This is such a tone deaf idea its kinda disappointing YC incubated it. Somebody coming from a poor (or absent) family would have a harder time breaking into the tech fields with this added on compared to somebody coming from a rich or even middle class family.
Somebody job seeking after a 2 year long recovery from serious illness wouldn't have the connections to their old co-workers or bosses to crowd fund this, and wouldn't have the liquid cash flow to do it themselves.
It unbalances access to jobs by family wealth and creates yet another:tm: skip annoying thing if you are rich enough and/or have enough friends who are rich enough.
The return on investment aspect would just get gamed by companies being excessively selective on which candidates they allow to stay past 2 months.
And finally it extends the worse thing that exists in our society: "It's easier to make money if you have money."
This is what creates and enforces our class system, this is what makes it harder for historically disadvantaged groups to get a head, and such a product would just extend this, while benefiting the company.
The anger is justified, such systems can not be allowed to exist.
AFAIK YC didn't incubate that idea - it was a later development.
The reaction seems a bit overblown to me but maybe that's helpful in a way, since it might not have been as clear a signal otherwise (I mean to the startup, not YC).
Just because someone in a wheelchair can’t drive a Ferrari doesn’t mean a Ferrari isn’t fun for huge base.
The expression “don’t let great be the enemy of good” comes to mind. Whether this is good or not is besides the point, that it’s not good for everyone and therefore not allowed to exist is the problem.
> The anger is justified, such systems can not be allowed to exist.
Comments like this exemplify how entitled and outside reality the tech industry exists. Consider how much it costs to break into the medical or legal fields. It costs thousands of dollars to become a truck driver, though this is often fronted by a prospective employer. Same with becoming a police officer.
Consider instead screen acting where potential employment is often a pipe dream and costs thousands of dollars for a headshot and agent.
Seriously, what other professional career doesn't require some financial investment and personal connections to break in?
On that link there's a screenshot of the homepage for the service. It looks about as awful as you'd expect. How this even got past the elevator pitch is entirely perplexing.
The concept of having colleagues essentially pay for your salary during a probation period is inane. But if it were your former employer, it could essentially be a type of severance / outplacement benefit. The 'skip the interview' bit is also silly. You'd still interview, but the hiring company would have an extra incentive to give you a chance if they aren't 100% sure.
Having said that, I once tried something vaguely analogous and it backfired. I had left my job and was freelancing, looking into businesses to start for myself, but nothing solid yet, and a fairly senior job opening came bouncing around that I thought would give me useful experience even though in the long term I was set on entrepreneurship. it was clear the company wasn't quite sure about me. So I essentially offered them a free trial - I'd come in and just start working for a few weeks for free for us all to see if it was a good fit, no commitments.
Ironically, I think that seemed so bizarre to them at a senior level (or they read it as signalling that I was desperate, which I wasn't) that they passed.
In the end it was all for the best - I started a business, etc.
> So I essentially offered them a free trial - I'd come in and just start working for a few weeks for free for us all to see if it was a good fit, no commitments.
That's basically what the 90 day probationary period is, where they can fire you for no reason. You might've done better if you offered to work for minimum wage for your first X weeks, with the expectation they'll bump you up to a normal salary before the period is over.
> But if it were your former employer, it could essentially be a type of severance / outplacement benefit.
The old-employer incentives there are the opposite of what is trying to be achieved by the reward aspect, and the existence of the reward is not sufficient to mend that, though.
> Out of the people I had hired at my last startup:
> 12% of hires where exceptional hires (I would instantly hire again)
> 42% of Hire were good hires. (I wouldn’t hire again but they did a fine job)
> 29% of hires were bad hires. (They didn’t do a good job and were eventually let go)
> 17% of hires were very bad hires (They had a negative effect on the company culture and other staff)
These seem like extremely poor numbers. I haven't hired a ton of people but all of them have been excellent, though some that I was peripherally involved in hiring have been just good. I'm curious what other people feel that their ratio is.
