Older IT Workers Left Out Despite Tech Talent Shortage(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Older IT Workers Left Out Despite Tech Talent Shortage
https://www.wsj.com/articles/older-it-workers-left-out-despite-tech-talent-shortage-11574683200?mod=rsswn
213 comments
> If there was a shortage we would see real indicators of a shortage like increasing average salaries across the field, training programs, etc.
Isn't this happening right now in software with coding bootcamps and no minimum degree reqs ?
What's the new grad salary for an engineer at a top N firm in 2019 compared to 2011 ?
Isn't this happening right now in software with coding bootcamps and no minimum degree reqs ?
What's the new grad salary for an engineer at a top N firm in 2019 compared to 2011 ?
>What's the new grad salary for an engineer at a top N firm in 2019 compared to 2011 ?
Fully agreed with you. You don't even need to go as far as 2011. Even compared to 3 years ago, new grad comp is noticeably higher at top N tech companies now than it was back then.
Fully agreed with you. You don't even need to go as far as 2011. Even compared to 3 years ago, new grad comp is noticeably higher at top N tech companies now than it was back then.
Software compensation is bimodal. The top 5% all make over 200k a year, no matter how many years of experience they have. The bottom 95% mostly make less than that, and never will make more than 225k.
The parent question was about the stagnation of total comp in top N tech companies, which I directly addressed.
I don't understand people who say this. Have you ever tried to hire?
I'm 28yrs old and I make ~$400K/yr. That doesn't happen when there's some major abundance of talent sitting around.
I'm 28yrs old and I make ~$400K/yr. That doesn't happen when there's some major abundance of talent sitting around.
Yes - the 5% of elite devs have seen a dramatic increase in salary recently. You're one of them.
The rest of us do not make that and haven't seen much change in wages in the last 5-10 years. At most in the midwest I'd top out at $150k as a Senior dev and that's if I busted my ass. The exception is if I worked for FANG but just like me, 95% of devs couldn't pass a FANG interview even if they put in some real effort.
Personally my dream is to have a side-business anyway, so I put up with my $100k salary because it's low-stress and I have energy for my own projects. If there was a real shortage I would be paid more. But there isn't a shortage for average devs who get shit done. Google just wants the top 5%.
Google's hiring is like if Google visited a homeless dog shelter and said to the employee (Federal Gov) that there's not enough cute puppies. "We need to import some dogs from Asia. There's a cute-puppy shortage here, let's get some Visas for more dogs."
You're just f-ing picky Google. Those dogs in the shelter are good dogs.
The rest of us do not make that and haven't seen much change in wages in the last 5-10 years. At most in the midwest I'd top out at $150k as a Senior dev and that's if I busted my ass. The exception is if I worked for FANG but just like me, 95% of devs couldn't pass a FANG interview even if they put in some real effort.
Personally my dream is to have a side-business anyway, so I put up with my $100k salary because it's low-stress and I have energy for my own projects. If there was a real shortage I would be paid more. But there isn't a shortage for average devs who get shit done. Google just wants the top 5%.
Google's hiring is like if Google visited a homeless dog shelter and said to the employee (Federal Gov) that there's not enough cute puppies. "We need to import some dogs from Asia. There's a cute-puppy shortage here, let's get some Visas for more dogs."
You're just f-ing picky Google. Those dogs in the shelter are good dogs.
I make quite a bit too... but the average developer doesnt.. average US software dev salary is just $100k/year.
That's twice the US household average even in big cities. Most workers will never make $100k.
Pay scale for programmers at large organizations I'm aware of starts around $55K and tops out around $100K. And non-profits or small businesses pay even less.
I browse job ads on indeed frequently and see offerings in the $40-50K range for IT positions in the NYC area.
What do people think that offshore employees of an American IT company are paid? I haven't any definite figures for places I've worked, but I have gotten the impression from Indian job ads that $10K/year is in the ballpark. Why would a typical company pay more than five times that for US-based employees?
I browse job ads on indeed frequently and see offerings in the $40-50K range for IT positions in the NYC area.
What do people think that offshore employees of an American IT company are paid? I haven't any definite figures for places I've worked, but I have gotten the impression from Indian job ads that $10K/year is in the ballpark. Why would a typical company pay more than five times that for US-based employees?
I’m nowhere near the west coast - I’m on the opposite coast. In most major cities in the US outside of the west coast your bog standard enterprise developers make $110K - $170K. This also excludes NYC.
The nice thing about standards is there are so many of them...
...and they don't have to represent more than a fraction of what's out there.
Also, "bog standard" is not something real Amurricans recognize.
...and they don't have to represent more than a fraction of what's out there.
Also, "bog standard" is not something real Amurricans recognize.
Well in the US, look at the top 20 cities for developers - a simple Google search and then go to salary.com. That range is average.
As far “bog standard”, I’m referring to a CRUD developer doing “enterprise software” that may never see the light of day outside of the company or your yet another software as a service developer. They don’t spend all day worrying about “computer science” and algorithms and they don’t spend time worrying about the complexity of reversing a b-tree on a whiteboard.
As far “bog standard”, I’m referring to a CRUD developer doing “enterprise software” that may never see the light of day outside of the company or your yet another software as a service developer. They don’t spend all day worrying about “computer science” and algorithms and they don’t spend time worrying about the complexity of reversing a b-tree on a whiteboard.
Look at it this way, what I think you're talking about requires roughly the same level of talent as being a decent mechanic, electrician, or whatever, and clients get billed about the same per hour, like $100-150. So, if we pretend we don't have preconceptions, and with the knowledge that the programmers are competing with people who are paid $5/hr, whereas my other examples aren't, does it make sense that they would be paid much more than $50-100K on average?
I’m replying to this statement.
Pay scale for programmers at large organizations I'm aware of starts around $55K and tops out around $100K. And non-profits or small businesses pay even less.
That’s clearly not the case in the US for any of the top markets even if you exclude the west coast and NYC. It’s easy to find average salaries in major US cities.
Why are companies willing to pay more? Because they have to to even get your bog standard CRUD developer. Outsourcing to other countries is either not an option or come with its own share of issues.
Pay scale for programmers at large organizations I'm aware of starts around $55K and tops out around $100K. And non-profits or small businesses pay even less.
That’s clearly not the case in the US for any of the top markets even if you exclude the west coast and NYC. It’s easy to find average salaries in major US cities.
Why are companies willing to pay more? Because they have to to even get your bog standard CRUD developer. Outsourcing to other countries is either not an option or come with its own share of issues.
I find it annoying when people think using words like "clearly" is debating.
Whenever you think you know what the average is, you should ask yourself whether the population being averaged is remotely complete (or representative), and whether the data points are remotely trustworthy.
And what do you mean by "outsourcing to other countries is...not an option"? The largest and best known companies, including members of FAANG outsource work to lesser known US companies that use offshore labor. There are plenty of loopholes, even for things that you'd think would require US or EU citizens.
As a matter of fact, I do know firsthand about some jobs that are restricted to US citizens due to security requirements, so I have some specific data that points to those starting upwards of $80K. That makes me more confident that my estimate of the others is accurate.
Whenever you think you know what the average is, you should ask yourself whether the population being averaged is remotely complete (or representative), and whether the data points are remotely trustworthy.
And what do you mean by "outsourcing to other countries is...not an option"? The largest and best known companies, including members of FAANG outsource work to lesser known US companies that use offshore labor. There are plenty of loopholes, even for things that you'd think would require US or EU citizens.
As a matter of fact, I do know firsthand about some jobs that are restricted to US citizens due to security requirements, so I have some specific data that points to those starting upwards of $80K. That makes me more confident that my estimate of the others is accurate.
Well, as “annoying” as you might find it. I mentioned both the source (salary.com) and the population (the top 20 cities in the US outside of the west coast and NYC to not skew the numbers).
I’m using readily accessible sites that have publicly available numbers.
I’m using readily accessible sites that have publicly available numbers.
Salary.com is not a source any more than wikipedia. I don't think that is just pedantry; I'm not saying they're wrong or you're misrepresenting anything, but you're just not addressing why you have your opinion in a way that makes me think there is something I should read up on to change mine. Or motivates me to search.
Do the top 20 cities in the US have most of the developers, or an unbiased sample? If you haven't considered that, fine, but without some idea, I, again, don't feel motivated to question my opinion.
Do the top 20 cities in the US have most of the developers, or an unbiased sample? If you haven't considered that, fine, but without some idea, I, again, don't feel motivated to question my opinion.
That's more than about 90% of US workers.
TL;DR (in advance): I think you are correct in your estimate, though household income is higher than that. $100K household income is still considerably higher than most Americans make.
Just to give some real numbers, the median household income in the US is $63,688. Unfortunately I couldn't find reliable numbers for dual income families in the US, but it appears to be over 60% (I saw numbers anywhere between 60-69%, but unfortunately no authoritative references).
Rough histogram of income distribution is:
10th percentile: < $15K
20th percentile: $15K <=> $25K
30th percentile: $25K <=> $35K
40th percentile: $35K <=> $50K
50th percentile: $50K <=> $65K
60th percentile: $65K <=> $80K
70th percentile: $80K <=> $130K
80th percentile: $130K <=> $160K
90th percentile: > $160K
I constructed this from a variety of different sources since I couldn't find anything that stated it explicitly. It is not entirely accurate, but it should give you a rough idea of the distribution. Would be nice if someone could find better data.
Just to give some real numbers, the median household income in the US is $63,688. Unfortunately I couldn't find reliable numbers for dual income families in the US, but it appears to be over 60% (I saw numbers anywhere between 60-69%, but unfortunately no authoritative references).
Rough histogram of income distribution is:
10th percentile: < $15K
20th percentile: $15K <=> $25K
30th percentile: $25K <=> $35K
40th percentile: $35K <=> $50K
50th percentile: $50K <=> $65K
60th percentile: $65K <=> $80K
70th percentile: $80K <=> $130K
80th percentile: $130K <=> $160K
90th percentile: > $160K
I constructed this from a variety of different sources since I couldn't find anything that stated it explicitly. It is not entirely accurate, but it should give you a rough idea of the distribution. Would be nice if someone could find better data.
Just adding a reference.
https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percen...
https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percen...
You're more than likely the exception so enjoy it while you're still a youngster as the next generation to replace you will be along shortly. I hope with that amount of finance behind you that you are self-sufficient if it suddenly vanished. It will.
I have wondered what my secret sauce is. Mid 50s, worked my way through a series of jobs with several faangs, now doing the latest of several 2 year stints at startups. You can make well over 200k in cash comp at startups in west cost cities. I guess I have good exp by this point.
There are always outliers but tell me this, is $200k really worth it on the left coast? Life is too short for that.
You actually make way more than that if you are reasonably experienced. If you have 20 years experience your goal should be 400-500k+ total comp (ie actual valuable stock like you get from amazon or microsoft, not worthless future vapor startup stock). I like living here, but no place is perfect for everyone. My house tripled in value, my kids are getting a good education. I wish there was less growth though.
Thanks for the completely uninformed prognostication on my future income! I will definitely not keep it in mind.
I've done a fair amount of hiring. It's usually pretty easy. The managers complaining about it are just bad at their jobs or work for employers with bad reputations. Don't take their whining too seriously.
Are those wages sustainable?
As an average employee? Is your company VC funded?
Where regionally and in what market?
