Hacker News Reader

> if my resume has black balled me as a hiring risk

I think you're being a little paranoid. It's the market right now; everywhere is laying off or looking for ways to reduce headcount. This just isn't a good time. Despite that:

> After probably a few hundred applications (mostly SWE but some product) I've only received first interviews from maybe ten?

This has been my experience since internet applications became a thing. There's no incentive to curate active job postings by the people who post them, so many of these are duds.

> I've managed all of four interviews that have gone all the way to the final round - only for me to be passed over.

Nothing about you really stands out as problematic, but in my own opinion your heavy startup/crypto background makes you seem like someone only interested in money/getting rich quickly.

You might be a great candidate, but I'd fully expect you to check out if a better offer even looked in your direction. Given a choice between you and a more-conservative candidate, I'd pick them.

You're not fucked and there's nothing for you to change. It's a game of impressions. Just keep trying until you make the right one. That's difficult right now given economic conditions.

> I'm at a point where if I cant even get a basic SWE role I might just work at a Fedex store to pay rent

That'll be counterproductive.

If you get desperate, go find some office job through a temp agency. Downplay all your credentials and forget the crypto stuff. Avoid call center work, take literally anything else in an office, apply your skills to automating some nonsense, and you can possibly negotiate your way into something better. (Or not, but if you need to wait the economy out it's steadier work than retail if you need full-time hours.)

> Nothing about you really stands out as problematic, but in my own opinion your heavy startup/crypto background makes you seem like someone only interested in money/getting rich quickly.

> You might be a great candidate, but I'd fully expect you to check out if a better offer even looked in your direction. Given a choice between you and a more-conservative candidate, I'd pick them.

Something about this seems... off to me. Yes, many of us are in tech because it's our passion. But I can almost guarantee that at least most of us work for companies _for money_, because _we need money_. And when people talk about money, in general, they're wanting _more of it._ How out of touch with reality do we think people that hire staff are? Even more than that, how do we gauge what a more conservative candidate looks like? I don't exactly put in my resume or cover letters (when I bother to write one) "I like money." But I can tell you that I very much do. Actually, nothing quite makes you start liking money the same way that growing up poor does.

Anyway, this rant wasn't necessarily focused towards you, so much as that line of reasoning, which I've seen before. In particular, "I'd fully expect you to check out if a better offer even looked in your direction." If we're discussing similar (or better) workplace culture and benefits, an offer for more money will usually do this. There aren't too many engineers in tech that are providing a company value out of the kindness of their hearts, they want a pay check, the bigger the better.

How much extra money would you need to leave your job and go to another one, with similar culture/benefits/other considerations? Most people wouldn't go for 1%. Many people wouldn't go for 15%. You have to take into consideration things such as the risk of moving to an unknown situation, the intangible benefit of your work place reputation where you currently are, the value of how your experience will look on your resume, etc. If given the choice between two candidates, the one that I suspect will leave for a 1% raise and the one that will need 15%, I'll hire the 15%.

Then there's the fact that some people have a perception that those in crypto/startups value promises of future money very highly. You wouldn't hire someone that you think will leave for a bit of equity the next time a hype wave hits tech.

Speaking in percentages in this context is generally not super useful, in my opinion. For example, 15% on top of a $200k/yr salary is a pretty decent increase if we're talking about a similar role/set of responsibilities, and seemingly similar culture/benefits. That's almost an extra $800 take-home per paycheck. Assuming a semi-monthly payroll cycle. I just bought a new induction stove and oven for $900, that pay increase would have almost covered it by itself in 2ish weeks. We're talking about a lifestyle change with that bump.

15% on top of a $80k/yr salary on the other hand is a pretty measly $350 extra per paycheck. I wouldn't give up my current workplace culture for that, no.

> If given the choice between two candidates, the one that I suspect will leave for a 1% raise and the one that will need 15%, I'll hire the 15%.

I guess I want to know what magic intuition this hiring manager possesses to gauge what dollar amount a person they just met would be willing to walk away for, though, where they are sure the other person would surely walk for a 1% bump.

I work for a startup today, and can tell you that I've certainly considered looking to FAANG positions for a higher salary. I don't know how much other people pay attention to the performance of IPOs lately, but equity is not as nice as cash in hand right now. And I don't know how much people here pay attention to crypto news beyond the headlines, but DevOps/SW Engineers that work for failed crypto startups don't typically get the same dissolution payouts that the CEO/founder did. I believe using either background as a signal for a person's level of greed is hugely misleading.

