Hacker News Reader

Comment by latexr | Hacker News Reader

Why is it important that someone was never homeless?

Or why does it matter that they’re “not financially hungry enough”? Or that they have poor job seeking skills?

If anything, wouldn’t those last two mean the candidate would be unlikely to ask for raises or leave your company for another offer when you least expect it? The latter in particular has seemingly zero impact on someone’s dedication or skills (same with homelessness). Why would you prefer someone that’s good at finding work? That’s like looking to date someone who is good at starting new relationships, wouldn’t you rather someone who is good at maintaining them?

View on HN

It’s just a possible signal. When you have 30 equally qualified candidates, you will take any signal you can get.

Homelessness could indicate drug addiction, mental health issues, poor history of financial decisions, lack of social support network (below average social skills). In a 200 resume pile, SOME of those people will have bad personal lives that could negatively affect their work performance, maybe not always, but perhaps episodically.

And there’s a Goldilocks zone of financial need. If you are too rich, then we might as well be paying you Monopoly money. Those people can act in unexpected ways since they live in a different incentive world than their team members. If someone is in dire financial straits, they might suddenly have their car repossessed or begin stealing from you. It’s standard to do a credit check for certain financial roles to make sure the candidate isn’t a theft risk.

> If you are too rich, then we might as well be paying you Monopoly money

I’ve wondered if this is a significant factor in the industry’s ageism. For the past maybe 15+ years, software engineers who would have had a really solid resume at age 25 often have significant financial flexibility by the time they are in their 40s. Some of them check out of the industry, some of them focus on more cause-like efforts, and the remaining ones might be less dependable for the company in terms of overworking than they used to be back when they were still more financially motivated.

Yes, this is absolutely interrelated. Cognitive decline is not a real issue before typical retirement age. I suspect the following : Younger, less experienced managers being uncomfortable managing older more experienced workers. Life experience means older workers are less likely to put up with abuse, can recognize toxic situations, and have the personal skills to make proactive changes. Busier, fuller lives, and having already been burned out a few times means they won’t overwork themselves. And financial independence means they can stand up to bad situations and that getting fired is a speed bump, not an earthquake.

I worked at a company that at one point was actually open minded and cared more about the work than a lot of trivialities (till it grew up, got acquired by private equity, and became an empire of bullshit), and there was an employee who was famously homeless until she worked there. She was intelligent and incredibly dedicated and really well liked throughout, but I was also told she needed to be told to shower regularly (no idea whether that's true; she never seemed too unkempt to me). She could certainly also be called a bit weird.

I suppose people just don't like misfits (speaking as one who could also be described in such a way for a few reasons) and don't want to be made uncomfortable by their presence.

Managerial class needs to strip away any responsibility so they are perfectionist. If we sill lived in an entrepreneurial society this whole thing would not be a big issue

Reply on news.ycombinator.com