the girls, it makes it feel somehow harder, as I can't just get away from my ex-wife. There is always something to negociate/organize. Thanksfully the pandemic has opened a lot of possibilities regarding work from home so I could change employer without having to move to another place but I'd rather use the remote work possibilities to become a digital nomad and travel all over the world. I would also be happy living in a camper moving from place to place every few weeks/months. Having kids while being separated from their mother makes it impossible.
I have 2 daughters, I love them but in hindsight if I had to start over I don't think I would have kids. And it is not necessarily about the money. I realize I give up waaaay to much of my own needs and freedom. It may just be also about how I am. While many people will tell their kids to litterally go fuck themselves (well with different words) while they are watching football or leave them unattended while they go for a bicycle ride, I am one of those who will never say no when my daughters ask me to play or require assistance for some creative stuff. Yes I enjoy doing stuff with them but I'd rather go for a bicycle ride, play music or do carpentry. Thanksfully there are a few things we have in common, like playing basketball. Now that I am divorced and we share custody of the girls, it makes it feel somehow harder, as I can't just get away from my ex-wife. There is always something to negociate/organize. Thanksfully the pandemic has opened a lot of possibilities regarding work from home so I could change employer without having to move to another place but I'd rather use the remote work possibilities to become a digital nomad and travel all over the world. I would also be happy living in a camper moving from place to place every few weeks/months. Having kids while being separated from their mother makes it impossible.
[deleted]
> or had kids with disabilities
This is one of my biggest fears.
This is one of my biggest fears.
I wouldn’t use Reddit posts to justify a statement of “all the time”.
“All the time” here means it has happened in the past, it happens today, and it will probably continue happening. It may not be a high percentage of parents but it exists. Believe it or not, Reddit is made up of human beings just like you.
"All the time" infers high frequency.
And sure, Reddit is full of humans, but it's nowhere close to a representative sample of the populations. That should be clear as soon as you start reading.
And sure, Reddit is full of humans, but it's nowhere close to a representative sample of the populations. That should be clear as soon as you start reading.
[deleted]
I usually read (and intend, when I write) "all the time" as "more than you'd expect", not necessarily as "with high frequency".
> We all have to make the choice between prioritizing creature comforts and freedom.
Of course, this starts from the assumption that work is inherently an undesirable activity and that conversely, pleasurable activities are incompatible w/ work. IMHO, it's not necessarily black and white: it's certainly possible to find satisfaction/fulfillment in one's work (to the extent that some people even choose to work despite not having the financial need to). Personally, I try to find alignment between being a "productive member of society" and deriving happiness from my efforts (both in terms of my work output as well as material gain). I'm sure much more can be said about the drivers of motivation as it relates to finding the meaning of one's life, and the whole thing about life being about the journey, rather than the destination.
In terms of financial independence, I'd be wary of the word "freedom". It can be quite the loaded term, in the sense that one could equally argue that greatly restricting expenditure is "slavery to a run rate", whereas a steady income and a more lavish budget is "liberating". For someone like me who seeks well-roundedness, loaded terms irk me. Though to be clear, I'm not criticizing one lifestyle over another; both FIRE and career-ladder lifestyles are perfectly fine life choices IMHO.
Of course, this starts from the assumption that work is inherently an undesirable activity and that conversely, pleasurable activities are incompatible w/ work. IMHO, it's not necessarily black and white: it's certainly possible to find satisfaction/fulfillment in one's work (to the extent that some people even choose to work despite not having the financial need to). Personally, I try to find alignment between being a "productive member of society" and deriving happiness from my efforts (both in terms of my work output as well as material gain). I'm sure much more can be said about the drivers of motivation as it relates to finding the meaning of one's life, and the whole thing about life being about the journey, rather than the destination.
In terms of financial independence, I'd be wary of the word "freedom". It can be quite the loaded term, in the sense that one could equally argue that greatly restricting expenditure is "slavery to a run rate", whereas a steady income and a more lavish budget is "liberating". For someone like me who seeks well-roundedness, loaded terms irk me. Though to be clear, I'm not criticizing one lifestyle over another; both FIRE and career-ladder lifestyles are perfectly fine life choices IMHO.
> If I increase my take home pay, I can stay on the same savings rate as before and retire earlier (assuming that I don't want to make a certain percentage of my last pay during retirement and instead have a fixed goal for my retirement income).
That would be extremely unwise - if your savings rate hasn't changed then that means your lifestyle has inflated, and so your fixed retirement income will be a bigger step down and harder to sustain. This isn't just theoretical - people set a retirement goal when they're young thinking they can live like a student, gradually get accustomed to a more comfortable lifestyle, and then get a pretty sharp shock when they try to retire early and realise they're not actually willing to go back to living like that.
The only way increasing your take home pay lets you retire earlier is if you use it to increase your savings rate, by not letting your lifestyle inflate proportionately.
That would be extremely unwise - if your savings rate hasn't changed then that means your lifestyle has inflated, and so your fixed retirement income will be a bigger step down and harder to sustain. This isn't just theoretical - people set a retirement goal when they're young thinking they can live like a student, gradually get accustomed to a more comfortable lifestyle, and then get a pretty sharp shock when they try to retire early and realise they're not actually willing to go back to living like that.
The only way increasing your take home pay lets you retire earlier is if you use it to increase your savings rate, by not letting your lifestyle inflate proportionately.
FWIW, this was simply an example to refute the absolute claim of the parent and the article that only the savings rate matters for when you will be able to retire. This one counter example disproved that.
Now as for your claim, I would agree that it is generally unwise to do that. It doesn't necessarily mean that your lifestyle has inflated in a bad way though.
If I make 50k with 10% savings rate (5k savings), single bread winner w/ a family of 2 and I get a raise to 55k, I will now save 6k w/ a 10% rate. The other 4k are used to finally be able to go to the museum with the kid, buy them some used skates so they can go skate in the park in winter whenever they want instead of renting skates once per winter etc. While I agree that this is "a lifestyle inflation" I wouldn't say it's one that affect the retirement in the way you mentioned.
Now if we are talking lotto winner kind of raise while keeping the savings rate at the exact same and low mark, I would totally agree with you. 50k w/ 10% gets a raise to 300k and starts behaving like the parent mentioned (fancy apartment, extravagant travel etc.) I completely agree with you.
Now as for your claim, I would agree that it is generally unwise to do that. It doesn't necessarily mean that your lifestyle has inflated in a bad way though.
If I make 50k with 10% savings rate (5k savings), single bread winner w/ a family of 2 and I get a raise to 55k, I will now save 6k w/ a 10% rate. The other 4k are used to finally be able to go to the museum with the kid, buy them some used skates so they can go skate in the park in winter whenever they want instead of renting skates once per winter etc. While I agree that this is "a lifestyle inflation" I wouldn't say it's one that affect the retirement in the way you mentioned.
Now if we are talking lotto winner kind of raise while keeping the savings rate at the exact same and low mark, I would totally agree with you. 50k w/ 10% gets a raise to 300k and starts behaving like the parent mentioned (fancy apartment, extravagant travel etc.) I completely agree with you.
> FWIW, this was simply an example to refute the absolute claim of the parent and the article that only the savings rate matters for when you will be able to retire. This one counter example disproved that.
But you don't have a counterexample, not unless you can show someone actually succeeding in retiring on a different savings rate. Plenty of people think they'll be happy to live more cheaply when they've retired, but experience suggests that this isn't actually true, which is what the article is going by.
> The other 4k are used to finally be able to go to the museum with the kid, buy them some used skates so they can go skate in the park in winter whenever they want instead of renting skates once per winter etc. While I agree that this is "a lifestyle inflation" I wouldn't say it's one that affect the retirement in the way you mentioned.
Of course it does. You get in the habit of buying things for the kid. You get in the habit of going to these places. (I don't think it's bad to spend money on things you enjoy, especially if what you enjoy is helping others, but it's important to be aware that it's extremely habit-forming).
But you don't have a counterexample, not unless you can show someone actually succeeding in retiring on a different savings rate. Plenty of people think they'll be happy to live more cheaply when they've retired, but experience suggests that this isn't actually true, which is what the article is going by.
> The other 4k are used to finally be able to go to the museum with the kid, buy them some used skates so they can go skate in the park in winter whenever they want instead of renting skates once per winter etc. While I agree that this is "a lifestyle inflation" I wouldn't say it's one that affect the retirement in the way you mentioned.
Of course it does. You get in the habit of buying things for the kid. You get in the habit of going to these places. (I don't think it's bad to spend money on things you enjoy, especially if what you enjoy is helping others, but it's important to be aware that it's extremely habit-forming).
You make statements about all people. You are the one that has to prove that this is true. My counter example works perfectly because I only need one. Specifically we still buy used skates for the kids, even though I would definitely have the money to buy new ones. Same for the vacations. They can tell me about Disney Land all they want and even though I could buy that cash right now, I will not.
So you did increase your savings rate after all?
I see what you're trying to do there. I need to quote better. Let's retry:
Quoting myself:
I'm not claiming how many people do and can do this. Just that it's absolutely possible. It's probably in the ballpark of people that can take 10 years of the beginning of their career to live so frugally that they retire at 32 with millions in the bank :)
Quoting myself:
an example to refute the absolute claim of the parent and the article that only the savings rate matters for when you will be able to retire. This one counter example disproved that.
not unless you can show someone actually succeeding [...] Plenty of people think they'll be happy to live more cheaply when they've retired [...] Of course it does. You get in the habit of buying things for the kid. You get in the habit of going to these places.
I'm not claiming how many people do and can do this. Just that it's absolutely possible. It's probably in the ballpark of people that can take 10 years of the beginning of their career to live so frugally that they retire at 32 with millions in the bank :)
Salary is the absolute ceiling for savings rate, so I'd say it's a big factor.
In the same trivial sense, it's also an absolute ceiling for expense rate. Expenses are essential, and it's all about relative savings rate. Salary, ignorant of expenses, is meaningless for these discussions.
You clearly didn't even skim the link I posted.
Yes I did. Your comment indicates that you don't understand ceiling. The article is overly simplistic in regards to things like cost of living, inflation, and returns on the savings.
Do you really think you can save 90% of your income and retire after 3 years? This is terrible financial advice and completely ignores functions and changes in spending due to life events. Not to mention, I don't believe that function is legitimate depending on retirement age and current age combinations.
Do you really think you can save 90% of your income and retire after 3 years? This is terrible financial advice and completely ignores functions and changes in spending due to life events. Not to mention, I don't believe that function is legitimate depending on retirement age and current age combinations.
> Do you really think you can save 90% of your income and retire after 3 years?
You certainly can if you make 5 million a year! Which means that absolute income is absolutely relevant.
You certainly can if you make 5 million a year! Which means that absolute income is absolutely relevant.
Hell, in many places you can retire under those conditions if you "only" make $500k a year. The trick is to move to a much lower cost-of-living area after you retire, often abroad. If that kind of thing floats your boat, anyway.
If your income is $100k and you save $90k, spending $10k, after 3 years, you will have saved $270k. With growth, you might have $300k. To support your ongoing $10k annual expenses, you'd only be spending 3% of your portfolio. The math checks out. Of course with taxes, a savings rate of 90% is more than likely to be possible.
> You can earn 5% investment returns after inflation during your saving years
This is very unlikely long term. Right now treasuries are 5% less then inflation. Lots of FIRE people are going to get shafted.
This is very unlikely long term. Right now treasuries are 5% less then inflation. Lots of FIRE people are going to get shafted.
Not sure I agree. Trinity study suggests that if you retire 30 years before death, you can safely withdraw 4% every year during retirement, regardless of economic fluctuations. If you retire super early and need 50 or 60 years, your safe withdrawal rate is probably closer to 3% or even 2%, though.
Your point may be that we should expect significant economic turmoil in the near- and medium-term, much more than "fluctuations", which may be true, or may not be. Impossible to predict the future.
Consider that the 2021 inflation rate is likely a symptom of COVID. Monthly inflation rates for the last few months of 2021 were trending downward. Hopefully we can expect inflation to get back to something approaching normal by the end of 2022. Even if it takes a couple more years, there's no reason to expect that 7% inflation is the norm going forward.
(Also consider that people who are doing FIRE certainly don't have much in treasuries. It's going to be mostly in stocks. That certainly carries other risks, of course.)
Your point may be that we should expect significant economic turmoil in the near- and medium-term, much more than "fluctuations", which may be true, or may not be. Impossible to predict the future.
Consider that the 2021 inflation rate is likely a symptom of COVID. Monthly inflation rates for the last few months of 2021 were trending downward. Hopefully we can expect inflation to get back to something approaching normal by the end of 2022. Even if it takes a couple more years, there's no reason to expect that 7% inflation is the norm going forward.
(Also consider that people who are doing FIRE certainly don't have much in treasuries. It's going to be mostly in stocks. That certainly carries other risks, of course.)
> Consider that the 2021 inflation rate is likely a symptom of COVID
It's mostly a symptom of reckless monetary and fiscal policies.
> Monthly inflation rates for the last few months of 2021 were trending downward
It's the opposite if CPI is to be believed (which is a big if): https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/consumer-pri...
It's mostly a symptom of reckless monetary and fiscal policies.
> Monthly inflation rates for the last few months of 2021 were trending downward
It's the opposite if CPI is to be believed (which is a big if): https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/consumer-pri...
> It's mostly a symptom of reckless monetary and fiscal policies.
... as a result of the pandemic...
The US public will not tolerate sustained high inflation. Congresspeople and presidents who push monetary and fiscal policies that increase inflation (and nominate Fed leadership that do the same) will get voted out over time.
... as a result of the pandemic...
The US public will not tolerate sustained high inflation. Congresspeople and presidents who push monetary and fiscal policies that increase inflation (and nominate Fed leadership that do the same) will get voted out over time.
Your chart measures a 12 month trailing computation. That number going up does not imply that the month-by-month inflation is actually going up. If that number went up in December all it means is that December 2021 had more inflation than December 2020. It says nothing at all about the relative inflation between November 2021 and December 2021.
Wow I never heard of the "Trinity Study", its a report written 25 years ago by a few guys at a small university I've never heard of. Remember back then bond yields were 5% and inflation was 2%, Clinton was president and the dotcom boom was really starting. Things are very different now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_study
I don't think "things are very different now" is a refutation of the study without providing more specifics. It's also been repeated more recently, with updated data. The 30-year results, I believe, still hold, but as I note, if your retirement horizon is much longer than 30 years, you'll have to be more conservative with your withdrawal rate.
S&P 500 returned ~25% this last year, and 110% over 5 years. That's excluding dividends.
That is actually, quite literally, inflation. It's money depreciating in value relative to stocks and financial products. Just like a burger at the golden arches shooting up in price is inflation, so is the price of a stock. It's probably not _only_ inflation, supply and demand will have caused the majority of this shift, since savers saw their money start evaporating. But that is of itself of course a second order effect of inflation, so I think the point stands.
Sure, but the only kind of inflation that really crushes people living off their investments is stagflation, where increasing prices of goods is not reflected in portfolio sizes. If your investments are growing way faster than the price of goods, there is no problem.
To be fair we are living in a crazy unprecedented strong bull market. It will be interesting to see how this holds.
> That's exclusively a function of your spending and saving rates.
Saving rate is bounded above by your income. It's relevant.
Saving rate is bounded above by your income. It's relevant.
[deleted]
Yes, trivially. But the achievable savings rate depends very much on the absolute value of your salary, for any level of target creature comforts.
Simple is not easy. The vast majority of people like to spend.
Who can blame them? You can take your money to your grave, but what use is it then?
Who can blame them? You can take your money to your grave, but what use is it then?
Never said it's easy. But spending much below your means is the only reasonable path to financial independence and wealth.
I for one don't want to live in a society that exclusively prioritizes now and doesn't sacrifice anything to plan for the future.
"A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit."
I for one don't want to live in a society that exclusively prioritizes now and doesn't sacrifice anything to plan for the future.
"A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit."
It's harder to plant the older you get though.
you might as well ask what's the point of insurance if you never wreck your car. I have some nice things, but none of them bring me as much peace as having a deep buffer for unexpected problems. if I learned that I would die in a month, I wouldn't be sad that I hadn't managed to burn all my money.
I am in the same mindset. I take deep satisfaction that I have something substantial to leave to my kids. I don't want to spend it on me. I don't like to travel, and I don't like "stuff." I have a few hobbies but they are not expensive.
>if I learned that I would die in a month, I wouldn't be sad that I hadn't managed to burn all my money.
I'd probably feel that way too. But I have to ask - how much thought have you really given it? I vaguely remember reading a surprising number of posts from HNW people that regretted not trying certain hobbies / activities when they were young enough fully enjoy them. That saying that no one on their deathbed says their biggest regret is that they didn't work harder, is probably a trope for a reason.
I'd probably feel that way too. But I have to ask - how much thought have you really given it? I vaguely remember reading a surprising number of posts from HNW people that regretted not trying certain hobbies / activities when they were young enough fully enjoy them. That saying that no one on their deathbed says their biggest regret is that they didn't work harder, is probably a trope for a reason.
There's also the fact that most people have to spend. Build your own house? Grow your on food? Most people are buying those.
On $110K income, you could:
- Pay roughly $30K in taxes - Spend $30K, which is close to the median American's individual expenditure - Invest the remaining $50K
At that rate, you can achieve lean FIRE in 15-20 years. So not quite mid-30s, but not far off.
Of course, in a high cost of living area, you might need to spend more than $30K, but you'd also make more than $110K. (For what it's worth, I lived in SF for several years and spent less than $30K annually.)
- Pay roughly $30K in taxes - Spend $30K, which is close to the median American's individual expenditure - Invest the remaining $50K
At that rate, you can achieve lean FIRE in 15-20 years. So not quite mid-30s, but not far off.
Of course, in a high cost of living area, you might need to spend more than $30K, but you'd also make more than $110K. (For what it's worth, I lived in SF for several years and spent less than $30K annually.)
>The median dev salary is $110k
...in the country with the world's highest dev salaries.
...in the country with the world's highest dev salaries.
[deleted]
But, this small subset is what company urges to have. If they are willing to lower down the baseline, there are still quite many engineers around the world.
Exactly. Once your needs and wants are met, every extra dollar can just get saved, and means less time until retirement. For this reason, there is never “a point where the money just isn't a motivating factor anymore.” If you are already comfortable and have the trajectory to retire at 55, why not job hop if only to be able to retire at 45? To me, the only point where moar money is truly useless is the day you retire, and even then, maybe you want to pay for your kid’s college or something?
I think it's rather personal. I never plan to retire. I want to die coding. The extra cash isn't really a motivation. I've quit a job that I sort of liked, to take a job that paid 10k less, but was something I ended up loving. I didn't notice the difference in my spending habits.
> I never plan to retire. I want to die coding.
Yea, but:
1. Do you want to die coding for someone else, on boring enterprisey stuff with bad project managers telling you what to do?
2. What if you physical or mental health degrades when you're older, and you simply can't?
Yea, but:
1. Do you want to die coding for someone else, on boring enterprisey stuff with bad project managers telling you what to do?
2. What if you physical or mental health degrades when you're older, and you simply can't?
I think you have no idea how bad people are with their money even as engineers.
Even a small bleed of a minority retiring early could have huge effects on corporate hiring ability. Especially for senior engineers.
Thanks for writing that. Agreed, many technical people want the spare time and creativity to work on things that interest them. At some point, for those who enjoy intellectual pursuits, time becomes the limiting reagent, not money.
I haven't really seen a whole lot of evidence that there's any stronger correlation between FIRE and engineers compared to other jobs (in fact, many FIRE blogs are from non-eng people).
And conversely, there's plenty of engineers who have kids (hence, very much not FIRE). The vast majority end up going down that route, in fact, at least in my experience.
And conversely, there's plenty of engineers who have kids (hence, very much not FIRE). The vast majority end up going down that route, in fact, at least in my experience.
> in fact, many FIRE blogs are from non-eng people
I don't disagree with your overall point, but I don't think "number of FIRE bloggers who are engineers" is a good proxy for "number of FIRE people who are engineers".
I don't disagree with your overall point, but I don't think "number of FIRE bloggers who are engineers" is a good proxy for "number of FIRE people who are engineers".
Why do you say kids are incompatible with FIRE? They add some expense, but it is not insurmountable with a high income like many senior software engineers enjoy. There are prominent FIRE folks with kids -- e.g., "Mr. Money Mustache."
MMM sells shovels in a goldrush, and got divorced (with relatively young kids) out the blue while selling his white picket fence (albeit a cheap one) lifestyle dream for years. Hardly the one to bring up as an example for a successful FIREee.
I wouldn't go as far as say they're incompatible; I'm sure it's doable. But there's a pretty big difference in believability between the claim that "engineers are much more likely to be FIRE people, to the extent it makes a noticeable difference in the engineering job market, now of all times" vs "FIRE people w/ kids exist, but are outliers among outliers"
Ok, that seems reasonable. I got stuck on "there's plenty of engineers who have kids (hence, very much not FIRE)," which seems like an oversimplification of your views.
> There comes a point where the money just isn't a motivating factor anymore
That's cuz your numbers are too small. Offer a 50% raise instead of a 20k raise and you will see different results.
> Yes I could quit and get a ~20k raise by shopping my resume around, but I don't need the money
Plenty of stories on Blind of people shopping around and going from 150k TC to 350k TC, so I guess it really depends on your situation.
That's cuz your numbers are too small. Offer a 50% raise instead of a 20k raise and you will see different results.
> Yes I could quit and get a ~20k raise by shopping my resume around, but I don't need the money
Plenty of stories on Blind of people shopping around and going from 150k TC to 350k TC, so I guess it really depends on your situation.
This.
Also, those highly paid engineers in other companies might be tired of working on surveillance tech but aren't willing to stomach 50% pay cuts because your company is shooting for "market rate" compensation instead of market clearing compensation.
Also, those highly paid engineers in other companies might be tired of working on surveillance tech but aren't willing to stomach 50% pay cuts because your company is shooting for "market rate" compensation instead of market clearing compensation.
Insight and nuance. Nice.
50% raises are extremely rare to get once you are an established Engineer in my experience. At least if you want to keep the other factors (working time, city etc) and not simply advance by switching to management or similar.
One way is to try switching from a regular industry job to a “giant” such as a FAANG. But these are quite rare in most countries.
Another way would be switching into specific industries like finance - but the high comp there traditionally means giving up some other things such as a guaranteed 40h-or-less workweek. Hard pass from many established engineers.
A third option would be switching to a larger share of non cash comp, but again, equity large bonuses are not commonly part of European comp and comp in traditional industry.
One way is to try switching from a regular industry job to a “giant” such as a FAANG. But these are quite rare in most countries.
Another way would be switching into specific industries like finance - but the high comp there traditionally means giving up some other things such as a guaranteed 40h-or-less workweek. Hard pass from many established engineers.
A third option would be switching to a larger share of non cash comp, but again, equity large bonuses are not commonly part of European comp and comp in traditional industry.
Don't forget to tax out of that. And if they are well compensated to begin with that's at a high tax bracket. And for some of these people, the remaining amount just isn't worth it.
Nah, not for some. I've never made a six figure salary. I have quit jobs in the past that would be six-figure jobs in today's market. They demand too much time and become the central focus of your life and identity. That's not for me.
Maybe so. But if you're not getting wildly underpaid those opportunities are few and far between.
My take: at least in the places where I've been, IT tech in the last ~20 years was dominated by enthusiastic youngsters like me. CS and CS-related fields were the default go-to job in my circles around the '90ies, creating a large surplus. If you wanted a job in the beginning of your career, you had to accept either a crappy job or a low-paying one.
I've never seen in the eurozone the US-style crazy-high 100k+ salaries. In general, here an IT engineer hired fulltime fetches a rate which is comparable to many other regular jobs, and generally lower than other engineering positions. However the churn and stress is much, much higher in my career experience. We joke about JS, but almost everything around the IT has now super-fast refresh cycles which require never-ending honing of your skills just for the sake of it.
That initial candidate surplus is now starting to age and drain. These CS candidates have now a decades-old experience in the current tech stack which is worth gold, but are also tired of the churn. You can still get them, but be prepared to pay them a lot more. Many companies which were founded on entry-level salaries will now see their workforce explode in cost. This is going to be huge with the current inflation in the next 2-5 years, where your average company raise won't cut anymore and you're forced to jump ship to maintain your purchasing power.
The young talent is still there of course, but it's often more specialized than what I remember a few decades ago due to the growth of the field. This means that finding a good fit reduces your pool significantly, unless you accept your candidate will be learning for a long time.
I've never seen in the eurozone the US-style crazy-high 100k+ salaries. In general, here an IT engineer hired fulltime fetches a rate which is comparable to many other regular jobs, and generally lower than other engineering positions. However the churn and stress is much, much higher in my career experience. We joke about JS, but almost everything around the IT has now super-fast refresh cycles which require never-ending honing of your skills just for the sake of it.
That initial candidate surplus is now starting to age and drain. These CS candidates have now a decades-old experience in the current tech stack which is worth gold, but are also tired of the churn. You can still get them, but be prepared to pay them a lot more. Many companies which were founded on entry-level salaries will now see their workforce explode in cost. This is going to be huge with the current inflation in the next 2-5 years, where your average company raise won't cut anymore and you're forced to jump ship to maintain your purchasing power.
The young talent is still there of course, but it's often more specialized than what I remember a few decades ago due to the growth of the field. This means that finding a good fit reduces your pool significantly, unless you accept your candidate will be learning for a long time.
> ...and I imagine I'd be singing a slightly different song if I had kids,
Depending on the person, that may be a good motivator for them to not seek more money, but to seek more time instead. I'm certainly there. I've turned down more money when the position would mean that I was responsible for an awful lot more and it would take time away from my kids. When they're older and possibly out of the house, that may change, but for now? I'd rather have the time than the money because, like you, I have "enough." It's just not a limiting factor at this point in what I care to do, but time is.
Depending on the person, that may be a good motivator for them to not seek more money, but to seek more time instead. I'm certainly there. I've turned down more money when the position would mean that I was responsible for an awful lot more and it would take time away from my kids. When they're older and possibly out of the house, that may change, but for now? I'd rather have the time than the money because, like you, I have "enough." It's just not a limiting factor at this point in what I care to do, but time is.
> "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 by shopping my resume around, but I don't need the money. I have enough for a down payment on a house, I meet my expenses for the month with 1/2 of one paycheck, I can buy a new car on a credit card if I wanted to.
This entire thread is mind-blowingly backwards though it totally explains why we the industry is in this position. It starts with people saying that "they don't need more money" because they can borrow or they can $20k more by shopping around their resume if they need to, followed by people waxing about how $50k-$80k is a decent salary, followed by people saying "no one gets paid $250k out of college"
It is very simple: $20k extra over a period of 52 weeks is extra $384 per week, which is less than extra $10 an hour.
Here's why you cannot hire engineers: you are not paying them enough money.
Engineer: $55k is good if i have <blah blah blah>
Someone who wants to hire him and has no toys: $80k
Engineer: I guess but only if I get to work only really cool projects
Someone who wants to hire him and has shitty projects: $100k
Engineer: And I want to have super smart people working with me
Someone who wants to hire him and does not have smart people as he wants to build a team around this kind of engineer: $150k
Engineer: Yeah, i guess it will work.
Someone who wants to hire him and does not want him to shop around: $170k
Engineer: hell yes! I'm going to unshitty these projects and make people around me smart!
Oh, you don't want to pay $170k/year for an engineer because you think those plebeians should be working for $55k? Well, that's your problem.
P.S. Can't hire at $170k/year? Offer $220/k.
P.P.S. $10k/year is not a raise.
> For many engineers, the answer is: “No.”
> Yes I could quit and get a ~20k raise by shopping my resume around, but I don't need the money. I have enough for a down payment on a house, I meet my expenses for the month with 1/2 of one paycheck, I can buy a new car on a credit card if I wanted to.
This entire thread is mind-blowingly backwards though it totally explains why we the industry is in this position. It starts with people saying that "they don't need more money" because they can borrow or they can $20k more by shopping around their resume if they need to, followed by people waxing about how $50k-$80k is a decent salary, followed by people saying "no one gets paid $250k out of college"
It is very simple: $20k extra over a period of 52 weeks is extra $384 per week, which is less than extra $10 an hour.
Here's why you cannot hire engineers: you are not paying them enough money.
Engineer: $55k is good if i have <blah blah blah>
Someone who wants to hire him and has no toys: $80k
Engineer: I guess but only if I get to work only really cool projects
Someone who wants to hire him and has shitty projects: $100k
Engineer: And I want to have super smart people working with me
Someone who wants to hire him and does not have smart people as he wants to build a team around this kind of engineer: $150k
Engineer: Yeah, i guess it will work.
Someone who wants to hire him and does not want him to shop around: $170k
Engineer: hell yes! I'm going to unshitty these projects and make people around me smart!
Oh, you don't want to pay $170k/year for an engineer because you think those plebeians should be working for $55k? Well, that's your problem.
P.S. Can't hire at $170k/year? Offer $220/k.
P.P.S. $10k/year is not a raise.
Your thinking is so resonating with mine too... Also I'd like to add...
> 3. Some degree of repeatability in work environment.
Instead of the above point, I am looking for...
A place where I make greater impact in a small company working along side ethical people who are not trying to exploit their customers/consumers, rather than a FAAMG where you're replaceable within a few days and follow no ethics just revenue in mind...
A place where managers are accommodating of suggestions just because I write code doesn't mean my ideas about the product/solution aren't worth listening to...
A place where you admire or atleast respect the CEO and the company's business tactics instead of my ex-company whose past CEO is now an "astronaut" just to play a marketing gimmick I guess... :p
Please connect with me if you consider your startup/company is one such place... ;)
> 3. Some degree of repeatability in work environment.
Instead of the above point, I am looking for...
A place where I make greater impact in a small company working along side ethical people who are not trying to exploit their customers/consumers, rather than a FAAMG where you're replaceable within a few days and follow no ethics just revenue in mind...
A place where managers are accommodating of suggestions just because I write code doesn't mean my ideas about the product/solution aren't worth listening to...
A place where you admire or atleast respect the CEO and the company's business tactics instead of my ex-company whose past CEO is now an "astronaut" just to play a marketing gimmick I guess... :p
Please connect with me if you consider your startup/company is one such place... ;)
> > 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 by shopping my resume around, but I don't need the money.
Would you feel the same if you were enticed to switch jobs with offers of 1.5x, 2x or more than what you're currently making?
I think plenty of people would consider leaving their current employer, even with the headaches that comes with doing so, to make 50% to 100%+ over their current compensation package. I know I would.
I agree that engineers might not jump ship for a $10k increase in income, and it seems to me that the market rate for engineers based on current demand isn't captured by offers of $10k to $20k above current salaries. That would suggest that if employers are truly that desperate for engineers, like they say they are, then they'd need to offer more money to outbid their competitors' offers.
Truthfully, I have a feeling that many employers' choices of not offering larger compensation packages to potential employees don't stem not a rational economic choice, but from a feeling that such offers are "too much" for engineers. Some companies would rather not hire, and make less money, than hire new employees at their market rates and profit from their work.
> For many engineers, the answer is: “No.” Yes I could quit and get a ~20k raise by shopping my resume around, but I don't need the money.
Would you feel the same if you were enticed to switch jobs with offers of 1.5x, 2x or more than what you're currently making?
I think plenty of people would consider leaving their current employer, even with the headaches that comes with doing so, to make 50% to 100%+ over their current compensation package. I know I would.
I agree that engineers might not jump ship for a $10k increase in income, and it seems to me that the market rate for engineers based on current demand isn't captured by offers of $10k to $20k above current salaries. That would suggest that if employers are truly that desperate for engineers, like they say they are, then they'd need to offer more money to outbid their competitors' offers.
Truthfully, I have a feeling that many employers' choices of not offering larger compensation packages to potential employees don't stem not a rational economic choice, but from a feeling that such offers are "too much" for engineers. Some companies would rather not hire, and make less money, than hire new employees at their market rates and profit from their work.
Being able to work alongside the people you're solving the problem for is a really great intrinsic motivator. You can be abstracted away quite a bit as an engineer, which makes it so most of your motivations have to come from within and it ends up being quite a narcissitic evaluation of your role. You're not always going to love the problems you're solving, but when you know it's part of a bigger picture you believe in I think that's a huge motivator.
I think most people of working age now have been part of the individualism movement, which leaves us pretty ill-prepared to deal with the feelings of discontent when we finally succeed at "getting ours" and realize it wasn't all that fulfilling. Solving problems that matter to the community you live in, or the greater society you're part of, has so much more intrinsic reward.
I think most people of working age now have been part of the individualism movement, which leaves us pretty ill-prepared to deal with the feelings of discontent when we finally succeed at "getting ours" and realize it wasn't all that fulfilling. Solving problems that matter to the community you live in, or the greater society you're part of, has so much more intrinsic reward.
I've come to this realisation as well. there is a tipping point where the impact we have starts to become a critical factor. when i started in the industry I'm in, I apparently had absolutely no problem being entirely detached from the people I impact. Even not knowing what exactly my value to society was didn't scratch my curiosity. 8y later, I'm desperate for any initiative no matter how small that I get to know who it's helping.
It is now internalised, a strong demotivation happens each time something abstract comes my way, no matter how technically exciting the task is. Something else wroth mentioning, the whole remote work somewhat becomes also a factor against content to be part of a labor community. It's not an issue the first few years, but total remote work for over 5 years has started to make me value proximity to business circles. proximity with my colleagues and proximity with who use whatever we make. there is a sort of guilt that builds up when benefiting from the hard work of the local community to provide physical services (coffee shops, organic food markets, drivers, etc) and have our time spent online contributing to solutions with colleagues and paying users residing thousands of miles away, who only appear to exist as email addresses and occasional faces/voices spit out by a laptop.
It is now internalised, a strong demotivation happens each time something abstract comes my way, no matter how technically exciting the task is. Something else wroth mentioning, the whole remote work somewhat becomes also a factor against content to be part of a labor community. It's not an issue the first few years, but total remote work for over 5 years has started to make me value proximity to business circles. proximity with my colleagues and proximity with who use whatever we make. there is a sort of guilt that builds up when benefiting from the hard work of the local community to provide physical services (coffee shops, organic food markets, drivers, etc) and have our time spent online contributing to solutions with colleagues and paying users residing thousands of miles away, who only appear to exist as email addresses and occasional faces/voices spit out by a laptop.
It's interesting that I came to a very different answer than "many engineers" you quote.
If the money is the same, I'll happily take learning a new skillset, a new org, a new set of expectations. When I had not accumulated enough money early in my career, I consciously had to think about stable income. Now that I have accumulated non-trivial sum of money, I'd happily and readily take new and exciting challenges - i.e. I can take more risks as I can afford to, and I'm willing to take more risks for non-monetary reasons. And if the money is better, even better! Thus, in fact, that's exactly what I did in 2021 - I switched my job.
If the money is the same, I'll happily take learning a new skillset, a new org, a new set of expectations. When I had not accumulated enough money early in my career, I consciously had to think about stable income. Now that I have accumulated non-trivial sum of money, I'd happily and readily take new and exciting challenges - i.e. I can take more risks as I can afford to, and I'm willing to take more risks for non-monetary reasons. And if the money is better, even better! Thus, in fact, that's exactly what I did in 2021 - I switched my job.
I was quite satisfied with the position I was in at the last two companies I left.
All the things you mention matter to me, but I added 50% to my salary on my first jump, then another 110% on my second. All in just over a year.
Money is still my primary driver. It will be until I am fully financially independent. Not just able to live on a FIRE budget of $30k a year, but able to chase my own fairly expensive interests.
You're right, I'm not going to leave for another $10k, but another $100k, sure, and right now that's not that difficult to achieve.
All the things you mention matter to me, but I added 50% to my salary on my first jump, then another 110% on my second. All in just over a year.
Money is still my primary driver. It will be until I am fully financially independent. Not just able to live on a FIRE budget of $30k a year, but able to chase my own fairly expensive interests.
You're right, I'm not going to leave for another $10k, but another $100k, sure, and right now that's not that difficult to achieve.
How many years of experience do you have?
At least one it seems.
About four.
This is classic HN bubble. I would estimate that most software engineers around the world never come into this luxury situation where you can say that money just isn't motivating you anymore when considering new job opportunities.
>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?
Not to mention how much effort has to be put into the interview process, my time is worth money, I'm not giving away minimum 6 hours of it for free if I don't need to.
Not to mention how much effort has to be put into the interview process, my time is worth money, I'm not giving away minimum 6 hours of it for free if I don't need to.
For reasonably dynamic careers and standard way of life (like mine), I feel that there are plateaux in "quality of life".
When you are out of school a change of 1000€ per year means nicer vacation. Go for it.
The same 1000€ is something I would not even consider. I am at a plateau where it requires significantly more money to change your way of life, and the 1000€ would not be perceptible.
Maybe that of you add the "retire early" part it may make sense to optimize your income, but it is too late for me anyway.
When you are out of school a change of 1000€ per year means nicer vacation. Go for it.
The same 1000€ is something I would not even consider. I am at a plateau where it requires significantly more money to change your way of life, and the 1000€ would not be perceptible.
Maybe that of you add the "retire early" part it may make sense to optimize your income, but it is too late for me anyway.
The interesting bit with covid is there are a lot fewer opportunities to spend that money, or opportunities that are less enjoyable.
For say travel or big events or the like. Still, there are many things that are equally or more enjoyable in this new post covid Era, like a jet ski, boat or RV. Depends on what you like doing I suppose.
> There comes a point where the money just isn't a motivating factor anymore,
True. But... When I hear "Best year ever!" But then hear, "Sorry, we can't give more than 3% raises". Someone is getting theirs. I want mine, too! I helped make this the best year ever, in very substantial ways.
True. But... When I hear "Best year ever!" But then hear, "Sorry, we can't give more than 3% raises". Someone is getting theirs. I want mine, too! I helped make this the best year ever, in very substantial ways.
> >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.”
Not too long ago, I was at a Very Large Tech Firm. Base pay was great, and the RSUs were really great. I ended up leaving for a smaller company where IT is considered a cost center. The tech stack isn't all that exciting, total comp is a significant step down, and the only way to stay here and get a substantial raise is to get promoted... but I get along well with the people there, and I don't have to worry about off-hours emergencies. The only companies that might be willing to offer enough for me to take the jump away from that, would likely be a well-capitalized tech firm, of which few have a physical presence here.
Not too long ago, I was at a Very Large Tech Firm. Base pay was great, and the RSUs were really great. I ended up leaving for a smaller company where IT is considered a cost center. The tech stack isn't all that exciting, total comp is a significant step down, and the only way to stay here and get a substantial raise is to get promoted... but I get along well with the people there, and I don't have to worry about off-hours emergencies. The only companies that might be willing to offer enough for me to take the jump away from that, would likely be a well-capitalized tech firm, of which few have a physical presence here.
If you're lucky... "There comes a point where the money just isn't a motivating factor anymore"
Fixed it for you
Fixed it for you
Wishful thinking at best, anchoring the narrative at worst. It is always about compensation (which money is one big part of). Sure, there is some overhead to changing jobs, but if it is all covered people will switch. It is pretty easy to see if one looks in the other direction. Would people who supposedly passionate about their jobs do it for free? If yes, they are either lying or it is not strictly a job. It is always a function of compensation with a capital C, even if it is expected to not be frank about it.
