6 ms·

Well if they act irrationally they will be sufficiently punished by the market (no childish fantasy required). There aren't enough jobs? Then create more jobs.

Well if they act irrationally they will be sufficiently punished by the market (no childish fantasy required). There aren't enough jobs? Then create more jobs. Starting a company, at my last check, is incredibly simple to do. Of course, turning a profit is hard, which is why people turn to the government to provide them with work rather than take the risk of starting a company. The government doesn't need to turn a profit, it collects taxes. Therefore it's a very attractive alternative to the cold, hard realities of the market. Of course, there's only so much tax money to go around..

rayiner 14y ago
The market doesn't punish the companies for irrational behavior when everyone engages in the same irrational behavior.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Why don't you engage in rational behavior and get rich?
  - jarek 14y ago
    "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      Please go learn what this quote actually means (hint: it refers to speculation, not consumption).
      - jarek 14y ago
        I know what this quote refers to (and it's not particularly kind of you to suggest I don't, if I may say). I meant to point out that engaging in "rational" behaviour when it comes to hiring in a market you perceive as behaving irrationally is no guarantee of becoming rich any more than engaging in "rational" behaviour when it comes to speculation.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    There are people who have done precisely that in places like South Korea where there is very overt discrimination against educated women returning to the work force after their children are a little older. If I were starting my own firm that's exactly what I'd do (and some day, I might). There are some places in New York that at least have the right idea (I don't know about the implementation): http://www.cravath.com/benefits http://www.cravath.com/benefits ("We have an associate re-entry program that is designed to foster a connection between the Firm and those associates who leave the Firm for primarily family-related reasons... we hope that these former associates will consider returning to the Firm if they decide to practice law again.").
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    Trust sparsity ("bozo bit") is an irrational behavior that doesn't make anyone rich. In general, it makes everyone poor.
  - dyno12345 14y ago
    You won't get rich. You will have a somewhat easier time hiring people. The difference may be small enough that you wouldn't even notice subjectively.
michaelochurch 14y ago
Well if they act irrationally they will be sufficiently punished by the market (no childish fantasy required). The market does punish shitty corporations, but it happens over years to decades, and most people can't wait that long. How much comfort is it to someone who's unemployed if Microsoft breaks off and falls into the ocean in 2025? These people want jobs now and, as far as I can tell, don't really care what the market does to the companies that won't hire them. Also, companies are mediocre (refusing to hire unemployed people is moral mediocrity, since no effort is spent finding out why he was long-term unemployed) because most people are morally mediocre. So, while good companies eventually come up and replace bad companies, they're also getting worse as time goes on. Most of the people these articles are written about don't live in SF or NYC where there are a large number of good companies, so the option of not working for mediocre companies reliant on social-proof bullshit might not be one they have. My personal thought: long-term unemployed should lie. Yes, I'm under my real name, and I'm still saying that. I don't care. I feel like anyone (even an employer) who relies that much on social proof deserves to be deceived. I've never lied on a resume, but I have no issues with people who lie as pertains to this particular matter. If you've been out for 10 months, make something up.
- jonathanwallace 14y ago
  Sounds like there is a market opportunity for job coaches. Reasonable-reason-for-extended-absence-from-the-job-market as a service, anyone?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    People, especially young recent graduates who make up a big part of the unemployed, really need job search and interview coaching. Their parents and schools have left them completely unprepared for that task.
    - jarek 14y ago
      Devil's advocate: or is it employers that need interview coaching? If a candidate otherwise suited for the job (with necessary training, skills, aptitude, etc) is rejected on the basis of an interview, I would suggest it's a problem with the interview. Unless, of course, there aren't enough jobs for qualified candidates, which is a different problem altogether and interview-training some candidates will only result in an arms-escalation without any benefit on the macro scale.
rprospero 14y ago
Companies will eventually be punished for acting irrationally, but, in the short term, they can be rewarded quite handsomely. This reminds me of an old trick I've heard used on multiple occasions. We've all read the Hack News posts about how no amount of programming can compensate for a poor personality. Image that you're looking at an applicant and their former employer tells you: "He was a good coder, but he had a serious anger management problem. You should do code reviews over the phone if you don't want books thrown at your head." You're probably not going to hire this candidate. Now, imagine that you're a manager who has a great, professional programmer who is leaving your organization. When other companies call for a reference, you could tell the truth, causing your competitors to hire her and their business to improve. On the other hand, you can make up a story about poor inter-personal skills and keep this talented worker out of the workforce. If you can't have her, no one can. On the reverse side, you give glowing recommendations to your worst coders so that their terrible practices fill your opponents sites with massive security holes and performance bottlenecks. As an added bonus, when your current employees figure out that they'll have a hard time finding a new job after working for you, you can keep their salaries below market rate. Now, this won't work in the long term, since you'll eventually gain a reputation as a liar and your recommendations will be ignored. However, as long as you remain small, it will take you quite a long time to get this reputation. Is the CEO of FerriDyne systems honest or a liar? Meanwhile, you can keep a promising employee out of the job market for six months until they come crawling back for their old job at a fraction of their old pay. This technique also makes recruiting difficult, since your employees won't recommend their competent friends for new positions. On the other hand, you can just get in the habit of hiring other people with large gaps in their record. If they're incompetent, then you let them go and recommend them to your competitors. If they're good, you hire them on at a discount since they haven't been able to find a job in six months. Granted, I'd never do this and I'm sure you wouldn't either. It's underhanded and, ultimately, irrational. Lying leads to a breakdown of trust that weakens the whole financial system. However, if you're leading the charge towards that collapse, you can make a lot of money on the way.
- UK-AL 14y ago
  How common is this sort of stuff?
jacoblyles 14y ago
Starting a company is easy. Hiring people is hard. There is a ton of regulatory paperwork and costs that kick in when you start hiring people.

