Hiring Is Obsolete (2005) • Hacker News Board

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#21

Post by Jwarder » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #9

pjc50 wrote: post #5

Shorter PG: hiring is hard due to market informational inefficiencies, acqui-hiring is the future! > What's an especially productive 22 year old to do? One thing you can do is go over the heads of organizations, directly to the users. Any company that hires you is, economically, acting as a proxy for the customer. The rate at which they value you (though they may not consciously realize it) is an attempt to guess you…

> I wasn't expecting Paul Graham to recite orthodox Marxism. This paragraph is only missing the word "exploited", because he's effectively saying that young good workers are undervalued because a large employer makes more money from them than they are paid. No, the point was that at a big company you get paid the average value of the work your and your peers does, while when you work for yourself you get paid the val…

> This means that for strong performers going alone is better, and for weak performers going to a company is better.

I'm not sure about this. Performance and value depend on the environment. Some organizations can provide the infrastructure to uplift workers' performance but some people work better in a self-directed situation.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#22

Post by optimuspaul » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #6

cryptica wrote: post #4

I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. This makes them arrogant and unwilling to listen to advice from older people who are smarter but not financially successful.

I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. You're right on average but investors aren't looking for average people to invest in. I was on an accelerator with a very talented founder who had started a company, built it up to something significant, and subsequently cashed out before he was 20. Some 20 year olds are on their second or third business b…

But have they failed? The arrogance will be even stronger in someone who has had success so early. Risk is much higher with such an individual.

I think that you are partially right however, age isn't an indicator but combined with other metrics is an indicator. I'll take a 20 year old who has tried and failed over a 20 year old who has tried and succeeded. My gut tells me the former has learned far more. But those are generalizations, everyone is different, the failure case could actually be ineptitude and they haven't learned anything.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#23

Post by SkyPuncher » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

optimuspaul wrote: post #22

onion2k wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. You're right on average but investors aren't looking for average people to invest in. I was on an accelerator with a very talented founder who had started a company, built it up to something significant, and subsequently cashed out before he was 20. Some 20 year olds are on their second or third business b…

But have they failed? The arrogance will be even stronger in someone who has had success so early. Risk is much higher with such an individual. I think that you are partially right however, age isn't an indicator but combined with other metrics is an indicator. I'll take a 20 year old who has tried and failed over a 20 year old who has tried and succeeded. My gut tells me the former has learned far more. But those ar…

Failing is merely a path to understanding what success doesn't look like.

Lots of founders are extremely aware of their shortcomings and the luck involved - leading appropriately as a result.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#24

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

optimuspaul wrote: post #22

onion2k wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. You're right on average but investors aren't looking for average people to invest in. I was on an accelerator with a very talented founder who had started a company, built it up to something significant, and subsequently cashed out before he was 20. Some 20 year olds are on their second or third business b…

But have they failed? The arrogance will be even stronger in someone who has had success so early. Risk is much higher with such an individual. I think that you are partially right however, age isn't an indicator but combined with other metrics is an indicator. I'll take a 20 year old who has tried and failed over a 20 year old who has tried and succeeded. My gut tells me the former has learned far more. But those ar…

I'm reminded of the joke about the guy who threw away half the CVs he recieved because he didn't want to hire unlucky people.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#25

Post by onion2k » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

optimuspaul wrote: post #22

onion2k wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. You're right on average but investors aren't looking for average people to invest in. I was on an accelerator with a very talented founder who had started a company, built it up to something significant, and subsequently cashed out before he was 20. Some 20 year olds are on their second or third business b…

But have they failed? The arrogance will be even stronger in someone who has had success so early. Risk is much higher with such an individual. I think that you are partially right however, age isn't an indicator but combined with other metrics is an indicator. I'll take a 20 year old who has tried and failed over a 20 year old who has tried and succeeded. My gut tells me the former has learned far more. But those ar…

But have they failed? The arrogance will be even stronger in someone who has had success so early. Risk is much higher with such an individual.

The risk associated with backing a founder who has failed at something is a lot higher than backing a founder who has succeeded in a previous startup. You can't just ignore people's experience and assume that failing at something counts for more than successfully running and exiting a business.

There's loads of evidence that people succeed in their second venture after a successful exit more often than founders succeed in their first startup. Investors are very sensible looking at someone's track record.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#26

Post by boomka » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 3:08 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #5

Shorter PG: hiring is hard due to market informational inefficiencies, acqui-hiring is the future! > What's an especially productive 22 year old to do? One thing you can do is go over the heads of organizations, directly to the users. Any company that hires you is, economically, acting as a proxy for the customer. The rate at which they value you (though they may not consciously realize it) is an attempt to guess you…

>> The math is brutal. While perhaps 9 out of 10 startups fail, the one that succeeds will pay the founders more than 10 times what they would have made in an ordinary job.

