[jjav]

> They're literally trying to turn thousands of resumes from hundreds of schools into curated packets of dozens of candidates.

This would indicate that there is a severe oversupply of candidates eager to work in this industry.

Which may well be true, but conflicts with the narrative that there is a severe shortage of people.

[unicornfinder]

I would say there's a shortage of skilled mid to senior level developers, but at the junior level, not so much. That's not to say even decent junior talent is easy to find though.

Keep in mind those large companies can be very desirable to work for - many people don't want to work for these smaller companies, including myself at a younger age, but in truth I think smaller companies can be better to work for depending on what kind of person you are.

[Retric]

It’s not that mid to senior people are rare, it’s the expectations get high enough most can’t stay in the field. Mid is generally generally viewed in term of years of experience not talent.

Someone that’s good but not great with 7+ years of experience is going to have a rough time as are any senior people that picked the wrong software stack.

[filoleg]

> Which may well be true, but conflicts with the narrative that there is a severe shortage of people.

It might seem this way, because the narrative is almost intentionally simplified to the point of being vague enough to support almost any narrative.

Shortage is real, but what often is omitted is the fact that it is the shortage at the senior level. At the entry level, shortage isn't really a thing. It isn't an insane oversupply either, unless we are talking the few popular FAANGs, but it isn't a shortage at the entry level.

[jjav]

> Shortage is real, but what often is omitted is the fact that it is the shortage at the senior level.

There's more possibility of shortage at the senior level and in more specialized areas.

Still, I'm not entirely sure how real it might be. Depends how it is measured. I'm in very senior and somewhat specialized roles, so that's my perspective. I see lots of companies opening reqs in my area and never filling them. The same job posting will stay open for years, sometimes.

Now, is that a shortage? Obviously they are continuing to do business just fine for years even without filling that position. Presumably they are interviewing tons of people and never hiring anyone, because they don't really feel any pressure to fill the position (otherwise, they would).

So it's worth considering, does that opening even really exist? Technically it's posted, they might be interviewing, but if nobody is ever good enough to hire and they continue to operate without ever hiring anyone... it feels more like a phantom req. Should such phantom reqs even be counted towards stats of companies trying to hire?

[filoleg]

I 100% agree with you.

Just a generalist qualified senior engineer alone is something that is in shortage. If you dive into senior specializations, the shortage is even stronger.

My point was that the media and people tend to forget about the whole senior/entry distinction when it comes to shortages, and loudly proclaim "there is a shortage in tech" without specifying at which level, and then get a ton of entry level fresh grads yelling at them "no, there is no shortage, we struggle to get jobs".

>Should such phantom reqs even be counted towards stats of companies trying to hire?

If they are genuinely trying to hire someone for that position, but just have been unsuccessful to find a qualified candidate, then yeah, absolutely it should count. And I don't doubt they are trying to actually hire. Because why else would they spend tons of engineering time and money on interviewing people with zero intent to actually hire anyone.

Even where I work, we get tons of applications due to the company's high profile. And even when my team was desperate to hire a mid-senior level, we had to interview close to 50 people just to fill one position. It wasn't a competition for a single slot either, we were just looking for someone who was baseline qualified. If more than one emerged, we would have hired them all and just rerouted them to our sister teams who were looking to fill some positions as well, or to elsewhere in the company. But getting that one baseline competent person (we ain't talking about some 10x rockstar engineer type) was already a struggle.

[jjav]

> Because why else would they spend tons of engineering time and money on interviewing people with zero intent to actually hire anyone.

Not so much zero intent, but I see groups who keep job postings open for ages just perpetually holding out for that perfect unicorn that doesn't actually exist and can't exist (you know, the person who has 20 years experience in low-level kernel development but is also a UI design god and a full-time devops guru on the side; I exagerate but only slightly).

So technically they can claim shortage of experts, can't hire anyone. But meanwhile the team continues operating just fine for years even though this magical person can never be found.

So to those job postings, I consider them essentially fake. They just inflate the count of positions that can't be filled by a position that never will be filled.

[ARandomerDude]

> This would indicate that there is a severe oversupply of candidates eager to work in this industry.

Not the industry as a whole, but certainly there is an overabundance of people trying to land a job at very specific companies (FAANG, and a handful of others).

There would be an industry oversupply if this situation were widespread, but it isn't. The industry has a shortage, certain famous companies are the exception rather than the rule.

[epicureanideal]

There is an oversupply of candidates, as evidenced by the fact that engineers have very little bargaining power about the terms of employment with any particular company. The negotiation for 90% of engineers is very one sided.

[habibur]

And then how does that compare with other jobs? That possibly can be said for negotiation for 90% employees in any field too.

[pathseeker]

candidates != qualified candidates

A shit ton of people apply to FAANG companies because of the money on the table despite having no professional experience as a software engineer nor writing any code.

[zerr]

It's about the price - there is a shortage of people willing to work for 5-figure.

[sealeck]

Although some places do find talent hard to source, at any price (see Microsoft's Bing team who have _really_ struggled to hire enough people to compete with Google)

[OJFord]

And they've tried 'any price' (even not taking it facetiously literally)? What makes it so unattractive?

The prospect of working on Bing or at Microsoft wouldn't exactly excite me perhaps, but it'd only have to be the best paying (by some non-trivial but not massive amount) offer. (Or everything else less exciting!)

Perhaps you mean search engine experts, not grad entry or 'at any price' in that sense, so the pool they're looking at only wants to work on the biggest most exciting one, which happens also to be willing to hire all of them?

[sokoloff]

It indicates an abundance of applications for sure. That doesn’t indicate an oversupply of applicants nor of qualified applicants. How many times have we read the advice to apply for hundreds of jobs and only apply to those that take little effort? I think there’s a lot of people out there applying to every long-shot job because the prize is large enough.

[xyzzy21]

Also of the "near zero information" value of resumes.

Tufte compared PowerPoint presentations to having the information density of Soviet-era propaganda posters (i.e. nearly zero).

You can validly claim similar comparisons with resumes!!

[Decabytes]

There is definitely a shortage overall, but not at the top companies

[nl]

Almost all these people will get jobs at non-Faang companies.