5 ms·

Do only those companies complain about a shortage of candidates? Because in the tech centers I know, the market is just empty. Lots of large companies are compe

Do only those companies complain about a shortage of candidates? Because in the tech centers I know, the market is just empty. Lots of large companies are competing for talent, and if you can't pay bank salaries, you're going to have a hard time. You make it sound like there's plenty of talent around but companies are being snobbish. That's not my experience at all in Germany.

geebee 6y ago
In San Francisco, there's plenty of tech talent available at 500k a year. There's remarkably little available at minimum wage, though. Complaining to congress that there is a shortage of IT talent is so common in American politics that it has become its own unique form of performance art. For instance, during the magic section of the act, companies make a labor shortage magically appear without any mention of wages, while also magically making the laws of supply and demand disappear.
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  “Shortage” is an economic term of art, so I won’t use it here. But it’s likely true that there is lot of valuable, economic-growth-producing work that could be profitable if a software engineer costs $100k/year instead of $500k/year. Businesses that lie on the margin of profitability are likely to feel that it’s hard to find good talent. Of course, it’s bad for us existing software engineers if the supply increases and the price goes down. It’s likely good for society overall though, if it enables a bunch of other businesses to exist. This is true in the same way that more trucks, more warehouses, and more conveyor belts would increase economic output, even if they were already available for the right price.
  - geebee 6y ago
    You just said that there's lots of valuable work that could be done, but your example of work that could be done is work isn't valuable enough to do unless software engineers get paid (in the SF Bay Area) notably less than a dental hygienist. I like having clean teeth. If someone can make more as a dental hygienist, why on earth would it be valuable to society if they instead worked as a software engineer for less money? If people won't work for 100k/yr as a software engineer, that means people capable of doing this work have found higher value things to do elsewhere. The higher salary elsewhere reflects the higher value produced doing something else. This is one of many reasons why I'm so bewildered when people talk about a "shortage" of software engineers without considering the options available in other fields (fields that, perhaps, pay better and don't require taking bizarro whiteboard exams every time you change jobs).
    - username90 6y ago
      I'd say there is a shortage of software engineers as long as most stem grads can easily raise their salary significantly by doing a few months at a coding bootcamp. That is still true, so there is a shortage of software engineers. I multiplied my salary that way, although I learned it on my own instead of a bootcamp but it is the same idea.
    - shajznnckfke 6y ago
      I didn’t say anything about the SF Bay Area.
  - UweSchmidt 6y ago
    That makes no sense. A voluntary pay reduction is like a subsidy leading to market distortion (more supply than the market can bear) and windfall gains (employers might just keep the extra profits) - only that this subsidy is coming from your and my paycheck lol. The idea is an employer-side argument to counter the labour-side demand for higher wages: Don't have the wages to high, otherwise we go bankrupt and can't employ you any longer. But programmers are already well employed, and software companies aren't really suffering. Cheaper programmers won't make website less bloated, won't make us figure out what to do with GPT-3, won't find a useful application for blockchains, won't make Windows 10 less moronic, won't make ad-tech less harmful, won't make the tech recruiters and the non-technical folk around software projects more competent...it would simply kill one of the few fields of employments that still pay well! Look at construction. Did cheap immigrant labour make rents feel low in many areas? No, market forces drive up prices and owners keep the profit.
    - shajznnckfke 6y ago
      I didn’t say anything about a voluntary reduction in pay. Any reduction in pay would be a result of market forces in response to increased supply. > Look at construction. Did cheap immigrant labour make rents feel low in many areas? No, market forces drive up prices and owners keep the profit. In areas that aren’t constrained by density limits, homes are actually very cheap. In terms of square footage of home per population, the US is doing great. Problems are with inequality, in terms of geography and wealth.
      - UweSchmidt 6y ago
