[codingdave]

The problem with hiring is that there are two sets of stakeholders with different needs. If you cater to the candidates, you miss the needs of the hiring company, and vice versa. Nobody is going to fix hiring by only working on one side of the fence.

[PaulHoule]

It's complex. In the end you both win when you can get work done for them.

I see a lot of conflict between the way most people hire and the goal of hiring. If you see hiring as a funnel that people go into and mostly get rejected you can get really good at the rejecting when it is the accepting that is necessary.

Recruiters are maligned by many but a recruiter has an incentive to get you hired so a good recruiter is your best wingman.

I think the average job seeker makes numerous silly mistakes in the process, particularly in the the interview stage. If you can just avoid these mistakes you perform above your level because most people perform below their level.

I went from being terrified of job interviews to sometimes signing up for one because I want to know what people are doing, not because I need the job.

[codingdave]

> a recruiter has an incentive to get you hired

You have said this a couple times in the last couple days, but the key difference, again, is that recruiters are not incentivized to get you hired. They are incentivized to get someone hired. The difference between "you" and "someone" is exactly where the problems come in. Unless you are directly paying them, they really have no incentive specific to you as an individual.

So yes, you both win if you can get work done for them. But they also win if they hire anyone else at all who can get work done for them. They always win. You only sometimes do.

[bruce511]

I concur, and would suggest that the original question is framed incorrectly.

As with most things, context matters. Right now, recruiting us not broken when viewed from an employer point of view. There's a glut of programmers on the market and it's relatively easy to fill a post.

Of course there are a lot more unemployed programmers than posts, so from the unemployed programmer point of view it seems broken.

5 years ago, and presumably in a couple years time, the equation might be reversed. Then it will be employers claiming recruitment is broken - because they can't find suitable candidates.

I would suggest that recruiting is not broken in either context. The root problem is the FANG type companies that ho through massive hiring and firing cycles. This instability in the market leads to wild swings in supply and demand.

As long as these companies behave like this, the problem will remain. You can fix it for yourself by getting a boring job at a non-FANG (ideally in the part of the cycle when developers are scarce. You will get a lot less money than a FANG job, but your job security will be much higher.

In a down cycle (like now) boring jobs at small companies are hard to get (they're a lot less common) but that's the place uou want to end up in during the next up-cycle.

Getting off the FANG treadmill is how you "fix recruitment" at least for yourself.

"The only way to win is not to play"

(And if you recognize that quote you're likely old enough to have seen this cycle many times.)