Please note, that if someone is asking for payment in exchange for employment or help with recruitment, it is very often a scam. Be very careful of such schemes.
> Never pay to get a job. Honest employers won’t ask you to pay to get a job. And they won’t send you a check and tell you to send some of the money back. That’s a scam. The check will end up being fake.
Agreed, however, I took the headline to mean software devs are willing to drop money to a friend/colleague, and only after the fact. Probably just me though.
Isn't this kind of what an Agent does in the world of Hollywood actors? I would actually love to have some person that I paid who was constantly out there scouting for actual roles that look lucrative and attainable, help with the rote filling-out of forms, help with company research and interview coaching, helping to grease wheels internally (if possible), and importantly, helping with compensation negotiation which I've always been bad at. Traditional recruiters really don't do much of this at all, and generally act in the best interest of the employer rather than the candidate. We should have agents who could work for us and had our own best interests in mind, for a change.
> Isn't this kind of what an Agent does in the world of Hollywood actors
I was thinking this too recently. But the entertainment is a little bit different. Jobs are shorter (even TV shows take only a few months) and talent agents get 10 % of all your work - but would you pay your IT agent for 2-3 years (I'm guessing the average length of a programmer's tenure at a single company) 10 % even when he literally does nothing most of the time?
Yeah but we (developers,
collectively) are a bunch of cheap asses that will spend hours automating something that was only going to take 20 minutes anyway. That's our whole reason for being. So while the agent model could work well, it'll always be a niche product, like selling an IDE or better debugger.
You can work with third party recruiters. They are incentivized to find you a good job as their payout is coupled to your salary and you staying there for at least a given time.
Yea, but most of them scale too much and have 1,000 clients looking for 1,000 jobs. That's not enough focus for me to pay for. I wouldn't pay $10K or even $1K for that level of service.
Ideally, my "agent" would have max 2-3 other candidates, and offer a totally white glove service: They know my comp preferences, my location (or remote) preference, my ideal company size, industry, desired job level. They would know my schedule and go out and do all the searching and filtering, the application legwork, and basically only get back to me when the interview is scheduled and I need to show up. Then, afterward, they would take care of all the salary negotiation/maximization and let me know the offer and starting date. I'd probably be willing to pay 5-15% of my first year's salary for that level of service.
Don't quote me on that, but as a rough approximation, I feel like the toil of job hunting is so extreme that I'd be willing to part with a significant chunk of change for someone who could actually reduce that toil and deliver a real job offer or two.
I know of precisely one company that does this: 10X Management. It's similar to the top Hollywood agencies like CAA in that it's extremely hard to get them to represent you.
I'm not sure why there aren't any "free agents" running around Silicon Valley like they do in Hollywood. If I had to guess, it's probably because the same skills you need to do that job in Silicon Valley pay more in other sectors, like Hollywood.
6 figures? I only take jobs with free fruit basket. That's the minimum.
PS, my references: I have never used cursor, I am quite bad at vibe coding and don't enjoy it at all. I rarely even use AI for help. But I am quite decent at FPGA design and embedded developemnt. If you have a job for me in germany or remote in europe, then I will pay you with very bad humor every week. Possibility of using linux+neovim is a requirement though. (Yes, I really need a job)
It’s pretty normal for programmers to make over $100k in plenty of companies in much of the US. Big tech companies may pay a reasonable amount more when you consider equity, especially in high cost of living areas.
Programmer salaries have diverged a lot between the United States and Europe in the last 30 years. (This comes up basically every time remuneration is discussed on this forum). Hardware engineer pay has not seen such rises in the United States or Europe though I don’t know how much FPGA work ends up in the hardware bucket rather than the software one.
Some financial firms will pay well by American standards in Europe and also make use of FPGAs, though I don’t know how many you’d find in Germany.
Programmers are also well paid in Switzerland.
Maybe one thing to add: ‘bad humor’ is a bit hard to parse in English – it sounds like a cross between ‘bad humored’ which roughly means ‘unpleasant to be around’ and ‘bad sense of humor’, which is what I think you intend.
Not sure either of those capture the nuance of bad humour… ‘bad sense of humour’ can imply not finding anything funny or taking offence to jokes. ‘Bad humour’ in this context implies bad at being humorous, e.g telling dad jokes
Yeah sure, I know that a lot of people make 6 figures. The comparison to switzerland is not that great though, giving the cost of living. There is not much difference of me getting a 100k CHF in switzerland or 60k€ in germany
I don’t know. I have never referred anyone, but then in my 10+ years of experience in the software industry I have never found extremely talented or extremely untalented software engineers. Most of them, including myself, were between a 4 and a 6 or so (in a scale of 1 to 10). So, I always thought about offering referrals to strangers just by looking at their linkedin profiles/cvs/blogs. Chances are, they are also between 4 and a 6.