I have kids, well 1 kid, and it still applies if not more so. Is making a bit more worth the stress of changing all of my childcare arrangements? My current job I can clearly state that I have school pickup/dropoff at this time so no meetings. A prospective employer could promise the same flexibility and after the initial 6 month grind I would be comfortable demanding it, but starting a employer/employee relationship that way is much easier said than done.
A 500-3000% increase in salary is different from a 5% increase, agreed.
I would be genuinely amazed if you couldn't fill your positions once you started offering upwards of $1.5m yearly.
I would be genuinely amazed if you couldn't fill your positions once you started offering upwards of $1.5m yearly.
> Is an extra $10k per year worth..
Extra X a year for a couple of year? No.
Extra X a year for the rest of your working life? Yes.
Consider that some employers anchor salaries to previous salaries ala "we won't pay you more than Y more than your previous salary" - so any raise represents an increase in all future offers.
So despite the downsides, working for a couple of years under a new salary has essentially increased your worth in the eyes of the market.
Extra X a year for a couple of year? No.
Extra X a year for the rest of your working life? Yes.
Consider that some employers anchor salaries to previous salaries ala "we won't pay you more than Y more than your previous salary" - so any raise represents an increase in all future offers.
So despite the downsides, working for a couple of years under a new salary has essentially increased your worth in the eyes of the market.
I understand yours and authors view about money, but for some people 10k per year raise is a really good amount. I was recently on that boat, jumped companies for a close to 10k/year raise because that was 1/3 of what I was making in my previous company. Development jobs aren't at all paid in the same scale in the US vs rest of the world (I'm in Europe).
So this. I guess I have had around 17 bosses (direct and dotted line) in around 26 years of I.T., and yeah, there is a point where you hit a kind of pay "glass ceiling" in your region if you are a decent but non-stellar engineer (70-95%ile) such that an extra 10-20k teaser is just not worth leaving a cool/familiar boss/situation for an unfamiliar one.
I'd move jobs if someone I knew and liked through my network wanted to hire me for the right job for a nice increase, but the idea of taking a +20k job with some random boss I have never seen under pressure or on a bad day--no way.
Taking a job when you are older is like buying a house without an inspection--you better really know and like the bones. Who you work for is the #1 factor for me. Nothing worse than hitting 50 and having some hateful blowhard breathing down your neck. Stress just sucks in your 20s and 30s, it can kill in your 40s and 50s.
I'd move jobs if someone I knew and liked through my network wanted to hire me for the right job for a nice increase, but the idea of taking a +20k job with some random boss I have never seen under pressure or on a bad day--no way.
Taking a job when you are older is like buying a house without an inspection--you better really know and like the bones. Who you work for is the #1 factor for me. Nothing worse than hitting 50 and having some hateful blowhard breathing down your neck. Stress just sucks in your 20s and 30s, it can kill in your 40s and 50s.
Plus, as I found out, a $20k pay raise can equate to ~$8k extra in your pocket per year as the upper band tax rate is brutal here.
> 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:
I dunno... maybe for hotshot FAANG jobs?
I mean, I love where I work now, but if some company were to offer me 250k to jump ship, I'd be MIGHTY tempted!
I dunno... maybe for hotshot FAANG jobs?
I mean, I love where I work now, but if some company were to offer me 250k to jump ship, I'd be MIGHTY tempted!
That is how I feel as well. Sure I could increase my salary if I switched jobs and industry (like finance), but do I want to? The recruiter kept harassing me because he could not understand why I would not want to earn 30k more a year. Like you, I also do not have kids, so that makes things much simpler.
If money isn't motivating people, you're not using enough. $10k is not worth learning a new skill, but $100k might be. "Learn Rust and pay for your kids' college in three quarters" sounds more appealing than "Learn Rust and maybe get a nicer trim level on your car"
Weird world you live in! I see endless employers post job postings with specific reqs, and presume engineers cannot learn new languages or skills.
Oh no! You don't code in lang $x, but know 12 other languages? Clearly, you're not a fit for this job!
Oh no! You don't code in lang $x, but know 12 other languages? Clearly, you're not a fit for this job!
I onboarded the concept of 'risk to reward ratio'. If you're a gambling man, you might call this '+EV moves only'. +10/20k is nice (if you need it), but the risk is great in a new team, new environment etc.
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. 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.
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.
10k raise is not worth adding extra anxiety - unless your current job pays so little it will make a difference.
Engineers are severly underpaid that's why money seem irrelevant, because these sums are too small to be.
Also got the whole golden handcuffs thing. Unless a company is going to offer me a $800k signing bonus nothing is worth me change roles for another year and a half.
To add to this. I am already in the 49% tax bracket. So a 10k raise would not be worth learning a new organization and the risk of getting a worse boss.
> I imagine I'd be singing a slightly different song if I had kids
I don't know... as soon as you do the stability of an existing job seems more compelling.
I don't know... as soon as you do the stability of an existing job seems more compelling.
Agree with this idea. Every job promises that it will be the best. But after a few new job experiences, i know how bad it can get. Yeah i could get another 20-50k but the chance its going to be a nightmare again isn't worth the risk I think. Some managers, idk what they're thinking.
Yup this just happened to me for a measly $9k that I could have made working paid overtime in my last gig. It was my time to leave and the right call for other reasons, but I would not have picked this again if things were going well.
Now I’m in a very adversarial relationship with my manager who seems to think $100k is insane compensation, he’s owed the world, and my senior status means I should just know internal processes and make me immune to debugging headaches.
In the past when people struggled with tooling/debugging that was just the way the cookie crumbled. There was sympathy and understanding. Now I work with a jackass that just assumes someone is screwing up, and lashes out at people when things aren’t going well.
Now I’m in a very adversarial relationship with my manager who seems to think $100k is insane compensation, he’s owed the world, and my senior status means I should just know internal processes and make me immune to debugging headaches.
In the past when people struggled with tooling/debugging that was just the way the cookie crumbled. There was sympathy and understanding. Now I work with a jackass that just assumes someone is screwing up, and lashes out at people when things aren’t going well.
>There comes a point where the money just isn't a motivating factor anymore
clearly you've never been poor.
clearly you've never been poor.
the implication is that most people have a limit to how much money they can reasonably spend before they start seeking things other than more money in life.
even a poor person can tell you that an extra $10M in their pocket will be no more life-changing than an extra $1M.
even a poor person can tell you that an extra $10M in their pocket will be no more life-changing than an extra $1M.
I feel like there's a big difference between $10M and $1M. At $10M you're free to no longer work because of high returns from that money, you can effectively never worry about money again and live a comfortable life. At $1M that isn't true, you still need to work full time to maintain quality of life. $10M is obviously more life changing than $1M in terms of opportunities you can safely pursue.
i think it's a sliding scale.
if you were previously living on streets and frequently going hungry, then you can likely sustain yourself very well still without working. 1M translates to 27 years at $3k/month expenses. if you chose to supplement that with work, you can easily double that runway.
obviously it's not the same as $10M, which would allow you and your children to never work again, but jump between that and no food/no shelter is not as significant. for those who already have financial stability, $1M only serves as a safety net or retirement fund and cannot act as an early retirement plan without significant cutbacks, so the jump from 1->10 is significant. in the same way that 10M->100M extra income for Bezos is not gonna change much.
if you were previously living on streets and frequently going hungry, then you can likely sustain yourself very well still without working. 1M translates to 27 years at $3k/month expenses. if you chose to supplement that with work, you can easily double that runway.
obviously it's not the same as $10M, which would allow you and your children to never work again, but jump between that and no food/no shelter is not as significant. for those who already have financial stability, $1M only serves as a safety net or retirement fund and cannot act as an early retirement plan without significant cutbacks, so the jump from 1->10 is significant. in the same way that 10M->100M extra income for Bezos is not gonna change much.
You must live in the sticks or something. I make well over 6 figures and can’t afford a house.
"well over 6 figures". Does this mean "well over $100k" or "well over 999k"?
Usually it means the former.
Do you seriously think people making $1M/yr browse this website
Yes, many such people, including myself, billionaires too. Brian Armstrong, founder of Coinbase [0], Austen Allred [1], Patrick McKenzie is probably at the millionaire level, working at Stripe; there are a lot of entrepreneurs and business people here, this is a site run by a VC of course, not just technologists.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=barmstrong
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=austenallred
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=barmstrong
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=austenallred
There was a guy yesterday that said he's doing four remote swe jobs right now at the same time. Takes roles that he's comfortable with and capable at, gets stuff done and nobody complains. Sounds like he's +1 million. Sort of like a 4x Tim Ferris program.
Something I've learned from Reddit is that people do actually LARP about things like income, even when they're posting anonymously on these kind of forums. This is likely one of those instances. And i don't believe anybody earning 1m+ would take Tim Ferris seriously.
Link if you have it? I’m curious. I’m not surprised people are trying it. While I can definitely see it being possible to get the work done for a while, I can’t imagine how they could avoid meeting conflicts across 4 jobs.
As said on that thread - in many countries, if you're working 4 jobs it's likely fraud or breach of contract, so "hopefully" this person is contracting instead.
Still, it's not "unusual" to outsource your job to somewhere cheaper: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21043693
Still, it's not "unusual" to outsource your job to somewhere cheaper: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21043693
This is unbelievable
[deleted]
Wouldn't this be hugely problematic in terms of NDA's?
yes..... Why would you think they don't? Quite a few tech billionaires comment from time to time; though mostly when it's there company stuff breaking.
A great many L7+ engineers definitely do. Ditto for career managers who don't implement day to day but do their best to keep up.
And I was feeling guilty today for browsing here in working hours hehe.
Yes - still stay connected and inspired.
Easily at least a hundred of them...
Sure you can. You just can't afford a house in 94027.
Maybe not today, if you haven't saved, but if you have no major debt now, there is noplace in the country where six figures won't allow you to buy a house once you have a downpayment. Mortgages are cheaper than rent, and you're presumably living somewhere right now.
What is your definition of house? Does a studio condo count? And how far of a commute are you talking about?
Let's take Mountain View. Looking at "houses" and "townhouses" on Zillow, the cheapest one is this one[1] for $1,295,000. Zillow says the estimated monthly cost is $6,176. I don't think that's possible on a $100k salary once you factor in taxes. Zillow also says the rent "Zestimate" is $3,949/mo, so Zillow thinks it would be cheaper to rent than to buy. One hypothetical reason that renting could be cheaper than buying is that landlords buy for the expected price growth rather than just for the rental income.
> you're presumably living somewhere right now.
Maybe with roommate(s). If you buy 50% or 33% or 25% of a house with your roommate(s), that's not really $100k buying a house, that's $200k or $300k or $400k buying a house.
[1] https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1993-Plymouth-St-APT-8-Mo...
Let's take Mountain View. Looking at "houses" and "townhouses" on Zillow, the cheapest one is this one[1] for $1,295,000. Zillow says the estimated monthly cost is $6,176. I don't think that's possible on a $100k salary once you factor in taxes. Zillow also says the rent "Zestimate" is $3,949/mo, so Zillow thinks it would be cheaper to rent than to buy. One hypothetical reason that renting could be cheaper than buying is that landlords buy for the expected price growth rather than just for the rental income.
> you're presumably living somewhere right now.
Maybe with roommate(s). If you buy 50% or 33% or 25% of a house with your roommate(s), that's not really $100k buying a house, that's $200k or $300k or $400k buying a house.
[1] https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1993-Plymouth-St-APT-8-Mo...
I mean that’s kind of a tautological statement, if you have a huge down payment of course you can buy a house?
My point is that a six figure income makes it possible anywhere. Especially a "well over six" income. Of course you have to save, but it's ridiculous to say it's unaffordable.
What do you consider the sticks?
You nailed it for me. Once I met a certain pay level I just started leveraging for lifestyle. The way to get me to jump to your org is less work for the same pay.
[deleted]
Purely anecdotal: In my experience as a hiring manager seeing trends change over the past 10 years, and selecting from the top 10% of candidates by some vague metric, it's primarily about "does it pay a lot" and secondarily "does it offer full-remote"? A lot of my friends, former colleagues, and candidates I've failed to hire end up going to either a FAANG or a very successful brand-name company (typically a SV company) because
1. The TC is a lot higher, like 1.5-2x.
2. They don't have to move; or they do want to move, just not for a job.
It doesn't matter that the work is boring (really fungible cog low-impact stuff). It doesn't matter if the colleagues are meh. It doesn't matter if the company has a reputation for lay-offs/churn/etc. If you have those two items above, you'll likely have a good hiring success rate.
Even stronger: many of the "fads" (like cool programming languages, toolkits, frameworks, etc.), moral/virtue-discussions du jour (like hating on: FB, crypto, commercial spying apparatus, AMZN work conditions, etc.), etc. also don't appear matter in the large. Someone boycotting AMZN one day will be happy to accept a very healthy salary + benefits package writing legacy Java 6 backend code if it means a good double- or triple-digit percentage in compensatory promotion.
For this thread, I just asked an extremely talented programmer ex-colleague (Linux kernel hacker, expert at C) how his job is at Oracle and why he chose it:
> Ex-Colleague: Funny you ask, because I was stuck on-call over the holidays. I'm basically a plebe to Larry Enterprises. Mostly that and having a side gig. Not writing any cool code for sure.
> Me: Why not go elsewhere where things are a little more interesting for you? You have no shortage of talent.
> Ex-Colleague: Pay is great. Not a lot going on. Not a lot of fuss on the job. I easily own a house and pay a mortgage and have a lot left over. Definitely put in less than 9-5 worth of effort. Probably can retire early at this rate.
This type of attitude doesn't appear to be so uncommon, at least among people I know.
In my case for the company I hire for: Extreme stability (check; been around and stable for ~60 years), excellent work-life balance (check), really cool work (check; cutting edge research and engineering), and really good and diverse colleagues (check; gender balance and representation, stable personalities, highly interdisciplinary skills, sometimes world renowned), open-source and conferences (check), education and 20%-of-9-to-5 time benefits (check). Those things may matter to some extent, but contrary to the article, they don't seem matter as much as an extra $50k to $250k pretax compensation in the bank and being able to do so from a low CoL area at your comfort.
The good news for me at least is that we aren't a mega-growth-kind of company, so we can take our time. Ultimately the candidate that values the above does find us (or we them), considers it a dream job, and tends to stay for 5-25 years.
1. The TC is a lot higher, like 1.5-2x.
2. They don't have to move; or they do want to move, just not for a job.
It doesn't matter that the work is boring (really fungible cog low-impact stuff). It doesn't matter if the colleagues are meh. It doesn't matter if the company has a reputation for lay-offs/churn/etc. If you have those two items above, you'll likely have a good hiring success rate.
Even stronger: many of the "fads" (like cool programming languages, toolkits, frameworks, etc.), moral/virtue-discussions du jour (like hating on: FB, crypto, commercial spying apparatus, AMZN work conditions, etc.), etc. also don't appear matter in the large. Someone boycotting AMZN one day will be happy to accept a very healthy salary + benefits package writing legacy Java 6 backend code if it means a good double- or triple-digit percentage in compensatory promotion.
For this thread, I just asked an extremely talented programmer ex-colleague (Linux kernel hacker, expert at C) how his job is at Oracle and why he chose it:
> Ex-Colleague: Funny you ask, because I was stuck on-call over the holidays. I'm basically a plebe to Larry Enterprises. Mostly that and having a side gig. Not writing any cool code for sure.
> Me: Why not go elsewhere where things are a little more interesting for you? You have no shortage of talent.
> Ex-Colleague: Pay is great. Not a lot going on. Not a lot of fuss on the job. I easily own a house and pay a mortgage and have a lot left over. Definitely put in less than 9-5 worth of effort. Probably can retire early at this rate.
This type of attitude doesn't appear to be so uncommon, at least among people I know.
In my case for the company I hire for: Extreme stability (check; been around and stable for ~60 years), excellent work-life balance (check), really cool work (check; cutting edge research and engineering), and really good and diverse colleagues (check; gender balance and representation, stable personalities, highly interdisciplinary skills, sometimes world renowned), open-source and conferences (check), education and 20%-of-9-to-5 time benefits (check). Those things may matter to some extent, but contrary to the article, they don't seem matter as much as an extra $50k to $250k pretax compensation in the bank and being able to do so from a low CoL area at your comfort.
The good news for me at least is that we aren't a mega-growth-kind of company, so we can take our time. Ultimately the candidate that values the above does find us (or we them), considers it a dream job, and tends to stay for 5-25 years.
I’ve also been recurring for the last 10+ years and can concur with total comp is the #1 factor by far, followed by remote-friendly / remote-first work.
A 3rd factor for me however has always been the tech stack. Engineers I recruit are keenly aware that if they get stuck in a non-modern or too-modern tech stack that it could hurt their future career opportunities.
You can’t just contribute to open source and reach a high level, at least not very quickly very often. They want to jump into a high growth company and contribute to large interesting apps / services that get used in production. Open source is great, but on a resume, it’s nothing like saying you launched an app that handles millions of dollars in transactions, or billions of API requests.
A 3rd factor for me however has always been the tech stack. Engineers I recruit are keenly aware that if they get stuck in a non-modern or too-modern tech stack that it could hurt their future career opportunities.
You can’t just contribute to open source and reach a high level, at least not very quickly very often. They want to jump into a high growth company and contribute to large interesting apps / services that get used in production. Open source is great, but on a resume, it’s nothing like saying you launched an app that handles millions of dollars in transactions, or billions of API requests.
> > Ex-Colleague: Pay is great. Not a lot going on. Not a lot of fuss on the job. I easily own a house and pay a mortgage and have a lot left over. Definitely put in less than 9-5 worth of effort. Probably can retire early at this rate.
The gilded cage.
As you get older, you have seem to have less time. It's some sort of biological illusion, but having to spend time prepping for interviews, running your life, family and so on, means the incentive to move from a very comfortable job to another has to be a lot more than when you were in your 20s.
The gilded cage.
As you get older, you have seem to have less time. It's some sort of biological illusion, but having to spend time prepping for interviews, running your life, family and so on, means the incentive to move from a very comfortable job to another has to be a lot more than when you were in your 20s.
On the flip side, dissatisfaction about engineering work conditions at AMZN (the notorious PIP culture) is a rising deterrent.
I can't say for certain, but it seems there are lots of squeaky wheels about it and lots of chatter on the internet about them, but AMZN/FB/whoever else aren't actually facing any serious repercussions in terms of being able to hire. (I hope I'm wrong, because I do feel there needs to be a moral reckoning about how we technologists—whatever the specific discipline—are contributing to the world, and whether it's truly for the better.)
> I can't say for certain, but it seems there are lots of squeaky wheels about it and lots of chatter on the internet about them, but AMZN/FB/whomever else aren't actually facing any serious repercussions in terms of being able to hire
Trust me - among people who can get those jobs - they are getting less views. Of the people I know in SV - and I know a few - all have very unfavorable views of Amazon and working there. People only take it as a stepping stone or last resort. The top experienced candidates who are able to get offers from most companies are not going to Amazon these days. I haven't seen any of the people I know who are good engineers go to Amazon. And - I mean - I am with them. I am at a place that is known to work their engineers to death as well and I'm getting too much shit thrown down at me. But I'm here because I needed this as a stepping stone for rep before I can find a better place that'll let me coast as a staff eng instead of churning through one hellish startup one after another.
Trust me - among people who can get those jobs - they are getting less views. Of the people I know in SV - and I know a few - all have very unfavorable views of Amazon and working there. People only take it as a stepping stone or last resort. The top experienced candidates who are able to get offers from most companies are not going to Amazon these days. I haven't seen any of the people I know who are good engineers go to Amazon. And - I mean - I am with them. I am at a place that is known to work their engineers to death as well and I'm getting too much shit thrown down at me. But I'm here because I needed this as a stepping stone for rep before I can find a better place that'll let me coast as a staff eng instead of churning through one hellish startup one after another.
Curious where youre at? Hope it works out for you, and it sounds like you already know this, but it all comes down to leetcode. So dont kill yourself learning "programming", companies only want leetcode medium perfection. Slack at the job, do not slack on the algos
This might be accurate but it’s…bleak? I genuinely hope you do get what you’re looking for.
I think amazon is absolutely facing pressure from word getting out about working conditions. They raised their pay band for a middle level engineer 100k.
You'd think it would be cheaper for them to just improve working conditions.
So much of "working conditions" are habits and culture. Changing those is a lot harder than installing new lighting or safety guards. Worth it? yes, but there is lag time.
It’d also likely require change from the top down - which is never happening. They’d rather pay people more than change their own behavior.
But they don't want to. The working conditions that everyone rags on about there are a feature for them, not a bug.
That's a great point and corroborates other stories I've heard about increasing mid-level pay. It does continue to support the thesis that is (in simplified form) "everybody has a number".
I don't know about FB, but I think the fact that Amazon's sourcers are shotgun shelling every warm body with a modicum of engineering experience says something about how difficult their hiring is.
Anecdotally, I get offers to come interview for roles in different countries for Amazon, Facebook etc, like in sure most of us do.
I politely say no every time not giving any reason other than I don't want to relocate for the job, but the reality is I don't want to either work at that company due to the horrible things they are doing or the horrible reputation of the working environment.
I've asked other engineers if they have similar requests and they do and the reject for the same reasons I do.
I politely say no every time not giving any reason other than I don't want to relocate for the job, but the reality is I don't want to either work at that company due to the horrible things they are doing or the horrible reputation of the working environment.
I've asked other engineers if they have similar requests and they do and the reject for the same reasons I do.
Same here. I don't even bother reading the Amazon or Facebook recruiting emails anymore. It's not literally true that "you couldn't pay me enough to work there" (you totally could) -- but they're not offering nearly enough to overcome my aversion.
FB definitely has been struggling, see https://www.protocol.com/workplace/facebook-docs-hiring-recr... with leaked internal docs describing it.
One of my friends said: "In this market good people can choose where they want to work, but even the bad ones can choose where they don't want to work"
Is dissatisfaction with PIP dissatisfaction with work conditions? I thought it was dissatisfaction with job security and the knowledge that your job was less dependent on your work than on political games your manager had to play on your behalf.
I was looking for this comment. The OP and the current top comment seem to think that many engineers wouldn't jump for 10-20K increases. While that is true if they are in a good role, many salary increases from jumping are high double digits right now.
Compensation, WLB, and benefits matter FAR FAR more for the majority of people than "good projects" or "smart colleagues". If you want those and can't get it in your job, well that's what open source work is for.
Compensation, WLB, and benefits matter FAR FAR more for the majority of people than "good projects" or "smart colleagues". If you want those and can't get it in your job, well that's what open source work is for.
One other thing - in evaluating a new role, the thing I can be SURE of...is comp. Everything else is a nicety, but I can't rely on it.
So if I'm looking to jump...well, either my current environment isn't great, or the salary is enough to attract me. There is no situation where my current environment is good, and you offer me a salary comparable to what I'm making, and I would make the jump, because you are a -complete unknown-.
So you can talk to me about the brilliance of my colleagues, the amazing projects, the great work/life balance, the autonomy to work on what matters in the most efficient way possible...and all of that might be true. Or it might not be. I've been lied to by hiring managers in the past, both intentionally and unintentionally. But ultimately the only thing I can truly rely on, that is protected by law, is compensation.
So if I'm looking to jump...well, either my current environment isn't great, or the salary is enough to attract me. There is no situation where my current environment is good, and you offer me a salary comparable to what I'm making, and I would make the jump, because you are a -complete unknown-.
So you can talk to me about the brilliance of my colleagues, the amazing projects, the great work/life balance, the autonomy to work on what matters in the most efficient way possible...and all of that might be true. Or it might not be. I've been lied to by hiring managers in the past, both intentionally and unintentionally. But ultimately the only thing I can truly rely on, that is protected by law, is compensation.
> But ultimately the only thing I can truly rely on, that is protected by law, is compensation.
In some countries, the working time is also protected by law, hence your hourly wage as well, which makes it easier to compare offers. Too many people focus on the TC without realizing that working 2x the time for 1.5x the pay is often not worth it.
In some countries, the working time is also protected by law, hence your hourly wage as well, which makes it easier to compare offers. Too many people focus on the TC without realizing that working 2x the time for 1.5x the pay is often not worth it.
Fair point; in the US any of these roles will be salaried and exempt, so actual hours will be up in the air.
> "good projects" or "smart colleagues"
Those are very very good for retaining people you already have though, so while not super important for hiring they are important for keeping the folks you hired (after all, what is the point if you keep losing people you hire).
> If you want those and can't get it in your job, well that's what open source work is for.
Not necessarily. If your area of interest aligns with your work then even open source work is more productive if you have a use case for it. For example - say my interest is distributed systems, then technically my work will have more impact if it is being used on large clusters with large number of concurrent systems. Open source does not happen in vacuum.
Those are very very good for retaining people you already have though, so while not super important for hiring they are important for keeping the folks you hired (after all, what is the point if you keep losing people you hire).
> If you want those and can't get it in your job, well that's what open source work is for.
Not necessarily. If your area of interest aligns with your work then even open source work is more productive if you have a use case for it. For example - say my interest is distributed systems, then technically my work will have more impact if it is being used on large clusters with large number of concurrent systems. Open source does not happen in vacuum.
I refused a 30k increase due to a bad commute.
I think that "pay a lot" and "full remote" are basically the dream for anyone who's currently responsible for supporting a family. Your company sounds like it offers some great things, but those things would be much more valuable to single and empty-nest folks. At this point in my own life, with four growing kids and an overwhelmed spouse, I don't have the luxury of being able to trade time and money for "really cool work."
It's actually the opposite. While the company I work for doesn't do remote, the absolutely rock-solid stability and superb work-life balance alone attract people who support families and people with mortgages. The average age is also a lot higher, since we have zero qualm interviewing people with 25+ years of unfashionable industry experience. Their family—husband, wife, kids, pet cat—can basically always depend on them being there outside of standard work hours. We don't even allow work to be on people's personal devices, including cell phones, so no off-hours Slack or email buzzes.
Most of my colleagues have children or grand-children, and have been working here for at least 10 years.
Many, many middle aged people with families actually say they prefer the office because it's impossible to get any work done at home with 4 kids. That may be a consequence of their home or their family, but it's what I hear very frequently. In any case, we have a WFH policy, so we are very flexible and accommodating to family needs.
Statistically, fresh college grads vying for excellent resume decor aren't attracted to stability, 401k's, etc. So we see proportionally fewer.
Most of my colleagues have children or grand-children, and have been working here for at least 10 years.
Many, many middle aged people with families actually say they prefer the office because it's impossible to get any work done at home with 4 kids. That may be a consequence of their home or their family, but it's what I hear very frequently. In any case, we have a WFH policy, so we are very flexible and accommodating to family needs.
Statistically, fresh college grads vying for excellent resume decor aren't attracted to stability, 401k's, etc. So we see proportionally fewer.
Good points. There's more to work-life balance than just being able to work remotely and save time with no commute, getting chores done in parallel at home, etc. There are definitely organizations that will burn you out while you work from home.
> Many, many middle aged people with families actually say they prefer the office because it's impossible to get any work done at home with 4 kids
The kids are supposed to be at school pretty much during the same office hours, so I am not sure what you mean. There may be more or less 1 hour of overlap in the morning and late afternoon but that's about it. Morning is usually the times I go through my emails and schedules so I can do that while the kids are taking breakfast and preparing themselves, when they come back home I give them a snack and ask them to do their homework. Sure there is the occasionnal arguig between each other but that is only covering a tiny fraction of my work time. I definitely trade that tiny parenting time against commuting time and I'd rather be at home than finding out they burned the house while I was at the office.
The kids are supposed to be at school pretty much during the same office hours, so I am not sure what you mean. There may be more or less 1 hour of overlap in the morning and late afternoon but that's about it. Morning is usually the times I go through my emails and schedules so I can do that while the kids are taking breakfast and preparing themselves, when they come back home I give them a snack and ask them to do their homework. Sure there is the occasionnal arguig between each other but that is only covering a tiny fraction of my work time. I definitely trade that tiny parenting time against commuting time and I'd rather be at home than finding out they burned the house while I was at the office.
I really wish hiring managers understood that there's a second class of people who value #2 over #1 a lot more. Last time I worked as an employee I was making ~$175k TC (which is apparently a entry level salary these days) and completely miserable commuting 1 hour each way on Bart every day. I'd happily take a $75k fully remote job now that I've lived in the middle of nowhere and found that I like it very much.
I worked my normal week and 1/1-1/2. Now I'm officially on call for the next 7 days. I'm a midlevel with 10 years experience making under $100k. Fml
It's an under-discussed topic that this apparent utopia isn't available to everyone. Race, gender presentation, academic background, country of residence or origin, Twitter blue-check, etc. all seem to be correlated (no numbers; purely anecdotal) to those who enjoy (or don't) this utopia. Being masterfully technical, social, or political have a lot to do with it too, it seems.
> Being masterfully either technically, socially, or politically have a lot to do with it too, it seems.
I don't think you need to be a master to get more money. What I have noticed as a hiring manager/tech lead is candidates/team members fall into either asking for more money or not.
I have guys on my team who if they asked for money I could easily add 20 - 50k to their salary. But they don't, they also don't shop themselves about. They're low risk of jumping ship and if they do, I can offer them a huge amount to stay or with the savings I have made over the years I can replace them at market rates, suffer the disruption of introducing a new team member and still be ahead.
I luckily learnt early on the best thing to do for your career is just ask for more money. Every 6 months I ask for a pay rise. I don't always get it and if I don't I ask 'what do I need to do get more money'. Your boss should be able to tell you what you need to do to justify another 10 - 20k to your salary
I don't think you need to be a master to get more money. What I have noticed as a hiring manager/tech lead is candidates/team members fall into either asking for more money or not.
I have guys on my team who if they asked for money I could easily add 20 - 50k to their salary. But they don't, they also don't shop themselves about. They're low risk of jumping ship and if they do, I can offer them a huge amount to stay or with the savings I have made over the years I can replace them at market rates, suffer the disruption of introducing a new team member and still be ahead.
I luckily learnt early on the best thing to do for your career is just ask for more money. Every 6 months I ask for a pay rise. I don't always get it and if I don't I ask 'what do I need to do get more money'. Your boss should be able to tell you what you need to do to justify another 10 - 20k to your salary
Allow me to give a slightly different perspective. When engineers are consistently outperforming their wage, I immediately recognize that with an unsolicited pay increase to match their performance. This has always been met with appreciation, as it demonstrates both that outperformance is actively recognized and rewarded, and secondarily that management is looking out for the benefit of the employees. This has positive cultural impact.
This is more or less difficult depending on the company. In a few cases, I had to go to war with HR to get a deserving employee a raise who deserved it but hadn't asked for it. Other companies have processes that are highly amenable to it.
In many cases, if employees have to ask for more money when they've earned it then it is a management failure.
This is more or less difficult depending on the company. In a few cases, I had to go to war with HR to get a deserving employee a raise who deserved it but hadn't asked for it. Other companies have processes that are highly amenable to it.
In many cases, if employees have to ask for more money when they've earned it then it is a management failure.
I understand this management philosophy well, but it’s also very dangerous because you risk hiring people like me, who share salary information with everyone that wants to.
A few decades ago I started working at a place where a couple of really talented people had never asked for a raise. I negotiated indirectly by talking about better opportunities and head hunters with my boss as well as asking for more pay. I got it every year. After a couple of years someone asked me what I was making and it turned out I was making a significantly amount more money than a lot of the senior staff members.
This was very nice for the budgets, but it eventually lead to everyone important to the department finding new jobs over a period of five years. When I stated it was a great place to work with really talented people, when I left it wasn’t because the talent had left and management had a really hard time convincing their managers that they needed to up the starting wages, because the budget had been just fine for so long.
This is very anecdotal of course, but underpaying technicians for years can be a very dangerous strategy under the right circumstances.
A few decades ago I started working at a place where a couple of really talented people had never asked for a raise. I negotiated indirectly by talking about better opportunities and head hunters with my boss as well as asking for more pay. I got it every year. After a couple of years someone asked me what I was making and it turned out I was making a significantly amount more money than a lot of the senior staff members.
This was very nice for the budgets, but it eventually lead to everyone important to the department finding new jobs over a period of five years. When I stated it was a great place to work with really talented people, when I left it wasn’t because the talent had left and management had a really hard time convincing their managers that they needed to up the starting wages, because the budget had been just fine for so long.
This is very anecdotal of course, but underpaying technicians for years can be a very dangerous strategy under the right circumstances.
Just as the tools and processes in building a product must be documented and improved over time ... so too must the compensations of the employees be improved, documented via employee handbooks, and communicated by culture that "if our business succeeds - you will succeed for it is written!"
and the talented, who are focused on their craft - will feel that the company will take care of them _as a matter of course_.
If the talent feels a Quality of Life upgrading process is met - then they will stop wondering how green the grass is somewhere else. Then and only then will the business be ready to foster a culture of mentorship, collaboration, and documentation from Senior to Junior.
It makes me very sad to see a junior developer I had taken onto my team at my last company 3 years ago - a budding talent in systems who didn't know how to ask for help - is still considered a "junior developer." if you don't know how to give people hope don't be surprised if they're hopeless.
and the talented, who are focused on their craft - will feel that the company will take care of them _as a matter of course_.
If the talent feels a Quality of Life upgrading process is met - then they will stop wondering how green the grass is somewhere else. Then and only then will the business be ready to foster a culture of mentorship, collaboration, and documentation from Senior to Junior.
It makes me very sad to see a junior developer I had taken onto my team at my last company 3 years ago - a budding talent in systems who didn't know how to ask for help - is still considered a "junior developer." if you don't know how to give people hope don't be surprised if they're hopeless.
I think maneuvering a pay discussion and "shopping yourself around" qualify to me as being somewhat masterful both socially and politically. Especially if you're just plain average at your job and have no successes of note. I do agree more people could get more money by asking, but what turns many off to doing that is what to do in the face of rejection.
This just feel unjust for me.
It bothers me to see a coworker getting underpaid just because they have certain personality traits (that are unrelated to their actual work).
I will be less likely to stay at such a place, even if for me personally the pay is fine.
It bothers me to see a coworker getting underpaid just because they have certain personality traits (that are unrelated to their actual work).
I will be less likely to stay at such a place, even if for me personally the pay is fine.
One thing to realize is that a manager has a lot of things to consider for their job in totality. Hiring, planning, documenting, budgeting, retention, lateral and upward management, team stability, etc. I'm not suggesting to be apologetic to them, but at most places, a manager has to put up a bit of a fight to get a significant raise for a subordinate. Even more so if it's out of salary band. Even more so if it's out of cycle. Most managers know their budget of political capital, and know the abstract cost on getting someone a raise out of thin air, and many feel it's squandering.
If a manager is just plainly average at their job, then they'll probably prioritize what is very clearly and evidently an issue/task for them to do, which is usually what their boss is asking them to do, for better or for worse.
So it's not that a manager is being deeply unethical and withholding promotion potential because they're evil, they just may not see it as a priority among everything else they have to do, especially if the subordinate in question appears happy and fulfilled.
I agree with some others here. To really ensure you're being paid fairly as an employee, you do have to normalize making it a discussion with your boss. If it's a priority for you, it'll more likely be a priority for them, assuming they look at you in favorable light.
If a manager is just plainly average at their job, then they'll probably prioritize what is very clearly and evidently an issue/task for them to do, which is usually what their boss is asking them to do, for better or for worse.
So it's not that a manager is being deeply unethical and withholding promotion potential because they're evil, they just may not see it as a priority among everything else they have to do, especially if the subordinate in question appears happy and fulfilled.
I agree with some others here. To really ensure you're being paid fairly as an employee, you do have to normalize making it a discussion with your boss. If it's a priority for you, it'll more likely be a priority for them, assuming they look at you in favorable light.
I wouldn't blame anyone personally, but it is what it is. If eventually, this is what's happening often, then the workplace feels unjust to me. It doesn't matter if the cause is some manager, HR, CEO, etc.,.
(Sometimes I imagine it can even be the cultural impact of somebody that already left the company...)
> I have guys on my team who if they asked for money I could easily add 20 - 50k to their salary. But they don't
Give them a raise, proactively.
Give them a raise, proactively.
I apparently check the right boxes. I just suck at life.
Hey random Internet stranger. Don't feel terrible. I have a CS PhD, work in AI, have a fancy job title and decent resume ..yet, I am not making anywhere close to these crazy numbers. I painted myself into a bad corner and am somehow stuck. I work crazy hours to keep myself up to date so I can get myself unstuck. I think most engineers are not making 300K-500K .. it is a bit like social media .. you just hear about the winners and not the losers. Also, the stock market was up like crazy in the last 2 years .. I think this accounts for some of the insane numbers we are seeing, people retiring, etc. The biggest mistake I made is my job doesn't give me shares/RSUs, etc. It was somewhat obvious that this was a problem but it wasn't terrible until most major tech companies did a x3 in 1 year. This was a 1 time lottery I missed (and I suspect many others did too). Things could have gone the other way too (I graduated from my PhD in 2008 and recall how terrible those days were).
Lottery tickets don't always pay off either.
I make... nowhere near 300k-500k. But I got decently lucky with a startup earlier in my career. And a bit later I got some hefty bonuses at another company.
But that hasn't really happened the last, say, 8 years. If I kept hitting that luck, I could have been around 500k/year average total comp. But I didn't and I'm not in the 300k+ club.
I make... nowhere near 300k-500k. But I got decently lucky with a startup earlier in my career. And a bit later I got some hefty bonuses at another company.
But that hasn't really happened the last, say, 8 years. If I kept hitting that luck, I could have been around 500k/year average total comp. But I didn't and I'm not in the 300k+ club.
You are just one conversation away from changing it. Either with your current manager or your next one. Have no fear!
this. AI is such a hot market, with a phd you may double your comp in one move, or, absolutely get your current employer to give a significant raise every 6 months to keep you.
[deleted]
You’re being too hard on yourself.
You suck at interviewing, you suck at applying to high-paying jobs, or you don’t live near high-paying jobs.
You suck at interviewing, you suck at applying to high-paying jobs, or you don’t live near high-paying jobs.
I got about a 4.5% effective pay cut this year. I'm 10 years in with an MS and I'm only a midlevel making under $100k. I don't think those excuses apply.
None of that has any bearing on what I said. If anything, having an MS and mid-level experience only make it easier for you than most.
But you’ve been complaining about your job for months and you’re still there. And you talk about all other jobs like they’re beneath you.
But you’ve been complaining about your job for months and you’re still there. And you talk about all other jobs like they’re beneath you.
"And you talk about all other jobs like they’re beneath you."
Source? I haven't said any jobs are beneath me.
"only make it easier for you"
Basically what I'm saying - I don't suck at interviewing etc. There aren't many high paying jobs in my area. I do just generally suck.
Source? I haven't said any jobs are beneath me.
"only make it easier for you"
Basically what I'm saying - I don't suck at interviewing etc. There aren't many high paying jobs in my area. I do just generally suck.
Alright, you convinced me.
[deleted]
I'm not a US person. Is it common to see a 50-100% pay raise on switching jobs?
Sure if you pay me twice my current salary, I will probably do whatever you ask me to without complaint. But around here such a big pay increase would be a fantasy.
Sure if you pay me twice my current salary, I will probably do whatever you ask me to without complaint. But around here such a big pay increase would be a fantasy.
HN really exaggerates these things.
