5 ms·

Unpopular take: This was significantly better for employers and employees. It worked as both an effort and presentation filter which both reduced the overload

Unpopular take: This was significantly better for employers and employees. It worked as both an effort and presentation filter which both reduced the overload of candidates, allowing for more attention, higher variation of skills that didnt often show like traditional resume bonafides and mad companies more likely to invest more in employees as it was a pain to go do again. For employees it was great too. Much like the world pre-dating apps the business world wasnt all looking for the equivalent of trust fund, 6'5", blue eyes. As well as the points mentioned above.

warkdarrior 1mo ago
Second unpopular take: This was better for all involved, but it constrained the job market to geographical boundaries. People did not apply to jobs in other states/countries/continents because they did not see the job postings for other states/countries/continents.
- jambalaya8 1mo ago
  thus people were treated better and got work faster instead of fighting against thousands of people who mass spooge resumes with email now.
- Xirdus 1mo ago
  Third unpopular take: this geographical restriction was a good thing.
  - reactordev 1mo ago
    Fourth unpopular take: without it Silicon Valley wouldn’t exist.
    - alephnerd 1mo ago
      SV exists thanks to CA's lack of non-competes and the Stanford and UC Berkeley innovation ecosystem. Otherwise, Boston, NYC, DMV, Seattle, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, and others all could have become the next Silicon Valley.
      - paleotrope 1mo ago
        That's interesting because it's way more complicated than that. Boston had the 128 loop and Digital. TI in dallas. Simi valley. I think it's more like the end of defense spending in the late 80s early 90s winnowed down the several "SV"s into only one.
        alephnerd 1mo ago
        I know, and the reason Digital and TI and Compaq weren't able to make as deep ecosystems as Xerox PARC or Fairchild did was because of the non-compete aspect back when companies were much more litigious than today.
        ghaff 1mo ago
        IMO, the non-compete aspect is way overstated. People moved between the Route 128 computer companies all the time and even moved to California. If it was a slower pace than today, it probably had more to do with people not shifting jobs as often than litigation related to non-competes.
      - red-iron-pine 1mo ago
        > and the Stanford and UC Berkeley innovation ecosystem which is geographic... and let's also not forget the vast, heavy investments from the Navy and government during WW2. the SV wasn't just a couple of fancy colleges, San Fran is a major city that got a ton of investment. the DMV arguably is the east coast SV
      - encrypted_bird 1mo ago
        What does DMV stand for in this context?
        ghostly_s 1mo ago
        DC, Maryland, and Virginia, a term only used in the DC area because those not in DC proper take offense at being lumped in with it or something I guess.
- kurttheviking 1mo ago
  More so than now, but one could still find work elsewhere. At least in the US, you would visit a local library and read newspapers to see job listings in other cities. Or, you could rely on "headhunters" who would work to collect available candidates for many companies; they would advertise their services as regional or national agencies. The market looked different but for someone who wanted to find a job somewhere else, there were ways to do it.
- SL61 1mo ago
  Interestingly, and maybe surprisingly, moving long-distance is less common than it was in the past. The total number of movers has decreased [1] while the percentage of those moves that are inter-state has stayed constant [2]. Another analysis from 2018 [3] looked specifically at people who move for jobs and found a huge drop since the 1980s. In the really old days you would move somewhere (often because you heard that some industry was booming there) and then look for work. Today you can't do that without a lot of savings. [1] https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/figure-a-1.1.png https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/d... [2] https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/figure-a-1.2.png https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/d... [3] https://www.challengergray.com/blog/historical-analysis-fewer-job-seekers-relocating-new-positions/ https://www.challengergray.com/blog/historical-analysis-fewe...
  - eloisant 1mo ago
    I wonder how it relates with housing. Today you couldn't move without a job at your destination, because buying a house is expensive and renting requires a stable job.
    - red-iron-pine 1mo ago
      jobs back then also offered relocation bonuses or covered moving fees and similar my old man used to work for Big Oil back in the day, both in the US and internationally, and in basically all cases it wasn't even really a discussion -- "here's the cash to cover the move, how soon can you be here?" for international, esp. in places like Kenya or Australia, they had apartments or condos for short term workers that they'd put you in until you found something more permanent. after my folks had me + my siblings, they even had listings of nannies and maids pre-sourced so you could find reliable help once you landed.
