I don't really believe in the so-called war for tech talent, or at least companies don't act like that. I'm in a bad mood this morning, so let's name names:
Facebook: if you live in the bay area, even if you live in SF, they refuse to do a phone screen, instead demanding that you drive to Palo Alto one to two times for one hour interviews in lieu of phone screens. Between the hours of 10am and 4 pm. So basically they demand that you take 1-2 1/2 days off work before even interviewing for real. Even if you don't have a car and have a leg in a cast, they don't budge. Of course, when you tell the recruiter fine, you're withdrawing, then they're flexible about doing things over the phone. NB: for those of you not local to the bay area, while Palo Alto and SF are considered to be local to each other, in practical terms, particularly if you're not familiar with traffic on 101, it's a 75 minute drive each way to be sure you'll get there on time.
Twitter: sit on resumes for two weeks, even if you were referred by an employee.
A9: also sit on resumes referred by an employee for 2 weeks.
The point of this whining is companies certainly don't act like they're in a talent crunch : shrug :
They care even less if you don't live in California. I get recruiter emails about once a week (usually from/for some HTML Canvas thing) and all it takes to scare them away is to mention that I don't plan on leaving New Hampshire in the near future.
If its a war for talent, even niche stuff like Canvas, they're not trying all too hard.
True. You'd think that rather than spending all that money on paying ever-increasing salaries to a small pool of people that just keep getting poached from one company to another, they'd take a few million and open a dev center in, say, Alabama. Would likely get a much better ROI, and a longer-term strategic benefit over competition. But alas, it's apparently smarter to go to Tel Aviv to find a CTO and move him to New York than it is to look in Nashville or Houston for someone with CTO skills.
As a person who worked at a company that has expanded to a couple other cities, the problem is bringing the culture of the company to the satellite office and ensuring that such an office has enough of talent pool to make that investment. Having top leaders willing to move from a place like the Bay Area to smaller towns to help the transition is not always that easy.
The thing that works, in my experience, is where employees/founders have pre-existing personal ties to other areas (e.g. I'll recruit personally at MIT for my startup, and probably up in Seattle, and possibly via some connections in Cambridge, Berlin, and Montreal); it's a lot easier to bridge the cultural issues that way. Then, ideally, relocate to where the startup is based (i.e. Mountain View, Ground Zero), but allowing wfh/remote or setting up an office if there happens to be a key person or a group of people there.
Certainly it's not easy, but aren't most of these companies all about "putting in the hard work" and whatever other cliches you can come up with? "We're gonna change the world!" (as long as I don't have to change my ZIP code, or get a different cell phone provider, and as long as you uproot your entire family, move across the country and come work for my fifth startup).
I totally understand it's not an easy thing to do, but many things in life that are worth doing aren't easy.
Especially considering the payroll costs would be much lower in Alabama. Never understood the reasoning behind everybody wanting to be located in the most expensive places in the country. Internet connections are available in the South you know.
Money aside, it is much easier to get someone from the south to move to the coasts than to get someone from the coasts to move to the south. This is especially true if you are not white, male, straight, and protestant. While I'm sure there are some awesome black lesbian atheists in Birmingham, those of us who are from outside the area are quite wary to move there.
My home (Arizona) has a similar reputation now with the SB1070 flap, and make no mistake, it has hurt recruiting.
Hell, I'm white, male, straight (ok, and an atheist), and I wouldn't want to move to the South...
But face it, there are significant "network-like-effects" in places like Silicon Valley. The talent (and money) tends to congregate. Not saying there's no talent, or strictly lesser talent elsewhere, but you can't argue with reality.
I think it's a chicken/egg problem. Everyone goes to these hubs because that's where the jobs are. Jobs stay there because that's where everyone is.
My parents were enticed by a job offer to move out of the SF bay area. The offer was better money, and all moving expenses paid, but they ultimately declined. Their reasoning was that for their type of jobs, the SF bay area was the best place to be unemployed. So they stayed.
Or perhaps you're a lemming who follows the pack? Not saying everyone who moves out there is, but judging someone's character by their ability to change geography in the same country isn't a great idea.
Right, exactly. I moved from NY to the Valley shortly after college, mainly because I was looking for something different, and the west coast interested me. Having a thriving tech scene was just a bonus. Now I live in SF because I love it here. If I really wanted to, I could be just as successful back east. I endure the high cost of living because I like the area, not because I'm driven or ambitious or something (which I am, sometimes... and sometimes not).
Perhaps, but I think there is a level of determination that makes people endure the hardships that come with living in very expensive cities. Often that is to grow their career.
I've heard there's a shortage too but I doubt it by the way big companies are acting. I think that just about the only thing they are short of is recruiters!
I've contacted a whole bunch of companies (the usual) and not heard back either way. Probably because they see I'm in the UK but if I've taken the time to write in about a job they posted, the decent thing to do is to reply either way.
There is no such thing as a shortage in a market economy; it's an oxymoron. (There may occasionally be short-term demand / supply imbalances but the market quickly finds a clearing price.)
Famines are almost universally caused by political failures rather than by actual food shortages. For example we have seen wars where the combatants routinely confiscated food from civilians and prevented delivery of relief supplies. Or misguided governments have imposed price controls which acted as a disincentive to increase production. If you don't have a free market then obviously shortages can persist a long time.
no Facebook will do phone screens at least that was what I was offered several weeks ago..but maybe it depends on the dev area..my specialty is mobile dev client native..
Facebook: if you live in the bay area, even if you live in SF, they refuse to do a phone screen, instead demanding that you drive to Palo Alto one to two times for one hour interviews in lieu of phone screens. Between the hours of 10am and 4 pm. So basically they demand that you take 1-2 1/2 days off work before even interviewing for real. Even if you don't have a car and have a leg in a cast, they don't budge. Of course, when you tell the recruiter fine, you're withdrawing, then they're flexible about doing things over the phone. NB: for those of you not local to the bay area, while Palo Alto and SF are considered to be local to each other, in practical terms, particularly if you're not familiar with traffic on 101, it's a 75 minute drive each way to be sure you'll get there on time.
Twitter: sit on resumes for two weeks, even if you were referred by an employee.
A9: also sit on resumes referred by an employee for 2 weeks.
The point of this whining is companies certainly don't act like they're in a talent crunch : shrug :