I like money too, but I also like other things. I have a bias towards staying at a company because of the non-monetary value of knowing other employees and knowing the work, and because I prefer stable steady money to a (slightly) greater amount of riskier new job money. There's a number where I'll leave, but I won't jump ship over e.g. a $5k difference unless I already want to quit for other reasons.

I don't think it's wrong to have a preference for employees like me when hiring. Churn has a cost and employees with a history of churn inflict that cost more often.

> Yes, many of us are in tech because it's our passion. But I can almost guarantee that at least most of us work for companies _for money_, because _we need money_. And when people talk about money, in general, they're wanting _more of it._

I don't disagree, but I'm just being practical. The hiring process sucks. I appreciate not being made to do it more often than necessary.

Further, reqs are not guaranteed. Suppose I have an open req now and hire you. You ditch us three months later. Now there's a risk that I'll have to renegotiate for that req-- and may not get it again if another team makes a better pitch. Or, you shake me down for more money than we agreed to retain you-- your loyalty is clearly for sale; even paying you again doesn't guarantee your commitment, and it makes me look like a goddamn idiot when you leave anyway shortly after that. Not worth the risk!

I'd rather give the spot to someone who'll stick around for a minimal level of commitment, stick to the negotiated terms and won't waste my time with drama. I'm hiring you to make less work for myself. If your insatiable pursuit of money is going to create more work for me, our interests do not align from the start.

> Or, you shake me down for more money than we agreed to retain you-- your loyalty is clearly for sale

Who doesn't have a dollar amount that they're willing to walk away from a job for? I've been personal friends with many of my old managers; not one of them didn't understand when I left for a role for a significant pay increase. One of them was even joking with me one day about the talk he had with his manager on what they would have to do to retain me, and his answer was, "they offered him $50k more than we pay him, we won't be retaining him." And most of them were talking to me about their next role's pay bump at one point or another too. And let's say I was working for you, and out of the blue a friend from a previous job is hiring for their team and offers me a similar position for $50k more per year than you're paying me, I'm not going to not take it out of some sense of loyalty. In the words of the wise, "there's always a price and everything is for sale." The products your company offers is generally for sale for as much as is economically feasible, the same way your engineers are selling you their time.

Anyway, your overall point is that as a hiring manager you don't want to stake your time and reputation on people that seem disloyal. My point is both that people are inherently disloyal with their employers (in that their loyalty costs money), and that the signals you use to judge loyalty are, in my opinion, flawed. I can go into why I'm of that opinion, but it's my lesser of the two opinions.

> your loyalty is clearly for sale

Employees aren't feudal servants who are subject to their masters, they are suppliers from whom you are purchasing labor. Obviously that labor is for sale, otherwise you wouldn't be able to buy it in the first place. Sure, you'd like to be treated as a monoposony purchaser, rather than an option in a marketplace, but equally obviously any supplier of labor would be foolish to treat you that way.

Suppose you hired him. Three month later your CEO decided to please shareholders and announce lay offs. But laid off people were loyal. Is their loyalty for sale? Worth nothing?

Is loyalty actually a tale to tell to your employee to keep them in while suppressing pay rise?

Most people will move jobs at a certain point for more money. Some people will move jobs every six months if it means getting more money, though, and no-one wants to hire someone who'll only stay six months.

Thanks, I'm mostly confused when I don't even make it to the intro stage with a recruiter. This is why I'm paranoid that hiring managers see something structurally wrong with my work history.

"but in my own opinion your heavy startup/crypto background makes you seem like someone only interested in money/getting rich quickly."

I wouldn't say that necessarily but I do hate Crypto (to me, its all a get rich quick scam) and anyone who predominantly chose to work in that field will not get my attention. Having said that, one of my best employees loved crypto so there is that.

Thanks for your thoughts - I might do uber or pick up a medical delivery route to supplement my income to make sure I don't burn too much of my emergency fund.

If it was your resume you wouldn't be getting interviews.

Right, but my conversion rate for interviews v applications is less than 8%

Hiring has slowed down. Quite a few people are reporting job hunts with statistics similar to yours who don’t have a particular reasons to think they blew up their career.

Thanks - I've had other friends who seem to have fared better and I'm basically terrified of having more than a few months of being unemployed on my resume.

If you really don’t want to have a gap on your CV, one easy fix could be to leave out the months and only write the years.

