u/babypho wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
For my company, their rationalization is if they were already spending six figures for an employee, might as well spend 10-15% more to get someone with 2-3 years of experience rather than spending a year+ rolling the dice and training someone with 3 months of bootcamp experience.
u/michaelnovati replied ·
Your company is not alone, that's the common sentiment.
If the companies were doing better then they can afford to take a more junior, cheaper, high potential candidate, and basically waste their salary ramping them up for a year before they contribute.
In the "year of efficiency" (which is now permanent) there ain't room for that.