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

The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#131

Post by pluma »

ansible wrote: post #79
pluma wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would the world be like if contract/freelance/part time/short term work were the default? That's actually one of the reasons I find the idea of a guaranteed basic income so promising. The biggest thing making an "everybody freelances" world a dystopia rather than a eutopia (sic) is that it would eliminate any semblance of income stability. Static long-term contracts would still be an option because of the reli…

That's actually one of the reasons I find the idea of a guaranteed basic income so promising. The biggest thing making an "everybody freelances" world a dystopia rather than a eutopia (sic) is that it would eliminate any semblance of income stability. Don't forget health care. That plus a basic living stipend would be quite a revolution to the economy. We'd start to price activities more sanely, and use automation mo…

I'm German, so I'm taking universal public healthcare for granted. I guess Obamacare sorta is a step towards that idea in the US?

It's a funny thing this idea of liberty. On the one hand an American citizen is freer in that there are less restrictions on what he can do. On the other hand a German citizen is freer in that he (theoretically) doesn't have to worry about the bare necessities.

As an aside: there's also the idea that basic income would eliminate the need for minimum wages because you can decide to work for pennies without it being exploitative because you would barely suffer any consequence for not taking it. A lot of things would change if unskilled workers wouldn't have to suffer unacceptable working conditions out of fear of unemployment.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#132

Post by pluma »

sosborn wrote: post #99
ansible wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually one of the reasons I find the idea of a guaranteed basic income so promising. The biggest thing making an "everybody freelances" world a dystopia rather than a eutopia (sic) is that it would eliminate any semblance of income stability. Don't forget health care. That plus a basic living stipend would be quite a revolution to the economy. We'd start to price activities more sanely, and use automation mo…

> Don't forget health care. That plus a basic living stipend would be quite a revolution to the economy. Don't get me wrong, I think this would be incredible, but where would the money come from to fund this? How would you guarantee that the funding stays in place for the long haul?

Generally the calculations tend to be based on an increased tax on consumption (people who are better off spend more money, so they end up paying more into the system) and/or the reduction of expenses in a lot of the social welfare system (which can largely be rolled into the basic income).

Some designs assert that the basic income should simply be paid to every citizen regardless of other sources of income. Other models propose a model with a soft cut-off point (so for every dollar beyond a certain baseline of income you get some fraction of a dollar less basic income, up to a level where you -- again depending on the model -- either start paying it back or simply don't get any basic income at all). In any case the idea is that (unlike with welfare models like the one we have in Germany[0]) for every dollar you earn you actually end up with extra cash in your pocket.

Ideally the basic income should be high enough to provide a frugal but sustainable standard of living with access to everything necessary to participate in the market. But arguments can be made for lower amounts as well.

[0]: One problem with the German welfare system (and similar ones) is that if you receive welfare benefits and earn money, that money is subtracted from the benefits you receive at a rate of pretty much one-to-one. So if you (hypothetically) get 400 euros in benefits and then find a job that pays you less than 400 euros, you effectively end up with the same money you'd have without the job. This creates an unintentional incentive for welfare recipients not to take on low-paying jobs (frequently the only ones they qualify for) which is then clumsily counteracted with various legal constructs (like forcing people to take job interviews or accept job offers for jobs they are not a good fit for at all). It's not a terrible system, but the design flaws are obvious.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#133

Post by pluma »

notahacker wrote: post #92
pluma wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would the world be like if contract/freelance/part time/short term work were the default? That's actually one of the reasons I find the idea of a guaranteed basic income so promising. The biggest thing making an "everybody freelances" world a dystopia rather than a eutopia (sic) is that it would eliminate any semblance of income stability. Static long-term contracts would still be an option because of the reli…

What's the weekly rate of the average freelance software developer? And how does that compare with that of a freelance bartender, nightwatchman or refuse collector? Relying on a BI (at any feasible level) for even a fairly brief period of time is going to represent a severe drop in income for most skilled contractors, and thus people paying mortgages on their condos in SF are going to be just as worried about income…

The idea behind a BI is not to make work redundant.

Sure, even with BI the loss of a job could mean losing your mortgage. But it would allow you to make do in between jobs without having to live in a van down by the river.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#134

Post by xorcist »

whiddershins wrote: post #6

What a bizarre and compelling story. Glad to have read it. Meanwhile I think the hiring problem/solution is staring us right in the face. What would the world be like if contract/freelance/part time/short term work were the default? Isn't it perhaps weird that there is an assumption companies and employees should bind their fates together, and, if it doesn't work out, one or both parties is pretty screwed because of…

I've done a bit of both, and I can honestly say that the biggest problem with freelance work is that your work is short term and well defined.

