Hacker News Reader

Comment by dirktheman | Hacker News Reader

Well written piece that shows what to me is the SV recruiting paradox: there is a massive demand for programmers, yet companies make it really, really hard to get a job. It's easier to start your own company without the interview hassle and condescending attitude of some HR managers.

I might be out on a limb here, but it seems it's almost easier to raise money for your startup than to get a job. Of course it gets a lot easier once you have established a network of people so you can bypass the whole recruitment process.

View on HN

>> yet companies make it really, really hard to get a job.

It is much better to filter out some perfectly good candidates than accidentally hire the wrong candidate.

The wrong hire can be very disruptive, and in some cases fatal for a company. Firing the wrong hire is very, very hard.

>> but it seems it's almost easier to raise money for your startup than to get a job

Raising money is like interviewing for three jobs at once: CEO, CFO, and CTO.

[EDIT] removed some platitudes and fixed fatal.

Someone who recites platitudes instead of evidence and can't spell "fatal" wouldn't get a job at any company I run ;-). Rejected.

Hiring the wrong person is potentially dangerous for your business, there's no denying that. However, the tendency today is the demand for hiring 'rockstar' programmers for essentially pretty mundane jobs. This poses two problems: an artificial shortage of qualified programmers, and if you manage to find one, you hire an overqualified programmer who is likely to get bored and unmotivated within a couple of weeks.

> you manage to find one, you hire an overqualified programmer who is likely to get bored and unmotivated within a couple of weeks.

Or, to keep themselves interested, end up over-engineering even simple bits, making their work a nightmare to maintain.

> It is much better to filter out some perfectly good candidates than accidentally hire the wrong candidate.

If the companies OP cites were operating under that principle, they should be able to say Hire or No Hire after the last interview. Waiting over 1 month to decide won't make the candidate improve; the only reason to do so is to look for a better candidate, or hire OP if no better candidate is found, but in that case they aren't exactly using the principle above.

Oh come one firing people is easy both in the UK and USA.

The USA is at will and in the UK the first two years are effectively at will.

>> Oh come one firing people is easy

In California, to avoid litigation lawyers get involved, the whole process gets documented, orchestrated, and some kind of separation agreement is negotiated.

But mostly it's emotionally very hard and very stressful. The decision is not taken lightly.

It definitely isn't easier to raise money than to get a job. People just expect it to be nigh-impossible to raise money, and that everybody deserves a job, because that's how it used to be.

Also, there is a massive demand for code that works, but most people seem aware that just hiring whatever the cat drags in seems not to result in code that works, so they make these barriers.

I honestly have no idea whether said barriers do a good job, and it seems like basically nobody is trying to measure it. You'd have to record the outcomes for hires and no-hires, i.e. admitting that you wish you never hired someone, or that you wish you had because they went on to invent sliced bread, and that requires testicles of carbon fiber.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com