Spoken like an HNer who is incredibly lucky to be working in a field that has never-ending demand, and is probably good at their job.

Just a heads up that the majority of people are not in your/our situation with regards to their employment.

Yes, being in an in-demand field makes work life easier. Being good at your job makes work life easier. Typing and drawing on a whiteboard is easier than mopping floors and cleaning toilets.

I don't know why every time a discussion about work or employment comes up we feel the need to have these tautological discussions about how some people have it easier than others. It's only a matter of time until we get a sub-thread of Europeans discussing how insane it is that Americans don't get 65 days of vacation every year, and a few off-topic healthcare rants then I think the cycle will be complete for this thread.

Maybe the reason these topics keep coming up is that a lot of people feel that they are important aspects of employment.

>I don't know why every time a discussion about work or employment comes up we feel the need to have these tautological discussions about how some people have it easier than others.

the same reason that this thread is posted and re-posted at all. both of these things are cultural memes: the people complaining about work and the people relishing work. nothing in any of these threads is ever novel.

Indeed. But we're discussing this here, with the audience you describe making up nearly all of us, so I didn't feel the need to add that caveat.

So yeah, go us. Our gig gets better over time, while it appears that others don't.

The employment bubble you describe really only exists in the Bay Area. The majority of users on HN are not in the Bay Area:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3298905

People 35 and over, are somewhat likely to have families and find it difficult to relocate.

> The employment bubble you describe really only exists in the Bay Area.

There are a lot of places where you get a job in this industry faster than you can say "Software Engineer", so it's definitely not only a Bay Area thing. NY/Berlin/London are just as bad from personal experience and as a rough estimate every city above 1mil population, is probably not too different.

For now. This site is also full of 20-something’s who were never in the workforce during a bear market. As someone who has lived through two, I can tell you that the demand for software engineers is not permanently robust. When the next tech downturn happens you will be grateful to have any job whatsoever. It truly sucks.

A lot of us were around for '08, and while more rare there are still some holdovers from the original .com bust. The exponential growth of the field makes it skew young but you shouldn't assume HN has no wisdom at all on it.

The largest group in the poll was US (not including SF/NY) followed by Europe (not including UK).

From your list that leaves Berlin.

Few other towns have the density and variety of startups that the Bay Area has to be honest.

> Few other towns have the density and variety of startups that the Bay Area has to be honest.

This is about ease of finding a job in the field, and startups are not the only employers there.

Seattle and almost anywhere in Southern California are also fantastic areas.

For sure, I wasn't saying you were wrong in your statement, just pointing out that we are the exception, not the rule, when it comes to the employment landscape right now.

Saying things like "embrace no job security" is something most people simply cannot afford to do.

> Let the other guys stress office politics and fear for their job if they take vacation. You're the guy who knows what this job market is like, and that you have options.

as someone currently job hunting, i feel this is overly optimistic. the job market is extremely conservative, so if you have a strange background, be prepared for the long haul. this is extremely stressful as no one seems to care where you have worked or what you have done. they care about what little specific subset of things they care about in a single interview, and have no conception of “can this person learn what we need them to learn” or how to understand what a person already knows. it’s almost as if they treat your resume as some base gpa requirement and throw it out once you pass, because they feel asking silly little one-sided questions to gauge your aptitude in a couple of hours is better than an actual conversation about things.

the way interviewing is done in the software industry is infuriating and makes me want to leave it at times. the cliquish culture is suffocating.

Hey, I mean this in no way disrespectfully, but if you want to land a job you need to show that you're following the rules. I've hired a lot of people at different places over the years so I'm going to try to help you with some unsolicited feedback.

Every comment like this on HN is an opportunity for someone desperate for talent to reach out to you. When you're job hunting make sure you use proper capitalization. Include your email in your profile. Make sure you show that yes, you're struggling, but that you also have some hope. Avoid certainty when ascribing mental state to others.