The 'puzzle' part is the best filter for them. Any professional programmer who has spent many years writing stock exchanges/banks/financial systems has not had any recent practice delving into the intricacies of the most commonly provided abstract data types. They probably have come across concurrency and synchronisation problems for which there is no simple one line answer so those questions don't get asked. I can't recall the last time someone told me 'this std::map or python dict()' is not fast enough, can you delve into it and make a better one. The skill is in the selection considering the big picture.
Some recent graduate will have looked at all this recently and easily pass this barrier, get the job and move on in a short amount of time while they can.
Is there a IT staff shortage? There probably is a shortage of people who don't spend their spare time on hacker-rank or don't really feel motivated enough to spend a day on a bullshit contrived project. There are plenty of you people who don't mind.
Some recent graduate will have looked at all this recently and easily pass this barrier, get the job and move on in a short amount of time while they can.
Is there a IT staff shortage? There probably is a shortage of people who don't spend their spare time on hacker-rank or don't really feel motivated enough to spend a day on a bullshit contrived project. There are plenty of you people who don't mind.
Good luck trying to hire someone. We are seeing Devops Engineers with 4 years of experience requesting >$150k (no in the bay).
Yes. This is the key. It is difficult to hire when you are given the two constraints that the person must have high skills, and accept a relatively low wage.
I see it as a matrix with two axes.
Salary: High/Low
Skills and Training: High specific skills/Low skills and require training after being hired
This creates four different quadrants.
1) When companies say they are having difficultly hiring, what they really mean is they are having difficulty hiring someone with specific high skills at a relatively low salary.
2) If the company is willing to pay a much higher salary, then the company will not have a problem finding someone.
3) If the company is willing to hire someone with less skill, and train them on the job, then the company will not have a problem finding someone.
4) If the company does both, pays a relatively high wage, and is willing to take someone with less skill, and train them on the job, then the company will not have a problem finding someone.
I see it as a matrix with two axes.
Salary: High/Low
Skills and Training: High specific skills/Low skills and require training after being hired
This creates four different quadrants.
1) When companies say they are having difficultly hiring, what they really mean is they are having difficulty hiring someone with specific high skills at a relatively low salary.
2) If the company is willing to pay a much higher salary, then the company will not have a problem finding someone.
3) If the company is willing to hire someone with less skill, and train them on the job, then the company will not have a problem finding someone.
4) If the company does both, pays a relatively high wage, and is willing to take someone with less skill, and train them on the job, then the company will not have a problem finding someone.
Bingo! And it's not just in tech/IT, but in other related fields as well. The real answer is that the Fed has been a bit overly skittish when it comes to balancing economic growth vs. inflation, despite real inflation remaining at very low rates over the past decade.
https://www.vox.com/2019/1/7/18166951/skills-gap-modestino-s...
https://www.vox.com/2019/1/7/18166951/skills-gap-modestino-s...
Yes, if you have dumbass hiring processes, it's a business deficiency just like any other, wasteful spending, etc.
I wonder about this, I don't dispute that there is an issue here, but I think that this, and similar analyses, fails to take into account the change in the size of the IT workforce over time. I'm currently 47, I started my first paid developer role (job title "Analyst/Programmer"!) 25 years ago. The size of the job market then was a fraction of the size that it is now. Inevitably there are fewer older people in the workforce.
I'm much more interested in attempts to quantify age-related hiring discrimination, something that I have been fortunate enough not to encounter (yet), but that my brother (50) currently feels like he is running up against.
I'm much more interested in attempts to quantify age-related hiring discrimination, something that I have been fortunate enough not to encounter (yet), but that my brother (50) currently feels like he is running up against.
Age discrimination is real, if for no other reason that the older you get, the more likely you are to have had a major health issue.
Try getting hired after being out for 12 or more months after having a heart attack, or cancer, or whatever. Even if you're medically cleared. From personal experience, it can be difficult regardless of reputation.
Edit: And yes, I also tried the whole "took some time off to be with my family" thing as well, and that turned potential employers off even more (had one tell me, "we're not really interested in hiring people who aren't driven to work every single workday" regarding my "time off"). Happily, I did find a good company several years ago that pays well and offers a great environment, but it took significantly longer than I had hoped.
Try getting hired after being out for 12 or more months after having a heart attack, or cancer, or whatever. Even if you're medically cleared. From personal experience, it can be difficult regardless of reputation.
Edit: And yes, I also tried the whole "took some time off to be with my family" thing as well, and that turned potential employers off even more (had one tell me, "we're not really interested in hiring people who aren't driven to work every single workday" regarding my "time off"). Happily, I did find a good company several years ago that pays well and offers a great environment, but it took significantly longer than I had hoped.
Register a company. Don't do anything with it, other than keeping it alive.
When asked what you did, just say that you wanted to become an independent contractor, but in the end you realized that you were a much better programmer than a salesperson, so you had really happy clients but not enough of them.
Or maybe you wanted to start a SAS, but again couldn't get enough customers.
Companies die all the time, take your pick.
When asked what you did, just say that you wanted to become an independent contractor, but in the end you realized that you were a much better programmer than a salesperson, so you had really happy clients but not enough of them.
Or maybe you wanted to start a SAS, but again couldn't get enough customers.
Companies die all the time, take your pick.
I went through this fairly early in my career. I think the career impact is more severe than a mother taking maternity leave (and without the legal protections). Apart from explaining the gap in employment, there is a disruption to the career momentum that is near impossible to regain.
Group health insurance mitigates this... but if it is a major concern then single payer is the way to go.
How does health insurance mitigate against this, group or otherwise?
A better short-term disability policy would have helped me, but health insurance wouldn't have helped me find a job.
A better short-term disability policy would have helped me, but health insurance wouldn't have helped me find a job.
And just to be clear in my response: I had "good" health insurance (luckily, but still ended up with many tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills).
But that didn't have anything to do with finding a job after I got better.
But that didn't have anything to do with finding a job after I got better.
I understand that you took time off to recover and yes short term disability would have been ideal for that but that medical information should be private. Was it simply accounting for the time off that you took?
> Was it simply accounting for the time off that you took?
Yes, precisely. Even if you try to say something like "took time off for family reasons" or "ran my own company and contracted for a year", they seem to sense something's up. In fact, I think hiding the reason why I was off hurt me more than it helped, because people tend to assume the worst (ie, "I can tell this guy's hiding something, wonder what it was...maybe he was in jail!").
In the end, I only got interviewed by those places I was honest to about being out for medical reasons (and one of those places was where I ended up working). And just getting that handful of interviews was fairly challenging, given the supposed high demand for people like me (I have experience/expertise in a high-demand area).
Yes, precisely. Even if you try to say something like "took time off for family reasons" or "ran my own company and contracted for a year", they seem to sense something's up. In fact, I think hiding the reason why I was off hurt me more than it helped, because people tend to assume the worst (ie, "I can tell this guy's hiding something, wonder what it was...maybe he was in jail!").
In the end, I only got interviewed by those places I was honest to about being out for medical reasons (and one of those places was where I ended up working). And just getting that handful of interviews was fairly challenging, given the supposed high demand for people like me (I have experience/expertise in a high-demand area).
Age discrimination in hiring is real. Companies get around it by saying, "Oh, we can't possibly pay what someone with your level of experience expects."
Usually even before a dollar figure has even been discussed.
Usually even before a dollar figure has even been discussed.
Well that leaves two possible cases: (1) the company does not value person's experience correctly and fails to understand the value they deliver or (2) the candidate is not going to be able to deliver the value they're requesting to be compensated for relative to younger candidates.
#1 is real, I'm sure, but #2 likely happens a lot, as well, due to the American worker expectation of yearly raises and seniority-based pay, regardless of performance.
#1 is real, I'm sure, but #2 likely happens a lot, as well, due to the American worker expectation of yearly raises and seniority-based pay, regardless of performance.
Is number 2, in your view, bad? I can’t really tell but it seems that way.
Raises are how workers get a share of the profit being generated. Otherwise it nearly all goes to shareholders.
Raises are how workers get a share of the profit being generated. Otherwise it nearly all goes to shareholders.
For sure, I encountered a related issue about 18 years ago, I had been working for a company that was paying well, but that had closed down the project I was working on, as part of due diligence I was talking to other companies in addition to considering lateral moves. Several of the other companies were very clear that they couldn't pay me what I was accustomed to, and that was a show-stopper for them, regardless of whether I was interested in taking a lower income
i.e. some potential employers will be leery about employing someone at a lower salary that they had previously earned, for a variety of reasons. I can imagine this being part of a double whammy with age discrimination.
that is a very good point.
As has been mentioned in here, the "Talent Shortage" was made up to get an increase in H1B visa workers to drive down wages and get more for their money. It has always been about flooding the developer job market.
Case in point are the interviews at many big tech companies that require leetcode/algorithms interviews. Companies are ready to reject any candidate that makes even a small mistake on one of their solutions, or misses the exact optimal solution. If they really needed top talent and couldn't find it, they wouldn't be so careless in their hiring rejections.
Another issue is also that its really difficult to quickly shift tech stacks on a dime. As much as people like to claim it to be possible, even just upgrading from Hadoop/MapReduce/Older big data technologies to Apache Spark is a massive time investment. The paradigms are the same, the technology when used in practice is different. Workers can see their whole knowledge base become useless in the span of two years.
As an individual worker, if this happens three times in 8 years, I think burnout would be expected. Anyone who is capable of constantly updating their technology knowledge to a T is probably already CTO of a company somewhere. Maintaining the ability to memorize and understand inane minutia over a few decades span is rare, and is probably coupled with severe disabilities in other areas of life.
Case in point are the interviews at many big tech companies that require leetcode/algorithms interviews. Companies are ready to reject any candidate that makes even a small mistake on one of their solutions, or misses the exact optimal solution. If they really needed top talent and couldn't find it, they wouldn't be so careless in their hiring rejections.
Another issue is also that its really difficult to quickly shift tech stacks on a dime. As much as people like to claim it to be possible, even just upgrading from Hadoop/MapReduce/Older big data technologies to Apache Spark is a massive time investment. The paradigms are the same, the technology when used in practice is different. Workers can see their whole knowledge base become useless in the span of two years.
As an individual worker, if this happens three times in 8 years, I think burnout would be expected. Anyone who is capable of constantly updating their technology knowledge to a T is probably already CTO of a company somewhere. Maintaining the ability to memorize and understand inane minutia over a few decades span is rare, and is probably coupled with severe disabilities in other areas of life.
I feel as partially this happens because older people don't buy into the hype, can read through BS, and won't slave away 70 hrs a week for the same wage.
Younger people are less experienced, have less opinions and in most case less life lessons. Tech companies want to move fast and make money, not question what is ethical.
Younger people are less experienced, have less opinions and in most case less life lessons. Tech companies want to move fast and make money, not question what is ethical.
I’m getting way less opinionated as I get more experience.
I find this to be true. Some folks fresh out of school, feel like they need to be constantly vocal to have influence and make a name for themselves. They also can bring strong but untested opinions to the table without the experimental data to back it up. Why do I relate this? Because I was guilty of it myself when I was younger and just starting out.
However, as I've grown and gained experience I have become more pragmatic and willing to let my good work speak for itself, reserving my more vocal moments for the times I have most impact.
However, as I've grown and gained experience I have become more pragmatic and willing to let my good work speak for itself, reserving my more vocal moments for the times I have most impact.
