Comment by stackskipton

Comment by stackskipton 3 days ago

21 replies

After seeing the flood of resumes for application, I do think a small cost to apply wouldn't be a bad thing for either applicants or companies. I also realize that if someone is unemployed, getting them to pay money they don't have to find a new job is counterproductive.

However, when we wanted to hire a new Ops person at work, the flood of obviously not qualified at all applicants we got was insane.

vulcan01 3 days ago

> the flood of obviously not qualified at all applicants we got was insane

From speaking to folks looking for jobs in tech over the past few years, this is a natural result.

1. Companies write requirements on the job posting that are a little beyond reasonable for the role and salary.

2. Applicants learn over time, and start applying to jobs for which they only meet most of the qualifications.

3. Companies adjust and write even more ridiculous requirements.

4. Applicants start applying to jobs for which they only meet some requirements.

5. Repeat.

As evidence that the applicants are, at every stage, correctly reacting to the situation: I have received positive responses (and, later, job offers) by applying to roles for which I am only mostly qualified, and I know many people for whom this is true of jobs they are only barely qualified for.

  • x0x0 3 days ago

    The last req I opened I closed around 500 applicants. I opened it Thursday afternoon and closed it Tuesday morning.

    Over 40% were totally nonqualified. The job was for a rails engineer. In the current market, I wanted exactly what I asked for: a senior rails eng. But as long as the applicant had shipped a web app in a dynamic language -- node, react, vue, svelte, django, flask, phoenix, whatever the php folks use, etc -- it's not unreasonable to apply. That 40% had never shipped a webapp. Another 10% or more completely ignored the senior: many had < 1 year of experience.

    I ended up using AI to filter because even 1 minute per is an entire 9 hour day. Engaging for 3 minutes per application is 3x that. And I can't be in a position where I spend effort while the applicant spent none: I assume the bulk of these were just mass applications.

    • BobbyTables2 2 days ago

      Reminds me of the joke:

      A hiring manager throws away half the applications without looking at them. They don’t want to hire “unlucky” people.

      • rapidaneurism 2 days ago

        I think it is an anecdote about a trading firm. Something about throwing the CVs to their desk from a few feet away. Only the ones who made it to the desk were considered. After all who wants to hire unlucky traders?

    • avmich 2 days ago

      > And I can't be in a position where I spend effort while the applicant spent none

      Looks like the root point of the arms race.

  • BobbyTables2 2 days ago

    I have never met a single recruiter that even understood the job requirements or the nature of the work.

    What are we even doing here?

  • simoncion 3 days ago

    > As evidence that the applicants are, at every stage, correctly reacting to the situation: I have received positive responses (and, later, job offers) by applying to roles for which I am only mostly qualified...

    Even fifteen years ago, I was getting advice from grizzled (programming industry) veterans of the form

      If you match even half of what they're asking for, apply. Most of the time, those lists are put together by HR; and even if the list is completely accurate, they're never going to find anyone that meets all those requirements. The ad is asking for the *ideal* candidate. The smart companies know they're going to have to settle for less. Let *them* filter *you* out.
    
    I've interviewed a fair bit, both in and out of Silicon Valley. I've had exactly two interviews where the folks hiring knew exactly what they wanted. All the others were like "Well, we need a programmer to do programmer stuff, IDK.".
  • nradov 2 days ago

    That's nothing new. From the job applicant perspective it has always been stupid to filter yourself out if you're even slightly qualified. I mean if you're already unemployed then you have plenty of free time to submit applications so there's nothing to lose.

  • ghusto 2 days ago

    I wish this wasn't true (but know it is from experience), because those of us who are posting job requirements that actually correspond to what we're looking for are left with nonsense applications.

  • thaumasiotes 2 days ago

    In your process, I understand why step 2 would occur. But what are the companies "adjusting" to in step 3? What's gone out of whack for them that they're trying to correct?

    • eightys3v3n 2 days ago

      They get too many supposedly unqualified applications.

      • thaumasiotes 2 days ago

        How is raising the stated qualifications going to help with that?

  • Kaibeezy 2 days ago

    Activator / inhibitor

    It’s a Turing pattern generator. Inevitable results.

    To fix it, employers could require applicants to include a random variant as part of their application. What parameters? Postage, as is being discussed. Attach a handwritten personal reference letter.

    I once designed, built and sent — on my own initiative — a building facade model for an architecture job, but it was with Michael Graves, so I’m sure other applicants sent in entire villages. They were old school enough to send it back with the rejection letter.

PolygonSheep 3 days ago

I'd gladly pay the 78 cents for a stamp if it meant my application was opened and read by an actual human.

  • ryandrake 3 days ago

    If I were a job applicant, I don't know how much I'd pay for an ironclad guarantee that the human hiring manager for the role would open and read my resume. $100? Multiple hundreds?

    Sad that things have gotten to this point.

    • htrp 3 days ago

      Thats when you work with the a 3P recruiter that has a vested interest in putting you in front of the hiring manager

nitwit005 2 days ago

There are a ton of fake jobs openings out there, or which sort of exist, but they aren't exactly eager to hire and haven't filled the role in nine months.

You'd have to pay with no guarantee anyone will even read it, which even at a fairly low cost rapidly becomes an issue when you might have to apply to a lot of jobs.

Making the employer also pay might help, but I suspect then the employers will just wander over to another jobs site that promises free listings.

multjoy 2 days ago

In many jurisdictions (the UK, in particular) charging people to apply for work is specifically illegal.

chipgap98 3 days ago

I do think this is going to be part of the solution to a lot of AI slop is adding small fees to do a thing