A debate is emerging around the number of engineers becoming founders/entrepreneurs right now and how it's affecting the hiring landscape and ability to scale a company.

If many of the best engineers are essentially unhirable because they are starting their own companies is this a problem or is the breadth, number and variety of new company emerging in our space a good and healthy thing?

Speaking only for NY I think it's a mixed answer. Certainly we're feeling the pinch as the talent pool thins, but we're also watching a startup community emerge in realtime before our very eyes. Even though most of these companies will fail the lessons and knowledge these entrepreneurs will take away from the experience will endure.

On the other hand the jump from small to not-so-small is harder than it's been in awhile.

Ultimately: if you're product rocks you should be able to hire for it :D

There are many shades to this. The positives are that many new companies will be created. This can be positive in job creation. The negative is that attitudes prevent small/med biz creation- they will quit if they don't get the big win. So we waste time/energy/money/opportunity. Another negative is great companies could have been created if only they could get 1 more engr but could not before they ran out of $. time is the enemy of early stage startups- if they cannot get hires b4 $ run out.

Maybe a bit silly, but I sort of think of it like college sports versus the pros. Everyone *wants* to get to the pros to make the real money and get real fame, but only a few are actually ready to jump right away (or early with some professional leagues ban on jumping right away). Many more benefit from the experience in college first. And overall, most never go pro.

Going pro is very, very, very hard. And harder without experience.

Though the "acqui-hire" sort of destroys the above analogy. But that option doesn't always exist. Depends on the market and the companies in it. Right now, the truth is that the option exists for many. Try, and if you don't succeed, then sell and work for another company. Yes, the very lure of that "fallback" option does make hiring very difficult.

I think what we're witnessing is a fundamental shift in the entrepreneurial risk calculus. Talented individuals (this goes beyond engineers, FWIW) are looking at the landscape and saying, "what do I lose by giving this crazy idea a shot?". A lower-risk environment reduces the hirable population, certainly, but if you think recruiting is difficult, try retention! Poaching is now existentially necessary for some companies, and the rules of engagement have changed. All bets are effectively off.

What I'm hoping is to see startups compete on mission rather than market - which means I'd rather see talented people wind up at companies that are building sets of tools that will have a fundamental impact on users and their behavior, rather than something that's been optimized for acquisition. With so many small teams, critical projects are understaffed. I'm hoping to see the pendulum swing back towards everyone getting an opportunity to do meaningful work.

I mostly agree here. I've never try and hire w/equity or $$ and have always focused on matching passion (candidate) with purpose (company).

But I actually don't have a fundamental problem with people approaching this space purely as a business (although it turns me off personally). Who am I to tell someone what they should value?

On mission-driven recruiting I think you're spot on. In tough hiring markets too many companies get greedy and scared and resort to hiring inauthentically (in some cases just flat out lying) and competing on cash and upside alone. This never works well in the long run.

My opinion is that it's this combined with more candidates chasing money and prestige rather than mission and meaning that causes the kind of churn you see in frothy markets.

Too much opportunity + too much greed= insanity :)