The definition of "Senior" has now changed to "has > 5 years of experience". Combine this with the tendency of people to move every two years (because companies rarely keep up with the market), and you can see that "Senior" casts a wide net. It essentially includes people who may have seen maybe one major iteration of a product, perhaps none. In my opinion, that basically translates to a junior.

Well, that is a highly subjective opinion.

As with everything, moving every 2 years has pros and cons. The flip side of what you said is that a person who spent >5 years at the same company has only really seen a limited number of problems, methodologies, technology stack. And that could also count as "junior", right?

The five years is the issue, imho. As I sometime put it: this role needs someone who’s made a lot of mistakes on someone else’s dime.

In my (very long) experience, companies routinely post for Sr. Engineer where they would gladly take a less experienced person they liked.

I recall this coming up on HN before, but lots of big companies have special programs for hiring jr / entry level engineers. Usually, these are integrated with university and boot camp programs the company has a relationship with. Those roles exist and are being hired for, just through a different process. Another factor is that if you’re cleared to hire someone at a sr salary you can probably hire at a jr salary if you find someone, but probably can’t go the other way. Also keep in mind HR salary bands can go out of date fast in the tech market and you may have to open a sr role in your system to get the range you need to get even an entry/mid level candidate.

My last org just wanted one senior software engineer. Just one. They couldn't find one as the salary sucked, despite interviewing about a dozen over 6 months.

> despite interviewing about a dozen over 6 months

Did they really want one? I'd wager that if they took those six months of interviews, job ads and recruiter time and instead took that money, added it to the salary they are planning on offering (say divided by the average tenure in that role at your company) and threw up a post on the monthly "Who is hiring" thread here they could've found someone.

A common tactic is to say "Oh, we are looking for the right person we just can't find them!" when the rest of the team picks up the workload of the exited employee and to keep that up as long as possible. It happened to me at my first dishwashing job at 13 years old and I've seen it a few dozen times since.

patio11 called it right:

"The explosive growth of the tech sector keeps average age down and depresses average wages. Compared to industries which existed in materially the same form in 1970, we have a stupidly compressed experience spectrum: 5+ years rounds to "senior." This is not a joke." [1]

So companies routinely comb for a "senior" person but the salary is always a mismatch. I have 25+ years under my belt but the companies that approach me expect a 5-year compensation arc and can't understand what the problem is.

[1] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/936615043126370306.html

Complicated question, as the company was structured so that each layer of management was its own "they" with its own budget. So wasted recruiter time was an externality not on their budgets. Management above line wasn't wasting any time so they did not care. Project accountability rested with the venture leads, not the development teams so there was little urgency to solve those problems either.

> They couldn’t find one as the salary sucked

Oh, boo hoo, cry me a river. That shotgun blast to the foot is ENTIRELY self-inflicted.

If a company can’t pay the going rate for a mission-critical employee, then they have a shitty business plan and deserve to fail.

No disagreement from me.

My comment on the main post is that the most in demand type of engineer is one that is cheap.

There's a good chance these positions never existed.

Company needed to "prove" that no American Engineers are available to fill the position to then justify sponsoring a visa. Then they'll go to the elected officials and whine that there's a "shortage" of engineers to try to get higher immigration quotas for H1Bs.

So they put a junior’s salary and senior experience requirements, then proceed to hire someone with “5 years of experience” at a famous foreign consulting firm (real or not). The experience is then used to justify why new grads have to be paid lower (he’s a senior, we can’t pay new grads the same as a senior) and to qualify for the visa.

They are evergreen listing for my company. They do have some mid-level and entry level, but certainly not as much as senior. We're even known for value shopping new grads to save costs, so I assume the ratio is even worse at other companies.

This holds up in my recent search. I just apply to these anyway, because what they define as senior might be totally different between companies.

Yeah, most of the "senior" positions I see state that they want 5 or so years experience.

There are seniors with 5 years of proper experience that will run circles around the seniors that have 15 years doing the same 1 year of experience.

I guess it probably depends what you mean by "running circles around".

So - just in case anyone doesn't know this - companies put up listings even if they're not hiring.

Do you know why? 1) Creates an image that they're always hiring and growing (should be self-explanatory) 2) If some holy amazing engineer applies and they can get them for bottom $ - it was basically no cost to get them.

Glad to fill you in on a very common practice.