Hacker News Reader

Comment by defrost | Hacker News Reader

> 5 jobs, never for more than 9 months?

So .. someone with less than 5 years on the workforce?

Look, I'm 60+ (ish) and still actively managing projects in code, engineering, mining, signal processing+interp - from my PoV anyone with less than five years on the workforce is still a child.

When I look for people to land roles that shepard a five+ year project through I'm looking for people with at least 8-10 years employed already with at least one two year run and a stated intent to "settle" into a position - ie maybe kids, perhaps a new house, maybe family in the area, etc.

Exposure to multiple bad projects is fine, especially if they can articulate how things went bad and how things might have been better managed to avoid that (ie big picture awareness).

You do have a point, however you might be setting the bar a little low .. less than five years in is barely a toe in the paddling pool of life.

View on HN

Fwiw this perspective (talking about expectations of age, family status, background as conditions) would get you kicked as far away as possible from any hiring decisions where I work. I think mostly for legal / dei reasons to my understanding, but your whole statement reads like a radioactive hr bomb to me.

Sure, none the less,

if you're looking for someone (any age, any gender, any etc.) for a long term position who will stick through the good, the bad, and the ugly that might occur during a five to ten year time frame

then you're looking for any signs and indications that people have some past experience of sticking through things, are willing to stick through things in the future, and have an understanding of how things can go sour and what steps can be taken to mediate.

There are many indications of the ability to make a long term commitment and survive a rocky path, not all of them traditional and conventional, with the least common factor being some time at the pump.

This just smacks of wanting to treat people like shit. Given the tone of some of your other comments in this thread that actually makes perfect sense.

If you want people to "stick through...the bad and the ugly" compensate them accordingly and perhaps most importantly make sure their salary keeps pace with the market as a whole instead of the typical 2-3% raises most people see every year. But even that won't keep the best people, because the best people don't have to tolerate assholes at their job, they can just go get a better one.

Wage slave mentality

Expectations of 10 years of experience is absolutely not an HR bomb. You need to retake your DEI training.

To get what the op is looking for, you put the 10 year req, then structure comp ballooning towards the end of the vest and it will get you exactly those people op wants.

You don’t say, “must be settling with a family”. You offer something that is only enticing if you’re going to stay 5 years.

I was referring to the family / kids but more than the 10 years.

If what you're saying is "that's what I'm looking for but I wouldn't say it..."

I dunno, that seems like exactly the sort of thing people would complain about.

So ... you have issue with people maybe having kids (whether their own / adopted, etc) or perhaps having family in an area (cousins, parents, etc) ?

This seems odd to say the least.

As I stated, for longer termed positions that require some stability matching the duration of a capital build project we look for people that have had exposure to a variety of past experiences and some demonstrated ability to stick something out coupled with some indication they making long term plans.

Which bit of that goes agin your HR policy?

The problem is favoring candidates based on non-professional features, like their families, as you admitted to doing.

That's not what was said ...

Some positions require a degree of intelligence, there are many things that can demonstrate levels and types of intelligence.

Some positions demand a certain amount of physical endurance, there are many things that can indicate physical ability.

Some positions demand a level of stability and commitment to time scale, there are many different factors that can indicate that.

Some comments require a certain ability to read qualifiers and nuance in the English language, there are many that breeze right past such things and imagine things unwritten.

What rubbish, the only commitment for employees is to work to professional standards in lieu of money. If you need such long term commitments then hire like executives with retention, i.e. if you let go the employee before the term (except for misconduct/fraud etc.) then agreed compensation must be paid as per written contract, but you won't do it.

> ie maybe kids, perhaps a new house, maybe family in the area, etc.

None are in any way indicators of professional capabilities.

They are indicators of time commitments to the area. Re-read the thread slowly because you’re incorrectly equating “having kids means they are more likely to be stable” with “they must have kids to be stable”.

You are both unprofessional and violating the law by discriminating against people based on legally protected parameters, like having children or not. Furthermore you're posting this on HN like an absolute fool. This is great evidence for people that claim discrimination is real in the tech industry.

> discriminating against people based on legally protected parameters, like having children or not.

Perhaps you might like to re-read what was written, slowly and very carefully.

Some people struggle with parsing meaning from English and jump to rash interpretation.

I think he/she misread but one could argue what you wrote is anti-DEI in terms of those who don’t have kids, etc but I can’t imagine anybody proving it.

FWIW your approach is the most sound one I read on this thread and how most successful companies probably do it. I do feel it is slightly discriminatory though against those with un ordinary paths

Many companies in Australia do not even put years of experience in job requirements as a HR policy. What matters is experience like "has build complex APIs for integration" not how many years you have been building APIs. Then if you are called for interview you will be compared against the other candidates.

This just seems like theater to me. Having built complex APIs for 2 years is obviously much less desirable than having built complex APIs for 10. You will have seen more, interacted with more, hit more edge cases, etc.

All this seems to do is make it harder for candidates to know if they're truly qualified, causing them to apply to more things, many of which they're not qualified for, wasting everyone's time.

Only on instagram and tiktok do they make someone a "CEO" a year out of school.

Even then it is daddy that made them CEO and they are CEO of tidying their bedroom.

Edit: seem I have triggered some 24 year old C suite excutives

The owners of this website encourage and invest in startups helmed by people even younger.

And the sucess rate of those at the helm of companies the owners of this website encourage and invest in is <10%.

Imagine unironically saying that someone potentially just a few years from 30 "is still a child." That's nearly as bad as saying your hiring criteria includes someone with kids and a mortgage (presumably because these people are easier to lock into shitty situations as opposed to the "children" who can easily just leave and go elsewhere). Sorry, I mean those are the ones with demonstrated commitment.

Our time on Earth is limited, and five years is a non-trivial percentage of our working life. If you're a highly compensated engineer and you retire on the earlier side of normal for that cohort, you've got maybe 30-35 years.

Imagine unironically saying that someone potentially just a few years from 30 "is still a child."

They... didn't? A developer who has a typical graduate academic career, went straight into the software industry, and then had 5 jobs for less than 9 months each is probably in their mid-20s. In terms of technical skills and professional maturity anyone like that probably is still almost a child in terms of their career and the series of very short tenures definitely makes that more likely.

Our time on Earth is limited, and five years is a non-trivial percentage of our working life.

That's true. But as you point out yourself it's still only a relatively small part of our likely working life unless we luck out and reach FIRE status with a big exit or something. You can pick up some useful skills and develop an effective professional mindset in five years. But you'll do the same again in the next five and then again in the five after that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com