Ah yes, the infamous “entry level” position that requires 3 years experience of Java|C++|C#.

My first entry level job required C# knowledge. So I went to the nearest Barnes and Nobles and read the Microsoft guide cover to cover. I was not a C# major in uni but being able to study, abstract, and internalize concepts was something I did learn.

Yes it sucks from both ends. Companies aren’t willing to invest in teaching employees because they know as soon as they do, the employee will leave for greener pastures and the employee can’t get experience without a job or a job without experience.

The usual retort is why not bring someone in as a junior, train them, and give them a raise to market rates? But then you’ve invested x amount of dollars on someone and y amount of time to bring them up to speed when you can find someone who already has the skill you need and they can hit the ground running.

But the whole point of entry-level positions is you get someone inexperienced at below market rates. What they are really aiming at is getting someone experienced but desperate enough to take an underpaid position. Then hope they don't leave for a better paying job elsewhere.

Bringing in someone inexperienced not only costs the amount of salary you’re paying for someone who doesn’t bring in business value, it also takes time away from experienced developers - costing even more.

Even worse, some junior developers do “negative work”. Work that is so bad, you have to take more time to undo the damage than just doing it yourself.

Whether it’s right or not, the only way for a potential employee to break that cycle is via side projects that they can show as experience.