> So .. what happens to everyone else?

You end up with a society where 90% are destitute and 10% are rich?

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#27

Post by jillesvangurp » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 3:13 PM UTC

I would say hiring is dead for a different reason: permanent employment is becoming a meaningless deal in many places. Especially in the US, you can be out on the street in 15 minutes with little or no protection against that. It's a very one sided deal where you shovel shit in exchange for a lower income. So, people treat their employers as customers and have less reservations about firing their customer. The average tenure at several of the big SFO monopolists (lets just call that out) has allegedly (I lack a good source) dropped below a year. That's what happens in a scarce market.

When starting a startup, employment is also meaningless because if you are in grow fast/fail fast mode, long term employment is not a thing. Your company could end up being acquired, killed, or simply be fizzling out.

A lot of companies are now relying on recruiters and agencies to supply them with what is non essential staff where the person disappearing is less of an issue. This kind of recruiting works great for no-tech startups (any kind of saas or marketplace type company). Lots of buzzwords, but mostly hiring full stack. That kind of company. All they need is generic skills. Hiring is still a problem for actual tech startups that need access to the best and brightest in their fields. You're not going to find those people through some shitty recruiter or head hunter. They are not likely to be actively looking at all, ever. You need to court them and sell them the notion of working for you. Acquihires are a thing for bigger companies but they often backfire when people simply sit out their 2-3 years while they are considering their next startup.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#28

Post by keiferski » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 3:25 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #15

madprops wrote: post #2

Or maybe give people time to live before they decide to participate in "the economy". Not everything is jobs. Actually I would argue that hiring is, or should be soon, obsolete because of a gradual change on mindset that clarifies what jobs really are, schemes. There's no reason to dedicate most of your waking life working on selling products where the end product is just maintaining frivolous life styles. And if hav…

How does the labor to build the basic things like a roof happen? How does the labor to grow food and get it to you happen? Those are called jobs, and like it or not somebody has to do them. Society has been getting more efficient at them, but even still some amount of human labor is required! People have jobs because they need things that can only be got via human labor. This is not a bigger issue at a root level, it…

The overwhelming majority of jobs in the modern economy have nothing to do with basic needs. Most of them simply exist to feed the consumerist/financial complex.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#29

Post by 52-6F-62 » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

faraday2211 wrote: post #10

madprops wrote: post #2

Or maybe give people time to live before they decide to participate in "the economy". Not everything is jobs. Actually I would argue that hiring is, or should be soon, obsolete because of a gradual change on mindset that clarifies what jobs really are, schemes. There's no reason to dedicate most of your waking life working on selling products where the end product is just maintaining frivolous life styles. And if hav…

To a certain extent i agree with your statement. But if young people dont’ explore and develop skills early then they will lose later in life. Instead of “living” they should probably explore wether art or tech or construction or whatever is more suitable for them personally. Then once they have a career they cam travel and live as they have the skills to support that life. If you look at instagram then you will see…

There are few guarantees the skills you develop today will mean much to the market by the time you can afford to do any living.

Ten years ago learning to drive a truck meant a long-term stable career, even if it's not the most glamourous. Today, we're discussing the short-term viability of automating that shipping system. Five years ago in Alberta, getting into a trade that was in demand in the oil industry meant a lifetime career with a pretty great salary. Today, the industry is on shaky footing and many will have to retrain.

In software, while it might not be near or certain, there are plenty of discussions about automating most projects since so many of them conform to common patterns and publicly accessible, free code already existing. We don't know any better how large much of the software development industry will be in ten years time. Many of those skills might be as obsolete as some IG "celebrity".

I think OP is at least correct in that you sort of have to weigh these things yourself. Sometimes that life experience in other facets will inform your future more than picking up a skill that is just enough to put you into someone else's employ. It's pretty difficult to know. You can apply any kind of probability measure you want, but the gaps in between any sound reason are just attempting to know the future before it happens.

Re: Hiring Is Obsolete (2005)

#30

Post by bluejekyll » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 3:35 PM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #27

I would say hiring is dead for a different reason: permanent employment is becoming a meaningless deal in many places. Especially in the US, you can be out on the street in 15 minutes with little or no protection against that. It's a very one sided deal where you shovel shit in exchange for a lower income. So, people treat their employers as customers and have less reservations about firing their customer. The averag…

> (I lack a good source) dropped below a year.

I suspect this is not true for tech jobs. It can take 6 months for engineers to become productive members of teams, especially ones with large software codebases.

On top of that, almost all cliffs are set at a year for compensation packages, so I doubt people would ditch before getting that.