> There is one motivation that should raise a red flag, though.
> “The candidates that I don't usually want to spend much time
> on are folks who are basically just looking for the next big check.
This is a red flag to me.
What if engineers want to buy houses or support families? What if they have elite backgrounds and want a similarly high level of living as their friends?
Offering bread-and-circuses and work-as-lifestyle to software engineers when they're fresh and naive or wishing to prioritise other things over money is fine. But eventually people start wanting to be able to get a pay-off for their investment in "learning". If all you're offering is warm-fuzzies, they'll go somewhere in which the remuneration is able to support investment outside from themselves.
> “The candidates that I don't usually want to spend much time on are folks who are basically just looking for the next big check. Money is not a great motivation,” says Ajmal. “But it’s actually very common that this is driving the entire process for them.”
Ugh. No sh*t, Sherlock! And we're expected to believe money isn't driving the entire process for you? There are things I care about besides money, like not working for manipulative jerks, but at the end of a day it's a "job," preceded by a "salary negotiation" in which I trade my labor for payment, most of which will take the form of "money."
EDIT:
> Ask them what they are maximizing for in their job search and how they’re approaching that. People are not used to this question and may be more candid, saving you a longer time investment.
Not to mention, if every company out there is claiming to be changing the world, it's just delusion. Boring enterprise software is boring enterprise software - and that's OK.
It has been an interesting cultural difference moving jobs from a "change the world" software company to a "boring enterprise" software company.
Part of the reason that I left my old job was that we were a "startup", and my boss wanted the whole team to "believe in the product", he really did drink that kool aid that we were helping the world. In reality we were helping minimise costs for business owners, we even had some email us and thank us because they managed to reduce their staffing numbers due to increased efficiency.
At my current company, we make some relatively boring enterprise software (minimum price $2500 per month sort of level). I don't think that anyone really "believes" in the software, in the sense that we don't think we're saving the world. We make software that helps specific businesses do a specific task. I couldn't explain to the average person what the software we make even does without boring them to sleep.
I'm actually much happier here at my new "boring" job. The code I write and the problems I solve are actually more interesting than my old job. That's not to mention that the money is much better, and I don't have to sit shoulder-to-shoulder on some shitty hot desk in a coworking space (I like coworking, but not hot desks).
That resonates, but few people are in the boat to make those demands. They are competing against people who would gladly be "exploited" if it meant they could work on technology-X. You basically can't get hired at companies like WayMo or SpaceX with this mentality because there are too many people that would gladly take your place with half the pay.
According to Glassdoor (which is notoriously 5-15% below actual numbers pretty much across the board) a senior dev at SpaceX in Los Angeles will make $160k cash and nearly $200k/yr in total comp with 20-25% of that in stock. That's not too shabby even for a California city.
Sticking with Glassdoor (so it's apples to apples) cash comp for a senior developer averages $101k (4% above the national average). So I'd say SpaceX is doing pretty good at $155k.
Tech is a pretty heterogeneous market. A senior dev at a big 5 tech company is going to be paying at least double that, and the quality they get is lightyears above the Senior Developer at Generic Widget Corp in Omaha. And Space X isn't getting Generic Widget Corp's senior devs, they are getting people who are downgrading their salary for a chance to work on something that excites them.
That’s ridiculous. Conservatism is about smaller government and not using the government to pick winners and losers. The implementation leaves a lot to be desired, but in the context of manifestos, you have it completely backwards.
What if engineers want to buy houses or support families? What if they have elite backgrounds and want a similarly high level of living as their friends?
Offering bread-and-circuses and work-as-lifestyle to software engineers when they're fresh and naive or wishing to prioritise other things over money is fine. But eventually people start wanting to be able to get a pay-off for their investment in "learning". If all you're offering is warm-fuzzies, they'll go somewhere in which the remuneration is able to support investment outside from themselves.