* Severance pay. We will pay 14 weeks of severance for all departing employees, and more for those with longer tenure. That is, those departing will be paid until at least February 21st 2023.
* Bonus. We will pay our 2022 annual bonus for all departing employees, regardless of their departure date. (It will be prorated for people hired in 2022.)
* PTO. We’ll pay for all unused PTO time (including in regions where that’s not legally required).
* Healthcare. We’ll pay the cash equivalent of 6 months of existing healthcare premiums or healthcare continuation.
* RSU vesting. We’ll accelerate everyone who has already reached their one-year vesting cliff to the February 2023 vesting date (or longer, depending on departure date). For those who haven’t reached their vesting cliffs, we'll waive the cliff.
While layoffs in general suck, the terms of this one are quite substantially better than many other companies.
I applied for around 30, interviewed with 5, got 2 offers accepted 1. I canceled 2 interviews and got only 1 rejection (they said I was too senior for the role even though it was a senior developer role).
The process is kind of random. I aced all the coding tests but ultimately I ended up accepting the offer from the only company which did not make me do a coding test.
IMO, the smartest engineers can identify talent without relying on the outcome of a coding test. Coding tests are shallow and misleading; they don't evaluate the skills that really count.
I just want to state the obvious, interviewing is a different skill than developing. You get better at interviewing with practice and the more interviews you do, the better you get.
Also, you got to be confident and toughen up before your interviews, because even if some would be interesting, constructive done in a pleasant way by nice people, many will be nasty. I got through many interviews were there were several people acting like machine guns, spitting dozens of sometimes silly questions just trying to catch me with a mistake.
Boy, how much I would wanted to switch roles a bit and show them that is not a constructive way to lead an interview.
Interviewing is a skill, but luck is obviously a huge factor. My current job for a relatively mediocre salary at a smaller startup took a year and a half to find.
I have 6 years of experience and it took two months of active recruiting(since July) for me for Senior/upper Regular positions in non-faang companies. I ended up getting a pretty decent but boring project in a small company that pays really well. I applied to dozens of companies, had actual response from maybe a third of them, more than half of those offered heavily under-market salaries or ghosted me. Ended up with ~5 actual tech interviews, with three offers. Only one of them was actually interesting but they tried to undercut what I wanted by 20% after two months long recruitment process which I found disrespectful, especially since they knew what I asked for since the beginning. Chose the 'stable boring thing' in the end. So it's not that much different with 5-10 years of experience, sadly.
You think there’s a difference between 10 years and 15 years? Get better at interviewing. The years of experience you put on your resume isn’t what’s losing you the job. “Too senior but willing to work for just senior rates” certainly isn’t it.
Something else that tends to change around the 10 year mark is that if you prefer to continue your career with IC roles then the people interviewing and making hiring decisions will often be younger and less experienced than you. Obviously at good employers that makes no difference but ageism is certainly a factor in this industry. It's not the years of experience that are losing those jobs, it's just the years.
Are you trying to interview for principal eng positions? Imo it’s hard to do except for some super early stage enterprises no matter the market conditions
imo the meaning of "principal engineer" is wildly different between companies anyway. That means something if you're in a FAANG shop but if it's some place nobody's ever heard of it's just needed because all the midlevels already have senior titles.
Recruiters are always willing to waste your time especially since their job is to provide their employers options, and besides they need their pay as well. If they aren't recruiting, then they aren't justifying their own salaries. So while you might be getting interview or connection requests, that doesn't correlate to actual hiring.
He's referring to third-party recruiters, who could use your resume (or information about who you've recently applied with, which they'll usually ask) to find potential clients. Doesn't make a lot of sense if we're talking Google or Amazon recruiters.
we will hire backfills to replace employees who move on to new opportunities, and there are some targeted places where we will continue to hire people incrementally
I am not a native English speaker. Here I used funny as a synonim for strange, which is probably a mistake due to me extracting most of my English knowledge from Hollywood films.
For a moment I thought you outed yourself as German, because a sentence like: “Komisch, ich hatte ein Interview mit ihnen letzte Woche.” works just fine. But we German’s have no sense of humor so I’ve heard. Also an explanation.
