While I have no comment on the parent article, I have done a lot of market research over the past few years, as part of a potential product to help companies hi

While I have no comment on the parent article, I have done a lot of market research over the past few years, as part of a potential product to help companies hire better people, faster. In doing so, I've noticed that there are two primary ways that companies artificially limit themselves to a tiny pool of eligible people: One: An interview process based on trivia and logic puzzles, not "can this person drive success". This eliminates people that have years of industry experience, but that can't quite remember the solution to Four Knights on the spot. I have seen plenty of of "unqualified" people that work as consultants, and pull in large sums of money, solving business problems at companies where they could never get through the interview process. These people would have been great hires, but they were forced out due to bad process. Two: Requiring that candidates permanently relocate, nominally to a city with a very high cost-of-living, without paying a correspondingly high salary. This eliminates people with families, people with elderly parents, and so on. Money is rarely the problem if the company is otherwise flexible in terms of location. If you want, say, a parent with two kids to move to SF, you're going to need to pony up $160k+ a year. The same person in Boise would likely be happy at half that.