4 ms·

It's interesting. Is this a difference between European jobs and American jobs? It has probably chaffed off of me to some degree, but our company owners are of

by tetha 4y ago

It's interesting. Is this a difference between European jobs and American jobs? It has probably chaffed off of me to some degree, but our company owners are of the same cut of wood. In some selected spots, we very much look for people who have done "it". We need people to sit down with a new laptop and solve our problems in these areas and there is no real idea of how it should be. That's what we want to pay money for, to buy time spent learning. But we also have positions open for which we just look for smart people with some linux background, effectively. We're entirely ready to put in work to make the person we hire successful. For example, we're open that we're looking for a linux and networking engineer and we're happy to work for it with the candidate. We can teach, we have budget for books, courses and conferences, so let's go. And that's how it should be, in my book.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
>Is this a difference between European jobs and American jobs? I can name examples of both cases for Europe, I'm sure a few American devs can name examples of both cases in the US. From what I can tell about where I live, the moment you try to move to mid level or higher, you're expected to know "it" already. It also isn't just vertical or horizontal skill progression. Its both, at equal rates. More skills, and each skill is expected to have 2-3 YoE. From a risk management position, most of those skills are not something you want juniors to work with in their first or even their second year. Most juniors would progress skill A for a few years, then start progressing skill B adjacent to A. So A would be at 5 years, B be at 3 years. Expecting "A 3 years, B 3 years" would be moot at that point, since the far majority with B at 3 years would be at 5 years in A. Above is even worse when jobs are now expecting you to know skill C, but no one is really working with C yet. Now you need to have 3 years of experience in C, but realistically, no junior is going to be learning C on company time. More likely a few seniors will learn C and maybe distribute knowledge by the time the market is asking for 3 years of experience in D. As said in a comment somewhere adjacent, the junior market is so saturated, many employers can make pretty insane demands. Good learning opportunities are combined with below-market pay where market pay already is a problem to afford a decent place. Good pay jobs basically expecting you to sell your soul. Or a company which seems great as a junior but then provides next to no opportunities to move up along with the associated pay increases (often only the former). The whole "do your dues" wouldn't be so bad if a comfortable income was guaranteed at a relatively low stress factor, but that's starting to be put into question due to socio-economical reasons.

by tetha 4y ago

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

>Is this a difference between European jobs and American jobs? I can name examples of both cases for Europe, I'm sure a few American devs can name examples of both cases in the US. From what I can tell about where I live, the moment you try to move to mid level or higher, you're expected to know "it" already. It also isn't just vertical or horizontal skill progression. Its both, at equal rates. More skills, and each skill is expected to have 2-3 YoE. From a risk management position, most of those skills are not something you want juniors to work with in their first or even their second year. Most juniors would progress skill A for a few years, then start progressing skill B adjacent to A. So A would be at 5 years, B be at 3 years. Expecting "A 3 years, B 3 years" would be moot at that point, since the far majority with B at 3 years would be at 5 years in A. Above is even worse when jobs are now expecting you to know skill C, but no one is really working with C yet. Now you need to have 3 years of experience in C, but realistically, no junior is going to be learning C on company time. More likely a few seniors will learn C and maybe distribute knowledge by the time the market is asking for 3 years of experience in D. As said in a comment somewhere adjacent, the junior market is so saturated, many employers can make pretty insane demands. Good learning opportunities are combined with below-market pay where market pay already is a problem to afford a decent place. Good pay jobs basically expecting you to sell your soul. Or a company which seems great as a junior but then provides next to no opportunities to move up along with the associated pay increases (often only the former). The whole "do your dues" wouldn't be so bad if a comfortable income was guaranteed at a relatively low stress factor, but that's starting to be put into question due to socio-economical reasons.