Yeah, did the google interview late this summer and then they froze hiring. Got contacted by a recruiter from google last month. Told him I had already interviewed. He told me I should just wait until the freeze is over and not interview again.
to be fair, I'm pretty sure Google was doing interviews even when things were completely frozen. I applied in May, did interviews in June/july, passed HC in July and was frozen out for months and months. Sounds like things are just starting to open back up.
The economy is anything but strong. Housing skyrocketed across 20/21/22 in particular, and now coming back down with a thump, combined with big cost of living hikes things are looking grim for your average salaried worker (especially if they have a big/recent mortgage, there's some negative equity love to be had). The only thing that might save us this summer from a very dark outlook is finally the tourists are coming back.. so that might soften the landing.
Job prospect wise: Devs are (and have been) enjoying a very strong market, but I think (personally) we're going to see some challenging times ahead once the retail reality of Christmas flows through. The banks had been on hiring binges (hey just like US tech co's) and they're going to wind off just as quickly as they wound on.
So come, but eyes wide open if you do. If you've got a sh*tload of money to bring with you, can get over the cost of living, there's probably some deals to be had in a year or two...
Oh man, I remember people were almost panic buying houses because it just kept going up. I briefly looked around but gave up after finding that some shitty cottage in Island Bay was selling for 800k.
At the time, almost every conversation at work kept devolving into property (oh and crypto lol) which was annoying. And what was even more annoying were people who bought that were _convinced_ that they had got a good deal, lecturing me I should buy as well.
I ended up leaving the country for better pay, lower housing cost and good amount of savings to last me a while . I hope in 2 or so years when we go back, the prices are more reasonable.
Anybody who takes a mortgage on the edge of their affordability and combines it with 1-2 years fixation is plain stupid and lacks primary school math skills, no other way around this simple fact (there is of course almost always the factor of greed but only very simple people let it run unchecked).
As much as I don't wish anything bad to anybody, stupid people being bitten back by their stupid decisions is very low on the sympathy list for anybody, compared to say civilians being shelled at their homes because vladimir woke up pissed off this morning.
Given how strict banks are, I’d be surprised if many people were in this position. A colleagues had their spend on coffee criticised by a bank, then they live well within their means.
I have a lot of sympathy for first home buyers as the market is tough. However if you bought and assumed that rates would stay at 2.5% and you can afford to pay more, I haven’t a ton of sympathy.
The historic average over 10 years is approximately 6.5%.
As a Kiwi who left NZ, I strongly suggest looking elsewhere. Wages are just terrible for an OECD nation and unlikely to improve any time soon. This is exacerbated by system issues to cost of living. Everything from food to housing will shock you. I could go on at length about other issues, but I would recommend Australia LONG before NZ.
Thanks I was actually considering NZ as the next destination. I do think though that this is currently the case pretty much everywhere you go. In Singapore for instance the flats that were rented last year are currently 40% higher.
+50% higher wages for the same role. Many more career opportunities. The nation is not only richer, but has a much more dynamic business culture and four times the population as New Zealand. Lower cost of living. Far better amenities and infrastructure in the cities. Lower cost of housing relative to wages. Nicer/friendlier culture. If you're single, Australia has BEAUTIFUL women compared to NZ. Australia FAAAAR better weather. A bit too hot for me in summer but NZ winters are grey, cold, wet, and miserable. Housing stock in NZ is utter shit. I'm talking cold wind blowing up through the floorboards with 100% humidity inside. I lived in many homes in NZ before leaving and in every single one I would wage up with wet windows, blankets, bedding, etc., and only spending astronomically on heating would resolve it. NZ has really terrible rates of childhood respiratory illnesses for an OECD nation for this reason.
Public transport is SO SHIT. You'll be driving everywhere. If you end up in Auckland (which you probably will), prepare for a two hour commute each way unless you live in the city. I'm not joking. Unfortunately, you don't want to live in Auckland city because it's dirty, lacks amenities, is stupid expensive for the terrible apartments, and is actually really dangerous now. The Labour government has spent five years trying to reduce the prison population, and people are rarely given prison terms anymore. People are getting regularly assaulted now and perpetrators are being sent through a "restorative justice" procedure designed to keep them out of prison. In practise this means sending a letter to their victim and doing a few hours of community service.
