3 ms·

What a lot of these comments seem to be missing is that this article is focused on the kind of menial retail labor nearly anybody could do. Those are the Home D

by smeej 4y ago

What a lot of these comments seem to be missing is that this article is focused on the kind of menial retail labor nearly anybody could do. Those are the Home Depot-type jobs with the gigantic staffing shortages. What the article seems to be missing is that if an applicant doesn't want to be there enough to spend five minutes and 52 clicks filling out their form, the company knows full well that if that applicant becomes an employee, they're going to stop showing up at the slightest inconvenience and inconvenience their team, leaving them short-staffed again. This process at this job level is a glorified captcha. Instead of proving you aren't a robot, prove you have at least a tiny interest in getting this job.

im3w1l 4y ago
Yeah there are important selection effects at work. You nailed one but I think you missed another. Five minutes is the completion time for those that did complete it. The people who abandoned the application might have done so because they realized it would have taken hours or even days to dig up the relevant information for the required fields. The people who can complete it in five minutes are those that have all the information at their fingertips, because they already applied to tens or hundreds of other jobs. The person who has worked for your competitor for 15 years, and is considering making one single application to you will have to do more work.
- happyopossum 4y ago
  > The person who has worked for your competitor for 15 years, and is considering making one single application to you will have to do more work. I think you're gonna have to support that assumption a bit more - job apps (especially ones that can be done in 5 minutes) don't ask for a bunch of data that isn't generally at your fingertips, and your example would make the process even easier - 1 job in 15 years is easy to remember and faster to type than 8 jobs in the same timeframe.
  - im3w1l 4y ago
    "Start date.. Hmm I think it was 15 years ago.. Or was it 14? Let's see, I finished university year N, and then I worked at X for 5 years... I think? Maybe I can check my bank statements... they go back 3 years online, and 10 years if you ask them nicely.. maybe I have an old diary in some box in the attic? Well it's late now, I'll remember to check when I clean it up next month"
mixmastamyk 4y ago
> anybody could do And anybody’s could work for anybody. So if we want to get more than 8% through the filter we’ll have to reduce friction.
- smeej 4y ago
  > And anybody's could work for anybody. I don't mean to be obnoxious, but I genuinely cannot figure out what this sentence means, and without it I can't understand your reply.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    You posited that workers are interchangeable cogs, but shitty jobs are a dime a dozen as well.
    - smeej 4y ago
      That was exactly my point. The employers for shitty jobs need to make sure the people they hire care a bare minimum amount or else they'll just leave without notice at the slightest inconvenience. They're right to screen out people who don't even care enough to complete an application.

by smeej 4y ago

im3w1l 4y ago

Yeah there are important selection effects at work. You nailed one but I think you missed another. Five minutes is the completion time for those that did complete it. The people who abandoned the application might have done so because they realized it would have taken hours or even days to dig up the relevant information for the required fields. The people who can complete it in five minutes are those that have all the information at their fingertips, because they already applied to tens or hundreds of other jobs. The person who has worked for your competitor for 15 years, and is considering making one single application to you will have to do more work.

happyopossum 4y ago
> The person who has worked for your competitor for 15 years, and is considering making one single application to you will have to do more work. I think you're gonna have to support that assumption a bit more - job apps (especially ones that can be done in 5 minutes) don't ask for a bunch of data that isn't generally at your fingertips, and your example would make the process even easier - 1 job in 15 years is easy to remember and faster to type than 8 jobs in the same timeframe.
- im3w1l 4y ago
  "Start date.. Hmm I think it was 15 years ago.. Or was it 14? Let's see, I finished university year N, and then I worked at X for 5 years... I think? Maybe I can check my bank statements... they go back 3 years online, and 10 years if you ask them nicely.. maybe I have an old diary in some box in the attic? Well it's late now, I'll remember to check when I clean it up next month"

mixmastamyk 4y ago

> anybody could do And anybody’s could work for anybody. So if we want to get more than 8% through the filter we’ll have to reduce friction.

smeej 4y ago
> And anybody's could work for anybody. I don't mean to be obnoxious, but I genuinely cannot figure out what this sentence means, and without it I can't understand your reply.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  You posited that workers are interchangeable cogs, but shitty jobs are a dime a dozen as well.
  - smeej 4y ago
    That was exactly my point. The employers for shitty jobs need to make sure the people they hire care a bare minimum amount or else they'll just leave without notice at the slightest inconvenience. They're right to screen out people who don't even care enough to complete an application.