Here is how I would write your comment:

~Begins

I'm someone currently job hunting in Boston, with five years of .NET and multi-platform C++, I wonder if you have an overly optimistic view. I've found that, at least here in Boston, the job market is extremely conservative. It seems that if you have a background that's a little different you need to be prepared for the long haul. I'm finding this extremely stressful. When interviewing I find that there is little interest about where I've worked or what I've done.

Interviewers seem to care about a small, specific subset of things that they surface during the interview, and they don't seem to evaluate whether or not I can learn what they need me to learn, or how to understand what I already know. I feel like they treat my resume as some base GPA-like requirement and forget about it once the interview starts. I find myself asked shallow questions to gauge aptitude, rather than engaged in a well-tailored conversation about software and its challenges.

I know I'm venting right now because I'm having an especially hard time, but at time the difficulty I'm having makes me want to leave software. I find it hard to break through what seems to be a cliquish culture and I wish I could find a software firm that celebrated diversity.

~Ends

I hope this helps. Best of luck with your job search. I know how difficult and desperate it can feel. If you want me to review your CV or cover letter reach out. My email is in my profile.

Please take my comment as constructive criticism. I'm sure you have good intentions.

I found your comment extremely patronizing to the person you're replying to. HN is an informal place where people feel comfortable to speak casually. It's not necessary to have perfect grammar in the comments.

Going through the trouble of rewriting their comment to be more professional implies that the original commenter can't write and needs you to teach them. Nobody asked you for a course on writing.

Also, HN is not primarily a place for finding work. If someone doesn't have an email in their profile, don't assume they are bad at job hunting. Maybe they don't want their comment history associated with their professional life.

Not the original poster but I didn’t take it that way. It came off as gentle, sincere help for someone probably looking for work. I frequently see people reaching out to people in need of work.

it is indeed patronizing and presumptuous, although i must assume it was well intentioned. i was adding commentary to an internet discussion board, not applying for a job. plus, they just made up a job profile which isn’t accurate, so even if i was hunting for a job here, it could be a distraction. i don’t speak to everyone i meet in person with the assumption that i am applying to a job with them and am quite amicable in life. and to be perfectly honest, the people who hire in the way i described aren’t places i want to work anyway.

Try walking in the employer's shoes: "can this person learn what we need them to learn?" is notoriously difficult to assess. While the risk of making a bad hire is tremendous (deadly for smaller companies), the upside's lukewarm (hypothetical loyalty).

The only safe way to see if a person can do the job, is for them to do the job, pretty much.

I'm speaking from painful experience: we also used to hire based on potential. Bad idea (or we just couldn't make it work). Our hiring process is now very close to the actual job, whether the position is junior or senior, and although it can take weeks (a test project), "I could learn this later" doesn't cut it. Too many scars, not enough resources.

i am not advocating hiring purely on potential. and of course i view it from the employer's point of view as well.

you simply can't hire well if you ask what amounts to puzzle questions in interviews. it doesn't address what a person does know. so in my opinion, an interview should be about finding out what a person knows, and in the event that it doesn't overlap with what the employer true needs, then some extrapolation or further digging is needed.

however, even when a person's skills do overlap with the needs (whether the employer knows or it or not), it is my opinion that much of the overlap is often ignored (architecture, organization, perspective, personality, design skills, api philosophy) in favor of the more "hardcore" stuff (algorithms, data structures). we all know that even in the with the most efficient algorithms, software can be a mess if employees lack the former qualities. but software that is well designed can get away with less efficient algorithms except in extreme cases and niche contexts.

tbe problems faced in a software company are rarely of the form "tell me the big-O behavior of this algorithm". rather, it's much more about how to manage large amounts of complexity, reducing complexity, designing flexible architectures, well-defined APIs, etc.

A multiple week long project as part of your interview process for assessing candidates? Genuinely curious, what makes this a better process than others? I don't have a solution, but I imagine the majority top half of applicants will not even bother applying.