Part of it is, in my case, is that, for instance, I can take any one of some batch of proposed ideas and make it work. Whereas the less experienced person latches on some aspect of something that seems easy and magnifies the difficulties in the other approaches.
> have less opinions
I find this almost always to be the opposite.
I find this almost always to be the opposite.
His statement could probably be better refined as "largely keep their opinions to themselves and do their jobs."
IME, older workers were raised not to discuss politics or religion at work.
IME, older workers were raised not to discuss politics or religion at work.
Younger opinions are easier to influence. Older opinions are pretty ingrained which makes them annoying to deal with when they come up.
Translating: "People with little experience have ill-formed opinions and thus when you point out the holes in their arguments they cave, whereas experienced people have well-formed opinions which makes it difficult for you when you have weak arguments by which you try to change their opinion."
I think that depends on the personality, not age or maturity level.
Younger people don't have fewer opinions from my own experience. They often have plenty of opinions, and with that comes less experience to back them up.
As I've gotten older I've become far less likely to express opinions unless the issue I am offering an opinion on is one that's important, and one that I am able to offer some new perspective on. I wasn't that way at 25.
As I've gotten older I've become far less likely to express opinions unless the issue I am offering an opinion on is one that's important, and one that I am able to offer some new perspective on. I wasn't that way at 25.
AKA pick your battles.
While we really should just ask the original author to explain, my interpretation is:
younger employees are more likely to simply acquiesce to unreasonable demands like short notice for working late. Or working to prove themselves bc they lack confidence.
Older workers have gained the confidence to ask for what they are worth. Employers do not appreciate this. They may have a more efficient way of working or may not have a singular definition of self (work == my identity) and obligations like family outside of work.
Older workers have gained the confidence to ask for what they are worth. Employers do not appreciate this. They may have a more efficient way of working or may not have a singular definition of self (work == my identity) and obligations like family outside of work.
> and won't slave away 70 hrs a week for the same wage.
I’m not even 40, though close to it, and I’m already here. The company I’ve worked for has routinely offered 4x10 work schedules to its employees but the group I am now in is considering whether to end that practice. I will quit if that happens even though I probably wouldn’t have just five years ago. I have no interest in commuting one more day and losing a day off (and a weekday off, no less, when I can get personal appointments and leisure things done).
With every day that passes, I weight time away from work and time for leisure far more than I do money. Even though I have nowhere near enough to retire and any “low-stress” job wouldn’t pay me enough to live in my metro area, I would still walk away and consider what to do next if that benefit is revoked.
I’m not even 40, though close to it, and I’m already here. The company I’ve worked for has routinely offered 4x10 work schedules to its employees but the group I am now in is considering whether to end that practice. I will quit if that happens even though I probably wouldn’t have just five years ago. I have no interest in commuting one more day and losing a day off (and a weekday off, no less, when I can get personal appointments and leisure things done).
With every day that passes, I weight time away from work and time for leisure far more than I do money. Even though I have nowhere near enough to retire and any “low-stress” job wouldn’t pay me enough to live in my metro area, I would still walk away and consider what to do next if that benefit is revoked.
I agree with everything except I would change the order a little. Mentally decide to leave. Consider what to do next. Get that next job, perhaps a very different job. Give your two week notice.
The more experience you have with different technologies the more you realize that there's more than one way to do things in this world.
I'm mid-40s, Xoogler, Program Manager, Startup founder & failer, UK-based. 130 applications since March, 4 interviews, no offers.
Previous blue-chip job history with 100% application success rate, through my 20s and 30s.
Have now left the industry due to what I and various recruitment professionals had to conclude was age discrimination.
It exists.
Previous blue-chip job history with 100% application success rate, through my 20s and 30s.
Have now left the industry due to what I and various recruitment professionals had to conclude was age discrimination.
It exists.
I now omit my university dates on my resume and sometimes drop older jobs LIFO. The tools and experience from those jobs is less relevant to my current work anyway.
have you considered consulting? Companies love to pay extra for experience, but only in small doses.
Honestly, the best devs/CTOs I worked with are older than 45...
I don’t get why our industry is like this. Learn from the (old) masters... thats true for art as well as for coding
> One problem is that some older IT workers who get too comfortable with their skills risk falling behind, especially in the era of artificial intelligence
I am 38, I am in the gap they point out, and I almost fell in it because for too long I thought deep learning was a hype that would eventually die out. I had to have a client force me to look into it to realize that half of my skillset in computer vision became obsolete almost overnight, and the other half is eroding quickly.
We think we know better than the youngsters and in several fields, that's painfully obvious, but let's not be oblivious to the fact that tech still evolves and that half of our job is catching up with it.
I am 38, I am in the gap they point out, and I almost fell in it because for too long I thought deep learning was a hype that would eventually die out. I had to have a client force me to look into it to realize that half of my skillset in computer vision became obsolete almost overnight, and the other half is eroding quickly.
We think we know better than the youngsters and in several fields, that's painfully obvious, but let's not be oblivious to the fact that tech still evolves and that half of our job is catching up with it.
Would you mind elaborating? As a young developer who wishes to remain a in the engineering track long term, Id like to understand more about how you realized your skill set was no longer “up to par”. I’m surprised computer vision is becoming less relevant, is it because the techniques have shifted from known algorithms that work to using machine learning to develop better algorithms from training?
Not the OP, but this is incredibly common. I will say that if you wish to continue working as a programmer for your entire career it is a mistake to specialise in a particular technology. It doesn't matter what technology that is. The more you specialise, the less versatile you appear to employers. It just doesn't matter what you are working on. It could be a website, or it could be a computer vision system. You use a handful of languages, frameworks, techniques, etc and 10 years later these are no longer in vogue.
I think the most important thing to keep reminding yourself is that your career will hopefully last 40-45 years! The pace change of technology is increasing, rather than decreasing. If you think the flavour of the month JS frameworks are hard to keep track of now, wait 10 years when there are 4 to 5 times as many programmers working and what's hot changes practically every day.
You are not "safe" with any technology. Even ML techniques will change completely an absurd number of times in the 45 years of your career. Your only hope of staying employed as a programmer for the entire time is to build yourself as someone who can pick up and work on anything at the drop of a hat. Similarly, you need a "story" that explains why you are worth more money than a person with 2-3 years of experience that has specifically trained for the flavour of the month that the company is using now. They will happily chew up and spit out those young programmers and pick up new ones when they go with the new technology. Why would they spend a premium on you? You need an answer (and a good answer) for that question. (I was going to try to answer that question for you, but it's probably better for you to figure it out for yourself... Plus any answer I give is undoubtedly piss off a bunch of people who will identify overmuch with the group I'm marketing myself as "better than" ;-) )
I think the most important thing to keep reminding yourself is that your career will hopefully last 40-45 years! The pace change of technology is increasing, rather than decreasing. If you think the flavour of the month JS frameworks are hard to keep track of now, wait 10 years when there are 4 to 5 times as many programmers working and what's hot changes practically every day.
You are not "safe" with any technology. Even ML techniques will change completely an absurd number of times in the 45 years of your career. Your only hope of staying employed as a programmer for the entire time is to build yourself as someone who can pick up and work on anything at the drop of a hat. Similarly, you need a "story" that explains why you are worth more money than a person with 2-3 years of experience that has specifically trained for the flavour of the month that the company is using now. They will happily chew up and spit out those young programmers and pick up new ones when they go with the new technology. Why would they spend a premium on you? You need an answer (and a good answer) for that question. (I was going to try to answer that question for you, but it's probably better for you to figure it out for yourself... Plus any answer I give is undoubtedly piss off a bunch of people who will identify overmuch with the group I'm marketing myself as "better than" ;-) )
Not so true. If any, technology only got less innovative, which is evidence that the field is stagnating.
For example:
1) docker / container - an OS process (circa 1960). Basic OS design (os/360) did not change in 50 years.
2) Computer architecture (Von Numan) did not change in 50 years.
3) Basic DS and alg (not ML), did not change in 50 years.
4) Programming lang (C based).
5) Database/SQL (50 years)
The only things changing today are (as you mentioned):
1) JS frameworks. but not so much as react won (probably vue js)
2) ML. Here again, most of the work is abstract by pytorch/tensorflow.
3) cloud-native app design. This is a major shift.
However, in parallel, there was a massive productivity boost due to free tools / cloud / open source. So today's programmer should be equal to a team of 10 , 10 years ago, and a team of 20 , 20 years ago.
For example:
1) docker / container - an OS process (circa 1960). Basic OS design (os/360) did not change in 50 years.
2) Computer architecture (Von Numan) did not change in 50 years.
3) Basic DS and alg (not ML), did not change in 50 years.
4) Programming lang (C based).
5) Database/SQL (50 years)
The only things changing today are (as you mentioned):
1) JS frameworks. but not so much as react won (probably vue js)
2) ML. Here again, most of the work is abstract by pytorch/tensorflow.
3) cloud-native app design. This is a major shift.
However, in parallel, there was a massive productivity boost due to free tools / cloud / open source. So today's programmer should be equal to a team of 10 , 10 years ago, and a team of 20 , 20 years ago.
Sure, core concepts like vms are still around but the practicality and common usage and comfort and ability to understand how they can be applied (like containers) does change, and does affect your ability to get jobs, or at least interview well.
I'm also older, over 50, and I'm frustrated at all these people who are similarly experienced and complain that companies don't recognize their abilities. You have to update your skills and be able to talk about the current stuff. You are foolish if you don't practice before an interview. Before I switch jobs, I take it seriously and do something like 1 hour practice every day for a month. I look at current software engineering topics (I'm usually wasting time on hackernews so I'm up to date on the latest gossip). You have to try, people!
I'm also older, over 50, and I'm frustrated at all these people who are similarly experienced and complain that companies don't recognize their abilities. You have to update your skills and be able to talk about the current stuff. You are foolish if you don't practice before an interview. Before I switch jobs, I take it seriously and do something like 1 hour practice every day for a month. I look at current software engineering topics (I'm usually wasting time on hackernews so I'm up to date on the latest gossip). You have to try, people!
Amen to that!
25 years ago, if you knew C++ and were and expert in MFC you could write your own ticket. Now I know a lot of unemployable MFC experts. When I first started I was encouraged to learn Cobol, APL and DB2 because that's where all the money was. These days I meet people who think that they Ruby on Rails with a bit of React thrown in is going to last them a lifetime.
My point is that becoming an expert in a particular language, framework or technology and expecting it to pay you for your whole career is a recipe for unemployment eventually.
My point is that becoming an expert in a particular language, framework or technology and expecting it to pay you for your whole career is a recipe for unemployment eventually.
My skills are still up to par :-) But that's because my skills are not in using a specific library or in a specific technique. I was lucky to have engineering teachers who were very adamant that engineering was about understanding, learning, problem solving and the ability to adapt to new tools.
It is almost reluctantly that they taught us a programming language, knowing it may become obsolete by the time we finish our curriculum. But they spent a lot of time explaining notions in algorithmics, architecture, mathematics and electronics constraints that I could easily get into the new techs as they arrived.
Maybe I was not clear in my previous message. No, computer vision is not less relevant, quite the contrary. But a lot of the techniques we used to have, and where I was kind of pretty expert, were replaced by much better DL models.
I saw that in a very direct way. In a previous job (I am a freelancer) I had to make a classifier to judge if a robotic gripper worked correctly. Did not look too hard. I got a few hundreds of OK/NOK cases, fired up my OpenCV custom program and started hacking. I found some good parameters, found that by extracting some blob and computing the diameter/area ratio I could make a good classifier for most cases and managed to get a decent classifier for a huge class of the remaining samples.
