The bar has been lowered in many respects. 14 years experience, 5 of them at a FAANG. Successful startup exit for a small company I founded, and and endless array of India-based recruiters that, for example, want me to mention “Ruby 3.2” in my resume when the resume says I have 14 years of Ruby experience including using it daily in my present job. I could literally say “I invented Ruby and have worked with it daily for 20 years,” and they’d say, “but you don’t have 3.2 listed.”
I play the game then they pass me off to another Indian who is less understandable than the first guy and then they offer $45/hour. I say yeah sure, submit me to the potential client. Then I never hear anything back.
The Indian 3rd party recruiting industry is absolutely horrible. Another anecdote was spending 10 minutes explaining how Java and JavaScript aren’t the same thing. I am convinced there is rampant discrimination happening as well against non-Indians, and especially those who aren’t H1Bs. (H1B is a trap that makes it easy to hire people at lower wages and then also makes it harder for them to switch employers.)
I’m not well articulating the problem, but anyone who has done this dance knows exactly what I’m talking about.
By the way, I used to contract at $95/hour and now I can’t get calls back for $45/hour.
The outsourcing offshoring business needs to be significantly reformed. I had a gig at Best Buy ($70/hour) and I got to spend 3 months training some Accenture H1Bs to replace me. I thought H1B was to fill “critical shortages of highly skilled workers?” Best Buy didn’t have a shortage — they fired my entire team and replaced it with Accenture. Best Buy should be heavily taxed for that and Accenture et al should have their offshore labor tariffed into oblivion. (They typically have onshore H1Bs directing offshore teams.) The Best Buy CEO talks all sorts of DEI crap, while firing people to cut costs. Not very inclusive if you ask me.
Indians,Brazilians,Portuguese,Ukrainians,Russians are possibly the worst clique of discriminative nationalities. You can be 100% assured that you will be driven out of a company/job if more of them take a hold and get into higher up positions. This is not racism. This is a pure fact based on statistical evidence.
You will be sold a dream of infinite scalability by hiring "talent" in those countries for cheap and what you will get is usually disfunctional teams riddled with incompetence and nepotism.
Even if a job/team is meant to be multicultural,diverse they will find a way how to hire more and more of their countrymen until knowing the language is basically a requirement for the job.
I am not even an american and i've seen this happen in Europe as well so I imagine in the US it must be 1000 times worse.
Odd... you're not the first person I've heard this from, but have been hearing this particular process happening from multiple colleagues over the last 18 months. They are all out of work, all have had multiple interviews with various size companies, and they can never get past an Indian interviewer, and the teams seem to be growing in Indian folks, while non-Indians are let go or passed over for advancement, and eventually leave.
I was slightly skeptical when I heard of this the first time. It sounds a bit like some post hoc justification for why they didn't get hired. But nothing about it sounds far-fetched, really. It sounds more like a natural progression and part of human nature. But still stinks for a lot of my friends/colleagues who can't seem to get hired anywhere.
You're describing the effects of normalising remote work. Employees now are able to work from anywhere in the world, so companies get employees from all over the world. Since we're already looking at employing anywhere, why not also contract from anywhere?
Yeah I feel like the recent application experience is almost coercing me into racism - I don’t actually believe in racial superiority, I’m not into any kind of bigotry or mistreating other people… buuuuuut I’ve noticed that I have this visceral reaction to seeing a typical Indian name on an email from a potential employer, or a thick Indian accent on a phone or zoom call. It always just seems like an indication that I don’t actually have a chance and am just wasting my time.
It’s awful catching myself in a “I’m not racist but” situation. It really worries me.
On the bright side, racist thoughts creeping into classes who haven't been exposed to circumstances that lead to racist thoughts before might become more understanding of and helpful towards those who have contended with them for ages instead of simply dismissing them as people born with "incorrect thoughts". Racism is never actually about race.
Please don't start flamewars on HN, and please avoid generic ideological tangents (and ideological battle generally). It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
This has been my experience in the US as well, but I'm not so sure that this paradigm extends outside the US.
