Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 264 posts

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#241

Post by [deleted] »

novok wrote: post #239
WalterBright wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for fun, I found among my dad's papers the written tests he had to pass before he could even sit in the cockpit of an F-86 Sabrejet. They were quite comprehensive and full of minutia. For damn sure the AF wasn't going to let anyone fly one of those monsters without proving they could study and learn everything about them by heart. No excuses about brain freeze is going to fly (pun intended). One day, he was flyi…

Yes, because flying a war jet under pressure and landing it in the desert is the same as writing software over 5 months in an office. /s Test anxiety is real. Anxiety disorders are real in general, not to mention ADHD, autism and more where these disabilities can interact in bad ways in interviews. It does not mean that people with these issues are bad engineers. If your instrument is inaccurate, it does not mean the…

[deleted]

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#242

Post by BestHeadHunter »

novok wrote: post #239
WalterBright wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for fun, I found among my dad's papers the written tests he had to pass before he could even sit in the cockpit of an F-86 Sabrejet. They were quite comprehensive and full of minutia. For damn sure the AF wasn't going to let anyone fly one of those monsters without proving they could study and learn everything about them by heart. No excuses about brain freeze is going to fly (pun intended). One day, he was flyi…

Yes, because flying a war jet under pressure and landing it in the desert is the same as writing software over 5 months in an office. /s Test anxiety is real. Anxiety disorders are real in general, not to mention ADHD, autism and more where these disabilities can interact in bad ways in interviews. It does not mean that people with these issues are bad engineers. If your instrument is inaccurate, it does not mean the…

Are you suggesting that being in a life or death situation as a pilot is less stressful than taking a test or writing a software program over time?

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#243

Post by Braxton1980 »

DelightOne wrote: post #66
tptacek wrote: post #53

The controls summarized in the CNBC piece seem reasonable, or, if not that, then at least not all that onerous. The controls in the actual proposal are less reasonable: they create finable infractions for any claim in a job ad deemed "misleading" or "inaccurate" (findings of fact that requires a an expensive trial to solve) and prohibit "perpetual postings" or postings made 90 days in advance of hiring dates. The con…

Making people able to sue for anyone feeling bad about not having gotten the job is a path you should not take. We have something similar in Germany and its horrible for companies. Leeches bleeding you dry.

Isn't Germany the largest economy in the EU and one of the most productive workforces in the world?

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#244

Post by WalterBright »

wqaatwt wrote: post #225
WalterBright wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not possible for people to not pollute, for example.

Well yes, but if you reduce pollution by 50% then you need to double the tax and so on and so forth. If it’s not something that’s enforced globally you will either end up destroying certain industries and or having massive inefficiencies. My point is that sin taxes might be a good way to discourage certain behaviors but not as good as a consistent revenue source. Also there is a risk of perverse incentives like what…

> but if you reduce pollution by 50%

What a terrible outcome! LOL

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#245

Post by WalterBright »

novok wrote: post #239
WalterBright wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for fun, I found among my dad's papers the written tests he had to pass before he could even sit in the cockpit of an F-86 Sabrejet. They were quite comprehensive and full of minutia. For damn sure the AF wasn't going to let anyone fly one of those monsters without proving they could study and learn everything about them by heart. No excuses about brain freeze is going to fly (pun intended). One day, he was flyi…

Yes, because flying a war jet under pressure and landing it in the desert is the same as writing software over 5 months in an office. /s Test anxiety is real. Anxiety disorders are real in general, not to mention ADHD, autism and more where these disabilities can interact in bad ways in interviews. It does not mean that people with these issues are bad engineers. If your instrument is inaccurate, it does not mean the…

I'll repeat that the cure for test anxiety is preparation, preparation, preparation. Avoiding it, like your engineer employee, won't be helpful. Keep going to interviews, and the performance anxiety will also dissipate.

The first few times I did public speaking, I'd freeze up and squeak. I speak regularly now, and it's not a problem anymore.

(Again, I attended Caltech. Most of us were nerds, and many Aspergers. I have worked with many people "on the spectrum" and am not at all ignorant of their differences.)

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#246

Post by LorenPechtel »

hyperpape wrote: post #216
LargeWu wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

85,000 new H1B's. But there are multiples of that already in the US who already hold visas. So, the actual number is in the hundreds of thousands, enough to make a serious impact on supply of labor in the tech sector.

In this case, the relevant comparison is 85,000 net new H1B visas to the total of job postings, since the parent post seemed to be saying 80% of job postings are ghost postings from companies seeking H1B visas. Needless to say, that doesn't make any sense.

No. Neither of us said 80% are H1-B. We were agreeing that 80% aren't actually obtainable jobs, but neither of us attempted to determine what percent is from what cause.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#247

Post by LorenPechtel »

alistairSH wrote: post #59
a_cardboard_box wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to misunderstand the proposal. The proposal is that after they have done everything that is already legally required (advertise an open position for some amount of time etc), then they must amend the posting to include that the position is filled by an internal/external/H-1B hire. There is still a period of time when the position is advertised as open.

Which is still "broken" since the position was never really open in the first place - it's still a ghost listing, as the position was always going to an internal hire or H1b or whatever.

The point was not to solve it, but to expose it.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#248

Post by apercu »

maxk42 wrote: post #99
apercu wrote: post #33

If I wanted to game my stock price and mislead my competition, a bunch of highly specific (and fraudulent) job postings on my website (in combination with other investor-adjacent reporting) would be a great low cost start.

How, exactly, would that convince an investor such as myself that your company is suddenly worth more? Generally when I'm looking at a company's financials more employees means less profitable.

Since when are financials in line with stock price these days?

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#249

Post by bill_joy_fanboy »

c22 wrote: post #174
bill_joy_fanboy wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're arguing with me, but this statement... > Everybody wants to maximize their money received and minimize their money and work expended to whatever degree possible. ...is exactly in agreement with what I said above. The ideal business is one where you take in money and have no expenditures. E.g., If you're a landlord, you want super high rent and no expenditures on maintenance or improvements. I would also accept…

I am a landlord. I charge below market rent because it is enough to meet my financial goals and turning over a new tenant is annoying. I spare no expense on maintenance because I value my assets.

You may have a more reasonable stance than most landlords, but that doesn't change the essence of the transaction.

If you could get higher rent without getting punished by the market (turnover), you would do it. If you could spend less on maintenance without getting punished by the market (turnover and reduced resale value), you would do it.

Many, if not most, landlords push both of these levers to their absolute limits.

The essence of being a landlord is that you've got your name on the title of a scarce resource that is difficult or impossible in some cases to duplicate: real estate in a particular location. The fact that your name is on this title means that you can extract value from people who need a place to live and did not arrive there first so they could buy the cheap property, build the building, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I hope to be a landlord too some day. Ownership is what matters when there's nowhere else to move. I look forward to the rent checks. However, I won't be pretending there's anything noble or fair about what I'm doing. It's just how the rules of our economy are set up.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#250

Post by bill_joy_fanboy »

tptacek wrote: post #238
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you're a landlord, you want super high rent and no expenditures on maintenance or improvements. No, I'm in the landlord business, and they do not want this. They want mildly-high rent that covers overhead plus a healthy (maybe even a little fat) overhead. They want to do maintenance, because apparently the biggest paydays come 10 years down the line when they sell to some other investor... and if it's a slum they…

I believe all of this but also want to say that in my life as a renter I never once had a landlord return a security deposit without me taking them to court. There's definitely some ruthlessness.

This was also my experience.

I've been a perfect tenant my entire life, and I was still always treated like trash by every landlord I've rented from. I don't think they make a distinction.

Post reply on HN