Comment by vonmoltke | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vonmoltke | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I read sentiments like yours frequently. It does not match my experience.

Many of the companies I have talked to have fairly large lists of requirements for positions and are serious about requiring them. They get really picky about specific languages, frameworks, and experiences. As I mentioned in another discussion here recently, there are tens of thousands of programming jobs controlled by companies who do not see a programmer shortage from their perspective.

When discussions on hiring methods come up, multiple people inevitably chime in that the companies in question are dealing with situations where they have more qualified applicants than slots. That is in direct conflict with what you said above.

I would love to be able to jump jobs for 30% pay raises. I can't. I started my career at $55,770. I'm up to $92,500 14 years later, which is only a 66% bump for my entire career. Even if we consider me underpaid for my area (Hi! I'm looking in Dallas!) I would likely only be looking at a 100% total career bump if I got that situation addressed. There are companies out there who refuse to give you more than X% above your current salary, regardless of how underpaid you are.

It's funny that you should mention AT&T, what with them being headquartered here and all. I see them as one of the companies I was referring to in my second paragraph. I have personally applied to them for multiple positions and heard bupkis.

It may well be that certain sectors in certain markets have these issues. I do not see it as widespread. What I do see as widespread are broken recruiting and sourcing practices, HR departments that work at cross purposes to the other departments they support, and a general desire to hit all the points on a wish list, no matter how long it takes.

> Many of the companies I have talked to have fairly large lists of requirements for positions and are serious about requiring them.

In any sales-type situation, expectations must be managed on both sides, it's the job of the salesman to see a deal through. Here that's recruiters. Some buyers are more rational than others.

> There are companies out there who refuse to give you more than X% above your current salary, regardless of how underpaid you are.

Simply refuse to disclose your current salary. I did that and managed a close to 50% bump. They'll ask, just say you aren't comfortable disclosing that. They'll make a half-hearted attempt to get you to, don't budge. Just name a figure that's 40% higher than the one you'll accept and let them talk you down to 30%.

> It's funny that you should mention AT&T, what with them being headquartered here and all. I see them as one of the companies I was referring to in my second paragraph.

I'd never work for AT&T or any large employer. Consulting is where the money is these days. You should start returning all those scammy-looking emails you get from recruiters. Could change your life.

> Some buyers are more rational than others.

I guess that is the crux of my disagreement with your original post. So many buyers are being irrational despite claims that they can't (or shouldn't) be able to get away with it. To adapt an old idiom, they are trying to be beggars and choosers. Since they aren't failing to get things done despite being irrational, I have to conclude that most of the shortage is self-imposed by that irrationality and that, were these companies to fix their talent acquisition practices, the shortage would go away.

Yeah, I was trying to make the point that in these kinds of situations, where cooperation needs to happen and neither side can trust each other, the answer is to bring in a middle man. Enter the recruiter.

You can't just tell everybody to fix their processes, that requires coordination across the entire industry, and that's just not happening anytime soon.

Not to offend you or anything, but have you considered that the problem of your potential (better) employment is you. I see a lot of people claiming that the H1B program is bad and that there are tons of developers available in the US etc. But my experience is the polar opposite.

And to make things clear - I am actually a H1B holder, working as a CTO for a US based company, been here for 3 years now. When looking for people for our engineering team, we get lots of resumes but very few actually promising ones. Out of the promising ones, almost none are actual people with tangible experience that could be hired as a senior person. If there is someone who could be senior, they ask for like 200k and up a year - and this is just to be a senior engineer, not even in a managerial position or anything (P.S and this is the NOVA area, not the bay area).

So yeah, I would say good people are always in high demand, and the lack of good engineers right now is troubling. Then again most of the H1B visas get abused by companies who hire second rate talent from abroad so...

What this is actually saying, and I see this sentiment regularly, is that you want the best of the best, but you don't want to pay for it.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you are not going to get the best of the best from any other country either, as they are in just as high of demand. What generally ends up happening is people make the argument you make, then go the H1B route and end up with mediocre engineers that are much cheaper than local counterparts, can be worked 60-80 hours per week and cannot easily leave. And this is no accident, it is exactly what they wanted in the first place.

I'm not saying this is your intention, I don't know you, but I have personally watched this exact scenario play out time and again.

Most of these resumes you are turning down are people who can be trained to provide exactly what you are looking for. If you do not want to invest in that training, then you need to pay for the time and energy that the rarer candidates have invested themselves.

> Not to offend you or anything, but have you considered that the problem of your potential (better) employment is you.

I have considered that, but I would think I would be getting and failing more interviews if that was the case. I have a hard time getting interviews.

> When looking for people for our engineering team, we get lots of resumes but very few actually promising ones. Out of the promising ones, almost none are actual people with tangible experience that could be hired as a senior person.

What do you consider "promising" and "tangible experience"? I have been refused interviews because of who I have worked for, without anyone delving into whether I might still have the experience desired.

> If there is someone who could be senior, they ask for like 200k and up a year - and this is just to be a senior engineer, not even in a managerial position or anything (P.S and this is the NOVA area, not the bay area).

You realize that NoVa is not much cheaper than the Bay Area, right? I mean, $200k for no management responsibility in NoVa is ridiculous to ask for, but I would expect $150k - $160k.

> So yeah, I would say good people are always in high demand, and the lack of good engineers right now is troubling.

So what is "good"? I have been told before that maybe the problem is me. Nobody has ever told me I'm not "good", though. I have consistently been one of the best engineers (software and systems at least; I was a bit dicier at electrical) wherever I have worked. I am an order of magnitude more competent than the anecdotes that come up during these discussions. Yet I get refused interviews because my background is "too government" and similar bullshit. I would love for someone to tell me there is something objectively wrong that I can fix. Nobody has done that. Except for my resume; fecack did a good job with that. Doesn't help with the aforementioned bullshit rejections, though.

> I have been refused interviews because of who I have worked for, without anyone delving into whether I might still have the experience desired.

Consider taking those companies off your resume. I'd prefer a gap in the resume to a negative item. A gap can be explained any way you want in an interview, but a negative item will cause you to get rejected before you even begin.

The problem is the company is Raytheon, and I spent the first 9.5 years of my career there. It isn't something I can just drop.

Consider leaving it off anyway, and shortening how your resume presents your current career by ten years. Rebrand yourself and wrap yourself in nice shiny new packaging. I'm 32, I present myself as having 4 years of experience, I make six figures. When they ask me what I did in my twenties, I tell them I worked in construction.

Your resume isn't your permanent record. It's a marketing initiative. You should feel free to treat it as such.

> Raytheon

...

What's wrong with working for Raytheon?

I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Other people do. What that problem is depends. Sometimes it's a stereotype that I'm going to be inflexible, steeped in backwards methodologies, and the type who is going to show up to a startup interview in a suit and tie with a stack of professionally-printed resumes. Sometimes, as I mentioned before, it is the view that my experience is too "government" and that I won't "get" their customers or lines of business. Sometimes it is simply objections to me wanting to work on "death machines". My current work isn't much better, since I am still working on government contracts.

I've dropped the first 10 years of my career so I could fit my resume onto a single page. Nobody even asks or cares. No employer even reads your resume past the first half of the first page.

Now that I think about it, it's good practice for anybody to just put the last few years on a resume. Unless you are actually selling yourself as someone with 14 years in X, with an expectation of commensurate salary and responsibilities, it's noise and should just be left off. Noise on a resume is unforgivable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com