4 ms·

Interesting product, but possibly more telling about how much developer inventory in being brought into the market, often with significant debt attached, that i

Interesting product, but possibly more telling about how much developer inventory in being brought into the market, often with significant debt attached, that is struggling to find work. I'm a bit nervous due to remembering friends that went from developer jobs to working at a grocery store during the dotcom crash. Hopefully the industry will continue to grow, because especially boot camp degrees are not very transferrable to other professions.

mooreds 8y ago
Yes, it seems there is a lot of talent left out in the cold. It does seem to be an issue of supply and demand, but the market I am in is starving for senior developers, but swimming in entry level developers. (Good juniors with 1-2 years of experience are hard to find too, but not as hard as senior talent.) I suspect there will be another winnowing of software development jobs. However, we aren't back at the dot com days when it felt like there was so much demand that hiring standards fell. If anything it feels like hiring standards (match all of these technologies and your experience must have been at scale) are higher than they have been in the past. (Could just be an artifact of the jobs I have applied to in the past vs recently.)
- ben_jones 8y ago
  I think the problem is that initial training for developers usually drains significant developer resources. For example, the best onboarding is typically done by well qualified developers who then devote significant time ~20-30% to the new hire. That's effectively taking 20-30% of a senior developer's salary and giving it to the entry-level developer. IMO it is an investment that pays off but it is still a large investment that may be difficult to swallow for start-ups and small/medium sized companies who cant absorb $XXX,XXX into the abyss.
  - mooreds 8y ago
    That's a good point. The question is, is the return from training up someone worth it? Do they spend more time at the company than someone hired in with more experience? Do they get the company more in income than they cost in training? The cost is in the near future and fixed, whereas the benefit is in the future. Which is why a company can't answer those questions, and often goes with the safe route and tries to poach or hire a senior person (which, honestly, is just a junior person who has made mistakes and learned on someone else's dime). However that has its own risks because it's not like interviews are cost free. I just think there's a tremendous market flaw that someone is going to take advantage of by finding talented entry level folks and hiring them for less and then making money somehow. That or eventually entry level folks will leave the profession of software development.
- donkeyd 8y ago
  > we aren't back at the dot com days when it felt like there was so much demand that hiring standards fell Well... I think that completely depends on the market you're in. I was pretty much forced to hire inexperienced developers because we had hard deadlines, lack of devs and a lack of available, good developers. Of course this, really messed with the quality and long term maintainability, but the investors mostly ignored that part.

mooreds 8y ago

Yes, it seems there is a lot of talent left out in the cold. It does seem to be an issue of supply and demand, but the market I am in is starving for senior developers, but swimming in entry level developers. (Good juniors with 1-2 years of experience are hard to find too, but not as hard as senior talent.) I suspect there will be another winnowing of software development jobs. However, we aren't back at the dot com days when it felt like there was so much demand that hiring standards fell. If anything it feels like hiring standards (match all of these technologies and your experience must have been at scale) are higher than they have been in the past. (Could just be an artifact of the jobs I have applied to in the past vs recently.)

ben_jones 8y ago
I think the problem is that initial training for developers usually drains significant developer resources. For example, the best onboarding is typically done by well qualified developers who then devote significant time ~20-30% to the new hire. That's effectively taking 20-30% of a senior developer's salary and giving it to the entry-level developer. IMO it is an investment that pays off but it is still a large investment that may be difficult to swallow for start-ups and small/medium sized companies who cant absorb $XXX,XXX into the abyss.
- mooreds 8y ago
  That's a good point. The question is, is the return from training up someone worth it? Do they spend more time at the company than someone hired in with more experience? Do they get the company more in income than they cost in training? The cost is in the near future and fixed, whereas the benefit is in the future. Which is why a company can't answer those questions, and often goes with the safe route and tries to poach or hire a senior person (which, honestly, is just a junior person who has made mistakes and learned on someone else's dime). However that has its own risks because it's not like interviews are cost free. I just think there's a tremendous market flaw that someone is going to take advantage of by finding talented entry level folks and hiring them for less and then making money somehow. That or eventually entry level folks will leave the profession of software development.
donkeyd 8y ago
> we aren't back at the dot com days when it felt like there was so much demand that hiring standards fell Well... I think that completely depends on the market you're in. I was pretty much forced to hire inexperienced developers because we had hard deadlines, lack of devs and a lack of available, good developers. Of course this, really messed with the quality and long term maintainability, but the investors mostly ignored that part.