2. It's hard as never before to hire someone to from from the office (US tech giants are hiring many H1Bs)
So, I disagree. It can become a long-term crisis.
I was under the impression that it was sort of like Harvard: lots of applications, but a good chunk of those denied could have just have easily been accepted if there was space
You seem to have experience with their hiring and I have none (only applying) so I have much more faith in what you're saying than my preconceived ideas.
In addition, basic statistics suggests you need all new hires to be better than 50% of the existing company, or your average skill level will go down, which makes hiring just hard mathematically.
>In addition, basic statistics suggests you need all new hires to be better than 50% of the existing company,
This seems especially difficult when hiring graduates/junior roles due to the lack of unknowns.
Thanks for taking the time to respond!
I think all companies do this, but it's really easy to game the metrics. People do it unconsciously, even.
> This seems especially difficult when hiring graduates/junior roles due to the lack of unknowns.
Yep, so it takes hours of interviewing per candidate, across dozens of candidates just to hire to minimise the risk for one role. At a global level, FAANGs are hiring loads, but at a team/local level there's never enough people due to specific team needs or turnover.
Google for what is the cost for an average US business is to simply replace an employee. You might be surprised.
Thirty case studies taken from the 11 most-relevant research papers on the costs of employee turnover demonstrate that it costs businesses about one-fifth of a worker’s salary to replace that worker.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2012...
So... did you mean $100,000?
Hardly enough time to even know the impact and costs of what you developed and shipped. Kind of makes you wonder what type of work force you're creating when a large percentage of them are constantly leaving. Maybe for ICs this isn't a concern compared to Directors, VPs, or maybe Staff SEs?
[1] https://www.payscale.com/data-packages/employee-loyalty/full...
[2] https://buffer.com/resources/employee-tenure/
[3] https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/10/17/thi...
I mean it intuitively kind of makes sense. If you work in a city with many other high paying prestigious jobs, why wouldn't you job hop? There's little risk, whereas if you were in a city that had very few prospects you'd probably stick around longer.
I live in Boston and I jump around every year'ish getting more salary at each place I've worked at. If you worked at Google (or any other prestigious company), I imagine it's far far easier interviewing else where. Especially if you jump from prestigious company to prestigious company.
I figured people will always need devs and people really blow the "job hopper" thing out of proportion. Every job hopper I know makes a lot of money and they never struggled to find jobs. If anything they seem to have the best jobs from what I see.