4 ms·

I think it's a stupid idea, would never use it as an employer or job seeker, and if it's as dumb as I and others feel, it won't go far (and in fact it seems to

I think it's a stupid idea, would never use it as an employer or job seeker, and if it's as dumb as I and others feel, it won't go far (and in fact it seems to have shut down). That said, I don't understand the outrage. It's an ostensibly dumb idea, maybe even with an upside down some we dont see. It's not a personal attack on anyone. Make fun of it, sure, don't use it sure, but no need for outrage, "I dont have words" etc

satellites 5y ago
I think people are defensive and outraged because if something like this ever caught on among tech companies and became a normalized practice, it would make the process of job seeking much more frustrating than it already is. It's basically institutionalized, monetized nepotism, with all the toxicity of an MLM scheme. A professional world where this was a common practice would be an awful one for a lot of people. The intense reaction might be a bit of overkill, but it's worth sending a strong message that this is not okay.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  Plus, the people who essentially bought their jobs would be hell to work with for those who were competent (and that's not saying standard interviews aren't themselves dystopian in many ways but just selling a job, if possible, would be a magnet for the utterly incompetent).
  - proofbygazing 5y ago
    This is literally not buying a job, otherwise there wouldn't be a 2x payout after two months. It's betting that you would be good at a job.
- tylerhou 5y ago
  I don't understand why people think this is nepotistic. If you're bad at the job, you won't make it past the first month or two. So you're really "buying" a (presumably paid) internship that has the potential to turn into a full time job if you're decent. If it turns out that you're good at the job, nobody loses any money (except the company, who has to pay a recruiting fee, but that's expected). If you're bad, well, hopefully that won't happen.... Granted I don't think it's a great idea for other reasons, but the nepotism angle just doesn't make sense in my opinion. I guess you could argue that skilled people with the ability to afford payment have a higher chance of being hired, and that's probably not a great thing, but even then it's not like every company who uses this will be filled with incompetent people who paid for their jobs--that just makes absolutely no sense from the company's perspective.
  - satellites 5y ago
    Because with a trivially large enough network of friends willing to game the system, you could just keep buying each other top-paying jobs over the course of a few years. So long as you're at least a mediocre engineer, you can make it past the two-month mark and everyone gets their ROI. > people with the ability to afford payment have a higher chance of being hired That's the other very valid reason that this idea sucks. People from disadvantaged communities now not only have the existing hurdles to face in entering the tech world; now trust fund kids with rich friends can continually skip the line and buy the jobs that others are applying for. And a company is going to take the pay-to-play candidate, because it's easier than running an interview process.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      > now trust fund kids with rich friends can continually skip the line and buy the jobs that others are applying for. I would say this is an accurate description of the current system. What do we always hear, that going to an Ivy League is all about the connections, not the education?
      - satellites 5y ago
        That may be true for management-type positions, but at least in my experience, engineering is somewhat more merit-based. As long as you're good at interviewing you can get a job regardless of who you know. Obviously, having connections still helps, but natural career connections don't require a literal buy-in. Also, at least Ivy League schools have financial aid programs to help gifted kids from disadvantaged backgrounds still be able to attend.
    - tylerhou 5y ago
