4 ms·
There are two other significant problems here. 1. Job security. Most people seem to appreciate having a steady source of income. For a company to regularly out
by eykanal 15y ago
There are two other significant problems here.
1. Job security. Most people seem to appreciate having a steady source of income. For a company to regularly outsource their jobs to the "smartest person" means that all the other "smart but not smart enough people" are without a job. So long as those other people are still able to find regular employment (i.e., exist within the traditional model), they'll do that, leaving fewer and fewer people available in the crowdsourcing pool.
2. Quality of job seekers. While it's true that in a meritocracy, the best rise to the top, this works best in a fairly small environment. If the entire ecosystem of web developers was required to compete for every single job, and anyone seeking a developer had only the entire ecosystem to look through, finding an "appropriate match" would become far too daunting, and the employers would be forced to reduce the rigor with which they vetted potential employees. This allows weaker candidates to get potentially good jobs. As a result, the more qualified candidates leave, and the meritocracy system is ruined.
- Unseelie 15y agoI think the whole point of the involvement of computers and the internet as fair godmother in their scenario was to handwave away problem 2 through someone else's very hard work at making a very, very good process for automatically vetting potential employees.
- brunooo 15y ago+1 (incl the right equilibrium strategies) Ad pt 1: Absolutely agree, but a gradual shift could also have supply/demand adoption curves overlapping quiet neatly.