This whole “we hire the best of the best” and interviews with 5+ rounds should be eradicated asap.
> This whole “we hire the best of the best” […] should be eradicated asap.
This in particular has always perplexed me. Every company says they only hire the best, but then if that’s the true, then like basically everyone with a job is “the best”.
And then you face candidates with a few years on their resume who cannot perform a dfs when explicitly told to! (This is where some of my screenings end up after a few rounds of simplifications/hints for the initial problem)
I have a hypothesys that there is a huge layer of companies who do not "hire the best" because this is not crucial for them and I just do not have experience of what is going on in there, having only exposure to the people who did pass this filter in the software-first companies I have worked at (and I have always enjoyed working with people I have landed with in every company). I do not feel strong enough to do a deeper research on this hypothesis though.
Do many companies say that? Ive barely heard of any companies which turn away good (but not great) candidates. I know Netflix and Google at least used to - and a lot of very small startups started by good people. But most places I’ve done consulting work at seem very happy to hire whole teams of average talent.
What they're really saying is, "we make an effort to hire smart/effective people, as opposed to the places that don't and as a result have a soul-crushing mediocrity culture".
Places that actually hire people that approximate "the best" are known by reputation, and don't have to say that.
What places have that reputation where it's actually deserved? For any large company it's mathematically impossible for people to be "the best". Once a company reaches the scale of, let's say, Google then almost all of the employees will be mediocre.
I've had a similar experience. Most of the people I've worked with are 4-6 out of 10. But I suppose that's a normal distribution.
I've encountered a few 1's and 2's but they generally don't last too long. I've also encountered a few brilliant ones, but their code was understandable only to themselves, and often didn't meet a spec.
There’s a story from The Mythical Man Month. They got a bunch of programmers from lots of different companies to all implement the same programming spec, and they timed how long everyone took. Out of dozens of metrics (salary, programming language, etc), the #1 best predictor of your productivity is how productive your coworkers are.
One of my takeaways from that is that like attracts like. People are biased to hire people who are similar to themselves. And people apply for jobs at places they will fit in. 8/10 programmers don’t take jobs at 5/10 shops. 5/10 shops don’t hire 3/10 developers. Lots of people think that everyone “out there” is like them. But that’s really not true. I think most people just have an incredibly biased sample.
I was a programming teacher for a couple of years and in my experience, there is a huge range of aptitude between the best and worst people in my class. It’s all incredibly unfair - the weaker students needed to work many times harder to keep up with the better students. My best students could just intuitively figure things out that my weaker students could struggle with for weeks.
And it’s obvious if you spend enough time interviewing. I’ve interviewed over 400 people. (I did it professionally for awhile). In our interview, the best people could get an order of magnitude more done in the time we had available compared to the weaker candidates. I wish I could show you the videos. The difference is obvious.
It could also be that teams of people that work best together, grow the fastest together - that is, if you and your teammates are always helping each other out in big and small ways, then every engineer - even the ones that started out weaker - can become strong (or become confident, which can often be the same thing) over time.
Maybe. How much of your programming ability comes from mentorship from your coworkers? I think its less than 10% for me. Maybe its a lot more for others, particularly self taught programmers?
But that still doesn't explain my classroom experience. Some of my weaker students worked much harder than some of my more talented students. The weaker students also ended up getting a lot more 1-on-1 time from me as a teacher. That helped a bit - but the ranking in assessments was - for the most part - depressingly stable. I think the world would be a much fairer place if ability was purely a function of how much work you've put in. But unfortunately I don't think the data backs that up.
* more advanced refactoring tricks,
* patterns to improve mental management
* project layout methodologies
* SQL techniques and learning
And more have come from mentorship with my coworkers; and I know that I've helped several developers grow more skilled themselves by showing them that a more tenured developer gets just as stuck, frustrated, etc - while also showing techniques to get myself unstuck, the way I search for answers, etc.
I've also made sure to give others project sizes that I think they can handle - and when I'm wrong, I make shrink the task into smaller bits that they can then probably handle, and all of that builds confidence and experience without breaking them down. I think it even helps to build them up.
So, yeah, definitely more than 10%.