The health system is juuust about to collapse. I don't mean that in the modern colloquial sense. I mean thousands and thousands of staff are missing from critical positions all over the country. People are dying now. If you go to the hospital for assistance, unless you're actively dying, you could be sitting in the waiting room for days before some intern hurriedly gives you a painkiller and sends you home. NZ had a funding freeze for all healthcare workers during covid. Why? God knows. Similar issues exist in the fire service. There was one day when only four emergency line operators were on the phones for the whole country of five million people.
This one you might find controversial, depending on your politics. The current Labour government is ALL IN on racial politics. New Zealand has something called the "Treaty of Waitangi." A document signed between some Maori tribes and England a couple hundred years ago. Property disputes are still happening. The government occasionally gives these tribes billions of dollars in reparation. This might be okay, but they're getting really aggressive more recently. At the moment they're trying to pass something called the "3 Waters" bill where they give half the governing rights to drinking water in most major population hubs to a small group of Maori tribes. Permanently give away control based on race. This is in addition to them setting up a separate health system based on race. I have a colleague in government in New Zealand who has to use Maori words in official communications now, in addition to saying Maori prayers each morning, and regular mandatory Maori "cultural knowledge" training. As you might expect, they are taught that science is a "racist white construct, and traditional Maori knowledge is just as valid." So now the government pays millions of dollars when building roads to consult local Maori taniwha (spirit monster) hunters. Just to ensure that the taniwha are happy.
I could go on and on and on. I'm glad I left. I strongly urge you not to go unless you are independently wealthy and love the outdoors. NZ outdoors is really nice.
I guess this turned into more of a rant. Something like 800k Kiwis live in Australia. There is a very good reason for this.
I left NZ to go to Australia. Hated those 5 years living in Sydney. Sydney is one of the worst places I’ve been. If the choice is anywhere in NZ and Sydney I would pick NZ hands down.
Singapore on the other hand. Best 10 years ever.
Edit: the rest of Australia is nice. Especially people in Brisbane. My comments and negativity is to Sydney which is a horrrible place to live and work.
I knew the end was coming so I started early but yeah, unemployed. It’s tougher to find senior IC positions but they are definitely out there. I love where I landed and we are hiring aggressively across all experience levels so DM me if you’re looking and don’t mind a node backend.
Most recently Clojure work. I’ve done a lot of Java of course, although I’ve been rejected from some of those jobs because I spent the last year doing Clojure full time instead of Java.
Heh, I actually interviewed with Reify during my last job search (where I ended up taking the job I was eventually laid off from). They weren't interested back then :/
They weren't interested as they might have had a better candidate. That is typically the reason. It is not about you not passing a metaphorical "bar" at least that is the case for senior positions.
I have been recruiting quite a lot and at the end of the cycle you go through making difficult choices. Often times you get 2 good candidates and only one spot. So you compare them and pick a better one. The dismissed candidate can be picked next year due to lack of better candidates.
Unless it has been clearly stated in the reply that you seemed to be below their expectation of a senior candidate. And even then... a lot can change over the year and if you feel like you are better you have every right to reapply. Most companies will inform you of reapply policy terms if your are outside of it.
Any company that rejects your 15 years of Java and other language experience because you spent the last year working in a Clojure shop is probably not a good company to work for. And not worthy of you. Think of it as your filter.
Specific language expertise rarely matters. I intentionally avoid discussing specific technologies used to achieve results/goals/services unless it's highly relevant (e.g. creating a RESTful web service etc.)
It's good to have your technologies listed, and be honest if your doing something out of your comfort zone... but there really isn't a technology out there that can't be picked up in 1-3 months.
+1 to this. Especially at the 16-years-experience level. Maybe earlier in someone's career where their primary focus is how to fit in and ship stuff without getting stuck all the time. But at ~staff level, your thinking and your contributions become a lot more language-agnostic (not entirely, but mostly)
I would not say that clojure/haskell/elixir can be picked up in 1-3 months in most environments. I do agree that you should highlight broader engineering experience and keep langs/techs as merely a proof of some competence in those.