      > So long as you're at least a mediocre engineer, you can make it past the two-month mark and everyone gets their ROI. Is this sustainable, though? Why do you assume that there would be no system to detect people who abuse the system by continually churning companies? Can’t the same thing happen right now with people who have connections to headhunter/recruiting agencies? Also, if the system has no abuse detection, many people who work in tech for more than a few years should be able to afford gaming a system like this — not just those from rich backgrounds. $10k is not too much money to find if you know you’re guaranteed a 2x return in 60 days. > And a company is going to take the pay-to-play candidate, because it's easier than running an interview process. If the pay-to-play system is really producing only “mediocre” hires who churn earlier than candidates hired through the normal interview process, why would a company prefer the pay-to-play process in the long run? Again, not saying that the platform is good, but I just don’t think your arguments hold up.
- chii 5y ago
  > something like this ever caught on things can only catch on if it is truly beneficial in some way, and the people doing it is finding it useful to continue.
  - satellites 5y ago
    Sure, but who is benefiting? It could catch on because companies and bosses like it, but it could harm workers for all kinds of reasons. Thus, workers need to loudly voice their concerns, so that companies will be discouraged from adopting it.
vcanales 5y ago
> That said, I don't understand the outrage. My guess is that it comes from the fact that it's a YC Company.
sergiomattei 5y ago
Honestly, I think it deserves the outrage. It's one of those ideas that just needs to get shot down as fast as possible.
MrStonedOne 5y ago
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 ahead, and such a product would just extend this.
csense 5y ago
People hate it because it does what MLM's do. It turns a social relationship into an extractive one. Think about how it would work in practice. It's not going to always be a cool professional interaction: "Hey, I was wondering, could you give $50 to my crowdfund?" You: "Nah, sorry." Them: "Okay, thanks for your time." It'll be more like "Contribute $50 to my crowdfund. Pleeaasseee I need this job. I'm having a tough time, I won't be able to make my rent if I don't get this job, and my wife's about to have our second child. Come on, man." It's really hard to refuse, but you'll also be resentful. You don't go around hitting up your former coworkers for money. It turns a social relationship into an extractive one. Which gives people the heebie-jeebies. You're basically being told "Give me money, or I'll kill our friendship." It's approximately as appealing as someone who says "Give me money, or I'll kill your dog." I certainly understand having a seething hatred for a company that makes money by encouraging my friends to act that way toward me. Also, a lot of SWE's are introverts. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at what I do, but I don't know that I have contact information for 20 former coworkers, let alone be able to put together 20 people who know me well enough that I think they'd put $50 on me. As to YC would have funded this: For founders and VC's, the line between social and business might be pretty blurry. It might be a cultural blind spot, if you're deep in the VC world, you're probably an extrovert with hundreds of business contacts, and you've maybe forgotten how taboo it is to pitch your acquaintances for money as a normal person. It seems the Internet quickly gave the company a taste of the public's reaction when they started showing off their "brilliant" idea. And to their credit, they went offline more or less immediately.
- somnic 5y ago
  I agree that encouraging people to beg former coworkers is shitty, but I'm not sure this is really introducing anything new. If I have a friend who's looking for a job and they ask me to refer them to my employer, then if I think they'd be a bad fit I'm in a similarly uncomfortable position. Also, MLMs are actual scams, where in this case you'll actually get your money back if they're a good hire. This idea has real flaws in how it's been implemented, like how the hard limit at which point you get the job (no questions asked?) encourages that begging behaviour to get over the limit, but if it were just another source of information among many used in hiring, like it is with actual referrals, then it wouldn't be so bad.
IntFee588 5y ago
reddit runs on hyperbole.
weeblewobble 5y ago
Why is making fun of it acceptable to you but saying "I don't have words" unacceptable? What line are you drawing here? Why is the tone of some reddit comments (which you agree with on content) worth a HN condemnation?

