Hacker News Reader

Comment by zmix | Hacker News Reader

> And don’t bring socioeconomics into it;

In 2003, right before a few new nations entered the European Union, the EU had set up several websites, where people from the new, soon to be, member nations could inform themselfes about each of the current EU member states.

The document describing Germany mentioned, under the chapter "Employment", that 80% of all jobs in Germany get distributed via social connections. Now I am still in shock and it may be, that this includes the employment office, but the chances to get a good job, as either an immigrant or a socially marginalized person, is low.

So, bringing socioeconomics into play is totally acceptable.

I do not think one should reject any social privileges one has, but one also should respect, that this is not the case for everybody and do something about it.

View on HN

It sounds good to say "we should do something about it," but that ignores the fact that there will always be inequality.

Steve J. and Steve W. knew each other. They knew some other people. They used their social connections to found Apple. As a result of that, bears in the jungles of Darkest Peru can now typeset Dennis Ritchie's thesis in full-color on a supercomputer that fits under their hat next to their marmalade sandwich.

Putting barriers up to prevent this sort of thing in the name of some airy-fairy equity ideology to make people "feel good" isn't the progress some think it is.

It sounds good to say "we should do something about it," but that ignores the fact that there will always be inequality.

Steve J. and Steve W. knew each other. They knew some other people. They used their social connections to found Apple. As a result of that, 20 people a year jump to their death in Taiwan alone.

Putting barriers up to prevent this sort of thing in the name of some airy-fairy equity ideology to make people "stay alive" isn't the progress some think it is.

I said: > I do not think one should reject any social privileges one has

to which you replied: > Putting barriers up to prevent this sort of thing

If you reread my comment, you may find, that I mentioned explicetly, not to put barriers on "this sort of thing" but instead respecting the fact, that some people just have no chance to enter a group, without the group taking additional steps in finding them.

In other words 20% of jobs were distributed via the much less efficient and risky approach of job adds, formal applications, HR scanning CVs for buzzwords and credentials, lengthy interview vetting process, etc.

I agree with OP. It is empowering that you can achieve more when working with people you know well and trust.

You mention that this makes it harder for immigrants. Of course it does. Immigration is disruptive to once life. It only makes sense to migrate, if the prospects at the new place are much better, despite effectively loosing access to your existing network at home. Of course it will take time, to re-build such a network.

I've moved within a Canadian province (about 750km) and it was pretty disruptive.

Friends and family are far, kids are challenging without that village, nobody knows you from around, etc. Like you say, though, the new place looked much better than the old one.

Couldn't imagine doing it from half a planet away.

How is that at all surprising in a time of less globalism and internet penetration?

People in small town of course know each other and use word of mouth to find candidates, for example.

What were they supposed to do, put on an advert on the national newspapers for every vacancy in the country?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com