        Market forces should have already brought in more people into software if they really are that high, bringing down the salaries. What other measure would you suggest? Importing supply from abroad? Whatever it is, it would lead to a reduction in pay, which you suprisingly support - that amounts to walking into your boss' office and asking for a pay reduction. > In areas that aren’t constrained by density limits, homes are actually very cheap. That's the point. The effect of cheap construction labor only affects the rent prices in some areas, in other areas owners pocket the extra profit - while making construction jobs largely untenable except for immigrants coming from poverty. I suspect something similar could play out in the software field.
- decafninja 6y ago
  Currently in NY making 150k with 10yoe at a non-tech company. Would jump ship in a heartbeat to SF for 300k, or 250k, or even 200k.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    This legendary meme that everyone in SF is making 300k and drives a Ferrari has taken on a life of its own, and now we even have people outside of the Bay Area believing and repeating it. This is an outlier compensation for senior people at outlier companies. Anyone would jump ship for it, but it's not like hundreds of companies are handing out these salaries at the airport when you land.
    - decafninja 6y ago
      Is it? Not sure about 300k, but 200k seems within the realm of realism. I've interviewed at a few Bay Area companies (I'd say they are "mid tier", not FAANG or top tier) and expected comp ranged around 200-250k. That said, I was actually surprised at the lack of expensive cars driven by SFBA techies. I interviewed at Netflix, which I know pays astoundingly well, and the parking lot had a distinct lack of luxury brand cars. The exception seemed to be Teslas - I did see a bunch of Model S's and X's (Model 3 had not come out yet at the time). Compare that to many East Coast suburban office campuses of non-tech companies that pay pretty poorly - you still see tons of mid to high end BMWs, Benzes, etc.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
All the more reason for candidates to not do the coding challenges. If you can't find candidates, don't add stupid ways to reject candidates.
gadders 6y ago
What you describe isn't a shortage. It's an unwillingness to pay the going rate for the talent they want to hire.
Viliam1234 6y ago
> Lots of large companies are competing for talent, and if you can't pay bank salaries, you're going to have a hard time. Sounds like Economics 101. The curves of supply and demand meet at some point. Some customers can't buy (enough of) the thing because the price at the intersection of the curves is too high for them. Yes, that's how free market works. There are things I can't buy, because they are too expensive for me. Or I could buy them, but I would have to sacrifice something else I need more. This is considered normal. When some company can't afford (people like) me, it's the same thing. They would like to have cheaper developers. Sure, who wouldn't? There are also things I would like to have cheaper. Same problem. Why am I not entitled to get things as cheaply as I want, but my potential employer would be? In my experience many companies prefer to whine about the shortage of talent, even if they could easily hire another person by increasing the offered salary by 50%. But they won't. Then they make millions of profit, which shows that the money was there, it was just their decision not to spend it on salaries. Okay, fair, it's their money, their decision. But if it's your decision, own it, don't pretend there wasn't an alternative. Make it known that you offer double of the market salary, and you will be surprised how many people are out there in the "empty market". At least I never heard about a company that offered lots of money and couldn't find a person for the job.
- luckylion 6y ago
  That's all well and good, but that's not the point I was trying to make. Companies aren't having a hard time finding talent because developers are so annoyed by coding interviews, they're having a hard time finding talent because they can't/don't want to pay high salaries. So developers go to work on finance and ad-tech, and not on normal, boring, only-making-three-times-the-national-average-salary stuff. And those companies then complain that they can't find developers. Because whether they have a coding challenge or not, they can't find developers because money.
  - duutfhhh 6y ago
    And those small companies would be able to compensate the difference in pay with "partner" status, i.e. making an employee an unfireable stakeholder that can live off profits by the time he or she turns say 45, but owners of said small companies are too greedy for that. I'd argue that opportunistic at-employement with 500k/year at Big4 is worse than guaranteed 250k/year that nobody, not even the company's owners can take from you.
Glyptodon 6y ago
In my experience the talent shortage is a giant myth - there are two thing going on: companies that can't hire or won't pay, and companies that can, but wish it were cheaper. Evey job I've applied or hired for either a) had lots of candidates with a very selective process, or b) telegraphed that you should avoid the company or didn't pay well enough (and often still got plenty of applicants who wanted their foot in the tech door despite not being capable). My current company would claim there's a shortage, but they actually don't know how to hire and telegraph that you probably don't want to work there in a variety of ways.

