4 ms·
The company I used to work for did the opposite by freezing senior+ hiring. Their argument is that juniors are more value for money.
by pajamasam 1y ago
The company I used to work for did the opposite by freezing senior+ hiring. Their argument is that juniors are more value for money.
- TuringNYC 1y agoI've seen the opposite -- more senior hiring because seniors can now outsource a portion of rote work to the LLM -- everything from trivial utilities to docs to testing. Also, I get dozens of calls/emails a month from my undergrad/grad alma matter. The bottom seems to have fallen out of the labor force when even ivy leave and top-5 cs/tech schools have students desperately seeking entry level jobs. To be fair, as I mentioned on another comment, there are other factors: 1. Record numbers of CS undergrads (more supply) 2. More remote-CS/tech grad programs (yet more supply, many overseas) 3. Bursting of the tech-vc bubble (less demand)
- bpt3 1y agoThat is a poor argument, regardless of the salary. Juniors are a net loss for at least the first year in almost any environment.
- soco 1y agoNevertheless I see it happening as well. Juniors left to roam freely in new projects where a senior drafted a happy path then was sent to the next project. Say hello to the way of outsourcing.
- pajamasam 1y agoThey made it work well. They had highly decentralised teams and used a bunch of no-code and serverless tools. They also knew that juniors and interns would work longer hours and give less push-back when gives somewhat crazy requests. I'm not saying everyone should do this. Just wanted to give another perspective.