It is a weird market. I've been job searching pretty hard for the past month in SF and the response has been a bit frustrating. I get tons of people reaching out to me after meeting me at tech meetups, etc, but I'd say over half of those leads end up cutting me at an HR filter before I can even get an interview!<p>From what I understand it's due to two things-- at 34, I'm older than others going for junior positions. I spent a decade abroad after graduation and have only a year of experience at a tech start-up in Asia. I can kind of understand the pursuit of someone who already knows what they're doing, but on the other hand everyone has to start learning somewhere. Sure my bohemian background and experience starting and running a non-tech business and learning multiple foreign languages doesn't translate directly into usable skills here, but I would have thought that it would have been a strong signal I'm capable of working hard and learning quickly.<p>Not to overstate things, I am getting a lot of interest and a few interviews and even repeat interviews. It's just that things are moving very slowly, and I'm not getting a great return on the time I put into it. Also, SF is a very expensive city to live in off of savings earned in a developing country!<p>I think the shortage isn't so much general talent; it's a shortage of people who already have X skill a given business wants <i>right now</i>.
This article is playing word-games. When employers and economists talk about talent, they mean capability, regardless of whether it's natural or comes from hard work. Your dictionary may say "natural aptitude or skill", but that's irrelevant to the job market.
There is no talent shortage. There is a shortage of Berkeley/Stanford/MIT grads.<p>Just look at the difference between grads of those school, who basically get money thrown at them, and the rest of graduates, who have a hard time finding a job at all.
Maybe it's just me, but this seems to be in response to an earlier HN post about the entrepreneur prodigy [1] as well as a vague stab at the 10x programmer myth.<p>[1]: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4140048" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4140048</a><p>Largely though "Norman" is more attractive than "John" to businesses because he displays strong signals both in talent and work ethic. "John" might be a hard worker and have talent himself, but because he has no obvious projects or other public displays of talent his signal to employers is weak. What "John" needs is something that sends a comparatively strong signal. In a way, this sounds like a call to action to figure out how programmers can build a sufficiently strong signal for employers to see. How do we separate the signal from the noise?<p>Interestingly, this signalling problem arises with employers as well. Look how many articles are posted here about "How to attract the best talent."<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)</a>
My programming experience was unexpressed before college as I was mostly interested in basic sciences - mainly physics. It was only after high school did I seriously get into CS type of stuff as I started developing an intesrest in AI/algorithms. So for me, it is not hard to believe that there could be a lot of people with a hidden aptitude for programming. After all, programming is a means to an end. After high school, understanding the brain and developing AI was my "end", which obviously requires strong programming skills and thus subsequently triggered a stronger interest for programming.
Ok, really how common are people who have started 2 companies and written an OS by the time they start college?
I did CS at a pretty good university (AAB A level requirement) and there were plenty of uber-nerds in the class but nobody had done anything like this.<p>I did a bit of casual freelance work building basic PHP/HTML websites and fixing/building PCs before I started college, but never anything I would have dreamed of incorporating a company for. In fact I'm not sure how many jurisdictions would even let one start a company at that age?
<i>"John only started programming in college. He has 3 years of “experience” – much of it spent working on school assignments, not projects – and Norman has 10. John’s not as experienced or capable, but he may well be just as talented as Norman. Norman will get snapped up by a top company and snowball into a “rockstar” developer, whereas John will start (and maybe spend) his programming career in relative obscurity."</i><p>I'm not sure what I'm supposed to gather from this John/Norman comparison. If John has the same amount of natural talent as Norman, after a few years of full-time professional development work he's likely to be just as valuable as Norman. There's plenty of time to become really competent and valuable even if you start very late (like in your 30's or 40's, which I assume classifies as "freaking ancient" in many companies' eyes). I don't see how one person having some imagined head start figures into whether there's a shortage or not; but then, I don't live in the valley, so perhaps this is a cultural thing there.<p>I do agree, though, that there's a lot of companies out there that seem to want the top 1% (all the while offering bottom 25% rates).
This is my situation - I only really found out I loved code in University, and only worked out what I really need to do to do that kind of work I want to do since entering employment. I'm still relatively young (24) but even I feel this experience gap in talking to potential employers.<p>That said I'm now actively building a portfolio by working nights on real products and leveraging what experience I do have as heavily as I can. I also try to present how quickly I picked up the skills I do have in things like Ruby, coffee/node and all that 'sexy' stuff to show that I can pick up anything anyone throws at me really quickly.<p>Hopefully by the end of the year I'll be where I want to be.
