lscore720

Yeah, that sounds similar to our experience. We saw a fairly steady uptick in the difficulty of recruiting engineers between '11 and early '15, then a significant shift around early/mid last year. We've been able to recruit about half the number of qualified candidates compared to the previous few years. I'm interested to hear how others have fared.

Recruiter here. You raise a good point: I think this takes the need for compensation transparency to an extreme.

However, I strongly support this concept overall. Often, I see the offer letter essentially presented as a formality once the basics are agreed upon. The candidate has completed the interview process, decided his/her non-financial interests in the opportunity, and received that "personal" positive reinforcement from the hiring manager & team. At this point: sure, the offer letter can include a personalized message to start, but ultimately it's for the candidate to review the hard facts: compensation, benefits, disclosures, etc.

I applaud this, but I'm cynical and think it would require an overhaul of the entire system regarding compensation transparency. The status quo offer letter simply benefits the company, and it's hard to justify changing course when only a tiny minority of companies are following suit. If this trend took off, then the threat of a competitive disadvantage come offer time would be a worthwhile motivator. I hope it happens someday.

DHH's perspective addresses some of your question:

https://medium.com/@christophelimpalair/why-the-founder-of-r...

Depending on the situation, directly reaching out to the actual decision maker is far more effective.

Every applicant is bombarding the recruiters with resumes, and it can sometimes be a black hole. If you directly send a message to the CTO/VP/Director of Engineering, introducing yourself, briefly describing why the company appeals to you and how your skills line up, you're far more likely to get noticed. Yeah, it's bold, but you know what they say :)

Leave it open by saying you're interested in an informational chat just to learn more about the company and his job.

He gets that you're basically applying, given your background; but this softer approach communicates "I'm also interested in you and your company" versus "I didn't hear from the recruiter, here's my application."

This will set you apart and, worst case, he says no. But you may have a new networking contact for the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong: a revolution could not actually happen, right? The militarization of law enforcement and advanced weaponry of our government would prevent the people from rising up. I find this discouraging, because I do see this as a last resort if inequality continues at this rate.

I'm a tech recruiter that lived in Vegas for 6 months in 2012. Downtown was a bizarre, tiny pocket of tech startup angst that was struggling to establish an identity. There was ONE main coffee shop where seemingly everyone was pitching investors, ONE main apartment building that housed all of the Zappos frat boy engineers, and ONE main hipster bar appealing to this element (not including the little hip spot where you could "always" spot Tony grabbing a drink). There was this feeling of limitless potential, but little actual practical work happening to sustain downtown for the long-term.

Interesting to hear the latest there, but figured I would add my two cents too!

You have expectations that HR cannot meet, unfortunately. As an outside recruiter, I try to eliminate all layers between the candidate and hiring manager (AKA the individual who will acknowledge and apprectiate your github work!). I'm sorry that's discouraging and frustrating, because it's unfair, but it will require more work on your part.

Hi All. I love HN and want to share - sorry in advance for my obnoxious opinions, but just sharing my thoughts on corporate dronism & the glorification of long hours.

First, I already addressed the main salary point in my original post. I don't need to respond to every random who wants to poke holes. I will address a couple issues you brought up in your reply. Just like I don't presume I know more about software engineering than my candidates, I trust you'll defer to someone who knows recruiting.

--I've yet to see 'reverse headhunting' where you submit your resume to a recruiter and they then go out to find the best possible position for you.

Yeah, this exists - they're "agents" for software engineers (for example). But it's rare and not sustainable.

---In the long term your loyalty has to lie with your repeat customer, the corporation that hires you. Since you are not going to get any repeat business from the individuals that you've placed (unless you're willing to risk that long term relationship, but there are plenty of other recruiters that will be more than happy to play the game again).

You forgot one thing: reputation. If you do best by your client AND candidate, then your candidate sends your referrals, eventually comes to you when he/she becomes a hiring manager, etc.

