I don't know about the OP, but I think sometimes people forget that getting hired is only part skill list match. The other part is likability. I've worked with enough smart assholes to never want to do that again if I can avoid it. I also frequently reflect to make sure I'm not being an asshole.
For decades, employers had far more leverage than employees. Now that that's eroded a bit, everyone is panicking. But this is exactly what is needed to employers to actually train and care about their workers.
Not unique to the particular time or place : Dutch employers are complaining about a lack of technical workers for decades, think welders / metal workers / machine operators etc.
Except they pay sh*t. Somehow the statement about the lack of workers gets printed in the media everytime.
Now we have the 'free transfer of people' in the EU. The EU is not there for you, but for the employers ( just like HR ).
However after a year of working there I quickly moved on and got a big pay rise in doing so.
Your first years of your career will be shit, there is just no beating around the bush around this fact. You will be treated like a kid, you will be paid like shit (borderline minimum wage a lot of the times), and you will have to work ridiculous amounts to be seen on the same level as other people in the field.
Once you break the 1-2 year experience mark then you can begin to expect entry level benefits for entry level positions. After you break the 5 year experience mark, then really the world is your oyster. 10 years or more and you can demand blank checks.
That's a pretty absolutist statement. Is it not possible that both are sometimes present, and lead to a downward spiral of poor attitude and unemployablility?
Dear Calltrack, don't get too upset by the reactions in this thread, some people here are, well, not very compassionate, to say the least.
After a glance at Calltrak's recent comment history, I think that might actually be an ok assumption.
Just to pick one common idea among recruiters, it often takes about a month of job seeking per year of experience to get a position that is a solid match. That means that the people posting here with decades of experience can expect years of leetcode interviews before getting hired. Recruiters seem like a better source of information than currently employed and in demand coders.
And idk what recruiters say this about experience but that’s not even a claim that could be substantiated. What even is a “solid match”? Sure, if you have crazy specific requirements to be willing to take a job it will take you longer to search. That applies regardless of age. Maybe on average older candidates tend to me more rigid in their expectations and are less open to working with new industries or programming languages or something, but that’s their choice.
The "lies" he's talking about, I think, are a side-effect of the dichotomy of having an investor class that is doing better than ever and a working class that's in a downward spiral. Sadly, economic performance is measured strictly for the benefit of the investor class. So yeah, when someone who's involuntarily unemployed sees booming market numbers and talking heads on TV are calling out an economy that's "bounced back", it looks like a lie (and honestly I believe it is a kind of lie too).
It wasn't too long ago that mentioning a lab leak got you the boot.
For the most recent egregious example, see this exchange: https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/142122951874...
If I'm interviewing someone and the person is demonstrating a victim narrative, that is a huge red flag.
Similarly, the inability to see shades of gray (e.g. "using MySQL is always utterly stupid, you should never use it in favor of Postgres") which OP demonstrates with their COVID statements, makes a person virtually non-employable in my book.
Not at all. If you've been out of work for a year and seeing your savings (if you have any) dwindle and vent on what is an internet comment sections, doesn't indicate how you are in person at all.
> If I'm interviewing someone and the person is demonstrating a victim narrative, that is a huge red flag.
You are ignoring the present situation entirely. Governments have put everyone's life on hold for well over a year now (we are in month 17). Statements from authorities have been contradictory, non-sensical, they have lied in some cases and some have broken their own lockdown rules (e.g. in the UK Matt Hancock which was in charge of public health IIRC was exposed as having an affair during COVID, which BTW was illegal under the lockdown rules).
So many people can see it for what it is. One rule for them and one rule for the plebs.
> Similarly, the inability to see shades of gray (e.g. "using MySQL is always utterly stupid, you should never use it in favor of Postgres") which OP demonstrates with their COVID statements, makes a person virtually non-employable in my book
You are reading far too much into comments around COVID due to your personal bias (which btw is obvious here). Because you disagree on a particular issue doesn't not indicate someone's thinking in a different field of expertise. e.g. there are many great scientists that believe very deeply in Religion. Which as a non-believer I would think would be at odds with one another.
I have personally found it very difficult to find a job during COVID as well. I am almost 40 now and it worries me that I might experience the same in the future.
I think it's right the UK is returning to personal responsibility, especially as many of the rules haven't seemed to be science-based e.g. you must wear a mask entering a pub, but you are allowed to remove the mask while eating seated.
It's health-theatre, rather than virus prevention.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/jun/18/vips-to-be-...
Yes there is a quite an element to theatre to the whole thing, which makes sensible discussion about the issue impossible. Which I believe is somewhat by design.
That's a really interesting thought that had never occurred to me. Maybe somewhat akin to Steve Bannon's "flood the zone with shit" strategy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcy8uLjRHPM
The basic takeaway is that you make it impossible for the average person to keep up the thread of events and they become apathetic to it. I've also watched Adam Curtis's "Hypernormalisation". It is well worth a watch.
And you would be right, we definitely shouldn't trust religious people to do science, of all things.
A lot of non-believers (in the past I would have include myself in that list) seem to believe because they don't believe in a higher being that they are somehow more "rational". Nothing could be further from the truth. It took me a long time to realise that I wasn't being more rational than the faithful and I dogmatic about things that were simply quasi-religious. It took a lot of introspection and several times I had moments where my ideology hit reality hard and I spent several days dealing with cognitive dissonance and having to accept I was just wrong.
Whether you think it's at odds or not, in practice many great scientists have been devoutly religious. For example Newton.
The problem here is that nobody knows for sure, and someone must decide based on precautions and ongoing research. It is expected that new knowledge will make old information obsolete. An ongoing situation will also change during its course. Media just reflects this and there's no expectations of perfection.
It's on what basis opinions are formed that truly matter. Anyone can make thousands of bets and congratulate themselves on 50% of them.
[0] https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-says-fully-vaccinated-people-2015...
This "nobody is hiring, everything sucks, and I'm the victim here" narrative isn't really helping you.
Also, bringing up stuff like "lies about the cough" (which I assume is OP talking about COVID) absolutely undermines your credibility as an individual capable of critical thinking, which is necessary for software engineering.