Posted by speckx 1 day ago
Two possible reasons:
1. People who are truly in-demand still have an easy time of finding jobs without going through the tedious process you set up.
2. FAANGMANGAMEME never hired that many truly exceptional people in the first place and you've fallen for corporate propaganda.
in my experience, FAANGMANGAMEME hires good people but they get placed on a weird career trajectory.
they learn how to work experience in enormous well funded company that has spent a fortune building fancy in-house tools for their dev experience, spend their time thinking about scaling problems that no other company will likely ever face, and all covered in ten layers of bureaucracy and "process".
if you hire a faang employee into your startup or normal mid-sized business, there needs to be a bit of a detox period where they have to learn what software dev is like for the rest of us mere mortals.
Interesting. If _I_ was the owner of a business, I would try to find the people, who have ideals, dedication, like understanding what they deliver, being thorough in their work, like to learn, etc.. Well rounded persons. Individuals, whom you can give a task and they will search and find a solution. I find the hyperallergic reaction to people who stand for something, anything actually, to be very superficial and short-sighted. Businesses which do that are bound to become mediocre, due to hiring mediocre yes sayers.
But then I am not a business owner, for a reason. I probably couldn't deal with all the crap one has to wade through to be a business owner.
I respect the candidates who stand for something and can pragmatically navigate the social space of work at the same time. I find that people who just want to shut up and lick boot don't end up being very creative problem solvers. It's easy to say for me as a small biz; different atmosphere in larger corps, but I can't subscribe to the reality presented by the cynical grandparent post here. I think we can be better than this.
Stuff does actually happen, out there in the real world. It's OK - even preferable - for people to engage with the world instead of ignoring it.
> Maybe the virtue signaling is still strong here and I'll get flagged
Having beliefs, a sense of morality, and a personality are actually not virtue signaling. Having a solid and informed perspective on the world is an important part of being a complete human being. It makes for better employees, too.
If I think the problem is my friend, I might tell them what I wrote.
Having a solid and informed perspective on the world is an important part of being a complete human being.
Having beliefs
You give yourself away when you say things like this. Your phrasing here comes across as if you think that people who support social change are fickle and unprincipled, just following whatever is popular.
> I don't come across as someone who doesn't have beliefs, right? I have very strong beliefs in general.
Oh you do come across as having beliefs. Not ones that you seem willing to state or actually stand behind, though.
Your phrasing here comes across as if you think that people who support social change are fickle and unprincipled, just following whatever is popular.
This is wrong. You should strike a balance (that admittedly errs on the side of "I admire your business"). You absolutely do not want to be working for an employer who rewards "100% DEDICATION TO THE COMPANY" in an interview. That's absolutely sick. In fact, I'll go further: It is our duty to do everything we can to destroy the minority of leaders who demand this quality from applicants. This is a form of business every civilized nation should aggressively eject from their culture. It is an ignorant, incompetent, destructive form of business that other cultures have formulated in the 21st century based on a cartoon version of American business.
You are an independent entity that will be selling your services to a company. If you want to maximize your potential customer base (employers), minimize your interest in anything that isn't relevant to the company making money. You want to maximize traits that make money, and minimize traits that lose money.
That doesn't mean throwing your values out the window, but does mean separating your personal life from your work life, and understanding that your opportunity window shrinks with each "non-negotiable" you require.
the anti-trans stuff is a nice touch too.
No trans employees? What does that mean? No advocating for yourself at all? No unions?
You are ghoulish
If the market ever turns favorable for me, then I'll advocate for all those things you deem not ghoulish.
And again, what does that have to do with pronouns?
> If the market ever turns favorable for me, then I'll advocate for all those things you deem not ghoulish.
If you only stand for things when you think you have the advantage, then you stand for nothing at all.
As you said, this isn't about OP who didn't mention any of these.
But honestly, I don't think most companies read applicants' resumes and interviews deeply enough to even derive "attitude" from them. There is such an overabundance of supply that they have to use coarse, blunt filters to narrow the incoming list down to something manageable. Getting noticed and not rejected by the layers of AI filtering is likely almost a pure numbers/luck game at this point. When you have hundreds of applicants at the top of the funnel per job opening, who has time to figure out whether one particular applicant has an undesirable attitude?
I had a recruiter (from a company I previously went through the pipeline with, though did not get an offer, as a PM) reach out to me last week to assess availability and fit for a few options. I was looking at their Careers page in the background, couldn't see any Product openings. Mentioned that to them. "We're not even putting these up, or not yet. We wanted to look at people who we'd talked to and filtered before, versus getting over a thousand applicants per position if we post to the usual suspects."
We can do the miserable things that are necessary to secure our lives while also fighting to stop the people who are forcing us to do those miserable things.
Unrelated: When you say, "No him/her", I honestly can not tell what you are saying. I'm not being sly - I really can't tell if you're saying:
1. People should pretend to not be trans (scary, but a very common form of hatred).
2. Don't mention your pronouns even if you're not trans (which, ok, so maybe you roll your eyes when people do that, I don't even think that's insane - but what on earth does that have to do with having a bad "attitude"?).
3. A 3rd thing I can't think of?
The more politically-charged parts of your comment apply to both sides - it's fine if you have political opinions, but nobody wants them shoved down their throats, or brought up at work. If you come across as someone who is going to put politics over work, or cause conflict, then people aren't going to want to hire you and deal with that.
Telling people to have a good attitude is easy to say, hard to do when you've been applying for 6+ months with no response and bills to pay.
Unfortunately, the advice that's most likely to help is something everyone already knows. Networking, practice, and luck play a huge role in a environment like this. And cut expenses as much as possible, just in case you need a cash cushion.
No one really goes into an interview speaking about politics, or propaganda, or unionizing.
But it is a sad state of affairs if you have to self-suppress you're freedoms to work. That is how freedom dies isn't it? Everyone fearful to speak or lose a job.
"Just shut up and code, have to get those gas chambers up and running themselves, so we can stick the rest of you lot into them."
Uh. What?
If unions were stronger and the government was more populist, etc., (speaking of the US), maybe this choice could have been headed off better... but it's too late for that this cycle.