This could roughly be saying half of hires are below average, and the distribution is bell shaped (or triangular to a first approximation). For many jobs, below average can be equivalent to bad.
If you have money to spend, or can wait to hire, you can beat the averages. I've hired a fair amount and done well too, but only by refusing to hire anyone if there are not suitable candidates that applied, which can burn a lot of political capital (your boss sees you've spend x time and money and had y applicant and z interviews and you refuse to hire anyone).
Employees aren’t scratch tickets. The on-boarding, training, engineering culture and practices all contribute strongly to whether the prospective employee will turn out to be excellent or not. (I leave it to your judgment to guess how a place where 42% “were good hires, did a fine job, but I wouldn’t hire them again” falls on that spectrum.)
Yeah, it sounds so bad that it’s probably made up. It implies that the company has 46% turnover or firing rate (29+17), but average turnover for tech companies is 10%-15% [0].
The backers get 100% return after 2 months if employee stays on? That doesn’t sound bad to me, if I was convinced of the company’s trustworthiness there are a number of former coworkers I would definitely “bet on” to last more than 2 months.
Picture the inverse. Would you really email an old boss from 2 years ago asking for $50 so you can buy yourself a new job?
I would not, nor would I want coworkers asking me for money. Imagine if someone asks you and for whatever reason you don't want to bet on them - how will that conversation go? How will that affect your professional relationship with that person?
This is more or less a proposal for nepotism-based gambling.
Such a system would just get gamed by people with rich friends/family or rich people who have the fortune of saving up 10k in liquid funds before losing their current job and can just buy their way into a job.
It only expands income inequality and is frankly disgusting.
I think it's a stupid idea, would never use it as an employer or job seeker, and if it's as dumb as I and others feel, it won't go far (and in fact it seems to have shut down). That said, I don't understand the outrage. It's an ostensibly dumb idea, maybe even with an upside down some we dont see. It's not a personal attack on anyone. Make fun of it, sure, don't use it sure, but no need for outrage, "I dont have words" etc
I think people are defensive and outraged because if something like this ever caught on among tech companies and became a normalized practice, it would make the process of job seeking much more frustrating than it already is. It's basically institutionalized, monetized nepotism, with all the toxicity of an MLM scheme.
A professional world where this was a common practice would be an awful one for a lot of people. The intense reaction might be a bit of overkill, but it's worth sending a strong message that this is not okay.
People hate it because it does what MLM's do. It turns a social relationship into an extractive one.
Think about how it would work in practice. It's not going to always be a cool professional interaction: "Hey, I was wondering, could you give $50 to my crowdfund?" You: "Nah, sorry." Them: "Okay, thanks for your time."
It'll be more like "Contribute $50 to my crowdfund. Pleeaasseee I need this job. I'm having a tough time, I won't be able to make my rent if I don't get this job, and my wife's about to have our second child. Come on, man." It's really hard to refuse, but you'll also be resentful. You don't go around hitting up your former coworkers for money.
It turns a social relationship into an extractive one. Which gives people the heebie-jeebies. You're basically being told "Give me money, or I'll kill our friendship." It's approximately as appealing as someone who says "Give me money, or I'll kill your dog."
I certainly understand having a seething hatred for a company that makes money by encouraging my friends to act that way toward me.
Also, a lot of SWE's are introverts. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at what I do, but I don't know that I have contact information for 20 former coworkers, let alone be able to put together 20 people who know me well enough that I think they'd put $50 on me.
As to YC would have funded this: For founders and VC's, the line between social and business might be pretty blurry. It might be a cultural blind spot, if you're deep in the VC world, you're probably an extrovert with hundreds of business contacts, and you've maybe forgotten how taboo it is to pitch your acquaintances for money as a normal person.
It seems the Internet quickly gave the company a taste of the public's reaction when they started showing off their "brilliant" idea. And to their credit, they went offline more or less immediately.
It unbalances access to jobs by family wealth and creates yet another:tm: skip annoying thing if you are rich enough and/or have enough friends who are rich enough.
Somebody coming out of a life hiccup like family issues or health issues is gonna have a harder time skipping the interview while also having a harder time interviewing.