After 3 days of work, I had a classifier with a 80% accuracy. That's pretty good for that amount of work. But in the end the client decided to go with deep learning. "Oh, they'll be back" I thought, pretty sure they would find out it is just hype and they did not have enough data. They did not come back.
Two months later, a client asks me to evaluate some deep learning techniques and pays me enough so that I can spend two weeks getting up to speed in it. I fire up all the tutorials I can find (FastAI classes are very good for people in my case) and one of them is doing transfer learning using VGG. I thought about the previous problem I had and thought that I would give it a go.
First run, no tweaking of parameters, no normalization, ugly scaling, no change in the model, I got 87% of accuracy. Using a tutorial anyone can do in 3 hours outperformed what I did in 3 days with (what I thought were) valuable and hard-earned skills.
I know specialize in deep learning but still retain a lot of very useful knowledge from classic computer vision and robotics.
CS is a field were experience is less automatic than in others. Experience can actually be a drag for an old engineer who stops to learn. We are in a Faustian pact with technology: we are surfing the wave a bit in front of the others but the day you stumble, you are going to fall back-first on the cutting reefs.
My main advice would be to always learn and read new things. Reading tech articles, trying new libs, new frameworks while at work? This is not procrastinating, this is staying alive.Take time to understand new tech in details. To go deeper than just "going by" requires. Don't understand why SSDs require new kind of databases with different constraints? Well maybe you need to take a dive into database design and IO bottlenecks. Don't understand why Facebook pushes for a new type of float for parallel computing? Time to dive into IEEE 754 and brush up your maths skills.
And yes, this is engineering work. Your employers will often see engineering like a bit of black magic. They are not sure how it works, but they want it. Staying up to date is a part of this magic that they need without knowing they need it. But at one point, you'll be the one your boss turns to (trying to hide his confused look) when asked by a client if you can support Kulisch accumulation and will be very happy that you read about it during your work time.
It is almost reluctantly that they taught us a programming language, knowing it may become obsolete by the time we finish our curriculum. But they spent a lot of time explaining notions in algorithmics, architecture, mathematics and electronics constraints that I could easily get into the new techs as they arrived.
Maybe I was not clear in my previous message. No, computer vision is not less relevant, quite the contrary. But a lot of the techniques we used to have, and where I was kind of pretty expert, were replaced by much better DL models.
I saw that in a very direct way. In a previous job (I am a freelancer) I had to make a classifier to judge if a robotic gripper worked correctly. Did not look too hard. I got a few hundreds of OK/NOK cases, fired up my OpenCV custom program and started hacking. I found some good parameters, found that by extracting some blob and computing the diameter/area ratio I could make a good classifier for most cases and managed to get a decent classifier for a huge class of the remaining samples.
After 3 days of work, I had a classifier with a 80% accuracy. That's pretty good for that amount of work. But in the end the client decided to go with deep learning. "Oh, they'll be back" I thought, pretty sure they would find out it is just hype and they did not have enough data. They did not come back.
Two months later, a client asks me to evaluate some deep learning techniques and pays me enough so that I can spend two weeks getting up to speed in it. I fire up all the tutorials I can find (FastAI classes are very good for people in my case) and one of them is doing transfer learning using VGG. I thought about the previous problem I had and thought that I would give it a go.
First run, no tweaking of parameters, no normalization, ugly scaling, no change in the model, I got 87% of accuracy. Using a tutorial anyone can do in 3 hours outperformed what I did in 3 days with (what I thought were) valuable and hard-earned skills.
I know specialize in deep learning but still retain a lot of very useful knowledge from classic computer vision and robotics.
CS is a field were experience is less automatic than in others. Experience can actually be a drag for an old engineer who stops to learn. We are in a Faustian pact with technology: we are surfing the wave a bit in front of the others but the day you stumble, you are going to fall back-first on the cutting reefs.
My main advice would be to always learn and read new things. Reading tech articles, trying new libs, new frameworks while at work? This is not procrastinating, this is staying alive.Take time to understand new tech in details. To go deeper than just "going by" requires. Don't understand why SSDs require new kind of databases with different constraints? Well maybe you need to take a dive into database design and IO bottlenecks. Don't understand why Facebook pushes for a new type of float for parallel computing? Time to dive into IEEE 754 and brush up your maths skills.
And yes, this is engineering work. Your employers will often see engineering like a bit of black magic. They are not sure how it works, but they want it. Staying up to date is a part of this magic that they need without knowing they need it. But at one point, you'll be the one your boss turns to (trying to hide his confused look) when asked by a client if you can support Kulisch accumulation and will be very happy that you read about it during your work time.
There was an interesting piece on the CBS Evening News, maybe this past Friday, about how some companies are bringing in older (50+) workers to great benefit. The only thing these people ask for is flexible schedules.
I think this is a huge part of the conversation that is being overlooked. Younger workers are perhaps more willing to grind than more experienced devs.
I’d gladly take 20% pay cut to get Fridays off, but I’d get laughed out of my current gig if I asked for that.
It seems like most gigs are full-time, usually with an on-call rotation, and if those aren’t compatible with your schedule, good luck.
I’d gladly take 20% pay cut to get Fridays off, but I’d get laughed out of my current gig if I asked for that.
It seems like most gigs are full-time, usually with an on-call rotation, and if those aren’t compatible with your schedule, good luck.
But they have to grind because they lack the experience to fall into those traps in the first place.
Why pay an older software engineer a high rate for a wealth of experience when you can hire two graduates who won't make a 25 year old trust fund baby tech bro feel inadequate
Odd that nobody is writing articles about how airlines are hiring 25 year old pilots or hospitals are recruiting 25 year old ansetheseologists. Their 55 year old colleagues stuck looking for gainful employment.
> One problem is that some older IT workers who get too comfortable with their skills risk falling behind, especially in the era of artificial intelligence, said Michael Solomon, co-founder and managing partner at 10x Ascend, an advisory firm for senior technology job seekers.
Um, what? AI isn't taking any tech jobs. Maybe once we figure out how to have the robots program themselves...
Um, what? AI isn't taking any tech jobs. Maybe once we figure out how to have the robots program themselves...
But it could take the tech jobs of programmers that don't know how to utilize ML/AI technology stacks.
When you job interview around the bay area one thing which is absolutely striking is the diversity of the companies you visit. Sometimes it feels like you're in different countries on opposite sides of the planet. There's no way that is accidental, agism and racism is absolutely rampant, but not necessarily along traditional lines.
I don't see true diversity. There is little ethnic diversity off the white/asian axis and little age diversity beyond age 35. There isn't usually much gender diversity in technical roles, either.
I am over 40 right now, and, frankly, I don't see too much of this problem right now.
As you get older, you need to understand that you need to adapt. It's easier to get in the trap of thinking that the old ways are better (and sometimes, indeed they are), but it doesn't matter. You have to go with the flow.
Another important thing is that you shouldn't get too attached to technologies. Move with the times, be aggressive with learning.
Appreciate new languages, new paradigms. Yes, it sucks when you spent hours honing your skills with Hadoop and then one day you find out that all the cool kids are doing spark. But, the thing is, the people that are doing spark now are the people that were doing Hadoop yesterday, some of them even older than you. It was you that got in the comfort zone and didn't see that the field was evolving. While you were satisfied doing Hadoop, some people were thinking of how the job could be done in a different way. And I am not telling here that you should be doing open source, but you should have kept yourself on the loop. It is not unfair, and it's not unique to our profession. there was a time where lobotomy was the hot thing on psychiatry, people probably spent hours honing their skills on it, and then, someday, science evolved and we figured out that those skills were not only useless but also dangerous. Maybe this happens way faster in our profession, but also it is a lot easier for us to keep ourselves current on the state of the art than for a surgeon.
As you get older, you need to understand that you need to adapt. It's easier to get in the trap of thinking that the old ways are better (and sometimes, indeed they are), but it doesn't matter. You have to go with the flow.
Another important thing is that you shouldn't get too attached to technologies. Move with the times, be aggressive with learning.
Appreciate new languages, new paradigms. Yes, it sucks when you spent hours honing your skills with Hadoop and then one day you find out that all the cool kids are doing spark. But, the thing is, the people that are doing spark now are the people that were doing Hadoop yesterday, some of them even older than you. It was you that got in the comfort zone and didn't see that the field was evolving. While you were satisfied doing Hadoop, some people were thinking of how the job could be done in a different way. And I am not telling here that you should be doing open source, but you should have kept yourself on the loop. It is not unfair, and it's not unique to our profession. there was a time where lobotomy was the hot thing on psychiatry, people probably spent hours honing their skills on it, and then, someday, science evolved and we figured out that those skills were not only useless but also dangerous. Maybe this happens way faster in our profession, but also it is a lot easier for us to keep ourselves current on the state of the art than for a surgeon.
I’m 45 and I share your experience - no age discrimination.
But, I did hear my manager (50+), who is very technical and often gets so sick of the process to get things done, he will pull up an IDE and do a POC himself, bemoan the fact that older developers are good for backend development and architecture but not as good at modern front end development.
I’m not taking any chances. I’m moving more into cloud architecture but hopefully I can stay more in the professional services/development/consulting than the Visio creating/Project Management/Solutions Architect role.
But, I’m definitely not spending the energy keeping up with the latest $cool_kids front end stack.
But, I did hear my manager (50+), who is very technical and often gets so sick of the process to get things done, he will pull up an IDE and do a POC himself, bemoan the fact that older developers are good for backend development and architecture but not as good at modern front end development.
I’m not taking any chances. I’m moving more into cloud architecture but hopefully I can stay more in the professional services/development/consulting than the Visio creating/Project Management/Solutions Architect role.
But, I’m definitely not spending the energy keeping up with the latest $cool_kids front end stack.
Funnily enough, I love React. Maybe because I am old enough to have worked with Borland's Delphi in the past.
The feeling I have is that React and UI frameworks put programmers with no design background back in the User Interface game. Because, for the love of God, I hate CSS with a passion.
I enjoy doing side projects not only for the money, but also because of the good feeling of owning the whole stack of the product.
I know everyone has different priorities and lives, but I have a strict rule against side projects. Between spending time with my family and friends, exercise, keeping up with technology, etc. I don’t have time. If I can’t keep abreast of technology at work, it’s time to change jobs. I will stay late and work on side low priority work related projects to learn new to me technologies.
Also, I purposefully work for small companies that are in alignment with the technologies I want to learn or be in. Another benefit to working for small companies after you have the reputation, you can really make a lot of choices when it comes to the how and you get to do as much of the stack as you want.
Also, I purposefully work for small companies that are in alignment with the technologies I want to learn or be in. Another benefit to working for small companies after you have the reputation, you can really make a lot of choices when it comes to the how and you get to do as much of the stack as you want.
There are a whole slew of issues related to this. Managers often feel that older employees don't take them as seriously as younger people. Younger folk are less likely to have seen it 'all' like older workers. There's also the age dynamic of an org. Some companies hire young because of the culture of 'work hard play hard' where younger folk buy-in but older folks skip it and go home to their families. Older people are more experienced and more expensive in general. Younger people are also more likely to be willing to work to burn out as they've not done it before and managers know that.
My two pronged approach to getting older in the workforce is to make sure there are people older than me at my work place, and have an exit strategy for when the jobs dry up completely.