The mythical 50-100% pay bump can happen if you’re making the leap from some local, no-name small business to a FAANG type job, but it’s not like you can continue repeating that over and over again. It’s kind of a one-time leap that people make from average jobs to top paying jobs. Going into the $500K type jobs isn’t as automatic as people here like to make it sound, unless you’re looking at people who started at rocket ship startups before the stock took off. Even those engineers struggle to get back to those compensation levels when the dust settles and their RSUs go back to normal.
It’s also not as common to find remote work combined with sky-high salaries as HN suggests some times. While I do know a lot of people with remote FAANG jobs, it wasn’t easy. Basically years of working their way specifically into those positions with hard work and building a reputation to warrant it.
The mythical 50-100% pay bump can happen if you’re making the leap from some local, no-name small business to a FAANG type job, but it’s not like you can continue repeating that over and over again. It’s kind of a one-time leap that people make from average jobs to top paying jobs. Going into the $500K type jobs isn’t as automatic as people here like to make it sound, unless you’re looking at people who started at rocket ship startups before the stock took off. Even those engineers struggle to get back to those compensation levels when the dust settles and their RSUs go back to normal.
It’s also not as common to find remote work combined with sky-high salaries as HN suggests some times. While I do know a lot of people with remote FAANG jobs, it wasn’t easy. Basically years of working their way specifically into those positions with hard work and building a reputation to warrant it.
> While I do know a lot of people with remote FAANG jobs, it wasn’t easy. Basically years of working their way specifically into those positions with hard work and building a reputation to warrant it.
This _used_ to be true. Post-Covid, many (all?) FAANGs offer remote to almost anyone requesting it.
This _used_ to be true. Post-Covid, many (all?) FAANGs offer remote to almost anyone requesting it.
It's not common, no, unless you're going to a FAANG-like or extremely well-funded startup and are in a favorable negotiating position. The big numbers typically come from stock compensation; base salaries rarely soar.
I'd say 20% is more likely and considered significant.
I'd say 20% is more likely and considered significant.
It depends but it is not uncommon in certain fields (only computer adjacent fields are growing like this in the US). At lower levels for high performing individuals in FAANG adjacent areas it is very doable. Having spent a good portion of my twenties massively underpaid it was pretty easy to double pay a few times over but it helps to start 50% below the median. Moreover a company will not give you pay increases while you work there that are commensurate with the market rate. A job swap is the primary way to realize the benefits of personal growth and a rapidly ballooning market.
There are differences on that order of magnitude between tier 2 and tier 1 employers at the same seniority, and between different seniority levels. So yes these bumps exist, but it’s not like they stack repeatedly if you switch 4 times.
Re: Amazon, I think most of other faang or establishing growing company employees usually don't even response to amazon recruiter which seriously limits their capability to hire even if the comp was going to be very high, there is no way to convey the pay increase they'd get until they respond.
Can confirm. I've set up a filter for amazon recruiters and haven't looked at it since. I don't find them worthwhile to respond.
> This type of attitude doesn't appear to be so uncommon, at least among people I know.
It's my case too. I worked until 40 with a great job doing cool things, with a lot of free time. I'm not materialistic at all, don't care about wealth, social status and stuff. Yet, I started worrying for my retirement and savings, wasn't able to buy a house. Now I work for a FAANG for 5 times my previous salary. It's not easy, I don't always adhere to the company's values, oncalls suck, it's a lot about patching broken systems I didn't build. But money is important.
It's my case too. I worked until 40 with a great job doing cool things, with a lot of free time. I'm not materialistic at all, don't care about wealth, social status and stuff. Yet, I started worrying for my retirement and savings, wasn't able to buy a house. Now I work for a FAANG for 5 times my previous salary. It's not easy, I don't always adhere to the company's values, oncalls suck, it's a lot about patching broken systems I didn't build. But money is important.
> Someone boycotting AMZN one day will be happy to accept a very healthy salary + benefits package writing legacy Java 6 backend code if it means a good double- or triple-digit percentage in compensatory promotion
Unlikely these are the same people tbh
Unlikely these are the same people tbh
It could simply be extremely small sample size, but I know 5 (!!) people personally who fall into this intersection. All of them are quite talented. All jumped ship from meh-paying start-ups to a high-paying role at AMZN after railing on AMZN the years prior for being an awful company. One of them even took a department leadership role (or whatever the title equivalent is) and cited a 3x increase in TC.
It could be that their disdain for AMZN was disingenuous virtue-signaling (supporting your thesis), or it could mean the money is just simply the trump card to their personal ethics (supporting my thesis).
It could be that their disdain for AMZN was disingenuous virtue-signaling (supporting your thesis), or it could mean the money is just simply the trump card to their personal ethics (supporting my thesis).
Amazon is not so far ahead in comp that the type of dev being talked about has to go with them for a given TC. Until the last few months Amazon was barely competitive in FAANG, it's a very recent development that they've started shoveling money into offers.
So you could always go to another company competing with them for talent with a given offer and (assuming you performed well enough to justify it) you'd have no problem getting something similar. If there was a gap in comp after that you'd be talking single digit percentages, nothing near 3x.
-
For most people in my circles Amazon is no longer a realistic choice for anything than using as a competing offer at a place like Google (which is known to lowball you without a competing offer).
And it's not even a philosophical or moral issue: Amazon just has a terrible reputation now due to URA/Focus shenanigans, on-call nightmare stories, etc... why go with the "worst-in-class" employer?
If you're good enough to get Amazon to give you some band busting offer, some other FAANG company likely will too and you just go with them. Amazon doesn't even have exciting work or prestige compared to the others anyways, so it's not like you're giving up some intangible benefit...
So you could always go to another company competing with them for talent with a given offer and (assuming you performed well enough to justify it) you'd have no problem getting something similar. If there was a gap in comp after that you'd be talking single digit percentages, nothing near 3x.
-
For most people in my circles Amazon is no longer a realistic choice for anything than using as a competing offer at a place like Google (which is known to lowball you without a competing offer).
And it's not even a philosophical or moral issue: Amazon just has a terrible reputation now due to URA/Focus shenanigans, on-call nightmare stories, etc... why go with the "worst-in-class" employer?
If you're good enough to get Amazon to give you some band busting offer, some other FAANG company likely will too and you just go with them. Amazon doesn't even have exciting work or prestige compared to the others anyways, so it's not like you're giving up some intangible benefit...
"Just simply get a competitive job offer from the revolving doors of the top-10 top-paying companies and you won't see a 3x increase" is absolutely true, but only useful if you're talking about employees of these revolving door companies. If your getting a TC of 180k at a startup that gave you options of no value, and you score a high enough position at AMZN (as apparently this ex-colleague of mine did), then seeing total comp over 4 years exceeding 550k/year—while perhaps not the norm—is totally possible.
It could be argued that $180k is not a fair number to judge a 3x increase on for the reason you state, but it is what it is, this is a real salary that real people get paid. Not everybody flocks to FAANG as their first career move.
It could be argued that $180k is not a fair number to judge a 3x increase on for the reason you state, but it is what it is, this is a real salary that real people get paid. Not everybody flocks to FAANG as their first career move.
The whole point is if you're getting a TC of 180k at a startup and Amazon offers you 550k/year, Facebook, Apple, Netflix and Google are all likely to do similar numbers.
You don't have to already be working at one.
In fact a good number of companies are likely to be closer to 550k/year than 180k since they're also aware they need to compete with FAANG offers.
-
Meanwhile Amazon is not particularly easier to join than the rest of FAANG (modulo the specific team), they're not particularly more prestigious than the rest of FAANG, the work is not particularly more exciting than the rest of FAANG... meanwhile the culture aspect is a huge negative outlier.
Amazon almost has this cartoonish level of negativity hovering over it ever since things like URA and Focus have slowly come out to actually as real things... between all that and the on-call and the general work you'll be doing, it's just not an amazing choice.
You don't have to already be working at one.
In fact a good number of companies are likely to be closer to 550k/year than 180k since they're also aware they need to compete with FAANG offers.
-
Meanwhile Amazon is not particularly easier to join than the rest of FAANG (modulo the specific team), they're not particularly more prestigious than the rest of FAANG, the work is not particularly more exciting than the rest of FAANG... meanwhile the culture aspect is a huge negative outlier.
Amazon almost has this cartoonish level of negativity hovering over it ever since things like URA and Focus have slowly come out to actually as real things... between all that and the on-call and the general work you'll be doing, it's just not an amazing choice.
How long are they going to last?
Also, are they working on Java 6?
These are important questions because Amazon pays 300K for Rust. That seems like a combo that makes folks wonder maybe let's give them a shot, right?
Also, are they working on Java 6?
These are important questions because Amazon pays 300K for Rust. That seems like a combo that makes folks wonder maybe let's give them a shot, right?
This is true, these specific individuals not writing Java 6. Three of the five are doing something along similar lines of what you describe: a cool stack + a cool problem that indeed made them say, "let's give them a shot."
I don't think it has to be one or the other. I know people who wouldn't work at certain companies and a lot who are working at those companies while holding their nose to get their paychecks.
Turns out financial + lifestyle security is a good antiethical motivator
Turns out financial + lifestyle security is a good antiethical motivator
I think the trick here is that there's definitely a break point in TC that can buy someone's boredom. Sort of the inverse of "fuck you" money. Call it.. "fuck it" money.
Any chance you can say where you work? Because that sounds kind of like a dream job to me, haha.
Not publicly (prefer to keep work and personal presence delineated), but if you can relocate to SoCal and you're a US citizen, you can send me an email.
[deleted]
I think there's something else that's necessary that doesn't align well with the things in the article, and which is currently lacking in my current work environment, but which is kind of hard to describe succinctly.
Basically, my job requires using a lot of tools and technology and processes created by other people, but none of those tools are easy to use or well documented. In order to get stuff done you have to have a social network of people who know how to do the things you need to do, and know all the secret tricks. The right environment variables to set. The right arguments to pass to simulators. How to find the important bit of data buried webapp developed by people who apparently like to invent new words for old concepts. I get a lot of terse autogenerated emails that probably mean something to somebody, but not to me, and don't have human return addresses or really any way to discern the context of where they came from or why. A lot of tools use domain-specific configuration languages that are usually just python scripts that call a bunch of functions that are defined elsewhere and have no documentation.
These things might be reasonable in a startup with a dozen people, but we have over a hundred thousand. My opinion is that once an organization is a certain size, everything really needs to be written down and easily accessible. I shouldn't have to regularly ask people how to do basic things, it should be on a wiki. If it's complicated, it should be in a training video, or a user manual.
Basically, my job requires using a lot of tools and technology and processes created by other people, but none of those tools are easy to use or well documented. In order to get stuff done you have to have a social network of people who know how to do the things you need to do, and know all the secret tricks. The right environment variables to set. The right arguments to pass to simulators. How to find the important bit of data buried webapp developed by people who apparently like to invent new words for old concepts. I get a lot of terse autogenerated emails that probably mean something to somebody, but not to me, and don't have human return addresses or really any way to discern the context of where they came from or why. A lot of tools use domain-specific configuration languages that are usually just python scripts that call a bunch of functions that are defined elsewhere and have no documentation.
These things might be reasonable in a startup with a dozen people, but we have over a hundred thousand. My opinion is that once an organization is a certain size, everything really needs to be written down and easily accessible. I shouldn't have to regularly ask people how to do basic things, it should be on a wiki. If it's complicated, it should be in a training video, or a user manual.
> These things might be reasonable in a startup with a dozen people, but we have over a hundred thousand. My opinion is that once an organization is a certain size, everything really needs to be written down and easily accessible. I shouldn't have to regularly ask people how to do basic things, it should be on a wiki. If it's complicated, it should be in a training video, or a user manual.
Here's the root cause of your bug:
https://agilemanifesto.org/
> Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
> Working software over comprehensive documentation
I remember when my employer adopted agile. One of the first things they did was lay off their team of technical writers.
Also you wasting your time flailing about probably makes some manager's budget numbers look good, because they got to "save" the money that would have prevented you from flailing about.
Here's the root cause of your bug:
https://agilemanifesto.org/
> Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
> Working software over comprehensive documentation
I remember when my employer adopted agile. One of the first things they did was lay off their team of technical writers.
Also you wasting your time flailing about probably makes some manager's budget numbers look good, because they got to "save" the money that would have prevented you from flailing about.
Indeed. It is too easy to read this as a rejection of tools, processes, documentation, and plans. That interpretation makes it harder for at-the-coalface employees to get help from leaders when they...
- actually need tools and processes designed to set the conditions for healthy interactions among individuals.
- actually need to spend time improving the documentation to enable them to produce working software.
- actually need to have a meeting-of-the-minds so they can collaborate with customers.
- actually need to spend some time planning so they can respond effectively to change.
Part of the problem here is that good technical leadership is waaaaaay more difficult than can be reflected in a 4-point manifesto. Whole books[1] are written about it. Part of the problem is information flow. It takes courage to speak clearly enough to tell leadership that they're so focused on being agile that it is harming social trust in their organization and preventing their teams from acting with agility.
[1] recommendations: The Toyota Way, Leadership is Language, Ego is the Enemy.
- actually need tools and processes designed to set the conditions for healthy interactions among individuals.
- actually need to spend time improving the documentation to enable them to produce working software.
- actually need to have a meeting-of-the-minds so they can collaborate with customers.
- actually need to spend some time planning so they can respond effectively to change.
Part of the problem here is that good technical leadership is waaaaaay more difficult than can be reflected in a 4-point manifesto. Whole books[1] are written about it. Part of the problem is information flow. It takes courage to speak clearly enough to tell leadership that they're so focused on being agile that it is harming social trust in their organization and preventing their teams from acting with agility.
[1] recommendations: The Toyota Way, Leadership is Language, Ego is the Enemy.
Maybe I have been lucky to never have experience a process heavy work place, but those two parts of the manifesto never made much sense to me.
Going Agile basically meant a return to caveman times. The only way to know anything about the code base is for the tribe's Elders to sit around the fire and tell stories.
Code doing weird thing X? Is it a bug? Is it intended? No way to tell unless I interview everyone who has ever touched the code base, and they happen to remember why they did that.
I get that the manifesto says favor "this" over "that" but don't discard "that", but everywhere I have ever seen it implemented they discarded "that".
Going Agile basically meant a return to caveman times. The only way to know anything about the code base is for the tribe's Elders to sit around the fire and tell stories.
Code doing weird thing X? Is it a bug? Is it intended? No way to tell unless I interview everyone who has ever touched the code base, and they happen to remember why they did that.
I get that the manifesto says favor "this" over "that" but don't discard "that", but everywhere I have ever seen it implemented they discarded "that".
Im going to have to disagree based on personal experience at my huge ass fortune 50 megacoprp. They JUST started adopting agile...JUST, I kid you not many teams are still officialy waterfall, even officially agile teams are effectively waterfall. It's going to take another 5 years for anything to stop looking like waterfall. And let me tell you, as much as people hate agile, the old way is not working, it may even take the company down. Anyway having had no agile...OPs Post rings very very true in my ears. There is an obscene amount of tribal knowledge that needs to get aquired. Sometimes if you're lucky and in the right chat, there's a one-note that gets passed around. We just started getting wikis.. and now they're transitioning to a different vendor. So some high profile teams working on safety critical teams have docs on both...but they aren't the same and both are woefully out of date, also you need manger approval to get access to either of them.
Yeah, Agile is not the OP's problem. Some director made some comments about a direction, and zoom! Off all the middle managers went, trying to kiss up to him, and implement what he said in the most dramatic way, in order to get that next promotion, or at least more headcount. And now it's, "Just the way we do things around here. Like it or leave."
His problem, as with all these types of things, is management. Of all people, we here on this forum ought to be able to call a spade a spade. But even we fall victim to blaming the process or the tool. Over and over again, the problem is management, and we should call it out.
The biggest problem with large corporations is managers who sacrifice long-term company success for short-term personal success. Smaller corporations can often get rid of such managers, but past a certain size -- and that's not really very large -- bad managers can become entrenched as they hire and/or promote sycophants to prop up their power plays. I have 27 years in the blue-chip Fortune 250 world, and I've seen it over and over and over again.
We're going to have to change large parts of the tax code in order to fix this problem, so that companies do NOT get a tax break by giving stock options as compensation. Until that is no longer the case, you will have people -- and rightfully so -- deliberately and predictably responding to huge financial incentives to do LONG TERM damage to the company with SHORT TERM thinking. The C-levels should stop this nonsense, despite the tax incentives, but, of course, the problem is only worse at that level.
His problem, as with all these types of things, is management. Of all people, we here on this forum ought to be able to call a spade a spade. But even we fall victim to blaming the process or the tool. Over and over again, the problem is management, and we should call it out.
The biggest problem with large corporations is managers who sacrifice long-term company success for short-term personal success. Smaller corporations can often get rid of such managers, but past a certain size -- and that's not really very large -- bad managers can become entrenched as they hire and/or promote sycophants to prop up their power plays. I have 27 years in the blue-chip Fortune 250 world, and I've seen it over and over and over again.
We're going to have to change large parts of the tax code in order to fix this problem, so that companies do NOT get a tax break by giving stock options as compensation. Until that is no longer the case, you will have people -- and rightfully so -- deliberately and predictably responding to huge financial incentives to do LONG TERM damage to the company with SHORT TERM thinking. The C-levels should stop this nonsense, despite the tax incentives, but, of course, the problem is only worse at that level.
> Yeah, Agile is not the OP's problem.
Agile might not be my problem, but even so what the comment you're replying to kind of sums up the situation:
> I remember when my employer adopted agile. One of the first things they did was lay off their team of technical writers.
We had a big round of layoffs a few years back. I don't know if technical writers were affected more than others, but we did have a team whose main job was to run training sessions; how to write better code, how to be a more effective technical organization, that sort of thing. That whole team was laid off.
Management may be the problem. It's hard to point the finger at any one person in particular when everyone is just trying to do what they need to do to ship product, and the underlying problem seems to be a sort of emergent behavior that you end up with if you get a bunch of generally smart, helpful, friendly people together and apply all the wrong incentives.
Stock incentives might be part of the problem, but I expect that's more of an issue for the upper layers of management. Lower-level manager can't individually do much to affect the stock value one way or the other. I think maybe a mandatory long vesting term could help. Like, if you're a CEO your stock doesn't vest for ten years. (Maybe "vest" is the wrong word, since that implies you lose it all if you move jobs before it vests. I'm thinking of a system where if you leave you still get the stock eventually.)
Agile might not be my problem, but even so what the comment you're replying to kind of sums up the situation:
> I remember when my employer adopted agile. One of the first things they did was lay off their team of technical writers.
We had a big round of layoffs a few years back. I don't know if technical writers were affected more than others, but we did have a team whose main job was to run training sessions; how to write better code, how to be a more effective technical organization, that sort of thing. That whole team was laid off.
Management may be the problem. It's hard to point the finger at any one person in particular when everyone is just trying to do what they need to do to ship product, and the underlying problem seems to be a sort of emergent behavior that you end up with if you get a bunch of generally smart, helpful, friendly people together and apply all the wrong incentives.
Stock incentives might be part of the problem, but I expect that's more of an issue for the upper layers of management. Lower-level manager can't individually do much to affect the stock value one way or the other. I think maybe a mandatory long vesting term could help. Like, if you're a CEO your stock doesn't vest for ten years. (Maybe "vest" is the wrong word, since that implies you lose it all if you move jobs before it vests. I'm thinking of a system where if you leave you still get the stock eventually.)
> past a certain size -- and that's not really very large
A number range for when it starts getting really dangerous would be interesting
A number range for when it starts getting really dangerous would be interesting
I you could once a year do +100 votes instead of regular +1 vote, I would do in right here, even though it's not even half of January.
You're taking those statements out of context read just a tiny bit further and it says:
"That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more"
So it's doesn't say forget all processes and tools. Also I would say that most of these automated things the OP is talking about are processes and tools.
"That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more"
So it's doesn't say forget all processes and tools. Also I would say that most of these automated things the OP is talking about are processes and tools.
> 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'".
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'".
> Hang on, don't blame the agile manifesto here.
I totally can, and will. It's on them if they popularized slogans that can be too-easily misunderstood. That's meant that agile, in several respects, has been an exercise of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
> 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 clearly not what my employer did.
I totally can, and will. It's on them if they popularized slogans that can be too-easily misunderstood. That's meant that agile, in several respects, has been an exercise of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
> 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 clearly not what my employer did.
So very much this.
We’re now at a point where the widespread and rampant destruction that’s been wrought in the name of agile is so bad that it’s not reasonable to say “oh you’re not doing it properly”.
That excuse could be used to avoid responsibility for literally anything.
Hype bros use that to defend token scams (“you just don’t get it”).
There’s an increasing mountain of evidence that shows agile just doesn’t work, makes things actively worse by forcing the creation and then concealment by neglect of engineering problems, and (as discussed above) actively reduces documentation so that agile cheerleaders can pin their incompetence on the engineers that inherit their mess when they cruise on up the ladder oblivious of their failures.
All of this and not a shred of empirical evidence, ever, that it actually achieves anything other than obscuring management stupidity.
We’re now at a point where the widespread and rampant destruction that’s been wrought in the name of agile is so bad that it’s not reasonable to say “oh you’re not doing it properly”.
That excuse could be used to avoid responsibility for literally anything.
Hype bros use that to defend token scams (“you just don’t get it”).
There’s an increasing mountain of evidence that shows agile just doesn’t work, makes things actively worse by forcing the creation and then concealment by neglect of engineering problems, and (as discussed above) actively reduces documentation so that agile cheerleaders can pin their incompetence on the engineers that inherit their mess when they cruise on up the ladder oblivious of their failures.
All of this and not a shred of empirical evidence, ever, that it actually achieves anything other than obscuring management stupidity.
> There’s an increasing mountain of evidence that shows agile just doesn’t work
Do you have any keywords I can search for to find this evidence?
I haven’t looked at in in ~4 years, but the Project Management Institute (PMI) used to publish some reports based on surveys that said ~70% of corporate projects fail. I am interested in comparing the evidence you’ve seen with the evidence the PMI has put together.
Edit: I think the language is “70% of projects fail to realize the planned benefits”
I haven’t looked at it in years, so I could be way off. I believe that projects that are completed 2 weeks late are classified as failures the same way a project that is abandoned half way through is.
Do you have any keywords I can search for to find this evidence?
I haven’t looked at in in ~4 years, but the Project Management Institute (PMI) used to publish some reports based on surveys that said ~70% of corporate projects fail. I am interested in comparing the evidence you’ve seen with the evidence the PMI has put together.
Edit: I think the language is “70% of projects fail to realize the planned benefits”
I haven’t looked at it in years, so I could be way off. I believe that projects that are completed 2 weeks late are classified as failures the same way a project that is abandoned half way through is.
Good ol’ intent vs impact. If you’re proselytizing something, it shouldn’t be judged by your intentions or how true it is, but the impact it has on the world. Agile was not great in that regard.
>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 actually had some effort put into it. People think UX replaces training/SOP's/manuals, and it really doesn't. Your manual is how you mass produce user expertise. Your manual, at least by consumer's opinion is the difference between Yet Another Agile Heap Of Kludged API's and Business Processes and a truly coherent whole.
The problem with most Agile extremists though, is they never take Minimum viable documentation to heart. Or they completely externalize the cost of clear, complete communication to the User. If I had to put my finger on why, it would be because Engineering spends too much time writing and not enough time using their code outside of bench testing.
This isolates from the consequences of poor decisions; and prevents people from facing the One Great Problem of Humanity: Communication.
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 actually had some effort put into it. People think UX replaces training/SOP's/manuals, and it really doesn't. Your manual is how you mass produce user expertise. Your manual, at least by consumer's opinion is the difference between Yet Another Agile Heap Of Kludged API's and Business Processes and a truly coherent whole.
The problem with most Agile extremists though, is they never take Minimum viable documentation to heart. Or they completely externalize the cost of clear, complete communication to the User. If I had to put my finger on why, it would be because Engineering spends too much time writing and not enough time using their code outside of bench testing.
This isolates from the consequences of poor decisions; and prevents people from facing the One Great Problem of Humanity: Communication.
Keep a bucket handy, because you are going to hear it again, because it often isn't. The fact that a million people are acting entirely contrary to the spirit and text of the agile manifesto, but calling it agile, does not change that.
The other issue is the "viable" in "minimum viable" often gets omitted.
> If I hear that damn mantra again ... never take Minimum viable documentation
But... you're not doing it right. Like, not at all. Where on earth do you get "don't provide user manuals" from the agile manifesto?
But... you're not doing it right. Like, not at all. Where on earth do you get "don't provide user manuals" from the agile manifesto?
>> If I hear that damn mantra again ... never take Minimum viable documentation
> But... you're not doing it right. Like, not at all.
Nope, sorry. You can't honestly say someone's doing it wrong, especially when "it" is defined so vaguely, or when "doing it wrong" seems to emerge from the document at least as much as "doing it right," if not more so.
> Where on earth do you get "don't provide user manuals" from the agile manifesto?
Where do you get "provide user manuals" from the agile manifesto"? The problem is that it's most easily read as a rejection of documentation, in general.
That fault lies with the manifesto.
> But... you're not doing it right. Like, not at all.
Nope, sorry. You can't honestly say someone's doing it wrong, especially when "it" is defined so vaguely, or when "doing it wrong" seems to emerge from the document at least as much as "doing it right," if not more so.
> Where on earth do you get "don't provide user manuals" from the agile manifesto?
Where do you get "provide user manuals" from the agile manifesto"? The problem is that it's most easily read as a rejection of documentation, in general.
That fault lies with the manifesto.
Because people see this
> Working software over comprehensive documentation
and use it as a reason not to do documentation at all. It's ambiguous, and can clearly be read as "you should not work on documentation when there is software to work on", and there's always software to work on.
> Working software over comprehensive documentation
and use it as a reason not to do documentation at all. It's ambiguous, and can clearly be read as "you should not work on documentation when there is software to work on", and there's always software to work on.
It's perfectly OK to blame the agile manifesto. Part of the issue with the agile manifesto is it was written by developers, which makes it sound credible. In addition, you have a lot of cult adoption by developers, which made it difficult to refute. Once law is written in stone and some boundaries are established, that's when business processes come in and do what they do best: see how to manipulate their actions around that language to get what they desire from what is accepted/legal. They tend to always find paths around the bounds that lead to new undesired behaviors.
I used to run public community driven online video game servers in a different era and they were quite popular, sometimes the most active/hearts in their communities. One thing I always struggled with was writing down rules for player behavior on the servers. Once I write a rule it does two things: establishes what NOT to do explicitly, but opens a huge gray area of what isn't explicitly defined that can be done or opens up a subjective gray area that shouldn't be done but is not clearly defined. I now have to enumerate everything I don't want people to do which may be a massive list if you want clarity and no ambiguity. People get creative, always, and find new undesirable behaviors within your rule framework.
In the end, when you write some base rules, the only real solution is to continually ammend the bounds of your rule system over time to adapt and adapt, leaving less surface area to attack. This is why the US legal system is so darn complex. Basic constitional laws are established, some explicit don'ts, some explicit dos, and everything missing becomes questionable. I didn't want to do this on a video game server because... it's a video game server, nor did I have the time. I instead took the "it's private property and I am the tyrrant approach" and wrote a very simple rule to play with etiquette, then ruled over the server benevolently (at least I think so, joining anonymously for occasional sampling to adjust some server settings I found being abused and never banning people just because they were unenjoyable to play with) and it worked well. The servers remained the most popular servers.
The agile manifesto never adapted and business leadership is who calls the shots. A culture said let's adopt this and businesses said ok, sure, then this is how we're going to interpret these poorly defined bounds. You said this is what you wanted and everyone agrees so here you go. For the US constitution, vagueness and broadness works well because it was designed to be a living, extendable, changeable document. The agile manifesto is not. Given how well businesses skirt around the meaning of law to do legally, ethically, and morally questionable practices, what hope does some silly manifesto with no teeth someone writes have? Business rule as small little hierarchical dictatorships with tyrants ontop within a democracy and I've found the characteristics that compose leadership is often the opposite of benevolence. Be careful what you ask for in such environments, your requests will be twisted against you.
I used to run public community driven online video game servers in a different era and they were quite popular, sometimes the most active/hearts in their communities. One thing I always struggled with was writing down rules for player behavior on the servers. Once I write a rule it does two things: establishes what NOT to do explicitly, but opens a huge gray area of what isn't explicitly defined that can be done or opens up a subjective gray area that shouldn't be done but is not clearly defined. I now have to enumerate everything I don't want people to do which may be a massive list if you want clarity and no ambiguity. People get creative, always, and find new undesirable behaviors within your rule framework.
In the end, when you write some base rules, the only real solution is to continually ammend the bounds of your rule system over time to adapt and adapt, leaving less surface area to attack. This is why the US legal system is so darn complex. Basic constitional laws are established, some explicit don'ts, some explicit dos, and everything missing becomes questionable. I didn't want to do this on a video game server because... it's a video game server, nor did I have the time. I instead took the "it's private property and I am the tyrrant approach" and wrote a very simple rule to play with etiquette, then ruled over the server benevolently (at least I think so, joining anonymously for occasional sampling to adjust some server settings I found being abused and never banning people just because they were unenjoyable to play with) and it worked well. The servers remained the most popular servers.
The agile manifesto never adapted and business leadership is who calls the shots. A culture said let's adopt this and businesses said ok, sure, then this is how we're going to interpret these poorly defined bounds. You said this is what you wanted and everyone agrees so here you go. For the US constitution, vagueness and broadness works well because it was designed to be a living, extendable, changeable document. The agile manifesto is not. Given how well businesses skirt around the meaning of law to do legally, ethically, and morally questionable practices, what hope does some silly manifesto with no teeth someone writes have? Business rule as small little hierarchical dictatorships with tyrants ontop within a democracy and I've found the characteristics that compose leadership is often the opposite of benevolence. Be careful what you ask for in such environments, your requests will be twisted against you.
> Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
The points should be phrased "Processes and tools after individuals and interactions", meaning we want both, but one side first. In this case, it better implies we want processes and tools that work well for the individuals and their interactions.
Same for the other points of the manifesto.
The points should be phrased "Processes and tools after individuals and interactions", meaning we want both, but one side first. In this case, it better implies we want processes and tools that work well for the individuals and their interactions.
Same for the other points of the manifesto.
The truth tends to be closer to https://www.halfarsedagilemanifesto.org
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
and we have mandatory processes and tools to control how those
individuals (we prefer the term ‘resources’) interactFew people read the documentation (spent a lot of effort early in my career on writing docs and copy pasting the docs in replies to questions).
Writing good documentation is a skill that takes a non-trivial amount of time to develop. It also takes time to write.
Keeping documentation up to date is hard and takes time/effort.
Poorly written or out of date documentation is worse than no documentation.
Writing good documentation is a skill that takes a non-trivial amount of time to develop. It also takes time to write.
Keeping documentation up to date is hard and takes time/effort.
Poorly written or out of date documentation is worse than no documentation.
> Poorly written or out of date documentation is worse than no documentation.
No, it's not. I _can_ be, but it can also be much better. Documentation is hard, we know that. But it's also incredibly useful in many cases. There are plenty of times where software is nearly useless, or the time required to use it becomes untenable, without documentation.
Honestly, I feel the same way about the code; if you can't be bothered to put a note in a file indicating what it's for (unless it's clearly obvious to a casual observer with limited domain knowledge), then you shouldn't be writing software at all.
No, it's not. I _can_ be, but it can also be much better. Documentation is hard, we know that. But it's also incredibly useful in many cases. There are plenty of times where software is nearly useless, or the time required to use it becomes untenable, without documentation.
Honestly, I feel the same way about the code; if you can't be bothered to put a note in a file indicating what it's for (unless it's clearly obvious to a casual observer with limited domain knowledge), then you shouldn't be writing software at all.
If the software cannot be used for its intended purpose without some special knowledge, and that knowledge is not available to everyone who uses that software, then the people who don't have access to that knowledge are going to be unable to use the software for its intended purpose.
To some people in some kinds of organizations, this is a feature. The people with the hidden knowledge are more powerful than those without it.
If the software is written well enough that it doesn't need much or any documentation, then great! If that's not true, though, there had better be documentation if you want people to use it.
To some people in some kinds of organizations, this is a feature. The people with the hidden knowledge are more powerful than those without it.
If the software is written well enough that it doesn't need much or any documentation, then great! If that's not true, though, there had better be documentation if you want people to use it.
> Basically, my job requires using a lot of tools and technology and processes created by other people, but none of those tools are easy to use or well documented.
When I first moved into management roles I didn’t fully understand how much of my job would be simply saying “no” to a constant stream of engineers wanting to write or rewrite custom tools, libraries, frameworks and platforms when otherwise sufficiently good alternatives already existed. Not all engineers, but once you get into a big enough organization there are a lot of engineers who want to do meta-work and rework things instead of actually shipping things.
The worst offender I worked for had meta-tools on top of everything. You couldn’t use GitHub, Slack, or even our cloud platform without first learning how to navigate all of the custom tools and bots that had been put together to gate access to everything and make it work. And like you said, it was poorly documented. It turned into little fiefdoms where you had to know who to talk to if you wanted to get past the systems to get things done.
This can all be avoided with good management at an organizational level, but of course some managers want to get in on the situation because it puts them in a perceived stronger position in the company if their team is at the center of everything.
When I first moved into management roles I didn’t fully understand how much of my job would be simply saying “no” to a constant stream of engineers wanting to write or rewrite custom tools, libraries, frameworks and platforms when otherwise sufficiently good alternatives already existed. Not all engineers, but once you get into a big enough organization there are a lot of engineers who want to do meta-work and rework things instead of actually shipping things.
The worst offender I worked for had meta-tools on top of everything. You couldn’t use GitHub, Slack, or even our cloud platform without first learning how to navigate all of the custom tools and bots that had been put together to gate access to everything and make it work. And like you said, it was poorly documented. It turned into little fiefdoms where you had to know who to talk to if you wanted to get past the systems to get things done.
This can all be avoided with good management at an organizational level, but of course some managers want to get in on the situation because it puts them in a perceived stronger position in the company if their team is at the center of everything.
> You couldn’t use GitHub, Slack, or even our cloud platform without first learning how to navigate all of the custom tools and bots that had been put together to gate access to everything and make it work.
First time in a really big org and I can see this as well. The worst part is trying to tie someone down to explain how to use their custom tool or bot or even entire systems. How do I use that custom BI tool that you setup ... oh no-one wants to even send me an email reply when I ask a simple question about these things.
The way most stuff gets done in these orgs is various maverick people who find some way to work around all this crap. The problem is you have to have political clout to do that most employees don't have that.
I think these "meta-tool" are initially well intentioned but as you say they become empire building tools.
Worst still is that the teams that build them often leave or are disbanded. Then no one is responsible and no one wants to touch them and they sit in this weird limbo state.
First time in a really big org and I can see this as well. The worst part is trying to tie someone down to explain how to use their custom tool or bot or even entire systems. How do I use that custom BI tool that you setup ... oh no-one wants to even send me an email reply when I ask a simple question about these things.
The way most stuff gets done in these orgs is various maverick people who find some way to work around all this crap. The problem is you have to have political clout to do that most employees don't have that.
I think these "meta-tool" are initially well intentioned but as you say they become empire building tools.
Worst still is that the teams that build them often leave or are disbanded. Then no one is responsible and no one wants to touch them and they sit in this weird limbo state.
> My opinion is that once an organization is a certain size, everything really needs to be written down and easily accessible. I shouldn't have to regularly ask people how to do basic things, it should be on a wiki. If it's complicated, it should be in a training video, or a user manual.
This %100. Automate all the things, but for any part of the process that cannot be automated/scripted, write it down. And don't just put it in some random Google Doc or Sharepoint where it is lost forever in the ether. Put it in a README that lives with the code or have a shared Wiki for the team. It need to be somewhere that is generally available, searchable, version controlled, and easy to update.
This %100. Automate all the things, but for any part of the process that cannot be automated/scripted, write it down. And don't just put it in some random Google Doc or Sharepoint where it is lost forever in the ether. Put it in a README that lives with the code or have a shared Wiki for the team. It need to be somewhere that is generally available, searchable, version controlled, and easy to update.
Even if it's all documented with a README, with container images and Ansible playbooks or whatever to make it all happen… still people will be complaining that it's oh so complex and that's not how we did it in my previous job and what about secret management, or load scaling, or full disk encryption, or how would this be deployed to a moon-based server, or whatever they can think of how the probably less-than-average crap you've built isn't maximally convenient for them.
So, even if you have everything 100% automated, most people will look at that and conclude that your automation is complex legacy bullshit and you should have automated in some other way.
Just saying.
So, even if you have everything 100% automated, most people will look at that and conclude that your automation is complex legacy bullshit and you should have automated in some other way.
Just saying.
I second this emotion. We have spent years and countless hours investing in documentation and automation as we re-engineered a very large legacy application into cloud based technology (AWS). The application and supporting CI/CD pipeline is far better documented and supported than most and all of the underlying technology is within 5 years current. There are video based tutorials on nearly every aspect of the platform and machine images to accelerate development environment setup. Yet still, people new to the development pipeline will hand wring over "tribal knowledge" and "deployment complexity". News flash, anything constructed to support hundreds to thousands of business processes and millions of customers is more often than not going to be complex. Sometimes you just have to roll up your sleeves and try to improve the trail for those coming behind you.
Possibly I am an old fuddy-dud but if your engineers prefer video tutorials to written docs I think you might have hired the wrong engineers.
> video based tutorials
there's your problem.
there's your problem.
Videos can be as good or bad as documentation, it just depends on how thorough the content is.
Seriously. I hate "video tutorials" on how to do technical stuff. I read faster than videos can explain stuff, and with text I can go back and forth to the stuff I need without trying to forward and reverse a video to a certain time.
The feedback is totally fair. What we do is conduct live "learning sessions" with experts in aspects of our implementation that go through tutorials on specific technical aspects of the platforms. These learning sessions are recorded and referenced next to the text based documentation that complements inline comments in the code. They are not a replacement for the text based documentation. Think of them as equivalent to various YouTube videos you might reference when learning how to do something. You might read the particulars in a piece of documentation but then also watch a walk-through of a specific piece of technology if you find that helpful.
I will say that things like secret management and FDE are likely policies that people are forced to follow and not things they directly want to implement.
Write it down even if it can be automated. And make sure the documentation is also comprehensible to people who don't already know how the system works.
Otherwise you're setting your company up for a miniature re-enactment of the Butlerian Jihad at some point in the future.
Otherwise you're setting your company up for a miniature re-enactment of the Butlerian Jihad at some point in the future.
We call it Data governance and Enterprise architecture, those are fields and we're hiring like crazy
Note that I'm not saying we shouldn't do as best as we can with documentation, clean code, etc, BUT:
In the open source world, I've developed a large low quality codebase that is very complex from when I was less experienced. This project has gotten plenty of contributions over the years, some from less experienced and some from more experienced.
The experienced developers know how to get around the codebase, but the lesser experienced ones tend to complain about quality. I see this in the workplace as well.
I had this exact same issue when I was less experienced. New codebases was very difficult to understand, but now that I've been through a lot of them in various languages and quality, it's not as bad as it used to be.
I guess the argument here from the business point of view is that we write code for the less experienced? In a way this makes sense, but paradoxically some complex codebases that I thought was messy in the past have become more elegant today as I've gained more experience.