The return on investment aspect could just get gamed by companies being excessively selective on which candidates they allow to stay past 2 months.
And finally it extends the worse thing that exists in our society: "It's easier to make money if you have money."
This is what creates and enforces our class system, this is what makes it harder for historically disadvantaged groups to get ahead, and such a product would just extend this.
Why is making fun of it acceptable to you but saying "I don't have words" unacceptable? What line are you drawing here? Why is the tone of some reddit comments (which you agree with on content) worth a HN condemnation?
So not only do you have pressure to perform because you don't want to lose your job, you also have pressure to perform because you don't want friends/coworkers/etc to lose money.
Imagine you and a bunch of other people at your company can all chip in and convince that person no one can stand that you can get them a better job guaranteed at another company as long as they apply. Would you? How much would you pay to get rid of that bad apple that seems to stick around?
Let someone else fail upwards at another company for less than the price of the party you throw once you get rid of them!
I had this happen to me once when applying to a major defense contractor. The recruiters claimed that they were too busy to interview me and I'd have the job if I wanted it. It smelled too much like a scam and I was suspicious about this particular operation because these jobs were perpetually posted so I bailed on their game.
If this became a real thing, people would just pay their former boss or coworkers to transfer the needed amount. People will apparently give referrals for quite cheap, so it wouldn't cost much: https://www.rooftopslushie.com/referral
Also, this seems like it'd be illegal many places due to laws against demanding payment for a job.
I'm (perhaps naively) shocked at how opposed to this people are on Reddit, but especially on HN. This community was founded on startup ideals of trying radical ideas, knowing that most wouldn't succeed but some would go on to have outsized positive impact. Anyone who claims to definitively know that this idea would have problematic/racist results is kidding themselves. I've worked with and mentored a lot of minority candidates (who often have trouble with the cultural test that is getting and passing interviews), and my first thought on reading this idea was: "Sweet, I could start a little fund getting under-represented people I know jobs; I think I could probably even make it profitable. This could be transformative." Of course I don't know for sure that it would work, but to just confidently dismiss it out of hand seems about as stupid as the people who, upon first hearing about Lambda School ISAs, insisted that it was morally akin to slavery.
> I'm (perhaps naively) shocked at how opposed to this people are on Reddit, but especially on HN
> I've worked with and mentored a lot of minority candidates (who often have trouble with the cultural test that is getting and passing interviews)
Maybe have an open, empathetic mind for those people that are so upset? Or ask a minority friend of yours what they think?
From my personal XP: Many black and brown friends of mine think that entrepreneurship is a rich kid’s game because the common first step of raising a “friends and family round” is an absurd notion to them. Most of their friends and family barely have enough money to pay the bills, so the idea of raising $100k+ from them is silly. When I read the angry responses in this thread (and see a price tag like $10k) I think about those friends. I’m sure they’d laugh at the idea of asking friends/colleagues to help them raise $10k to “skip the interview” for similar reasons.
Empathy is hard, especially over the internet and across socioeconomic bubbles, but it’s essential when seeing outrage that you don’t understand.
If you feel it's acceptable that having money/networks of people with money would give people an advantage in the world, the shock is understandable. However, others are vehemently opposed to the world working like this and anything that contributes to such a world, like this business idea.
Also:
1) unless you think it will be very common that people with money will take up sponsoring minorities for jobs, the fact that you personally would do it doesn't counteract the disadvantage of minorities in general through this system, and
2) if you want to pay to help people from underrepresented groups get jobs, there are already plenty of ways to do so, from sponsoring education to hiring interview coaches, and more.
I am honestly surprised that this isn't implemented on a blockchain, with the payouts being smart contracts. It's the only way this this could have been made any worse
(I'm not in favor of this concept at all, but read on for a few thoughts)
---
I can see one exceptionally limited use case for this:
Recruiting influencers into related (influence-y) roles.