If the job mentions the technology and most clojure/haskell/elixir dev jobs do then well unless they state "looking for experienced person willing to learn" in description I would not bother them. (at least with my complete lack of experience in tech). Similarly as I would not apply to "weird-tech-i-merely-heard consultant". Also think there should be consistency on the job titles/descriptions on the side of job posters.
My company (AppsFlyer) does a ton of Clojure work, and I think they'd love to talk (though most of our R&D is in Israel). Doesn't look like they have an open position in the US listed, but I'll send this message to some of our senior Clojure people and see whether they want to talk more with you.
wtf is happening in software? it seems tough to break in, and apparently it gets tough after ten years? so there's a ten year gap where the 'going is good'?
When I started my career 10y ago, even then it was understood that after getting in, you've got 10-15y to go before you start running out of desirability. Search "why aren't there any 20y+ devs", it's not a new phenomenon.
Something happens, idk what, after 10-15y. Either people made so much money that they retired, or they all become managers, or idk?
Personally I'm still doing fine but I can see the 15y horizon coming, and I'm glad I saved money like a madman. I've got options, hope you plan as such.
Almost no company does hard enough work, they don't need very experienced people - and they tend to charge more.
10 years of CRUD APIs is as productive as 20 or 30 years of CRUD APIs.
If anything, the older you get the higher the chance you won't know the latest BS kids are using these days.
I'm at 15 years, I keep specialising in different things (leadership, people management, mentoring, backend, frontend, infra, performance, crypto) but I'm just running out of things and the best paying companies (remote only) still want the same 3 skills.
My dad is doing pretty much what I'm doing with a 30 years advantage and getting jobs is harder and harder.
It does get boring, but my passive income from products is still not matching my ever growing daily rate. I guess at some point I'll stop being able to raise my daily rate, my passive income will catch up and I'll drop consulting entirely.
You use inexperienced and/or cheap programmers to build the foundation of your company. Then you bring in experienced folks to keep the barely-functional ball of mud shambling along for the next 10 years.
Startups really need senior people only to hit the ground running; only established companies with seniors can afford to hire juniors.
The thing is after a certain level of seniority, there is really not that much difference so you may just as well focus with someone with 10 years experience who charges a bit less, compared to a 15y dragon.
Yes, but it started roughly 10 years ago. It wasn't hard to break in and being older didn't matter. Now we have a massive glut of CS/IT graduates and a maturing industry exiting the rapid growth phase. On top of that we have a market and economy being propped up by 2 trillion in reverse repos.
It's a pyramid, so it gets harder because there are fewer roles to pick from that feels worthwhile, and you also need to overcome a fear from employers that you're too experienced and will get bored and leave.
I'm at 27 years experience, and my problem is not finding positions that I could get (with some finessing about how I want to stay hands on and/or love their specific company), but finding places that have sufficiently senior roles at the kind of salaries I expect. Most smaller companies don't need someone as experienced as me and/or can't afford me, and I don't really want to work at a FAANG or similar (had one big corporate experience and don't particularly need another) unless something truly exceptional is on offer.
Here's a tip to those looking:
If you struggle, look for roles that look undervalued and/or are slightly below your level, and apply anyway. Be honest about what you expect as long as you're not overvaluing yourself relative to your experience. Recruiters are often fine with putting forward a few expensive candidates if they look good enough. Especially external recruiters whose pay is usually at least partially linked to the salary you're hired at, but also because a spread helps give hiring managers an idea of the tradeoffs they're facing.
Undervalued roles (roles advertised with too low salary for what they're looking for) tend to attract fewer applications, so you're both more likely to get a shot and negotiating salary up beyond the stated level is usually possible. Applying to roles slightly below your level makes it easier to get past the first level recruiter filter because they like to give a range and for lower level roles they're less likely to have applicants to push on the upper end.
Shift your target down until you get the interviews. Then work on getting offers. Then work on lifting the offers to the level you need.