---I don't particularly care about what you call it, to me it felt more like interacting with a class of buzz-word wielding vultures trying to make money from placing people based on an extremely limited understanding of what makes the tech world tick.

I've heard this before, usually from less level-headed software engineers. Like I said, sales is a different business - we do different things than you guys. I have repeatedly watched as techies have tried and failed to transition into recruiting. There is an extremely low correlation between tech savvy & recruiting success. Recruiting is a people business.

The underlying theme here, again, is that you're lumping every recruiter into your personal bad experiences - like I already said, some are good. That's not a valid approach in this situation.

Do you have something valid to contribute? I'm all ears.

Awesome, thank you very much for sharing!

Interesting response. Loathe recuiters? Let's take it easy on the echo chamber cliche here. Yeah, lots of bad apples out there, but ask any reasonable professional: a good recruiter is extremely valuable.

You did forget that there are 2 types of recruiters: agency (outside) and corporate (inside).

I, the agency recruiter, do not want to "dislodge" the candidate for the minimum amount required. Not because my fee will be higher with a greater salary, but because I'm actually incentivized to do what is best for both the employer & employee. This is called sales. When you do good by all parties to the transaction, it pays dividends long-term.

So, no, we're not trying to "snag" them. I appreciate your paranoia, as you're not alone; many people dealing with bad recruiters probably need to vent.

But for the most part, your perception of the recruiting industry is different from the reality.

I was addressing the bluff question. Further down in the comments, I address your point - note: I mostly agree with you.

Recruiter here. Good question. In the majority of cases, I would say your approach would be just as effective. However, I prefer asking because:

1) It's about gaining intelligence - not in a nefarious way. If enough candidates at the right experience level are giving me a range of $90K - $100K and the client still won't budge beyond looking at candidates in the $60K - $80K range, I can eventually come back to them and say "Listen: of the last 10 candidates you liked, their salaries were..." A smart, reasonable client will make adjustments.

2) In rare cases: a "rockstar" candidate may be able to get 10% more than the budgeted amount, for example. So I would hate to send you that $80K tops message if there were potential for a perfect match. Then suddenly you're no longer interested and we missed a grand opportunity.

Again, I agree with you for the most part. But ultimately, the recruiter figures: 99% of candidates give their salary number or a tight range, upfront, without issue, so there's no harm in asking for reasons 1 and 2.

Legally obligated, wow, never heard that one before! Good answer. When I'm talking to a reasonable candidate, that's all I need at the end of the day: an expectation $ range.

Recruiter here. Some may not like this answer, but: honesty is the best policy. Bluffing, or LYING, could backfire - especially if things escalate and they eventually learn about this.

It's bullshit, especially for those who began their careers during a time of salary deflation.

However, the right employer will NOT base your future salary solely on your current. It should simply be one data point in the process - your value as an employee should be based on a multitude of factors. This isn't pie in the sky; many of my clients do have a compensation system for employees and end up paying fairly.

Recruiting expert here! First off, a company "walking" without your salary information is a failure on their part, and their loss! However, to answer your question - I find the salary question to be a great indicator on many levels, here a few:

It's just one data point in determining whether you're a qualified candidate

1) Why would I waste the candidate or the client/employer's time if there's too large a gap between candidate's salary & their highest potential for this role? The company has a budget, candidate have a minimum; let's get this out of the way - it would be terrible if the interview process went swimmingly only to find that the candidate wouldn't budge under $125K and client wouldn't exceed $100K.

2. Finally: it's not a huge deal if candidate prefers NOT to provide salary; sure, it makes you feel a little uncomfortable. If that's the case: no worries, but then I do ask that the candidate gives me a 10% range for their current salary & expectations. Again, employer just wants to know that we're potentially on the same page before wasting time.

3. Literally 95% of my software engineering candidates have no qualms about sharing their salary. The other 4% will at least give me a small range. These candidates that challenge this minor issue end up being more trouble than they're worth in other ways too; it's a red flag. (next stop: "no, I'm not taking a coding test").

