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.
It's betting that you would be good at a job.
If it turns out that you're good at the job, nobody loses any money (except the company, who has to pay a recruiting fee, but that's expected). If you're bad, well, hopefully that won't happen....
Granted I don't think it's a great idea for other reasons, but the nepotism angle just doesn't make sense in my opinion.
I guess you could argue that skilled people with the ability to afford payment have a higher chance of being hired, and that's probably not a great thing, but even then it's not like every company who uses this will be filled with incompetent people who paid for their jobs--that just makes absolutely no sense from the company's perspective.
> people with the ability to afford payment have a higher chance of being hired
That's the other very valid reason that this idea sucks. People from disadvantaged communities now not only have the existing hurdles to face in entering the tech world; now trust fund kids with rich friends can continually skip the line and buy the jobs that others are applying for. And a company is going to take the pay-to-play candidate, because it's easier than running an interview process.
Is this sustainable, though? Why do you assume that there would be no system to detect people who abuse the system by continually churning companies? Can’t the same thing happen right now with people who have connections to headhunter/recruiting agencies?
Also, if the system has no abuse detection, many people who work in tech for more than a few years should be able to afford gaming a system like this — not just those from rich backgrounds. $10k is not too much money to find if you know you’re guaranteed a 2x return in 60 days.
> And a company is going to take the pay-to-play candidate, because it's easier than running an interview process.
If the pay-to-play system is really producing only “mediocre” hires who churn earlier than candidates hired through the normal interview process, why would a company prefer the pay-to-play process in the long run?
Again, not saying that the platform is good, but I just don’t think your arguments hold up.
Easily. Few people stay at a software engineering job for more than a year or two as it is. I went almost 4 years without staying at one job for more than a year, and not a single recruiter batted an eye the whole time. Hopping jobs with a network of friends buying each other's jobs for big returns would be trivial.
> Can’t the same thing happen right now with people who have connections to headhunter/recruiting agencies?
Yes. But right now it still requires social skills, conversations, and interviews. Skills that anyone can acquire with practice. Turning it into a pay-to-play system doesn't improve anything, it just makes it easier for people with disposable income to skip the line. Or it will make people harass their professional network for money to skip the line. How is that an improved system over just getting to know some recruiters?
> Also, if the system has no abuse detection, many people who work in tech for more than a few years should be able to afford gaming a system like this — not just those from rich backgrounds. $10k is not too much money to find if you know you’re guaranteed a 2x return in 60 days.
You're proving my point. The system as described is ripe for abuse, and what kind of abuse detection mechanism would catch things like this? They didn't describe one, and I can't picture one that isn't extremely invasive. Mild nepotism is already the de facto way that a lot of companies recruit people even though they're not supposed to - add a gambling mechanic into the mix and you can guarantee people will be trying to game it left and right. There's no way they'd be able to crack down on it at scale.
I would say this is an accurate description of the current system. What do we always hear, that going to an Ivy League is all about the connections, not the education?
Also, at least Ivy League schools have financial aid programs to help gifted kids from disadvantaged backgrounds still be able to attend.
things can only catch on if it is truly beneficial in some way, and the people doing it is finding it useful to continue.
It could catch on because companies and bosses like it, but it could harm workers for all kinds of reasons. Thus, workers need to loudly voice their concerns, so that companies will be discouraged from adopting it.
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.
Also, MLMs are actual scams, where in this case you'll actually get your money back if they're a good hire.
This idea has real flaws in how it's been implemented, like how the hard limit at which point you get the job (no questions asked?) encourages that begging behaviour to get over the limit, but if it were just another source of information among many used in hiring, like it is with actual referrals, then it wouldn't be so bad.
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.
My guess is that it comes from the fact that it's a YC Company.