3 ms·

Yeah - I have 40+ yoe, and I could see a lot of places don't need a 'senior'.. they just need a couple more junior coders. Also, you tend to get a bit jaded -

Yeah - I have 40+ yoe, and I could see a lot of places don't need a 'senior'.. they just need a couple more junior coders. Also, you tend to get a bit jaded - I basically ignore companies that are going 'to change the world!!!' :-P I broke my own rule and went to a startup that actually seems to have a useful product, rather then just big dreams...

johnnyanmac 3y ago
Frustrating for everyone on board. Juniors don't get the training and experience they need to progress, Seniors don't get the compensation they deserve, and wizards are just having their time wasted when they get called and hear a salary that they probably made 20 years prior. I guess it works, or the cost to do all that is low, otherwise so many places wouldn't do it.
- mech422 3y ago
  I guess... I can see everyone thinks they're company is special and needs 'rock stars' and '10x's but generally 1 senior for every 5-10 juniors is fine for most places. The salary thing is annoying - for a while it seemed like most jobs were listing salaries because of CA/CO/MA requiring it. But it seems to be going back to the old "D.O.E" thing again :-/
  - ElevenLathe 3y ago
    1 senior for 10 juniors is not a sustainable ratio unless the average person is a senior for 10x as long as they were a junior -- meaning, I guess, that in a 30 year career, you are "junior" for three years on average. I understand that this has been "sustainable" in the past because the industry was expanding, but can that continue forever?
    - mech422 3y ago
      I always figured 3-5 years to become a 'senior' (generally 5 but I've had some really sharp juniors too)
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - ElevenLathe 3y ago
        Wow, I've never seen someone three years off the turnip truck called senior. I would say it's usually more like 5-10, basically everyone left after those with management ambitions have flown in that direction. I'm in a relatively sleepy part of the industry though.
  - sharts 3y ago
    > everyone thinks they're company is special and needs 'rock stars' Most of these companies are just special needs and don’t realize it.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

Frustrating for everyone on board. Juniors don't get the training and experience they need to progress, Seniors don't get the compensation they deserve, and wizards are just having their time wasted when they get called and hear a salary that they probably made 20 years prior. I guess it works, or the cost to do all that is low, otherwise so many places wouldn't do it.

mech422 3y ago
I guess... I can see everyone thinks they're company is special and needs 'rock stars' and '10x's but generally 1 senior for every 5-10 juniors is fine for most places. The salary thing is annoying - for a while it seemed like most jobs were listing salaries because of CA/CO/MA requiring it. But it seems to be going back to the old "D.O.E" thing again :-/
- ElevenLathe 3y ago
  1 senior for 10 juniors is not a sustainable ratio unless the average person is a senior for 10x as long as they were a junior -- meaning, I guess, that in a 30 year career, you are "junior" for three years on average. I understand that this has been "sustainable" in the past because the industry was expanding, but can that continue forever?
  - mech422 3y ago
    I always figured 3-5 years to become a 'senior' (generally 5 but I've had some really sharp juniors too)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ElevenLathe 3y ago
      Wow, I've never seen someone three years off the turnip truck called senior. I would say it's usually more like 5-10, basically everyone left after those with management ambitions have flown in that direction. I'm in a relatively sleepy part of the industry though.
- sharts 3y ago
  > everyone thinks they're company is special and needs 'rock stars' Most of these companies are just special needs and don’t realize it.