satellites 5y ago

I think people are defensive and outraged because if something like this ever caught on among tech companies and became a normalized practice, it would make the process of job seeking much more frustrating than it already is. It's basically institutionalized, monetized nepotism, with all the toxicity of an MLM scheme. A professional world where this was a common practice would be an awful one for a lot of people. The intense reaction might be a bit of overkill, but it's worth sending a strong message that this is not okay.

joe_the_user 5y ago
Plus, the people who essentially bought their jobs would be hell to work with for those who were competent (and that's not saying standard interviews aren't themselves dystopian in many ways but just selling a job, if possible, would be a magnet for the utterly incompetent).
- proofbygazing 5y ago
  This is literally not buying a job, otherwise there wouldn't be a 2x payout after two months. It's betting that you would be good at a job.
tylerhou 5y ago
I don't understand why people think this is nepotistic. If you're bad at the job, you won't make it past the first month or two. So you're really "buying" a (presumably paid) internship that has the potential to turn into a full time job if you're decent. If it turns out that you're good at the job, nobody loses any money (except the company, who has to pay a recruiting fee, but that's expected). If you're bad, well, hopefully that won't happen.... Granted I don't think it's a great idea for other reasons, but the nepotism angle just doesn't make sense in my opinion. I guess you could argue that skilled people with the ability to afford payment have a higher chance of being hired, and that's probably not a great thing, but even then it's not like every company who uses this will be filled with incompetent people who paid for their jobs--that just makes absolutely no sense from the company's perspective.
- satellites 5y ago
  Because with a trivially large enough network of friends willing to game the system, you could just keep buying each other top-paying jobs over the course of a few years. So long as you're at least a mediocre engineer, you can make it past the two-month mark and everyone gets their ROI. > people with the ability to afford payment have a higher chance of being hired That's the other very valid reason that this idea sucks. People from disadvantaged communities now not only have the existing hurdles to face in entering the tech world; now trust fund kids with rich friends can continually skip the line and buy the jobs that others are applying for. And a company is going to take the pay-to-play candidate, because it's easier than running an interview process.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > now trust fund kids with rich friends can continually skip the line and buy the jobs that others are applying for. I would say this is an accurate description of the current system. What do we always hear, that going to an Ivy League is all about the connections, not the education?
    - satellites 5y ago
      That may be true for management-type positions, but at least in my experience, engineering is somewhat more merit-based. As long as you're good at interviewing you can get a job regardless of who you know. Obviously, having connections still helps, but natural career connections don't require a literal buy-in. Also, at least Ivy League schools have financial aid programs to help gifted kids from disadvantaged backgrounds still be able to attend.
  - tylerhou 5y ago
    > So long as you're at least a mediocre engineer, you can make it past the two-month mark and everyone gets their ROI. Is this sustainable, though? Why do you assume that there would be no system to detect people who abuse the system by continually churning companies? Can’t the same thing happen right now with people who have connections to headhunter/recruiting agencies? Also, if the system has no abuse detection, many people who work in tech for more than a few years should be able to afford gaming a system like this — not just those from rich backgrounds. $10k is not too much money to find if you know you’re guaranteed a 2x return in 60 days. > And a company is going to take the pay-to-play candidate, because it's easier than running an interview process. If the pay-to-play system is really producing only “mediocre” hires who churn earlier than candidates hired through the normal interview process, why would a company prefer the pay-to-play process in the long run? Again, not saying that the platform is good, but I just don’t think your arguments hold up.
chii 5y ago
> something like this ever caught on things can only catch on if it is truly beneficial in some way, and the people doing it is finding it useful to continue.
- satellites 5y ago
  Sure, but who is benefiting? It could catch on because companies and bosses like it, but it could harm workers for all kinds of reasons. Thus, workers need to loudly voice their concerns, so that companies will be discouraged from adopting it.

vcanales 5y ago

> That said, I don't understand the outrage. My guess is that it comes from the fact that it's a YC Company.

sergiomattei 5y ago

Honestly, I think it deserves the outrage. It's one of those ideas that just needs to get shot down as fast as possible.

MrStonedOne 5y ago

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 ahead, and such a product would just extend this.

csense 5y ago

People hate it because it does what MLM's do. It turns a social relationship into an extractive one. Think about how it would work in practice. It's not going to always be a cool professional interaction: "Hey, I was wondering, could you give $50 to my crowdfund?" You: "Nah, sorry." Them: "Okay, thanks for your time." It'll be more like "Contribute $50 to my crowdfund. Pleeaasseee I need this job. I'm having a tough time, I won't be able to make my rent if I don't get this job, and my wife's about to have our second child. Come on, man." It's really hard to refuse, but you'll also be resentful. You don't go around hitting up your former coworkers for money. It turns a social relationship into an extractive one. Which gives people the heebie-jeebies. You're basically being told "Give me money, or I'll kill our friendship." It's approximately as appealing as someone who says "Give me money, or I'll kill your dog." I certainly understand having a seething hatred for a company that makes money by encouraging my friends to act that way toward me. Also, a lot of SWE's are introverts. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at what I do, but I don't know that I have contact information for 20 former coworkers, let alone be able to put together 20 people who know me well enough that I think they'd put $50 on me. As to YC would have funded this: For founders and VC's, the line between social and business might be pretty blurry. It might be a cultural blind spot, if you're deep in the VC world, you're probably an extrovert with hundreds of business contacts, and you've maybe forgotten how taboo it is to pitch your acquaintances for money as a normal person. It seems the Internet quickly gave the company a taste of the public's reaction when they started showing off their "brilliant" idea. And to their credit, they went offline more or less immediately.

somnic 5y ago
I agree that encouraging people to beg former coworkers is shitty, but I'm not sure this is really introducing anything new. If I have a friend who's looking for a job and they ask me to refer them to my employer, then if I think they'd be a bad fit I'm in a similarly uncomfortable position. Also, MLMs are actual scams, where in this case you'll actually get your money back if they're a good hire. This idea has real flaws in how it's been implemented, like how the hard limit at which point you get the job (no questions asked?) encourages that begging behaviour to get over the limit, but if it were just another source of information among many used in hiring, like it is with actual referrals, then it wouldn't be so bad.

IntFee588 5y ago

reddit runs on hyperbole.

weeblewobble 5y ago

Why is making fun of it acceptable to you but saying "I don't have words" unacceptable? What line are you drawing here? Why is the tone of some reddit comments (which you agree with on content) worth a HN condemnation?