My two pronged approach to getting older in the workforce is to make sure there are people older than me at my work place, and have an exit strategy for when the jobs dry up completely.
This is a tough one— a lot of hiring & “diversity & inclusion” initiatives very rarely discuss age
Is that others’ experience?
Is that others’ experience?
Age has been explicitly called out in every D&I initiative I've been party to, just not as loudly as some other segments, namely gender, sexual orientation, and race. But definitely mentioned.
In the companies I’ve worked: yes.
I'm 38 and a relatively new dev with ~3 years of experience in a wide variety of tech. Live here in SF and have been doing the whole job hunt thing.
This article stresses me out and makes me feel like if I don't get my next good job in a year or so I am basically locked out of a career...
I hope this is not true!
This article stresses me out and makes me feel like if I don't get my next good job in a year or so I am basically locked out of a career...
I hope this is not true!
Honestly, while I don’t see much discrimination for older devs in general. If your experience doesn’t match what you “should” have for your age, it might be different.
If this is a real thing then it's something I'd want to take advantage of if I started a start up.
American age discrimination laws only protect people over 40 from discrimination, they don't protect people under 40 from being discriminated against.
This means you could advertise roles only for people over 40. If these people are being excluded for age and not for real reasons like ability then they are undervalued by the market.
It'd be interesting to have roles that are explicitly only for people 40+. I'd want to do this and pair them with younger kids out of college who are just learning how to be effective SWEs as part of the role.
Seems like a big potential hiring advantage if the ageism is a real thing.
American age discrimination laws only protect people over 40 from discrimination, they don't protect people under 40 from being discriminated against.
This means you could advertise roles only for people over 40. If these people are being excluded for age and not for real reasons like ability then they are undervalued by the market.
It'd be interesting to have roles that are explicitly only for people 40+. I'd want to do this and pair them with younger kids out of college who are just learning how to be effective SWEs as part of the role.
Seems like a big potential hiring advantage if the ageism is a real thing.
> American age discrimination laws only protect people over 40 from discrimination, they don't protect people under 40 from being discriminated against.
Are you sure about that? Do any lawyers want to weigh in?
Explicitly hiring only 40+ for any given role seems like it would be a lawsuit magnet.
Are you sure about that? Do any lawyers want to weigh in?
Explicitly hiring only 40+ for any given role seems like it would be a lawsuit magnet.
"The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination. It is not illegal for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older."
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm
Thank you, interesting. I found some other documents (by employment lawyers) online that support what you're saying: https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2009/10/23/can-employers-disc...
This means you could advertise roles only for people over 40.
Youngsters are more malleable to whatever theocratic management scheme you want to shoehorn in. Oldie don't buy in the cult driven bend-over management schemes used in many places.
In short, they outwit their own positions.
In short, they outwit their own positions.
Management can hire 2 fresh grads, roughly same cost as 1 senior candidate. There are companies where headcount is important for managers to become and grow their org. In addition, fresh grads usually have exposure to latest stuff and are eager to make their way in, work 60+ hrs, have fresh perspective, can crack academic style company interviews. Overall good for the company for less money.
The counter to this is those fresh ideas are built on their limited knowledge of some buzzwords connected to a framework in python which is only in alpha quality. The number of kids who think new is better because they used it on their final year team project so must apply it to production servers is scary. It needs older, experienced workers to say the magic word: No.
Two fresh grads working 60 hours a week are about as productive as one fresh grad working 40 hours a week. That may be good for someone, but not the company.
Management can hire 2 fresh grads, roughly same cost as 1 senior candidate
Interesting to read that "the largest gap occurs among workers ages 35 to 44”. This is the first wave of internet professionals, the people who built the web as we know it. Above that age range and you're getting into old school IT territory, and below you've got the new wave of web developers with different ideas who might regard the old guard as being stuck in their ways.
That range is too young for "people who built the web." A 44-year-old was 20 in 1995 (just after Netscape came out), so probably still in school, and a 35-year-old was 11.
I knew I was going to get picked up on that. I mean brought the web out of academia and made it the universally recognised platform it is today.
Are they really being left out though? I understand the notion of ageism, and not at all saying it doesn't happen in software development, the point is, what if there are other factors also in play here? What if this "trend" is just a natural phenomenon?
Software Development is one of the most aggressive industries that are out there. Tech evolves daily with major trends shifting monthly. It's extremely hard to keep up!
And it's extremely easy to become "part of the road" if you don't invest heavily in your professional development by studying the "steamroller". What if older software developers are just the road, modern tech "steamroller" is rolling over? There are quite a few percent of the bright and knowledgeable older software engineers, but what about the "average" ones? Ones who got tired, have families and just don't want to be bothered with making themselves uncomfortable by trying to "keep up"? What about those who were sitting comfortably a decade with the oldest tech you can imagine that was "current" in early 2000, and now wind has changed? It seems logical to assume that a job search for those is gonna be tough!
Also about bootcamps, Erik Meijer makes an interesting point about "amateurs in our industry", that people who live, sleep, and breath code for 20+ years should be able to comfortably retire near 40, meaning this problem we are discussing here should never be a problem to begin with.
Software Development is one of the most aggressive industries that are out there. Tech evolves daily with major trends shifting monthly. It's extremely hard to keep up!
And it's extremely easy to become "part of the road" if you don't invest heavily in your professional development by studying the "steamroller". What if older software developers are just the road, modern tech "steamroller" is rolling over? There are quite a few percent of the bright and knowledgeable older software engineers, but what about the "average" ones? Ones who got tired, have families and just don't want to be bothered with making themselves uncomfortable by trying to "keep up"? What about those who were sitting comfortably a decade with the oldest tech you can imagine that was "current" in early 2000, and now wind has changed? It seems logical to assume that a job search for those is gonna be tough!
Also about bootcamps, Erik Meijer makes an interesting point about "amateurs in our industry", that people who live, sleep, and breath code for 20+ years should be able to comfortably retire near 40, meaning this problem we are discussing here should never be a problem to begin with.
I just want to say: read these threads if you value your software career. There is golden advice from those who’ve seen it. Done it.
[deleted]
There is no IT talent shortage. IT companies circulate this myth to get access to work visas and broaden the workforce market, optimizing the salary budget.
The universities reaffirm that to get more applicants.
Maybe there really isn't a shortage of tech talent, and that narrative has been pushed by companies in an effort to encourage more people to enter the industry with the promise of easily finding jobs that pay well in order to increase the supply with younger, less expensive workers who are more easily exploited for long hours and poor conditions? It stands to reason that more senior devs would be the ones shafted by this scheme.
Maybe I should get my tinfoil hat checked out, but every time I see a giant tech company with one of those "everyone can learn to code!" pushes, all I see are executives hoping to play the long game and reduce the cost of engineering talent.
Maybe I should get my tinfoil hat checked out, but every time I see a giant tech company with one of those "everyone can learn to code!" pushes, all I see are executives hoping to play the long game and reduce the cost of engineering talent.
Please, let's not blame tech companies for that whole "learn to code" debacle. That was the work of clueless pundits (many of them from a non-STEM background themselves) who used that angle to dismiss the hardships now being faced by many blue-collar workers, chiefly in non-coastal states.
I think that like most things, it's complicated. I think both the pundits/media and corporations (aside: the media is a bunch of giant corporations) can be behind this marketing push. Whether they knowingly worked together or it's simply a coincidence is another question although it's very likely to again be a bit of both.
If you don't have name recognition driving candidates through the door, it can be shockingly difficult to get competent candidates. I'm talking basic senior engineer level (can be trusted to set up a web service from scratch without supervision).
Most of the candidates you see either can't pass fizz buzz (no joke), are very junior (have no practical experience building real services), have severe behavioral problems (need to be told exactly what to do, can't be trusted to own a service, etc.), or are washed up enterprise technicians who need someone to build all their scaffolding for them and can't solve simple problems if there isn't an IDE for it (.NET/etc. lifer).
The "smart" version of those archetypes often do OK at places like amazon, which provides scaffolding and oversite, but they will absolutely gut a small startup dev team.
(source: personal experience regretting startup hires who seemed "ok" when we were desperate, who subsequently left a trail of sadness and surprises in their wake through inattention, stupidity, and general failure to care)
I think this is particularly difficult for companies with non-technical founders that might lack strong technical leadership out the gate.
Most of the candidates you see either can't pass fizz buzz (no joke), are very junior (have no practical experience building real services), have severe behavioral problems (need to be told exactly what to do, can't be trusted to own a service, etc.), or are washed up enterprise technicians who need someone to build all their scaffolding for them and can't solve simple problems if there isn't an IDE for it (.NET/etc. lifer).
The "smart" version of those archetypes often do OK at places like amazon, which provides scaffolding and oversite, but they will absolutely gut a small startup dev team.
(source: personal experience regretting startup hires who seemed "ok" when we were desperate, who subsequently left a trail of sadness and surprises in their wake through inattention, stupidity, and general failure to care)
I think this is particularly difficult for companies with non-technical founders that might lack strong technical leadership out the gate.
This really puts into words the problems I've seen working in startups.
> Maybe there really isn't a shortage of tech talent
If that conspiracy theory had any bearing in reality then we wouldn't see a) tech workers receiving elite athlete-level salaries, or b) candidates with no formal education being paid handsomely to work in entry level/low complexity positions.
If that conspiracy theory had any bearing in reality then we wouldn't see a) tech workers receiving elite athlete-level salaries, or b) candidates with no formal education being paid handsomely to work in entry level/low complexity positions.
Outside of a small percentage of tech workers in a small number of coastal cities, no one gets athlete level salaries. In much of "flyover country" the typical software developer makes mid five figures while other tech workers make even less.
SRE in Detroit is making roughly the same average salary as a lawyer, Devops is even more.
Google basically only needs a small team to design a completely new distributed system for some kind of database. Or only a team of ten for some autonomous driving algorithms, so their work is highly leveraged and is worth hiring the best in the world for. Enterprise coding is nowhere near as leverageable.
I don't receive anywhere near elite athlete level salary...
The Major League Soccer minimum salary is currently set to 60k/year. The average software dev salary in the US is over 100k/year.
Using the minimum MLS salary is incredibly disingenuous. If you want to be pedantic, might as well use the salary of the tennis instructor at the local YMCA. Athlete level salary in common usage in the US means professional athletes in one of the three major league sports. The average salary ranges from over $7 million in the NBA to $2.7 million in the NFL. That's what is being implied by athlete level salary and it simply isn't the case for most software developers.
"The Major League Soccer minimum salary..."
"...elite athletes..."
(any elite soccer player plays in Europe)
"...elite athletes..."
(any elite soccer player plays in Europe)
Tech talent shortage is real. We can't find anyone worth interviewing right now, as a 5 person startup. (And no, we aren't age discriminating)
Maybe try interviewing a few people who you think "aren't worth interviewing." It could be that your standards are unreasonably high and you're dismissing plenty of capable people.
And lets be honest, looking at most job postings, most people have absolute ridiculous expectations of candidates. Most things you can and should be able to train to some extent on the job.
And lets be honest, looking at most job postings, most people have absolute ridiculous expectations of candidates. Most things you can and should be able to train to some extent on the job.
I remember a job posting asking for 5+ years of Android experience in 2013 (Android 1.0 was released in late 2008).