It's usually far more important to get past the recruiter than it is to get a perfect match with the role because a lot of companies have a lot of flexibility in what they're actually looking for. Especially for more senior roles the hiring manager will also often have reasonable influence and ability to get the budget lifted for a candidate that stands out.
E.g. in my current job search, my currently most promising prospect is a role where I told the recruiter I would not consider offers lower than 20% above the high end of their advertised range because I thought the advertised range was too low for the years of experience they wanted. And they wanted someone with less experience than me. She put me forward anyway, and on the back of seeing my CV they came back and wanted to interview me for a more senior role that has not been advertised, and where I'm currently the only candidate. I may or may not end up there, but to me that's a pretty normal experience when approaching companies about roles which fit those criteria.
If you want recommendations on what to avoid, an 8 page resume that starts out by listing your high school summer job in the 1960's is the best anti-example I've seen.
I was taught to leave the month off your start and end dates of previous positions when applying for a job. Still don’t know if this is a good idea or not, but at the very least it opens up another dialog tree with potential employers. Seems to have worked fine for me, but who knows. The rationale was “it’s less information to parse”. Might be just a superstition.
Interviewers always ask for more specifics anyways, which is good because you can use that as an opportunity to jump into things you accomplished near the end of a job, or at the beginning of another.
For most software positions, I’d omit the dates for school, and just note the institution and the degree you obtained. Unless it’s your first job or you’re still working on your degree. You can use dates as filler, but after 1 or 2 positions, in my experience (as an interviewer and interviewee) it tends to be better to sacrifice such details so you can elaborate more on work experience and projects, whilst keeping the resumé a single page. Or put the year on the same line as the school and degree, if you care.
Only APAC companies have asked though, haven’t really bothered with European companies
If you have a CS degree it doesn’t matter what the gap is there to where your years of job experience begins, assuming degree is before experience starts
I don't take these events personally, it's strictly business after all, esp when the termination agreement is generous enough, and conduct is kept professional and decent between the employer and employees.
It's like a breakup but on very amicable terms, it sucks at first esp when it's abrupt but you get used to it, and there's always the chance of you getting back together.
If the company shows generosity during the separation, going beyond what was expected, I would certainly consider going back. If they only do the minimal required or less, probably not.
Sure, depending on the circumstances. Had a friend just start back at a company in a different city after leaving for a couple years. He left mainly because of a bad manager the first time. That wasn't being laid off, but it's similar.
Sometimes companies need to do layoffs to survive, or they merged and have duplicate roles. Lots of reasons. It makes sense to take care of good talent that have to be let go in case they come back later.
Depends on how much I liked the job and if there was any hope of being paid what I'm paying now.
I can think of three jobs I would happily go back to if they paid what I get paid now (and the companies still existed). One game dev company, one game publisher, and one retail job, where I mostly chatted with other employees, stocked and cleaned up shelves, and helped about a 1-2 dozen customers a night.
My current job I might be willing to come back to at some point if I left it. It has some warts, but it's been pretty good overall.
Other past jobs, not unless they paid 50-100% more than I'm making now. Nothing against them necessarily, but I wouldn't want to have that job again.
In a big company with thousands of employees, for sure. You probably won't even see the same faces. It's totally impersonal. In a smaller company, it's different. I actually left a (small) company in very good terms, but yet, I feel it would be weird going back there.
It happens in other industries all the time. Knew a guy who got laid off from the same factory 3 times in 8 years or so. I've even seen it happen once or twice in tech.
Hey, at the big tech companies plenty of people get laid off and then just transfer to a new role at a different team instead of actually leaving the company.
Depends. If they handle it well and offer a generous package when you're laid off, then it's a positive signal that you'll be treated fairly and that they genuinely didn't want to have to let you go. In that case I might consider it.
Companies that come crawling back on their knees to you are usually ready to substantially up your comp. or improve your work duties, considering the position they must be in to be trying it.
I've known people to be laid off from one position, apply for a different position at the same company the next day, and end up hired into that position. It can happen.
I feel most decent engineers can get rehired elsewhere with 14 weeks of runway. I do agree this is generous af.
Most companies just give out minimum severance. No acceleration of vesting. Healthcare continues for maybe 1-2 months. I know at my current company, I will lose all PTO.
