It also doesn't really sit well with what I have observed in over 25 years of working for remote companies. We hired juniors and grew engineers up just fine. The problem, at least at orgs I have worked at in the last decade, is companies no longer want to invest in junior hires.

I have been fortunate to have a C-level above me, who believes in hiring juniors, take over in the last year. We are hiring now and mentoring, but not enough companies around me are doing this.

▲

nickff 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People job hopping when they get past 'junior' status is what seems to have caused the reluctance to hire juniors, especially combined with the surge of 'opportunists' who started getting comp-sci degrees when it became obvious that it was the easiest way to earn a comfortable living. The job-hoppers made it obvious that it was just cheaper and faster to hire intermediate and senior developers (rather than investing in juniors to learn the basics, then have to pay them to stay). The opportunists further reduced the value proposition of developers to employers as many job-seekers (particularly juniors) have little passion or aptitude for the job, and will never be 'stellar'.

▲

munk-a 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If your junior employees frequently job hop as soon as they have been trained up then your company is mismanaged. There are always personal reasons (I ended up immigrating to another country as I was coming into Senior-hood because my partner couldn't affordably immigrate into the US) but if it's a pattern then that pattern is owed to undercompensation and other failures of management.

In the 2000s it was seen as very fashionable to job hop frequently, but it was a biased impression that was assumed to be nationwide while it was only really common in SV with the hugely lucrative signing contracts folks like Google, Meta et. all were handing out.

▲

nickff 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What is the benefit (to the company) of paying to train a junior, which costs their wage, along with a significant proportion of a senior’s wage, if there is no long-term savings on the junior’s wages later on? This seems like a prisoner’s dilemma where every company counts on another to do the ‘apprenticeship’ training.

	▲	Saline9515 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In other sectors, juniors are paid a subsistence wage for a few years, so they are still profitable for the company during training. A plumber still needs a cheap pair of arms to move around a bathtub.

▲

kxrm 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would argue that job hopping was a symptom of companies under compensating for the market. This is a common problem even above Junior level. It's been easier to get a raise by leaving to another company that will pay more, then by just asking your employer for more money.

Again, the company has the control to avoid this.

▲

SlinkyOnStairs 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The job-hoppers made it obvious that it was just cheaper and faster to hire intermediate and senior developers (rather than investing in juniors to learn the basics, then have to pay them to stay).

Critically: While this is the common perception, it is generally un-true.

Just look at how often you get it as reply when you tell people complaining about how it's "impossible to find staff" to hire juniors.

Even in the situations where it is true, the effect of hiring seniors and refusing to hire juniors (thus pushing them into other fields) creates the shortage of seniors that makes it un-true again.

There's just a trend of employers having hard numbers on their staffing expenses, but barely if at all accounting for hiring costs and opportunity costs.

Many simply get it in their head that a senior costs $X/year, and therefore utterly refuse to pay a junior $X/year when they had to spend a flat amount $Y on training them up. Even when the real cost per hire for the senior is vastly bigger than $Y.

Before the post-covid/AI layoffs, tech firms throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars and years chasing seniors instead of just training up a junior was a common thing. So much so that it's a notable contributor to the overworking and burnout problems.

And it's still everywhere in the blue-collar world.

▲

SilverElfin 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What do you mean by investing though? I think these days junior people have to just invest in themselves and learn by working right? It’s also hard for companies or managers to spend more on them when they can leave at any time, which means all that effort training them will just benefit some other employee.

I’ve noticed younger generations are especially a lot less loyal, probably in response to abusive and exploitative employers and horror stories. But the downside is if employees have less loyalty themselves, then even caring companies and managers cannot justify being loyal to them. They end up losing that time invested and learn a hard lesson.

	▲	matheusmoreira 40 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I’ve noticed younger generations are especially a lot less loyal Smart. Corporations aren't loyal either. > even caring companies and managers I'm not convinced there is such a thing.
	▲	knollimar 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Why be loyal without pensions, good benefits, and more than CoL raises? What inspires loyalty about someone paying under market rate because they refuse to see change?
	▲	jvuygbbkuurx 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		If they leave they got a better offer. Simply be more competetive.
	▲	kxrm 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> a lot less loyal So have companies. This goes both ways and labor is just reacting to the "it's just business" excuse companies have been using for over 30 years.