In the open source world, I've developed a large low quality codebase that is very complex from when I was less experienced. This project has gotten plenty of contributions over the years, some from less experienced and some from more experienced.
The experienced developers know how to get around the codebase, but the lesser experienced ones tend to complain about quality. I see this in the workplace as well.
I had this exact same issue when I was less experienced. New codebases was very difficult to understand, but now that I've been through a lot of them in various languages and quality, it's not as bad as it used to be.
I guess the argument here from the business point of view is that we write code for the less experienced? In a way this makes sense, but paradoxically some complex codebases that I thought was messy in the past have become more elegant today as I've gained more experience.
It could be that the more experienced developers are just burnt out in trying to give that kind of feedback, and instead just grit their teeth and get through the code base as they need.
Meanwhile the newer, less experienced developers probably still have a bit of... let's say naive optimism, and try to give feedback more.
Meanwhile the newer, less experienced developers probably still have a bit of... let's say naive optimism, and try to give feedback more.
That could be the case for a job you get paid to do, but for open source there are people coming in to help because they like the solution and have ideas for new features or refactoring.
The inexperienced developers in my case have not contributed much, but rather complained in other channels. (it's game related, the community is on discord, in game, etc)
The inexperienced developers in my case have not contributed much, but rather complained in other channels. (it's game related, the community is on discord, in game, etc)
it is probably because the new devs know so much more and are able to identify and communicate problems in code that others have written.
write code for the center of the bell curve (at your organization). the bottom will never understand anything, the top understands it all. You need to make the majority in the middle be comfortable.
that means slowly bringing in new language features, as they become widely known and practiced.
write code for the center of the bell curve (at your organization). the bottom will never understand anything, the top understands it all. You need to make the majority in the middle be comfortable.
that means slowly bringing in new language features, as they become widely known and practiced.
That's an interesting point of view to explore. Is it worth more to attract a few highly capable developers or a lot of middle capable ones?
Your code practices will probably resonate differently on each of those groups, so you will probably have to choose. And I don't think there's a generic correct choice like you imply.
Also, by how much are people even capable of choosing the (required) expertise level of the code they create? I'm not sure we can deviate a lot from our natural level.
Your code practices will probably resonate differently on each of those groups, so you will probably have to choose. And I don't think there's a generic correct choice like you imply.
Also, by how much are people even capable of choosing the (required) expertise level of the code they create? I'm not sure we can deviate a lot from our natural level.
yeah, absolutes never apply to every situation.
it is possible to go down in expertise, but not up. sometimes "fortran in any language" can be a viable approach depending...
note i didn't say a the best approach.
it is possible to go down in expertise, but not up. sometimes "fortran in any language" can be a viable approach depending...
note i didn't say a the best approach.
Good luck convincing organizations to invest in this + finding people to do it. I have the background to organize this (I'm actually doing this for my own, smaller organization right now just because the situation is driving me insane) and the main problems are:
1.) The people who can do this aren't going to do it for 30k or $10/hr. Properly solving this problem requires an understanding of tech and the development process, pedagogy/communication/instructional design, and information management. Lacking any one of those would result in a system that's an unusable vanity project. I have a couple of decades of small-shop coding experience, experience as an instructional designer at an Ivy, and graduate education in information management, but if you want me to use all of those it's going to cost you and companies are resistant to that. (See: How a lot of non tech product companies treat their IT teams since they don't generate revenue). Now imagine if the project were led by someone more qualified, which it should be for a company of your size.
2.) Most companies don't have a culture which would allow this to be done well. This is the sort of work which requires both a lot of honesty and a lot of careful planning. A lot of information ends up hidden or inaccessible due to people's egos, or executives not being able to handle the information so it's buried. People need to be honest about their workflows and what they don't understand, and they need to feel comfortable being honest about such things. This gets really messy. On the dev side, a common cultural issue is "I had to learn it, they should too" or the urge to make understanding the complexities into a shibboleth for the in-group.
So I agree with you, but it's unlikely to change soon in my opinion.
1.) The people who can do this aren't going to do it for 30k or $10/hr. Properly solving this problem requires an understanding of tech and the development process, pedagogy/communication/instructional design, and information management. Lacking any one of those would result in a system that's an unusable vanity project. I have a couple of decades of small-shop coding experience, experience as an instructional designer at an Ivy, and graduate education in information management, but if you want me to use all of those it's going to cost you and companies are resistant to that. (See: How a lot of non tech product companies treat their IT teams since they don't generate revenue). Now imagine if the project were led by someone more qualified, which it should be for a company of your size.
2.) Most companies don't have a culture which would allow this to be done well. This is the sort of work which requires both a lot of honesty and a lot of careful planning. A lot of information ends up hidden or inaccessible due to people's egos, or executives not being able to handle the information so it's buried. People need to be honest about their workflows and what they don't understand, and they need to feel comfortable being honest about such things. This gets really messy. On the dev side, a common cultural issue is "I had to learn it, they should too" or the urge to make understanding the complexities into a shibboleth for the in-group.
So I agree with you, but it's unlikely to change soon in my opinion.
Can I ask how you got started in the field of instructional design? This is a field that I've not really heard much about until recently, and I'm curious how someone breaks into that field.
Unfortunately, I'm one of the old 'I fell into it because I had experience in both the field's components (tech and education)' stories: I've been coding (mostly but not exclusively front-end) since the 90s and been teaching techy things on and off about that long (I taught my first programming class in '99 when I was 11), and then I went and worked in libraries/studied how people learn outside of formal classroom contexts.
So I already had all the skills needed once the field started. I cheated.
If I were getting started now, my advice would be to remember that the human element and the tech element are of equal importance in Instructional Design. So you'd want to take stock of what skills you currently have and how best to a.) get the necessary knowledge you don't have and b.) take advantage of your particular skill set.
Since you're on HN, I'm assuming you're of a techy bent vs. an educational/people bent. So if you have any teaching/tutoring/etc experience, I would lean on that. If not, I would get some. You can do this by volunteering somewhere + doing some basic research. I highly recommend this since a large portion of instructional design (like most front-end things) is planning for all the weird things humans do when interacting with your stuff and, more importantly for instructional design specifically, how people who can't computer at ALL think. When doing ID, you're often designing for people who can't figure out how an email works and are taking a work training, for example.
Also since you're techy, I'd recommend spending some time with UI/UX and specifically focus on designing for different populations/audiences. From a tech perspective, your competing instructional designers are worst at the 'boring' things like accessibility guidelines, making sure things can run on terrible machines, coding fall-backs, etc. So a tech background is of great assistance as long as you communicate the problems it can help you avoid.
As for the actual 'how to get a job', I literally applied for my first job off of Indeed out of grad school and I'm a first-generation student so trust me that was not the most polished resume or CV.
So I already had all the skills needed once the field started. I cheated.
If I were getting started now, my advice would be to remember that the human element and the tech element are of equal importance in Instructional Design. So you'd want to take stock of what skills you currently have and how best to a.) get the necessary knowledge you don't have and b.) take advantage of your particular skill set.
Since you're on HN, I'm assuming you're of a techy bent vs. an educational/people bent. So if you have any teaching/tutoring/etc experience, I would lean on that. If not, I would get some. You can do this by volunteering somewhere + doing some basic research. I highly recommend this since a large portion of instructional design (like most front-end things) is planning for all the weird things humans do when interacting with your stuff and, more importantly for instructional design specifically, how people who can't computer at ALL think. When doing ID, you're often designing for people who can't figure out how an email works and are taking a work training, for example.
Also since you're techy, I'd recommend spending some time with UI/UX and specifically focus on designing for different populations/audiences. From a tech perspective, your competing instructional designers are worst at the 'boring' things like accessibility guidelines, making sure things can run on terrible machines, coding fall-backs, etc. So a tech background is of great assistance as long as you communicate the problems it can help you avoid.
As for the actual 'how to get a job', I literally applied for my first job off of Indeed out of grad school and I'm a first-generation student so trust me that was not the most polished resume or CV.
I'm getting the same impression at my client and my client only employs ~150 devs, not a 100k.
All in all, this strongly reminds me of the "Collapse of Civilization" described by Jonathan Blow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSRHeXYDLko
All in all, this strongly reminds me of the "Collapse of Civilization" described by Jonathan Blow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSRHeXYDLko
Alan Kay has similar talks where he has some subtle condemnations of what the industry as a whole has devolved into. He uses terms like Cargo Cult and he calls out the wide spread hubris for not knowing and/or actively ignoring the history of the field.
[deleted]
Sounds like a lack of repeatability to me: complex tools, combined with lack of documentation, makes for a fairly unstable work environment.
It's for similar reason that I like to keep unreliable dependencies to a very strict minimum. I can rely on my compiler, my editor, my OS, and to a lesser extent a bunch of extremely popular libraries. But as soon as we get to internal tools & processes or obscure third party libraries, certainty goes downhill very quickly.
It's for similar reason that I like to keep unreliable dependencies to a very strict minimum. I can rely on my compiler, my editor, my OS, and to a lesser extent a bunch of extremely popular libraries. But as soon as we get to internal tools & processes or obscure third party libraries, certainty goes downhill very quickly.
As somebody who has been writing software for two decades the most important ingredient for me is maturity. I am not going to leave the employment I currently have if signals of maturity are weak.
More money does not compensate for this. I thought it would when I interviewing a few months ago (50% salary increase). I was wrong.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29826152
More money does not compensate for this. I thought it would when I interviewing a few months ago (50% salary increase). I was wrong.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29826152
This sounds exactly like my experience at Meta.
It's a problem of the incentives we've setup. We reward engineers for building things. Promotions, pay raises, etc. for engineers are typically based on impact and technical complexity, not how good their documentation was. I've been at a few places that handwave at such things in their level expectations or skills matrix or whatever, but having been in promo discussions at a variety of medium and large companies it always comes down to what was shipped.
Problem is, at mature companies there aren't enough greenfield problems to match the large number of engineers who are looking to climb the ladder. So stuff is rewritten, then rewritten again since nobody understands the rewrite, and so on. Managers kind of look the other way because retention and the ecosystem becomes messier and messier over time as promoted folks leave and new folks come in that need to be promoted.
This is the world of professional software development at pretty much every company not a startup.
Problem is, at mature companies there aren't enough greenfield problems to match the large number of engineers who are looking to climb the ladder. So stuff is rewritten, then rewritten again since nobody understands the rewrite, and so on. Managers kind of look the other way because retention and the ecosystem becomes messier and messier over time as promoted folks leave and new folks come in that need to be promoted.
This is the world of professional software development at pretty much every company not a startup.
I admit I quickly searched my company directory to see if you work where I do :)
The article mentions 3 things engineers care about: Technology, Intellection and Stability. Perhaps your pain fits into the 3rd category (if extrapolate a little).
If so, ironically, the first 2 at scale is what causes the lack of the 3rd.
When you make wider roads, the traffic will get worse, not better. Perhaps it's similar technology organizations. It's almost inevitable.
Anecdotally Amazon figured this stuff out by mandating well defined organizational boundaries (kind of like solid white dividers on some section of the highway, eh?) and by making each team responsible for its own developer infrastructure. It seems wasteful at first, but maybe less so at scale. Maybe someone working there can confirm/deny whether this is the case.
The article mentions 3 things engineers care about: Technology, Intellection and Stability. Perhaps your pain fits into the 3rd category (if extrapolate a little).
If so, ironically, the first 2 at scale is what causes the lack of the 3rd.
When you make wider roads, the traffic will get worse, not better. Perhaps it's similar technology organizations. It's almost inevitable.
Anecdotally Amazon figured this stuff out by mandating well defined organizational boundaries (kind of like solid white dividers on some section of the highway, eh?) and by making each team responsible for its own developer infrastructure. It seems wasteful at first, but maybe less so at scale. Maybe someone working there can confirm/deny whether this is the case.
I think you are touching on the right problem but your solution seems a bit more on the idealistic rather than realistic side.
I've had this conversation before where documentation is proposed as a silver procedural bullet and it never works. Documentation gets stale and eventually out of date. Do you really want to be in a position where you have to /recompile/ all of those documentation/training video/user manual materials? Unless you're selling it, probably not.
The solution you are looking for is not documentation but automation and training. The things which can be automated to make the process closer to obvious should absolutely be automated. The things which are intrinsically more challenging and can't be solved through automation should be covered through training -- and not a "training video" but a real set of sessions where someone (likely your manager or a tech lead responsible for ensuring clean consumption of their modules) is walking you through the right way to do things and leaving time for questions.
I say this having worked at a place that touted a documentation centric culture at the level of organizational scale you suggested. If you're doing anything remotely challenging, documentation only gets you to the starting line. It doesn't get you to being useful and autonomous.
I've had this conversation before where documentation is proposed as a silver procedural bullet and it never works. Documentation gets stale and eventually out of date. Do you really want to be in a position where you have to /recompile/ all of those documentation/training video/user manual materials? Unless you're selling it, probably not.
The solution you are looking for is not documentation but automation and training. The things which can be automated to make the process closer to obvious should absolutely be automated. The things which are intrinsically more challenging and can't be solved through automation should be covered through training -- and not a "training video" but a real set of sessions where someone (likely your manager or a tech lead responsible for ensuring clean consumption of their modules) is walking you through the right way to do things and leaving time for questions.
I say this having worked at a place that touted a documentation centric culture at the level of organizational scale you suggested. If you're doing anything remotely challenging, documentation only gets you to the starting line. It doesn't get you to being useful and autonomous.
Corollary: the documentation must be written to speak to the stupidest person in your team/company who you expect to use the product it describes. Otherwise, you may end up with a documented system that you can’t use or fix.
Fortunately, that’s often me (a supervisor), so I get to be self-deprecating when conveying this requirement.
Fortunately, that’s often me (a supervisor), so I get to be self-deprecating when conveying this requirement.
I also find that hypothetical "interns" are great for this. Something about "this person without a degree, who probably hasn't been working for very long, who doesn't know your organization or who to ask, and is probably very scared of looking or sounding stupid."
It doesn't necessarily imply or require stupidity, but in my experience on both sides of it (writing docs now, and having been that intern), they actually make pretty great litmus tests for documentation and how accessible organizational knowledge is.
It doesn't necessarily imply or require stupidity, but in my experience on both sides of it (writing docs now, and having been that intern), they actually make pretty great litmus tests for documentation and how accessible organizational knowledge is.
When I write process/operating docs, I write it for the person who is on call, at 02:00 Sunday morning, after overindulging in alcohol Friday night. I don't assume stupid, just not firing on all cylinders due to being half awake and distracted.
> hard to describe succinctly.
Maybe "Institutional Complexity"?
Some degree of complexity is intrinsic to the problem domain, but it's the incidental complexity that emerges as a thoughtless side-effects of other efforts that is the most annoying, especially when it compounds.
To flip your comment on it's head... Some of my most satisfying projects have been the ones that eliminated this type of complexity where I work, because they improved the quality of life of everyone I work with and gradually remove all but the necessary work. However because these things are usually difficult to isolate and deeply engrained, this is only usually possible once you've gained enough trust and autonomy, which I suppose makes it a hard sell for a new job.
Maybe "Institutional Complexity"?
Some degree of complexity is intrinsic to the problem domain, but it's the incidental complexity that emerges as a thoughtless side-effects of other efforts that is the most annoying, especially when it compounds.
To flip your comment on it's head... Some of my most satisfying projects have been the ones that eliminated this type of complexity where I work, because they improved the quality of life of everyone I work with and gradually remove all but the necessary work. However because these things are usually difficult to isolate and deeply engrained, this is only usually possible once you've gained enough trust and autonomy, which I suppose makes it a hard sell for a new job.
[deleted]
Sounds like every multinational org with 100k+ emplyees, certainly this fits my own. Fun part is, there is no realistic way out of this. It only takes one obscure critical legacy app to add so much integration mess into whole ecosystem that nobody ever will be re-doing those.
Plus business won't put in the budget necessary for practically no change from their point of view.
Plus business won't put in the budget necessary for practically no change from their point of view.
I've worked at a 500 employee-company that had many of these issues, mostly from misguided attempts at copying the way FAANG worked without any regard for our own needs or scale. The entire code was a tangled mess of git submodules, transitive dependencies and the build system was contingent on a domain-specific language that was partially developed in-house and partially based on some unstable open source project, incredibly janky, and only two people got to see the sources for it or even knew how it really worked.
Dumpster fire doesn't even begin to describe the outcome.
There was always this strange spooky-leftpad-at-a-distance thing where stuff just kept inexplicably breaking, and nobody ever quite knew what had gone wrong, who to talk to, or when it was gonna get fixed.
Dumpster fire doesn't even begin to describe the outcome.
There was always this strange spooky-leftpad-at-a-distance thing where stuff just kept inexplicably breaking, and nobody ever quite knew what had gone wrong, who to talk to, or when it was gonna get fixed.
Sounds like you are describing “institutional knowledge”. In addition to good documentation, an org needs to maintain employee retention, so you have people that know the what and why’s of all the automated processes you’re seeing.
Institutional knowledge is an okay thing, the problem is when it's passed down by oral tradition or actively kept secret unless you email exactly the right question to the right person.
> but none of those tools are easy to use or well documented
Technological + organizational debt?
Technological + organizational debt?
> hard to describe succinctly
To me, what it sounds like you are describing is the developer experience. Or "devX".
To me, what it sounds like you are describing is the developer experience. Or "devX".
How many of us agree but haven't yet read our companies Confluence pages?
My company is probably doing Confluence wrong. Because if you haven't bookmarked the page, you'll never find it again.
The article is concise but missing a lot of real-life examples:
* The highest paying software companies employ LeetCode style interview. That is off-putting to a lot of people even though the money would be super sweet to have.
* Some wannabe startups also employ LeetCode style interview even though they don't pay anywhere near FAANG/Unicorns.
* You know what's worst than LeetCode style interview? LeetCode style interview with really long rounds. It's super off-putting to be tossed around for weeks.
* You know what's even worse than that? Lowball offer after completing the entire circus.
* PIP culture is scary and it's hard to judge if the new company have it or not, except Amazon. We all know Amazon has PIP culture.
* Long hour culture is not desirable and hard to judge. What's the point of making 20% more if you ended up working 40% more?
* The highest paying software companies employ LeetCode style interview. That is off-putting to a lot of people even though the money would be super sweet to have.
* Some wannabe startups also employ LeetCode style interview even though they don't pay anywhere near FAANG/Unicorns.
* You know what's worst than LeetCode style interview? LeetCode style interview with really long rounds. It's super off-putting to be tossed around for weeks.
* You know what's even worse than that? Lowball offer after completing the entire circus.
* PIP culture is scary and it's hard to judge if the new company have it or not, except Amazon. We all know Amazon has PIP culture.
* Long hour culture is not desirable and hard to judge. What's the point of making 20% more if you ended up working 40% more?
> The highest paying software companies employ LeetCode style interview
Ugh yeah it’s ridiculous. We can’t hire anyone! Have you considered not putting candidates through months of studying to memorize a bunch of algorithm tricks and then grilling them for 5-10 hours total on those? No - that’s not what the cargo cult manual says.
Ugh yeah it’s ridiculous. We can’t hire anyone! Have you considered not putting candidates through months of studying to memorize a bunch of algorithm tricks and then grilling them for 5-10 hours total on those? No - that’s not what the cargo cult manual says.
I dunno if it's that ridiculous. Having to spend a couple of months studying to get a 100k raise, seems not a completely unfair trade.
You'll be working with other people who jumped over some arbitrary hurdle.
What kind of team is that? Are you going to be surrounded by mentors? Free of bozos? In a world of competent executioners?
Unlikely. Look at how terrible a lot of the products are that these companies make.
They're fundamentally selecting for the wrong set of attributes. Look at the turnover rate - how many projects go nowhere and collapse, the quality of the output. Nobody ever leaves a job, they leave a team. The evidence is all around us that this process produces total shit results but it's become too much of a cult to change it.
Whenever I'm looking around for potentially better work and I see companies doing that, I don't even bother. It doesn't lead to better teams, more competent execution or better products.
Why on earth would I squander my time with some random ship of people who know how to do a sliding window? I'm sure they're all friendly, but we're doing hard things here and need the right mix.
I mean what on earth, fix the fucking process and maybe they'll stop incinerating dumptrucks of money on badly executed technology
What kind of team is that? Are you going to be surrounded by mentors? Free of bozos? In a world of competent executioners?
Unlikely. Look at how terrible a lot of the products are that these companies make.
They're fundamentally selecting for the wrong set of attributes. Look at the turnover rate - how many projects go nowhere and collapse, the quality of the output. Nobody ever leaves a job, they leave a team. The evidence is all around us that this process produces total shit results but it's become too much of a cult to change it.
Whenever I'm looking around for potentially better work and I see companies doing that, I don't even bother. It doesn't lead to better teams, more competent execution or better products.
Why on earth would I squander my time with some random ship of people who know how to do a sliding window? I'm sure they're all friendly, but we're doing hard things here and need the right mix.
I mean what on earth, fix the fucking process and maybe they'll stop incinerating dumptrucks of money on badly executed technology
I don't know if FAANGs are so deserving of such vitriol. I would probably say that big companies overall just fundamentally have a set of issues, and FAANGs are probably above average in many aspects relative to the rest of the big ones. Now, if you prefer certain small companies, or other humanitarian or mission-focused ones, that's not a FAANG-specific complaint, in my mind.
And just product-wise, it's just way too easy to find counterexamples, like, how worse would the world be off if there was never invented google, gmail, chrome, iphones. Before google, there was no reliable way to search the web. Before gmail, there was no such thing as a dynamic web application. Before chrome, we were stuck with microsoft making up their own standards with IE and an inconsistent web spec. Before iphone, we were stuck with feature phones. The list just goes on and on.
And just product-wise, it's just way too easy to find counterexamples, like, how worse would the world be off if there was never invented google, gmail, chrome, iphones. Before google, there was no reliable way to search the web. Before gmail, there was no such thing as a dynamic web application. Before chrome, we were stuck with microsoft making up their own standards with IE and an inconsistent web spec. Before iphone, we were stuck with feature phones. The list just goes on and on.
> google, gmail, chrome, iphones
There's four excellent examples of things that were better 10 years ago before this practice was instituted. The youngest thing on that list (chrome) is 14 years old.
Both Apple and Google used to not hire in this 3-4 interviews of canned programming question way. Then they did. Those products are now stagnating and deteriorating so much that it's obvious to everyone.
If you think it's exclusively a FAANG practice, you're mistaken. There's tiny firms that do it and really large ones that don't.
Bringing the worst practices of standardized testing into the tech hiring process produces the same kinds of problems that standardized testing does elsewhere. Silicon Valley used to be better than this.
It's a dumb arbitrary ceremony - might as well be a physical challenge from Nickelodeon's Double Dare.
(Also your narrative history is wrong, but that's not the point)
There's four excellent examples of things that were better 10 years ago before this practice was instituted. The youngest thing on that list (chrome) is 14 years old.
Both Apple and Google used to not hire in this 3-4 interviews of canned programming question way. Then they did. Those products are now stagnating and deteriorating so much that it's obvious to everyone.
If you think it's exclusively a FAANG practice, you're mistaken. There's tiny firms that do it and really large ones that don't.
Bringing the worst practices of standardized testing into the tech hiring process produces the same kinds of problems that standardized testing does elsewhere. Silicon Valley used to be better than this.
It's a dumb arbitrary ceremony - might as well be a physical challenge from Nickelodeon's Double Dare.
(Also your narrative history is wrong, but that's not the point)
> There's four excellent examples of things that were better 10 years ago before this practice was instituted.
FWIW, I interviewed with Google in 2009 and the interview was 100% pure leetcode (not even design/architecture questions). It was exactly a series of four back-to-back 1-on-1 meetings, which consisted of "Hello" followed by an algorithmic puzzle.
If anything they seem to have broadened the scope of interviews since then.
FWIW, I interviewed with Google in 2009 and the interview was 100% pure leetcode (not even design/architecture questions). It was exactly a series of four back-to-back 1-on-1 meetings, which consisted of "Hello" followed by an algorithmic puzzle.
If anything they seem to have broadened the scope of interviews since then.
Alright. I stand corrected. I also went to San Francisco job interviews around 2005 or so and found that. I was turned off by them back then as well.
I'm not a researcher in the field but I'd love to see some study. Let's say measuring for deadline slippage, budget overshot, and retention rate.
The testing groups will be teams that use these tactics almost exclusively and those that use a variety of other methods.
If my assumption that this is a mostly arbitrary attribute is correct, their averages would be nearly the same.
If they produce statistically better results then I'd literally quit my job and go work for one. I'd be happy to be wrong about this but I don't think I am
I'm not a researcher in the field but I'd love to see some study. Let's say measuring for deadline slippage, budget overshot, and retention rate.
The testing groups will be teams that use these tactics almost exclusively and those that use a variety of other methods.
If my assumption that this is a mostly arbitrary attribute is correct, their averages would be nearly the same.
If they produce statistically better results then I'd literally quit my job and go work for one. I'd be happy to be wrong about this but I don't think I am
I’m interviewed in 2006-2009 at all the top tech companies and can confirm the process was essentially the same as today.
Why are those 4 thing worse no?
Ok, I understand that google search is worse, but it isn't obvious to me that's a result of engineering vs executive choice.
Ok, I understand that google search is worse, but it isn't obvious to me that's a result of engineering vs executive choice.
I doubt the stagnation is the fault of poor hiring practices.
More likely has to do with monopolization and business models that favor advertising over users.
More likely has to do with monopolization and business models that favor advertising over users.
Can you elaborate? I'd like to hear your thoughts
Monopolies aren't motivated to innovate. (At least not in helpful ways.)
This is why the web is stagnating with near Chrome monopoly, just like during (shudder) the IE years.
Same for Google itself. Bing/DDG are only half-assed competitors. Google seems to be making search worse for all kinds of bad reasons, just because they can.
I'd guess most people who use an alternative to gmail specifically don't want to use Google, not because something else is better.
This is why the web is stagnating with near Chrome monopoly, just like during (shudder) the IE years.
Same for Google itself. Bing/DDG are only half-assed competitors. Google seems to be making search worse for all kinds of bad reasons, just because they can.
I'd guess most people who use an alternative to gmail specifically don't want to use Google, not because something else is better.
Spending a couple of months for a guaranteed 100k raise would be great. Spending those months for a tiny chance of that raise would not.
I thought the idea was that if you didn't spend months studying, you'd only have a tiny chance, regardless of how skilled you were. And that the months of studying is what's then required on top to get that offer from at least one of the big five you apply for.
That I commonly see complaints about how other people "without" skill were getting job offers just because they put in the months studying, seems to indicate that it's actually quite a generous chance.
That I commonly see complaints about how other people "without" skill were getting job offers just because they put in the months studying, seems to indicate that it's actually quite a generous chance.
Yup, don’t regret spending 2 months for a $250k raise one bit.
The vast majority of tech companies including startups are asking algorithm style questions these days. It’s adapt or die.
The vast majority of tech companies including startups are asking algorithm style questions these days. It’s adapt or die.
That's the first interview. They usually test your ability to design systems and stuff in a second interview.
If you get it.
>* The highest paying software companies employ LeetCode style interview. That is off-putting to a lot of people even though the money would be super sweet to have.
Not only off-putting but out of reach to older engineers with family responsibilities. I would also add that the value proposition for working at a FAANG isn't nearly as competitive if based outside the US.
Not only off-putting but out of reach to older engineers with family responsibilities. I would also add that the value proposition for working at a FAANG isn't nearly as competitive if based outside the US.
I agree. I would go as far as saying that LeetCode interview is biased against older engineers with families. Especially young families.
What?! Age discrimination in the software industry??? Say it isn’t so!!! Seriously though, your insight is astonishingly spot on: LeetCode is a perfectly legal means of practicing age/lifestyle discrimination. Yet another innovative Silicon Valley dark pattern. Why is this the first I’m hearing it characterized this way?
That's just it, it's stuff you learn in computer science, then forget about because you don't use it in your day job.
Your day job is writing CRUD services. That's the job.
Our tech interview - ~8 hour take-home assignment, it was well-paid consultancy - asked people to basically demonstrate they could write a CRUD service. It had reading XML, some business logic / calculations, a REST/JSON API and a front-end.
Ten years later, I'm still working with that basic model. I mean sure, it's been broken up here and there by a different tech stack (Angular instead of React, Go instead of Java, native iOS instead of web) but the basics are still the same.
I haven't had to invert a graph or do a depth / breadth first search since college. The most algorithmic thing I do is implement a comparator function for sorting.
Your day job is writing CRUD services. That's the job.
Our tech interview - ~8 hour take-home assignment, it was well-paid consultancy - asked people to basically demonstrate they could write a CRUD service. It had reading XML, some business logic / calculations, a REST/JSON API and a front-end.
Ten years later, I'm still working with that basic model. I mean sure, it's been broken up here and there by a different tech stack (Angular instead of React, Go instead of Java, native iOS instead of web) but the basics are still the same.
I haven't had to invert a graph or do a depth / breadth first search since college. The most algorithmic thing I do is implement a comparator function for sorting.
Hopefully you mean the 8-hour assignment was paid or that would be an unacceptable ask.
8 hour take-home ? Shesh that's terrible.
Yeah, this is so obvious once it's stated this way, but I'd never thought of it like that either. Every time I talk to prospective employers and they wax about their rapid fire technical challenges and 5-round interview processes that last six weeks, I wonder "how the hell do they expect someone with other commitments to do all of this?" And the answer is ... they don't!
They ask questions that kids are taught at 18/19. It's almost shocking; this is how you're selecting?
People that are in their 40s aren't confused by the question but are more confused by why it's the question as being able to answer it is so disconnected from any metric of competency or quality.
It'd be like saying "so you have an engineering degree, oh a masters from 20 years ago. Cool, remember Lagrange multipliers and Hamiltonians? I'm sure you do. Here's a problem. You have 10 minutes"
That's why we keep seeing the failures of the past repeat. Tech selects for people too young to know it and too arrogant to study it.
People that are in their 40s aren't confused by the question but are more confused by why it's the question as being able to answer it is so disconnected from any metric of competency or quality.
It'd be like saying "so you have an engineering degree, oh a masters from 20 years ago. Cool, remember Lagrange multipliers and Hamiltonians? I'm sure you do. Here's a problem. You have 10 minutes"
That's why we keep seeing the failures of the past repeat. Tech selects for people too young to know it and too arrogant to study it.
I feel like by the time you’re in your 40s, you should be able to leverage your network to bypass the technical interview. What are you doing at 40 going through the same hiring funnel as 18 year olds with no discernible reputation or experience? Maybe if you’re doing a career switch, sure, but if you’ve got 15-20 years under your belt then that’s a different story.
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
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
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.
Networking is a non technical skill. Hard to say how well it correlates.
It’s possible for already wealthy people though. Poor people need $x per month. A bit more wealth and cashflow is not an issue and so you can look at $x per decade. In that scenario taking a gap year to bash leetcode and interviews is perfectly rational. Its a 10% tax at worst.
So you think it better to discriminate according to the size of a candidate’s bank account? From where I sit, you are saying the poor do not deserve the same chance. I think age discrimination would be less offensive to the masses.
The opposite. I’m observing why the rich can get richer, because they don’t need to make ends meet. But I am not saying it’s a good state of affairs.
When I think of pros and cons of re-learning this crap I always re-evaluate what I have and what I want - and always come to the right conclusion - my time is better spent elsewhere - working on my own ideas or just more family time.
In the US, thats not generally true. It takes longer to prep from scratch if you have a young family. If you have an older family (and are even older yourself) that constraint is reduced. Realistically you can prep doing a few questions a week, it will just take longer. It’s not pleasant. But it’s more about the commitment, the plan, and enough research to justify it. If you can reasonably expect a 50%+ pay increase and that would translate into a better life, most people at most ages can make time. It’s about experience and practice with generally well known algorithms on well known problems. It’s not rocket science or intelligence nor nearly as much prep as many other high paying jobs (my MD took a decade of study for instance). Yes, annoying as hell. But not insurmountable.
* The people who end up winning your Leetcode interview will have the least amount of trouble leaving your company.
That's why if you're a small start up, trying to hire like Google is the dumbest thing you can do.
That's why if you're a small start up, trying to hire like Google is the dumbest thing you can do.
There's something much worse than Leetcode.
Take home unpaid long projects that end up in rejection or lowball offers.
I had a take-home assignment not long ago for some... dodgy recruitment-consultancy-disguised-as-training company. It was the exact same assignment as my previous employer used ten years ago. Ended up just showing and talking about my current project, which is basically the same thing.
Definitely. My last job prospect would have required me to lock myself in the room for a weekend or more doing a chain of low dopamine tasks.
I have done take home projects before, which often resulted in low ball offers. At most it made me angry for the time wasted, but now having children I just don't even bother anymore.
I have done take home projects before, which often resulted in low ball offers. At most it made me angry for the time wasted, but now having children I just don't even bother anymore.
Related to the last point: There is no way to estimate how much work a new job is in reality. I'm currently working 10-20 hours a week remotely. I think my salary could be improved, but taking a risk of actually having to put in 40 hours or more of work every week is not worth the small(ish) increase I could reasonably get by changing jobs.
[deleted]
People have been bitching about LC interviews for 10 years. That's eons in tech, yet companies continue to use it. Maybe, because it works extremely well? Tech companies are taking it in more every year.
Depends on how you define works. It does effectively filter the people that can't code, but it also filters a lot of people that can code and just can't or don't care to do it under time or environment pressure.
In the past that was fine, candidate pool was large enough that a heavy-handed filter was okay. That may be changing.
In the past that was fine, candidate pool was large enough that a heavy-handed filter was okay. That may be changing.
> Depends on how you define works. It does effectively filter the people that can't code, but it also filters a lot of people that can code and just can't or don't care to do it under time or environment pressure.
It is much more important for a company to filter out likely low performers than it is to avoid filtering out likely high performers, because the costs of hiring an incompetent person are enormous. Not only do they not produce as much, they eat up others' bandwidth by asking too many questions, implementing super buggy code, or not communicating effectively. They make other people on the team feel like they're not pulling their weight. They're a pain to fire depending on company culture and laws.
This process is designed to overfilter and maintain an A-player roster as much as possible, vs putting butts in seats. It's hard to tell whether the pool is exhausted here - by some indications, there's a lot of attrition but also a lot of hiring...
It is much more important for a company to filter out likely low performers than it is to avoid filtering out likely high performers, because the costs of hiring an incompetent person are enormous. Not only do they not produce as much, they eat up others' bandwidth by asking too many questions, implementing super buggy code, or not communicating effectively. They make other people on the team feel like they're not pulling their weight. They're a pain to fire depending on company culture and laws.
This process is designed to overfilter and maintain an A-player roster as much as possible, vs putting butts in seats. It's hard to tell whether the pool is exhausted here - by some indications, there's a lot of attrition but also a lot of hiring...
This is only true for companies that have a large talent pool e.g. FAANG companies. For some small 30 person business in the back of nowhere that wants you in the office 5 days a week they cannot be anywhere near as picky.
I tend to think it's even more true for smaller companies that do not have the margin for too many mistakes. FAANG do not have an all-A cast. They have enough buffer to weather the odd mishire; and they also have enough projects going on that they can find better projects for people based on their strengths. At a small company on the other hand, the wrong hire can be existentially problematic for the business.
Mistakes can be fixed if they are small scale i.e. one bad hire stand out at a small company and can be fired much more easily. What you're missing is that for these small companies they are excluding the best candidates with this process. In terms of bad hires at large companies they are harder to notice and large companies have more process that tends to make firing people harder.
This is why these big companies do it, because it is actually quite hard to be fired from someplace like google whereas at these small companies you'll be working directly with the owners.
Also people will do all these take home tests and 5 rounds of algo interviews and CCAT tests ... etc for large well known companies as it is prestigious to work for them. They literally won't do them for small companies. For small companies unknown companies all you'll get is desperate people you are actually filtering out all the decent candidates. I went through this process last year it's very hard to hire as a small unknown company.
This is why these big companies do it, because it is actually quite hard to be fired from someplace like google whereas at these small companies you'll be working directly with the owners.
Also people will do all these take home tests and 5 rounds of algo interviews and CCAT tests ... etc for large well known companies as it is prestigious to work for them. They literally won't do them for small companies. For small companies unknown companies all you'll get is desperate people you are actually filtering out all the decent candidates. I went through this process last year it's very hard to hire as a small unknown company.
Every job related thread on HN devolves into a bitch fest about interview questions. I don't know how it works at non-FAANGS, but Google gets literally millions of applications per year, and even the maligned FB gets a few hundred thousands. I have yet to hear any workable alternative hiring process that can cope with such volumes. At these companies, the hiring probability for most individuals must by necessity be very low, no matter what kind of interview/hiring process you'd suggest.
People have been bitching about a lot of things for a long time and they’re still in use… amount of bitching is just not correlated with anything.
More likely it works "good enough" rather than extremely well.
The companies that pay 80% of FAANG salaries without the LeetCode whiteboard bullshit are out there.
Can confirm, we do a low-pressure, non-timed, non-puzzle, somewhat realistic, short take-home exercise. But we don't (and can't) add 20+% to your salary in RSUs.
20% seems very low to me. In the 2 FAANG's I've worked at, the RSU's ended up being 100+% of my salary (which was average for my level).
Initial grant was 100% of one year's salary you mean right? So +25% of yearly salary before appreciation?
Otherwise you're saying something like a 250k base, 1MM RSUs before stock appreciation... which is a very lopsided looking offer
Otherwise you're saying something like a 250k base, 1MM RSUs before stock appreciation... which is a very lopsided looking offer
I meant 100% yearly, but after reading your comment I double-checked my offers and I was wrong. RSU grant (per year) was at ~45% of base salary.
I was going by my tax filings, and because of the stock growth (and additional grants), I end up with 100+% yearly, but that's quite different from the initial award.
Thanks for pointing this out.
I was going by my tax filings, and because of the stock growth (and additional grants), I end up with 100+% yearly, but that's quite different from the initial award.
Thanks for pointing this out.
It can be over 100% per year depending on level (more senior = more equity). Check out https://www.levels.fyi/
If you're senior L5, it can be around 100% per year even before appreciation. Above that and it starts going above 100% per year.
If you're senior L5, it can be around 100% per year even before appreciation. Above that and it starts going above 100% per year.
This is actually a common offer. Some companies that wanna continue to offer high compensation without this upfront sticker cost are now resorting to one year rather than 4 year grants (stripe, Lyft).
Stripe and Lyft are definitely not aiming to avoid upfront sticker cost with their 1 year grant scheme.
An exceedingly charitable view is that they're limiting downside, but realistically they're limiting upside so that you don't end up with people reaching targeted compensation for the next 4 years in a year or two and then leaving regardless of unvested shares
-
But I also mentioned in a comment above, I think my view is skewed because I negotiate base aggressively
As an L6 I make 250k base, and my initial grant was just over 600k in RSUs at a non-FAANG company. I think that's a higher base than median but lower equity than median for FAANG
An exceedingly charitable view is that they're limiting downside, but realistically they're limiting upside so that you don't end up with people reaching targeted compensation for the next 4 years in a year or two and then leaving regardless of unvested shares
-
But I also mentioned in a comment above, I think my view is skewed because I negotiate base aggressively
As an L6 I make 250k base, and my initial grant was just over 600k in RSUs at a non-FAANG company. I think that's a higher base than median but lower equity than median for FAANG
Why? Unless you’re sure that the stock price will tumble, it makes no sense to increase your base pay aggressively. Most higher engineering levels will top out their base in the 200-300 range and all the rest of compensation will be via RSU.