I lived in Europe for a few years and didn't feel that same context as well - it wasn't almost assumed that white people were racist and anyone might be seen as racist regardless of their skin color or heritage.
But in the current woke public opinion it's not and only whites can be racist.
I would love if it was possible to label racism whenever it appears but it's not possible without being called a racist yourself if you are white.
Looking at sibling parent poster there mentioning Germany, a similar example would be trying to make rational arguments about Israeli conduct with regards to settlements in the west bank. Any German even thinking out loud about those would be labeled a Neo-Nazi.
> But in the current woke public opinion it's not and only whites can be racist.
In my opinion "the current woke public opinion" is almost entirely a bogeyman construction of primarily the US right wing media with trailing support from their UK, AU, and CA siblings.
It's rare (ie. never.) that I read in "left wing" media of any substance articles about the pressing need for kitty litter trays for Furry students.
It's disturbingly commonplace to hear of what can only be performative manufacted outrage about such things from the asshole tanning bowtie wearing media wing.
The conclusion is that the statement " in the current woke public opinion it's not and only whites can be racist" is very much a localised subjective opinion and not any kind of actual global truth.
localised subjective opinion and not any kind of actual global truth.
Global truth: definitely not. But we're also not talking about that. At least I'm not. I'm talking about "western realities". In the parent sibling's Germany example, the only thing relevant is Germany, not globals. If you're a white German in Germany, then in regular media public opinion a lot of what should be normal pro/con type discourse is easily labeled "Neo-Nazi". So much so that people self-censor. Except for the real Neo Nazis. Americans can be "proud to be American". A German proclaiming to be "proud to be German" is a Neo Nazi.
And yes in "NA" context, I can definitely say that it's not "right wing outrage" construct. It actually feels like this conversation is the perfect example now. I'm absolutely not a Trump supporter for example. Not even a republican supporter. But it's absolutely my belief that H1Bs (which primarily means Indian nationals) is a very detrimental construct for America. I would never in my wildest dreams mention this "IRL" in my regular social circles for fear of being labeled racist. I am actually struggling to write any further here right now without fear of being labeled racist. I absolutely want to avoid "being thrown in the Trump camp" as well. I absolutely abhor the kind of vote buying Musk engaged in for example. A million a day for a signature? WTF!? It's such a brazen thing for a person with money to do, it's against everything I always believed the United States of America, the leader of the free world, would stand for. But I guess I was just naive. The world is way less fair than I hoped it was. I do recognize that. I still hate it.
My life did not change because you called me racist in this particular conversation.
If my regular social circle or work environment thought I was racist however, my life very definitely would change.
It does not matter whether I'm actually racist (by some imaginary objective standard) or what "the world" would think about me. Nor what might qualify or not qualify in some other part of the world and whether or not I was wild. What matters to each person is always their own current local reality. Whether they like it, whether it's fair, whether it makes sense objectively, or not.
India is a big place with the widest cultural and socioeconomic range I’ve ever witnessed. You might just be facing the less pleasant ends of those ranges.
I experience the other end of the spectrum. The skilled Indians that made it to Germany and write to me through my website are usually delightful people.
Consider just how different your experience of most countries would be if you just interacted with their people with the most imbalanced incentives. This is sort of what’s happening.
Had similar experiences a decade ago and now I hang up if the voice on the phone has an Indian accent and block all domains that send recruiting emails where the name is Indian sounding.
anecdata - I am Indian and on h1b. Intel hired Accenture folks, they just put more people with no experience, it took more time to train them than doing stuff ourselves.
Another instance, Intel gave tens of millions to do something that few employees could have done in couple of months. Its basically creating two conda environments, one with intel optimized software stack & one with default and compare the results for 20 use cases.
Not sure its the case with all the contract companies, but this was my experience.
i believe they are doing this because it gives them the ability to only pay people while they are working on that project, and then let them go because they are not employed by IBM. they think it is cheaper, or they just abhor the idea that the people they hire are not busy the whole time, even if that would be cheaper.
Weirded how, if you don't mind elaborating slightly?
