Comment by csydas | Hacker News Reader

Comment by csydas | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Neither :)

You're missing an adjective from your observation: qualified.

For any given position, even when you're pretty specific on the requirements, you will get an onslaught of applicants who have absolutely no business trying to apply for said position, but they do it anyways just because it vaguely matches a skillset they have and they need a job.

This isn't a criticism of such persons; it's foolish for people to think that a word for word perfect job exists just for them, and kudos to those willing to be a bit flexible on what they previously felt were non-negotiable aspects of jobs (I am referring to things I personally consider trivial, in this case, but I feel that when it comes time to start negotiating, said items are thrown out first as bargaining chips)

We have many employers seeking a specific type of qualified person; we have qualified and unqualified people all looking for jobs; it can be a bit messy to sort the two. This is why the interview process exists.

Sometimes HR is too specific, and even though you are missing one core requirement you match the other criteria very well. Anyways, it’s low overhead to submit an application, and low overhead to reject them. I’m still very picky about what jobs I apply to.

The best jobs still require an inside recommendation. It is very rare that you’ll be able to score those just by applying online (if the JD even goes up at all online).

You definitely need to know someone to get your application to the top of the pile. Perhaps the legal industry is an extreme outlier but aside from my very first job as a “summer associate” (read: intern) I haven’t gotten a single job from blindly applying. And even the summer program was an “inside recommendation” of sorts since the school organizes the whole OCI process.

Blindly sending email to managers who might hire you works better than sending an application off blindly to HR. Of course, the former is often seen as SPAM though can work if you have the right qualifications and they have the right needs.

As a manager who might hire you, I would tack on some caution to this advice.

This works for smaller businesses that can be flexible and are not really liable/viable targets for anything.

Once a business gets even some traction and size, this becomes a wasted effort, if not an annoyance to the manager. Most of the time I choose not to respond as it's just the safest option for us, or I redirect the email to our HR.

Most of the managers making the decisions do not do hiring as a full time job, it's just an aspect of their job. While it can be enjoyable, it's also very emotionally draining and physically taxing (non-stop interviews on top of regular responsibilities) and when people go outside of the normal process like this (and worse, raise a stink if you don't respond to their deviation well), it just adds more headaches for me.

So the above advice might work sometimes, but be aware there is another side.

I believe it's also due to unspecific job ads. Ads for "experienced developers" could require anything from 2-20 years of job experience. Sometimes job titles give it away but quite often, candidates won't really be able to judge if they're actually qualified.

To be fair, you can be a fairly experienced developer with just two years of job experience, especially if it's a niche.

If they are on unemployment or receiving welfare benefits, they may be required to apply for a minimum number of jobs... in which case if they want to stay in their current situation, picking jobs you are obviously not qualified for is a way to meet the requirements without much risk of getting a job. Of course, if you do happen to get the job, at least its a much better one than you thought you could get!

This is a very cynical and broad statement that enforces the common myth that people on welfare are somehow lazy or don't want to work. Also a general disregard of people who are working and receive said benefits to make ends meet.

Whaoh! I apologize if I gave that impression. I certainly did not mean to imply that everyone on welfare does those things, or even a majority. I was only pointing out that there is a motive, and that it is an action that some people take. I grew up on welfare as my mother was just one of those "working poor" you mention. I would never want to disregard the plight of people like my mother, and certainly did not intend my comment to do so.

qualified*

(*and will accept what we're paying)

This seems to be very relevant. I have double BSc and MSc degrees in STEM fields and am still struggling to find a proper job. On my first job I made less than 2k (for 4 days a week, but still). I've had offers which were even lower as well.

I've seen people in other fields with a lot less education do a lot better. It really makes me sceptic about the shortage of developers in Europe. If there really would be a shortage, surely developers would get paid more.

2k a week for 4 days a week sounds amazing, especially for a first job. I'd definitely take a pay cut for that deal.

No doubt that'll be 2k/month!

He means 2k per month, but with a 4-day work week, so probably 32 hours. Not sure if that is supposed to be before or after taxes tough, if it's before taxes, ouch.

Yup, 32 hours/week (on paper) and slightly less than 2k/month before taxes.

This. "We can't find a qualified applicant at 75% of market rate, guess we need more H1-B visas". No wonder wages are stagnant.

Are you claiming that there are a large number of qualified applicants that are currently unemployed because there are no openings paying as much as they believe they are worth?

Or are you saying that if they paid more, already employed applicants would jump from another company, leaving a job opening at their current company? If this is the case, it still means that there are fewer qualified candidates then openings, and no amount of raising pay will (in the short term of ~4 years) mean there are enough qualified candidates.

I suspect the imbalance is greatly over-egged by companies whose problems lie their business model, but who yearn for a quick fix of lower wages rather than (gasp) actual innovation.

how do you qualify if someone is qualified? how do you know what percentage of these people is unqualified? do you go by the rate who is not hired? i know there's people out there applying for jobs they don't have the required skillset for, don't get me wrong. but these numbers which are posted say nothing about that, and so no observation can be made on that point? Or am i missing something further?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com