We're barely a year removed from some of the most volatile stock market action since 2008
Barely removed from a lot of people taking massive haircuts as COVID darlings are down 50%+ from ATH
-
To me equity is an investment you can't back out of for 4 years.
I'm not sure the bottom isn't going to fall off the market for tech period, so I'm happy to trade equity for the ability to have some control over my investment
Barely removed from a lot of people taking massive haircuts as COVID darlings are down 50%+ from ATH
-
To me equity is an investment you can't back out of for 4 years.
I'm not sure the bottom isn't going to fall off the market for tech period, so I'm happy to trade equity for the ability to have some control over my investment
The non-faang but with faang pegged compensation company I work for does yearly grants
My L5 comp is ~$150k base and $140k equity per year (I'm based in UK, would be higher if I was in the US)
My L5 comp is ~$150k base and $140k equity per year (I'm based in UK, would be higher if I was in the US)
I guess this is just lower base than I'm expecting
I work at a company in a similar situation (we get a lot of Xooglers and pay accordingly) and my L6 base is 250k and I have 150k worth of RSUs vesting per year for the next 3 years.
I do negotiate base aggressively vs equity so that might be skewing my view of things
I work at a company in a similar situation (we get a lot of Xooglers and pay accordingly) and my L6 base is 250k and I have 150k worth of RSUs vesting per year for the next 3 years.
I do negotiate base aggressively vs equity so that might be skewing my view of things
L6 (~ Staff eng) new hire offers at rich big co usually are af 250 base and 250-300k/yr in stock. See levels.fyi for some recent ones.
250-300k and 250k base still seems pretty uncommon for my role (mobile development)
The only company I see doing that somewhat consistently is Fa.. Meta, and they're slipping into the same place Amazon is, where they need to pile on TC to make up for an image problem
The only company I see doing that somewhat consistently is Fa.. Meta, and they're slipping into the same place Amazon is, where they need to pile on TC to make up for an image problem
I can tell you this is not true.
It's common at top companies - they are all competitive with FAANG comp. You will easily pull in $400-500k in total compensation as a mobile dev at sayyyy an AirBnB or similar. Roughly even split between base and equity.
It's common at top companies - they are all competitive with FAANG comp. You will easily pull in $400-500k in total compensation as a mobile dev at sayyyy an AirBnB or similar. Roughly even split between base and equity.
Isn't your comment confirming what I said?
If 400k (where I am with 250k base) to 500k (where I'd be with a 50:50 split) is the entire range you're mentioning, that's the same as saying "250k - 350k RSUs with 250k base is uncommon" isn't it?
-
It might be relative to my situation: I have 8 YOE experience, I'm in mobile, and most people I can talk to candidly about salary are similar. So the numbers I hear directly might be tinted by the fact ~8 YOE isn't usually enough for band topping L6 offers
That being said, even Levels.fyi isn't showing me mobile devs negotiating 250k base without giving up anything on RSUs is a common situation (it definitely wasn't when I got my job, but even with the current market craze that feels like a stretch)
If I'm missing something I'm glad to know more, one undersold upside of the current market is you don't absolutely have to job hop to push for more comp
If 400k (where I am with 250k base) to 500k (where I'd be with a 50:50 split) is the entire range you're mentioning, that's the same as saying "250k - 350k RSUs with 250k base is uncommon" isn't it?
-
It might be relative to my situation: I have 8 YOE experience, I'm in mobile, and most people I can talk to candidly about salary are similar. So the numbers I hear directly might be tinted by the fact ~8 YOE isn't usually enough for band topping L6 offers
That being said, even Levels.fyi isn't showing me mobile devs negotiating 250k base without giving up anything on RSUs is a common situation (it definitely wasn't when I got my job, but even with the current market craze that feels like a stretch)
If I'm missing something I'm glad to know more, one undersold upside of the current market is you don't absolutely have to job hop to push for more comp
Yeah I think that's fair, maybe I misread your comment. I find that base maxes at $250k but equity has a much higher ceiling as the eng levels get higher.
Great Senior Engineers are making 370-500k. Are you paying even 80% of the lowest end of that range?
Can you tell which company this is? I would like to know.
Do they typically offer RSUs? I'm asking because my RSU awards double the total compensation, so if you're counting 80% of just the salary part, then that number would end up being 40% in my case (and I assume for everyone else at my level).
My employer offers RSUs and is a public company.
Do you have any pointers for those who’d like to filter for that?
I recently came across this list which might be useful: https://github.com/poteto/hiring-without-whiteboards
It's really not that hard to prep for interviews.... Why take the paycut?
The prep itself may not be that hard. Depending on your non-work life, finding the time to do said prep may be difficult. I would like to double my comp. I also have young kids who occupy most of my wake-work and then work-sleep time. There are maybe three hours at the end of the day that aren't spoken for, but then there's housework, spouse time, and just being tired. It's difficult to fit "grind leetcode" in there. This is due to choices I've made, and I'm happy with those choices! I blame no one but myself for them. But I also think I'd make a good employee at leetcode interview companies were it not for the leetcode, and I think there are a good number of people like me.
If it’s helpful i got into the leetcode grind in a similar situation by getting up 60-90 minutes early and doing 1-2 questions a few times a week. Thoroughly understanding top 50-100 questions will take you very far. So long as you do similar questions in groups (ex: all binary tree questions) it makes it easier to understand and retain. Then even if you take long breaks between study (months), you’ll mostly retain the underlying techniques and can just refresh when it’s time to interview (ex: a week off work for a final review). it’s very annoying. But don’t sell youself short, you can mix the grind with breaks to retain some sanity. Just make sure to have a plan (ex: do top 100 questions )
Spoken like someone without kids or external responsibilities. Free time is a precious resource for those with families.
Looking at it internationally,
I could earn 3x by FAANGing in the US, but I would be on a sponsored visa and massively disrupt my life if fired. The risk factors put me off.
Money should be a big factor. Imagine a job where year 1 you work and year 2,3 you get to do whatever you like and own 100% of the equity. That is what 3x TC basically could mean.
Money should be a big factor. Imagine a job where year 1 you work and year 2,3 you get to do whatever you like and own 100% of the equity. That is what 3x TC basically could mean.
PIP culture? Google isn't giving me any answers here.
PIP stands for "Performance Improvement Plan". PIPs are a relatively common tool to give employees advance notice about getting fired, but Amazon has a notably brutal setup that uses stack ranking. Described here: https://www.reddit.com/r/csMajors/comments/kh9ztt/can_someon...
posting just as an acecdote, but as a AWS HM PIP is only used for really really obvious under performers. Honestly, one regret is not putting under performers on a plan fast enough because it is a big drag on team morale when someone isn't pulling their weight.
“Performance Improvement Plan”, it’s what you get put on when your company wants to fire you but wants to show due diligence that they tried to give you a chance so you can’t sue them. By “PIP Culture” I take it to mean Amazon where the expectation is some % of the team is always expected to be fired so PIPs are a frequent occurrence.
Picture in Picture is the most common use of the acronym, but here they mean performance improvement plan, which in many places is basically a kiss of death.
or pip install :)
Yeah - if a company does leetcode and cannot justify it, I'm out. One justification would be that the job actually requires understanding/writing a lot of algorithmic and very performance sensitive code, but that's not the case for the vast majority of jobs.
And I do the same for all other parts of an interview too. If I were asked to knit a scarf during the interview process, my reaction would be similar.
And I do the same for all other parts of an interview too. If I were asked to knit a scarf during the interview process, my reaction would be similar.
Can you define PIP, please?
Performance Improvement Plan https://www.perkbox.com/uk/resources/blog/a-complete-guide-t...
"Performance Improvement Plan". The "PIP culture" mentioned is a culture where there is an (perhaps unspoken) quota of people that need to be put on PIPs, so they are quick to pull the trigger. Very uncomfortable as it keeps people on edge.
Personal Improvement Plan. Usually used as either a blunt instrument to goad people into working harder or a sneaky way to fire people. Topped with a sauce of double-speak of course.
Money is actually a bigger deal than you think. A lot of people are in effect doubling their salaries by switching jobs right now.
Even rewinding to just 5 years ago, there were much fewer companies flush with cash. Now with the hyper-capitalization of so many up-and-coming startups, a lot more companies are now at the bidding table for the same pool of candidates. And even large incumbents have big plans to double in headcount, effectively making the tech market talent side constrained (it always has been to a large degree, but even more pronounced now). So now companies are largely competing on compensation packages, because the ball is very much in the candidate's court. Amazon is starting to pay up to ~$400k in total compensation for an L5 mid-level engineer due to retention and hiring issues, and it's commonly known within tech that Amazon has traditionally lagged behind other large companies in compensation.
Job seekers have options and are very much in a position of leverage. That is why it is hard to hire right now, because everyone needs to hire, and your company probably isn't paying as competitively as others.
Even rewinding to just 5 years ago, there were much fewer companies flush with cash. Now with the hyper-capitalization of so many up-and-coming startups, a lot more companies are now at the bidding table for the same pool of candidates. And even large incumbents have big plans to double in headcount, effectively making the tech market talent side constrained (it always has been to a large degree, but even more pronounced now). So now companies are largely competing on compensation packages, because the ball is very much in the candidate's court. Amazon is starting to pay up to ~$400k in total compensation for an L5 mid-level engineer due to retention and hiring issues, and it's commonly known within tech that Amazon has traditionally lagged behind other large companies in compensation.
Job seekers have options and are very much in a position of leverage. That is why it is hard to hire right now, because everyone needs to hire, and your company probably isn't paying as competitively as others.
In a certain kind of environment, maybe cool tech and loyalty could have been the tiebreaker for engineers in the job market, but it's very difficult to stare a 100% raise with similar WLB in the face and not think about making a move.
I mean, 100% raise for me would be unfathomable - that carries me over to five figures, which over here is high-end managerial compensation, definitely not something for a mediocre code monkey.
I mean, I'm not saying I'm mediocre, but I wouldn't pass a 'do you work with cool tech' (machine learning, crypto, iot, microservices?) or a leetcode test.
I can go back to Java though, I guess.
I mean, I'm not saying I'm mediocre, but I wouldn't pass a 'do you work with cool tech' (machine learning, crypto, iot, microservices?) or a leetcode test.
I can go back to Java though, I guess.
I’ve gotten 7 recruitment emails since Sunday and none of them have come close to sufficiently explaining what the company or job is for me to even consider responding.
It’s bizarre how secretive they are. I imagine the recruiters are looking out for their own interests.
Recruiters are in the way.
It’s bizarre how secretive they are. I imagine the recruiters are looking out for their own interests.
Recruiters are in the way.
It’s because if you apply directly, they don’t get paid for their work. So they hide the details until you talk to them.
I’m a software engineer that started a recruiting company. The current state of the industry is pretty bad. We are trying a different approach- we are transparent. We share all the details about the company right out of the gate. Including salary info. We refuse to work with companies that won’t let us publish salary ranges. I’d love feedback (https://app.facet.net/jobs/search)
I’m a software engineer that started a recruiting company. The current state of the industry is pretty bad. We are trying a different approach- we are transparent. We share all the details about the company right out of the gate. Including salary info. We refuse to work with companies that won’t let us publish salary ranges. I’d love feedback (https://app.facet.net/jobs/search)
First off great concept. The salary transparency seems like a huge selling point.I also love the aspect of being able to search by tech stack within your jobs, very frictionless.
Indeed I think many recruiters have it backwards. I've had good and bad experiences. There are recruiters who understand the long term game as a salesman, who build win-win relations and check in on you every few years. Those are the people that will absolutely sell your CV to your future boss and those are the people I have no problem in acting on my behalf as an intermediary.
Indeed I think many recruiters have it backwards. I've had good and bad experiences. There are recruiters who understand the long term game as a salesman, who build win-win relations and check in on you every few years. Those are the people that will absolutely sell your CV to your future boss and those are the people I have no problem in acting on my behalf as an intermediary.
Better recruiters are retained. They get paid for a search, not for a hire. And they don't spam you on linked in.
Very cool site. The salary filter is a little unintuitive: the minimum filter appears to apply to the _lower_ end of the listed range, and be non-inclusive. For instance there is a job listed at Netgear with a range of $300k-400k, if I set the filter to $300k, it is not shown. I would probably expect it to show until I set the filter to $401k or more.
Edit: I see now that it is filtering on salary (which is visible if you look at the listing details), but the summary is showing total comp.
Edit: I see now that it is filtering on salary (which is visible if you look at the listing details), but the summary is showing total comp.
Played with the search. Hard to evaluate on salary alone, especially for senior roles if equity is part of the offer. Showing equity as well may help (percent times last valuation)
If they don't provide enough information, no one would reply I suppose and they will not get paid at all.
> Recruiters are in the way.
So much this. I've had many conversations with interesting companies that have good pay and cool products, but recruiters/hr keep coming up with bullshit policies and processes that are just obnoxious and only serve to sort out the compliant from the competent.
So much this. I've had many conversations with interesting companies that have good pay and cool products, but recruiters/hr keep coming up with bullshit policies and processes that are just obnoxious and only serve to sort out the compliant from the competent.
A lot of this is employee incentives. I am strongly, strongly, strongly, incentivized to avoid mistakes over taking any kind of risk to make an improvement.
> compliant vs competent.
I love this distinction. So concise and clear. Thanks.
I love this distinction. So concise and clear. Thanks.
I was once told recruiters did this because they didn't want you reading the email and heading straight to the company's site to apply. If you applied directly, the recruiter was out of the loop and thus out of a commission. I suppose I _might_ be able to negotiate that commission in the form of a larger signing bonus. I doubt that's a winning strategy.
It seems like it would usually be in the best interest of the potential candidate to work through the recruiter. By having been sought out, you have an advantage. You can actually talk to a recruiter and check status of your progress, where as a web application is a black box of which you may never hear another word. At some point the recruiter is going to feel invested in you.
It seems like it would usually be in the best interest of the potential candidate to work through the recruiter. By having been sought out, you have an advantage. You can actually talk to a recruiter and check status of your progress, where as a web application is a black box of which you may never hear another word. At some point the recruiter is going to feel invested in you.
Agreed.
Why would I skip the recruiter and apply directly unless the recruiter is a non-helpful middleman? I’d love to have a direct contact to negotiate the whole process.
Why would I skip the recruiter and apply directly unless the recruiter is a non-helpful middleman? I’d love to have a direct contact to negotiate the whole process.
If you have ever met a recruiter who was NOT an unhelpful middleman, I'd love to meet them. My spam folder is filled daily with dozens of body-shop spammers with 50-point scrabble names offering me jobs I don't do in places I won't live for money I haven't made since I quit my newspaper route in college. It's maddening and has been very consistent throughout my career.
I've toyed with the idea of finding a for-fee recruiter on my own to spam these companies and their listings and pre-negotiate out something really interesting for myself. But that's more like a sports agent. Anyone know a tech sports agency to Jerry Maguire myself with? :D
(I know, first world diva problems, sigh... it's still grating though)
I've toyed with the idea of finding a for-fee recruiter on my own to spam these companies and their listings and pre-negotiate out something really interesting for myself. But that's more like a sports agent. Anyone know a tech sports agency to Jerry Maguire myself with? :D
(I know, first world diva problems, sigh... it's still grating though)
The recruiter that got me my current gig was great. I literally didn't fill out anything or apply. I handed him my current resume and that was it. He scheduled the interview rounds, managed the negotiations (10k more than my requirements), did everything.
Sure, he's getting like $30k from my employer in a month, but whatever. That $30k has almost no impact on my compensation.
He mainly does Dallas, but my position is fully remote.
Sure, he's getting like $30k from my employer in a month, but whatever. That $30k has almost no impact on my compensation.
He mainly does Dallas, but my position is fully remote.
Can you email me your Dallas recruiter’s information? Not currently in the market for anything but would be good to have on file and may be useful to some friends in town.
Email is my username with one less 0, at gmail
Email is my username with one less 0, at gmail
You've got mail.
> (I know, first world diva problems, sigh... it's still grating though)
The fact that there seem to be more recruiters than competent developers sometimes tells me a diva status is deserved.
The thing is, a recruiter's pay can easily be 10K per placed candidate. Looking at my current pay, that means they only need to place a handful of people a year to earn as much as I do.
The fact that there seem to be more recruiters than competent developers sometimes tells me a diva status is deserved.
The thing is, a recruiter's pay can easily be 10K per placed candidate. Looking at my current pay, that means they only need to place a handful of people a year to earn as much as I do.
I've worked with ... 4 in over 25 years that I would work with again. They were helpful middlemen. Only 2 landed me anything, but I know the other 2 put in some effort and things just didn't work out. There's been dozens I've spoken with and wasted far too much time with.
tldr - they do exist, but in very short supply (like many skilled/talented people in most industries)
tldr - they do exist, but in very short supply (like many skilled/talented people in most industries)
Every time I’ve actually been in the pipeline at a company, I appreciated having a recruiter as my point of contact.
I’ve had almost universally positive experience with recruiters, as a hirer and a recruit.
Not exactly an agent, but you can hire a negotiation consultant at levels.fyi. When you get to the nosebleed levels of comp, it makes sense to have a specialist in your corner.
Not exactly an agent, but you can hire a negotiation consultant at levels.fyi. When you get to the nosebleed levels of comp, it makes sense to have a specialist in your corner.
I was once told recruiters did this because they didn't want you reading the email and heading straight to the company's site to apply.
I've heard this a few times as well over my career, I wonder what-beyond missing out on that sweet contingency fee-recruiters have to lose by, as the article suggest: just being freaking transparent with candidates
I've heard this a few times as well over my career, I wonder what-beyond missing out on that sweet contingency fee-recruiters have to lose by, as the article suggest: just being freaking transparent with candidates
other than the contingency fee, what do they have to gain? that's literally how recruiters make money!
> I suppose I _might_ be able to negotiate that commission
Asking for a friend. Does anybody know what this commission is?
Asking for a friend. Does anybody know what this commission is?
30% of the new hire's first year salary
30% of the engineer’s first year salary.
It varies based on where you are and the specifics of the deal. 15–30% of the first year‘s salary is normal in my experience.
That's fucking disgusting.
you realize it doesn't come out of the employee's salary, right? the company has to cough it up separately.
As someone that has tried to do it myself, and then hired a couple recruiters, that money is well justified.
Think of all the engineers that hate recruiters. A recruiter has to talk to those folks every day.
Think of all the engineers that hate recruiters. A recruiter has to talk to those folks every day.
I actually had a recuiter get angry at me recently for asking them for a basic job description and salary after their cold email had literally zero information other than the expectation I'd set up a call with them for a "very competitive role".
Like, I just don't understand the audacity of most of them. Especially when almost invariably their competitive pay is 30% of what even base level fangs would offer. Its a complete waste of everyone's time.
Like, I just don't understand the audacity of most of them. Especially when almost invariably their competitive pay is 30% of what even base level fangs would offer. Its a complete waste of everyone's time.
This was (and I assume nothing has changed) an endemic problem in the UK, especially for contractors.
One of the most accurate descriptions I’ve ever read about it is “Don’t feed the beast - the great tech recruiter infestation” [1 - though an archive since the original has been taken down].
[1]: https://gist.github.com/CumpsD/696599d1bd4cd472a056586967293...
One of the most accurate descriptions I’ve ever read about it is “Don’t feed the beast - the great tech recruiter infestation” [1 - though an archive since the original has been taken down].
[1]: https://gist.github.com/CumpsD/696599d1bd4cd472a056586967293...
I'm a freelancing software consultant from Germany that gets increasingly spammed from UK recruiters and always wondered what the case is here. Your linked article pretty much nails it though. That being said things are only slightly different here in Germany, albeit not too much.
This is beautiful. Shithead is what would have happened if Terry Pratchett wrote a novel about recruiters.
There are good recruiters. They're relatively rare.
They tend to stick around the industry for a while, not treat you like a mushroom (keep you in the dark, bury you in bullshit), and respond humanly to human requests.
You can safely block the one you're describing here, and we'll all be better if that's the standard response.
They tend to stick around the industry for a while, not treat you like a mushroom (keep you in the dark, bury you in bullshit), and respond humanly to human requests.
You can safely block the one you're describing here, and we'll all be better if that's the standard response.
> Recruiters are in the way.
I'm astounded at how awful recruiters have gotten. What's insane to me is how no one in the industry seems to question the spray and pray approach to recruiting.
There are a few "whoa that's neat!" things on my resume such that if a recruiter or hiring manager looked at it they would certainly notice. This works as a great test for if a recruiter is really looking at me or just spamming a keyword on my linkedin. This filters out essentially all recruiter spam.
What's funny though is how much energy companies spend to pretend like they've read your resume and want the actual you as a candidate in any way. Facebook recently tried a tactic of sending email from the hiring manager. "I really want you on my team, let's find a time to chat!" But clearly it was just an automated email since the message didn't mention any of my resume that might make me a particularly interesting candidate for the team. Another company clearly automatically scraped my resume to make it sound like the read it, but picked the most bizarre, nonsensical things to pull from it.
The funny thing is, even though I love my current job, if you came to me as said "it_does_follow, I've noticed that you worked on XXX and YYY projects, we really need someone who could do that type of work for our team, we're working on exactly these type of problems" and they touched on the actual work I've done that I'm proud of, I would jump on a call in a heart beat.
Every engineer really would prefer to work on problems in their particular domain that interest them, for a team that values them as an individual. I am certain that if recruiters spent their time targeting a much smaller pool of good candidates that really are a match for the role, they would have much higher success rates.
I'm astounded at how awful recruiters have gotten. What's insane to me is how no one in the industry seems to question the spray and pray approach to recruiting.
There are a few "whoa that's neat!" things on my resume such that if a recruiter or hiring manager looked at it they would certainly notice. This works as a great test for if a recruiter is really looking at me or just spamming a keyword on my linkedin. This filters out essentially all recruiter spam.
What's funny though is how much energy companies spend to pretend like they've read your resume and want the actual you as a candidate in any way. Facebook recently tried a tactic of sending email from the hiring manager. "I really want you on my team, let's find a time to chat!" But clearly it was just an automated email since the message didn't mention any of my resume that might make me a particularly interesting candidate for the team. Another company clearly automatically scraped my resume to make it sound like the read it, but picked the most bizarre, nonsensical things to pull from it.
The funny thing is, even though I love my current job, if you came to me as said "it_does_follow, I've noticed that you worked on XXX and YYY projects, we really need someone who could do that type of work for our team, we're working on exactly these type of problems" and they touched on the actual work I've done that I'm proud of, I would jump on a call in a heart beat.
Every engineer really would prefer to work on problems in their particular domain that interest them, for a team that values them as an individual. I am certain that if recruiters spent their time targeting a much smaller pool of good candidates that really are a match for the role, they would have much higher success rates.
A recruiter contacted me for a position at the company that I co-founded. Unfortunately I didn’t have the time to play along, so the only outcome was a message to the hiring manager.
As a rule, I don’t trust any third party recruiters but that generally limits me to mid sized and up companies unless I actively seek them out. On the other hand, I get an email from Amazon recruitment nearly every day and I have zero desire to work the bozos.
It's *Bezos. (joke)
In all seriousness, my experience with third party recruiters overall has been quite good. One sought me out and continued to follow up until it sounded like a good deal, and in the end I won a sign-on bonus, decent salary, and felt like I started a good working relationship with the recruiter themselves, too.
Now, this guy hits me up for when he has potential matches for my team. It's been really good. I'm sure like most things, there are good recruiters and bad ones, regardless of first or third party.
In all seriousness, my experience with third party recruiters overall has been quite good. One sought me out and continued to follow up until it sounded like a good deal, and in the end I won a sign-on bonus, decent salary, and felt like I started a good working relationship with the recruiter themselves, too.
Now, this guy hits me up for when he has potential matches for my team. It's been really good. I'm sure like most things, there are good recruiters and bad ones, regardless of first or third party.
If you're willing to do a minimal amount of screening to figure out which ones are the good ones, third party recruiters are worth their weight in gold. They make the hiring process significantly easier.
I was also getting multiple Amazon recruiter emails per day until I actually called one recruiter who listed his phone number on the email up. He was willing to mark me as "Not Interested" or something like that in their candidate pool, and since then, I actually haven't had any more Amazon recruiter spam!
Might be worth a try if you like having a clean inbox.
Might be worth a try if you like having a clean inbox.
I tried that and immediately got 2 more emails from different teams. To this day, they continue. I swear that nobody at Amazon talks to each other.
Yup. AWS really wants to hire me as another cog. I’ll pass.
AWS didn’t want to hire me as a cog. I was mildly insulted.
Maybe you didnt STAR hard enough to be considered a dedicated, fanatic cog :)
When I saw they had like 14 principles I was like ‘yeah, peace out’. I can deal with 3-5, but 14? You can’t see the forest for the trees.
The scary thing is that I actually agree with almost all of their principles, I've memorized my answers for each one (with overlap), I can do quite a few BFS graph problems and implement an LRU cache accurately... I can do data modeling and talk about all of the non functional requirements of distributed systems.... and still I get denied :D
Oh well! Guess it will be remote work at a normal company for me then.
Oh well! Guess it will be remote work at a normal company for me then.
That's just it, also in my neck of the woods. I don't get it. Aren't there companies that just hire one of their own, internal recruiters? That way, they can directly approach people going "Hi, I'm a recruiter for company X, I'm looking for an Y developer and you match our profile. This position's pay range is A - B. Would you like to have a quick chat with one of our engineers to see if this is a match for you?"
Instead I get wordy yet vague e-mails or dodgy calls where they don't dare drop the actual name of the companies until you've agreed to go on an interview. And of course, being recruiters instead of actual engineers, they don't actually know what they're talking about.
I just don't get it. I've only been approached by a 'first party' recruiter once, for Google Docs in Germany. I didn't want to relocate or work on Docs though so that was a pass for me, and that was after the 'shine' of Google had passed as well.
Instead I get wordy yet vague e-mails or dodgy calls where they don't dare drop the actual name of the companies until you've agreed to go on an interview. And of course, being recruiters instead of actual engineers, they don't actually know what they're talking about.
I just don't get it. I've only been approached by a 'first party' recruiter once, for Google Docs in Germany. I didn't want to relocate or work on Docs though so that was a pass for me, and that was after the 'shine' of Google had passed as well.
These are the trash recruiters. The good ones are trusted by hiring managers so you have a better chance getting noticed by going through the recruiter.
Yup. I mean I've worked with a couple good recruiters that were genuinely helpful, but many are exactly as you said, just in the way.
One recruiter just couldn't understand that the commute for me was major. I had just left a job which had a 1-1.5hr commute each way for me, and I was looking exclusively for something with no more than a 30 minute commute. They kept trying to toss my resume at jobs that had equivalent or longer commutes because "the perks are really nice" or the "pay was really good". Which I took to mean their commission would be really good.
One recruiter just couldn't understand that the commute for me was major. I had just left a job which had a 1-1.5hr commute each way for me, and I was looking exclusively for something with no more than a 30 minute commute. They kept trying to toss my resume at jobs that had equivalent or longer commutes because "the perks are really nice" or the "pay was really good". Which I took to mean their commission would be really good.
I feel 3rd party recruiters are such a massive waste of time and a drag on the overall process. Has anyone built a true job search engine that simply links back to the original company's site (instead of some recruiting agency)? It seems that even the big job sites like Indeed are so fully of recruiters that their quality is pretty low.
I simply refuse to work with 3rd party recruiters. I've had terrible experiences with them on the hiring side.
Internal recruiters as they currently are should not exist. That's the hiring managers job, including negotiation of pay.
The only roles I've ever accepted were roles that involved a hiring manager reaching out directly to me. There's a reason for this, namely that the only recruiters worth a damn seem to be working in boutique firms and want to take a significant bite out of my future pay.
Really, just avoid them if possible.
The only roles I've ever accepted were roles that involved a hiring manager reaching out directly to me. There's a reason for this, namely that the only recruiters worth a damn seem to be working in boutique firms and want to take a significant bite out of my future pay.
Really, just avoid them if possible.
As a hiring manager I’ve worked with internal recruiters and a good one is invaluable.
- the transactional part of setting up interview loops, coordinating schedules, etc is extremely tedious for a field of 3-5 serious candidates for a given role. Internal recruiter takes all of this away from a hiring manager who has other duties.
- an internal recruiter can plow through LinkedIn to find solid candidates, identifying ones for the hiring manager to review and, if qualified, reach out to. Again, tedious work for a hiring manager with other responsibilities.
- the transactional part of setting up interview loops, coordinating schedules, etc is extremely tedious for a field of 3-5 serious candidates for a given role. Internal recruiter takes all of this away from a hiring manager who has other duties.
- an internal recruiter can plow through LinkedIn to find solid candidates, identifying ones for the hiring manager to review and, if qualified, reach out to. Again, tedious work for a hiring manager with other responsibilities.
You are right, although there is a risk that internal recruitment teams become a bottleneck. Particularly when the requirement for new hires is more elastic than recruitment capacity. Something has to be given a lower priority.
That should be your job. Even the "tedious" parts are too important to be left to a non technical person. Time of day for scheduling interviews really does matter and the initial communication of scheduling this can tell you an enormous amount about the candidate.
Your job should also include lots of time on LinkedIn searching, as many HMs do today. Letting a recruiter do this for you will give you many more bad interviews (expensive) than you'd get otherwise.
But apparently "tedious work" is above a HM. Have fun being on conference calls all day, pretending that you and not the engineers are the ones who do the work. Worker self management needs to become more of a thing in this field in general if we can't trust HMs to take an active role in candidate selection. Companies that disvow managers and empower their employees produce far more excellent work (e.g. valve) even if they don't always do it on the schedule that execs want - so this would be a net positive for the industry.
Your job should also include lots of time on LinkedIn searching, as many HMs do today. Letting a recruiter do this for you will give you many more bad interviews (expensive) than you'd get otherwise.
But apparently "tedious work" is above a HM. Have fun being on conference calls all day, pretending that you and not the engineers are the ones who do the work. Worker self management needs to become more of a thing in this field in general if we can't trust HMs to take an active role in candidate selection. Companies that disvow managers and empower their employees produce far more excellent work (e.g. valve) even if they don't always do it on the schedule that execs want - so this would be a net positive for the industry.
Strong nope on pretty much all points, and its rude and presumptuous to tell me what my job should be or what other work it entails.
We’re going to just have to disagree here.
[deleted]
Internal recruiters are kind of a necessity, though: hiring managers often don't have skills in sourcing candidates, have calendars filled with other responsibilities, and are generally more expensive per hour than recruiters, for the kinds of work that either could do (screening, communicating with candidates about progress, organizing interviews, etc.).
In most cases that I've seen the internal recruiters have strong relationships with the hiring managers and are incentivized to make sure the hires actually succeed.
In most cases that I've seen the internal recruiters have strong relationships with the hiring managers and are incentivized to make sure the hires actually succeed.
Companies nowadays seem to have a fixed expectation that if they're not rejecting 99 candidates for every candidate they hire, they are somehow not doing it right.
Looking at it from the candidate's point of view: Being rejected is actually something that psychologically kind of sucks a lot. Even if at the level of higher cognition you are perfectly aware that it's just a numbers game, and that you shouldn't let rejection get to you in a psychological way, we are not vulcans but humans. Rejection means cognitive dissonance in a big way: You applied for the job, so that means you wanted it. But they rejected you, so that means that you're not getting it. It's also a threat to your identity, because you think of yourself as being pretty good, and now there's someone who thinks you're not good enough for them. It just sucks.
So what do you do? You engage in cognitive dissonance reduction. You look at that recruiter spam, and you immediately start looking for reasons not to apply. Because if you find any reason not to want the job, then they can't hurt you by not giving it to you.
Recruiting is broken in a big way: We need to find ways of doing it that causes much less psychological friction.
Looking at it from the candidate's point of view: Being rejected is actually something that psychologically kind of sucks a lot. Even if at the level of higher cognition you are perfectly aware that it's just a numbers game, and that you shouldn't let rejection get to you in a psychological way, we are not vulcans but humans. Rejection means cognitive dissonance in a big way: You applied for the job, so that means you wanted it. But they rejected you, so that means that you're not getting it. It's also a threat to your identity, because you think of yourself as being pretty good, and now there's someone who thinks you're not good enough for them. It just sucks.
So what do you do? You engage in cognitive dissonance reduction. You look at that recruiter spam, and you immediately start looking for reasons not to apply. Because if you find any reason not to want the job, then they can't hurt you by not giving it to you.
Recruiting is broken in a big way: We need to find ways of doing it that causes much less psychological friction.
This is very insightful. I've personally gotten better at handling rejections, but it's still very difficult. The amount of effort individuals are expected to invest in each prospective job is mind blowing.
On top of my resume, you want me to fill out multiple text boxes with information about why I want to work at Random No Name Company, what I expect from my time there, what my personal ethos is... Then you ask me for a cover letter?! This is literally to just initiate a lottery where it seems the odds of the next step happening are less than 1%.
It's more brutal than dating. I do not envy any single engineers who are juggling both games.
On top of my resume, you want me to fill out multiple text boxes with information about why I want to work at Random No Name Company, what I expect from my time there, what my personal ethos is... Then you ask me for a cover letter?! This is literally to just initiate a lottery where it seems the odds of the next step happening are less than 1%.
It's more brutal than dating. I do not envy any single engineers who are juggling both games.
Rejecting 99% of candidates doesn't mean that the average developer gets rejected 99 times before being hired.
It could equally well be that some candidates get rejected 1000 times, while others get hired pretty quickly.
It could equally well be that some candidates get rejected 1000 times, while others get hired pretty quickly.
I knew that someone was going to pick up on the scent of Bayesian fallacy here ;-) ...though I think there's probably an economics-style-argument that can be made here that a market where companies reject a lot of candidates won't be in equilibrium if there are a lot of candidates who seldom get rejected. -- Whether the exact number is 9, 99, or 999, and what kind of measure of central tendency that number represents, whether it's a mean, a median, a mode, or whatever, has no real bearing on the argument I was making.
To me, working from home during the pandemic has made my employer fungible. Having to commute to work used to mean that where my job was located mattered. Being physically located at the office meant more socializing with coworkers, so companies could offer perks, like free food, or social events. They could differentiate from other companies by offering these things or selling their "culture". None of that matters anymore.
Nowadays, work is just signing into my machine every morning and joining a Zoom meeting for standup. Interacting with coworkers is either via Zoom meetings or via Slack. I hardly need to interact with them apart from work-related matters. There isn't an opportunity to chat at the coffee machine, or grab lunch together, or get drinks after work. The work is now just the work that I do and not the people I work with or the building that I commute to.
What does this all mean for me? It means if I find the kind of work I do boring, or I don't think I'm paid well enough, I can just quit. I can judge companies I work for based on pay, type of work I do, likelihood of promotion (for more pay), and how many hours I need to put in. All the other things that could impact how much I love working for company X are gone. It's purely "what is the job doing for me?" now. I think that's playing a role in people wanting to quit. They're no longer tied to their jobs as much as they used to be. They're realizing if they don't like it, they can just leave.
Nowadays, work is just signing into my machine every morning and joining a Zoom meeting for standup. Interacting with coworkers is either via Zoom meetings or via Slack. I hardly need to interact with them apart from work-related matters. There isn't an opportunity to chat at the coffee machine, or grab lunch together, or get drinks after work. The work is now just the work that I do and not the people I work with or the building that I commute to.
What does this all mean for me? It means if I find the kind of work I do boring, or I don't think I'm paid well enough, I can just quit. I can judge companies I work for based on pay, type of work I do, likelihood of promotion (for more pay), and how many hours I need to put in. All the other things that could impact how much I love working for company X are gone. It's purely "what is the job doing for me?" now. I think that's playing a role in people wanting to quit. They're no longer tied to their jobs as much as they used to be. They're realizing if they don't like it, they can just leave.
This reply resonates the most with me. I absolutely agree.
The difference in how the day-to-day activities 'feel' between company A and company B just isn't as big anymore now with full remote.
The difference in how the day-to-day activities 'feel' between company A and company B just isn't as big anymore now with full remote.
The whole "Quittening" is a little US-centric. The short answer is: "Too many jobs, too few qualified people"
We're struggling to hire senior talent, well, senior, entry level, anything but apprentice. The thing is: So is everyone else. There are statistic on these things, there aren't anyone to hire, you have to get people to leave other jobs, but then those companies are just shorthanded and you solved nothing.
So we hire as many apprentices as we're able to handle and legally have. When their training is done, 4 years from now, the majority of them will receive a job offer. So far we hired all but one of our former apprentices.
Engineering isn't the only line of work with this issue. My wife business is in the same situation. Unemployment rate is at 0,7%. The people not employed are all in that situation due to personality issues. The only available people they can hire are those toxic enough that most would prefer not to hire them if ANY other option is available. Other than that, take in as many apprentices as they can handle and ofter them a job in 3,5 years time.
This is debated in Denmark ever year, in July, when schools announce who got in to which universities, colleges and so on. Every year: We're missing nurses, engineers, STEM, all the usual. Not once have I hear anyone mention which subjects people need to stop applying for. My personal favorite subject that can be cancelled: SoMe marketing manager. The amount of people applying to those educations are insane and they can't even market themselfs well enough to get a job.
We're struggling to hire senior talent, well, senior, entry level, anything but apprentice. The thing is: So is everyone else. There are statistic on these things, there aren't anyone to hire, you have to get people to leave other jobs, but then those companies are just shorthanded and you solved nothing.
So we hire as many apprentices as we're able to handle and legally have. When their training is done, 4 years from now, the majority of them will receive a job offer. So far we hired all but one of our former apprentices.
Engineering isn't the only line of work with this issue. My wife business is in the same situation. Unemployment rate is at 0,7%. The people not employed are all in that situation due to personality issues. The only available people they can hire are those toxic enough that most would prefer not to hire them if ANY other option is available. Other than that, take in as many apprentices as they can handle and ofter them a job in 3,5 years time.
This is debated in Denmark ever year, in July, when schools announce who got in to which universities, colleges and so on. Every year: We're missing nurses, engineers, STEM, all the usual. Not once have I hear anyone mention which subjects people need to stop applying for. My personal favorite subject that can be cancelled: SoMe marketing manager. The amount of people applying to those educations are insane and they can't even market themselfs well enough to get a job.
“Talent” drives me nuts. Makes it sound like people are talking about applicants to Berklee.
Can you tell more about this apprentice system? And what legal status does it have in your country?
It's like carpenters or bricklayers. We hire student who are enrolled in a tradeschool, in our case they're studying "systemadministration/networking" and the job is part of the education. They are actual employees. They are organized by one of the unions, weirdly enough the metal-workers union, but they handle all apprentices, regardless of their field of work.
The apprentices are paid a fixed salary, they are allowed to work 37 hours a week, when not in school. We pay their salary while at school. We're allowed to have four per senior employee, to ensure that we can actually help them learn. In return we can more or less dictate what we teach them, so we can provide them with the education we need. They normally get the boring trivial tasks initially, but that's okay because it's new to them and they feel like they're help and doing actual work (which they are). As they progress we give them more and more responsibility, until they, in our case, get to handle customers on their own and do their own projects.
