>> Qualified supply is nowhere close to matching demand.

This is wrong on so many levels.

1. "Qualified" supply means experience. That means you arent hiring 22yos working at subsistence salaries shacking up with three buddies in a double-bunk apartment. It means you have to pay a "qualified person salary." I'm a qualified person, I have 18yrs experience at top firms. But guess what...175k/yr in SF/SV doesnt cut it, it gets you a 1br apt. You cant raise 2 kids in a 1br apartment. Where would the kids sleep? in the bathroom? on the dining table? Also, option compensation doesnt count, as I cant pay rent with options.

2. If you want "qualified talent" perhaps SF/SV would not age discriminate. But they do. They want young people willing to earn so little they are forced into having 3 roommates.

3. There are tons of qualified workers. Most of us dont want to move to SF/SV because the prevailing wage is too low. Pay the right wage (i.e., perhaps something that one can raise a family on) and your "shortage will magically disappear.

>> Qualified supply is nowhere close to matching demand.

I think what this typically means is: we're looking for talented developers willing to earn so littler they are forced to bunk with multiple roommates and/or live in roach infested apartments, something only desperate overseas workers are willing to do.

Talking about demand exceeding supply is somewhat nonsensical without reference to a price.

What you're saying is "at the price my company is willing to pay, we're unable to find qualified candidates." That means you can either pay more to attract qualified candidates, or do without.

Alternatively, we can raise the supply curve, which has the affect of lowering wages, and might allow your company to attract talent without paying more.

I don't know which market you are hiring in, but for jobs which pay well into 300K+ (many multiples of median household income across the country), where engineers are pampered with free meals and massages, there are shortages in qualified supply.

Ok, fair enough, my comment was perhaps flippant.

My company pays at least market rate and can afford to go higher if the candidate negotiates, so I don't think that's the issue. At least, we never had a candidate refuse a position due to money concerns. The skills we look for are not that specialized either, it's not like I'm looking for ML PhD's with a background in medicine.

Anecdotally, it just feels like almost everyone who is already good, is already happily employed. So either we need to head-hunt candidates, hope to coincidentally catch them while they're between jobs, or hire very junior candidates and train them up.

Of course, the issue might also be just that we need better recruiters to populate the candidate pool :)

That's nonsense. As an industry we have an enormous age and gender bias. I know plenty of older folks that are great software engineers and can't find work because nobody will give them a chance to interview.

here for some actual facts: https://archives.cjr.org/reports/what_scientist_shortage.php

> I know plenty of older folks that are great software engineers and can't find work because nobody will give them a chance to interview.

maybe tell them about triplebyte

Yeah, it's true about the hiring biases in general.

Where are they looking? Have you shown them "Who's hiring" HN threads?

This is only true for experienced professionals, and is something that will change in the next ten years given current metrics. Hiring new graduates whose qualification is that they have a computer science degree isn't difficult given that 60,000 graduate with a BS and 15,000 graduate with an MS every year.

100k this year.