3 ms·

It's strange because economically, tech is roaring back and the job market is tight as ever. Are employers hedging against this perpetually 6 month away recess

It's strange because economically, tech is roaring back and the job market is tight as ever. Are employers hedging against this perpetually 6 month away recession? Is there a shift from growth mindset to value mindset?

rpearl 3y ago
For private VC tech, interest rate increases mean the next funding round will be much harder to get
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Tostino 3y ago
There was also a concerted effort from major tech employers to depress wages to control costs. They don't need to directly talk to each other to plan it, they state it in their earnings calls.
throwaway2037 3y ago
The most economically efficient companies in my career always make it insanely hard to add head count to the team. They tease you with "might get a head count next quarter". Then frequently freeze the head count during your search. They are trying to squeeze as much as they can. I'm not saying this is a pleasant working environment, but it is very good for the bottom line. Also, it is sometimes more efficient for them to give modest pay rises to best performers off-cycle to motivate them to work even harder.
BrandonM 3y ago
In the past, I would have also found it strange to see tech blowing up in a tight job market. After a decade on the team-building side, though, I feel different. Interviewing and onboarding are a huge distraction. Interviewing and onboarding done well require hours of attention from the more senior folks on your team. When a company is hiring, the senior folks involved might be spending 6 hours a week interviewing. For example, I might have 4 45-minute interviews, another 15 minutes prepping for each interview, 15 minutes writing up feedback for every interview, 30 minutes in hire/no-hire discussions for candidates who are close, and another 30 minutes in hiring or interview meta-discussions. Onboarding takes even more time. If I'm a new hire's onboarding mentor, I'm likely spending their first couple of days close by to answer any and all questions. After that, my work is frequently interrupted for a few weeks as I help them through issues (totally legitimate issues, BTW). We'll be spending extra time pairing with the new hire during the feature development process. Code review for new hires' code takes a lot longer, too. When you factor all that in, a hiring freeze can realistically free up 10 or more hours of experienced employees' time every week. These are some of the most productive employees on the team. In that context, it's not especially surprising to me that giving the most productive engineers 33% more productive time would lead to rapid improvements for tech companies, in the short term anyway. Of course, in the medium-to-long term, a company that's not hiring is building up a huge "personnel debt" that is going to come due eventually. The product improvements will lead to new business, more clients will require more support, the new business will lead to more feature requests, and some employees will move on. The company will find itself without enough personnel to make headway on their product. Then they will have a hiring blitz where they wreck everyone's productive time and the team culture. The new, bigger team will make some headway, but they will still look less productive than the team was during the hiring freeze. The business will stagnate. The company will enact a hiring freeze, or perhaps even lay off team members. And then we're back at step 1.
- lifeisstillgood 3y ago
  Perfect explanation of the problem - and if I may suggest the solution is to carve some of those experienced people off as military do into a "training role" - where experienced people rotate off projects onto R&R and then onto training - creating a mini bootcamp that also has knock on benefits of building standards, tech stacks and tooling that "we have always been meaning to build". Someone recently pointed out that we should learn more from how militaries grow and survive over the years - this is probably the biggest lesson.
the_only_law 3y ago
It is pretty funny. During Covid I heard all sorts of doom about inflation and the economy, while I was chugging along great. Now, no one will shut up about how there are so many jobs and how the economy is doing great, but I’m fucked.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  We're into the next election cycle and PACs on both sides are engaged in viral marketing. You can no longer trust that any news is sincere and hasn't been sourced from people with a political agenda.
silisili 3y ago
From my experience in two small-medium businesses - they're both running leaner than possible. I figured both were trying to sell, maybe they are?, but neither has. By leaner than possible, I mean, things are running unmaintained, and it's only a matter of time before some of it starts crashing down. What does it mean? I don't know. They're either going to have to hire, get bought out, or close up shop. I'm -hoping- it leads to more hiring in q4 or q1/24.

rpearl 3y ago

For private VC tech, interest rate increases mean the next funding round will be much harder to get

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Tostino 3y ago

There was also a concerted effort from major tech employers to depress wages to control costs. They don't need to directly talk to each other to plan it, they state it in their earnings calls.

throwaway2037 3y ago

The most economically efficient companies in my career always make it insanely hard to add head count to the team. They tease you with "might get a head count next quarter". Then frequently freeze the head count during your search. They are trying to squeeze as much as they can. I'm not saying this is a pleasant working environment, but it is very good for the bottom line. Also, it is sometimes more efficient for them to give modest pay rises to best performers off-cycle to motivate them to work even harder.

BrandonM 3y ago

In the past, I would have also found it strange to see tech blowing up in a tight job market. After a decade on the team-building side, though, I feel different. Interviewing and onboarding are a huge distraction. Interviewing and onboarding done well require hours of attention from the more senior folks on your team. When a company is hiring, the senior folks involved might be spending 6 hours a week interviewing. For example, I might have 4 45-minute interviews, another 15 minutes prepping for each interview, 15 minutes writing up feedback for every interview, 30 minutes in hire/no-hire discussions for candidates who are close, and another 30 minutes in hiring or interview meta-discussions. Onboarding takes even more time. If I'm a new hire's onboarding mentor, I'm likely spending their first couple of days close by to answer any and all questions. After that, my work is frequently interrupted for a few weeks as I help them through issues (totally legitimate issues, BTW). We'll be spending extra time pairing with the new hire during the feature development process. Code review for new hires' code takes a lot longer, too. When you factor all that in, a hiring freeze can realistically free up 10 or more hours of experienced employees' time every week. These are some of the most productive employees on the team. In that context, it's not especially surprising to me that giving the most productive engineers 33% more productive time would lead to rapid improvements for tech companies, in the short term anyway. Of course, in the medium-to-long term, a company that's not hiring is building up a huge "personnel debt" that is going to come due eventually. The product improvements will lead to new business, more clients will require more support, the new business will lead to more feature requests, and some employees will move on. The company will find itself without enough personnel to make headway on their product. Then they will have a hiring blitz where they wreck everyone's productive time and the team culture. The new, bigger team will make some headway, but they will still look less productive than the team was during the hiring freeze. The business will stagnate. The company will enact a hiring freeze, or perhaps even lay off team members. And then we're back at step 1.

lifeisstillgood 3y ago
Perfect explanation of the problem - and if I may suggest the solution is to carve some of those experienced people off as military do into a "training role" - where experienced people rotate off projects onto R&R and then onto training - creating a mini bootcamp that also has knock on benefits of building standards, tech stacks and tooling that "we have always been meaning to build". Someone recently pointed out that we should learn more from how militaries grow and survive over the years - this is probably the biggest lesson.

the_only_law 3y ago

It is pretty funny. During Covid I heard all sorts of doom about inflation and the economy, while I was chugging along great. Now, no one will shut up about how there are so many jobs and how the economy is doing great, but I’m fucked.

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
We're into the next election cycle and PACs on both sides are engaged in viral marketing. You can no longer trust that any news is sincere and hasn't been sourced from people with a political agenda.

silisili 3y ago

From my experience in two small-medium businesses - they're both running leaner than possible. I figured both were trying to sell, maybe they are?, but neither has. By leaner than possible, I mean, things are running unmaintained, and it's only a matter of time before some of it starts crashing down. What does it mean? I don't know. They're either going to have to hire, get bought out, or close up shop. I'm -hoping- it leads to more hiring in q4 or q1/24.