For example, does it mean: the actual skill level (e.g., smartness) people actually look for and hire hasn't changed, but the activities that hiring teams require candidates to have experience with are (seemingly weirdly) not a great thing to need anyway and therefore lots of great candidates end up twiddling their thumbs?
In that way, the "height" of the bar is the same, but it's a "weird" bar, in that one could have to accept it for what it is, or even stoop to it, or perhaps shift over to it, in order to pass it?
Or more that the overall interview experiences are weird caricatures in and of themselves?
Weird is a great word, but it can be a little non-specific, so I'm left curious about the intended usage/meaning.
Many companies are filtering candidates in favor of mercenaries while pretending they are looking for dependable, committed professionals.
If you don’t have specific experience with some CTOs favorite esoteric API or don’t have experience in the same, specific corner of some insurance or usury industry, your ability to actually engineer solutions is considered irrelevant.
It’s as if the industry has forgotten that building software is about the application of algorithms to data structures to accomplish some user need. Instead, company after company wants to hot glue some service via some API using some framework on some cloud platform. And because the MBA decision-maker can write Excel macros with GPT, we don’t need programmers to build systems anymore. Just wire up foo SaaS to bar SaaS and MVPFailFastLeanAgile our way to success!
> It’s as if the industry has forgotten that building software is about the application of algorithms to data structures to accomplish some user need
My 3 months experience searching - and getting only ~3-4 initial interviews - is the New-AI-Kids-on-Da-Block think software-engineering is just another plumbing for their Artificially Great Intelligence. One CEO even used the exact word.
They are just saying the quite part out loud now because they think they can finally get away with that.
Well when the discount plumbing they are getting put in starts to leak shit all over the place there will be a premium again in actually knowing how to do it properly.
> It’s as if the industry has forgotten that building software is about...
This really isn't new. A look at Slashdot will give you similar complaints as far back as at least the 2000s. I'm sure someone older than me will dig up Usenet posts with exactly the same complaints and tell me to get off their lawn ;-)
> * Diversity hiring: Big US/EU companies are trying to hire more females here because cost is low and they can show great diversity numbers. It hurts when you see posh privileged urban women having much more chance of getting into a good company than a man who worked his way up through sacrifice.
do you have any examples of this happening? or is this just a boogie man?
my experience has been different: so many mediocre men in this industry. all of the women i've worked with have been brilliant.
I've had the same experience, and I've reasoned it as follows:
It's very difficult to be a woman in Computer Science. CompSci is uniquely awful for women. Like other STEM, it's overrun by men, so you get all the subtle discrimination of that. But CompSci men also tend to be, for lack of a better word, asocial weirdos. Civil engineers have to work with people, CompSci people built up their skills in front of a screen.
All this means that the large majority of women are filtered out. The ones that remain are the ones most skilled with navigating tough situations, and who have a strong passion for engineering. A passion strong enough to wade through the downsides.
I also think they have to constantly prove themselves, which also builds up their skills.
I always got the feeling that the distributions were different for men and women. Male professionals seem to be normally distributed, with a lot of mediocrity, some excellence, and some incompetence. In women, the mediocrity part of the population seems to be missing, so the distribution looks more bimodal.
If that's actually the case and not just a warped perception on my part, it could easily happen that, depending on your own skill-level and environment, you'll be more likely to work with one of the two groups in the bimodal distribution.
> It hurts when you see posh privileged urban women having much more chance of getting into a good company than a man who worked his way up through sacrifice.
It's not a gender issue. I would be looking to hire someone competent who works hard, not someone who makes "sacrifices" and then expects a job/promotion.
The latter never works. That's not the work culture in most places. I've seen it many times, people who make "sacrifices", allowing themselves to be exploited, expecting some promotion from it, and are then passed over for someone who actually has demonstrated they are good at the job and ready for more responsibility, and not being a doormat. Then they become resentful.
Right, but certain careers have figured out that women are, on average, better at the socialization game and thus, broadly speaking, a better fit for the job. Ain't nobody "diversity" hiring on the oil rigs or other jobs where the physical act is more important than interpersonal interaction.