They are also saying that departments are affected disproportionately. It's likely much harder for recruiters to find a new job, especially when hiring is being frozen at most companies
> I feel most decent engineers can get rehired elsewhere with 14 weeks of runway.
Oh, sweet summer children and children of recession free economies for IT.
If job openings fall to 10-20-30% of current ones and tens, hundreds of thousands of IT workers are fired, good luck getting hired quickly, when any of the few good remaining job opening has hundreds of good applicants.
We'll be back to the days of:
Sure, you can code, your algorithms are efficient and your CV is impressive, but can you tell me how many overloads of string.contains are there in the Foo lang standard library? Ah, you say that's unfair? Well, the previous 10 candidates where just as good as you so we need more. We need you to hit the ground running, be productive the first week and be coaching our experienced devs within the first month.
You're right, and this is in the guidelines. Swipes like these (even if they feel jovial by the writers) sap credibility from posts and civility from the threads.
Sure. If there wasn't already a sprawl from this, I'd have kept quiet. But like, the "summer child" thing really is super annoying, and the parent commenter is mostly right, if off-topic.
I'm only here because we're all here. But summer child seems like the most prosaic insult possible, if one can even call it that, and it serves as a sort of useful shorthand. With a certainty approaching 99%, I think there is something better to be annoyed at.
I don't think it's super insulting or anything, it's just a condescending swipe. When you take a condescending swipe, you set a ceiling on the tone for everything that follows.
It's a new expression to me (in regular use, I had heard it before but not often) but it also works fine. I disagree that we need to get rid of it just because it's old fashioned.
It's a very apt phrase. Young people whose only experience of professional life has been in the "summer", e.g. the good times, and have no conception of what it's like to find employment in the proverbial winter.
ZIRP has created an entire generation with absolutely no clue about the very existence of, let alone the harshness of, cycles.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Edit out swipes.
I doubt it. It’s a direct reference to the book. To be a sweet summer child in the book is to be naive about the winter that is eventually coming, since you’re too young to have ever lived through a winter before, and therefore have no idea or conception or experience of what the real world is actually like. For those who don’t know, summers and winters are exceptionally long in the fantasy world of Westeros, and if you were born at the beginning of summer, you could reach the age of 10 before ever knowing a winter.
Thanks for the correction. I’m from California and never heard it before. Do you think the author of GOT was paying homage to the Southern usage for a reason?
Also the trick is, if they want you to live anywhere with a median home price > $360k, then it's a bad deal. A $120K job better be full time remote and have fantastic work life balance.
Borrowing with 0% equity is also often considered a bad idea. If you assume 25% initial equity, you can go 1:4 salary:cheapest available housing.
If you intend to buy a family home, chances are there are two people sharing the burden. If you make $120k and the partner $60, you could borrow $540k, for a total home price of $720k if you have 25% starting equity.
That opens up quite a lot of options.
Personally, though, in the current market, I wouldn't borrow that much. It's quite possible that the biggest housing crash in several generations is just around the corner, and interest rates may very well be 15% within 5 years.
Man, it feels like interest rates SHOULD get to 15% in the next year, but I don't think Powell has the guts to grind the stock and real estate markets into dust the way he's supposed to
For now, he seems committed to raising rates until inflation normalizes. I don't think he's very worried about stock and real estate markets. But at some point, there will be effects in the real economy, and unemployment will start to rise.
Hopefully, inflation will go down at around 5% unemployment. But if he has to continue tightening until unemployment hits 6, 8 or 10%, I suspect he will will be forced to eventuall pivot, even if he doesn't want to.
In that case I'm in need of a significant salary increase... Over here, in a high priced region of Germany, house prices tend to be some at 10x of yearly salaries, which is totally fine.
Tell me your ways. I wouldn’t mind working in government. Bonus that I’m a veteran (states) but now I’m 40 and still new to software ( 3 years experience self taught )
Governments are serviced by a long chain of middle man businesses, and at the end of the chain is usually a group of highly paid developers with high job security maintaining legacy applications.