I'm speaking especially about the work environment. When I was going through college, sure, there were fellow students that had rougher times; but once I got into the industry everyone has been sufficiently skilled to work through things. Now, sometimes I was better at specific areas of work than people of the same or higher rank; but stepping back and watching, they were better at other areas than I was - a lot better.
Paying directly for referrals that lead to an offer seems a natural result of how much the value of an internal referral has increased since the automation war turned its guns at job boards. Even with how much less a generic referral means now, it’s still a numbers game.
$10k USD cash is exactly what a startup I used to work for would pay employees for a successful referral (hired and work in the position for some set amount of time). That seems to be the going price for a successful SDE hire as of the time of writing this comment. Here it just looks like the employee wants to pay that instead of the employer.
Note that I’m not commenting on the ethics or other wider aspects around why prospective employees might feel like they want to pay this, I’m only pointing out that the number is not unreasonable or abnormal
The usual recruiter fee for regular mid-level employees is less than 25% but it's highly variable and negotiable. The fee can vary a lot depending on how hot the market is and your volume of business.
I believe the uncomfortable truth that drives highly-incentivized hiring is twofold:
1. There are many more qualified candidates than jobs. That happened with outsourcing and remote, well before AI. That makes hiring errors are mostly undiscoverable.
2. Chemistry matters -- a lot -- in working together, leading to premiums for connections and a bias towards mutually-beneficial referral networks, which makes performance evaluation very difficult. (Objective standards tend to make success game-able, particularly with inside knowledge.)
Desperation is not pretty, opportunity distribution is far from optimal, and teams are rarely open and objective about membership.
In general, many staffing agencies already take a percentage to fill roles without the applicants knowledge, and as such often suppress fair market value for defined roles.
Always apply directly to the company you are interested in attending. Once you are in a staffing agencies database the hiring firms are often contractually obligated not to directly hire you.
If an agency asks for money, free labor, or other stupid scams... than you probably don't want to work there anyway. =3
This company was legitimate at one time, but YMMV with these types of services:
I use(d) to post my stuff at the "Who wants to be hired?"/"Freelancer? Seeking a freelancer?" posts from here. At one time (like two years ago) I got an email from someone claiming they would get me a job but I'd need to give them 10% (or 15%? can't remember) of whatever I was to earn.
I suspect that we are trending towards a baseline where interviews are gamed too heavily to be useful.
If your pool of interviewers becomes calibrated to external candidates who either use competitive programmers in their stead or well tuned AI - it wont be practical to hire.
I actually tried this a few months ago, but via talking with some friends I know IRL, saying I would pay if they could land me a new position. I wish I thought of what this guy did and posted it on social media.
I'll pay $2000 if you land me a job/contract. AI expert[0] with best grades in math, shouldn't be too hard. I'm just not good at reaching out / networking.
[0] but no academic track record in AI, just github
What does it take to land a six-figure coding job? The $10k reward alone is nearly half of my annual income. I have no idea how good you have to be to earn that much.
$75k is basically entry level right out of college, in one of the weaker (like, 3rd tier city) markets in the US. Straight salary, not counting benefits.
Child care and health care are really expensive, though, and can burn a surprising amount of that in a hurry. Even in “lesser” markets where housing’s within reach of someone making that much, healthcare and child care can hurt the ol’ pocket book.
Entry level in hotter cities will be over $100k, and the lower end of mid-tier in weaker cities will be over $100k.
You don’t have to be good at all, the handful of truly-bad developers I’ve met seem to do fine.
Oh that's interesting to know. What's more normal for Southern and Eastern Europe? I was giving numbers based off the top of my head and looking for work globally.
I gave numbers, it'd be awesome if you provided some too so the parent and grandparent post can have a good idea of what's going on :)
Referrals worth is inversely correlated with the company size. Referrals at very small companies can lead directly to hiring (no interview) where at large enterprise shops it won't even get you past the initial screen. So, as with near everything, it varies based on the context.
At big tech I am going to have to agree. At best it has allowed me to skip the phone screen. Beyond that, it's zero advantage. Even with a really high up employee.
Given the raw lack of even phone screening interviews I'm getting lately, I would take even getting to that stage, to be honest.
Though I would love to get some general honesty in company recruiting state, to know where to spend my time. LinkedIn posts that keep being "reposted" are ... problematic, imo.
https://consumer.gov/scams-identity-theft/job-scams-explaine...
> Never pay to get a job. Honest employers won’t ask you to pay to get a job. And they won’t send you a check and tell you to send some of the money back. That’s a scam. The check will end up being fake.