However, it is difficult to measure those positive traits for what they are, so employers are selecting based on gender hoping for positive correlation. But that's illegal, so "diversity" hiring was created as a scapegoat to help avoid legal fire.
Are you asserting that companies in a free market are intentionally hiring people unqualified for their jobs and paying them wages as if they were qualified?
This has not been my experience. The women I've worked with in software engineering teams have all been, well, engineers. One of them worked on some kind of real-time printer operating system before becoming a Java dev, another one is currently team lead on the cluster team on a distributed software product, another one has the most in-depth knowledge of CSS of anyone in a 50+ people frontend department.
I see a lot of people online complaining about the job market and blaming all kinds of things for their inability to find a job, but I think what has changed is that there are no more defensive hires, where companies like Google hire as many people as possible just to deny their competitors those people. Lots of relatively unqualified people found very high-paying jobs that way and are now surprised that they can't land those jobs anymore.
If you're competent and personable and know your own strengths, you can still find a job relatively easily.
Coincidentally, I was fired during the tech downturn two years ago, and within a few weeks, had three job offers out of three applications. I have a good CV, I applied at local companies that matched my specific expertise, I asked how the interview would go and what was expected, and prepared specifically for each company.
Complaining about women because you can't find a job isn't just misguided, it's harmful to yourself, because it prevents you from understanding what the actual issue is, and working on it.
When I studied comp sci around 2000, women were actively discouraged from continuing their classes by professors. During an oral exam, a prof told a female friend of mine that women had no place in comp sci. As a result, not many women graduated, so two decades ago, there were just fewer women in the field in general.
I'm not sure what exactly qualifies as a "legacy game engine", but given the small number of women who worked in comp sci when games were made ten or twenty years ago, and particularly in male-dominated videogame studios, I would naturally not expect to see a lot of cis women with experience working on these engines (or on related tech stacks) today.
This seems like a bit of a special case, rather than a general representation of women in software engineering.
> i did not know that one gender could be better at this work. that seems like huge news if true.
There is research that has shown that men are, on average, better at single-focus tasks. And, indeed, it was huge news at the time the research was published – at least as huge as being reported in major news publications is.
It wouldn't be huge news now. We quickly grow bored and tired of widely reported things from the past. Humans, of all genders it seems, tend to seek novelty.
I assumed you were already dead by the time I got to reading your response. One does not normally tell you that they are dying if they expect to still be around for a long time. Shame on me for assuming. What is the expected lifespan for someone diagnosed with your condition?
Name a prominent open source project created be and led by a woman.
Who created and contributes to linux kernel, python, c, c++, go, python, ruby, ruby on rails, php, wordpress, ghost, SumatraPDF, zig, oding, nim, nodejs, deno, bun.
I could just keep listing major open source projects because I literally cannot think of a single one created and led by a woman.
And if you find one, it still doesn't negate the 100 to 1 ratio.
Open source, unlike jobs, are pure meritocracy. A woman can create a GitHub account and start coding just as easily as a man. There are no gatekeepers and open source contributors / maintainers are abused by random people as a matter of course.
To me it's reality. To you, somehow, saying that out loud is bias.
And to be clear: I don't think there's anything preventing women from learning to code and contributing at a high level and I've known a few that do. But for some reason they overwhelmingly don't. The stats are brutal.
go ask claude to give you feedback about this comment, because it shows a misunderstanding of how a male-dominated society works if this is what you think about women in tech.
The words you're looking for aren't conservative or reactionary they are bigoted and asshole. Best software engineer I've ever worked with is a woman, the rest had exactly the same range of ability as the men. Overall though a much lower level of entitled ignorance than "guys like us".
It's so peculiar that the man who thinks few women are willing to "get in the trenches" never sees women really getting into the trenches. It must definitely be because that's just how all women are. And definitely not because most women choose not to work with you or a company that perpetuates that idea.
> It's so peculiar that the man who thinks few women are willing to "get in the trenches" never sees women really getting into the trenches.
I have seen women in the trenches but I don't see how that contradicts my claim that they are relatively few and there's probably a reason despite all the efforts to bring more women into tech.