Example: eSports player Taylor Jackson wants sponsorship with league Team Plasma. Team Plasma's application/recruiting process entails an invite-only process where players are contracted based on metrics derived from common streaming platforms like stream size, stream demographics, gameplay, an arbitrary "hype" measurement, etc., but Team Plasma decides to offer a secondary route for players capable of crowdfunding a certain total. Taylor fulfills the crowdfunding goal due to their reach on platforms not monitored by Team Plasma (e.g clubhouse for the sake of this contrived example).
Another example could include influencers for promotional gigs, like those gigs where someone tends to a paradise island for a year.
---
I don't foresee this model scaling all that well without shoehorning it into places where it doesn't belong, and the communication of the model (and the model itself) very deservedly got incinerated.
Someone should start an employment scheme where employers and employees both sign up to a broad pool eg "javascript developers" and then employees are assigned to employers arbitrarily but everybody gets hired once before anyone is hired twice and so on. Employers can opt to trade someone back to the pool as can employees after a minimum hire period say a month. Employees that are good enough will stick and the others will get experience and training and will hopefully improve, and will get paid something at least. Employers get immediate employees without having to bother with interviews. If the pool is swamped with unqualified people then the service could implement some minimal qualification process such as a multiple choice test for entry into the employee pool.
[+] [-] MrStonedOne|4 years ago|reply
Somebody job seeking after a 2 year long recovery from serious illness wouldn't have the connections to their old co-workers or bosses to crowd fund this, and wouldn't have the liquid cash flow to do it themselves.
It unbalances access to jobs by family wealth and creates yet another:tm: skip annoying thing if you are rich enough and/or have enough friends who are rich enough.
The return on investment aspect would just get gamed by companies being excessively selective on which candidates they allow to stay past 2 months.
And finally it extends the worse thing that exists in our society: "It's easier to make money if you have money."
This is what creates and enforces our class system, this is what makes it harder for historically disadvantaged groups to get a head, and such a product would just extend this, while benefiting the company.
The anger is justified, such systems can not be allowed to exist.
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
The reaction seems a bit overblown to me but maybe that's helpful in a way, since it might not have been as clear a signal otherwise (I mean to the startup, not YC).
[+] [-] david38|4 years ago|reply
Just because someone in a wheelchair can’t drive a Ferrari doesn’t mean a Ferrari isn’t fun for huge base.
The expression “don’t let great be the enemy of good” comes to mind. Whether this is good or not is besides the point, that it’s not good for everyone and therefore not allowed to exist is the problem.
[+] [-] Redoubts|4 years ago|reply
Maybe. But hiring is hard and I doubt many decent companies would throw away a good SWE for less than $100k
[+] [-] austincheney|4 years ago|reply
Comments like this exemplify how entitled and outside reality the tech industry exists. Consider how much it costs to break into the medical or legal fields. It costs thousands of dollars to become a truck driver, though this is often fronted by a prospective employer. Same with becoming a police officer.
Consider instead screen acting where potential employment is often a pipe dream and costs thousands of dollars for a headshot and agent.
Seriously, what other professional career doesn't require some financial investment and personal connections to break in?
[+] [-] inostia|4 years ago|reply
On that link there's a screenshot of the homepage for the service. It looks about as awful as you'd expect. How this even got past the elevator pitch is entirely perplexing.
[+] [-] unityByFreedom|4 years ago|reply
"How is this not a bribe?"
"Bribe is such a loaded word, these are references who put their money where their mouths are!"
[+] [-] alanlammiman|4 years ago|reply
Having said that, I once tried something vaguely analogous and it backfired. I had left my job and was freelancing, looking into businesses to start for myself, but nothing solid yet, and a fairly senior job opening came bouncing around that I thought would give me useful experience even though in the long term I was set on entrepreneurship. it was clear the company wasn't quite sure about me. So I essentially offered them a free trial - I'd come in and just start working for a few weeks for free for us all to see if it was a good fit, no commitments.
Ironically, I think that seemed so bizarre to them at a senior level (or they read it as signalling that I was desperate, which I wasn't) that they passed.
In the end it was all for the best - I started a business, etc.
