4 ms·

[The idea that the pool of applicants for any given job is largely a function of the people who've already been hired] makes no sense. You don't seem to be fam

by _pius 11y ago

[The idea that the pool of applicants for any given job is largely a function of the people who've already been hired] makes no sense. You don't seem to be familiar with how hiring works. Referrals are a thing, for instance. Job openings tend to get shared within the networks of employees. I'm honestly amazed that this is a point of debate.

jerf 11y ago
You're basically claiming that the details of this service can't possibly be relevant because effectively nobody ever uses these sorts of recruiting services. Along with it being pretty "scorth-the-Earth" as defenses go, I would submit the alive-and-well recruiting industry of which this startup is trying to become a part is a sufficient counterpoint. Referral networks are great for Silicon Valley startups... I mean that fully seriously, not merely rhetorically, it's a legitimate advantage that Silicon Valley has over any other region trying to become Silicon Valley because you just can't legislate those networks into existence... but you tap them out as you grow. Especially if you're not in Silicon Valley. Hence the market for things like, oh, say, Jopwell.
- _pius 11y ago
  You're basically claiming that the details of this service can't possibly be relevant because effectively nobody ever uses these sorts of recruiting services. Yet another strawman. We haven't even gotten to the details yet; remarkably, you've argued against increasing the pool of qualified applicants, on principle. Referral networks are great for Silicon Valley startups And another strawman! I never claimed referral networks are bad for startups. But those networks also tend to miss large swaths of qualified potential hires. You yourself admitted that eventually those networks get tapped out. Meanwhile ... is the applicant pool a function of the current employees or not? If not, why are referrals an advantage? In one breath, the claim makes "no sense" to you, but in the next, that fact is a "huge advantage."
  - jerf 11y ago
    "And another strawman! I never claimed referral networks are bad for startups." Perhaps you ought to be slower to fling about accusations about "strawmen" and actually read what I'm saying. I'm allowed to make points that are not necessarily direct responses to you. You're attempting to control the frame. Well, so am I. I see no reason to hide that. "In one breath, the claim makes "no sense" to you, but in the next, that fact is a "huge advantage."" Bollocks. Read more, assume less please. "remarkably, you've argued against increasing the pool of qualified applicants, on principle." Again, you're scorching the Earth to save your point. Your point logically explains that it would be perfectly ethical to create a recruiting service that both highly vets its candidates, and only accepts "the majority", because that would "increase the pool of qualified applicants" vs an unvetted population that requires wading through tons of people who barely even read the posting. Your defense is proving far more than you intend. It is perfectly reasonable, and indeed a real hiring company better be considering, the mechanics whereby the "applicant pool is being increased" if they don't want to be sued. You're nuking the ground Jopwell is standing on to defend it, which is precisely the idea that where the pool comes from does matter, beyond just "a big enough pool"!
    - dang 11y ago
      Come on, you guys—we need established users to set examples of civility when discussing difficult matters.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]

by _pius 11y ago

jerf 11y ago

You're basically claiming that the details of this service can't possibly be relevant because effectively nobody ever uses these sorts of recruiting services. Along with it being pretty "scorth-the-Earth" as defenses go, I would submit the alive-and-well recruiting industry of which this startup is trying to become a part is a sufficient counterpoint. Referral networks are great for Silicon Valley startups... I mean that fully seriously, not merely rhetorically, it's a legitimate advantage that Silicon Valley has over any other region trying to become Silicon Valley because you just can't legislate those networks into existence... but you tap them out as you grow. Especially if you're not in Silicon Valley. Hence the market for things like, oh, say, Jopwell.

_pius 11y ago
You're basically claiming that the details of this service can't possibly be relevant because effectively nobody ever uses these sorts of recruiting services. Yet another strawman. We haven't even gotten to the details yet; remarkably, you've argued against increasing the pool of qualified applicants, on principle. Referral networks are great for Silicon Valley startups And another strawman! I never claimed referral networks are bad for startups. But those networks also tend to miss large swaths of qualified potential hires. You yourself admitted that eventually those networks get tapped out. Meanwhile ... is the applicant pool a function of the current employees or not? If not, why are referrals an advantage? In one breath, the claim makes "no sense" to you, but in the next, that fact is a "huge advantage."
- jerf 11y ago
  "And another strawman! I never claimed referral networks are bad for startups." Perhaps you ought to be slower to fling about accusations about "strawmen" and actually read what I'm saying. I'm allowed to make points that are not necessarily direct responses to you. You're attempting to control the frame. Well, so am I. I see no reason to hide that. "In one breath, the claim makes "no sense" to you, but in the next, that fact is a "huge advantage."" Bollocks. Read more, assume less please. "remarkably, you've argued against increasing the pool of qualified applicants, on principle." Again, you're scorching the Earth to save your point. Your point logically explains that it would be perfectly ethical to create a recruiting service that both highly vets its candidates, and only accepts "the majority", because that would "increase the pool of qualified applicants" vs an unvetted population that requires wading through tons of people who barely even read the posting. Your defense is proving far more than you intend. It is perfectly reasonable, and indeed a real hiring company better be considering, the mechanics whereby the "applicant pool is being increased" if they don't want to be sued. You're nuking the ground Jopwell is standing on to defend it, which is precisely the idea that where the pool comes from does matter, beyond just "a big enough pool"!
  - dang 11y ago
    Come on, you guys—we need established users to set examples of civility when discussing difficult matters.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]