4 ms·
Well then I would be a professional job candidate. I could easily fill my time with $300k+ job interviews that I can pass a phone screen for but am not fully q
by cantrip 9y ago
Well then I would be a professional job candidate. I could easily fill my time with $300k+ job interviews that I can pass a phone screen for but am not fully qualified for.
- Clubber 9y agoI seriously doubt that.
- cantrip 9y agoThank you for the vote of confidence, but I'm a decent developer, not a $300k salary developer.
- Clubber 9y agoI mean, if you were paid market rates for interviews, you'd have to do a lot of interviews to net $300K. I don't see how that is possible, ignoring the fact that doing that would be about as fun as gold farming on WoW circa 2007.
- cantrip 9y agoNever did I say I'd be making $300k per year. $100k a year to do three 5 hour interviews a week for $300k jobs? I would do that in a heartbeat.
- Clubber 9y agoStill highly unlikely. There are only a few cities that offer $300K jobs and they talk to each other. Most of them probably use just a handful of recruiting firms. Your name would get around. You could maybe change it, but I still doubt you'd get more than a few hours every few days, then it would dry up. You'd have to interview about 12 hours a week (including Christmas and Thanksgiving), every week at only SV type companies and only for $300K jobs and pull it off for a year without getting caught before you hit $100K. Highly unlikely.
- ronilan 9y agoFirst, good for you. Second, if the transfer of wealth from employers with 300k+ jobs to the public does not lead them to change their practices, than even better for you. Go get the money. But, for the vast majority of people and employers, your special case is irrelevant. There exists a very inefficient, unbalanced social practice. Needs a regulatory nudge. Simple law. California goes first. The world follows. Onwards.
- cantrip 9y agoThe interview process would certainly change as a result, so who knows if one could interview full time sustainably. But I don't think it's a special case. Good software developers are by nature great at hacking systems and plenty of them would find it more profitable to keep interviewing rather than work a regular job. If it does need a regulatory nudge, paying people to interview is the most naive way to do this.