3 ms·
First, 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 bett
by ronilan 9y ago
First, 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.