It's more or less the same deal with the student my wife has, they're just organized differently, because they're pharmacy workers.
On the surface it seems expensive, but it's a good way to hire people and in the end I believe apprentices actually make us more money than they cost.
We're not obligated to hire them afterwards, but normally most are interested in staying for at least a few years.
The apprentices are paid a fixed salary, they are allowed to work 37 hours a week, when not in school. We pay their salary while at school. We're allowed to have four per senior employee, to ensure that we can actually help them learn. In return we can more or less dictate what we teach them, so we can provide them with the education we need. They normally get the boring trivial tasks initially, but that's okay because it's new to them and they feel like they're help and doing actual work (which they are). As they progress we give them more and more responsibility, until they, in our case, get to handle customers on their own and do their own projects.
It's more or less the same deal with the student my wife has, they're just organized differently, because they're pharmacy workers.
On the surface it seems expensive, but it's a good way to hire people and in the end I believe apprentices actually make us more money than they cost.
We're not obligated to hire them afterwards, but normally most are interested in staying for at least a few years.
Thank you for this perspective.
I wonder if we have something like this in the US.
I wonder if we have something like this in the US.
Another reason companies can't hire right now is because they like to shoot themselves in the foot with their terrible interview processes.
Any < 100 person startup which is doing Leetcode interviews is letting go of so many great candidates who will actually get the job done.
A lot of times interviewers turn interview into an ego contest where they are looking for reasons to reject. Try your best to remove those biases. If you are a company, have a predefined set of 10 questions that your interviewers can ask from -- make the evaluation criteria as objective as possible. There is no place for "vibe check" in technical interviews.
Any < 100 person startup which is doing Leetcode interviews is letting go of so many great candidates who will actually get the job done.
A lot of times interviewers turn interview into an ego contest where they are looking for reasons to reject. Try your best to remove those biases. If you are a company, have a predefined set of 10 questions that your interviewers can ask from -- make the evaluation criteria as objective as possible. There is no place for "vibe check" in technical interviews.
Yeah, the hiring process is complete crap in all companies
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 managers from the job market rather than internally promoting individual contributors to management status.
If any company offered me a shot at management right now, despite the fact that I have no management experience, I would do it in a heartbeat.
If any company offered me a shot at management right now, despite the fact that I have no management experience, I would do it in a heartbeat.
> 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?
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.
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.
That’s weird. I like money more than “work for cool stuff”. Cool stuff don’t pay bills.
Heh, maybe this is why I am an average engineer.
Heh, maybe this is why I am an average engineer.
On the flip side companies don’t really seem to care if you’re interested either. I applied to around 200 companies in the final 2 years of my data science undergrad and no matter how much interest I showed in the fields of my interest: stream processing, network analysis, and recommendation systems nobody really cared. I added projects and hackathons and applied directly to teams working on that stuff, never even got an interview in those areas. I ended up getting a front end job at a FANG.
The truth of hiring is nobody is actually honest about it, most of the advice you read online is unrealistic. Engineers mostly care about compensation, working conditions, and future job prospects. Companies mostly care about whether you fit some pre defined funnel and can pass their interview hoops they don’t care about how interested you are or “how much value you can bring” like you read online.
Companies will hire the engineer who passed all 5 technical interviews with good feedback over the engineer who got medium feedback but has experience and interest in the field. And engineers will turn down the most interesting job with middling pay for the high paying boring job that offers remote.
The truth of hiring is nobody is actually honest about it, most of the advice you read online is unrealistic. Engineers mostly care about compensation, working conditions, and future job prospects. Companies mostly care about whether you fit some pre defined funnel and can pass their interview hoops they don’t care about how interested you are or “how much value you can bring” like you read online.
Companies will hire the engineer who passed all 5 technical interviews with good feedback over the engineer who got medium feedback but has experience and interest in the field. And engineers will turn down the most interesting job with middling pay for the high paying boring job that offers remote.
> Companies mostly care about whether you fit some pre defined funnel and can pass their interview hoops they don’t care about how interested you are or “how much value you can bring” like you read online.
I think this is overly cynical. Companies do want these things but at large companies you:
1. Cannot maintain a network of trust amongst people making hiring decisions to keep the bar high.
2. Want a plausibly "objective" process to avoid complaints or lawsuits for discrimination
This leads to modern hiring practices. Smart smaller companies put up fewer hoops, most aren't so smart and just ape the big companies not understanding the forces that led to those hiring practices.
If you can get a strong enough recommendation from someone within the central network of trust of an engineering organization you can skip interviews even at large companies like Google.
I think this is overly cynical. Companies do want these things but at large companies you:
1. Cannot maintain a network of trust amongst people making hiring decisions to keep the bar high.
2. Want a plausibly "objective" process to avoid complaints or lawsuits for discrimination
This leads to modern hiring practices. Smart smaller companies put up fewer hoops, most aren't so smart and just ape the big companies not understanding the forces that led to those hiring practices.
If you can get a strong enough recommendation from someone within the central network of trust of an engineering organization you can skip interviews even at large companies like Google.
I doubt about skipping interviews at Google. I've been at Google for about 8 years, but never met any Googler that joined after skipping interviews (except for acquihires or people who join after a company merge/acquisitions).
This is unsurprising, the network of trust I'm describing at Google isn't large while the company is huge (~27,000 engineers). Additionally, bypassing the interviews expends cultural capital, so you'd expect those who can make it happen to not usually do so. If I haven't been lied to, at least one person in the last few years joined as an IC without the standard interview process because someone near the very top of the org chart said they absolutely needed him on their team ASAP.
It's funny that most of my high school buddies grind their jobs for a paycheck, but as a software developer I'm supposed to "find a company I'm passionate about" so work "has meaning".
Hard lessons I learned over the last 24 months:
- Titles don't matter. Promotions provide minimal pay increases. It's better to focus on finding another job.
- Job difficulty doesn't scale linearly with salary. I'm working roughly the same as I did in jobs where I earned 1/3 the salary I get now.
- RSUs are the way to get crazy money. I completely disregarded them early in my career.
Hard lessons I learned over the last 24 months:
- Titles don't matter. Promotions provide minimal pay increases. It's better to focus on finding another job.
- Job difficulty doesn't scale linearly with salary. I'm working roughly the same as I did in jobs where I earned 1/3 the salary I get now.
- RSUs are the way to get crazy money. I completely disregarded them early in my career.
100% correct. Tell you more - one can try to get a job that pays less thinking you are going to work less - in reality you are going to work more for less money and less respect. These are shit companies and must be avoided.
What are RSUs?
Restricted Stock Units:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/restricted-stock-unit.a...
"The term restricted stock unit (RSU) refers to a form of compensation issued by an employer to an employee in the form of company shares. Restricted stock units are issued to employees through a vesting plan and distribution schedule after they achieve required performance milestones or upon remaining with their employer for a particular length of time. RSUs give employees interest in company stock but no tangible value until vesting is complete. The RSUs are assigned a fair market value (FMV) when they vest. They are considered income once vested, and a portion of the shares is withheld to pay income taxes. The employee receives the remaining shares and can sell them at their discretion."
"The term restricted stock unit (RSU) refers to a form of compensation issued by an employer to an employee in the form of company shares. Restricted stock units are issued to employees through a vesting plan and distribution schedule after they achieve required performance milestones or upon remaining with their employer for a particular length of time. RSUs give employees interest in company stock but no tangible value until vesting is complete. The RSUs are assigned a fair market value (FMV) when they vest. They are considered income once vested, and a portion of the shares is withheld to pay income taxes. The employee receives the remaining shares and can sell them at their discretion."
Compensation in the form of stock that's essentially as good as cash.
[deleted]
Restricted Stock Units
> Cool stuff don’t pay bills.
I'm very much on board with this. I put stability and money on about the same pedestal and is why I still work where I do after many years for a salary that is fantastic for 90% of the country but is "merely average" for Seattle.
Working for a rock solid medium-sized that's been in existence for a hundred years and funded by a stable endowment and a pile of public service contracts and has never had a layoff is more interesting to me than knowing that the odds of me still having a job in the 2030s, if I still want it, is well above 90%.
I'm very much on board with this. I put stability and money on about the same pedestal and is why I still work where I do after many years for a salary that is fantastic for 90% of the country but is "merely average" for Seattle.
Working for a rock solid medium-sized that's been in existence for a hundred years and funded by a stable endowment and a pile of public service contracts and has never had a layoff is more interesting to me than knowing that the odds of me still having a job in the 2030s, if I still want it, is well above 90%.
> a stable endowment and a pile of public service contracts and has never had a layoff is more interesting to me than knowing that the odds of me still having a job in the 2030s, if I still want it, is well above 90%
How do you know you're still around by 2030? I've had 3 people from my close circle die off in the past 6 months. One of them my age, left behind a spouse and two kids. That really changed my perspective. If I'm gonna spend most of my waking hours labouring away in a cubicle away from home then I at least want it to be meaningful. I'm not going just to tick-tock my life away doing meaningless shit for boatload of money that I may or may not get to use eventually.
How do you know you're still around by 2030? I've had 3 people from my close circle die off in the past 6 months. One of them my age, left behind a spouse and two kids. That really changed my perspective. If I'm gonna spend most of my waking hours labouring away in a cubicle away from home then I at least want it to be meaningful. I'm not going just to tick-tock my life away doing meaningless shit for boatload of money that I may or may not get to use eventually.
So keep the paycheck and try to take it easy - like the Office Space guy. You still can deliver value to the company if you work 1-2 hours a day (remotely, of course)
How are the long term employment prospects for today’s SpaceX engineers?
Probably the same cyclical prospects that aerospace engineers have historically had.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Money also can't buy cool stuff if you spend all your time working.
I definitely prioritize a certain level of money over cool stuff. However i make money to spend on things that make me happy - what's the point if you don't spend it. Taking a lower paying but cooler job, is just another way of spending your money.
I definitely prioritize a certain level of money over cool stuff. However i make money to spend on things that make me happy - what's the point if you don't spend it. Taking a lower paying but cooler job, is just another way of spending your money.
Engineers end up paying a cool stuff compensation or life balance premium to some degree - an extreme case being games industry engineers.
A lot of this is the difference between a FAANG eng and a more average person. 300K for me is absolute abundance. 140K is great, but unless you are a single guy with low costs, hardly a rocket ship to having a lot of wealth. Lots of people earn 140K.
Same here, and I learned to pretend and smile at the hiring manager and founders who were trying to make money priority sound weird. Eventually the money was being paid by the same people who offered the cool stuff to work on.
Now I can be choosy, for even more money
Now I can be choosy, for even more money
The cause is companies refuse to fund education and refuse to take on graduates. The system is meant to be that new engineers learn from experienced engineers. This doesn't work when all the company wants is experienced engineers. It naturally leads to applicants abusing the hiring process.
This is the plain fact that those well off with their jobs just don't understand. Education is far too expensive, causing anyone but the funded kids to have to work - not focus on education. Walk into any university and see it in realtime. We treat students like cash cows, give them no support, and expect they will want to take on a hard degree when seniors are being turned down left and right? Yeah, no. American companies have created this problem for themselves and deserve to close their doors.
This is the plain fact that those well off with their jobs just don't understand. Education is far too expensive, causing anyone but the funded kids to have to work - not focus on education. Walk into any university and see it in realtime. We treat students like cash cows, give them no support, and expect they will want to take on a hard degree when seniors are being turned down left and right? Yeah, no. American companies have created this problem for themselves and deserve to close their doors.
Very very true. Training is a lost art in the software industry. Facebook, to its credit, provides a bootcamp to new hires, which is rare enough to be industry.
The problem with offloading it to universities is you turn the academic and foundational theoretical into the practical, thus making them vocational schools.
There needs to be a system of apprenticeships in software, not just internships for some and co-ops for University of Waterloo students.
The problem with offloading it to universities is you turn the academic and foundational theoretical into the practical, thus making them vocational schools.
There needs to be a system of apprenticeships in software, not just internships for some and co-ops for University of Waterloo students.
I call BS on this, at least in America. I went to community college and a middling state university. Pell Grants combined with various STEM and achievement-based scholarships covered my tuition and then some. When I graduated I applied for two jobs and had three offers (my current employer at the time also wanted to keep me).
Good for you, scholarships are non existent. There are very, very few, and are outside of the use of students in the middle class trap. Most scholarships want requirements that students cannot meet such as references and achievements.
Tuition and housing costs of university, at the cheapest of uni's just barely is covered by FAFSA federal and state grants + student loans at a $0 income. One of those grants are also dependent upon you working as a student. Private loans are a necessity and are not deferred, meaning you have to work even more. This does not include the cost of living in regards to buying lively goods.
When running the numbers it is a net negative. You cannot attend a university without an external income. That doesn't include anything else, no other costs.
Call BS as you wish, this is a fact I'm seeing infront of me. This is why people are up in arms about degrees and costs. This is why defunding universities is a necessary requirement to bring education back.
Tuition and housing costs of university, at the cheapest of uni's just barely is covered by FAFSA federal and state grants + student loans at a $0 income. One of those grants are also dependent upon you working as a student. Private loans are a necessity and are not deferred, meaning you have to work even more. This does not include the cost of living in regards to buying lively goods.
When running the numbers it is a net negative. You cannot attend a university without an external income. That doesn't include anything else, no other costs.
Call BS as you wish, this is a fact I'm seeing infront of me. This is why people are up in arms about degrees and costs. This is why defunding universities is a necessary requirement to bring education back.
> There are very, very few, and are outside of the use of students in the middle class trap.
Granted I grew up poor, so perhaps middle class students are trapped. I assumed that college educated, middle class parents would otherwise step in where means testing kicks in.
Granted I grew up poor, so perhaps middle class students are trapped. I assumed that college educated, middle class parents would otherwise step in where means testing kicks in.
I love these anecdotes. The only way to disagree with these is to tell the OP that they are too talented and skilled and that the average person wouldn’t make it in their shoes.
According to IQ tests I am literally mentally “retarded” and my SAT scores were in the lowest percentiles. I honestly have no idea how I got a BS degree and have worked in tech for over a decade. But if my dumb ass can do it, so can others.
I work for a consultancy and see the other side of this. We do hire graduates and train them up. And put them to work for clients who can't resource their own work. And then we can't retain them as they get senior roles at other companies.
I think a lot of companies are like an ecological niche that is tuned to a particular kind of candidate. That is actually part of the business model.
I think a lot of companies are like an ecological niche that is tuned to a particular kind of candidate. That is actually part of the business model.
Yes, that is a common fear about the downside of training freshers, but that just means you need to try harder to cultivate loyalty. Have you considered investing in above-market pay raises, or alternatively, career development plans for these graduates?
Well, if you train the people and do not offer them extra perks or raises after they "graduate", you are going to lose those people.
I am not complaining.
Someone in my team recently left because they wanted a short commute to a sociable office which we could not offer them. They had already been given a promotion and pay rise without having asked for it. And the company has all the normal career development stuff. Yes they "graduated" and that is fine. It was the right choice for them.
And our business model has limited flexibility in terms of salary anyway. We are honest about that. But it is still a good fun job with lots of oppurtunities within the company or in the wider industry. But their is always a risk that those graduates will be exploited and that risk does make me uneasy.
Someone in my team recently left because they wanted a short commute to a sociable office which we could not offer them. They had already been given a promotion and pay rise without having asked for it. And the company has all the normal career development stuff. Yes they "graduated" and that is fine. It was the right choice for them.
And our business model has limited flexibility in terms of salary anyway. We are honest about that. But it is still a good fun job with lots of oppurtunities within the company or in the wider industry. But their is always a risk that those graduates will be exploited and that risk does make me uneasy.
A lot of corporate jobs I see look more like they want someone to come act a part in a play than actually do meaningful engineering work. That's why I think it's hard to hire. Offer a real job, or offer a ridiculous salary.
This is exactly it. I have faced a similar experience, where even though I wanted to contribute more, I was not allowed to. Even though I had actual experience in the domain, I was not the one picked for working on the project, coz someone else needed to lead the project to be promoted.
In the end the project failed, but the guy got promoted. It was just like a play. The script was pre-ordained by the management chain and we all had to play our parts.
In the end the project failed, but the guy got promoted. It was just like a play. The script was pre-ordained by the management chain and we all had to play our parts.
I've never had a problem hiring engineers, in either of the countries or cultures I've lived in. It's been the same for tiny startups, and large organizations. I've never understood the complaints that it's problematic. Articles like this are a key part of the issue that others experience. As much as we'd like to pretend - Engineers aren't systems and people aren't robots. /rant over.
Productively - we have to understand that different people are motivated differently. Some are motivated by money, some are motivated as in the article by cool tech. But others simply want time to learn, a contractual obligation by the company to provide time to work on open source, compassion, or any number of things.
The issue becomes when an organization continuously tries to filter people into an exact box. Systemic hiring produces systemic outcome - but if we value diversity, then we can equally value diverse motivations. A key part of managing properly is recognizing and working with the differences in people, helping them (and by nature all of us!) be the best we can be.
Okay, second /rant over.
Productively - we have to understand that different people are motivated differently. Some are motivated by money, some are motivated as in the article by cool tech. But others simply want time to learn, a contractual obligation by the company to provide time to work on open source, compassion, or any number of things.
The issue becomes when an organization continuously tries to filter people into an exact box. Systemic hiring produces systemic outcome - but if we value diversity, then we can equally value diverse motivations. A key part of managing properly is recognizing and working with the differences in people, helping them (and by nature all of us!) be the best we can be.
Okay, second /rant over.
Job "hygiene" and "motivation." The motivation just ain't there for lots of folks.
On "hygiene" — quoting from Clayton Chirstensen's "How Will You Measure Your Life?":
“Hygiene factors are things like status, compensation, job security, work conditions, company policies, and supervisory practices,” he writes. Critically, it turns out that compensation is also a hygiene factor (as opposed to a motivational factor): “You need to get it right. But all you can aspire to is that employees will not be mad at each other and the company because of compensation.”
“If you instantly improve the hygiene factors of your job, you’re not going to suddenly love it. At best, you just won’t hate it anymore. *The opposite of job dissatisfaction isn’t job satisfaction, but rather an absence of job dissatisfaction.*”
On motivation:
"Motivation factors include challenging work, recognition, responsibility, and personal growth … The theory of motivation suggests you need to ask yourself a different set of questions than most of us are used to asking. Is this work meaningful to me? Is this job going to give me a chance to develop? Am I going to learn new things? Will I have an opportunity for recognition and achievement? Am I going to be given responsibility? These are the things that will truly motivate you. Once you get this right, the more measurable aspects of your job will fade in importance."
Many are perhaps realizing they may have decent "hygiene" in their work life, but "motivation" adjacent factors have been dragging, and continue to drag.
On "hygiene" — quoting from Clayton Chirstensen's "How Will You Measure Your Life?":
“Hygiene factors are things like status, compensation, job security, work conditions, company policies, and supervisory practices,” he writes. Critically, it turns out that compensation is also a hygiene factor (as opposed to a motivational factor): “You need to get it right. But all you can aspire to is that employees will not be mad at each other and the company because of compensation.”
“If you instantly improve the hygiene factors of your job, you’re not going to suddenly love it. At best, you just won’t hate it anymore. *The opposite of job dissatisfaction isn’t job satisfaction, but rather an absence of job dissatisfaction.*”
On motivation:
"Motivation factors include challenging work, recognition, responsibility, and personal growth … The theory of motivation suggests you need to ask yourself a different set of questions than most of us are used to asking. Is this work meaningful to me? Is this job going to give me a chance to develop? Am I going to learn new things? Will I have an opportunity for recognition and achievement? Am I going to be given responsibility? These are the things that will truly motivate you. Once you get this right, the more measurable aspects of your job will fade in importance."
Many are perhaps realizing they may have decent "hygiene" in their work life, but "motivation" adjacent factors have been dragging, and continue to drag.
I just threatened to walk out at my current FAANG job. Crippling tech debt and unreasonable deadlines. Three levels of management apologized. Any other job market? They would probably be looking for a way to push me out. Very strong signal to me that the market is hot.
They’re probably also looking for a way to push you out now.
Honestly don’t think so, always a possibility, and even if they do it’s not a big deal
If you're polite about it, good managers want to know about crippling technical debt and unrealistic deadlines.
(* Not all managers are good)
(* Not all managers are good)
I don’t actually want any of that. I just want reduced work / work hours.
I’d rather make half faang compensation and work half as much.
I’d rather make half faang compensation and work half as much.
Not even half - my web dev salary is a little over $100k and I stay because the job is a joke.
My priority is my SaaS products I’m making on the side.
Why would I risk my ability to work on what I care about with a change? I could get an asshole manager, shitty coworkers or bad projects at a new job. If you stay at a non-tech company that doesn’t know what they’re doing, you’ll end up being the only person who knows how everything works after a few years. I can just coast maintaining that software now. Screw big-tech, they’re a bunch of pro-censorship authoritarian assholes, even if I could get a job at one of them I wouldn’t.
My priority is my SaaS products I’m making on the side.
Why would I risk my ability to work on what I care about with a change? I could get an asshole manager, shitty coworkers or bad projects at a new job. If you stay at a non-tech company that doesn’t know what they’re doing, you’ll end up being the only person who knows how everything works after a few years. I can just coast maintaining that software now. Screw big-tech, they’re a bunch of pro-censorship authoritarian assholes, even if I could get a job at one of them I wouldn’t.
Me too. Maybe we can share one full time job
Are you both available for (1/2) * (Amazing Opportunity to have impact)?
I am!
I am
[deleted]
The headline is
> I Think I Know Why You Can't Hire Engineers Right Now
But nothing on the article touches on an exploration of why these factors (which seem reasonable, in general) are any more relevant now than they were a year ago. Or five years ago.
> I Think I Know Why You Can't Hire Engineers Right Now
But nothing on the article touches on an exploration of why these factors (which seem reasonable, in general) are any more relevant now than they were a year ago. Or five years ago.
Exactly. All of this was true 10 years ago, but there wasn’t a labor shortage. Why? Because none of these reasons have anything to do with it.
> Every engineer is at least a little bit techno-utopian.
Funny how my career started in electronics and embedded software and one of the cool things I saw back then was smart home. It was before "IoT hype" and I really thought that controlling your lights or curtains remotely via XMPP is cool. Now I'm building a house and hell no - I want to stay away of this crap, I want "dumb house" not smart. But still, technologically it's kind of cool
Funny how my career started in electronics and embedded software and one of the cool things I saw back then was smart home. It was before "IoT hype" and I really thought that controlling your lights or curtains remotely via XMPP is cool. Now I'm building a house and hell no - I want to stay away of this crap, I want "dumb house" not smart. But still, technologically it's kind of cool
I was listening to just one episode of a Stacey Higginbotham's podcast about IoT with one of her colleagues on smart cities (one of her articles got featured here yesterday), and it didn't take long for them to lament the use case for IoT being creepy surveillance rather than dominated by cool and interesting open-source future dream home projects. I think the monetary value gained from surveillance is simply too great for executives to deny, and the monetary value gained from the IoT best-case is too weak for the market to supply... :/
It's overwhelmingly a work force of thwarted techno-utopians. And that means many of the disillusioned workers have crossed the floor to become techno-dystopians, possibly bordering on luddites towards the very tech they are creating, which is an extremely demoralizing position to be in.
It's overwhelmingly a work force of thwarted techno-utopians. And that means many of the disillusioned workers have crossed the floor to become techno-dystopians, possibly bordering on luddites towards the very tech they are creating, which is an extremely demoralizing position to be in.
I'm sure this article is on point, and the comments here seem to confirm it.
But to me it's just wild that working to bring about a net positive impact to the world isn't mentioned anywhere.
And no: that's not even remotely the same as "cool stuff". Making a rocket taxi for the super rich or tunnel for SOVs is not it. We are on the brink of a global environmental collapse, and a lot of the blame is on the "cool stuff" designed by engineers.
Engineers need to seriously start asking: would the world be better or worse off if this company trying to hire me didn't exist at all?
But to me it's just wild that working to bring about a net positive impact to the world isn't mentioned anywhere.
And no: that's not even remotely the same as "cool stuff". Making a rocket taxi for the super rich or tunnel for SOVs is not it. We are on the brink of a global environmental collapse, and a lot of the blame is on the "cool stuff" designed by engineers.
Engineers need to seriously start asking: would the world be better or worse off if this company trying to hire me didn't exist at all?
I think it would be charitable to assume the author meant "fulfilling" by "cool stuff". I am looking for a company right now that fits into either "cool stuff" or "positive impact" but the latter is FAR more difficult to find. There are plenty of "positive impact" SaaS companies around pedalling meaningless Corporate Social Responsibility platforms (what even is a tool that legitimately helps with this?), but nobody using software to make a meaningful impact on the world - possibly because it's rarely a software problem.
The problem is that the more likely a job is to help people the less likely it is to pay well, software engineers are expensive and is helping people going to outweigh things like being able to support a family? Or at least an extra 100k
It always baffles me how companies say hiring is hard when the experience I have as a candidate is abysmally frustrating. The state of hiring (in software) right now is mostly nonsensical with some rare islands of sanity here and there.
EDIT: and those rare islands of sanity are mostly small companies where the hiring process is entirely conducted by the software engineers themselves.
EDIT: and those rare islands of sanity are mostly small companies where the hiring process is entirely conducted by the software engineers themselves.
I know why you can't in DFW: inflation has skyrocketed and home values and rents have risen 33% in 2 years but companies, including defense contractors and multinationals, are still trying to pay $70-90K for senior developers.
I get bombarded by recruiters all the freaking time, but I tell them straight up that I will not be offering any references except straight to an employer after an offer in hand (this kills off most of their interest) and that I would never entertain an offer unless it was a significant pay increase (which means it's gonna have to be an SV company doing the hiring).
I get bombarded by recruiters all the freaking time, but I tell them straight up that I will not be offering any references except straight to an employer after an offer in hand (this kills off most of their interest) and that I would never entertain an offer unless it was a significant pay increase (which means it's gonna have to be an SV company doing the hiring).
On the one hand, the largest tech companies are bigger than ever and still growing, and they set the market rates with a combination of high salaries and liquid stock. If you're incredible, you can go work there.
On the other hand, there is more money floating toward more startups than ever, across every imaginable industry. They all need people.
Taken together, demand is through the roof, and the massive companies are pulling salaries up as someone senior or higher could ostensibly get a job there vs. your random Series A-C startup.
If you can't pay top dollar, you are in the zone described by the author. You need to offer whatever a particular candidate is after: respectable salary; a chance to own some massive new development area; a chance to go deep on a set of technologies; and/or a schedule that supports their lifestyle.
On the other hand, there is more money floating toward more startups than ever, across every imaginable industry. They all need people.
Taken together, demand is through the roof, and the massive companies are pulling salaries up as someone senior or higher could ostensibly get a job there vs. your random Series A-C startup.
If you can't pay top dollar, you are in the zone described by the author. You need to offer whatever a particular candidate is after: respectable salary; a chance to own some massive new development area; a chance to go deep on a set of technologies; and/or a schedule that supports their lifestyle.
I just hired an IC dev away from google at a ~%50 pay cut, no benefits and no equity. I run a fledging ‘startup’ in a highly speculative field requiring massive upfront investment and risky enough to scare away VCs. A lot of what we talked about during the interview was why he would want to give up so much money.
His view was that he didn’t need the money, he is a 25 year veteran, pre 2001. He was sick of incessant meetings, being a bum on a seat, a pawn to empire building, a body to throw at a problem. He became an Engineer to build cool shit and was being kept from doing it.
I did promise post grad level Engineering problems day in day out and that sealed the deal.
If the company becomes successful I would bump up pay as best I can, but it’s so risky ATM that I wouldn’t make a promise of better future pay part of the offer.
His view was that he didn’t need the money, he is a 25 year veteran, pre 2001. He was sick of incessant meetings, being a bum on a seat, a pawn to empire building, a body to throw at a problem. He became an Engineer to build cool shit and was being kept from doing it.
I did promise post grad level Engineering problems day in day out and that sealed the deal.
If the company becomes successful I would bump up pay as best I can, but it’s so risky ATM that I wouldn’t make a promise of better future pay part of the offer.
Why no equity?
It complicates things more than it’s worth. Plus veterans tend not to value Equity from speculative startups at all, perhaps those for which equity has worked have retired. Then there is the watering down shenanigans which get pulled on the unsuspecting.
Plus I find that the imagined value of equity tends to keep people together longer than ideal. He is free to leave the moment it no longer suits him to stay.
Plus I find that the imagined value of equity tends to keep people together longer than ideal. He is free to leave the moment it no longer suits him to stay.
It seems the market is strong for people with experience of the latest technology, but I'm finding its actually much harder than I expected. Applying online you usually get ghosted, if you get an interview I think I do well then get rejected. I've never had trouble getting jobs before, maybe I'm in the too old bracket now.
The other part is on blind/levels/hn etc people regularly expect 300,400,500+ but those jobs seem to be just for people with the right background.
The other part is on blind/levels/hn etc people regularly expect 300,400,500+ but those jobs seem to be just for people with the right background.
Pay me 150k to remotely work with Rust and I'll drop everything and start on Monday. Getting senior resources is not hard, just need the right mix of comp and stack.
https://oxide.computer
They pay $180K full remote for Rust. (I may try to go there myself, so if you want to avoid me, keep that in mind...)
They pay $180K full remote for Rust. (I may try to go there myself, so if you want to avoid me, keep that in mind...)
Haha me and you both. I'll be honest I saw the "amazon pays $300k for rust" comment in this thread and I checked back in to make sure they don't have any remote positions... And I avoid amazon recruiters like the rest.
Head of CloudFront reached out directly with a Rust position, but it was onsite in Ireland in the middle of a pandemic. Come on.
I am shocked this author doesn’t mention the interview process itself. Leetcode grinding does very little to benefit engineers in their current position and will not help them at future employers either. I can tell some firms like Amazon are in need of talent as I get hit up frequently by their recruiters. My current job is good and I don’t feel like doing leetcode prep to interview anywhere. Their loss.
This is a phenomenon I'm seeing across all fields of engineering - not just software engineering. Fortunately for me there's no such thing as LeetCode for electrical engineering interviews.
A ton of people in my professional network doing RF, ME, and EE are getting a taste of how sweet WFH is for the very first time. Many have been in industry for decades, and never had that kind of flexibility before. We're also in fields where people can't solve a hiring shortage by offering $400k total comp. There just ain't that kind of budget at hardware companies. (Except maybe Apple.)
The kind of raises offered just ain't worth giving up a cushy gig right now! The pull of money alone isn't strong enough.
A ton of people in my professional network doing RF, ME, and EE are getting a taste of how sweet WFH is for the very first time. Many have been in industry for decades, and never had that kind of flexibility before. We're also in fields where people can't solve a hiring shortage by offering $400k total comp. There just ain't that kind of budget at hardware companies. (Except maybe Apple.)
The kind of raises offered just ain't worth giving up a cushy gig right now! The pull of money alone isn't strong enough.
Here is my take on the question:
1. Senior position with junior-compensation.
2. Junior position with intern-compensation (but senior skill profile)
3. No intern positions at all, or, if there are intern positions, they demand 10E12 years of job experience for the exciting opportunity to haul cables and monitors around all day every day...which is not only badly compensated, bu also provides ZERO useful experience for the next job.
1. Senior position with junior-compensation.
2. Junior position with intern-compensation (but senior skill profile)
3. No intern positions at all, or, if there are intern positions, they demand 10E12 years of job experience for the exciting opportunity to haul cables and monitors around all day every day...which is not only badly compensated, bu also provides ZERO useful experience for the next job.
Okay, now do one for juniors. As a junior developer I would literally work for the worst company, but none of them are interested in me.
Contact me with your resume and I'll try to give you my best good-faith advice as a hiring manager. (And if I think you could have potential on my team, I'd even talk about hiring you
myself.)
Sent you an email.
Have you tried looking for jobs with the best companies? Some of the worst companies are the worst because they have unreasonable expectations for their hires relative to the value they can provide for putting up with working there.
No, I didn't think I was good enough to work there. Mostly because of all the DS&A stuff you read about here on HN.
I think the article is heavily biased for a rare breed of engineers: adventurous ones, looking for the bleeding edge, moving from startup to startup, and getting richly rewarded for it.
I've spent more than 2 decades in various large corporate environments and things couldn't be more different on the ground...
Most developers aren't Star-trek types at all, and not even engineers. They don't have a strong talent or appetite for tech. They're what some call "bread programmers". At best, they do a reasonable job, and then go home.
I've worked with many "senior" developers in this space and even they do a terrible job in keeping up. They seem to have a large disinterest in the field altogether. These people are invisible, you will never find them online in forums like these.
But there's another aspect: age. It's fun being on top of tech in your 20s. It's quite different when having a fulltime job and a family, in your 40s.
Most never get to work on anything cool or fun.
In this large group of bread programmers, which I estimate may be the majority of the market, there's still people with useful skills or experience that other companies would look for. The reason you can't get them to move is because in most parts of the world, you don't get a 50-100% increase simply for moving jobs. It's more like 10%. Since they're already comfortable, they won't move.
Also people don't want ping pong tables or mission statements where we "push ourselves beyond our limits". They want a life.
I've spent more than 2 decades in various large corporate environments and things couldn't be more different on the ground...
Most developers aren't Star-trek types at all, and not even engineers. They don't have a strong talent or appetite for tech. They're what some call "bread programmers". At best, they do a reasonable job, and then go home.
I've worked with many "senior" developers in this space and even they do a terrible job in keeping up. They seem to have a large disinterest in the field altogether. These people are invisible, you will never find them online in forums like these.
But there's another aspect: age. It's fun being on top of tech in your 20s. It's quite different when having a fulltime job and a family, in your 40s.
Most never get to work on anything cool or fun.
In this large group of bread programmers, which I estimate may be the majority of the market, there's still people with useful skills or experience that other companies would look for. The reason you can't get them to move is because in most parts of the world, you don't get a 50-100% increase simply for moving jobs. It's more like 10%. Since they're already comfortable, they won't move.
Also people don't want ping pong tables or mission statements where we "push ourselves beyond our limits". They want a life.
There is a lot of truth here. I. Just tired of the corporate BS and not having a real career. It doesn't have to be cool, just useful or meaningful. I don't make over $100k as-is, so low 6 figures sounds great. I don't need to work with geniuses, just people I can learn from.
I hate my job, and would likely hate any tech job at this point. Shitty companies are having trouble hiring because people know they're shitty. People examine they're being used.
I hate my job, and would likely hate any tech job at this point. Shitty companies are having trouble hiring because people know they're shitty. People examine they're being used.
Isn’t it just as simple as the Faang’s are sucking up as many people as they can and every other company is expanding their tech teams so a) there are fewer people and b) there are more jobs?
This is the first time in my career that I’m happy to finish a contract without having another with paperwork all signed as I know I can get another one with the minimum of effort.
This makes life a lot less stressful and less likely to put up with nonsense, I am alot less stressed tbh.
This is the first time in my career that I’m happy to finish a contract without having another with paperwork all signed as I know I can get another one with the minimum of effort.
This makes life a lot less stressful and less likely to put up with nonsense, I am alot less stressed tbh.
Position your company as one that does interesting work, offers a good work-life balance, pays market rates, has a worthwhile stock comp plan, and doesn't require an engineer to spend the next six months practicing brainteasers to pass your interview/hazing process, and I bet you wouldn't have any trouble attracting a ton of engineers. I'd certainly find that compelling.
Because we're already well paid enough to not want to leetcode for 3 months just to participate in a 50-hour/week JIRA factory assembly line shipping the next society-worsening tech tentacle for just another $10k.
At a certain size, though, workplaces become unavoidably bad places to work.
Imagine you have ambition and you work in a team of 100 people. How do you get promotion if you don't want to leave? Headline-grabbing stuff, not good, solid, written down, maintainable stuff. It is said many times but it is true.
The only other way you might choose the good over the noticeable (assuming you want promotion) is when you get genuine recognition from someone you look up to. Imagine getting called out at a department meeting for sorting out the documentation or automating a load of rubbish stuff.
I guess either way you want to be noticed/make a difference right? This is easy in small companies because everyone makes it better or worse. Once you reach 50+, I think it all starts going downhill. Maybe some of these companies just need to organise as microbusinesses - something that microservices promised, so that everyone can make a difference.
Imagine you have ambition and you work in a team of 100 people. How do you get promotion if you don't want to leave? Headline-grabbing stuff, not good, solid, written down, maintainable stuff. It is said many times but it is true.
The only other way you might choose the good over the noticeable (assuming you want promotion) is when you get genuine recognition from someone you look up to. Imagine getting called out at a department meeting for sorting out the documentation or automating a load of rubbish stuff.
I guess either way you want to be noticed/make a difference right? This is easy in small companies because everyone makes it better or worse. Once you reach 50+, I think it all starts going downhill. Maybe some of these companies just need to organise as microbusinesses - something that microservices promised, so that everyone can make a difference.
I would also comment that a lot of engineers decamped for FAANG-land software jobs.
Software pays way better than hardware in Silicon Valley. I would argue that the current engineering "shortage" is because a bunch of hardware companies haven't adjusted to the fact that they're competing against the FAANGs.
Software pays way better than hardware in Silicon Valley. I would argue that the current engineering "shortage" is because a bunch of hardware companies haven't adjusted to the fact that they're competing against the FAANGs.
Seems really well written. I’d add that stability in the work environment is something many (most?) people want. Experimental fighter pilots are a rare breed, after all.
I’m weighing this against my own career. I’ve worked with very short sighted business managers a lot (IT at a large casino). They absolutely don’t care about tech the way us techies do. They also don’t care about a technician or engineer enjoying their work past whether it means they can pay less or ship faster. They probably assume all techs/engineers are or should be equally skilled. Many might even take learning on the job as a sign that employee lied in their interview or something.
I’m definitely jaded against management. For them to “learn” from the current environment the current environment will need to hit their revenues directly for a quarter or two-as a guess.
I’m weighing this against my own career. I’ve worked with very short sighted business managers a lot (IT at a large casino). They absolutely don’t care about tech the way us techies do. They also don’t care about a technician or engineer enjoying their work past whether it means they can pay less or ship faster. They probably assume all techs/engineers are or should be equally skilled. Many might even take learning on the job as a sign that employee lied in their interview or something.
I’m definitely jaded against management. For them to “learn” from the current environment the current environment will need to hit their revenues directly for a quarter or two-as a guess.
> I’d add that stability in the work environment is something many (most?) people want.
Seriously. I have had 7 managers in my 2 year career. Yet to be in a job where more than half of the team I started with stayed a year. It has always been frustrating, but granted I can't blame them and jump around myself as that's where the raises are.
Seriously. I have had 7 managers in my 2 year career. Yet to be in a job where more than half of the team I started with stayed a year. It has always been frustrating, but granted I can't blame them and jump around myself as that's where the raises are.
Good point. So that population of people probably has some functional constraints. Sorta like seasonal laborer numbers increase in the fall/winter and diminish after. Or frictional unemployment always exists as some portion of the labor pool latently reacts to changing work conditions. Ie the two year hoppers are probably doing their usual thing if only because they’re within their 2 year commitment period at the current place.
Programmer shortage?
