Reply to: State of the Market

[avonleigh]

I read somewhere recently that the applications number on Linkedin isn't the number of actual applicants but the number of people who opened the link and clicked through to the company's application page. Many of these won't complete the application.

Sometimes the applicant number for a job is suspiciously very high, other times it seems strangely low. Seems random at times.

Ah didn't know that. That's interesting.

[edison]

Saw a test analyst contract on Linkedin, been up for less than 24 hours and there have been 678 applicants. Shows how the market is. 3 or 4 times the usual amount of applicants you see.

I read somewhere recently that the applications number on Linkedin isn't the number of actual applicants but the number of people who opened the link and clicked through to the company's application page. Many of these won't complete the application.

Sometimes the applicant number for a job is suspiciously very high, other times it seems strangely low. Seems random at times.

[TheDude]

The smug arrogance of those who believe anyone not working multiple contracts is a fool reminds me of the smug arrogance of people who engaged in questionable tax efficiency schemes before HMRC came knocking.

[TheDude]

Nobody wants a C++ dev, they want someone that can increase throughput on their low-latency trading platform.

Your value should be at the top of your CV, not the tech stack you use to generate the value.

Re-read this classic: Don't Call Yourself A Programmer, And Other Career Advice | Kalzumeus Software

Not if they are looking for someone to write device drivers or work on embedded systems.

[avonleigh]

Saw a test analyst contract on Linkedin, been up for less than 24 hours and there have been 678 applicants. Shows how the market is. 3 or 4 times the usual amount of applicants you see.

[Paralytic]

Nobody wants a C++ dev, they want someone that can increase throughput on their low-latency trading platform.

Your value should be at the top of your CV, not the tech stack you use to generate the value.

Re-read this classic: Don't Call Yourself A Programmer, And Other Career Advice | Kalzumeus Software

I'd agree with this - programming is now a commoditised skills, and the acceleration of AI in this area will only make that moreso. It's a cliche, but a CV has to demonstrate the value you can bring, not the technical skills you have.

[DrewG]

So for the past two years I've been bombarded with emails and DMs on LinkedIn. Thought will be easy. Just went on the market and tried to make a few calls and such, share my CVs, speak with recruitres. Wtf is happening, there's nothing! Maybe my area is kind of niche ( Rust, C++ ), but even for the damn Go and python developers the market is scarce. Scary times.

Nobody wants a C++ dev, they want someone that can increase throughput on their low-latency trading platform.

Your value should be at the top of your CV, not the tech stack you use to generate the value.

Re-read this classic: Don't Call Yourself A Programmer, And Other Career Advice | Kalzumeus Software

[soyoh30298]

So for the past two years I've been bombarded with emails and DMs on LinkedIn. Thought will be easy. Just went on the market and tried to make a few calls and such, share my CVs, speak with recruitres. Wtf is happening, there's nothing! Maybe my area is kind of niche ( Rust, C++ ), but even for the damn Go and python developers the market is scarce. Scary times.

[SussexSeagull]

I couldn't ever imagine saying to a client, well you have used up the 7.5 hours within the day so despite the fact we have a hard deadline in the morning that you have been paying me quite a considerable sum to hit over the last couple of months - i am off for the night...

No I would just do the professional and common sense thing... put a few extra hours in, keep the client sweet and probably take it slow for the following days to balance it all up.

God knows how some of you ever get renewed with your attitudes

Some of us get renewed because we don't have to work late on deadline day because we have already finished the work.

[eek]

Thanks for the post. This was my point when I posted about having no issues with taking on two lower value contracts to make ends meet and add to the war chest. If a client is paying £150 to £250 per day, they aren't paying for a top tier Principal Architect, they are paying for a basic techie. In context, £150 per day would be as good as minimum wage for an inside IR35 contract.

I should feel guilty about taking on 2 x £250 per day inside IR35 contracts if times were hard? Anybody here can take the guilt, working free time (120%? No chance!), client-pleasing smarmery and go permanent. Look after number one, yourself. If you are trying to take on two £600+ per day outside IR35 contracts then you will struggle, because it will mean more time at the desk and close monitoring of performance by the client. If you can complete the statement of works of two high paying outside contracts then good for you.

