While the company isn't as competitive in salaries compared to some other shops in the Bay Area, it is extremely competitive in all other facets including supreme work-life balance, and yet even that hasn't been enough in itself.
While the company isn't as competitive in salaries compared to some other shops in the Bay Area, it is extremely competitive in all other facets including supreme work-life balance, and yet even that hasn't been enough in itself.
So if you're so desperate for engineers, why not hire remotely outside North America, the most competitive market in the world for engineers? I realize it's much more comfortable having everyone in the same timezone, but sure it's preferable to hiring nobody? Also you can probably pay 30% less and still get great engineers.
Of course, it might also be simple racism. Otherwise I do admit to having difficulty explaining why I, as an American engineer, can make >$100k/yr even when working from outside the US while others make a fraction of that.
Whether one particular employer can find workers at some arbitrary rate is not the same as whether there's a shortage, especially if that employer's rate is not in fact competitive.
If having trouble hiring while paying less than others indicates a seeker's market, what would an employer's market look like?
If it really was an employer's market, I wouldn't be getting up to 10 emails/messages/phone calls/tweets/etc. a day from recruiters trying to entice me to leave, even floating compensation up to $400k as inducement to action. I have walked away from exorbitant offers myself. Some of my friends/acquaintances in the industry also have shared similar experiences - the desperation of employers is obvious & almost ubiquitous, and you don't see that sort of desperation on employers' parts in an employer-sided market. You see them leaning in with aggressive tactics to accept what is given, which you see with some candidates that they deem weaker, but not with anyone half decent because the time & money cost of attracting people is significant.
Very few companies can claim to offer it all, but for the rest, they have to strategize as to what type of potential employees do they want to attract. Most cannot compete with the likes of those big companies mentioned prior because they have some negative that those don't have - for example, while the financial industry is known for sometimes paying very well, it also has a negative stigma to a not insignificant portion of engineers, as well as a reputation for poor work-life balance. Government work often comes with good work-life balance and is often well-regarded, but the reputation is also a two-edged sword (i.e. NSA being famed for their use of mathematicians, but also facing blowback after their overreach was revealed), pay isn't as competitive, and the level of bureaucracy is legendary in some cases. Startups/small companies offer a huge amount of responsibility & impact, but also offer varying levels of work-life balance (most are terrible, but some can be phenomenal) & lower compensation than one can often get in the open market with all industries considered. A company can try to pay more to attract the very top quality engineers, but in software at least, it can get very expensive & comes with a massive cost for a business, especially when competing against the very top revenue generating machines. Therefore, if a company isn't at that level, it needs to compete on other areas - it doesn't make sense to compete on the money realm, because that is a game that those big giants win at.
Being a pro-job seeker market is more than about cash. It's about negotiating power due to being able to easily find an opportunity they can weigh yours against if it doesn't satisfy the seeker.