I got laid off mid covid and didn’t have a job for 8 months. I took a decent(25%) pay cut but was able to get a rope again and my careers been stable since, including getting a job for more total comp than my pre covid role

Thanks for your positive encouragement - I'm hoping to land something in January this has just been a tough time for me mentally.

yeah. the SWE stats sound pretty normal for now. I have heard from friends that product is even worse.

I do wonder a bit whether OP is a little too wishy washy around position in interviews (e.g. coming off as not being sure whether he/she wants to be an engineer vs. product manager). the post even comes off that way a little

This is something I've worried about - when I apply to eng jobs I change my TPM role (which still had me coding quite a bit) to "product engineer". Which is accurate and my prev boss would back this.

Without seeing your resume, it is difficult to answer your question. For me, all the crypto stuff on a resume would be a flag. Maybe not a red flag, but pink or orange. I know it is a personal opinion, but the entire crypto industry is tainted in my eyes.

So what should he do then? Better to give advice.

He ought to search and replace crypto with fintech startup in his resume.

I have crypto on my resume, from a company that only ever took money from professional investors. What I did was a typical devops role, so I don't see why it would be a flag. I worked with typical AWS services and Kubernetes. Wrote some in house software as well. Yes it served a crypto product, but it could have been any sector really.

Not who you’re replying to but I have similar views and hire engineers.

One crypto position probably wouldn’t raise eyebrows like having Mindgeek on your resume wouldn’t, but having multiple crypto roles probably would imo. Not that OP has indicated they have multiple crypto roles unless I’m parsing their post incorrectly.

And as to why, it’s an industry full of scams and a lot of wishful thinking that I wouldn’t think would help actually build out a stable business. You might have worked at only the “good ones” but given how modern hiring works with regards to hundreds of applications, I probably wouldn’t spend the effort to check the quality of those firms.

There is a difference between working for 1 company that did crypto vs choosing to work for multiple companies that are in crypto and talking about it aggressively on your Resume. For example, whenever I see "Web3, Blockchain, Crypto Enthusiast", I pass. It shows me poor judgement in my opinion of course.

Maybe OP could tell they were in prison instead? Might work.

I have always seen Crypto as a red flag. Initially, there was just a suspicion, but then I ended up meeting with some Crypto people in real life, and corresponding with recruiters in the Crypto space. And if I was on the hiring department, Crypto on a resume would get a hard-pass from me. It filters out people with a mentality that I do not like to be around.

You're not an employer, so your opinion is irrelevant.

sounds just as bad as racism

Why? You can't choose how you will be identified by people as being of some race.

While you can make choices about what kind of work you think is ethical or worthwhile.

It is immoral to judge a candidate by the first but not immoral to judge by the latter.

You can't choose how you will be identified by people as being of some race, gender, religion, political beliefs... which all constitute illegal discrimination for employment in some countries (France is an example where it's illegal to discriminate on political opinion, or in our case, supposed opinion I shall say).

A hard pass on crypto means passing on people who

- wanted to bank the poor

- wanted freedom

- wanted self sovereign identity

- wanted border-less transfers for their family abroad

etc... Many people want to do good with crypto.

Questions: is it immoral to be in it only for the money at a carbon sequestration startup? How do you tell, from a resume? What if this startup is just greenwashing bs in the end? What if the money is to help his grand parents in the Philippines?

I think there's no clear cut way to judge the morality of someone from their resume: not from their skin color, nor from their previous work places. And I think it's unethical to judge people on what you presume of their own morality.

To paint an accurate picture, an hard pass on crypto would mean:

- wanted to bank the poor, with crypto.

- wanted freedom, with crypto.

- wanted self sovereign identity, with crypto.

- wanted border-less transfers for their family abroad, with crypto.

They could have chosen any of those areas without, but they chose to do it with crypto. There is a clear choice for them to do that, as well a very reasonable option for an employer to choose an employee "who wanted freedom, with XXX" over an employee who "wanted freedom, with ZZZ (crypto)". This does not equate to racism (neither is it unethical imo), regardless whether the employer chose to exclude based on perceived morality of their crypto choice.

I'm 41, haven't had a normal full-time job in my adult life (unless you count 5 years of grad school), and I will go seriously looking for work in a couple months!

I have no evidence for the following outlook, but I'm depending on it: if you're educated, if you're skilled, if you're a motivated learner, and if you have a good attitude, then you're not unhireable. Rather, you're in a rather enviable, privileged position relative to society at large.

