5 ms·

> I tried to explain getting ghosted, ghost jobs, online applying, multi-round interviews to my grandma. It just does not make sense. It has never been like thi

> I tried to explain getting ghosted, ghost jobs, online applying, multi-round interviews to my grandma. It just does not make sense. It has never been like this, why is it like this now? It's much riskier to hire the wrong employee now. If a bad hire is made, it takes around 2 quarters to build the paper trail needed to be litigation-proof when firing. Additionally, work is much more streamlined now - it is safe to expect that an employee can wear multiple hats. Engineers are expected to have basic Project, UX, and Product Management skills now. PMs are expected to have basic Project, UX, Sales, FP&A, Marketing, and/or Engineering skills now. Execs are primarily promoted from ICs and are expected to be able to dive into the coalface. Furthermore, companies are now judged based on cashflow positivity, not just growth, so a hire has to be the right hire because tech salaries can make-or-break the P&L of a feature. As such there is much less tolerance for the wrong hire. Basically, modern hiring is about efficency and optimization. You may hate it, but that's the reality. No one has a legal obligation to hire you or optimize for a simplified process. You can't do anything about it, so you will have to think about how to find that edge. Edit: can't reply > There is a thing called employment at will. Particularly in California. Makes firing fast. That doesn't protect you as an employer from litigation over Unfair Dismissal or Wrongful Termination > There is nothing particularly risky about firing employees in many cases Depends on how much documentation you have and how egregious of a mistake the offending employee has had, as the line between perf-based (allowed) and pretextual (not allowed) termination is thin > economy covers basics, and not enough new companies appear to offer new good products. A highly performant and impactful company is orthogonal to mass employment. Compare Costco with Walmart - Costco pays superior salaries and benefits compared to Walmart with significant upward mobility and is able to outcompete Walmart's revenue per employee. But Costco only employed 341k people compared to Walmart 2.1 million. The reality is Costco is very employer supportive but also significantly more selective about the employees they hire. --- Life is competitive. You will have to compete no matter what.

_DeadFred_ 9mo ago
So highly ramped up requirements without additional compensation but also people aren't disposable enough.
- alephnerd 9mo ago
  > highly ramped up requirements Yes > without additional compensation No. Most SWEs and employees in the tech industry are paid significantly higher in 2024 [0] (1 years after layoffs kicked off( versus 2014 [1]. This isn't true of other white collar professions. > also people aren't disposable enough The issue is SUI premiums leading to states incentivizing their labor boards to challenge for-cause dismissals (explained in another comment). [0] - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/... [1] - https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2014/occupations/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2014/occupations/home.htm
avmich 9mo ago
> It's much riskier to hire the wrong employee now. If a bad hire is made... There is a thing called employment at will. Particularly in California. Makes firing fast. There is nothing particularly risky about firing employees in many cases. 2 months firing is a joke compared with 4 months at least, which those same companies spend looking for talent. The main reason is not enough ideas what to do - economy covers basics, and not enough new companies appear to offer new good products.
nobody9999 9mo ago
>It's much riskier to hire the wrong employee now. If a bad hire is made, it takes around 2 quarters to build the paper trail needed to be litigation-proof when firing. Now? That's been the case since at least the 1980s, at least in non-union jobs. What makes you think things were different before the "now" you reference?
- alephnerd 9mo ago
  > What makes you think things were different before the "now" you reference? Unemployment insurance premiums. [0] Employers pay variable UI premiums and state UI funds now use Experience Ratings to increase insurance premiums on those companies where employees are not being fired for-cause, and states are challenging for-cause because the majority of state unemployment funds remain insolvent after 2008 and 2020 [1]. As such, UI funds have an incentive to challenge a for-cause termination in order to justify increasing the insurance premium for an employer. > That's been the case since at least the 1980s, at least in non-union jobs States weren't attempting to increase premiums on employees to the same degree as they are today versus the 1980s. Most UI funds in the US entered insolvency in 2008 and never recovered, and whoever scraped by in 2008 got whammied in 2020 during the COVID pandemic. [0] - https://smallbusiness.chron.com/employers-unemployment-rate-up-after-firing-employee-36395.html https://smallbusiness.chron.com/employers-unemployment-rate-... [1] - https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/docs/trustFundSolvReport2025.pdf https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/docs/trustFundSolvReport2025...
  - nobody9999 9mo ago
    >Employers pay variable UI premiums and state UI funds now use Experience Ratings to increase insurance premiums on those companies where employees are not being fired for-cause That's as may be, but we're specifically talking about firing people for cause, which makes the terminated employee ineligible for UI benefits. And even if it was as you say, unemployment insurance is just another cost of doing business and, as such, is tax deductible as a business expense. The wall of text notwithstanding, your "argument" is sorely lacking in relevance to the topic at hand. I tried reading your diatribe as if it were in good faith, but the best I could do WRT that was assume you were uninformed. Have a good day and I wish you nothing but happiness and success.
array_key_first 9mo ago
I don't know where this idea that firing people is hard comes from. My company, and no I won't say who, have fired hundreds of devs without recourse. And not in official layoffs, mind you. Not to mention for the first 90 days or so you're fresh meat. Firing you is trivial. But, even past that, you don't need performance reasons to fire someone. You can fire someone for cultural fit, if you want. At will employment is the norm. Companies are doing far, far too much. You don't need all those stacks of paperwork. You just don't. Am I saying that everyone company is wrong and stupid? Yes, I am. It's become a cargo cult, a self serving beast. You don't need it.