I don't know how many times I could see client's problems, which weren't always what they thought they were, without any mandate to fix it. Sometimes they even hire you to do something that completely fly in the face of what they need. That's not fun.

If you're in it for the long haul you can allow yourself to take bigger risks, even if it's officially outside your responsibilities. What are they going to do? Fire you for fixing stuff? It is simply a more fun way to work and to interact with your peers, even if it may not be as financially rewarding.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#135

Post by owennoah »

BrookeTAllen wrote: post #124
owennoah wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm Noah, Brooke's partner in crime at Staffup Weekend. To me this has always been an emperor-has-no-clothes situation. People seem to think in terms of "hackathons" whereas we more simply think of things as "doing the work." Since when did resumes and brain teasing interview questions and all this nonsense become MORE obvious and sensical than DOING THE WORK. Let people DO THE WORK that needs to be done and you can…

I agree but I think we must make it clear that the work we ask people to do should be similar to the work the employer wants done, but not work the employer would benefit from. I believe it is important to pay for work done for my benefit. When I've been the hiring manager, once I need to determine if the candidate can do the particular work I need done I'll pay them to do it. Often one day for $150. Usually they off…

Right. Good clarification.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#136

Post by deciplex »

nissimk wrote: post #65
avoutthere wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would the world be like if contract/freelance/part time/short term work were the default? The problem with this arrangement is the cost of health insurance. Currently, the insurance market heavily favors employer-paid coverage; it's much more expensive for freelancers to buy their own insurance.

With the ACA, this is no longer true, at least in NY. When I was an employee in 2013, my premium healthcare plan cost ~2400 / month for my family. I only paid half of that, but my employer was pying the other half. Now I am contracting and I bought the best plan in the NY exchange which costs ~1700 / month. It has less choice of doctors, but higher % coverage, and the in network list is pretty large. Also, the plans…

Glad to hear the ACA is helping, but as someone who has little experience with the US healthcare system: Jesus H. Christ. Unless you've got a family of nine, that is a lot of money for health insurance.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#137

Post by deciplex »

jia_min wrote: post #127
wnissen wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a cite for this? I thought Google looked at interviewers and found that no particular interviewer did any better than any other, except, literally, one guy in a narrow sub-specialty. That's quite a lot different than concluding a 50% success rate is no better than chance, which I agree would be problematic at best, flat wrong at worst if the expected occurrence was low.

Here's the NYT article where Laszlo mentions the "random mess" they found when they used the interviewer as the predictor and then subsequently mentions how they use structured interviews now instead: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-b... The interview correlations I cited are from Schmidt and Hunter, 1998: http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%... My point is, it doesn…

But Google doesn't do structured interviews. Not always, at any rate.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#138

Post by qodeninja »

baudehlo wrote: post #86
askinakhan wrote: post #43

I strongly believe that hiring should be based on data. Based on the following 5 factors: 1.Intellect 2.Values 3.Motivations 4.Behaviours 5.Experience With these factors you can determine a persons Cultural Fit and predicted future performance. In fact, you could automate this through technology. For example, for predicting future performance we could test the high performers in our company then we have a template fo…

I have no idea why this comment got so downvoted. This is exactly the software I've spent the last year building and it works incredibly well for our customers.

I didnt even know you could downvote on here!

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#139

Post by johan_larson »

jarek wrote: post #35
johan_larson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another option would be to hire fairly leniently, but prune ruthlessly and early. In most jurisdictions, there is a trial period of sorts, typically 60 to 90 days, during which it is easy to fire an employee, before various rules about dismissal kick in. As far as I know, most companies don't really make use of this, except in really serious cases. But assuming it is in fact easy to fire during this period, we could…

How long until you run out of applicants willing to take the risk of having to restart their job search after they've settled down?

Hard to say. Most people over-estimate themselves and figure they won't be the ones to get cut. It would also make sense to be clear about the trial period right up front, so people don't "settle down" too early.

The real problem would be hiring people who need to move.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#140

Post by jia_min »

deciplex wrote: post #137
jia_min wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the NYT article where Laszlo mentions the "random mess" they found when they used the interviewer as the predictor and then subsequently mentions how they use structured interviews now instead: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-b... The interview correlations I cited are from Schmidt and Hunter, 1998: http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%... My point is, it doesn…

But Google doesn't do structured interviews. Not always, at any rate.

The company line is that they use structured interviews. What actually happens in practice is often a different story.
Post reply on HN