[+] [-] rrrrrrrrrrrryan|4 years ago|reply
That's basically what the 90 day probationary period is, where they can fire you for no reason. You might've done better if you offered to work for minimum wage for your first X weeks, with the expectation they'll bump you up to a normal salary before the period is over.
[+] [-] thunkshift1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|4 years ago|reply
The old-employer incentives there are the opposite of what is trying to be achieved by the reward aspect, and the existence of the reward is not sufficient to mend that, though.
[+] [-] vincentmarle|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seaknoll|4 years ago|reply
> Out of the people I had hired at my last startup:
> 12% of hires where exceptional hires (I would instantly hire again)
> 42% of Hire were good hires. (I wouldn’t hire again but they did a fine job)
> 29% of hires were bad hires. (They didn’t do a good job and were eventually let go)
> 17% of hires were very bad hires (They had a negative effect on the company culture and other staff)
These seem like extremely poor numbers. I haven't hired a ton of people but all of them have been excellent, though some that I was peripherally involved in hiring have been just good. I'm curious what other people feel that their ratio is.
[+] [-] shaggyfrog|4 years ago|reply
This alone makes no sense to me. It's a contradiction.
So I assume the website/author thinks they're a kind of mega-hustler 1000x developer or something.
[+] [-] version_five|4 years ago|reply
If you have money to spend, or can wait to hire, you can beat the averages. I've hired a fair amount and done well too, but only by refusing to hire anyone if there are not suitable candidates that applied, which can burn a lot of political capital (your boss sees you've spend x time and money and had y applicant and z interviews and you refuse to hire anyone).
Good, cheap, available, pick two.
[+] [-] sokoloff|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterthehacker|4 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.linkedin.com/feed/news/is-everyone-replaceable-a...
[+] [-] zitterbewegung|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oa335|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] satellites|4 years ago|reply
I would not, nor would I want coworkers asking me for money. Imagine if someone asks you and for whatever reason you don't want to bet on them - how will that conversation go? How will that affect your professional relationship with that person?
This is more or less a proposal for nepotism-based gambling.
[+] [-] MrStonedOne|4 years ago|reply
It only expands income inequality and is frankly disgusting.
[+] [-] Igelau|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alasdair_|4 years ago|reply
It’s still probably worth it though.
[+] [-] version_five|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] satellites|4 years ago|reply
A professional world where this was a common practice would be an awful one for a lot of people. The intense reaction might be a bit of overkill, but it's worth sending a strong message that this is not okay.
[+] [-] csense|4 years ago|reply
Think about how it would work in practice. It's not going to always be a cool professional interaction: "Hey, I was wondering, could you give $50 to my crowdfund?" You: "Nah, sorry." Them: "Okay, thanks for your time."
It'll be more like "Contribute $50 to my crowdfund. Pleeaasseee I need this job. I'm having a tough time, I won't be able to make my rent if I don't get this job, and my wife's about to have our second child. Come on, man." It's really hard to refuse, but you'll also be resentful. You don't go around hitting up your former coworkers for money.
It turns a social relationship into an extractive one. Which gives people the heebie-jeebies. You're basically being told "Give me money, or I'll kill our friendship." It's approximately as appealing as someone who says "Give me money, or I'll kill your dog."
I certainly understand having a seething hatred for a company that makes money by encouraging my friends to act that way toward me.
Also, a lot of SWE's are introverts. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at what I do, but I don't know that I have contact information for 20 former coworkers, let alone be able to put together 20 people who know me well enough that I think they'd put $50 on me.
As to YC would have funded this: For founders and VC's, the line between social and business might be pretty blurry. It might be a cultural blind spot, if you're deep in the VC world, you're probably an extrovert with hundreds of business contacts, and you've maybe forgotten how taboo it is to pitch your acquaintances for money as a normal person.
It seems the Internet quickly gave the company a taste of the public's reaction when they started showing off their "brilliant" idea. And to their credit, they went offline more or less immediately.