Norman has skill, Jon could've had skill, so there is no talent shortage. Is the article saying because a lot of people COULD'VE had skill that there is no talent shortage, and then pedantically renames it? It's clever, but talent shortage or luck shortage or whatever you call it, companies need sufficient programmers and there aren't enough to go around.
no. there is absolutely a talent shortage.<p>as proven by 1) the fact that the percentage of of the general population who have an aptitude for "brainy things" in general is pretty much the exact same as it was 20 years ago and 2) the percentage of companies with a need for said people is growing exponentially as software eats the world.<p>basically, all of the new-need companies from point 2 are bottom-feeding all of the people from point 1 which applies upward pressure on the talent pool.<p>because a talented accountant-turned-programmer still leaves a hole that needs to be filled.<p>feelin' me?<p>m3mnoch.
Then what does a talent shortage look like?<p>This article is arguing that the current situation is because companies wont employ below a minimal technical competence.<p>New, brand new, out of college only done programming in college programmers can expect massive starting salaries, the best equipment, and probably lunch and accommodation with a strong chance that they'll get a higher salary the year after.<p>Few companies require you to actually have used their technology or their architecture, if you have you might have already priced your way in to a job above the one been offered.<p>If the industry contracts as it surely will programmers are going to be scratching their heads at articles like this.
I didn't encounter programming by luck. I was mesmerized by the first computer I saw, and soon sought out programming through library books and hobbyist magazines. At that time, home computers were rare and expensive, so I was lucky that my parents' indulgence made my obsession possible, but now? They're so common that it's very likely John's family had a desktop on which he could simply type "I want to program computers" and it would tell him how. I have trouble believing strong aptitude could go completely unexpressed until college.
Talent at any company can be divided in to following categories:
a. People who make code* frameworks
b. People who extend code frameworks
c. People who maintain code frameworks<p>* you can replace code with almost any other employable skill<p>"Talent shortage" usually refers to people who fall in a).<p>Every company claims to want to hire only a) but most companies need b) or c). Very early stage startups ideally need a), but they don't always manage to hire people in that category. They can temporarily bypass this requirement by hiring people in b) and using frameworks like (Rails, Django, etc) built by other people who fall in a) until they get to a point where a) types will be willing to join.<p>When people talk about shortage of talent, they usually mean shortage of a) people. This is mostly because two of the three things that people in b) and c) need to become a) are hard to acquire and come with 'experience'(for those who try).<p>3 things you need to become a):<p>1. Acquiring a good base
- data structures, algorithms, design patterns etc
- learning languages/specific skills
- interview skills<p>2. Acquiring good mental models
- working with smart programmers
- reading code by smart programmers
- learning to make tradeoffs
- actually building stuff<p>3. Acquiring reputation
- Building stuff
- Talking about stuff you build
- Having other people talk about you
- Collecting badges that other people recognize i.e. working at well known startups/companies, winning programming competitions, going to Berkeley, etc.<p>Most people manage to succeed in 1) eventually. 1) is also where most college/other training programs focus. But, 2) and 3) are much harder to acquire.<p>If a company is big enough they will assign an a) to mentor someone who is a b) or c), but this is often not viable for startups (and, imho, slightly unreasonable to expect from a lot of startups).<p>If we figure out a way for b) and c) people to learn 2), we can solve a lot of the talent shortage. But, this requires either a b) or c) person to spend time on their own looking at work by a) people (not always possible and extremely time consuming), or an a) person mentoring the b)/c) person outside companies (100x faster, imho).<p>Until we build social systems that enable b) and c) to transition to a) easily, the alarms for 'talent shortage' will continue to ring.<p>Caveats:
1. A lot of jobs only need b) or c). Employers could adjust expectations.
2. Luck is a huge factor. You don't actually have to be a) to be hired or considered a) because perception(3) plays a big role.
The difference in these scenarios isn't really luck; sure, Norman has a bit of a head start. But John shows almost no interest. He picked a major, but that's about it. "Talent" may not mean exactly what people are talking about in this context, since interest in coding and a desire to learn about computers are just as important as natural ability.<p>You can't say that the person who just goes to class is going to do as good of a job as the person who completes side projects, learns on their own, etc.
I guess one thing that irks me a bit about the article is that it is so employment centric, and yet the logic one should draw from the comparison is to break out of that way of thinking. After all the first guy with years of experience didn't get them on the job.<p>The moral of the story I would take from it is that if you want to program make a name for yourself, and do so without regard to your employment.