• rekabis
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Companies will find some way to monetize those fees. Those multi-million executive salaries won’t pay themselves.

  • mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    What if instead companies paid someone to review applications? It takes >10s to skim a resume. Even if you spend a full minute per resume and get 500 reesumes for a job, that’s less than 1 work day

    And while we’re here: companies should be required to compensate people for work done for the company, which includes attending interviews and doing labor (e.g. code tests)

  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Pay $20 to apply for a fake position that was only put up to trick investors into thinking the company is growing. The fee will guarantee you an in-person interview with an unpaid intern instructed to say no all all interviewees (in person, because even if someone gets mad and attacks them - it’s just an intern). Parking validation is not included.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 hours ago

    This is not a bad idea but just make it a refundable fee. Maybe larger depending on how badly they want to fill the position. Job shops would have to spend a shit ton of money to spam employers so they could focus on real applicants. If you show up, you get your money back regardless of having or not having an interview.

  • delirium@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Sure, and taking an in person interview or home assignment should be paid as well then to signal us that company is serious and it’s not a fake opening

  • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    What if we had smart contracts as a type of escrow for this? That way the multitude of bots applying for the jobs have to put something up, and the job poster has to put something up as like a mutual escrow.

    I think the problem job posters are having is it’s never been easier to apply to a job. Bots can apply to hundreds of jobs on your behalf in minutes. Now multiply that by the thousands of applicants per job and you’ll start to see the problem. Too many applicants per job. It’s similar problem to spam filtering. There was a thought experiment about requiring emails to cost a real amount of currency to be received or sent which would theoretically reduce spam. Note, I’m not suggesting job applicants use of bots is spam, just illustrating a similarity between the two problem domains.

  • corsicanguppy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Landlords of shitty places in areas here, where there’s very little available to rent, got sick of showing places that are so bad people just noped out of them or ghosted the landlord on a very understandable fashion.

    Their solution is to charge $200 for a viewing because people were apparently not serious about wanting a place.

    Seems similar.

    • Shapillon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Who isn’t serious about wanting a roof over their heads lmao.

      Landlords need some soul searching and maybe a lil guillotine hairdo.

  • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    “Am I out of touch with the world”

    “Please stop telling me i am wrong and give me answers that support my initial idea”

  • Zozano@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    This is a weird post.

    The first paragraph is bonkers.

    The second paragraph is essentially just trying to cover his ass.

    Though, from a philosophical standpoint, there isn’t anything wrong with asking this. On the other hand, if it really was his position to frame this as a thought experiment, the question would have been posed differently the first time around.

    This is really annoying because the purpose of philosophising on things is to be allowed to ask questions like this.

    A polarising figure, Sam Harris once said in an interview “What’s wrong with eating babies? If we have too many babies lying around, and we want to eat them, why can’t we?”*

    Some people (including Alex Jones) took that and ran with it: “Sam Harris defends cannabalising babies”, even though the entire point of his statement was to demonstrate how laymen should stay the fuck away from philosophy because they cannot understand the question is designed to establish a moral foundation.

    • note, the clip is satirical beyond the quote I linked, the channel is literally called “out of context”

    The full interview is here for full disclosure. Though I’ll warn you. You’ll lose brain cells watching Cenk try to deliberately misinterpret Sam to make him look like a villain.

  • Aeri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    You know I hate to say it but this isn’t the single worst idea I’ve ever heard, it would still fucking suck though.