3 ms·

Care to try to explain more, Ronilan?

dchhugani 8y ago
Would also love to learn more about your thinking. Also happy to chat offline if you prefer, I'm at deepak@thelobby.io
ronilan 8y ago
It should be one of those things that are self-evident, but since YC backed this “thing” I guess it is not. So in the shortest possible form: There exist an imbalance of power between the people “on the inside” (or “on the couch”) and the people on the outside. Generally speaking, a business meant to exploit the imbalance is wrong. One that does so at the expanse of the outsiders and for the benefit of the insiders is just plain wrong. Specifically, job seekers are, while seeking, a “vulnerable” population (just as an example, so are renters and migrants). These are people, who for a certain period of time, and due to certain circumstances, find themselves, on the outside looking in, at that very thing they desperately want or need. Charging a jobseeker for the job (via commission on future salary for example) is wrong, but debatable. Charging, a jobseeker for the “hope” of getting a job is just plain wrong.
- ameister14 8y ago
  What about charging someone for education? Isn't that what this is? Education about the job from people who actually do it. Personally, I don't have the idea that this is for people that don't currently have jobs - I see the main target as people that are unhappy with their current position and are looking to switch into investment banking. There are a lot of those but it's hard to know how to do something like that or who to talk to, particularly when you may have very specific questions about retraining or the consequences of shifting industries.
  - dchhugani 8y ago
    I really like this answer. This is something else we struggle with. It's not really "job seekers" it's for people who want to consider other roles, companies, or careers, which slowly is becoming every working professional who isn't planning on staying at their current role or company forever. Thanks for making this distinction!
- dchhugani 8y ago
  thanks for the detailed points. again - merits to all your points but i think it's worth trying to think objectively about how to change and eliminate the imbalance. we're not charging job seekers for the "hope" of getting the job. we're charging them to get the information that can begin to remove that imbalance - so they get the same information that insiders have on how to progress and penetrate elite careers. if you don't think that's worth paying for, then it's the same as saying that paying for a private or Ivy League university is also wrong, because by attending one of those schools you become an insider and those in 4th and 5th tier schools are condemned to forever be outsiders. If some novel solution doesn't creatively start bridging that gap - then what would you do to fix it?
- collyw 8y ago
  The system could be gamed easily. How do I know the jobs are real?

Would also love to learn more about your thinking. Also happy to chat offline if you prefer, I'm at deepak@thelobby.io

It should be one of those things that are self-evident, but since YC backed this “thing” I guess it is not. So in the shortest possible form: There exist an imbalance of power between the people “on the inside” (or “on the couch”) and the people on the outside. Generally speaking, a business meant to exploit the imbalance is wrong. One that does so at the expanse of the outsiders and for the benefit of the insiders is just plain wrong. Specifically, job seekers are, while seeking, a “vulnerable” population (just as an example, so are renters and migrants). These are people, who for a certain period of time, and due to certain circumstances, find themselves, on the outside looking in, at that very thing they desperately want or need. Charging a jobseeker for the job (via commission on future salary for example) is wrong, but debatable. Charging, a jobseeker for the “hope” of getting a job is just plain wrong.

ameister14 8y ago
What about charging someone for education? Isn't that what this is? Education about the job from people who actually do it. Personally, I don't have the idea that this is for people that don't currently have jobs - I see the main target as people that are unhappy with their current position and are looking to switch into investment banking. There are a lot of those but it's hard to know how to do something like that or who to talk to, particularly when you may have very specific questions about retraining or the consequences of shifting industries.
- dchhugani 8y ago
  I really like this answer. This is something else we struggle with. It's not really "job seekers" it's for people who want to consider other roles, companies, or careers, which slowly is becoming every working professional who isn't planning on staying at their current role or company forever. Thanks for making this distinction!
dchhugani 8y ago
thanks for the detailed points. again - merits to all your points but i think it's worth trying to think objectively about how to change and eliminate the imbalance. we're not charging job seekers for the "hope" of getting the job. we're charging them to get the information that can begin to remove that imbalance - so they get the same information that insiders have on how to progress and penetrate elite careers. if you don't think that's worth paying for, then it's the same as saying that paying for a private or Ivy League university is also wrong, because by attending one of those schools you become an insider and those in 4th and 5th tier schools are condemned to forever be outsiders. If some novel solution doesn't creatively start bridging that gap - then what would you do to fix it?
collyw 8y ago
The system could be gamed easily. How do I know the jobs are real?