In 40+ years in the industry, I've only been unwillingly unemployed for about a month, when the startup I was at imploded (frankly, much to everyone's relief).
Doesn't mean it won't get really bad, or that you'll be happy with what you find.
Your first job would have been at the tail end of the dot com bust. That was a fairly tough time to start. By 04-05 tech was back and has been ever since. Tech didn’t see layoffs, like we are seeing now, in 2008.
I would anticipate it's less that people won't find jobs and more that they'll get worse ones that they wouldn't have accepted before... but then again if you were already in the lower rung you're now competing with ex-FAANG guys
I think that scenario is increasingly unlikely. Unlike the past two downturns, there are vastly more mature companies with devs essential to their business models.
> Software engineers are needed all over the place and thus are often easily employable.
Needed as in must have or nice to have?
There are tons of devs creating tons of tech for the sake of creating tech. Cryptocurrencies come to mind, or all those half baked government automation projects where the digital version is in the end slower and more error prone (plus with limited or no recourse in case of failure).
And secondly, sure, they are, but what happens when you have 10 million devs and 8 million dev jobs? Past success is not a guarantee of future performance. Detroit and the car company cities and towns were amazing places to live in, and car engineer jobs were great, decades ago. Until they stopped being great.
> Sure, you can code, your algorithms are efficient and your CV is impressive, but...
it sucks and is unfair, and I might suffer from that myself, but isn't this the very essence of capitalism? if I'm ridiculously good and there are 10 more people who are also ridiculously good, it's going to come down to nitpicking, because we all compete in a market for this same req.
Calm down. Demand is super strong, even right now. It's almost impossible to get a decent software engineer who has a strong command of the English language and can articulate himself.
Most developers hitting the market with CVs are bootcamp generated and they don't have the slightest idea (and neither the interest) of what they are doing. They'll disappear as soon as the money does.
Unless you have a family and live in the Bay Area, you should always be able to move to a low cost of living and wait for the recession. It'd cost much less than $30k/year to spend a year in Kuala Lumpur with all your food delivered.
Note that for some people being laid off and not quickly finding a job can mean being kicked back to whatever possibly authoritarian country they came from.
A 5000+ person company I have consulted for is hopelessly unable to find anyone who has advanced Python ecosystem experience for less than $200k. There's lots of boring companies that pay competitive-ish salaries ($140-180k), but most people gravitate to the shiny big companies that look good on a resume.
The funny thing, it's a +5000 persons company. If this Software Developer is instrumental for the company, you'd think he'd be worth $40/employee. So there are developers, just companies not willing to pay them enough (even though we established that it's not really that high).
I was mentioning small companies in my previous post (think 4-6 devs and maybe a dozen other employees). $100k/yerar can sometimes make it or break it. Tech developers remain inaccessible for these companies making them disadvantaged in this market.
This might explain the crazy seed rounds the eco-system has been going through in the last few years. $3 million seems be the bare minimum for any startup looking to do something technical now.
To back this up: I'm an unemployed Python dev in the U.S. with a credible resume and GitHub profile, actively looking for something remote. $140k would be absolutely fine, no interest in FAANG or shiny companies, in fact for various reasons I've been looking primarily at smaller places. I'm not really worried yet and I've had some luck, but it's definitely not the case that anyone skilled can count on just walking into a job. I've been rejected out of hand where I met the essentials of the posting and had no doubt I could do the job.
I'd like to hear the aforementioned spiel about the "advanced Python ecosystem," which to me could mean anything between "knows what a virtual environment is" and "ML/TensorFlow expert."
At risk of ruining a great spiel, I’d assume it boils down to “it’s amazingly foolhardy to target the candidate pool of people who have already done what you’re trying to do, when there’s a much larger pool of people who haven’t already done that thing but are readily capable of doing it”.
Tech skills and domain knowledge are transferable and learnable. So if you’re targeting hires, maybe aim for people who excel in non-transferable skills and then just teach them (or pay them to learn) the domain skills.
There’s also the side benefit that if you hire a person and ask them to repeat something they’ve done before, you still need to figure out a growth path for them. But if you hire a person and ask them to do a new-to-them thing, you have the bones of a growth path baked in.