geebee 6y ago

In San Francisco, there's plenty of tech talent available at 500k a year. There's remarkably little available at minimum wage, though. Complaining to congress that there is a shortage of IT talent is so common in American politics that it has become its own unique form of performance art. For instance, during the magic section of the act, companies make a labor shortage magically appear without any mention of wages, while also magically making the laws of supply and demand disappear.

shajznnckfke 6y ago
“Shortage” is an economic term of art, so I won’t use it here. But it’s likely true that there is lot of valuable, economic-growth-producing work that could be profitable if a software engineer costs $100k/year instead of $500k/year. Businesses that lie on the margin of profitability are likely to feel that it’s hard to find good talent. Of course, it’s bad for us existing software engineers if the supply increases and the price goes down. It’s likely good for society overall though, if it enables a bunch of other businesses to exist. This is true in the same way that more trucks, more warehouses, and more conveyor belts would increase economic output, even if they were already available for the right price.
- geebee 6y ago
  You just said that there's lots of valuable work that could be done, but your example of work that could be done is work isn't valuable enough to do unless software engineers get paid (in the SF Bay Area) notably less than a dental hygienist. I like having clean teeth. If someone can make more as a dental hygienist, why on earth would it be valuable to society if they instead worked as a software engineer for less money? If people won't work for 100k/yr as a software engineer, that means people capable of doing this work have found higher value things to do elsewhere. The higher salary elsewhere reflects the higher value produced doing something else. This is one of many reasons why I'm so bewildered when people talk about a "shortage" of software engineers without considering the options available in other fields (fields that, perhaps, pay better and don't require taking bizarro whiteboard exams every time you change jobs).
  - username90 6y ago
    I'd say there is a shortage of software engineers as long as most stem grads can easily raise their salary significantly by doing a few months at a coding bootcamp. That is still true, so there is a shortage of software engineers. I multiplied my salary that way, although I learned it on my own instead of a bootcamp but it is the same idea.
  - shajznnckfke 6y ago
    I didn’t say anything about the SF Bay Area.
- UweSchmidt 6y ago
  That makes no sense. A voluntary pay reduction is like a subsidy leading to market distortion (more supply than the market can bear) and windfall gains (employers might just keep the extra profits) - only that this subsidy is coming from your and my paycheck lol. The idea is an employer-side argument to counter the labour-side demand for higher wages: Don't have the wages to high, otherwise we go bankrupt and can't employ you any longer. But programmers are already well employed, and software companies aren't really suffering. Cheaper programmers won't make website less bloated, won't make us figure out what to do with GPT-3, won't find a useful application for blockchains, won't make Windows 10 less moronic, won't make ad-tech less harmful, won't make the tech recruiters and the non-technical folk around software projects more competent...it would simply kill one of the few fields of employments that still pay well! Look at construction. Did cheap immigrant labour make rents feel low in many areas? No, market forces drive up prices and owners keep the profit.
  - shajznnckfke 6y ago
    I didn’t say anything about a voluntary reduction in pay. Any reduction in pay would be a result of market forces in response to increased supply. > Look at construction. Did cheap immigrant labour make rents feel low in many areas? No, market forces drive up prices and owners keep the profit. In areas that aren’t constrained by density limits, homes are actually very cheap. In terms of square footage of home per population, the US is doing great. Problems are with inequality, in terms of geography and wealth.
    - UweSchmidt 6y ago
      Market forces should have already brought in more people into software if they really are that high, bringing down the salaries. What other measure would you suggest? Importing supply from abroad? Whatever it is, it would lead to a reduction in pay, which you suprisingly support - that amounts to walking into your boss' office and asking for a pay reduction. > In areas that aren’t constrained by density limits, homes are actually very cheap. That's the point. The effect of cheap construction labor only affects the rent prices in some areas, in other areas owners pocket the extra profit - while making construction jobs largely untenable except for immigrants coming from poverty. I suspect something similar could play out in the software field.
decafninja 6y ago
Currently in NY making 150k with 10yoe at a non-tech company. Would jump ship in a heartbeat to SF for 300k, or 250k, or even 200k.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  This legendary meme that everyone in SF is making 300k and drives a Ferrari has taken on a life of its own, and now we even have people outside of the Bay Area believing and repeating it. This is an outlier compensation for senior people at outlier companies. Anyone would jump ship for it, but it's not like hundreds of companies are handing out these salaries at the airport when you land.
  - decafninja 6y ago
    Is it? Not sure about 300k, but 200k seems within the realm of realism. I've interviewed at a few Bay Area companies (I'd say they are "mid tier", not FAANG or top tier) and expected comp ranged around 200-250k. That said, I was actually surprised at the lack of expensive cars driven by SFBA techies. I interviewed at Netflix, which I know pays astoundingly well, and the parking lot had a distinct lack of luxury brand cars. The exception seemed to be Teslas - I did see a bunch of Model S's and X's (Model 3 had not come out yet at the time). Compare that to many East Coast suburban office campuses of non-tech companies that pay pretty poorly - you still see tons of mid to high end BMWs, Benzes, etc.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

