> People are tired of job hopping to get market pay
If nobody moved from job to job, there would be no market.
If nobody moved from job to job, there would be no market.
Also a less monolithic tech culture. Right now every employee is more or less compatible across every company because we all seek to be transferable
So what I am curious about is, did companies used to hire in less myopic ways?
Sure, in 1997 an HR person told me they needed someone with at least 5 years experience in Windows NT, but in general most interviews I had in the late 90s and early 00s were way less myopic. I'm not sure I'd have the same experience if starting out today.
Some of the people I had to be honest with - if they are paying you the kind of money you say to reset passwords and stare at the wall, you should stay where you are and make sure that wall never leaves your sight.
Perhaps it IS the widespread case that a lot of us are getting paid as SRE for much less than you believe an SRE should know. Ultimately, where you've set the bar is arbitrary
People often can’t control what technologies their employer uses, but if they have solid fundamentals and I can tell they have tried to learn things on their own, more often then not I’ll give them a chance, and it usually works out because they are doing what they really want to do, and they are always looking for ways to build upon and improve what they’ve worked on.
Somebody has to build and maintain them.
Have you considered that maybe they’re fine with their level of responsibility and can leave work at the office?
If they are not there because they love working with technology, there are other places for them to be.
Or… am I hearing a new web3 startup?
(If I ever end up doing this; this comment will age super well)
I enjoy being the dumbest person in the room. Others find it threatening.
And for those who are so busy outside of work that they can't grow inside of work, I feel for them because that sounds like an exhausting life.
This isn’t true for all industries. Some have software systems with engineering life measured in decades
The only pool of software that both employs a large number of engineers, has an engineering life measured in decades and isn't rewritten every 3-5 years to a large degree is enterprise software, in my experience. Think C/C++/Java/.NET middleware type stuff.
And I imagine 90% of HN actively runs away from those jobs :-)
I've worked in more 'traditional' engineering fields (manufacturing, energy, healthcare, aerospace) and the vast, vast majority are long tenured systems built for dedicated uses. I've worked on many systems that are older than me. For those in SV, I imagine it's the opposite. Like you said, HN may be biased to a specific type of development which often leads to biased claims. Tbf, my main issue is with the "everything" modifier in the OPs claim.
But there's also a place for durable things of lasting value, built by people who enjoy perfecting their skills, technique, and craftsmanship with mature tools to solve problems well, learn the domain well, and build lasting relationships with customers who are big spenders.
It's kind of naive to assume that those people are making no effort to better themselves just because they're not always chasing after the latest hot new thing.
Nope. 30+ years of experience here working for different software companies in 5 different countries. I still use most of the knowledge today that I learned 30 years ago.
Software development fundamentally changes very rarely. However software development fashion changes all the time. But the latest fashion is just a slightly different implementation of the same underlying fundamental things I already understand. It is just a slightly different flavour of ice cream.
It's important to have distinct subcultures to progressultiple fronts sometimes.