Maybe you won't find your dream job immediately, but my guess is you'll be fine in the big picture.

Well, you clearly don't know how hiring works. If your resume looks off you're not getting anywhere. No matter how motivated.

Isn't this a self-fulfilling prophecy? Giving up can't end in success.

Thanks for asking the question. A few thoughts:

1. The fact that you made it in-house and to final rounds means your resume was "fine" for those roles. The resume is what gets you the first phone screen, from then on they are interested enough.

2. Interviewing is a numbers game and the market is harder right now. There are likely a ton of people applying to the same roles so even an "average" candidate is going to get bounced a lot. These rejects don't mean you're terrible.

3. At the same time, the flip of #2 is that you need your resume to stand out. And frankly, the mindset matters here because it comes out in your words. If I had to put a headline on you, it would be something like "versatile developer with a product mindset, experienced from FAANG to multiple startups." That's the positive spin I can put on what I read from you above. But your actual post drips with self-... doubt? A bit of loathing maybe? So I wouldn't be surprised if you're massively under-selling yourself in your resume and interviews.

4. For your crypto jobs if you want to down-play it, then focus those blurbs on the tech stack and your vague contribution (eg "launched initial MVP to X thousands of customers for $Y revenue" without dwelling on what the product actually did.)

I hope these are helpful. Have someone with a lot of hiring experience review your LinkedIn and resume with a critical eye and listen to their feedback.

I'm mostly confused because I made it to a final round for technical product roles at DeepGram and Bilt but I seem to get passed over for almost any other "entry" product or software eng roles.

The market slowed down quite a bit. Hopefully you have savings to weather the storm. My linkedin spam has died down quite a bit. I would get 2-3 good hits every few months and interview.

Just keep sending out your resume. You survived Amazon interview and actually worked there so you should be hirable.

I was the first hire of a major bitcoin casino as my last main gig, but I don't think it's had any impact.

I'm having a pretty bad time landing interviews. I'm not trying too hard yet, but it's pretty disheartening to get rejected for jobs with a listing that matches exactly what I was doing at my previous job.

"Thanks for applying but we've moved on to other candidates!" on a job similar to what I just spent 6 years doing really makes me feel like an imposter. Is everyone else applying to this job an ex-FAANG SWE but me?

I'm sure it's mostly due to the super competitive market (I haven't looked for a job in 10 years). But I also realize I have no big names on my resume. And as big as the bitcoin casino might be, it doesn't seem to have helped me. I fear that maybe it's just not seen as a particularly legitimate job, and might even seem sketchy or corny.

Sometimes I wonder if the gig is up and I should just work at Costco for the season. I've only applied to 15 carefully selected jobs though. I would not be in a good mental state if I applied to 100+ like you have, jeez. I should start trying harder if that's what it's gonna take.

Maybe we should set up a Discord for some group support.

Hey so first off, this is semi-unrelated but could we connect? I've been curious about the gaming/gambling industry for a very long time and would love to pick your brain on it.

I totally agree on the Discord support group as I'm in the same position as op and yourself.

https://discord.gg/6udgskZCAF

I'd love to join to help out in the support group, but Discord decided a while ago that something about my e-mail, phone number, browser, or IP is something they don't like and instabans me 10 seconds after signup. The most nafarious thing I did was deleting my account a while back. Go figure.

It's mostly the market. Even people that "did all the right things" as far as "career" goes are having an exceptionally hard time getting hired.

If there is one thing I would suggest is polishing your interviewing skills and technicak skills. After that keep building to stay sharp. The market is not going to recover in a few weeks so having a plan for what you're going to do before now and when yu land a new gig.

>Basically I had around a year at Amazon

Assuming you were in an engineering role there and not stacking crates in the warehouse, no, you're not unhireable.

Absolutely anybody is employable in software. This deeply buried comment was still upvoted 20 times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37966978

All you have to do is pass an interview. Now by far the greatest challenge to attaining software employment is surviving resume death in order to make it to an interview. This has taught me a few things about hiring this year:

* Get out of software. Ideally this means get into management but can also mean sliding into something else laterally like project management.

* Or, be happy being a permanent beginner with elevated titles to compensate for years of service with no innovation, initiative, or real technical growth because all you do is chase trends and use tools.

* If you want to stand out don’t be awesome. Things like superior competence are great for becoming an entrepreneur but not for employment. Just be smart enough and experienced enough to talk through an interview. If you do want to stand out AND be employable then have something other developers don’t have like a security clearance and/or professional certifications.