All the more reason for candidates to not do the coding challenges. If you can't find candidates, don't add stupid ways to reject candidates.

gadders 6y ago

What you describe isn't a shortage. It's an unwillingness to pay the going rate for the talent they want to hire.

Viliam1234 6y ago

> Lots of large companies are competing for talent, and if you can't pay bank salaries, you're going to have a hard time. Sounds like Economics 101. The curves of supply and demand meet at some point. Some customers can't buy (enough of) the thing because the price at the intersection of the curves is too high for them. Yes, that's how free market works. There are things I can't buy, because they are too expensive for me. Or I could buy them, but I would have to sacrifice something else I need more. This is considered normal. When some company can't afford (people like) me, it's the same thing. They would like to have cheaper developers. Sure, who wouldn't? There are also things I would like to have cheaper. Same problem. Why am I not entitled to get things as cheaply as I want, but my potential employer would be? In my experience many companies prefer to whine about the shortage of talent, even if they could easily hire another person by increasing the offered salary by 50%. But they won't. Then they make millions of profit, which shows that the money was there, it was just their decision not to spend it on salaries. Okay, fair, it's their money, their decision. But if it's your decision, own it, don't pretend there wasn't an alternative. Make it known that you offer double of the market salary, and you will be surprised how many people are out there in the "empty market". At least I never heard about a company that offered lots of money and couldn't find a person for the job.

luckylion 6y ago
That's all well and good, but that's not the point I was trying to make. Companies aren't having a hard time finding talent because developers are so annoyed by coding interviews, they're having a hard time finding talent because they can't/don't want to pay high salaries. So developers go to work on finance and ad-tech, and not on normal, boring, only-making-three-times-the-national-average-salary stuff. And those companies then complain that they can't find developers. Because whether they have a coding challenge or not, they can't find developers because money.
- duutfhhh 6y ago
  And those small companies would be able to compensate the difference in pay with "partner" status, i.e. making an employee an unfireable stakeholder that can live off profits by the time he or she turns say 45, but owners of said small companies are too greedy for that. I'd argue that opportunistic at-employement with 500k/year at Big4 is worse than guaranteed 250k/year that nobody, not even the company's owners can take from you.

Glyptodon 6y ago

In my experience the talent shortage is a giant myth - there are two thing going on: companies that can't hire or won't pay, and companies that can, but wish it were cheaper. Evey job I've applied or hired for either a) had lots of candidates with a very selective process, or b) telegraphed that you should avoid the company or didn't pay well enough (and often still got plenty of applicants who wanted their foot in the tech door despite not being capable). My current company would claim there's a shortage, but they actually don't know how to hire and telegraph that you probably don't want to work there in a variety of ways.