4 ms·

Look at how far we've come. We started with hiring processes where almost universally to submit an application, you at least spoke to a human who would acknowle

Look at how far we've come. We started with hiring processes where almost universally to submit an application, you at least spoke to a human who would acknowledge you, know you exist, and have advanced knowledge on whether the position was even open. Very little wasting of applicants time. Then, we transitioned into highly automated form submissions online, where it's so easy for the potential employer to collect applications that they don't bother to stop receiving them when they have filled the position, and they even keep fake job openings to goose the numbers. IMO, this development was a completely one-sided benefit to employers. They seemed to relish in wasting the applicants time, somehow. Now, legitimate job postings are being inundated with slop due to how shit the online application process is and how much of the applicant's time it's designed to waste. Sounds like a form of justice, almost. Maybe now we can go back to confirming a human exists on both ends.

trod1234 1y ago
What you describe is called in engineering, a whipsaw, and when whipsaws get too chaotic they tear the machinery apart. When you stop taking it personally, and ask yourself how and why these business leaders were able to do this and continue doing it for decades, you'll eventually narrow in on the fact that money-printing has played a critical role. Then ask yourself what happens when legitimate producers who are immediately constrained by a loss(profit) function face off against producers who are unconstrained (through non-reserve debt issuance with loans out 100 years). What happened to all the local video rental places after Blockbuster? What happened to all the local SuperMarts after Walmart? What happened with Food Deserts? Large well funded companies came in, slashed prices under where it was profitable, and outspent until competitors shut down. There is a reason since the 70s business growth/adoption plans follow the same curves as ponzi schemes. Until the fuel that drives the cycle is removed, no change can be expected; and if we are being honest, the people making these choices aren't the brightest people in the room. Every producer requires labor, but some use their unconstrained nature to manipulate the factor markets towards wage suppression. This creates untenable whipsaws eventually.
bryan_w 1y ago
This feels like an older generational take. Here's why I say that: > Then, we transitioned into highly automated form submissions online, ... this development was a completely one-sided benefit to employers. This was actually a big advantage to job seekers as you could apply to way more jobs at once and lowered the bar of starting to look for another job when the time at your current job was up. As a millennial, I seriously do not know how people got office jobs before the Internet. I've heard people say, "Just put on your best suit, go down there and ask to speak with the manager and give him a firm handshake", but that just seems so old fashioned. >> Sounds like a form of justice, almost. You seem upset, like they did this just to screw you over, but perhaps there might have been other reasons that you hadn't thought of. In any case, the solution won't be eye to eye meetings to submit applications, but probably something digital so I wouldn't expect "The good old days" anytime soon.
- cafard 1y ago
  A historical note: Forty years ago, I shared a house with a guy who had recently completed an MA, and hadn't found any work related to it. I always knew when his family had been in town, because the Help Wanted ad section from the Sunday New York Times would be on the table. Memory may exaggerate, but I remember this section as fatter than today's Times is Monday through Saturday. The Washington Post had a similar Help Wanted section. In fact, I think that every job I have held since 1983 I applied for in response to a classified ad. Obviously it would be better to be recruited, to have somebody call up and say, Hey, Dave says you're a great hand at X, are you by any chance looking to move? But responding to a classified ad is how an awful lot of us found employment back then. I should say that there one would occasionally see ads for work requiring remarkable qualifications, but paying a bit better than McDonalds. It was only much later that I understood that these were placed to establish that one couldn't hire US citizens for the work and so should be allowed to hire someone on an H1-B.
- DangitBobby 1y ago
  I don't think the purpose was to screw anyone over, of course, the benefits are obvious. It is much easier to deal with a large volume (any volume, really) of digital applications. You can pool from a much wider application base and like you said you don't physically need to be there to apply. But my impression is that it was more of a monkey paw curl for applicants than a boon. I definitely think a human knowing you exist when you submit an application would add a small hint of humanity back to the process. I watched my wife recently submit dozens of applications and heard back from only a handful in the form of rejections, it was like throwing darts in a dark room.

trod1234 1y ago

What you describe is called in engineering, a whipsaw, and when whipsaws get too chaotic they tear the machinery apart. When you stop taking it personally, and ask yourself how and why these business leaders were able to do this and continue doing it for decades, you'll eventually narrow in on the fact that money-printing has played a critical role. Then ask yourself what happens when legitimate producers who are immediately constrained by a loss(profit) function face off against producers who are unconstrained (through non-reserve debt issuance with loans out 100 years). What happened to all the local video rental places after Blockbuster? What happened to all the local SuperMarts after Walmart? What happened with Food Deserts? Large well funded companies came in, slashed prices under where it was profitable, and outspent until competitors shut down. There is a reason since the 70s business growth/adoption plans follow the same curves as ponzi schemes. Until the fuel that drives the cycle is removed, no change can be expected; and if we are being honest, the people making these choices aren't the brightest people in the room. Every producer requires labor, but some use their unconstrained nature to manipulate the factor markets towards wage suppression. This creates untenable whipsaws eventually.

bryan_w 1y ago

This feels like an older generational take. Here's why I say that: > Then, we transitioned into highly automated form submissions online, ... this development was a completely one-sided benefit to employers. This was actually a big advantage to job seekers as you could apply to way more jobs at once and lowered the bar of starting to look for another job when the time at your current job was up. As a millennial, I seriously do not know how people got office jobs before the Internet. I've heard people say, "Just put on your best suit, go down there and ask to speak with the manager and give him a firm handshake", but that just seems so old fashioned. >> Sounds like a form of justice, almost. You seem upset, like they did this just to screw you over, but perhaps there might have been other reasons that you hadn't thought of. In any case, the solution won't be eye to eye meetings to submit applications, but probably something digital so I wouldn't expect "The good old days" anytime soon.

cafard 1y ago
A historical note: Forty years ago, I shared a house with a guy who had recently completed an MA, and hadn't found any work related to it. I always knew when his family had been in town, because the Help Wanted ad section from the Sunday New York Times would be on the table. Memory may exaggerate, but I remember this section as fatter than today's Times is Monday through Saturday. The Washington Post had a similar Help Wanted section. In fact, I think that every job I have held since 1983 I applied for in response to a classified ad. Obviously it would be better to be recruited, to have somebody call up and say, Hey, Dave says you're a great hand at X, are you by any chance looking to move? But responding to a classified ad is how an awful lot of us found employment back then. I should say that there one would occasionally see ads for work requiring remarkable qualifications, but paying a bit better than McDonalds. It was only much later that I understood that these were placed to establish that one couldn't hire US citizens for the work and so should be allowed to hire someone on an H1-B.
DangitBobby 1y ago
I don't think the purpose was to screw anyone over, of course, the benefits are obvious. It is much easier to deal with a large volume (any volume, really) of digital applications. You can pool from a much wider application base and like you said you don't physically need to be there to apply. But my impression is that it was more of a monkey paw curl for applicants than a boon. I definitely think a human knowing you exist when you submit an application would add a small hint of humanity back to the process. I watched my wife recently submit dozens of applications and heard back from only a handful in the form of rejections, it was like throwing darts in a dark room.