> You assert that, but I have no idea why you would think that.
Why I would think what? That this is true or that you think so too? As for the latter, because you said so...
* "Some of us are bootstrapped in a cut-throat market and can't afford to plan employee retention 10 years into the future; And neither are most employees interested in that."
* "All I said was that I cannot, at hiring, offer a 10-year growth plan for a person."
* "There are so many people who just want to clock in, do their job, clock out and get paid."
* "The latter costs money to the employer, which some can afford and some cannot"
All of which seems to say to me that a person better come with all of the skills that they could ever possibly need now and in the future because they're not about to get any support from their employer or teammates. Just sit down, shut up, and mash on that keyboard. What you seem to advocate as growth and education is something that a person should do own their own time and at their own expense. People who aren't willing to attend meetups, read research papers, work on side projects, etc. after hours are just a bunch of clock punchers who go through life without contributing much. This sounds pretty horrible to me.
"10 years" and "the costs" are just rhetorical attempts to set the bar so high to say that it's just not possible or too unreasonable to care about lifting up your teammates. This is easily provable false simply because of the companies that do this already no matter the tenure of their employees and at very little cost.
As for the former, I say there are far more important skills that an interview should focus on rather than if someone can recite the pros and cons of different sorting algorithms and their Big O costs because this is easily teachable. But when you don't care about growth and education, or just simply teamwork and collaboration, you want to know if candidates already have the answers to the problems they'll encounter, which, of course, is totally ridiculous to me.
Why I would think what? That this is true or that you think so too? As for the latter, because you said so...
* "Some of us are bootstrapped in a cut-throat market and can't afford to plan employee retention 10 years into the future; And neither are most employees interested in that."
* "All I said was that I cannot, at hiring, offer a 10-year growth plan for a person."
* "There are so many people who just want to clock in, do their job, clock out and get paid."
* "The latter costs money to the employer, which some can afford and some cannot"
All of which seems to say to me that a person better come with all of the skills that they could ever possibly need now and in the future because they're not about to get any support from their employer or teammates. Just sit down, shut up, and mash on that keyboard. What you seem to advocate as growth and education is something that a person should do own their own time and at their own expense. People who aren't willing to attend meetups, read research papers, work on side projects, etc. after hours are just a bunch of clock punchers who go through life without contributing much. This sounds pretty horrible to me.
"10 years" and "the costs" are just rhetorical attempts to set the bar so high to say that it's just not possible or too unreasonable to care about lifting up your teammates. This is easily provable false simply because of the companies that do this already no matter the tenure of their employees and at very little cost.
As for the former, I say there are far more important skills that an interview should focus on rather than if someone can recite the pros and cons of different sorting algorithms and their Big O costs because this is easily teachable. But when you don't care about growth and education, or just simply teamwork and collaboration, you want to know if candidates already have the answers to the problems they'll encounter, which, of course, is totally ridiculous to me.