4 ms·
I think the problem is that initial training for developers usually drains significant developer resources. For example, the best onboarding is typically done b
by 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 agoThat'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.