6 ms·

Could you try to find words? There’s so much outage but not a lot of cogent criticism.

MattGaiser 5y ago
I like the idea. I get why it initially seems like buying jobs, but it is really just you being allowed to offer a guarantee that your word is backed up by something.
- encoderer 5y ago
  As a job candidate I would consider doing this. As a former colleague I would consider staking somebody. As a hiring manager, I would not do this. It’s just too weird. Hiring is hard enough.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    Would you change your mind if they managed to filter people sufficiently to make hiring take far fewer interviews and they could actually source good candidates? It is weird now, but my parents also think it is weird to interview 8 times for one job.
    - encoderer 5y ago
      Honestly, no, not until it’s proven out. and I fear there will be a selection bias where more questionable companies would use this first before established and reputable companies. They need to make it not weird first like sign Uber or another 2nd tier tech company and socialize the idea so it’s acceptable for small companies. Otherwise you look like a scam.
- falcor84 5y ago
  But this would make it disproportionally easier for people with wealthier friends/family while creating a chilling effect against people from a poorer background, or immigrants.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  But it really is just buying jobs. For many people, the $50 minimum is nothing. For most people (in the US anyway), it's more than you'd be willing to invest in any coworker, no matter how good they are. And for many people, it's the difference between paying rent or not. The kid from a rich family will have no problem getting his parents, and family friends to slap $50 down. The kid who grew up in public housing? Not gonna happen. I want to like the idea. Having a better way to connect likely-qualified candidates and jobs is a good thing. But a set amount of money really isn't a good guarantee of anything.
  - encoderer 5y ago
    They claim to verify that all the money comes from former coworkers not friends and family. I feel like many people have judged without really understanding the details.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      They are asserting that, however, as this seems a very hard task to really prevent it and they simply assert that they will succeed (especially since if they don't succeed, they don't lose anything, the employer does) without providing any arguments why they think they have an effective solution to this hard problem, their assertion that they'll somehow beat all fraud attempts is simply not convincing.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    I assume they require that the money comes from a former manager or co-worker and if you work in tech in the USA/Canada, $50 shouldn't be a lot to most co-workers. And if you want to buy an internship, you can just plop your kid at a startup for free. Unpaid internships are how you buy experience already.
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.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bialpio 5y ago
To me it feels like a "you won a million dollars, please send us $1k to cover the wire transfer costs" scam. Employment in the US is at-will, as an employee I have zero guarantee that I won't be fired the very next day. Edit: s/be/me
p1necone 5y ago
This is going to heavily bias the job market in favor of people who have wealthy contacts willing to throw down money. This might not seem quite as dystopian from the lens of just high paying silicon valley software jobs for in demand people. But imagine this system applied everywhere - it's horrendous.
Igelau 5y ago
Hiring people based on how many friends-with-money-to-burn they have is going to be extremely discriminatory. E.g. in the US this is usually how we hire the President. The best fundraisers climb the party ranks and get the job. 98% of hired Presidents have been well-connected, rich, white men.
PeterisP 5y ago
It creates various perverse incentives, so even if it might work if all the involved parties are well-behaved, it pushes the situation towards people not "behaving well", at which point the proposed system would not get good results. It incentivizes abusive companies to fire people quickly after firing - most companies do it, but some do; and the proposed system would increase that. It incentivizes behind-the-back deals with ex-coworkers, stressing ethics and relationships. It incentivizes inequality - it gives an advantage to people with a wealthy "support network" and creates a barrier to people who don't have one, if a company prefers to do hiring this way.

I like the idea. I get why it initially seems like buying jobs, but it is really just you being allowed to offer a guarantee that your word is backed up by something.

encoderer 5y ago
As a job candidate I would consider doing this. As a former colleague I would consider staking somebody. As a hiring manager, I would not do this. It’s just too weird. Hiring is hard enough.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Would you change your mind if they managed to filter people sufficiently to make hiring take far fewer interviews and they could actually source good candidates? It is weird now, but my parents also think it is weird to interview 8 times for one job.
  - encoderer 5y ago
    Honestly, no, not until it’s proven out. and I fear there will be a selection bias where more questionable companies would use this first before established and reputable companies. They need to make it not weird first like sign Uber or another 2nd tier tech company and socialize the idea so it’s acceptable for small companies. Otherwise you look like a scam.
falcor84 5y ago
But this would make it disproportionally easier for people with wealthier friends/family while creating a chilling effect against people from a poorer background, or immigrants.
jfrunyon 5y ago
But it really is just buying jobs. For many people, the $50 minimum is nothing. For most people (in the US anyway), it's more than you'd be willing to invest in any coworker, no matter how good they are. And for many people, it's the difference between paying rent or not. The kid from a rich family will have no problem getting his parents, and family friends to slap $50 down. The kid who grew up in public housing? Not gonna happen. I want to like the idea. Having a better way to connect likely-qualified candidates and jobs is a good thing. But a set amount of money really isn't a good guarantee of anything.
- encoderer 5y ago
  They claim to verify that all the money comes from former coworkers not friends and family. I feel like many people have judged without really understanding the details.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    They are asserting that, however, as this seems a very hard task to really prevent it and they simply assert that they will succeed (especially since if they don't succeed, they don't lose anything, the employer does) without providing any arguments why they think they have an effective solution to this hard problem, their assertion that they'll somehow beat all fraud attempts is simply not convincing.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  I assume they require that the money comes from a former manager or co-worker and if you work in tech in the USA/Canada, $50 shouldn't be a lot to most co-workers. And if you want to buy an internship, you can just plop your kid at a startup for free. Unpaid internships are how you buy experience already.

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.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bialpio 5y ago

To me it feels like a "you won a million dollars, please send us $1k to cover the wire transfer costs" scam. Employment in the US is at-will, as an employee I have zero guarantee that I won't be fired the very next day. Edit: s/be/me

p1necone 5y ago

This is going to heavily bias the job market in favor of people who have wealthy contacts willing to throw down money. This might not seem quite as dystopian from the lens of just high paying silicon valley software jobs for in demand people. But imagine this system applied everywhere - it's horrendous.

Igelau 5y ago

Hiring people based on how many friends-with-money-to-burn they have is going to be extremely discriminatory. E.g. in the US this is usually how we hire the President. The best fundraisers climb the party ranks and get the job. 98% of hired Presidents have been well-connected, rich, white men.

PeterisP 5y ago

It creates various perverse incentives, so even if it might work if all the involved parties are well-behaved, it pushes the situation towards people not "behaving well", at which point the proposed system would not get good results. It incentivizes abusive companies to fire people quickly after firing - most companies do it, but some do; and the proposed system would increase that. It incentivizes behind-the-back deals with ex-coworkers, stressing ethics and relationships. It incentivizes inequality - it gives an advantage to people with a wealthy "support network" and creates a barrier to people who don't have one, if a company prefers to do hiring this way.