_DeadFred_ 9mo ago

So highly ramped up requirements without additional compensation but also people aren't disposable enough.

alephnerd 9mo ago
> highly ramped up requirements Yes > without additional compensation No. Most SWEs and employees in the tech industry are paid significantly higher in 2024 [0] (1 years after layoffs kicked off( versus 2014 [1]. This isn't true of other white collar professions. > also people aren't disposable enough The issue is SUI premiums leading to states incentivizing their labor boards to challenge for-cause dismissals (explained in another comment). [0] - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/... [1] - https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2014/occupations/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2014/occupations/home.htm

avmich 9mo ago

> It's much riskier to hire the wrong employee now. If a bad hire is made... There is a thing called employment at will. Particularly in California. Makes firing fast. There is nothing particularly risky about firing employees in many cases. 2 months firing is a joke compared with 4 months at least, which those same companies spend looking for talent. The main reason is not enough ideas what to do - economy covers basics, and not enough new companies appear to offer new good products.

nobody9999 9mo ago

>It's much riskier to hire the wrong employee now. If a bad hire is made, it takes around 2 quarters to build the paper trail needed to be litigation-proof when firing. Now? That's been the case since at least the 1980s, at least in non-union jobs. What makes you think things were different before the "now" you reference?

alephnerd 9mo ago
> What makes you think things were different before the "now" you reference? Unemployment insurance premiums. [0] Employers pay variable UI premiums and state UI funds now use Experience Ratings to increase insurance premiums on those companies where employees are not being fired for-cause, and states are challenging for-cause because the majority of state unemployment funds remain insolvent after 2008 and 2020 [1]. As such, UI funds have an incentive to challenge a for-cause termination in order to justify increasing the insurance premium for an employer. > That's been the case since at least the 1980s, at least in non-union jobs States weren't attempting to increase premiums on employees to the same degree as they are today versus the 1980s. Most UI funds in the US entered insolvency in 2008 and never recovered, and whoever scraped by in 2008 got whammied in 2020 during the COVID pandemic. [0] - https://smallbusiness.chron.com/employers-unemployment-rate-up-after-firing-employee-36395.html https://smallbusiness.chron.com/employers-unemployment-rate-... [1] - https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/docs/trustFundSolvReport2025.pdf https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/docs/trustFundSolvReport2025...
- nobody9999 9mo ago
  >Employers pay variable UI premiums and state UI funds now use Experience Ratings to increase insurance premiums on those companies where employees are not being fired for-cause That's as may be, but we're specifically talking about firing people for cause, which makes the terminated employee ineligible for UI benefits. And even if it was as you say, unemployment insurance is just another cost of doing business and, as such, is tax deductible as a business expense. The wall of text notwithstanding, your "argument" is sorely lacking in relevance to the topic at hand. I tried reading your diatribe as if it were in good faith, but the best I could do WRT that was assume you were uninformed. Have a good day and I wish you nothing but happiness and success.

array_key_first 9mo ago

I don't know where this idea that firing people is hard comes from. My company, and no I won't say who, have fired hundreds of devs without recourse. And not in official layoffs, mind you. Not to mention for the first 90 days or so you're fresh meat. Firing you is trivial. But, even past that, you don't need performance reasons to fire someone. You can fire someone for cultural fit, if you want. At will employment is the norm. Companies are doing far, far too much. You don't need all those stacks of paperwork. You just don't. Am I saying that everyone company is wrong and stupid? Yes, I am. It's become a cargo cult, a self serving beast. You don't need it.