I just saw a job posting that was looking for someone with 3+ years of experience, and the list of required skills would have taken easily double that working flat out to acquire
> and the list of required skills would have taken easily double that working flat out to acquire
You're reading too much into those requirements. Nice-to-haves are not must-haves. I've been involved in hiring processes for a front-end position that listed non-trivial experience with React and among the half dozen candidates who applied the company even considered a high-schools dropout who only had to show a 50-hour HTML online course.
You're reading too much into those requirements. Nice-to-haves are not must-haves. I've been involved in hiring processes for a front-end position that listed non-trivial experience with React and among the half dozen candidates who applied the company even considered a high-schools dropout who only had to show a 50-hour HTML online course.
Fair point. "Aren't worth interviewing" may have been a little harsh. I can assure you, there are no "harsh requirements" on our listing.
That would be the case if we had too many applicants! It seems we need to use a recruiter or something, everyone here seems to think its ridiculous that we can't find people.
That would be the case if we had too many applicants! It seems we need to use a recruiter or something, everyone here seems to think its ridiculous that we can't find people.
Can you share your job listing(s)?
I truly, honestly doubt that is the case. Are you hiring remotely or only in an expensive locale? Are you expecting more than 40 hours a week or do you have a good work/life balance? How are your benefits?
All of these things matter more the older you get since older engineers tend to already have a home and don't want to move to California, have a more involved personal life, and expect things like medical benefits. You might be discriminating on age without consciously knowing it.
All of these things matter more the older you get since older engineers tend to already have a home and don't want to move to California, have a more involved personal life, and expect things like medical benefits. You might be discriminating on age without consciously knowing it.
I wonder what problems a 5 person startup is trying to tackle that they can't find technical talent worth interviewing... just from the way you wrote it already makes me feel like a place I wouldn't want to work for
HN is a bubble full of people grinding leetcode, working at a big tech company or a start up, and writing code in their spare time as a hobby.
Once you start interviewing people, you will realize how utterly incompetent most of them are. I am talking about people with multiple years of full-time experience in the field and a relevant degree who cannot even implement a basic FizzBuzz. And I am not exaggerating it for comedic value, I legitimately met many people like that by now. Prior to seeing this myself, I could've sworn this was just a joke people used to describe incompetent people, but this is real. And being able to pass FizzBuzz doesn't even scratch the surface of being competent, but a lot of people cannot manage to get past that stage.
Once you start interviewing people, you will realize how utterly incompetent most of them are. I am talking about people with multiple years of full-time experience in the field and a relevant degree who cannot even implement a basic FizzBuzz. And I am not exaggerating it for comedic value, I legitimately met many people like that by now. Prior to seeing this myself, I could've sworn this was just a joke people used to describe incompetent people, but this is real. And being able to pass FizzBuzz doesn't even scratch the surface of being competent, but a lot of people cannot manage to get past that stage.
Honestly, it sounds like more of a problem with the test-givers than the test-takers.
People with experience have more dignity than to perform a dog-and-pony show for some startup on a whiteboard. Remember, in this market you need them more than they need you.
People with experience have more dignity than to perform a dog-and-pony show for some startup on a whiteboard. Remember, in this market you need them more than they need you.
I mean, it isn't just startups that do whiteboard coding interviews. In fact, if you want to check my comments on HN, I said pretty directly that I do not work for a startup.
Every single engineer who was or is employed at any big tech company has went through whiteboard interviews. If you are trying to imply that big tech companies cannot manage to attract experienced people, then I question the validity of that.
Every single engineer who was or is employed at any big tech company has went through whiteboard interviews. If you are trying to imply that big tech companies cannot manage to attract experienced people, then I question the validity of that.
There are certainly incompetent people in most any industry. But the reality is most organizations manage to keep their systems running and ship products with average or below average developers doing much of the work. How do you reconcile that fact with your observations?
Have you considered the possibility that you're asking the wrong questions? Or perhaps your organization isn't good at identifying candidates with low skills but high potential?
Have you considered the possibility that you're asking the wrong questions? Or perhaps your organization isn't good at identifying candidates with low skills but high potential?
> I am talking about people with multiple years of full-time experience in the field and a relevant degree who cannot even implement a basic FizzBuzz.
I'm sure all of them can implement FizzBuzz, just not on the interview under pressure. It has absolutely nothing to do with competence, but understanding that requires just a little bit of background in human psychology.
I'm sure all of them can implement FizzBuzz, just not on the interview under pressure. It has absolutely nothing to do with competence, but understanding that requires just a little bit of background in human psychology.
If you're supposed to be a professional software engineer and can't do fizzbuzz under pressure that's same as saying you're a professional soccer player but you can't tie your shoe under pressure. That bar is so low that it doesn't matter whether there was any pressure or not.
This sounds like a problem in interviewing practices.
Why waste time interviewing incompetent people?
Just ask for code samples (github, stackoverflow, anything else) and make a 5-minute screening call via Skype to filter out incompetent people.
Why waste time interviewing incompetent people?
Just ask for code samples (github, stackoverflow, anything else) and make a 5-minute screening call via Skype to filter out incompetent people.
That really only works for entry level positions. Competent, experienced developers are likely to laugh at your request for code samples. You have to understand what type of candidates you're targeting and adjust the recruiting approach accordingly.
Salary shortage is real. I can't find any startups worth interviewing right now, as a senior SWE. The offers tend to be 50% of what I currently have (despite the "shortage").
Sorry for the snarky tone, but it should be evident by now that the real shortage is for "highly talented souls willing to work for peanuts"--which is kind of oxymoronic. People want to hire "highly talented" and smart individuals, but expect them to be dumb enough to sell themselves short?
Sorry for the snarky tone, but it should be evident by now that the real shortage is for "highly talented souls willing to work for peanuts"--which is kind of oxymoronic. People want to hire "highly talented" and smart individuals, but expect them to be dumb enough to sell themselves short?
What salary do you expect?
The startup offers I've seen in the bay area for SWE a couple years out of school are pretty high, $150k - $185k which is pretty good cash comp from a startup.
Higher than that is probably not a realistic expectation for most startups that are not flush with cash. They'd probably be happy to pay it or more for John Carmack, but you're probably not John Carmack.
The startup offers I've seen in the bay area for SWE a couple years out of school are pretty high, $150k - $185k which is pretty good cash comp from a startup.
Higher than that is probably not a realistic expectation for most startups that are not flush with cash. They'd probably be happy to pay it or more for John Carmack, but you're probably not John Carmack.
Most startups shouldn't as they're lousy ideas doomed to fail. For anybody who hasn't done a startup you find 99% fail and the other 1% with a genuine exit strategy sure won't share the wealth with non-investors. That rules out employees who get some 'shares' at the promised IPO and forgo a decent salary in lieu of making the megabucks from IPO. It won't happen to you but if it does well done for being damn lucky.
If you're choosing to work at a startup you're basically an investor, but you're gambling your time instead of your capital (sort of - time is an opportunity cost of capital you could be making elsewhere).
Not everyone is good at being an investor, but it's not entirely luck, there is skill in determining what companies are good and what companies are not.
Not everyone is good at being an investor, but it's not entirely luck, there is skill in determining what companies are good and what companies are not.
If you’re a cash strapped startup that can’t afford to pay competitive SV wages, maybe you shouldn’t be in SV. There are plenty of cheaper places around the country with world class engineering schools to hire from and far lower cost of living. Madison WI and Pittsburgh PA come to mind.
It doesn't work that way. Silicon Valley is flooded with wanna-bes. So even if you're cash strapped you can still hire. Madison WI isn't.
For the same reason it's easier to hire an actor in LA.
For the same reason it's easier to hire an actor in LA.
If they can't match FAANG's salary+totally liquid stock grant compensation (generally $300k+/yr for a seniorish engineer), which most startups can't, they need to offer more equity. I've seen way too many startups offering sub 1% to their first employee, despite asking them to take a large pay cut. It's absurd.
> The startup offers I've seen in the bay area for SWE a couple years out of school are pretty high, $150k - $185k which is pretty good cash comp from a startup.
I agree that is pretty good for a Bay Area startup, but it is far below the total compensation a FAANG company offers today.
After several years, the RSUs at a FAANG could pay out more every year than the salary, and they are immediately sellable on the open market. Startup options are likely to be worthless.
This is why startups have a hard time hiring. A lot of engineers would rather work for FAANG or similar large companies, where they will make a lot more money with much less risk.
I agree that is pretty good for a Bay Area startup, but it is far below the total compensation a FAANG company offers today.
After several years, the RSUs at a FAANG could pay out more every year than the salary, and they are immediately sellable on the open market. Startup options are likely to be worthless.
This is why startups have a hard time hiring. A lot of engineers would rather work for FAANG or similar large companies, where they will make a lot more money with much less risk.
Yeah, but I think startups are a different bet - either on comp (betting on equity) or on learning (more access to building a company).
OP seemed to suggest that startups have trouble hiring because they don't pay enough and I think that's not entirely true from what I've seen. They don't pay more than FAANG which is expected, but they're not underpaying for that trade-off.
I do agree though that FAANG salaries have gotten extreme so it's a harder opportunity cost than it used to be. If you can swing $350k at Netflix or $200-400k+ total comp at the others and you work there for 5-10 years that's basically a small startup exit. I think it used to be less dramatic.
I think the misery of the technical interview process is actually the thing that limits mobility most. Some of my extremely capable friends (that do work at FAANGs) don't optimize on moving around or income as much as they could because the process is so painful and anxiety inducing.
OP seemed to suggest that startups have trouble hiring because they don't pay enough and I think that's not entirely true from what I've seen. They don't pay more than FAANG which is expected, but they're not underpaying for that trade-off.
I do agree though that FAANG salaries have gotten extreme so it's a harder opportunity cost than it used to be. If you can swing $350k at Netflix or $200-400k+ total comp at the others and you work there for 5-10 years that's basically a small startup exit. I think it used to be less dramatic.
I think the misery of the technical interview process is actually the thing that limits mobility most. Some of my extremely capable friends (that do work at FAANGs) don't optimize on moving around or income as much as they could because the process is so painful and anxiety inducing.
The salary difference definitely used to be less dramatic. It is now at least a $100k difference in annual total comp, and it can be more than a $200k difference in some cases.
This should give the rough idea, although it might be on the lower ends, since people with higher compensation tend to avoid attracting attention.
https://www.levels.fyi/
> Higher than that is probably not a realistic expectation for most startups that are not flush with cash.
Then isn't this an admission that there is no talent shortage? Again, that just means there is a shortage of talents who are willing to take the offer and work for $150k.
> Higher than that is probably not a realistic expectation for most startups that are not flush with cash.
Then isn't this an admission that there is no talent shortage? Again, that just means there is a shortage of talents who are willing to take the offer and work for $150k.
I mean by that definition sure, but you can kind of take that to any extreme right? Ultimately it's always in a context of a shortage at some price point.
If you imagine there is only one employable tech worker, it'd be strange to claim that there is no shortage because you can hire away the one worker for a 20million dollar salary (or whatever the highest salary is to outbid all of the others).
If you imagine there is only one employable tech worker, it'd be strange to claim that there is no shortage because you can hire away the one worker for a 20million dollar salary (or whatever the highest salary is to outbid all of the others).
I never said we were offering peanuts. Competitive salary for the area.
If you want to post the job description, location, and salary range, we could make the discussion more concrete.
> Competitive salary for the area.
> We can't find anyone worth interviewing right now
How can both statements be simultaneously true.