Actually, programmers are a dime a dozen these days (soon to be a penny a dozen), but companies (we’re hiring!) want only “special programmers”. They can’t actually describe what they want, other than for entry-level programmers, but they’ll remain ever hopeful someone special will turn up…
We’re hiring!
Actually, programmers are a dime a dozen these days (soon to be a penny a dozen), but companies (we’re hiring!) want only “special programmers”. They can’t actually describe what they want, other than for entry-level programmers, but they’ll remain ever hopeful someone special will turn up…
We’re hiring!
It’s because 1) you don’t pay enough, and 2) you don’t take hiring seriously.
What I want to know is what happened to these people of The Quittening? Did they die of covid or stress (all-cause mortality is up 40% in some places)?. Or did they just retire, or went self employed? People don't just quit from a 6 figure salary and vanish.
"There was a time that engineers were willing to trade years of their lives for the lottery ticket of stock options. I find that, as more companies try this approach, and it becomes more common, more engineers are becoming literate as to the downsides. More bluntly: more people are starting to understand that stock options are frequently worthless."
What's interesting here is not the engineers becoming wise to the poor value proposition, but rather, the market's failure to respond with alternatives. In some cases, there is an inability to pay (e.g. "startup X cannot match FAANG company Y"). But in many others, perhaps the optimism of the person making the equity offer is blinding?
What's interesting here is not the engineers becoming wise to the poor value proposition, but rather, the market's failure to respond with alternatives. In some cases, there is an inability to pay (e.g. "startup X cannot match FAANG company Y"). But in many others, perhaps the optimism of the person making the equity offer is blinding?
It's a tight labor market now, not just engineer positions.
as far as engineer or IT jobs are concerned, I have been wondering for years: is the root cause that we can't produce enough STEM graduates? starting from k-12.
I have no strong evidence, but my current company could not even find candidates(we're doing chip design), in the past it would have to work with H1B workers but covid19 made that a slow and impossible task.
some could argue H1B is just cheaper, per my understanding it's not always the case, it is more likely that we just don't have enough STEM graduates to fill the pipeline over the last 3 decades.
as far as engineer or IT jobs are concerned, I have been wondering for years: is the root cause that we can't produce enough STEM graduates? starting from k-12.
I have no strong evidence, but my current company could not even find candidates(we're doing chip design), in the past it would have to work with H1B workers but covid19 made that a slow and impossible task.
some could argue H1B is just cheaper, per my understanding it's not always the case, it is more likely that we just don't have enough STEM graduates to fill the pipeline over the last 3 decades.
STEM doesn't retain people, particularly women (only one woman I know that I graduated with is still a tech worker) and plenty of others got tired of taking orders from project managers and decided to become them or go found something.
A lot of people think that as software engineers they get to develop the product. In practice, I have mostly been an ticket processing Oompa Loompa. You can get some input, but that requires arguing with people you would often rather not argue with. That drives a lot of people away.
A lot of people think that as software engineers they get to develop the product. In practice, I have mostly been an ticket processing Oompa Loompa. You can get some input, but that requires arguing with people you would often rather not argue with. That drives a lot of people away.
It depends on the engineer. Some are interested in steering the direction of the product, but a majority are not. Coming in, picking up Jira tickets, and clocking out is enough for many software engineers. I don't blame them, and in fact it's probably a good thing; too many cooks in the kitchen becomes problematic.
Is there a big research university near you?
If so, I'd bet it's a large and relatively untapped pool of candidates, especially outside of the CS/EE departments. A lot of fields now make pretty heavy use of programming, ML and other tech. It's true that some folks are definitely in the "I tweak the script that gives the numbers" camp, but there are proper coders as well. Plus, you're pulling from a pool that's smart, good at teaching themselves, and probably making $25-$60k.
If so, I'd bet it's a large and relatively untapped pool of candidates, especially outside of the CS/EE departments. A lot of fields now make pretty heavy use of programming, ML and other tech. It's true that some folks are definitely in the "I tweak the script that gives the numbers" camp, but there are proper coders as well. Plus, you're pulling from a pool that's smart, good at teaching themselves, and probably making $25-$60k.
I don't care about your company. I don't particularly care about how clever the people I'm going to work with will be. I don't even care about what I'm going to build, although I will do it with complete professionalism to the utmost of my abilities.
I do care about how much money you'll pay me, and how little of my time you'll ask for in return though. I don't need a corporation to provide me with "meaningful work" in my life. I need them to pay me an obscene amount of money with as little commitment as possible to facilitate my own self actualization.
I do care about how much money you'll pay me, and how little of my time you'll ask for in return though. I don't need a corporation to provide me with "meaningful work" in my life. I need them to pay me an obscene amount of money with as little commitment as possible to facilitate my own self actualization.
Great post! I think part of the problem for hiring managers at any not-small company is that the things that attract great engineers are not really things that a single hiring manager can solely control. If you're an excellent manager in a mediocre or bad environment there's only so much excellence you can promote in your team alone. And larger orgs must tend toward mediocrity/average by nature. I don't know where I'm going with this philosophical exercise. Maybe individuals would be best served intellectually if there were only small companies to work for?
On LinkedIn, I see an average of 60-70 applicants for every engineering job I look at there. I also hire. Anecdotally, I see plenty of candidates and plenty of applicants, and zero shortage of qualified ones.
Off topic: As someone who doesn't even like Star Trek I feel attacked.
While we are off topic, that opening by apenwarr (linked in the article) was epic:
> Recently a security hole in a certain open source Java library resulted in a worldwide emergency kerfuffle as, say, 40% of the possibly hundreds of millions of worldwide deployments of this library needed to be updated in a hurry. (The other 60% also needed to be updated in a hurry, but won't be until they facilitate some ransomware, which is pretty normal for these situations.)
While we are off topic, that opening by apenwarr (linked in the article) was epic:
> Recently a security hole in a certain open source Java library resulted in a worldwide emergency kerfuffle as, say, 40% of the possibly hundreds of millions of worldwide deployments of this library needed to be updated in a hurry. (The other 60% also needed to be updated in a hurry, but won't be until they facilitate some ransomware, which is pretty normal for these situations.)
Loosing out on 10k a year doesn't sound bad until you're 100k/yr behind where you could be.
This point is so often overlooked (and from the personal experience - it applies to me too)
Can only attest to small to mid-size businesses (up to 300 employees) in Europe.
The default expectation (from business school?) seems to be if for a given job interview you are left (95% of the time) with say 1-4 (reasonably) good choices mangement is quick to cry wolf: you see, this is the skill's shortage everybody is talking about.
You can make this - at least here in Europe there is a tendency for that - a numbers thing (i.e. performance indicator) which mangement is "measuring". Meanwhile what "specialization" in the labour market meant in the 70's and what it means now a half decade later has changed significantly, multiple times.
For example: We are long at a point now where paradoxically time spent in the educational system is simply time lost for developing and honing skills (for a rapidly changing environment) which is exactly the opposite of acquiring as much "competence" as possible in order to "catch up" with the pace of innovations.
You want to expose young people to real challenges in the world as soon as possible and when they become frustrated with a problem you offer them teaching fundamentals they obviously lack. I am mostly oblivious about my ignorance but when someone can show me how e.g. a mathematical concept can possibly package my problem to make it manageable I will bite.
The default expectation (from business school?) seems to be if for a given job interview you are left (95% of the time) with say 1-4 (reasonably) good choices mangement is quick to cry wolf: you see, this is the skill's shortage everybody is talking about.
You can make this - at least here in Europe there is a tendency for that - a numbers thing (i.e. performance indicator) which mangement is "measuring". Meanwhile what "specialization" in the labour market meant in the 70's and what it means now a half decade later has changed significantly, multiple times.
For example: We are long at a point now where paradoxically time spent in the educational system is simply time lost for developing and honing skills (for a rapidly changing environment) which is exactly the opposite of acquiring as much "competence" as possible in order to "catch up" with the pace of innovations.
You want to expose young people to real challenges in the world as soon as possible and when they become frustrated with a problem you offer them teaching fundamentals they obviously lack. I am mostly oblivious about my ignorance but when someone can show me how e.g. a mathematical concept can possibly package my problem to make it manageable I will bite.
I remember, back in year 2000, I went to a speech held by ESR (somewhat odd since I am based in Europe) with content very similar to this article. He was ranting about how all companies should open source their code because that is what keeps employees stay and happy. It was in the middle of the netscape/mozilla open source craze.
My reaction was "OK, this is the guy everyone is talking about".
A few months later - the job market was entirely different. And that stuck for many years after that.
My reaction was "OK, this is the guy everyone is talking about".
A few months later - the job market was entirely different. And that stuck for many years after that.
I am trying to think of a reason why open-sourcing my employer's code would make anyone happy and I can't :)
Or maybe I have too much stuff I work on on my own to worry about it...
Or maybe I have too much stuff I work on on my own to worry about it...
Exactly. This was 2000 and ESRs speech.
The example he brought up in his speech was some boring banking middle layer which he had with him on a cd-rom.
The example he brought up in his speech was some boring banking middle layer which he had with him on a cd-rom.
If companies just offered jobs immediately instead of going down a 5 interview leetcode process people would switch more often. The process is designed for someone unemployed.
I recently took a management class to wrap up my BSCS that discussed Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs [0], which I thought articulated some feelings of need I have had throughout my career(s) in facilities management, project management, and general IT. In a nutshell it describes 5 stages of needs: physiological, safety, love and belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization.
For myself, this certainly rings true. I was fortunate to get my salary in a comfortable spot early on in a career (outside of tech), and spent a few years in that comfort zone to begin dialing it back often taking salary cuts to move towards things that were more interesting and/or had better working conditions. The security kept me around, and now that I have the physiological and safety needs "locked in," I can't imagine myself pivoting into anything else - it's a rat race to the finish line from here, and maybe I'll climb up the levels of the next 3 in the hierarchy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
For myself, this certainly rings true. I was fortunate to get my salary in a comfortable spot early on in a career (outside of tech), and spent a few years in that comfort zone to begin dialing it back often taking salary cuts to move towards things that were more interesting and/or had better working conditions. The security kept me around, and now that I have the physiological and safety needs "locked in," I can't imagine myself pivoting into anything else - it's a rat race to the finish line from here, and maybe I'll climb up the levels of the next 3 in the hierarchy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
Author doesn't make a distinction between those earlier in their careers vs those much further along.
For "senior" devs, I think there are two additional things just as important as the mentioned three: good compensation & minimal BS.
The techno-utopian perspective tends to fade away with time (and acquiring of a significant other), replaced with pragmatism and realism which brings these two elements much more into focus with time.
For "senior" devs, I think there are two additional things just as important as the mentioned three: good compensation & minimal BS.
The techno-utopian perspective tends to fade away with time (and acquiring of a significant other), replaced with pragmatism and realism which brings these two elements much more into focus with time.
Good engineers can't get hired, at least judging by local selection among those who didn't have problems before.
This is literal - you can't hire engineers because you don't hire good ones. The process is more broken than before.
It's both hilarious and sad to hear complaints of employers. The non-hiring is on their side, there is little engineers can do if they aren't considered good - great experience notwithstanding.
This is literal - you can't hire engineers because you don't hire good ones. The process is more broken than before.
It's both hilarious and sad to hear complaints of employers. The non-hiring is on their side, there is little engineers can do if they aren't considered good - great experience notwithstanding.
> lunchroom chatter was one of the simple pleasures that made a daily commute bearable for me.
When I was at Microsoft, pre-COVID, my daily commute was no big deal. But having lunch every day with other nerds was definitely one thing I enjoyed about the office environment. So when the pandemic started, we immediately lost that, and that's definitely one reason why I left several months later.
When I was at Microsoft, pre-COVID, my daily commute was no big deal. But having lunch every day with other nerds was definitely one thing I enjoyed about the office environment. So when the pandemic started, we immediately lost that, and that's definitely one reason why I left several months later.
You could get hundreds of thousands of European developers (West as well as East Europe) by offering 80000 EUR comp and a reliable contract.
> If you’re a strictly B2B company, you work when businesses work. That means “9-5” schedules, most major holidays observed, and almost no weekend pager duty. Mention this to your prospects. A sane workplace with defined starts and ends to the workday is very attractive to a certain kind of engineer - the kind that likes to be home for dinner, and read their children bedtime stories, for example.
I am the "kind of engineer" that stereotypically should be throwing themselves into the cogs -- mid twenties, bachelor, etc.
I have the fortune of working for a B2B shop that is exactly like this, and sure -- I might not have quite as much experience now as a guy that has spent the last 18 months doing 60-80 hour weeks. On the other hand, I have been able to focus on my writing and speaking, build some cool projects and work on an open-source team, not to mention really improve my physical health.
Living to work is not worth it to me, and I am very hesitant to look at low-to-mid-level positions in FAAMG or startups as a result.
I am the "kind of engineer" that stereotypically should be throwing themselves into the cogs -- mid twenties, bachelor, etc.
I have the fortune of working for a B2B shop that is exactly like this, and sure -- I might not have quite as much experience now as a guy that has spent the last 18 months doing 60-80 hour weeks. On the other hand, I have been able to focus on my writing and speaking, build some cool projects and work on an open-source team, not to mention really improve my physical health.
Living to work is not worth it to me, and I am very hesitant to look at low-to-mid-level positions in FAAMG or startups as a result.
> I have been able to focus on my writing and speaking
How did you do that?
How did you do that?
I joined a meetup group and started prepping and giving talks. I also have been working on my personal website, as well as a hobby project, https://dotbun.com
Reason you can't hire engineers is: stupid tech interviews (i.e., leetcode) and low pay (Western Europe).
My company gets tons of candidates. We reject 90% of them because: they do not pass our tech interview (I couldn't pass them either and I have been working here for 3 years!); when do they pass we cannot pay what they are asking for.
My company gets tons of candidates. We reject 90% of them because: they do not pass our tech interview (I couldn't pass them either and I have been working here for 3 years!); when do they pass we cannot pay what they are asking for.
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.
That's fair, I do think people expect instant solutions to these kinds of problems too often. But the flip side of that is I don't see too many companies actually investing in training, so this could remain a problem much longer than it needs to.
In my (admittedly brief) experience at a FAANG I also noticed there were some very menial tasks taking up engineer time. I'm pretty confident there is work to be done at these larger companies that could be satisfactorily accomplished by someone within their first year of training.
In my (admittedly brief) experience at a FAANG I also noticed there were some very menial tasks taking up engineer time. I'm pretty confident there is work to be done at these larger companies that could be satisfactorily accomplished by someone within their first year of training.
Inflation is probably around 15% for most of Europe and US, there's your reason: you are not paying enough.
Is there a linear slope between awesomeness of work and salary?
In that case, wouldn’t it theoretically be possible to convince an engineer to work for free given enough awesomeness? Or, conversely, convince them to work on something profoundly uninspiring given infinite salary?
In that case, wouldn’t it theoretically be possible to convince an engineer to work for free given enough awesomeness? Or, conversely, convince them to work on something profoundly uninspiring given infinite salary?
Isn't that exactly how it is now?
for free given enough awesomeness = FOSS
something profoundly uninspiring given infinite salary = facebook
for free given enough awesomeness = FOSS
something profoundly uninspiring given infinite salary = facebook
It seems even a Java logging framework for enterprises is enough awesomeness for free.
I think the article begins to touch on it with autonomy and doing cool stuff, but one thing I believe should be called out is that engineers really like to learn new stuff. If you’re the type of business that has a use case for new technologies, talk to prospective hires about their interest in that area - it may be something they have been meaning to try for a while. If your company isn’t exactly on the cutting edge or even relatively adventurous, you probably need to make sure you mention your training and conference budget. Any place that doesn’t value me enough to let me go learn something new once a year is at a disadvantage in the hiring cycle.
I am in late 30s, I recently switched jobs. Before this switch I never jumped for less than 20% hike. But this one I took slightly more than 30% cut. I never thought i would leave for less.
I was really disliking the tech stack, I could not change it even after trying. But there were lot of nice people, pay was above market levels. But i was still not satisfied, I could have stayed there and earn good increment every year by just doing 4-5 hours daily work.
The new company is a big Australian start up. My hope is that in the new company I’ll get to work with smart people and learn new things which I consider as an investment for my future growth.
I was really disliking the tech stack, I could not change it even after trying. But there were lot of nice people, pay was above market levels. But i was still not satisfied, I could have stayed there and earn good increment every year by just doing 4-5 hours daily work.
The new company is a big Australian start up. My hope is that in the new company I’ll get to work with smart people and learn new things which I consider as an investment for my future growth.
I once had a recruiter tell me: “Elon Musk is one of the easiest people on earth to poach senior leadership out from under.” After eighteen months in the gulag of rocketry/EVs, many managers are ready to cry “Uncle”.
What does it mean when someone poaches “leadership out from under” — does it mean that leadership grows internally, rather than sourced externally? Or that they’re fleeing away (assuming “poaching out” mean the reverse of “poaching”)
And I assume that the “uncle” in this case is Elon?
“Poach senior leadership out from under” means “steal away from.” So it’s easy to hire senior leadership from companies run by Musk. “Cry uncle” is an idiom meaning “admit defeat”. So they work there for 18 months, realize they can’t handle it, and admit defeat and quit.
Thanks a lot for the explanation!
I believe the current job market has a much simpler explanation: short term risk. Due to the ongoing Covid crisis predicting the short term future of the economy is inherently more difficult now. So people stay with their current job as it is a safe but boring haven.
Since you can only hire people willing to quit, you currently can’t find many software engineers that were rare even before Covid. Developer leaving their job by the masses is probably not a real thing at least from my experience. Maybe in some regions of the US. But a shortage of qualified personnel in general probably is.
Since you can only hire people willing to quit, you currently can’t find many software engineers that were rare even before Covid. Developer leaving their job by the masses is probably not a real thing at least from my experience. Maybe in some regions of the US. But a shortage of qualified personnel in general probably is.
This article might be describing the US but I think in Europe, unless you are willing to have overseas remote working (which brings its own challenges), then there is a genuine shortage of ability. Youngsters aren't choosing engineering because other things seem more fun.
Even hiring people from within Europe is hard, many companies are hiring from the Far East or India still because there is too much work. I think we have a decent company with some great positives but we might struggle to even get 5 applications and that is via a recruiter.
Even hiring people from within Europe is hard, many companies are hiring from the Far East or India still because there is too much work. I think we have a decent company with some great positives but we might struggle to even get 5 applications and that is via a recruiter.
I think this is focussing on the wrong things.
All jobs can be scored on three metrics:
1. The nature of the work;
2. The compensation;
3. The people you work with.
The article is really just zeroing in on points under #1, but #2 and #3 matter to most people, too. You can do cool work at home alone for free, but that wouldn't be a very good JOB.
In my 30 year career, I've had some jobs that scored poorly across the board (but hey, paid the rent). I've only had 2 jobs where all THREE were at least B+.
My job right now -- 14+ years! -- scores B+ on the work, but A and A+ on the other two points. Which helps explain the 14 years.
All jobs can be scored on three metrics:
1. The nature of the work;
2. The compensation;
3. The people you work with.
The article is really just zeroing in on points under #1, but #2 and #3 matter to most people, too. You can do cool work at home alone for free, but that wouldn't be a very good JOB.
In my 30 year career, I've had some jobs that scored poorly across the board (but hey, paid the rent). I've only had 2 jobs where all THREE were at least B+.
My job right now -- 14+ years! -- scores B+ on the work, but A and A+ on the other two points. Which helps explain the 14 years.
The article is litteraly split in three sections adressing those concerns.
Well let's see, 20+ years of big tech companies colluding to keep salaries capped, and now inflation making a typical 10k salary bump a joke. Yep I won't be leaving my job either.
I find it interesting that many companies focus on hireing experienced developers and the problems surrounding that. I think the smarter and more long term play is to massively improve the experience of university graduates (or anyone really) starting at a company. Have a very clear track and get them to be useful ASAP and make it enjoyable for them and possibly have them stay forever. Developing your own developers seems like a better strategy than trying to hire for fit (in a vacuum).
Author here. Questions, comments, vitriol - all gratefully accepted.
Why not Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive:_The_Surprising_Truth_...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive:_The_Surprising_Truth_...
Perhaps they overlap? I'd even hypothesise that they overlap with solving the 2 hard problems.
There are 2 hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-1 errors.
-- Phil Karlton, Leon Bamboogiewoogie @secretGeek, Martin Fowler
https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html
• Naming things
>> Technology -> Cool Stuff to Work On
>> Purpose — The desire to do something that has meaning and is important.
• Cache invalidation (forgetfulness)
>> Intellection -> Smart People to Work With
>> Mastery — The urge to get better skilled.
• Off-by-1 errors (self or greater Good)
>> Certainty -> Repeatability in Work Environment
>> Autonomy — Our desire to be self directed. It increases engagement over compliance.
There are 2 hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-1 errors.
-- Phil Karlton, Leon Bamboogiewoogie @secretGeek, Martin Fowler
https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html
• Naming things
>> Technology -> Cool Stuff to Work On
>> Purpose — The desire to do something that has meaning and is important.
• Cache invalidation (forgetfulness)
>> Intellection -> Smart People to Work With
>> Mastery — The urge to get better skilled.
• Off-by-1 errors (self or greater Good)
>> Certainty -> Repeatability in Work Environment
>> Autonomy — Our desire to be self directed. It increases engagement over compliance.
I think they are closely related. Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose strike me as strategic, thirty thousand foot values that correlate heavily with career satisfaction.
I think the desire for Technology, Intellection, and Certainty are more tactical considerations that engineers want in their day to day duties. I find that those tare things that engineers can easily visualize themselves having access to in a new role. These feed into a feeling (or the hope of feeling) a sense of Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose in their career as a whole.
I think the desire for Technology, Intellection, and Certainty are more tactical considerations that engineers want in their day to day duties. I find that those tare things that engineers can easily visualize themselves having access to in a new role. These feed into a feeling (or the hope of feeling) a sense of Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose in their career as a whole.
First off, excellent article. I've read a huge number of these and almost didn't click on this one. I'm happy I did. All your points are excellent and absolutely true.
That said, I think you may have missed an important one for engineers: respect
In my experience, engineers highly value respect in their current position and a slap in the face from the company can breed lasting resentment or an immediate job search in the current environment.
Respect comes in a few forms:
1) Believing you were actually listened to and your ideas were fairly evaluated, even if in the end the decision didn't go your way. If you're repeatedly getting shot down and don't understand why that feels like the company doesn't value you or your opinion.
2) Compensation: While the absolute number itself to a surprising degree doesn't matter all that much, what effort the company puts in when it can, does. If the company posts record profits, gushes about your performance, you max out your rating and get a 2% bump in pay as a result when at the very least inflation seems to be 6% right now that cognitive dissonance hurts a lot. This is another form of lack of respect that engineers rarely let slide.
3) Clear growth path/investment: If the company respects you and your term goals, you'll see it through an established career plan, at least for the short/medium term (1-3 years). If you're going about the same stuff every day with no room for growth and no one seemingly cares that you want to take on more or you don't see how you could given the pile of work you're stuck under, that's demotivating and shows that the company doesn't really care about you, just about your monotonic cog-like output.
4) Impact and impact recognition: Engineers want to do things that matter. (Already a theme in your article) and often they want that to be known. Not in a cheap artificial pat-on-the-back and flattery way, but in a tangible way. Success should lead to greater responsibility. Failure should lead to introspection and another swing with advisors brought in. Given your successes you should be given opportunity to advise others working on similar problems you've been successful solving. If all you're doing is solving problems in a silo and no one seems to notice or care, it gets demotivating again.
I'm sure there are others but I find that a general theme of respect for the individual is usually very important for engineers.
That said, I think you may have missed an important one for engineers: respect
In my experience, engineers highly value respect in their current position and a slap in the face from the company can breed lasting resentment or an immediate job search in the current environment.
Respect comes in a few forms:
1) Believing you were actually listened to and your ideas were fairly evaluated, even if in the end the decision didn't go your way. If you're repeatedly getting shot down and don't understand why that feels like the company doesn't value you or your opinion.
2) Compensation: While the absolute number itself to a surprising degree doesn't matter all that much, what effort the company puts in when it can, does. If the company posts record profits, gushes about your performance, you max out your rating and get a 2% bump in pay as a result when at the very least inflation seems to be 6% right now that cognitive dissonance hurts a lot. This is another form of lack of respect that engineers rarely let slide.
3) Clear growth path/investment: If the company respects you and your term goals, you'll see it through an established career plan, at least for the short/medium term (1-3 years). If you're going about the same stuff every day with no room for growth and no one seemingly cares that you want to take on more or you don't see how you could given the pile of work you're stuck under, that's demotivating and shows that the company doesn't really care about you, just about your monotonic cog-like output.
4) Impact and impact recognition: Engineers want to do things that matter. (Already a theme in your article) and often they want that to be known. Not in a cheap artificial pat-on-the-back and flattery way, but in a tangible way. Success should lead to greater responsibility. Failure should lead to introspection and another swing with advisors brought in. Given your successes you should be given opportunity to advise others working on similar problems you've been successful solving. If all you're doing is solving problems in a silo and no one seems to notice or care, it gets demotivating again.
I'm sure there are others but I find that a general theme of respect for the individual is usually very important for engineers.
Honestly, stop with the E*on and whatnot. It just makes the article annoying to read. He doesn't care about any possible SEO "juice" you think that your blog post would give him, and it just makes the thing look unprofessional, IMHO
It seems well written, and well argued to me.
The completionist in me notices you didn't mention NeuroLink - his wiring of brains to computers. It's not often in the news.
The completionist in me notices you didn't mention NeuroLink - his wiring of brains to computers. It's not often in the news.
I have never heard of NeuroLink! I'll look it up. Thanks for telling me.
Honestly neuralink is a bigger joke than his other projects. Maybe it will go somewhere but its highly improbable, we simply don't understand the brain well enough to make an input/output device meaningful yet
Wouldn't trying to interface with the brain be a good way to understand more about it?
It does sound unlikely that neuralink actually accomplishes anything impressive, but I don't think it's a joke to try and maybe it will be a step towards something that does succeed.
It does sound unlikely that neuralink actually accomplishes anything impressive, but I don't think it's a joke to try and maybe it will be a step towards something that does succeed.
That's why I said maybe it will go somewhere. Its super unlikely though, because I don't think they're doing any of the actual basic research. They're relying on the results out of academia and then just tinkering with that info. It's definitely possible for them to stumble onto something interesting
Enjoyed it, I just jumped ship 6 months ago for basically all the reasons you specified.
Only thing I can add is that due to the difficulty hiring, you can attract mid-level talent with more money (they're more likely to be underpaid). I'm sure the efficacy of that approach is diminishing as steady-state is reached by people in that experience level.
Only thing I can add is that due to the difficulty hiring, you can attract mid-level talent with more money (they're more likely to be underpaid). I'm sure the efficacy of that approach is diminishing as steady-state is reached by people in that experience level.
I think that's true up to a point.
I wouldn't take an extra 10k for being able to take my dog for a nice walk at 2PM every day.
Would my mind change for an extra 20k? Probably not.
For an extra 50k? ...maybe, let's talk.
For an extra 100k? ...where do I sign?
I wouldn't take an extra 10k for being able to take my dog for a nice walk at 2PM every day.
Would my mind change for an extra 20k? Probably not.
For an extra 50k? ...maybe, let's talk.
For an extra 100k? ...where do I sign?
[deleted]
I know good engineers who don't get hired.
They are too different from the hiring companies to be of interest for them. Or too risky, because they are sick or from suspicious countries.
They are too different from the hiring companies to be of interest for them. Or too risky, because they are sick or from suspicious countries.
Software engineering has become unenjoyable. There is no longer a feeling of control. I no longer come to work thinking - "yeah, I got this, I know exactly what is going on". I have no idea what's going on. It's all putting out fires and trying to figure out how complicated systems do simple things.
It's a hodgepodge of cloud toys, stitched together by multiple teams who do not want to talk to each other, hiding behind "microservices".
It's a hodgepodge of cloud toys, stitched together by multiple teams who do not want to talk to each other, hiding behind "microservices".
I care more about working in organizations that aren't dysfunctional as fuck, and that help humanity, than what specifically I'm working on. I also care much more about working with good people than smart people. I'm most tempted to change jobs to secure things like unlimited vacation, remote work, and a 4 day work week. That isn't just pocket change, that's increased quality of life.
I'm "fully remote" but apparently I can't work from any country despite being a contractor (so responsible for my own tax). Give me a job paying 15-20% more than I'm on where "fully remote" means I can work from abroard and I'll consider whether it's worth my time. Better the devil you know, since my current gig isn't exactly stressful.
#remote should mean remote
#remote should mean remote
[deleted]
> In spite of these truths, people flock to working for TSLA and CosmosY.
I often wonder how many of the people working at cool places are doing cool stuff and how many are doing the same things as elsewhere.
Does it help working in a place building autonomous cars, rockets if you’re not doing that, but doing the same web dev or door knob release software that you could do in a hedge fund, accountancy firm, or evil corp.
Anyone have any experience?
I often wonder how many of the people working at cool places are doing cool stuff and how many are doing the same things as elsewhere.
Does it help working in a place building autonomous cars, rockets if you’re not doing that, but doing the same web dev or door knob release software that you could do in a hedge fund, accountancy firm, or evil corp.
Anyone have any experience?
[deleted]
Autonomous cars make everything difficult and therefore pretty fun, if difficulty is fun :). Let's talk about door knob release. Ok, so now that there isn't a person driving the car, how do you authenticate that the person at the door is who it should be? All of a sudden you've opened a whole can of worms with that one question. The answer to that problem is gonna be a lot more complex than an electronic lock on a house door.
Even web dev is interesting. lots of bespoke visualization and debugging tools had to be created from scratch because nothing on the market solved the problems that autonomous cars pose. Look at webviz created by cruise as an example.
Even web dev is interesting. lots of bespoke visualization and debugging tools had to be created from scratch because nothing on the market solved the problems that autonomous cars pose. Look at webviz created by cruise as an example.
Yes but my point was (in relation to the article) that a lot of the work in cool companies is the same as that done in 'non cool' companies. Does working in a cooler company when you're doing the same stuff that your buddy down the road in the non cool company is doing make it feel a 'better' place to work.
Using my bad examples - if developing the same door knob release system or dealer booking system - feels better because you're doing it in Tesla than say Ford or Skoda? And how much
Using my bad examples - if developing the same door knob release system or dealer booking system - feels better because you're doing it in Tesla than say Ford or Skoda? And how much
My point was that it's not the same? A lot of problems are harder for a robotaxi than a personal vehicle.
the job market is a matching market. my desires vary from my ex-coworkers’ desires. out of every 10 companies, there are 9 that i won’t tolerate working for. fortunately, my favorite options probably vary from that of my ex-coworkers’, so that doesn’t mean 90% of companies are destined to be suckers. but it does mean that if you randomly recruit engineers, you should expect a low follow-through rate (you want a good match, don’t you?).
now throw a pandemic into the mix. everyone’s lifestyle has been disrupted to a lesser or major degree. everyone’s rethinking certain key aspects of their life, whether intentionally or emotionally. relevant to this: employees are just a lot more discriminating in their job evaluation than they used to be. the pool of jobs i’m willing to take has shrunk by 2-3x. again, that doesn’t mean the total matches must fall. but it does mean that it’s going to take more effort to locate matches. i.e. “it’s harder to hire engineers”.
now throw a pandemic into the mix. everyone’s lifestyle has been disrupted to a lesser or major degree. everyone’s rethinking certain key aspects of their life, whether intentionally or emotionally. relevant to this: employees are just a lot more discriminating in their job evaluation than they used to be. the pool of jobs i’m willing to take has shrunk by 2-3x. again, that doesn’t mean the total matches must fall. but it does mean that it’s going to take more effort to locate matches. i.e. “it’s harder to hire engineers”.
brace brace, because in EU salary are more in the 50k range than in the 100k range.
Here "what would you do for +10k" -> "ANYTHING"
Here "what would you do for +10k" -> "ANYTHING"
[deleted]
Money IS the motivating factor, but what good is a $20k bump if you don't find a niche at the new company?
I've been there - that company you didn't like, the boss that didn't like you, etc.. Every since that company I have been a LOT more selective of who I want to work with and don't just take a salary bump over SUPER job stability.
I've been there - that company you didn't like, the boss that didn't like you, etc.. Every since that company I have been a LOT more selective of who I want to work with and don't just take a salary bump over SUPER job stability.
Aside from the technology, intellect & stability, I think a lot of people simply want to work less
I may be living in a bubble (I've been building https://4dayweek.io) but for me and those around me, the main attraction is a better work-life balance, then technology etc
I may be living in a bubble (I've been building https://4dayweek.io) but for me and those around me, the main attraction is a better work-life balance, then technology etc
I got 3 messages from 3 recruiters this morning on linkedin for a (wellknown) company i interviewed for few years back.
I politely replied to each that, I interviewed, thought it went quite well and then got ghosted (never heard anything, zero), hence not going thru that again. Besides current job pays more and is interesting
I politely replied to each that, I interviewed, thought it went quite well and then got ghosted (never heard anything, zero), hence not going thru that again. Besides current job pays more and is interesting
I have to disagree with a little bit with this article.
For one everyone is looking to hire talent but not develop them. This means that most companies don't have talent development plan.
There are huge amount of engineers who have kids and mortgage that they need to pay off, so for the right price they will work on any none cool tech.
For one everyone is looking to hire talent but not develop them. This means that most companies don't have talent development plan.
There are huge amount of engineers who have kids and mortgage that they need to pay off, so for the right price they will work on any none cool tech.
all the sudden all companies are doing 8 rounds of interviews
this is the problem im seeing as well
then after 8 rounds they say you experience isn't enough for this sr/tech/lead role why not come for this role below that. But experience part was actually most clear from the start, it said right in the resume how much exp I had.
It's hard to take someone seriously when they won't even type out Elon.
What is he now, He-who-shall-not-be-named?
> (I ain’t speakin’ his name; the dude gets enough press without me helping his SEO.)
I hope this comment was tongue-in-cheek. This person's SEO comparatively speaking does not even register.
What is he now, He-who-shall-not-be-named?
> (I ain’t speakin’ his name; the dude gets enough press without me helping his SEO.)
I hope this comment was tongue-in-cheek. This person's SEO comparatively speaking does not even register.
It's kind of funny -but more like funny-weird, not funny-haha- when I read some of these articles.
I don't mean that in a bad way. The article is well written and, to some extent, well thought. The problem is they usually -as in this case- extrapolate a fairly limited experience to a very general explanation of just about everything. This can be also noticed in some of the absolutely tiring clichés of engineers being Trekkies and dorks and whatever. But more than that, it usually ends up being that the conclusions reached are mostly a mishmash of reasonable things which miss the point, at least as a general explanation.
But, as I can't consider myself an expert in the USA job market -or should I say "the quite specific USA FPGA / RTL design engineers job market"-, I'll do something else instead. I'll paint you the picture of a very different market, the Spanish IT job market. The common point is they also whine a lot about an engineer shortage and a lack of available skilled force.
Here the market is defined by the following:
- The market is mostly dominated by a handful of big players. At the tipping point, there's maybe 6-8 large companies that hire a lot of developers -even though I personally think they don't really need so many-. These are, mostly, bank and insurance. There's also one or two more directly IT related.
- The market is actually layered through a pile of leeching^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconsulting companies. There's an initial layer of larger "IT consulting" and "IT Integrators" who provide the above banks and large companies. Then there's the smaller ones which mostly provide bodies to the bigger ones. It is not uncommon for a particular job to involve at least 2 subcontracting steps. It's also not uncommon for them to lie about it at the beginning of the hiring process.
- Salaries are being contained or even lowered right now. It's hard to break around this because of hidden price collusion. Right now, as I said, salaries are low. Every time someone mentions "talent shortage" there's at least half a dozen of comments saying "well, pay more" or "don't pay so low, then". Personally, I'd say that most IT related jobs, and particularly those that actually create/operate/maintain the things, are being pushed into being considered as an "operator level" job. Low pay, easily disposable. Experience is, generally, an uninteresting trait beyond 2-3 years, and job offers reflect that. Entry level jobs are, again, paying low to very low. I know it can't be but it all feels kind of orchestrated. I mean, it can; it has been done before, but I'd rather think it can't be.
- Job offers hardly even mention anything. I've seen some hiring companies which will simply not put any details at all, not even technologies involved or anything. In any case, there must be fierce competition there because they all tend to be more secretive than usual. Not only will they not give you the name of the company -which may be understandable- it can sometimes be hard to even get general information like what sector it works on or an approximate location. This is most frequent, obviously, when it is not one of those big, few banks or insurance companies.
- Hiring processes are mostly clueless. They are heavily focused into that "operator mode" and usually ask for stupid things like very specific versions of tools -e.g. like "I see Spring Boot mentioned in your resume, but which version? You don't mention which and I'm looking for version 2.5.x" or "I need to ask you exactly how much experience in years you have with Angular 8 and how much with Angular 11"-. You can easily have to go through technical tests -and I mean things like building a 40+ hour demo project- even before they will even talk to you at all. In a couple of cases these were so specific and large one could even wonder if they were actually getting some smaller tools done for free through this.
- Job security is mostly a myth. During 2020 and 2021, quite a few of the big hiring companies and many of the body providers simply dropped hundreds or thousands of developers with little more than a snap of their fingers. To some extent they are trying to re-hire now, but not as much and, naturally, with lower salaries.
- There is, sure, a smaller market where smaller companies hire. This is a bit of a hit or miss. Most of them don't/can't pay too much but are, usually, better places to work at. There are also a number of startups -and companies calling themselves "a startup" because it's cool-. Most of these come and go, of course, and only a few of them aren't working on yet another "customer experience optimization" thing -i.e. tracking and advertising- or on "online gaming which actually turns out to be online gambling". One or two of those startups have even thought about a business model that is not crossing their fingers very hard.
- There's also the "agile market". Even if you like Agile, this is a circus. I've seen ratios of "agile coaches to sw engineers" which would make anyone wonder if anything is done at all in there. And the answer is no, obviously. I spent some months watching one of those big banks which don't want to be called a bank any more and it was absolutely ridiculous. I vividly remember some sort of retrospective meeting or whatever they called it where literally everyone was lying to avoid saying no progress at all had been made in the last 3 month period. And everyone knew everyone was lying. And still, these "agile coaches" were doing some happy dances and saying "good, good, this is very good, we're doing very well". I don't mean this as an attack on Agile, but more on the fact that it has been co-opted to burn loads of money at some of these larger companies. I mean, it's business as usual, but now under the name of Agile. It's sad.
All in all, here in Spain the answer to why it's hard to find engineers right now is... it isn't. But some players have twisted and broken the whole system so much that the job isn't that interesting any more.
I don't mean that in a bad way. The article is well written and, to some extent, well thought. The problem is they usually -as in this case- extrapolate a fairly limited experience to a very general explanation of just about everything. This can be also noticed in some of the absolutely tiring clichés of engineers being Trekkies and dorks and whatever. But more than that, it usually ends up being that the conclusions reached are mostly a mishmash of reasonable things which miss the point, at least as a general explanation.
But, as I can't consider myself an expert in the USA job market -or should I say "the quite specific USA FPGA / RTL design engineers job market"-, I'll do something else instead. I'll paint you the picture of a very different market, the Spanish IT job market. The common point is they also whine a lot about an engineer shortage and a lack of available skilled force.