Again, there are ways around REQUIRING the salary #. It should not result in a candidate or employer walking. Oof!

You should definitely diversify your job search, as most HN jobs are not geared towards junior developers. Generally-speaking, young start-ups' first hires will need to have at least a few years of real world engineering experience.

Don't worry about interviewing yet, sounds like you're doing OK on that front - really, just get your resume to other companies because being too picky may backfire.

Hopefully you're feeling better after this venting session. Now, take a breather, step back, and look at career options.

It could be a win-win. The sad reality of finding your "ideal" career is process of elimination: you will run into horrible jobs, but that'll at least get you closer to finding that one that will provide satisfaction.

One of two things will happen. 1) You'll find a new, more satisfying career route, or 2) you'll discover that you have not yet examined every potential possibility within software development, and there are still options. This second one may sound horrible, but you never know - the grass is often greener!

Worst case, you're currently in one of the BEST (employment rate, compensation, prestige) careers ever. So it could be worse. Not to downplay it, but perspective never hurts :)

Yes, but I waited until retirement. Sent my former boss - the cruelist piece of scum I've ever had the pleasure to work with, the experience scarred me at the time - a friendly note saying I'm done working at 31, thanks and no thanks to the lessons taught under his incompetence. It felt great, but I do wish I could have been a bigger person and never sent it. He's already failed in his career since then, and my message was petty & unnecessary.

My philosophy is that a good person never burns bridges, it's irrational. But sometimes it happens.

Good question. I actually just shared a blog post the other day on this topic/my recent experience: http://www.thebradlazarus.com/a-good-friday-for-giving/

No mean to brag, but I retired at 31; under 5 years in sales, working from home. My remote productivity level far exceeded my prior experience in an office.

Not entirely relevant, but want to offer a different perspective on the topic. As a recruiter, I also used to try out different pricing strategies. It's tough and the winner has continually been contingency (only pay if you hire my candidate). So there are multiple forms of "value-based" pricing and the sky's really the limit in certain forms.

I think this is useful for learning how to defend against those trying to influence you. As one of the top salespeople in my field, I can confidently say this tactic is not a necessity.

All you wanted to know = briefest introduction ever.

I really appreciate the estimate & link! I'm curious: how would you compare elance and other freelance sites to Toptal?

You really do raise an interesting question, and no, you're not the only one frustrated with the recruiting status quo! And whether you're the best of the best, or just somewhere in the top 90%, there's probably an employer out there and an appropriate recruiter to match you isn't asking too much. It's the incentives inherent to the recruiting profession. To drastically improve it would require a massive overhaul and is improbable (like drastically improving literally any sales profession).

In the meantime, it's the little things that count and can eventually cause positive change. A couple quick examples come to mind:

1. Recruiting start-ups/show HN ideas: a few successful ones are adding efficiencies, which is indirectly great for people like you. Because the successful recruiter/hiring manager/etc. can devote that extra time to making their little changes towards improving the system. Still, it's not hitting the real pain point.

2. HN posters like you, who remind hiring professionals, that there's yet another frustrated customer - you sound like a reasonable, capable person that a recruiter would be fortunate to work with; this especially lights a fire under people's asses, so thank you!

My theory is that it'll require a serious effort by industry experts with zero expectation of financial return. It's going to have to be about the purpose, not the money, for the very (very) long-term. I shudder imagining the hardcore YC community response to this "non-profit"-esque prospect, but I don't know how else to solve it :-/

For the most part, you are absolutely right and it's a shame - a damn shame! It's the system, and while broken in many ways, is essentially all there is right now. With that being said, recruiter-employer relationships are not all the same; fortunately, the rare very good recruiter is capable of navigating some of these problems faced by average recruiters, minimizing the negatives.

Possibly, feel free to e-mail me: [redacted]. Take care!

Got it. It's an extremely difficult market, so I'm curious as to how you'll break in. How will you gain traction? what's your value proposition to candidates & companies, versus the big name and niche sites crowding the space?