My read of responsible people are corporate officers and executives--people who actually choose what to work on and are substantially rewarded by the corporation.
That's an interesting take that seems so obvious now that you've said it. I've spent my whole life in single family homes and never quite "got" the "go work in a cafe" and similar stuff. Seems like a pretty rich tapestry of possible experiences to miss out on. Huh. Will be chewing on that for a while.
There is no reason outside of ideology that a normal person would choose a pod/hostel bed/... over a spacious room for the same amount of money. It doesn't matter if you only sleep there, a house is always more comfortable all things considered.
All other argumentation is making up for the fact that you are paying exorbitant amounts of money for a tiny crowded space and can't afford a house. It is a social and political failure, not something to be celebrated.
In Victorian times you could pay a few pennies to hang over a rope with your fellow bums, or sleep in a coffin. 200 years later in the Bay you can do the same thing for a 100 times the price and people will actually relish the experience. This is slum tourism at home.
I sounds a bit like you've never left where you grew up and can't imagine why someone else wouldn't like it.
If someone would give me a house I would sell it. I don't want to live in a house and I definitely don't want do go back to the suburbs. Imagine that, a lot can actually buy a house but choose to buy an apartment!
The opposite, I've left, traveled all over, lived in hostels, lived in poverty, lived on the street. That's why I'm not fantasizing about those experiences as if they would be thrilling solely on the basis of the poorness of the accommodations.
yeah, but that's irrelevant. We're not fetishising poorness here but arguing wether you would always buy a house because it's objectively better. I wouldn't, I live in the city by choice and wouldn't move out for a house. Hell, I don't think I currently would like to live alone because I have to move into a new city and wonder about making friends there.
Re-reading it....maybe there's something lost in translation. Do you mean your own house, as in your own complete building, our something like your own home that could be an apartment?
That's the point, if people are doing it because they are too poor, at the cost of their health, then don't think it's a thrilling living experience to be celebrated.
A month at a capsule hotel will cost you more than renting a room. A New York pod or a Bay pod will cost you more than renting an apartment in a place that doesn't have a crazy renting market, pretty much 99% of the rest of the world, even big cities.
That's the point, making up for crazy living conditions in which people are packed like sardines and there isn't enough room for everyone. It's not a positive, it's not a thrilling living experience. It's a disaster and people put up with it.
A hostel is different, but if you have the money you can also rent an actual room and still get to meet people there. Hang out in the common areas, and so on, without having to deal with the terrible facilities. So stay at a hostel once and then realize if you ever do it again it'll be to save money not by choice.
I've done that stint in NYC and Tokyo. It's not a bad lifestyle if you're working long hours in your 20's and just need a place to sleep and want to minimize spending.
Eventually though you do want some space for yourself.
It's not all sunshine and rainbows. Most of the time, there's either no seating, no fast Wi-Fi, or no power outlets left. That's why I prefer to work at home with a nice desk, monitor and chair setup than to go to a cafe, which I do to relax and take a break.
> That's an interesting take that seems so obvious now that you've said it. I've spent my whole life in single family homes and never quite "got" the "go work in a cafe" and similar stuff. Seems like a pretty rich tapestry of possible experiences to miss out on. Huh. Will be chewing on that for a while.
The only way to find out if it's worth your while is to try it. I tried it, and it wasn't for me.
We are getting literally thousands of more or less qualified applicants for most of the roles we're hiring for at Dropbox right now. Can't speak for other places but I imagine it's similar for some. I don't know anything about your resume or qualifications but it very well may not be _you_ that's the problem, per se. As others have suggested I would see who you know places who can pull you out of the pile.
The internal standards are basically the same but who gets an interview has dramatically changed due to the enormous resume pools. Where we would have interviewed a decent chunk of generically plausible candidates before the lay-off waves we now tend to be interviewing plausible candidates with some kind of special expertise related to the role.
I'd assume you're not actually hiring "thousands" of people, which means that a very large percentage of those "more or less qualified" applicants are not passing the interview rounds.
Since it's logical to assume that you'd actually want to hire someone for those open roles, it's not too hard to see where the disconnect is.
Of course, I don't mean "you" in the sense of you, personally, and I don't intend this to be a personal attack of any sort, but it really does say something about how utterly insane people on the hiring side have gotten in the past few months.
I couldn't understand this comment and wondered whether you had misread the parent. The point is that they are posting job openings and getting thousands of applicants per role i.e. They are oversubscribed.
That literally cannot be true unless the supposed "more or less qualified" applicants actually aren't qualified. Now, I suppose it's possible that thousands of people are lying on their resumes just to get a chance to work at Dropbox, but given this year's layoffs, I find it far, far more likely that people on the hiring side have gone off the deep end.
You can disagree with me on that, and that's fine, but stay with me for a second here... if there's an open role, presumably they'd be better off with someone filling it than having it stay open for months on end, right? And, given that the candidate pool has been recently enriched with people who were recently employed and would not normally be out on the job market (remember, these are "more or less qualified" candidates, at least according to their resumes), I have a hard time believing the disconnect isn't that companies either think it's a good time to go unicorn hunting, or they don't actually want to hire at all for some reason.
But, again, unicorn hunting only works out in a tiny percentage of cases, because the supply of unicorns is low, and the real unicorns probably are not the ones out there pounding the pavement. I can't even begin to explain why any sane company would post a job listing in good faith and then never hire anyone for it, given that they're supposedly inundated with reasonable-looking candidates.
So, what's the deal here? If you have the explanation, I'd love to hear it, because I've been on the hiring side, and you can damn well bet I wouldn't devote my time to resume screening and interviewing if I didn't think we were actually going to hire anyone.
This seem pretty simple to me. Dropbox opens a role. They get 1000 applications. They hire one person. 999 people post on forums that they're getting rejected everywhere they apply.
Going more macro, there are 1000 people out of work applying to every job. There are only 100 jobs open across all companies. The same 1000 people apply to all of them, only 100 get hired. 900 people post on forums they can't get a job.
This doesn't need to be a conspiracy theory. If there are fewer jobs than there were last year (particularly in sectors like junior dev and FE eng) there are going to be people who don't get hired.
Man, that's some serious black belt level overthinking.
One open position, 1000 resumes received, pick a handful to interview, hire 1 after a few weeks, 999 come to HN to ask if the job market is tough and say they can't get hired anywhere.
You know this isn't about 1 person at 1 company hiring for 1 role, right? This is about the job market as a whole. Who do you think is on the other end of these transactions?
The context was you responding to somebody specifically at Dropbox. You glommed onto their comment as the opening wedge for a point you wanted to make that is about the job market as a whole, not Dropbox. Then you seem puzzled (at least) if not positively affronted that people responded by saying you seemed to be missing the point Dropbox-dude was making.
Do you keep searching your house for something after you find it? Apple's claim is an upper bound, it's pretty rare that the thing you're looking for is in the last possible place it could be.
In fact, that the answer could theoretically be over 40 and that that would count against the candidate means it's probably illegal in the US without clear evidence that it directly relates to job performance.
