3 ms·

It unbalances access to jobs by family wealth and creates yet another:tm: skip annoying thing if you are rich enough and/or have enough friends who are rich eno

It unbalances access to jobs by family wealth and creates yet another:tm: skip annoying thing if you are rich enough and/or have enough friends who are rich enough. Somebody coming out of a life hiccup like family issues or health issues is gonna have a harder time skipping the interview while also having a harder time interviewing. The return on investment aspect could just get gamed by companies being excessively selective on which candidates they allow to stay past 2 months. And finally it extends the worse thing that exists in our society: "It's easier to make money if you have money." This is what creates and enforces our class system, this is what makes it harder for historically disadvantaged groups to get a head, and such a product would just extend this, while benefiting the company. The anger is justified, such systems can not be allowed to exist.

newman8r 5y ago
> The return on investment aspect could just get gamed by companies being excessively selective on which candidates they allow to stay past 2 months. Exactly, so it's not like these candidates are paying to "skip annoying thing" - it's just a different annoying thing. In essence, this sort of arrangement actually puts the candidate in a less powerful position than if they'd just received a normal offer. I don't even think this is geared towards 'rich people' - I assume it's mostly aimed at colleagues who are also tech workers. It does favor people who have previous work experience (and therefore colleagues who could vouch/invest), but verifiable experience is usually a job requirement anyway.