> We can't find anyone worth interviewing right now
How can both statements be simultaneously true.
A phenomenon known as "sticky wages" which means (in part[1]) that people are reluctant to quit and get a new job even if an "economically rational actor" would.
1: The definition also includes the fact that employers are more reluctant to lower wages than they are to increase them, all else equal.
1: The definition also includes the fact that employers are more reluctant to lower wages than they are to increase them, all else equal.
wouldn't that keep wages stagnant though. I see wages rising in SV.
That is a piece of evidence against that. It's not conclusive, because wages can both be rising and be rising less than they would be absent the practice. However, I definitely haven't made a strong case for what I said, just wanted to throw out the name of a theory in case people wanted to Google it an learn more. I'm not equipped to definitely answer a question well-regarded economists debate about, of course.
Perhaps a large majority of SWE's in our area have a job right now.
You're right now more or less "featured" in front of one of the largest software communities in the US.
Why not post a link to your job?
Why not post a link to your job?
Gold bar shortage is real. I can't find anyone willing to sell at below the market price. Why are gold merchants so lazy and entitled?
Are you offering a competitive cash salary? I hear this a lot and then it comes out that the company wants people to work for IOUs which unsurprisingly does not generally go well.
Most startups don't offer nearly enough of an equity stake to compensate for the massive salary gap vs. FAANG. I don't know what your offering is, but I haven't seen an exception to this in a long time.
This. Wanting a FAANG staff engineer for $180k and equity in a probably-a-bubble environment.
[deleted]
Consider one or more of:
1. Increasing wages.
2. Increasing benefits. (More vacation time, paying for employee education, shorter work-weeks.)
3. Lowering the hiring bar, and spending more effort on mentoring and educating new employees.
4. Hiring remotely.
These all, of course, come with costs, and trade-offs.
If you don't mind me asking, are you looking for FAANG-level talent? If so, are you paying FAANG-level wages, or providing MicroFaceGoog[1]-level work-life balance?
[1] Yes, there are obviously teams at all of those companies that work on death march schedules. They are, generally speaking, the exception.
1. Increasing wages.
2. Increasing benefits. (More vacation time, paying for employee education, shorter work-weeks.)
3. Lowering the hiring bar, and spending more effort on mentoring and educating new employees.
4. Hiring remotely.
These all, of course, come with costs, and trade-offs.
If you don't mind me asking, are you looking for FAANG-level talent? If so, are you paying FAANG-level wages, or providing MicroFaceGoog[1]-level work-life balance?
[1] Yes, there are obviously teams at all of those companies that work on death march schedules. They are, generally speaking, the exception.
The theoretical solution would be to raise how much you are paying.
You can switch "paying" with "given in total compensation." There are those who will take more vacation time in lieu of a higher salary, for example.
This is an underappreciated point, and also why I started a solo consulting business instead of continuing the 9-5. As a consultant I can set my own hours. The past few weeks were leasurely 25-27 hours per week or so (I track the time, so I know), and I do get paid for every hour I work, including commute, time spent on slack, etc.
In this industry there seems to be no place for someone experienced who thinks that working 50-60 hours a week is bullshit, and would like to work half that. That tells me there's no "talent" shortage, since the employers aren't flexible at all when it comes to working part time and receiving proportionally lower pay. The moment you ask to work less than 40 hours a week the employer immediately assumes that either there's something wrong with you or you're willing to work for peanuts.
In this industry there seems to be no place for someone experienced who thinks that working 50-60 hours a week is bullshit, and would like to work half that. That tells me there's no "talent" shortage, since the employers aren't flexible at all when it comes to working part time and receiving proportionally lower pay. The moment you ask to work less than 40 hours a week the employer immediately assumes that either there's something wrong with you or you're willing to work for peanuts.
This. I have an open consulting opportunity please email me to my HN user name at google’s mail service if interested.
How many people over 50 have you interviewed?
If I were the sixth person at a five-person startup I'd be forever worried that I was just on the wrong side of the get-rich-if-it-succeeds line.
It's pretty regional. If you live in a place that has eg a bad climate or limited outdoors activities, it might be harder to find local people. You should probably consider hiring remote workers, if you haven't already.
If you are willing to deal with a bit of hassle, hire Canadians. Same timezones, same CS educations, same language, probably a little cheaper (sorry, fellow Canadians), lots of interest in US startups.
If you are willing to deal with a bit of hassle, hire Canadians. Same timezones, same CS educations, same language, probably a little cheaper (sorry, fellow Canadians), lots of interest in US startups.
> We can't find anyone __worth__ interviewing right now
There is enough research in job markets showing that companies get more picky and advertise more demanding and complicated job requirements as more candidates are available. So your claim is empty, since this is how companies behave regardless of supply. And if you were to measure it, how big artificial barriers or filters are for someone to get hired could be the measure of oversupply, not shortage. With shortage there would be no barriers, everyone applying would be interviewed and likely hired. But given current hazing hours long interview practices it's pretty clear that companies are drowning in oversupply.
There is enough research in job markets showing that companies get more picky and advertise more demanding and complicated job requirements as more candidates are available. So your claim is empty, since this is how companies behave regardless of supply. And if you were to measure it, how big artificial barriers or filters are for someone to get hired could be the measure of oversupply, not shortage. With shortage there would be no barriers, everyone applying would be interviewed and likely hired. But given current hazing hours long interview practices it's pretty clear that companies are drowning in oversupply.
It sounds like you're not looking hard enough
This is the real answer, lol. Just wanted to vent. People in this thread are treating me like I'm a shithead listing a position with impossible requirements and terrible pay.
I'm not. I'm an engineer on the team and I wrote my comment (passive-aggressively) because my workload is ridiculous. As I understand it, we're having a very difficult time finding people.
I'm not. I'm an engineer on the team and I wrote my comment (passive-aggressively) because my workload is ridiculous. As I understand it, we're having a very difficult time finding people.
> As I understand it, we're having a very difficult time finding people.
Another possibility is that they don't have enough money to hire another developer, but don't want to admit it to you. Start-up life can be harsh.
Don't burn yourself out. I can tell you from experience that it gets harder and harder to come back from burnout each time it happens. If your workload is ridiculous, it may be talk to your boss about adjusting timelines/expectations to something more realistic, or even time to start looking for another job.
Another possibility is that they don't have enough money to hire another developer, but don't want to admit it to you. Start-up life can be harsh.
Don't burn yourself out. I can tell you from experience that it gets harder and harder to come back from burnout each time it happens. If your workload is ridiculous, it may be talk to your boss about adjusting timelines/expectations to something more realistic, or even time to start looking for another job.
We don't think you're a shithead. We just think you don't understand basic economics like the relationship between supply and demand. And that's nothing to be ashamed of, many engineers are ignorant about economics. If you'd like to improve your skills in that area your local community college has courses available.
Relax, this is the same uninformed flak that anybody who's actually had to deal with the talent shortage in person and dares say it on HN gets.
You say you are hiring but...
You are posting in probably one of the most fertile places to find talent...and there is no link in your bio to your company or personal email.
No wonder why you can't find talent.
You are posting in probably one of the most fertile places to find talent...and there is no link in your bio to your company or personal email.
No wonder why you can't find talent.
I think you mean: we can’t find anyone worth interviewing interested in the offered salary. I guarantee that if you double what you’re offering, your “shortage” will go away.
I hear this a lot, and I likely don’t disagree. But I never see career pages with $$$ next to the job listings. So I’m not sure how most companies get this across. Most I’ve talked to want a phone screen before they have the expectations talk.
Generally I’ve just gone by industry reputation, for where to go. But I wonder if there are any hidden gems out there.
Generally I’ve just gone by industry reputation, for where to go. But I wonder if there are any hidden gems out there.
The jobs I apply to say "extremely/very competitive salary." This is the code word for a fuck-ton of money. Of course, this doesn't tell you the salary, but when you see that, you can reasonably assume anywhere from 2x to 10x market rate for total comp.
> So I’m not sure how most companies get this across.
Companies in the US don't advertise pay ranges, but they are easily Google-able, people have friends, Glassdoor is a thing, etc.
A junior at Facebook will make ~160k/year, someone good with ~5 years experience (at FB) will make ~300k/year.
Most startups want to hire the latter person for the salary of the former, while getting them to work harder, for fewer benefits, and fewer vacation days, all in exchange for...
An equity carrot, that has a 1/500 chance of materializing into anything more than lunch money?
A chance to 'change the world' - as if writing an app for ordering dogsitters on demand is the moral equal to providing clean drinking water to poor villages - or curing cancer.
A chance to be a big fish in a tiny pond? You'll still probably be second fiddle to the CTO, and employees 2 through 5...
Companies in the US don't advertise pay ranges, but they are easily Google-able, people have friends, Glassdoor is a thing, etc.
A junior at Facebook will make ~160k/year, someone good with ~5 years experience (at FB) will make ~300k/year.
Most startups want to hire the latter person for the salary of the former, while getting them to work harder, for fewer benefits, and fewer vacation days, all in exchange for...
An equity carrot, that has a 1/500 chance of materializing into anything more than lunch money?
A chance to 'change the world' - as if writing an app for ordering dogsitters on demand is the moral equal to providing clean drinking water to poor villages - or curing cancer.
A chance to be a big fish in a tiny pond? You'll still probably be second fiddle to the CTO, and employees 2 through 5...
> Companies in the US don't advertise pay ranges, but they are easily Google-able, people have friends, Glassdoor is a thing, etc.
Meh, glassdoor is off by a factor of 3x when checking in with a few of the companies I just interviewed with. They seem to require an account, but it’s similar to reports like this which are comically wrong:
https://www.indeed.com/salaries/Software-Engineer-Salaries-a...
Sure, you can reach through your network, but price discovery seems pretty bad if you have to do word of mouth.
Meh, glassdoor is off by a factor of 3x when checking in with a few of the companies I just interviewed with. They seem to require an account, but it’s similar to reports like this which are comically wrong:
https://www.indeed.com/salaries/Software-Engineer-Salaries-a...
Sure, you can reach through your network, but price discovery seems pretty bad if you have to do word of mouth.
That's not talent shortage in the market as a whole, just in your segment of the market. Many people are just unwilling to work at a startup, especially if it pays peanuts. Pay more. Offer more perks that large companies are unwilling to offer. Above all, quit pretending that your equity is worth anything.
Move to Georgia. Atlanta has a very low cost of living, a good business environment, and plenty of world class engineers coming out of Georgia Tech. Of course maybe you don't want to live in a state like Georgia. That's understandable but that's a lifestyle choice, not a talent shortage.
shortage is real. We can't find anyone worth interviewing
Perhaps a mention of your specialty and location is in order. Your HN public profile is blank.
Maybe you are having a hiring problem?
Have you tried testing your candidate funnel?
Or look for someone with the aptitude that could pick up what you need quickly.
Pay more
You’re probably not offering enough money.
It also makes it easier for them to go to government and say we need more visas to bring in workers because there aren't enough here.
> "everyone can learn to code!"
didn't twitter ban people for saying this at one point :D
didn't twitter ban people for saying this at one point :D
> Maybe there really isn't a shortage of tech talent
That depends on what level of experience you are looking at. In particular, based on my experiences, your premise is the reverse of what is happening:
> to increase the supply with younger, less expensive workers who are more easily exploited for long hours and poor conditions
In the U.S. this does not match what I see. Instead, there are a ton of positions for "senior" positions that are filtering on specific amounts of experiences in such a way that there just aren't enough people that match. Likewise, the field is VERY CROWDED with newer devs that lack experience - they fight over a relative handful of positions that have truly absurd entrance requirements.
