Comment by mschuster91
2 days ago
> Rather spend $500,000 on the hunt than $50,000 on training someone into the role.
Capex vs opex, that's the fundamental problem at heart. It "looks better on the numbers" to have recruiting costs than to have to set aside a senior developer plus paying the junior for a few months. That is why everyone and their dog only wants to hire seniors, because they have the skillset and experience that you can sit their ass in front of any random semi fossil project and they'll figure it out on their own.
If the stonk analysts would go and actually dive deep into the numbers to look at hiring side costs (like headhunter expenses, employee retention and the likes), you'd see a course change pretty fast... but this kind of in-depth analysis, that's only being done by a fair few short-sellers who focus on struggling companies and not big tech.
In the end, it's a "tragedy of the commons" scenario. It's fine if a few companies do that, it's fine if a lot of companies do that... but when no one wants to train juniors any more (because they immediately get poached by the big ones), suddenly society as a whole has a real and massive problem.
Our societies are driven into a concrete wall at full speed by the financialization of every tiny aspect of our lives. All that matters these days are the gods of the stonk market - screw the economy, screw the environment, screw labor laws, all that matters is appearing "numbers go up" on the next quarterly.
> but when no one wants to train juniors any more (because they immediately get poached by the big ones)
Can we stop pretending that we don't know how to solve this problem? If you hire juniors at $X/year, but they keep getting poached after 2-3 years because now they can get $X*1.5/year (or more!), then maybe you should start promoting and giving raises to them after they've gotten a couple years experience.
Seriously, this is not a hard problem to solve. If the junior has proven themselves, give them the raise they deserve instead of being all Surprised Pikachu when another company is willing to pay them what they've proven themselves worthy of.
The problem is, no small company can reasonably compete with the big guns.
We're seeing this here in Munich. BMW and other local industry used to lure over loooots of people by virtue of paying much more than smaller shops - and now, Apple, Google, Microsoft and a few other big-techs our "beloved" prime minister Söder do the same thing to them... and as a side effect, fuck up the housing market even more than it already is.
That's a good point. I don't really have an answer for it.
> Our societies are driven into a concrete wall at full speed by the financialization of every tiny aspect of our lives. All that matters these days are the gods of the stonk market - screw the economy, screw the environment, screw labor laws, all that matters is appearing "numbers go up" on the next quarterly.
I have been in the various nooks and crannies of the Internet/Software dev industry my whole career (i'm 49). I can't think of any time when the stock market didn't drive software innovation. It's always been either invent something -> go public -> exit or invent something -> increase stock price of existing public corp
> It's always been either invent something -> go public -> exit or invent something -> increase stock price of existing public corp
Yes, but today more and more is invent something -> achieve dominance -> get bought up by an even larger megacorp. That drives the enshittification circle.
> Capex vs opex
That's part of the problem, but I also notice the new hiring managers are incentivized to hire (or replace) employees to make their mark on the company. They then advocate for "their guys" the ones they recruited over the incumbents that are the unwilling dinosaurs in their eyes.