Couple notes

1. I'm not convinced that 20 upvotes on a hacker news thread is indicative of trends in the industry at large

2. As an amateur pilot who just got their PPL, it's also a rather unsubstantiated take.

Most pilots do not understand how their planes work at a fundamental level (it's an entirely separate discipline known as aeronautics). They understand how to operate the plane, how to respond to real world situations, etc. but one could just as easily claim that's essentially analogous to a software engineer understanding how to perform basic debugging on frameworks such as React, Angular, etc.

Sounds like you're having a typical experience in the current market. I just went through this being an early employee at a startup for the past three years and us suddenly meeting the end of our runway. It took a few months to land a new SWE role. Keep up the hunt. I would stay involved with your startup as long as possible if you're worried about a gap on your resume.

Thanks, obviously things have slowed down now because it's just Nov / Dec which is historically always a slow time of year for hiring. I'm just starting to lose hope because I started fielding my resume about four months ago - only a few bites so far and my emergency funds are running low. Feels shameful to have to dip into my savings.

Joining the chorus of "it's just like that now."

Unhireable is literally not getting any interviews. I have a friend with no degree, self taught and changed jobs four times in five years. Got laid off in march and hasn't had a single interview since then. That's what that looks like.

Granted, I've applied a few hundred places and only got maybe 6 interviews.

>I've managed all of four interviews that have gone all the way to the final round

I stay away from companies that have super complex hiring practices. It's like they want someone, but they have to be perfect (whatever that happens to mean at the time). In the dating world, most of those people end up single.

We do a 30 minute initial screen call with one of our guys, then a team call for about an hour if it's going well, 30 minutes if it's not. We then get together and talk about the candidate, strengths, weaknesses, yae or nae. We'll interview for about a month or two then decide. If it's someone we really like we might jump on it early.

If you are just interviewing with pure SV tech companies, maybe venture out into other industries.

I have to say - my most bizarre interview experience was a round 2 "culture fit" interview at Coreweave.

The guy interviewing was way too nice to the point it was weird and the whole interview was him asking about my "best traits" and breaking them down to "get to know me".

Nothing you've said so far sounds unhireable to me, but nothing sticks out as impressive or unique either. In a tough job market, I'd expect there to be plenty of great candidates out there, and this might not make the cut of being any better than them.

Thanks, other than working somewhere longer I'm curious how I could stand out from other candidates?

Hey! I'm in the same boat.

I was linked to this post because I just posted something similar (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38168753).

If you end up having to scrap the other startup, want to help me solve this crisis? I know I'm not alone here. I've heard it from others.

To be frank, these new startups claiming to be solving the engineer hiring problem and all these recruitment agencies aren't designed to solve the problem for you or I... They're designed to get as many hires as possible at our expense. They're quantity, not quality.

Maybe we can come up with something together. :-)

Sure thing, do you have an email in your prof here on HN?

I basically trust recruiters less than realtors at this point...

I don’t know in which part of the world you live, but have you tried to use your professional network ? You may have an old coworker who liked you and could hire you or recommend you.

Not unhireable, but you are probably going to have to find an employer where the fit is good both ways. It may frustrate finding something else, but when you do it will be good.

BUT I am going to ask as a rhetorical question, why isn't your startup making money? I can tell you why mine isn't, I made a product only one customer wants. Which isn't really a product. Maybe a pivot or two...

If it was _just_ people not wanting to hire job-hoppers, then you wouldn't have gotten the interviews in the first place; if your work history makes you unhireable for a company, they're not going to bother interviewing you, because interviewing you is very expensive.

Is returning to Amazon an option? They seem to be hiring at least to some extent right now.

> I took a solid opportunity to work as a technical product manager for a year at a quickly growing crypto project with real utility (I know.. I know..) and largely had a great experience until they ran out of money.

That sounds odd to me. The whole premise of crypto is that you dont need traditional money issued by oppressive goverments.

I have noticed there are certain job titles that will pigeonhole you… if you’re going for a development position then never put anything QA or TPM on the résumé. Ie make sure the resume is tailored to the job.

If you are U.S. based, yes. The long term consequences of not regulating tech are now resulting in the workers thrown to the side as the investors become richer. Move to the EU if you want a job.

If you think US is tanking wait until you see how much worse off the EU is

No, you're fine. It's the market probably. Keep grinding

Definitely not 'unhireable'.

http://www.resumeraiders.com

Ask HN: Am I unhireable?