Do you mean being able to follow the tutorial at https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/tutorials/packaging-p...? I've never needed to do that before but it seems pretty straightforward. So far I haven't seen anyone specifically request that skill in a job posting and I'd consider that a strange question to ask in a skills test for a general developer position.
What does “advanced Python ecosystem experience” mean? Are we talking someone who contributes to the packaging tools themselves or just a competent release manager?
Are they insisting on full-time in-person with in a high cost of living area? (Or a dress code?)
Do they have a policy preventing employees from working on open source software?
Do they have a reputation for requiring things like mandatory overtime or off-hours availability?
I have trouble believing this is true unless they’re answering yes to at least a couple of those questions. If they aren’t, have they considered changing how they’re looking? It wouldn’t be the first time bad leads are due to a recruiter who just isn’t the right person for the job.
Sure if you are a FAANG, hot startup with funding or offering $300k/year. But if you are a regular company with a normal budget, you are left with nothing.
And I understand this is the market. I'm just pointing is that it's not as near bad as the previous poster has claimed.
Does the ordinary company need professional Leetcode player that FAANGs are looking for? Or does it need someone who is about average on web development and willing to work for about average salary? Not every guy should aspire to date a supermodel and not every company should cargo-cult FAANG interview process.
Fair enough. You should be fine if you are doing regular REST/React stuff. But if you want to work on something like WASM, Rust, fine tuning Web Sockets over GraphQL, etc... then suddenly, you need an "above average" developer.
I can not understand how your comment relates to the parent in any meaningful way. The tech hiring boom that occurred with Covid was certainly one contributor to over-staffing.
The parent is simply stating that market conditions are changing and that it might not necessarily a given that it will be so easy to find something new if we continue to see layoffs. That all seems pretty logical. However your response seem to be two links that are now a year out of date and a bizarre statement to "Stop believing the bullshit you're being fed"?
Unlimited PTO sucks for employees. It isn't the case in every state but some states, including mine, require employers to pay out PTO upon separation. So having unlimited automatically means you get paid out nothing on separation, a bad deal for employees. If you're allowed to take time off, then you have earned it but because of the policy, you don't get to realize the benefit of having earned it upon separation.
Unlimited PTO also discourages using PTO because nobody wants to be seen as the person taking the most vacation. And there are therefore no useful guidelines about how much is reasonable or allowed. A written or de facto company policy of "if you take more than 2 weeks of PTO per year, you'll be seen as abusing the system" is not unlimited PTO, it's an excuse to not pay people.
> Unlimited PTO also discourages using PTO because nobody wants to be seen as the person taking the most vacation.
That depends on the management. I took more vacation at Netflix than anywhere else (where we had unlimited PTO). But the management made a point of talking about their extended vacations and making sure all the VPs took at least a few weeks of vacation every year to set a good example.
I don't recall anyone taking 2 months at a time, other than mothers who just gave birth (who usually took 3-6 months). That being said, in the US, even companies with generous vacation policies generally don't let you earn two months, much less take it. Usually the best you can do is accrue 1.5 times your annual earning, and most places rarely give more than four weeks.
I have actually received performance review notes at my current and former job (both with unlimited PTO) for not taking enough PTO...
But in both cases, the CEOs actively encouraged PTO. At my current job, people take PTO regularly (several people at my department have taken roughly 3-4 months of PTO over the course of the past 12 months, and were promoted). What matters isn't time-in-seat, but whether tasks get done.
They actually have difficulty hiring people though because it wasn't a great place to work under the previous CEO a few years ago, so the Glass Door score is pretty low, and it's been slowing edging up over time. But it's gotten to the point where about half of the people who leave for greener pastures end up coming back within 6 months.
"Unlimited PTO also discourages using PTO because nobody wants to be seen as the person taking the most vacation"
This fallacy needs to die. When I was at GE everyone in my blast radius took at least 1 month per year. Many took much more than that. There was no stigma.
It's not a fallacy. It's true, and obviously true.
It may not be true everywhere, but every company I've worked in that had "unlimited" PTO had far fewer vacation days taken than companies with a limited allocation of days.
