No. It's Google. You can't fight that.  The nearly 300 contract recruiters who took jobs with Google, can't be wrong.  Hope they are getting contractors' wages as, as with Microsoft, they have to leave for 3 months after working 9.

True, potential recruiters are told they "might" become employees if they are truly stellar.   If Google is paying high wages, then people will still get to "live the dream", prove to everyone how smart they are, and get Goog on their resume forever.  Future riches maybe, at another employer?  Look at Shally and Jim.  

Google's got a great employer brand, but it's not like Apple in terms of rejected recruits.  Apple folk identify with being Mac users.  They'll keep using the product and being "into" Mac and Mac culture.

With Google it's a matter of switching toolbars.  But it's Goog, everybody loves Goog.  

Absolutely. You hope that people are taking jobs at good companies based on multiple factors (including compensation). However, the idea of vast, and usually quick, riches (through options) swings the decision for lots of newer recruits. When it is your first job (or in the first few years of your career) you don't understand all those other factors that are important - all you know is money.

Consider MS and their options. Before the late 90s, signing on virtually guaranteed you significant monetary gain through options (so much so that it was used as an informal recruiting tool). After that you actually had to really consider a job offer instead of blindly accepting.

There will always be a group of people that "chase the money" and companies that offer options, and have the potential for those options to be worth something, will do better attracting new people than those companies that don't have options (regardless of base pay).

It doesn't help matters that we are coming off a time where anyone that could write code better than circus monkey felt like he/she deserved a bajillion dollars a year because some guy at their cousins brother-in-laws church made a fortune selling a website they created showing his collection of star wars action figures. Pets.com anyone?

It may be that they are looking to hire more grownups. What I mean by that is that I think options over salary appeal more to younger people who are interested more in future potential than paying for current expenses. If you are facing kids in college in the near future or right now than a higher pay check now looks better than maybe the stock will be worth a lot 10 years from now.
To be honest I think that some companies hire too many people right out of school and would be better off hiring older more experienced people. College hires generally require a couple of years to become fully productive where many experienced people can take 2-3 weeks of training in a new technology (like a programming language) and make a lot out of it in a very short period of time. But they want to be paid for that experience.

Thanks for your thoughts Carmela - I wonder if this is true for some of the other hot - but maybe not as brand name - start ups out there.

And Scott - LOL, I couldn't agree with you more.

Interesting perspective Alfred - but if you don't hire college kids into great jobs how can you encourage the next generation to join the software industry?  Especially since we are already seeing a declining interest in this particular field.

Zoe, if you only worry about jobs for the college hires you risk losing the experienced people. There has to be a balance of experience. Also I think that a lot of companies are having trouble finding enough qualified people in the software field. Part of that is a shortage of college hires but a larger part may be a failure to invest in training for experienced people. For the overall health of the industry you do need the college hires to keep entering the field but you also need to ensure those students have a growth path that includes the sort of incentives (training can be a part of that) that allows people to stay in the field and to take advantage of experience.
Are college students going to enter a field if they know that after 5 years they are going to be out of work and replaced by the next generation of college hires? Of that if they are not fired they will have no mobility because companies only hire kids out of school?

Hey Alfred - I agree with you that companies need to strike a balance.  I think maybe misread your orginial post to say - "don't hire so many college kids".  I definitely get the point that you have to do a lot of investing on both sides and I am right there with you in that there aren't as many qualified people as there are jobs.  We've said that many, many times.  We're facing two problems: not enough people are getting into the industry and many folks are "ageing out" or opting out for different or "better" careers.  Exactly to your point that companies need to do a better job recruiting and retaining individuals and unfortunately they don't.

Hi, Zoe!

I wonder that you or Gretchen might blog about those of us "with experience" who got caught in the crash, transferred our skills, and are now making a return.  Gretchen, was quoted in an article in the "Seattle Times" about whether one should lie or not.  It would of value, perhaps even fun, to write a note of encouragement, e.g. "C'mon in, the water's fine!", based on what you saw at MSFT.  

I suspect that many of us, have "years of experience" which made it even harder to find a job in during the crash.    I don't think we give two figs about stock, especially in such an iffy economy.

You might generate traffic as well by asking us where we went off to and reassure us, you've seen it all.  Meanwhile, so I am not an off topic troll, I say give me the cash and a chance to make a difference; I don't need stock options unless they are an "extra" rather than "primary" perk.  

Seeing what happened at the company I worked for in Seattle was brutal.  In the words of Cubicledrone, at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/19/1949255,  the most beautiful math equation ever derived?

Paycheck - expenses = savings

I love that guy or gal. I would probably hire him in a heart beat while others would probably pass.  

Hey, Zoe!  Consider linking to this post by Bob Parsons, at http://www.bobparsons.com/WhyIPOPulled.html  As you may know, GoDaddy.com, was up for IPO.  Bob, had to remain silent for a long time.  The post is about why he didn't take his company public.  

You could make it relate back to your question about stock options.  For me, I don't care at stock options:  It's leadership I am attracted to and Bob has it in spades.  Good luck!