3 ms·
>Totally disagree. Engineers are rational. If these were appropriately paid, engineers would go there and take the job. As far as I can tell engineers are fall
by treis 6y ago
>Totally disagree. Engineers are rational. If these were appropriately paid, engineers would go there and take the job.
As far as I can tell engineers are falling over themselves to take these jobs. It's the FAANGs et. al. that are rejecting them for, as you note in your other post, rather arbitrary reasons. It's an extremely unusual situation.
- TuringNYC 6y agoWell thats the thing, some of these positions are expecting absolute 0.1% rocket scientists (IMHO unnecessarily) but w/o the rocket scientist pay. Remember that some of that top talent are well into their career, they have families, kids with health costs, school districts, college funds, etc. So its a raw deal to offer them just enough to jam them into a 1br or 2br apartment. Why would someone with years of experience and family obligations take such a terrible deal? The salaries are great for entry level graduates, but in many cases the requirements (either explicit or via tests) are not selecting for entry level graduates. W/r/t the requirements, I'm not even sure being able to rebalance a B-Tree on pencil and paper -- without a computer or debugging code -- is reflective of any real situation i've ever encountered in my career. It is a fair test if you just want really sharp people...but then you better be offerring really sharp salaries.