Hacker News Reader

Comment by stcredzero | Hacker News Reader

To call this a bubble, one must first describe what one means by a bubble...Please, I beg of you, if you're going to jump and down and yell "bubble" at least add something to the conversation or back it up with something.

Is there something broken about the hiring market? 37signals might be closer to that than Google.

View on HN

The only recruiting mail I get aggressively is from startups and Google. That's it. I hear all the time that there is a significant talent shortage, but part of me wonders whether that's a combination of people that don't want to work at Google for whatever reason and developers with families that don't want to bet on a startup.

My colleagues in big iron, however, are much choosier about who they hire.

Up here in Seattle the glut of open tech/programmer positions are at Amazon. I don't know if it's growth or their "bar raiser" policy slowing down their hiring.

I imagine AWS is one big firefight, and it probably outpaced their retail business long ago. That's from outside observation, mind, and it's a guess (but an educated one).

They might be hiring at a normal rate but unable to keep up with operational demand -- which is a real pickle of a spot to be in -- or you're right, they're too choosy. I sincerely doubt there's a shortage of folks to work on Amazon and AWS.

Probably a combination of people who don't want to work for Google, developers with families that don't want to bet, and developers who don't want to/can't live in SF (or Austin, or NYC, or...)

To understand Google recruitment, you need to understand the incentives. They want lots of people to apply, fewer to interview, and very few hires. Effectively, they are very choosy but each step of the filtering process is incentivized for high volume on the input and low volume on the pass rate. So, you get a lot of people 'recruited' that don't get job offers.

Many startups also lament 'we only end up hiring 1 out of N people we interview..' Which makes the recruiters even more desperate to get candidates willing to go through the interview process.

Now, my personal experience (and that of my friends) is that the interview:offer rate is pretty even, which suggests that some unwanted people go on LOTS of interviews...

Then the Google hiring process is probably biased to false negatives. So applying at Google is somewhat like a scratch-off lottery, unless you have something going for you that makes you stand out.

This makes me think that networking by "doing stuff with people" is a much more effective strategy, especially if you think there's something about your CV which could be a red flagged in a system biased to false negatives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com