I am not beyond lowering myself to doing 2 x £250 per day contracts as grunt work, it's all easy work. Those moaning and simultaneously working a single remote or mostly remote £150 to £300 per day inside IR35 on one contract at low rates are mugs, but that's their choice. If they are also trying to get a gold star from the end client for this by working extra hours and spending 8 hours a desk then they aren't a contractor as far as I'm concerned.

The point is that I suspect a £300 a day contract will require as many awkward meetings as a £700 a day contract and you will instead have 2 people after a 10am daily meeting

[agentzero]

Two of those and you are sorted.

They really are not going to expect much for 350Euros a day. Others will say these gigs are even harder work than 600 a day gigs, but i disagree. Personally i would feel no pressure in a contract like that, i would give them exactly 350 euros of value, if they don't renew the contract because they thought i didn't work hard enough, who cares, no big loss.

Thanks for the post. This was my point when I posted about having no issues with taking on two lower value contracts to make ends meet and add to the war chest. If a client is paying £150 to £250 per day, they aren't paying for a top tier Principal Architect, they are paying for a basic techie. In context, £150 per day would be as good as minimum wage for an inside IR35 contract.

I should feel guilty about taking on 2 x £250 per day inside IR35 contracts if times were hard? Anybody here can take the guilt, working free time (120%? No chance!), client-pleasing smarmery and go permanent. Look after number one, yourself. If you are trying to take on two £600+ per day outside IR35 contracts then you will struggle, because it will mean more time at the desk and close monitoring of performance by the client. If you can complete the statement of works of two high paying outside contracts then good for you.

I am not beyond lowering myself to doing 2 x £250 per day contracts as grunt work, it's all easy work. Those moaning and simultaneously working a single remote or mostly remote £150 to £300 per day inside IR35 on one contract at low rates are mugs, but that's their choice. If they are also trying to get a gold star from the end client for this by working extra hours and spending 8 hours a desk then they aren't a contractor as far as I'm concerned.

[eek]

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise... The disagreement is between those who think consistently going above and beyond your contract is bad and those who think it is good.

But that bit in bold is a figment of the imagination of the people who think the rest of us are working insane hours for the sake of it. We do it once in a while because if you show willing you have the people around running the political campaign to ensure you get the renewal you want.

[JustKeepSwimming]

I couldn't ever imagine saying to a client, well you have used up the 7.5 hours within the day so despite the fact we have a hard deadline in the morning that you have been paying me quite a considerable sum to hit over the last couple of months - i am off for the night...

No I would just do the professional and common sense thing... put a few extra hours in, keep the client sweet and probably take it slow for the following days to balance it all up.

God knows how some of you ever get renewed with your attitudes

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise... The disagreement is between those who think consistently going above and beyond your contract is bad and those who think it is good.

[dx4100]

I couldn't ever imagine saying to a client, well you have used up the 7.5 hours within the day so despite the fact we have a hard deadline in the morning that you have been paying me quite a considerable sum to hit over the last couple of months - i am off for the night...

No I would just do the professional and common sense thing... put a few extra hours in, keep the client sweet and probably take it slow for the following days to balance it all up.

God knows how some of you ever get renewed with your attitudes

[malvolio]

If you're good at selling, there's no reason why the advisory deliverable can't turn into an execution/implementation deliverable. Even McKinsey want the implementation work nowadays.

Not actually to do with selling (or, to be precise, upselling) though, is it? Most clients will make a clear separation between a strategic proposal and the delivery of a solution to meet that proposal. I did a detailed service design for a client for a specific ITT not that long ago, in the full knowledge that (a) I was pretty sure they probably wouldn't get the work - correctly, as it turned out - and (b) I ensured what I produced would be easily transferable to any other similar ITT * . Both they and I were fully away that implementation would not be coming my way; they had their own people to follow the plans or they would want someone with considerably more reserve capital than I could offer. As I said elsewhere, most of my work in latter years was around the £10-£100 million bracket. I suspect it might be a lot easier if the work in question was a website design, for instance.


*And before you leap in with the line about "foolish to block further work", They still came back with other things but, as I suspected, they now had a solid template for the basic solution model so wouldn't have given that to me anyway.