4 ms·

What I have noticed is that the more menial, low paid and generally low desirable a job is, the higher that initial barrier is. I suspect it is to at least some

What I have noticed is that the more menial, low paid and generally low desirable a job is, the higher that initial barrier is. I suspect it is to at least some extend intentional, though I struggle to understand why that is. On the other hand the initial step in software development job application (my current profession) typically seems a lot smoother, though of course then they are followed up by more technical steps (which generally makes sense). I do see start ups here in London who try to make the process smoother. I do not know how successful they are.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
> I suspect it is to at least some extend intentional, though I struggle to understand why that is. To limit the number of applicants; like you said, menial and low paid, so having people go through hurdles to apply makes them more motivated than shotgun applicants - and reduces the amount of applications HR has to sift through.
3825 4y ago
> What I have noticed is that the more menial, low paid and generally low desirable a job is, the higher that initial barrier is. I suspect it is to at least some extend intentional, though I struggle to understand why that is. One suspicion I have is perhaps the people in hiring whether consciously or not believe making the process more difficult improves the signal to noise ratio of applicants. Makes sense when there are 10+ applicants for each open position I think. They don't care about the people they are turning away.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Optimising for desperation is great if you're building a criminal gang in which most of the day-to-day activities go against a normal person's good moral judgement.
  - Bakary 4y ago
    To some extent a State is a gang, but at a larger and more sophisticated scale. So is any sufficiently large company. The 'criminal' aspect is always a relative measure.
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      Some true words. One should generally prefer criminal gangs elected according to social contract, since they are basically "our* criminal gang. As for moral relativism - not so much. There's enough consensus for judiciaries and criminologists to define objective criminal behaviours. I think you mean that we exercise more or less tolerance of the criminal behaviour of certain groups.
      - Bakary 4y ago
        It's a bit of both. We discriminate with regards to groups, but the measure of crime shifts quickly. Drugs or sexual orientations become legal or illegal. Killing is legal or illegal depending on whether it is performed in an approved way. Certain types of non-consensual genital mutilation are legal, others illegal. States tend to clash when their conception of justice differ too much. There are foundational concepts that most legal systems seem to share to provide stability, but for anything more complex there are always exceptions. The right to pollute, employment relationships, defamation etc. as soon as you move away from basic disorder removal it becomes more and more relative.
Jochim 4y ago
I once failed a quiz that would have granted me the privilege of frying chicken at KFC. There was no feedback on which of my answers made me an unsuitable fast food worker. > What I have noticed is that the more menial, low paid and generally low desirable a job is, the higher that initial barrier is. I suspect it is to at least some extend intentional, though I struggle to understand why that is. It's down to scale. Low paid work has historically had more applicants than positions. Poor conditions resulting in lots of turnover aid in that also. It's fairly simple to find work in a small restaurant by walking in or knowing someone already there. Even if the owner/manager treats you poorly there's still a social connection. Large companies have no social connection with their workers. They adopt language intended to dehumanise. Take "person/worker/employee" being replaced by "resource" as an example. Resources don't have feelings or families. That's then reflected in their recruitment process. Software companies partially avoid this by have a smaller pool of candidates to draw from and lower turnover. They're - generally - incentivised to improve those processes because they don't want the right candidate to go somewhere else. Yet even then we see a lot of software companies with awful hiring processes. > I do see start ups here in London who try to make the process smoother. I do not know how successful they are. I don't think it's a problem that can be solved with automation. The solution is bottom up management. You need to trust the people you hire directly to hire wisely themselves. If you can't do that then maybe your company is too big.
- veltas 4y ago
  I did this quiz, I think the quiz question I failed on was "have you ever told a lie?" which I answered with "yes". Can't be sure though. Also for a KFC job.
intelVISA 4y ago
It's more about power than hiring in those cases. My fave interview was when I was still in college I think the recruiter messed up and put me up for a sr role or maybe the company was a true unicorn: very few generic HR hoops, and heavy on the interesting problem solving with engineers. Aside from that particular company I had weeks of HR screens, re-fill out your race/gender please(?) emails, and lots of time wasting that was a very very stark contrast for sure.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

> I suspect it is to at least some extend intentional, though I struggle to understand why that is. To limit the number of applicants; like you said, menial and low paid, so having people go through hurdles to apply makes them more motivated than shotgun applicants - and reduces the amount of applications HR has to sift through.

3825 4y ago

> What I have noticed is that the more menial, low paid and generally low desirable a job is, the higher that initial barrier is. I suspect it is to at least some extend intentional, though I struggle to understand why that is. One suspicion I have is perhaps the people in hiring whether consciously or not believe making the process more difficult improves the signal to noise ratio of applicants. Makes sense when there are 10+ applicants for each open position I think. They don't care about the people they are turning away.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
Optimising for desperation is great if you're building a criminal gang in which most of the day-to-day activities go against a normal person's good moral judgement.
- Bakary 4y ago
  To some extent a State is a gang, but at a larger and more sophisticated scale. So is any sufficiently large company. The 'criminal' aspect is always a relative measure.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    Some true words. One should generally prefer criminal gangs elected according to social contract, since they are basically "our* criminal gang. As for moral relativism - not so much. There's enough consensus for judiciaries and criminologists to define objective criminal behaviours. I think you mean that we exercise more or less tolerance of the criminal behaviour of certain groups.
    - Bakary 4y ago
      It's a bit of both. We discriminate with regards to groups, but the measure of crime shifts quickly. Drugs or sexual orientations become legal or illegal. Killing is legal or illegal depending on whether it is performed in an approved way. Certain types of non-consensual genital mutilation are legal, others illegal. States tend to clash when their conception of justice differ too much. There are foundational concepts that most legal systems seem to share to provide stability, but for anything more complex there are always exceptions. The right to pollute, employment relationships, defamation etc. as soon as you move away from basic disorder removal it becomes more and more relative.

Jochim 4y ago

I once failed a quiz that would have granted me the privilege of frying chicken at KFC. There was no feedback on which of my answers made me an unsuitable fast food worker. > What I have noticed is that the more menial, low paid and generally low desirable a job is, the higher that initial barrier is. I suspect it is to at least some extend intentional, though I struggle to understand why that is. It's down to scale. Low paid work has historically had more applicants than positions. Poor conditions resulting in lots of turnover aid in that also. It's fairly simple to find work in a small restaurant by walking in or knowing someone already there. Even if the owner/manager treats you poorly there's still a social connection. Large companies have no social connection with their workers. They adopt language intended to dehumanise. Take "person/worker/employee" being replaced by "resource" as an example. Resources don't have feelings or families. That's then reflected in their recruitment process. Software companies partially avoid this by have a smaller pool of candidates to draw from and lower turnover. They're - generally - incentivised to improve those processes because they don't want the right candidate to go somewhere else. Yet even then we see a lot of software companies with awful hiring processes. > I do see start ups here in London who try to make the process smoother. I do not know how successful they are. I don't think it's a problem that can be solved with automation. The solution is bottom up management. You need to trust the people you hire directly to hire wisely themselves. If you can't do that then maybe your company is too big.

veltas 4y ago
I did this quiz, I think the quiz question I failed on was "have you ever told a lie?" which I answered with "yes". Can't be sure though. Also for a KFC job.

intelVISA 4y ago

It's more about power than hiring in those cases. My fave interview was when I was still in college I think the recruiter messed up and put me up for a sr role or maybe the company was a true unicorn: very few generic HR hoops, and heavy on the interesting problem solving with engineers. Aside from that particular company I had weeks of HR screens, re-fill out your race/gender please(?) emails, and lots of time wasting that was a very very stark contrast for sure.