3 ms·

We don’t have to do it, companies are just gun shy about bad hires. They could easily accept everyone resume unread and remove people only if they failed to liv

by lovich 4y ago

We don’t have to do it, companies are just gun shy about bad hires. They could easily accept everyone resume unread and remove people only if they failed to live up to expectations for an example of an alternative

WalterBright 4y ago
When a company is going to invest half a million bucks in a new hire, they're going to do what they can to determine in advance if the hire is going to work out.
- lovich 4y ago
  Most likely, but we still shouldn't assume its a property of the universe. Its a choice they are making and so the consequences good or bad should be attributed to them
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    When you are investing $500,000 of your own money, are you going to check it out thoroughly first?
    - lovich 4y ago
      When they invest $500,000 of their own money and it makes millions, do they decline the profit? Their behavior is perfectly rational, but still ultimately a choice they make, and both the good and bad are a result of that. Unless you are going to argue that they aren't rational adults with agency of their own, in which case I would question letting them decide anything at all
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote.
        lovich 4y ago
        Tbh I don’t know what your comments have to do with mine either? I was responding to the phrase “have to”, and pointing out that they don’t “have to” do this. Then you brought up things like people investing a lot of their money? It still doesn’t change that it’s a choice. They could be investing the gdp of Canada and making rational decisions around the money, but it is still ultimately a choice
        WalterBright 4y ago
        I didn't write "have to". Perhaps you are replying to someone else?
        lovich 4y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31902260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31902260 This is the original comment I replied to, I thought you were asking a clarifying question and tried to reiterate my main point. My apologies if there was a confusion
        leaflets2 4y ago
        That comment, > we still shouldn't assume its a property of the universe is actually a bit funny I think. One could post that comment as a reply to almost anything :-) And then see how they interpret it and how they react
        lovich 4y ago
        Yea, in my critique, it’s probably not a sentence that triggers people towards good conversation, but I’m not really sure how to broach the concept that everyone has free will when people are legitimating discussing how the people in charge of businesses have no choice and have to do something bad. Tbh the defense of most business leaders sounds like someone defending a rabid dog or a killer robot’s action’s. I really can’t understand how some people can simultaneously believe that execs and founders deserve the outsized compensation for making all the decisions critical to the business, while simultaneously believing in this neo-Calvinist philosophy where the elite _have_ to fuck over everyone for their own benefit and it’s ridiculous to think that they could chose ethics over money Like, do they have free will and so you can make the argument that their choices led to greater profit and they deserve a big cut, or are they simple tiny dancers on the wind of fate who can’t do anything of their own accord which (if you were being consistent) means that they brought nothing of benefit to the business and therefore should get none of the profit?
- ornornor 4y ago
  I have trouble with this argument because on the other hand, once they’ve got good people that are consistently producing valuable output, they penny pinch and give tiny below inflation raises (if at al)… and promptly lose these people to competitors and have to hire all over again.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Companies that do a poor job of hiring and retention tend to fail. It's a self-correcting process. Government, on the other hand, just increases the budget.
- higeorge13 4y ago
  Companies could buy crappy software, could spend millions in unnecessary offices, expenses for unnecessary dinners, offsites, whatever, on crappy salesmen who can probably cost them more in the long run, etc It’s a single person, if you identify that he can’t make it within the first 3 months, he will never cost you 500k.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > if you identify that he can’t make it within the first 3 months, he will never cost you 500k. It'll take longer than that just for the new employee to get up to speed, let alone contribute much and prove his worth. Also consider that the benefits package is often worth 50% of the salary or more. Then there are the taxes the employer pays on employment, the cost of the facility and equipment for the person, etc. Then there are all the expensive and costly problems if the person is in a protected class. The employer has to prove they can't do the job, which can take a year or more.

by lovich 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago

When a company is going to invest half a million bucks in a new hire, they're going to do what they can to determine in advance if the hire is going to work out.

lovich 4y ago
Most likely, but we still shouldn't assume its a property of the universe. Its a choice they are making and so the consequences good or bad should be attributed to them
- WalterBright 4y ago
  When you are investing $500,000 of your own money, are you going to check it out thoroughly first?
  - lovich 4y ago
    When they invest $500,000 of their own money and it makes millions, do they decline the profit? Their behavior is perfectly rational, but still ultimately a choice they make, and both the good and bad are a result of that. Unless you are going to argue that they aren't rational adults with agency of their own, in which case I would question letting them decide anything at all
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote.
      - lovich 4y ago
        Tbh I don’t know what your comments have to do with mine either? I was responding to the phrase “have to”, and pointing out that they don’t “have to” do this. Then you brought up things like people investing a lot of their money? It still doesn’t change that it’s a choice. They could be investing the gdp of Canada and making rational decisions around the money, but it is still ultimately a choice
        WalterBright 4y ago
        I didn't write "have to". Perhaps you are replying to someone else?
        lovich 4y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31902260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31902260 This is the original comment I replied to, I thought you were asking a clarifying question and tried to reiterate my main point. My apologies if there was a confusion
        leaflets2 4y ago
        That comment, > we still shouldn't assume its a property of the universe is actually a bit funny I think. One could post that comment as a reply to almost anything :-) And then see how they interpret it and how they react
        lovich 4y ago
        Yea, in my critique, it’s probably not a sentence that triggers people towards good conversation, but I’m not really sure how to broach the concept that everyone has free will when people are legitimating discussing how the people in charge of businesses have no choice and have to do something bad. Tbh the defense of most business leaders sounds like someone defending a rabid dog or a killer robot’s action’s. I really can’t understand how some people can simultaneously believe that execs and founders deserve the outsized compensation for making all the decisions critical to the business, while simultaneously believing in this neo-Calvinist philosophy where the elite _have_ to fuck over everyone for their own benefit and it’s ridiculous to think that they could chose ethics over money Like, do they have free will and so you can make the argument that their choices led to greater profit and they deserve a big cut, or are they simple tiny dancers on the wind of fate who can’t do anything of their own accord which (if you were being consistent) means that they brought nothing of benefit to the business and therefore should get none of the profit?
ornornor 4y ago
I have trouble with this argument because on the other hand, once they’ve got good people that are consistently producing valuable output, they penny pinch and give tiny below inflation raises (if at al)… and promptly lose these people to competitors and have to hire all over again.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Companies that do a poor job of hiring and retention tend to fail. It's a self-correcting process. Government, on the other hand, just increases the budget.
higeorge13 4y ago
Companies could buy crappy software, could spend millions in unnecessary offices, expenses for unnecessary dinners, offsites, whatever, on crappy salesmen who can probably cost them more in the long run, etc It’s a single person, if you identify that he can’t make it within the first 3 months, he will never cost you 500k.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > if you identify that he can’t make it within the first 3 months, he will never cost you 500k. It'll take longer than that just for the new employee to get up to speed, let alone contribute much and prove his worth. Also consider that the benefits package is often worth 50% of the salary or more. Then there are the taxes the employer pays on employment, the cost of the facility and equipment for the person, etc. Then there are all the expensive and costly problems if the person is in a protected class. The employer has to prove they can't do the job, which can take a year or more.