[+] [-] MrStonedOne|4 years ago|reply
The return on investment aspect could just get gamed by companies being excessively selective on which candidates they allow to stay past 2 months.
And finally it extends the worse thing that exists in our society: "It's easier to make money if you have money."
This is what creates and enforces our class system, this is what makes it harder for historically disadvantaged groups to get ahead, and such a product would just extend this.
[+] [-] sergiomattei|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vcanales|4 years ago|reply
My guess is that it comes from the fact that it's a YC Company.
[+] [-] weeblewobble|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IntFee588|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hardwaresofton|4 years ago|reply
Is this a symptom of YC having such large batches now?
[+] [-] bcrosby95|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CosmicShadow|4 years ago|reply
Let someone else fail upwards at another company for less than the price of the party you throw once you get rid of them!
[+] [-] EMM_386|4 years ago|reply
CEO left feedback here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/recruitinghell/comments/q7mice/a_ne...
[+] [-] robocat|4 years ago|reply
Old reheated idea.
[+] [-] kevin_thibedeau|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nitwit005|4 years ago|reply
Also, this seems like it'd be illegal many places due to laws against demanding payment for a job.
[+] [-] peripitea|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterthehacker|4 years ago|reply
> I've worked with and mentored a lot of minority candidates (who often have trouble with the cultural test that is getting and passing interviews)
Maybe have an open, empathetic mind for those people that are so upset? Or ask a minority friend of yours what they think?
From my personal XP: Many black and brown friends of mine think that entrepreneurship is a rich kid’s game because the common first step of raising a “friends and family round” is an absurd notion to them. Most of their friends and family barely have enough money to pay the bills, so the idea of raising $100k+ from them is silly. When I read the angry responses in this thread (and see a price tag like $10k) I think about those friends. I’m sure they’d laugh at the idea of asking friends/colleagues to help them raise $10k to “skip the interview” for similar reasons.
Empathy is hard, especially over the internet and across socioeconomic bubbles, but it’s essential when seeing outrage that you don’t understand.
[+] [-] _nothing|4 years ago|reply
Also:
1) unless you think it will be very common that people with money will take up sponsoring minorities for jobs, the fact that you personally would do it doesn't counteract the disadvantage of minorities in general through this system, and
2) if you want to pay to help people from underrepresented groups get jobs, there are already plenty of ways to do so, from sponsoring education to hiring interview coaches, and more.
[+] [-] prepend|4 years ago|reply
It’s hard to distinguish between radical ideas and truly stupid ideas.
There needs to be a better filter to get rid of bad ideas because some are horrible (ie, this one).
I think it’s funny that people assume that all radical ideas are worth trying and that change can only be good.
[+] [-] smoldesu|4 years ago|reply
CEO's response is above
[+] [-] alasdair_|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lokedhs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eganist|4 years ago|reply
---
I can see one exceptionally limited use case for this:
Recruiting influencers into related (influence-y) roles.
Example: eSports player Taylor Jackson wants sponsorship with league Team Plasma. Team Plasma's application/recruiting process entails an invite-only process where players are contracted based on metrics derived from common streaming platforms like stream size, stream demographics, gameplay, an arbitrary "hype" measurement, etc., but Team Plasma decides to offer a secondary route for players capable of crowdfunding a certain total. Taylor fulfills the crowdfunding goal due to their reach on platforms not monitored by Team Plasma (e.g clubhouse for the sake of this contrived example).
Another example could include influencers for promotional gigs, like those gigs where someone tends to a paradise island for a year.
---
I don't foresee this model scaling all that well without shoehorning it into places where it doesn't belong, and the communication of the model (and the model itself) very deservedly got incinerated.
[+] [-] aluminum96|4 years ago|reply
1) Professional networks operate on the basis of reputation and goodwill. This company seeks to make them into exploitative MLM-style cash grabs.
2) Well-connected people with rich friends already get opportunities disproportionately. This company would exacerbate that social problem.
[+] [-] dave333|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsQTbR7Y5mRHnZv|4 years ago|reply
Wouldn't that be an interview of sorts?