4 ms·

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

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.

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.