I had a startup give me 2 interviews and a paid coding exercise before making an offer, but the compensation was below market with some long shot equity comp. I had a large consulting company give me one recruiter screen and a series of 3 20 minute interviews, one tech one manager and one in between before making an offer at market rate. Sounds like generally interview time scales with total compensation, which seems fine to me. I’m a data scientist and I’ve never had a live coding interview but I also have no desire to apply to a top tier tech co.
Then there isn’t a problem — at least for FAANG. People are willing to jump through more hoops for more rewards in all aspects of life.
If a less prestigious company with worse compensation tries the same thing, then they will quickly discover they can’t hire anyone. It will be self-correcting.
Probably not as much as you would guess from talking to FAANG employees. It’s been fifteen years since my compensation exceeded the amount where it makes any difference to me. Now I want to have interesting problems, a business model I am not ashamed of, good and smart coworkers and decent conditions. I won’t be retiring early, which is fine: my work is almost always a fun and valued way I contribute to the world. One of the big problems with software ethics and the joy of solving problems is the influx of people choosing software not due to intrinsic affinity but just for money. Sometimes I wish more of them still went for law degrees or MBAs or surgery. It’s just a little sad to see someone who can make beautiful and useful software gems be dissatisfied because they didn’t get to be a CTO by the time they are thirty or the like.
In the 90s people getting a big software job where thrilled because they were going to change the world. My mom’s friends used stuff that ran my code. Now it seems like people want FIRE or multiple houses or lambos.