Here the market is defined by the following:
- The market is mostly dominated by a handful of big players. At the tipping point, there's maybe 6-8 large companies that hire a lot of developers -even though I personally think they don't really need so many-. These are, mostly, bank and insurance. There's also one or two more directly IT related.
- The market is actually layered through a pile of leeching^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconsulting companies. There's an initial layer of larger "IT consulting" and "IT Integrators" who provide the above banks and large companies. Then there's the smaller ones which mostly provide bodies to the bigger ones. It is not uncommon for a particular job to involve at least 2 subcontracting steps. It's also not uncommon for them to lie about it at the beginning of the hiring process.
- Salaries are being contained or even lowered right now. It's hard to break around this because of hidden price collusion. Right now, as I said, salaries are low. Every time someone mentions "talent shortage" there's at least half a dozen of comments saying "well, pay more" or "don't pay so low, then". Personally, I'd say that most IT related jobs, and particularly those that actually create/operate/maintain the things, are being pushed into being considered as an "operator level" job. Low pay, easily disposable. Experience is, generally, an uninteresting trait beyond 2-3 years, and job offers reflect that. Entry level jobs are, again, paying low to very low. I know it can't be but it all feels kind of orchestrated. I mean, it can; it has been done before, but I'd rather think it can't be.
- Job offers hardly even mention anything. I've seen some hiring companies which will simply not put any details at all, not even technologies involved or anything. In any case, there must be fierce competition there because they all tend to be more secretive than usual. Not only will they not give you the name of the company -which may be understandable- it can sometimes be hard to even get general information like what sector it works on or an approximate location. This is most frequent, obviously, when it is not one of those big, few banks or insurance companies.
- Hiring processes are mostly clueless. They are heavily focused into that "operator mode" and usually ask for stupid things like very specific versions of tools -e.g. like "I see Spring Boot mentioned in your resume, but which version? You don't mention which and I'm looking for version 2.5.x" or "I need to ask you exactly how much experience in years you have with Angular 8 and how much with Angular 11"-. You can easily have to go through technical tests -and I mean things like building a 40+ hour demo project- even before they will even talk to you at all. In a couple of cases these were so specific and large one could even wonder if they were actually getting some smaller tools done for free through this.
- Job security is mostly a myth. During 2020 and 2021, quite a few of the big hiring companies and many of the body providers simply dropped hundreds or thousands of developers with little more than a snap of their fingers. To some extent they are trying to re-hire now, but not as much and, naturally, with lower salaries.
- There is, sure, a smaller market where smaller companies hire. This is a bit of a hit or miss. Most of them don't/can't pay too much but are, usually, better places to work at. There are also a number of startups -and companies calling themselves "a startup" because it's cool-. Most of these come and go, of course, and only a few of them aren't working on yet another "customer experience optimization" thing -i.e. tracking and advertising- or on "online gaming which actually turns out to be online gambling". One or two of those startups have even thought about a business model that is not crossing their fingers very hard.
- There's also the "agile market". Even if you like Agile, this is a circus. I've seen ratios of "agile coaches to sw engineers" which would make anyone wonder if anything is done at all in there. And the answer is no, obviously. I spent some months watching one of those big banks which don't want to be called a bank any more and it was absolutely ridiculous. I vividly remember some sort of retrospective meeting or whatever they called it where literally everyone was lying to avoid saying no progress at all had been made in the last 3 month period. And everyone knew everyone was lying. And still, these "agile coaches" were doing some happy dances and saying "good, good, this is very good, we're doing very well". I don't mean this as an attack on Agile, but more on the fact that it has been co-opted to burn loads of money at some of these larger companies. I mean, it's business as usual, but now under the name of Agile. It's sad.
All in all, here in Spain the answer to why it's hard to find engineers right now is... it isn't. But some players have twisted and broken the whole system so much that the job isn't that interesting any more.
Simply wanted to say thank you for taking the time to write this. Always interesting to hear a non-american perspective.
I don't believe in "greener grass" as I've seen a lot. I am happy with the team, the processes, the culture, so not even shopping around as I am happy with the money as well. I could get a bit more (based on what I hear) but no, thanks, no.
[deleted]
Good article, hiring is very inefficient and that is offputting.
I would rather do anything else. Try my hand at the markets while traveling, launch a project or two, fly a girl out for free using my rewards points and be a fun host that’s not preoccupied with meetings.
I would rather do anything else. Try my hand at the markets while traveling, launch a project or two, fly a girl out for free using my rewards points and be a fun host that’s not preoccupied with meetings.
What I’ve realized is the baseline Maslow hierarchy level has shifted upwards. Many of us have evolved. Management patting us on the back because we’ve made them an extra 10-20MM is not as meaningful to us anymore to motivate us to keep going.
I was in a recruiting process about one month ago for a technical sales position.
I quitted in the middle when I was told the company needed a fifth intervew and a technical test after it... and that was 7 weeks after I started the process.
Hiring is not agile.
Hiring is not agile.
You're not hiring because the average person is looking at salary data on levels.fyi. If you can't compete with the FANG's, if you're Crunchbase rank is six-figures, I don't see a high likelihood of those stock options going anywhere (especially if your startup is a decade old). Anecdotally, >9/10 recruiters and I politely end the discussion when I name my desired total compensation, which is N+20%.
I thought this was going to say "because you're offering below-market comp"
It's because they dont pay them enough. Pay more and you will get better engineers.
Expert physics tends to be more, can we build it smaller out of weird goo it make it 1000x faster to explore the limits of our theoretical models...
I could quote Sheldon Cooper all day long that engineers are the workmen of science.
Frankly, it's always hard to hire engineers. Either you can't find talent or you can't find money to hire talent.
No matter what the personal choices and predilections of any engineer, the software industry is fundamentally constrained by the twin forces of capital and engineering talent. When there is lots of capital, there are a lot of companies, and there is insufficient talent. When there isn't a lot of capital, no one can nor wants to pay for talent so they can weather the storm. That's been the case since at least the 1970s.
Through this cycle, there are so many "engineers" working tirelessly to put other "programmers" out of work (not the shift in labels there, because there is always an unjustified scent of snideness in the air) as well to reduce the cost of engineering. All the no-code revolution now is part of this cycle.
There's a wonderful book angling for a Marxist revolution of engineers from 1977
Kraft, 1977. Programmers and Managers. The Routinization of Computer Programming.
I love it because it's cute, and since it's 2022, proven to be a dud. Like any Marxist analysis, it is accurate in assessing the problems and hopeless at prescribing a solution.
Regardless, the main lesson I have taken in my career is the absolutely top priority a senior engineer should have is building tools and processes to eliminate the need for code to generate business results. You will never be able to hire warm bodies fast enough, so all you can do is radically increase the power of each engineer on the team.
Those have always been the most fun teams I've worked on. It almost feels like being a wizard.
p.s. All that being said, I'm hiring. :)
No matter what the personal choices and predilections of any engineer, the software industry is fundamentally constrained by the twin forces of capital and engineering talent. When there is lots of capital, there are a lot of companies, and there is insufficient talent. When there isn't a lot of capital, no one can nor wants to pay for talent so they can weather the storm. That's been the case since at least the 1970s.
Through this cycle, there are so many "engineers" working tirelessly to put other "programmers" out of work (not the shift in labels there, because there is always an unjustified scent of snideness in the air) as well to reduce the cost of engineering. All the no-code revolution now is part of this cycle.
There's a wonderful book angling for a Marxist revolution of engineers from 1977
Kraft, 1977. Programmers and Managers. The Routinization of Computer Programming.
I love it because it's cute, and since it's 2022, proven to be a dud. Like any Marxist analysis, it is accurate in assessing the problems and hopeless at prescribing a solution.
Regardless, the main lesson I have taken in my career is the absolutely top priority a senior engineer should have is building tools and processes to eliminate the need for code to generate business results. You will never be able to hire warm bodies fast enough, so all you can do is radically increase the power of each engineer on the team.
Those have always been the most fun teams I've worked on. It almost feels like being a wizard.
p.s. All that being said, I'm hiring. :)
"eliminate the need for code to generate business results" - can you give an example of how you do this? Sounds interesting.
One time (BitFlash) I was building an SVG rendering engine for mobile devices back when 32kb was a huge amount of space on a phone and we had to count the microjoules of energy per instruction for battery efficiency.
We started with C++ which is very flexible. As I built it and optimized it we had two problems. One the SVG spec was a moving target and second the same optimizations we learnt had to be applied across the entire codebase in many classes simultaneously.
The obvious solution is to build a domain specific language right? But we couldn’t afford to run an interpreter at runtime. So I wrote the spec as a mix of C++ structs, enums and comments and a Perl script (it was 2000) to compile that code into optimized C++ for the parser and DOM and rendering loop.
I also built my own metabuild tools (this was 2000) to generate makefiles and the like to quickly cross compile to new mobile phones. We were able to cross compile and deploy to a new handset from a manufacturer once while the bigwigs were in a meeting talking terms. That definitely impressed.
Another example was that I was brought in 4 months into a VoIP SIP hardware phone project that was floundering. It had gotten nowhere. I had never built such a thing but I had to quickly build a working phone.
We had a very detailed spec from the distributor of the set of use cases we had to implement.
In my opinion, hardware has this annoying requirement to never crash or have bugs because hotfixing is a nightmare. These phones were for trading desks so I think the pressure was high as well to not go down.
With four months lost I know most people would just dive in and start coding and never stop until a spaghetti ball was shipped.
However that is the road to hell as you are just creating chaos in the codebase instead of order. The whole point of logic is to create order.
So yes I did dive in to the code just long enough to spike one phone call with the SDKs to make sure I knew how the tools worked.
But my solution was to “waste time” after that to draw out the spec document as a hierarchical finite state machine in PowerPoint.
Once I had a simpler visual of what the spec was saying, I then wrote a hierarchical finite state machine library. And I then wrote out the phone logic as in the language of the HFSM instead of as a spaghetti ball of smash smash code.
This let me contain all the mutex logic in a tiny part of the code base so I could stop worrying about race condition bugs which plague phones.
I was also able to build a test first library with another domain language. I wrote the tests as message sequence charts (2D arrays with mock objects) that drove the phone. The spec had a number of MSCs so this made it a lot easier to prove correctness.
By going “insane” like this I did save the project’s bacon. Not only did I deliver on time, but I was able to prove the SIP SDK the distributor ordered us to use was broken fundamentally and survive the obvious, “must be your code!” objections rather handily.
Those are fun stories; I painted myself in the best light of course. 95% of the time I was panicking before I came up with a solution and the other 95% I was panicking management would wonder why I spent two months on a side quest. Those are so long ago that I think it is ok to tell them.
Nowadays we have package libraries that full of modules like this. It’s amazing how much people have simplified with better ways of expressing ideas as data instead of code.
We started with C++ which is very flexible. As I built it and optimized it we had two problems. One the SVG spec was a moving target and second the same optimizations we learnt had to be applied across the entire codebase in many classes simultaneously.
The obvious solution is to build a domain specific language right? But we couldn’t afford to run an interpreter at runtime. So I wrote the spec as a mix of C++ structs, enums and comments and a Perl script (it was 2000) to compile that code into optimized C++ for the parser and DOM and rendering loop.
I also built my own metabuild tools (this was 2000) to generate makefiles and the like to quickly cross compile to new mobile phones. We were able to cross compile and deploy to a new handset from a manufacturer once while the bigwigs were in a meeting talking terms. That definitely impressed.
Another example was that I was brought in 4 months into a VoIP SIP hardware phone project that was floundering. It had gotten nowhere. I had never built such a thing but I had to quickly build a working phone.
We had a very detailed spec from the distributor of the set of use cases we had to implement.
In my opinion, hardware has this annoying requirement to never crash or have bugs because hotfixing is a nightmare. These phones were for trading desks so I think the pressure was high as well to not go down.
With four months lost I know most people would just dive in and start coding and never stop until a spaghetti ball was shipped.
However that is the road to hell as you are just creating chaos in the codebase instead of order. The whole point of logic is to create order.
So yes I did dive in to the code just long enough to spike one phone call with the SDKs to make sure I knew how the tools worked.
But my solution was to “waste time” after that to draw out the spec document as a hierarchical finite state machine in PowerPoint.
Once I had a simpler visual of what the spec was saying, I then wrote a hierarchical finite state machine library. And I then wrote out the phone logic as in the language of the HFSM instead of as a spaghetti ball of smash smash code.
This let me contain all the mutex logic in a tiny part of the code base so I could stop worrying about race condition bugs which plague phones.
I was also able to build a test first library with another domain language. I wrote the tests as message sequence charts (2D arrays with mock objects) that drove the phone. The spec had a number of MSCs so this made it a lot easier to prove correctness.
By going “insane” like this I did save the project’s bacon. Not only did I deliver on time, but I was able to prove the SIP SDK the distributor ordered us to use was broken fundamentally and survive the obvious, “must be your code!” objections rather handily.
Those are fun stories; I painted myself in the best light of course. 95% of the time I was panicking before I came up with a solution and the other 95% I was panicking management would wonder why I spent two months on a side quest. Those are so long ago that I think it is ok to tell them.
Nowadays we have package libraries that full of modules like this. It’s amazing how much people have simplified with better ways of expressing ideas as data instead of code.
> Every engineer is at least a little bit techno-utopian.
I’m not. Although I’m more of a technologist than an engineer.
If anything I’m techno-dystopian.
The world’s biggest problems are political, technological. And fantasies of fixing them with technology are just that.
I’m not. Although I’m more of a technologist than an engineer.
If anything I’m techno-dystopian.
The world’s biggest problems are political, technological. And fantasies of fixing them with technology are just that.
The question of "what would make you change jobs" seems super-prone to social desirability bias—and the author does nothing to control for that. Does anyone have links to research that does?
The early jumps in the curve from Covid were about six months ago. In six months a lot of the incentives comps unlock at least a little at a year, so I’d expect a higher movement rate in about six months.
I find it odd that the author equates "cool stuff to work on" with "cool tech". As I have gotten older, I have become less interested in specific technology and more interested in what that technology enables. There's a big reckoning going over the effects that big tech has had on our society, and engineers are not immune from this. A lot of us are interested in more than cool new languages, hot new frameworks, and massive scale deployments.
The author touches on this a bit, mentioning Elon Musk and Tesla/SpaceX, but focuses more on cool products like rockets and self-driving cars and not about, say, the future of humanity in space, or reshaping personal transportation. These are the kinds of impacts that really matter: What is the company actually doing for its users? Does it solve a real problem? Is society better off because of it?
Start by addressing these concerns and I will be much more interesting in working for your company.
The author touches on this a bit, mentioning Elon Musk and Tesla/SpaceX, but focuses more on cool products like rockets and self-driving cars and not about, say, the future of humanity in space, or reshaping personal transportation. These are the kinds of impacts that really matter: What is the company actually doing for its users? Does it solve a real problem? Is society better off because of it?
Start by addressing these concerns and I will be much more interesting in working for your company.
> Engineering is knowledge work. You get paid to know stuff much more frequently than you get paid to do stuff.
This quote is great. Explains how our career evolves into doing less and coaching/guiding more.
This quote is great. Explains how our career evolves into doing less and coaching/guiding more.
Currently I can keep and hire senior engineers. I can not keep and hire good junior engineers. Their market is inflated, and they can jump around jobs making 50K more than it makes sense to pay.
Isn't this caused by confrontation of mortality brought on by the pandemic? People stuck in jobs but I feel "I might die doing this. Is this really what I want to die doing?"
First two points are way too heavy on "Eln Msk" as an illustration, could have easily written just as compelling (better?) argument without going that extreme early on.
This seems to be an accurate and detailed way of simply explaining that a cohort of employees is i high demand, and therefore can and does demand better workplace conditions.
but companies would rather do agile/scrum/sprints and have product manager, scrum master, and more. Oh also 3000 micro-services because gooflix. Ok.. goodluck.
If this is true then I guess it would mean during times of high unemployment everyone loves their jobs too much to leave.
Author didn't even mention PayPal. Oh, yea-- he lead the company that pioneered peer to peer online payments.
[deleted]
you can make the same point of Cool stuff to work on / Smart people to work with / Some degree of repeatability in work environment for Apple also.
Lots of other companies only focus Cool stuff, try to buy Smart people with money and lack stability and focus
Just woke up and found this on the front page of HN.
Questions? Comments? Get at me on Twitter - @cushychicken
Questions? Comments? Get at me on Twitter - @cushychicken
I like this title, it’s not clickbaity at all, but I still want to read it when I see it.
So many assumptions on what this rare animal engineer is like.
Over many different jobs I discover this:
If you earn a lot you somewhat have to deliver but more importantly you [should] want to deliver. Sure, there exist jobs where one is paid a great salary without having to do much beyond sitting around not doing much of anything. I consider those prisons. If you have such opportunity and take it you will become good at not doing anything.
The contrast is with jobs for which you are overqualified, can use and expand your skills and earn very little. There is no obligation to deliver here, its fun if you can but not at all required. There is no pressure, you can walk away whenever you like and find or forge 10 such jobs the same day. In this setting you can give the employer a sense that you are there because you actually want to be there. Its quite surreal. Almost anything you ask for in exchange for a pay cut you will get.
Now the real joke is that I work really hard for the small pay check but I work 3 days, perhaps 4 per week. I go home if there is not enough to do but work 7 days if the situation requires it. The 4 day weekend is a blast! It feels like the whole year is one giant vacation but that is not the big joke of it. In order to grow either physically or mentally you have to push yourself to your limit. If you push yourself like that for more than 3 days per week you won't grow, you will destroy your body, your mind or both.
I run circles around coworkers who work 5 days. Their performance usually declines while mine gradually improves. Their head is full of work stuff while mine is mostly empty ready to take in whatever comes next (which could be the next job)
If the situation requires me to work 15 hours for 30 days I'm up for it. Ill work a 2 day week after that for each 8 hours. Call me if you need me, ill probably show up. Even if they hate me or are the psycho dictator type they are quick to remember how much money I make for the company, how I got their things done before the deadline, the credit they took for my accomplishments.
I also learn that it doesn't matter how much you make, you can always find ways to run out of money before the end of the month.
Sure, if you have a bigger salary and work full time you can buy the fancy new car but why? To drive to work? Its just sitting there outside on the parking lot. You are not doing anything with it. It's for work. You've worked to earn it and use it for work. You can buy the big house but you are never there. You can eat in fancy restaurants but the satisfaction is mostly because you don't have time to cook elaborate meals. If you engineer your meal to the best of your ability restaurants are pretty disappointing. I'm slacking off but if you grow some of your own food the satisfaction is 10 fold.
If you earn a lot you somewhat have to deliver but more importantly you [should] want to deliver. Sure, there exist jobs where one is paid a great salary without having to do much beyond sitting around not doing much of anything. I consider those prisons. If you have such opportunity and take it you will become good at not doing anything.
The contrast is with jobs for which you are overqualified, can use and expand your skills and earn very little. There is no obligation to deliver here, its fun if you can but not at all required. There is no pressure, you can walk away whenever you like and find or forge 10 such jobs the same day. In this setting you can give the employer a sense that you are there because you actually want to be there. Its quite surreal. Almost anything you ask for in exchange for a pay cut you will get.
Now the real joke is that I work really hard for the small pay check but I work 3 days, perhaps 4 per week. I go home if there is not enough to do but work 7 days if the situation requires it. The 4 day weekend is a blast! It feels like the whole year is one giant vacation but that is not the big joke of it. In order to grow either physically or mentally you have to push yourself to your limit. If you push yourself like that for more than 3 days per week you won't grow, you will destroy your body, your mind or both.
I run circles around coworkers who work 5 days. Their performance usually declines while mine gradually improves. Their head is full of work stuff while mine is mostly empty ready to take in whatever comes next (which could be the next job)
If the situation requires me to work 15 hours for 30 days I'm up for it. Ill work a 2 day week after that for each 8 hours. Call me if you need me, ill probably show up. Even if they hate me or are the psycho dictator type they are quick to remember how much money I make for the company, how I got their things done before the deadline, the credit they took for my accomplishments.
I also learn that it doesn't matter how much you make, you can always find ways to run out of money before the end of the month.
Sure, if you have a bigger salary and work full time you can buy the fancy new car but why? To drive to work? Its just sitting there outside on the parking lot. You are not doing anything with it. It's for work. You've worked to earn it and use it for work. You can buy the big house but you are never there. You can eat in fancy restaurants but the satisfaction is mostly because you don't have time to cook elaborate meals. If you engineer your meal to the best of your ability restaurants are pretty disappointing. I'm slacking off but if you grow some of your own food the satisfaction is 10 fold.
[deleted]
Clearly this entire post is submarine advertising for the OP's job-hunting site, and I guess that's fine.
What I found annoying was the repeated use of Elon Musk and his companies as examples, while refusing to type out the name fully due to not wanting to "help his SEO". That just struck me as being fundamentally dishonest, and made me quite skeptical toward the content.
What I found annoying was the repeated use of Elon Musk and his companies as examples, while refusing to type out the name fully due to not wanting to "help his SEO". That just struck me as being fundamentally dishonest, and made me quite skeptical toward the content.
There's more going on than that. A lot of companies are simply not great employers. They under-pay, under-appreciate, mis-manage, etc. These companies are going to end up paying a premium even for mediocre people. These companies tend to make things worse by having hiring policies that are setting them up for failure. Bad hiring policies ensure people won't even talk to you. You lose before the process even starts.
For example, I abort discussions gravitating towards "oh hey could you do this coding exercise" with a simple "No, I don't do coding exercises, ever. Good luck finding a junior engineer for your role.". I keep it polite but such a question basically means I'm talking to the wrong person that obviously has no idea why they should be begging on their knees for me to consider working for them.
The first contact should be with a decision maker that knows exactly why you are interesting for them. An HR person or recruiter does not qualify for this. Use them for screening CVs but don't ever let them do the initial out reach. If based on a CV, github profile, linkedin profile, etc. a you are not able to figure out why someone is interesting for a particular position or not willing to do the work to find that out, a phone call with an HR person is not going to be helpful. And if the match is obvious, you should move much more aggressively and faster.
Like everybody in the industry I get a lot of very poorly targeted outreach from completely clueless and incompetent recruiters. Most half decent engineers in this industry are busy, not looking, and blowing off recruiter spam on a daily basis. Inviting them to engage with your HR bureaucracy via some recruiter is a non-starter. The more qualified people are the less likely they are going to be interested in your coding exercises, screening mechanisms, job application bureaucracy, etc.
Cut all that bullshit and figure out what you want before even reaching out to someone and figure out how you differentiate from your competition (hundreds of other companies looking for the exact same thing). If some HR drone reaches out with some templated drivel, chances are extremely low that I even respond. It's not personal, I just don't have time to keep up with all the inbound nonsense I get. However, if a CTO of or engineering manager reaches out with a well motivated reason why I might be interested and what they are looking for, they'll get a reply and a conversation starts. I'm actually pretty approachable; you just need to do it right.
The way to fix hiring is to get HR and recruiters out of the loop as much and as early as possible. Their role is to screen and never to act as middle men. These people scare away all the good leads you might get, if any at all. They are the last persons you want people to talk to. In the case of HR quite literally, you involve them when you get to the salary negotiation phase. Screen based on the available resources. Use Google. Look at their Github profile, linkedin, etc. If you like what you see, make a plan for reaching out in the most effective way. E.g. find a way in via a mutual acquaintance (preferred) and be ready to move very quickly. If these people are available at all exactly when you need them, it's not going to be for very long. If they aren't, you need to be ready to really to sell leaving their comfy job for you. That starts with not treating them like numbers.
For example, I abort discussions gravitating towards "oh hey could you do this coding exercise" with a simple "No, I don't do coding exercises, ever. Good luck finding a junior engineer for your role.". I keep it polite but such a question basically means I'm talking to the wrong person that obviously has no idea why they should be begging on their knees for me to consider working for them.
The first contact should be with a decision maker that knows exactly why you are interesting for them. An HR person or recruiter does not qualify for this. Use them for screening CVs but don't ever let them do the initial out reach. If based on a CV, github profile, linkedin profile, etc. a you are not able to figure out why someone is interesting for a particular position or not willing to do the work to find that out, a phone call with an HR person is not going to be helpful. And if the match is obvious, you should move much more aggressively and faster.
Like everybody in the industry I get a lot of very poorly targeted outreach from completely clueless and incompetent recruiters. Most half decent engineers in this industry are busy, not looking, and blowing off recruiter spam on a daily basis. Inviting them to engage with your HR bureaucracy via some recruiter is a non-starter. The more qualified people are the less likely they are going to be interested in your coding exercises, screening mechanisms, job application bureaucracy, etc.
Cut all that bullshit and figure out what you want before even reaching out to someone and figure out how you differentiate from your competition (hundreds of other companies looking for the exact same thing). If some HR drone reaches out with some templated drivel, chances are extremely low that I even respond. It's not personal, I just don't have time to keep up with all the inbound nonsense I get. However, if a CTO of or engineering manager reaches out with a well motivated reason why I might be interested and what they are looking for, they'll get a reply and a conversation starts. I'm actually pretty approachable; you just need to do it right.
The way to fix hiring is to get HR and recruiters out of the loop as much and as early as possible. Their role is to screen and never to act as middle men. These people scare away all the good leads you might get, if any at all. They are the last persons you want people to talk to. In the case of HR quite literally, you involve them when you get to the salary negotiation phase. Screen based on the available resources. Use Google. Look at their Github profile, linkedin, etc. If you like what you see, make a plan for reaching out in the most effective way. E.g. find a way in via a mutual acquaintance (preferred) and be ready to move very quickly. If these people are available at all exactly when you need them, it's not going to be for very long. If they aren't, you need to be ready to really to sell leaving their comfy job for you. That starts with not treating them like numbers.
Refusing to write out Elon Musk, SpaceX, and Tesla comes off as juvenile which perfectly explains why this is such a terrible explanation for the current job market:
Nothing in this article wasn't true two years ago; This could of just as well been titled "I think I know why you can't hire engineers" and been posted any time in the last 50 years.
Nothing in this article wasn't true two years ago; This could of just as well been titled "I think I know why you can't hire engineers" and been posted any time in the last 50 years.
It was just light humor on author's part. I didn't think it was juvenile.
I have one big glaring early disagreement: Every engineer is at least a little bit techno-utopian.
If you mean they think the future can be made better with technology in the abstract, sure. But I think some, maybe many, engineers think that the current way technology is being developed and deployed is leading towards dystopian futures, not utopian ones. They may tell themselves that the cool problem they are solving would be solved by someone else, and they get money and a good puzzle. They may tell themselves that it's not their work. They may admit that is the future and say they just want to be in an excellent position in the dystopia. But if you look at the efforts put forth by open-source advocates to fight against closed-source, or the work that goes into blocking ads and tracking, or the way that misinformation propagates over the internet/social media and the responses written about things like that on HN, you see that some engineers are pessimistic about the way technology will be used.
Or see how the inevitable (and existing) facial recognition companies are talked about. Some love it, but some don't.
If you mean they think the future can be made better with technology in the abstract, sure. But I think some, maybe many, engineers think that the current way technology is being developed and deployed is leading towards dystopian futures, not utopian ones. They may tell themselves that the cool problem they are solving would be solved by someone else, and they get money and a good puzzle. They may tell themselves that it's not their work. They may admit that is the future and say they just want to be in an excellent position in the dystopia. But if you look at the efforts put forth by open-source advocates to fight against closed-source, or the work that goes into blocking ads and tracking, or the way that misinformation propagates over the internet/social media and the responses written about things like that on HN, you see that some engineers are pessimistic about the way technology will be used.
Or see how the inevitable (and existing) facial recognition companies are talked about. Some love it, but some don't.
[deleted]
Unless the author got the green light from Zach, I don't think it's fine that they reproduced an SMBC comic in there. Without any credit, to make it worse.
> This draws many engineers towards a very objective worldview.
Would you have an engineer any other way? I'd argue you can't be a good engineer without an objective worldview - because engineering is the art of making physical things outside your body do what you said they would, reliably. Yes, code eventually runs on physical things.
It doesn't matter what you believe, how you think the world really works, whose side you're on politically - it matters that the bridge stands. That the networking router ASIC routes 100G of traffic accurately and with low latency, without randomly locking up. That the airplane's fuel burn is what you say it will be. These are all pretty hard objective external truths that don't care what you think about them - they are what they are.
On the other hand, especially in the "consumer tech" spaces, I think a lot of engineers (at least those I know and converse with) are looking towards early retirement, or at least "not doing that which they've done." The state of modern computers can be described as "broken and getting more broken," with the fixes for the last complex hacks breaking and requiring yet more new complex hacks. Do that for 20 years, and you end up with this teetering pile of... something, and then you do the same thing with the software on top of it. Piles of libraries, running on a pile of libraries, running on gigabytes of God knows what, running on... all the way down. It's a security mess.
Then what do we largely choose to do with it? There's some neat stuff, yes, but a lot of the tech industry is based, tightly or loosely, around collecting all the data, processing all the data, and using it to predict all the things, then sell those predictions about human behavior to whoever will pay. It's the default model for a company these days, and it's increasingly hard to ignore that - even for an awful lot of money. If you've looked at the past 15 years of your work and realized that it's gone to some pretty human-toxic ends, "not doing that anymore" is pretty appealing.
The security, similarly, is a pile of crap, and everyone knows it. But, despite that, nobody is willing to consider alternatives to "Well, patch it and carry on." Say what you will about the conveniences of digitalization, things like the OPM "theft of everyone who's ever applied for a clearance's life history" wouldn't have happened if the data had been stored on paper. It's mighty convenient to have it digital, but it's a lot harder to have someone haul out 500 tons of paperwork without someone noticing.
So, yes, there's been some interesting work going on, but there's also an awful lot of "Well, it sounded interesting, but it's definitely been not used how I hoped..." work done in the past decades.
And if someone is in that state, you're unlikely to hire them for much. They're probably planning their exit already to go be a gentleman farmer of llamas or goats or something. Emus are just too mean to bother with.
I know a lot of people somewhere in this pipeline.
Another issue I've seen is that there are a good number of engineers (again, I talk to a variety of them) who are a bit hesitant about the Covid vaccine mandates - especially those who have already recovered from a bout with it before the vaccines were available. Quite a few companies are covered by some variety of uncertainty with that, so there's some decently sized pool of engineers (typically older, more experienced) who just aren't going to go work for some large set of companies. You can agree with them or disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that it's going on, and people are trying to figure out how to work with it.
I think we'll just see a big wave of retirements in the next few years of senior engineers who have no interest in the tech field anymore, and are happy to let it spin in the wind after what it's done for 20 years.
Would you have an engineer any other way? I'd argue you can't be a good engineer without an objective worldview - because engineering is the art of making physical things outside your body do what you said they would, reliably. Yes, code eventually runs on physical things.
It doesn't matter what you believe, how you think the world really works, whose side you're on politically - it matters that the bridge stands. That the networking router ASIC routes 100G of traffic accurately and with low latency, without randomly locking up. That the airplane's fuel burn is what you say it will be. These are all pretty hard objective external truths that don't care what you think about them - they are what they are.
On the other hand, especially in the "consumer tech" spaces, I think a lot of engineers (at least those I know and converse with) are looking towards early retirement, or at least "not doing that which they've done." The state of modern computers can be described as "broken and getting more broken," with the fixes for the last complex hacks breaking and requiring yet more new complex hacks. Do that for 20 years, and you end up with this teetering pile of... something, and then you do the same thing with the software on top of it. Piles of libraries, running on a pile of libraries, running on gigabytes of God knows what, running on... all the way down. It's a security mess.
Then what do we largely choose to do with it? There's some neat stuff, yes, but a lot of the tech industry is based, tightly or loosely, around collecting all the data, processing all the data, and using it to predict all the things, then sell those predictions about human behavior to whoever will pay. It's the default model for a company these days, and it's increasingly hard to ignore that - even for an awful lot of money. If you've looked at the past 15 years of your work and realized that it's gone to some pretty human-toxic ends, "not doing that anymore" is pretty appealing.
The security, similarly, is a pile of crap, and everyone knows it. But, despite that, nobody is willing to consider alternatives to "Well, patch it and carry on." Say what you will about the conveniences of digitalization, things like the OPM "theft of everyone who's ever applied for a clearance's life history" wouldn't have happened if the data had been stored on paper. It's mighty convenient to have it digital, but it's a lot harder to have someone haul out 500 tons of paperwork without someone noticing.
So, yes, there's been some interesting work going on, but there's also an awful lot of "Well, it sounded interesting, but it's definitely been not used how I hoped..." work done in the past decades.
And if someone is in that state, you're unlikely to hire them for much. They're probably planning their exit already to go be a gentleman farmer of llamas or goats or something. Emus are just too mean to bother with.
I know a lot of people somewhere in this pipeline.
Another issue I've seen is that there are a good number of engineers (again, I talk to a variety of them) who are a bit hesitant about the Covid vaccine mandates - especially those who have already recovered from a bout with it before the vaccines were available. Quite a few companies are covered by some variety of uncertainty with that, so there's some decently sized pool of engineers (typically older, more experienced) who just aren't going to go work for some large set of companies. You can agree with them or disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that it's going on, and people are trying to figure out how to work with it.
I think we'll just see a big wave of retirements in the next few years of senior engineers who have no interest in the tech field anymore, and are happy to let it spin in the wind after what it's done for 20 years.
Well I have nothing useful to add other than my personal priorities for a job, in order of importance. I'm a whiney little bitch when it comes to this stuff.
People/Environment -- If I hate the people I'm working with, I'm not going to stick around long. I've quit jobs for that reason before, and I would do it again. I have a low tolerance for assholes. For example, worked for a vending machine OEM that shall not be named. Boss was filthy rich and said "oh we'll pay for you to go out here to X!" and then had me ride a fucking Greyhound. I should have bailed right then and there, but I gave it a try, since I was young and fairly new to actually getting paid for my work. Guy had a new secretary every other week, and they always looked like they were one sharp comment away from swan-diving into a wood chipper. I've never seen office workers with that much terror in their eyes and voices before. Needless to say, I didn't stay with him long. Paid well, but getting technical specs, tools, and the data I needed for projects was like pulling teeth from a methed-out rhinoceros, and that proved to be the last straw. I remember once I was told to my horror and disbelief that they had literally completely lost core technical specs that I needed for the project, then they wanted to know why work was progressing slowly. At that point I just quit. Tried to ship his equipment back to him but the cheap motherfucker wouldn't even pay for the shipping, then just stopped talking to me when I asked him to. Guess he didn't care about the vending machine parts. Ironically they were worth more than the shipping, and totally worthless to me.
Integrity -- I look for a company that isn't actively making the world a worse place. I don't mind boring code, as long as I can write it well and be proud of what I've created at the end of the day. What I do mind, however, is predatory practices, unethical dark patterns, and user-hostile design and terms of service. If I think you're Facebook 2 Electric Boogaloo, I won't apply in the first place. If I think you're the "good guys" however, you'll have undying loyalty. *Sidenote: Sickens me to hear that so many of my fellow developers are willing to worsen the world for an extra zero on their check.*
Technology -- You must be asking me to use a language/toolkit/etc that won't make me want to blow my brains out every day at 5:01pm. I can work with tools and languages I don't particularly like, but do not, for example, ask me to build you an Electron app, PHP backend, or Java app. I will walk rather than endure that. Maybe some help in an emergency, but if you make that my main duty, I'm done. I'm fussy, but that's just me. It's very important to me personally to be able to respect the tools I'm using.
Autonomy -- I hate being micromanaged. I'm not incompetent. I've created programs with hundreds of thousands of lines of C++ and Python code by myself. If you second-guess every tiny decision I make over long periods, I will descend into quietly loathing you at the very least.
Money? -- I'm not a greedy person, but don't insult me. At least pay me something close to market. There's great irony in that statement right now, as I'm not making even close to what I'm supposed to (basically poverty wages for some of these months), as I'm trying to help a tiny startup keep its head above water because the boss is actually a decent guy and someone I respect. I suppose it illustrates just how much the kind of people I work with matters to me.
People/Environment -- If I hate the people I'm working with, I'm not going to stick around long. I've quit jobs for that reason before, and I would do it again. I have a low tolerance for assholes. For example, worked for a vending machine OEM that shall not be named. Boss was filthy rich and said "oh we'll pay for you to go out here to X!" and then had me ride a fucking Greyhound. I should have bailed right then and there, but I gave it a try, since I was young and fairly new to actually getting paid for my work. Guy had a new secretary every other week, and they always looked like they were one sharp comment away from swan-diving into a wood chipper. I've never seen office workers with that much terror in their eyes and voices before. Needless to say, I didn't stay with him long. Paid well, but getting technical specs, tools, and the data I needed for projects was like pulling teeth from a methed-out rhinoceros, and that proved to be the last straw. I remember once I was told to my horror and disbelief that they had literally completely lost core technical specs that I needed for the project, then they wanted to know why work was progressing slowly. At that point I just quit. Tried to ship his equipment back to him but the cheap motherfucker wouldn't even pay for the shipping, then just stopped talking to me when I asked him to. Guess he didn't care about the vending machine parts. Ironically they were worth more than the shipping, and totally worthless to me.
Integrity -- I look for a company that isn't actively making the world a worse place. I don't mind boring code, as long as I can write it well and be proud of what I've created at the end of the day. What I do mind, however, is predatory practices, unethical dark patterns, and user-hostile design and terms of service. If I think you're Facebook 2 Electric Boogaloo, I won't apply in the first place. If I think you're the "good guys" however, you'll have undying loyalty. *Sidenote: Sickens me to hear that so many of my fellow developers are willing to worsen the world for an extra zero on their check.*
Technology -- You must be asking me to use a language/toolkit/etc that won't make me want to blow my brains out every day at 5:01pm. I can work with tools and languages I don't particularly like, but do not, for example, ask me to build you an Electron app, PHP backend, or Java app. I will walk rather than endure that. Maybe some help in an emergency, but if you make that my main duty, I'm done. I'm fussy, but that's just me. It's very important to me personally to be able to respect the tools I'm using.
Autonomy -- I hate being micromanaged. I'm not incompetent. I've created programs with hundreds of thousands of lines of C++ and Python code by myself. If you second-guess every tiny decision I make over long periods, I will descend into quietly loathing you at the very least.
Money? -- I'm not a greedy person, but don't insult me. At least pay me something close to market. There's great irony in that statement right now, as I'm not making even close to what I'm supposed to (basically poverty wages for some of these months), as I'm trying to help a tiny startup keep its head above water because the boss is actually a decent guy and someone I respect. I suppose it illustrates just how much the kind of people I work with matters to me.
It's so weird to see an author express such disdain for Elon Musk, and yet still credit him repeatedly with something he hasn't actually done, which is start all of the companies he runs. He bought Tesla, he didn't start it.
>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 by shopping my resume around, but I don't need the money. I have enough for a down payment on a house, I meet my expenses for the month with 1/2 of one paycheck, I can buy a new car on a credit card if I wanted to. More money would be _nice_, and I imagine I'd be singing a slightly different song if I had kids, but it's much less important than knowing the work that I do has meaning and an immediate impact on the world, and about as important as working with new/interesting technology. I imagine there are a lot of early career (26-30 year old) software engineers who are in a similar boat. If money was a motivator I'd be serially founding companies and striving to be The Next Big Thing. I'm just not. I'm happy being hire number 13, or 99, and working with people I like doing work I find value in.
Edited for spelling