rayiner 14y ago

The market doesn't punish the companies for irrational behavior when everyone engages in the same irrational behavior.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Why don't you engage in rational behavior and get rich?
- jarek 14y ago
  "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Please go learn what this quote actually means (hint: it refers to speculation, not consumption).
    - jarek 14y ago
      I know what this quote refers to (and it's not particularly kind of you to suggest I don't, if I may say). I meant to point out that engaging in "rational" behaviour when it comes to hiring in a market you perceive as behaving irrationally is no guarantee of becoming rich any more than engaging in "rational" behaviour when it comes to speculation.
- rayiner 14y ago
  There are people who have done precisely that in places like South Korea where there is very overt discrimination against educated women returning to the work force after their children are a little older. If I were starting my own firm that's exactly what I'd do (and some day, I might). There are some places in New York that at least have the right idea (I don't know about the implementation): http://www.cravath.com/benefits http://www.cravath.com/benefits ("We have an associate re-entry program that is designed to foster a connection between the Firm and those associates who leave the Firm for primarily family-related reasons... we hope that these former associates will consider returning to the Firm if they decide to practice law again.").
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Trust sparsity ("bozo bit") is an irrational behavior that doesn't make anyone rich. In general, it makes everyone poor.
- dyno12345 14y ago
  You won't get rich. You will have a somewhat easier time hiring people. The difference may be small enough that you wouldn't even notice subjectively.

michaelochurch 14y ago

Well if they act irrationally they will be sufficiently punished by the market (no childish fantasy required). The market does punish shitty corporations, but it happens over years to decades, and most people can't wait that long. How much comfort is it to someone who's unemployed if Microsoft breaks off and falls into the ocean in 2025? These people want jobs now and, as far as I can tell, don't really care what the market does to the companies that won't hire them. Also, companies are mediocre (refusing to hire unemployed people is moral mediocrity, since no effort is spent finding out why he was long-term unemployed) because most people are morally mediocre. So, while good companies eventually come up and replace bad companies, they're also getting worse as time goes on. Most of the people these articles are written about don't live in SF or NYC where there are a large number of good companies, so the option of not working for mediocre companies reliant on social-proof bullshit might not be one they have. My personal thought: long-term unemployed should lie. Yes, I'm under my real name, and I'm still saying that. I don't care. I feel like anyone (even an employer) who relies that much on social proof deserves to be deceived. I've never lied on a resume, but I have no issues with people who lie as pertains to this particular matter. If you've been out for 10 months, make something up.

jonathanwallace 14y ago
Sounds like there is a market opportunity for job coaches. Reasonable-reason-for-extended-absence-from-the-job-market as a service, anyone?
- rayiner 14y ago
  People, especially young recent graduates who make up a big part of the unemployed, really need job search and interview coaching. Their parents and schools have left them completely unprepared for that task.
  - jarek 14y ago
    Devil's advocate: or is it employers that need interview coaching? If a candidate otherwise suited for the job (with necessary training, skills, aptitude, etc) is rejected on the basis of an interview, I would suggest it's a problem with the interview. Unless, of course, there aren't enough jobs for qualified candidates, which is a different problem altogether and interview-training some candidates will only result in an arms-escalation without any benefit on the macro scale.

rprospero 14y ago

Companies will eventually be punished for acting irrationally, but, in the short term, they can be rewarded quite handsomely. This reminds me of an old trick I've heard used on multiple occasions. We've all read the Hack News posts about how no amount of programming can compensate for a poor personality. Image that you're looking at an applicant and their former employer tells you: "He was a good coder, but he had a serious anger management problem. You should do code reviews over the phone if you don't want books thrown at your head." You're probably not going to hire this candidate. Now, imagine that you're a manager who has a great, professional programmer who is leaving your organization. When other companies call for a reference, you could tell the truth, causing your competitors to hire her and their business to improve. On the other hand, you can make up a story about poor inter-personal skills and keep this talented worker out of the workforce. If you can't have her, no one can. On the reverse side, you give glowing recommendations to your worst coders so that their terrible practices fill your opponents sites with massive security holes and performance bottlenecks. As an added bonus, when your current employees figure out that they'll have a hard time finding a new job after working for you, you can keep their salaries below market rate. Now, this won't work in the long term, since you'll eventually gain a reputation as a liar and your recommendations will be ignored. However, as long as you remain small, it will take you quite a long time to get this reputation. Is the CEO of FerriDyne systems honest or a liar? Meanwhile, you can keep a promising employee out of the job market for six months until they come crawling back for their old job at a fraction of their old pay. This technique also makes recruiting difficult, since your employees won't recommend their competent friends for new positions. On the other hand, you can just get in the habit of hiring other people with large gaps in their record. If they're incompetent, then you let them go and recommend them to your competitors. If they're good, you hire them on at a discount since they haven't been able to find a job in six months. Granted, I'd never do this and I'm sure you wouldn't either. It's underhanded and, ultimately, irrational. Lying leads to a breakdown of trust that weakens the whole financial system. However, if you're leading the charge towards that collapse, you can make a lot of money on the way.

UK-AL 14y ago
How common is this sort of stuff?

jacoblyles 14y ago

Starting a company is easy. Hiring people is hard. There is a ton of regulatory paperwork and costs that kick in when you start hiring people.