This also results in some layers -
- The layer of places that abuse their newer developers and get away with it because that initial field is so crowded. This would seem to support your premise, except they aren't the ones pushing the "tech shortage" narrative - they are just profiting from it. Devs that can claw their way of out of this layer are well-positioned for "time", but likely lacking in the specific experiences and breadth that the other layers want.
- The layer of "top" places that want devs with enough experience and mix of skills that they have a hard time hiring for them. These places pay top dollar and work on their reps to help attract talent - they also are trying to resolve their shortages by getting new grads as interns. This layer is the primary cause of the problems, as I'll note below.
- The layer of "middle" places that are trying to use devs to help generate or streamline profits. They want people with enough experience and independence that they are drawing on the same pool as the "top" places. Because they have to compete with the marketing and budgets of the top places, they never have enough people, so they try to make up for it by getting more "senior" people, which only helps feed the scarcity for the "top" and the lack of jobs for the newer devs in the "lower" layers.
What you end up with is a weird divide - the top jobs pay great, but demand you have things like a degree (it's rapidly becoming a requirement DESPITE so many successful pros that either don't have a degree or have an unrelated degree), that you solve increasingly complex algorithm problems despite that rarely being a demand of the job, and wanting a breadth of depth of experience that few jobs will prepare you for. They face a tech shortage and feed it. Meanwhile the lower jobs have lots of supply, so they can abuse their devs, but rarely provide the necessary qualifications for people to advance to the other tiers. And in the middle you have companies doubling down on their chase after the same smaller pool of devs that the top layer has rather than taking in from the huge supply of less experienced devs and growing their own talent.
In the 3 companies I've worked for in the last 10 years (prior to that I had no input/visibility into hiring decisions), each one ramped up their entrance requirements to the point where I almost certainly wouldn't qualify despite being a successful and apparently valued employee at each of them.
> executives hoping to play the long game
This is contrary to my experiences with executives both personally and in most companies. Indeed, the "long game" seems to be invoked in words far more often than in actual consideration. YMMV.
That depends on what level of experience you are looking at. In particular, based on my experiences, your premise is the reverse of what is happening:
> to increase the supply with younger, less expensive workers who are more easily exploited for long hours and poor conditions
In the U.S. this does not match what I see. Instead, there are a ton of positions for "senior" positions that are filtering on specific amounts of experiences in such a way that there just aren't enough people that match. Likewise, the field is VERY CROWDED with newer devs that lack experience - they fight over a relative handful of positions that have truly absurd entrance requirements.
This also results in some layers -
- The layer of places that abuse their newer developers and get away with it because that initial field is so crowded. This would seem to support your premise, except they aren't the ones pushing the "tech shortage" narrative - they are just profiting from it. Devs that can claw their way of out of this layer are well-positioned for "time", but likely lacking in the specific experiences and breadth that the other layers want.
- The layer of "top" places that want devs with enough experience and mix of skills that they have a hard time hiring for them. These places pay top dollar and work on their reps to help attract talent - they also are trying to resolve their shortages by getting new grads as interns. This layer is the primary cause of the problems, as I'll note below.
- The layer of "middle" places that are trying to use devs to help generate or streamline profits. They want people with enough experience and independence that they are drawing on the same pool as the "top" places. Because they have to compete with the marketing and budgets of the top places, they never have enough people, so they try to make up for it by getting more "senior" people, which only helps feed the scarcity for the "top" and the lack of jobs for the newer devs in the "lower" layers.
What you end up with is a weird divide - the top jobs pay great, but demand you have things like a degree (it's rapidly becoming a requirement DESPITE so many successful pros that either don't have a degree or have an unrelated degree), that you solve increasingly complex algorithm problems despite that rarely being a demand of the job, and wanting a breadth of depth of experience that few jobs will prepare you for. They face a tech shortage and feed it. Meanwhile the lower jobs have lots of supply, so they can abuse their devs, but rarely provide the necessary qualifications for people to advance to the other tiers. And in the middle you have companies doubling down on their chase after the same smaller pool of devs that the top layer has rather than taking in from the huge supply of less experienced devs and growing their own talent.
In the 3 companies I've worked for in the last 10 years (prior to that I had no input/visibility into hiring decisions), each one ramped up their entrance requirements to the point where I almost certainly wouldn't qualify despite being a successful and apparently valued employee at each of them.
> executives hoping to play the long game
This is contrary to my experiences with executives both personally and in most companies. Indeed, the "long game" seems to be invoked in words far more often than in actual consideration. YMMV.
> In the U.S. this does not match what I see. Instead, there are a ton of positions for "senior" positions that are filtering on specific amounts of experiences in such a way that there just aren't enough people that match. Likewise, the field is VERY CROWDED with newer devs that lack experience - they fight over a relative handful of positions that have truly absurd entrance requirements.
Are you in SV? It's almost exactly the opposite in the metropolitan area I live in (one of the markets on this list [1]). There are many hundreds of hiring junior dev jobs open at any time, and constant emails about junior or what are essentially junior jobs.
But there are only a very small handful of senior jobs.
I'm very happy where I'm at right now, but it makes me uneasy. Based on my experience with applying to jobs for which I was "overqualified" as a recent college grad in the 1990s, I wouldn't be able to snag any of these junior jobs regardless of the salary I was willing to accept.
1. https://www.aitp.org/blog/aitp-blog/2018/10/23/tech-town-usa...
Are you in SV? It's almost exactly the opposite in the metropolitan area I live in (one of the markets on this list [1]). There are many hundreds of hiring junior dev jobs open at any time, and constant emails about junior or what are essentially junior jobs.
But there are only a very small handful of senior jobs.
I'm very happy where I'm at right now, but it makes me uneasy. Based on my experience with applying to jobs for which I was "overqualified" as a recent college grad in the 1990s, I wouldn't be able to snag any of these junior jobs regardless of the salary I was willing to accept.
1. https://www.aitp.org/blog/aitp-blog/2018/10/23/tech-town-usa...
Seattle, so likely very similar to SV. When I was in Richmond VA I saw a similar problem (weighted towards "senior"), though obviously smaller numbers across the board. That was 8ish years ago though, so things may well have changed.
For the record, I think I should come back and correct myself here. I actually paid attention to jobs posted in my metropolitan area for a few days after this discussion, and I was wrong.
While the ratio of junior:senior jobs isn't as low as it is in SV, it's not nearly as bad as I made it out to be. There are still more non-junior jobs here, my previous statement notwithstanding.
While the ratio of junior:senior jobs isn't as low as it is in SV, it's not nearly as bad as I made it out to be. There are still more non-junior jobs here, my previous statement notwithstanding.
Funny how the more capitalist outlets will classify workers as being in 'shortage', but commodities are never in shortage, they are in 'high demand' and there are 'price spikes while the market adjusts to new levels of supply and demand'. It's almost as if they are less about capitalism and more corporatism.
The reality of most 'talent shortages', and this goes for people outside of tech, is the people with capital don't want to adjust their business model to deal with changing market conditions.
Tech companies complain about 'talent shortages' in a time... when you could literally hire any programmer anywhere in the world to work remotely! It's insane.
So it's obvious there isn't a shortage of talent, but a shortage of local talent. But why do they need local talent?
It's like the US military complaining they can't get tech people. But if you work for them you can't smoke weed (even with a medical rec), you have to be in on time, wear a tie, punch in, sit in a horrible cubicle with horrible lighting and comply with a million bureaucratic minutia. So they don't get good candidates.
Somehow the responsibility of of BOTH sides (labor and capital) to adapt to an ever changing environment seems lost on some people. They can see why one side should adapt, but not the other. The right sees that labor should adjust, and they are right, but likewise capital should also adjust when market forces push them, and not cry foul.
I'll believe there are labor shortages when labor is paid the same percentage of GDP as it was in the 1960s, and when compensation packages include greater variety. After all, truly competitive markets will offer greatly different options. For labor, that could include working remotely, offering more days off, more vacation time, the CHOICE of private offices and/or open office, better indoor lighting, etc.
Note: I'm a realistic capitalist who has actually read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
The reality of most 'talent shortages', and this goes for people outside of tech, is the people with capital don't want to adjust their business model to deal with changing market conditions.
Tech companies complain about 'talent shortages' in a time... when you could literally hire any programmer anywhere in the world to work remotely! It's insane.
So it's obvious there isn't a shortage of talent, but a shortage of local talent. But why do they need local talent?
It's like the US military complaining they can't get tech people. But if you work for them you can't smoke weed (even with a medical rec), you have to be in on time, wear a tie, punch in, sit in a horrible cubicle with horrible lighting and comply with a million bureaucratic minutia. So they don't get good candidates.
Somehow the responsibility of of BOTH sides (labor and capital) to adapt to an ever changing environment seems lost on some people. They can see why one side should adapt, but not the other. The right sees that labor should adjust, and they are right, but likewise capital should also adjust when market forces push them, and not cry foul.
I'll believe there are labor shortages when labor is paid the same percentage of GDP as it was in the 1960s, and when compensation packages include greater variety. After all, truly competitive markets will offer greatly different options. For labor, that could include working remotely, offering more days off, more vacation time, the CHOICE of private offices and/or open office, better indoor lighting, etc.
Note: I'm a realistic capitalist who has actually read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
you have to be in on time, wear a tie, punch in, sit in a horrible cubicle with horrible lighting
We did have cubicles, though... which I prefer immensely to open desk plans. And I'd be happy to bring in my own adjustable-spectrum light if they haven't upgraded lighting in (mumble) years.
[deleted]
There is definitely ageism but thats because younger unqualified employees are asked to evaluate older candidates.
Younger employees (especially single ones) are usually subconsciously also looking for buddies to have fun with. Which eliminates a lot of older people who just want to work and go home.
Further, younger employees also expect older candidates to be some super goddamn geniuses. Even if they are, the interview process never looks for that genius. Also, not all old candidates are genius and its hard for young kids to acknowledge because they just dont know any better.
On the other hand, old farts sometimes think too much of themselves. Also, some older candidates just dont want to relocate. Which reduces options A LOT. Very few old candidates want to relocate from rural Indiana to SF bay area.
The jobs exist, the talent shortage exists. But the demand isn't meeting supply and when it does, the evaluators are usually incompetent.
Younger employees (especially single ones) are usually subconsciously also looking for buddies to have fun with. Which eliminates a lot of older people who just want to work and go home.
Further, younger employees also expect older candidates to be some super goddamn geniuses. Even if they are, the interview process never looks for that genius. Also, not all old candidates are genius and its hard for young kids to acknowledge because they just dont know any better.
On the other hand, old farts sometimes think too much of themselves. Also, some older candidates just dont want to relocate. Which reduces options A LOT. Very few old candidates want to relocate from rural Indiana to SF bay area.
The jobs exist, the talent shortage exists. But the demand isn't meeting supply and when it does, the evaluators are usually incompetent.
Instead employers consistently use bullshit to filter, puzzles without any relation to the job, etc in their hiring. That's a strong indicator that there's no shortage. If employers are making up things to filter candidates, then they have too many options.
If I had to guess, this is probably just more propaganda from the large tech companies to get more people into the field and an increased visa cap, so they can drive down wages.