Sure if you are a FAANG, hot startup with funding or offering $300k/year. But if you are a regular company with a normal budget, you are left with nothing.

And I understand this is the market. I'm just pointing is that it's not as near bad as the previous poster has claimed.

Does the ordinary company need professional Leetcode player that FAANGs are looking for? Or does it need someone who is about average on web development and willing to work for about average salary? Not every guy should aspire to date a supermodel and not every company should cargo-cult FAANG interview process.

Fair enough. You should be fine if you are doing regular REST/React stuff. But if you want to work on something like WASM, Rust, fine tuning Web Sockets over GraphQL, etc... then suddenly, you need an "above average" developer.

Even if the form is the same the questions are easier and the evaluation more generous at lower-tier companies.

A 5000+ person company I have consulted for is hopelessly unable to find anyone who has advanced Python ecosystem experience for less than $200k. There's lots of boring companies that pay competitive-ish salaries ($140-180k), but most people gravitate to the shiny big companies that look good on a resume.

You don't want to hear my whole spiel on the distinction between "advanced Python ecosystem experience" and "advanced Python ecosystem ability".

The funny thing, it's a +5000 persons company. If this Software Developer is instrumental for the company, you'd think he'd be worth $40/employee. So there are developers, just companies not willing to pay them enough (even though we established that it's not really that high).

I was mentioning small companies in my previous post (think 4-6 devs and maybe a dozen other employees). $100k/yerar can sometimes make it or break it. Tech developers remain inaccessible for these companies making them disadvantaged in this market.

This might explain the crazy seed rounds the eco-system has been going through in the last few years. $3 million seems be the bare minimum for any startup looking to do something technical now.

That's very silly, and false.

To back this up: I'm an unemployed Python dev in the U.S. with a credible resume and GitHub profile, actively looking for something remote. $140k would be absolutely fine, no interest in FAANG or shiny companies, in fact for various reasons I've been looking primarily at smaller places. I'm not really worried yet and I've had some luck, but it's definitely not the case that anyone skilled can count on just walking into a job. I've been rejected out of hand where I met the essentials of the posting and had no doubt I could do the job.

I'd like to hear the aforementioned spiel about the "advanced Python ecosystem," which to me could mean anything between "knows what a virtual environment is" and "ML/TensorFlow expert."

"Advanced Python ecosystem experience" in this case is understanding how to create and publish a Python package.

Do you mean being able to follow the tutorial at https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/tutorials/packaging-p...? I've never needed to do that before but it seems pretty straightforward. So far I haven't seen anyone specifically request that skill in a job posting and I'd consider that a strange question to ask in a skills test for a general developer position.

If you're claiming that it costs $200k to find a competent developer who can create and publish a Python package, that's risible.

At risk of ruining a great spiel, I’d assume it boils down to “it’s amazingly foolhardy to target the candidate pool of people who have already done what you’re trying to do, when there’s a much larger pool of people who haven’t already done that thing but are readily capable of doing it”.

Tech skills and domain knowledge are transferable and learnable. So if you’re targeting hires, maybe aim for people who excel in non-transferable skills and then just teach them (or pay them to learn) the domain skills.

There’s also the side benefit that if you hire a person and ask them to repeat something they’ve done before, you still need to figure out a growth path for them. But if you hire a person and ask them to do a new-to-them thing, you have the bones of a growth path baked in.

What does “advanced Python ecosystem experience” mean? Are we talking someone who contributes to the packaging tools themselves or just a competent release manager?

Are they insisting on full-time in-person with in a high cost of living area? (Or a dress code?)

Do they have a policy preventing employees from working on open source software?

Do they have a reputation for requiring things like mandatory overtime or off-hours availability?

I have trouble believing this is true unless they’re answering yes to at least a couple of those questions. If they aren’t, have they considered changing how they’re looking? It wouldn’t be the first time bad leads are due to a recruiter who just isn’t the right person for the job.