- BrenBarn 1mo ago
  I think that is one reason why it was better.
- crabbone 1mo ago
  For context: my programming career started in Russia (while I didn't live there... it was a very unique situation at the time to have a remote job!), then for some twenty odd years in Israel (on-site), then another five in the Netherlands (work visa). I have an extremely negative impression from jobs that grant visas. Here are some points to consider: * Work visa is an extremely valuable asset to the worker. They will do a lot of bad things before they even consider endangering their status in the country they reside. This leads to a pathologically abusive workspace because no criticism ever goes up the administrative chain of command. This severely impacts product quality, creates a toxic working environment. * There's no good selection process for the applicants. On the other hand, applicants have a huge incentive to stick with whatever potential employer might employ them. This results in the overall poor quality of the workforce hired in such a way, it's also a workforce that's difficult to replace or to improve. In other words, after working in Israel as a programmer for some twenty years (Israel doesn't issue work visas to programmers) I've seen both good quality products and programmers as well as bad. When I came to the Netherlands I was in shock because of how poor was the quality of both the product and the workforce. At first, it didn't make sense to me: how on Earth if these people can pay more and have a bigger candidate pool do they end up with such bad outcomes? My bullet points above are the conclusions I came to while trying to understand the problem. Perhaps they are wrong, but the observation, definitely, isn't: the quality is so bad I want to cry.
- CuriouslyC 1mo ago
  I don't if it was exactly better, it was less "liquid." Given the reduced competition, you couldn't find primo jobs unless you moved to a hub (which is why most people are in NYC/SF/LA), but when you found a job it was more stable.
slopinthebag 1mo ago
The older I get the more I think the internet is a massive net negative due to effects like this. Another example is used car sales. Before the internet it was local and required work to find cars for sale. Now thanks to the internet we have "hustlers" who scour FB marketplace and craigslist and buy up all the deals to flip for profit.
- klntsky 1mo ago
  Someone who flips cars serves the seller by closing the deal faster
  - eloisant 1mo ago
    No because they only buy the best deals that would have sold fast anyway
    - CTDOCodebases 1mo ago
      This happens with niche markets e.g. CRT TVs. Because CRTs are no longer made they are becoming rare but at the same time the market for them is small so what ends up happening is that opportunists take advantage of this and hoard them to create artificial scarcity. You could argue they are doing a service by saving them from ending up as e-waste but this isn't always the case. Sometimes sellers are just raising the floor price for their own benefit.
- CTDOCodebases 1mo ago
  It works in weird ways. Physical space e.g. hikes,lookouts etc get absolutely ruined now and sometimes even closed due to the low barrier of entry required to discover them and the type of people this attracts but the flip side is something uniquely good like a coffee shop can be a success from open day. I think the blog era was the best. If you were into something and applied some effort researching you could have many amazing experiences without having to rely on the luck of befriending knowledgeable people. However in today's world if you find something good it's only a matter of time that someone else discovers it uses social media to ruin it.

warkdarrior 1mo ago

Second unpopular take: This was better for all involved, but it constrained the job market to geographical boundaries. People did not apply to jobs in other states/countries/continents because they did not see the job postings for other states/countries/continents.

jambalaya8 1mo ago
thus people were treated better and got work faster instead of fighting against thousands of people who mass spooge resumes with email now.
Xirdus 1mo ago
Third unpopular take: this geographical restriction was a good thing.
- reactordev 1mo ago
  Fourth unpopular take: without it Silicon Valley wouldn’t exist.
  - alephnerd 1mo ago
    SV exists thanks to CA's lack of non-competes and the Stanford and UC Berkeley innovation ecosystem. Otherwise, Boston, NYC, DMV, Seattle, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, and others all could have become the next Silicon Valley.
    - paleotrope 1mo ago
      That's interesting because it's way more complicated than that. Boston had the 128 loop and Digital. TI in dallas. Simi valley. I think it's more like the end of defense spending in the late 80s early 90s winnowed down the several "SV"s into only one.
      - alephnerd 1mo ago
        I know, and the reason Digital and TI and Compaq weren't able to make as deep ecosystems as Xerox PARC or Fairchild did was because of the non-compete aspect back when companies were much more litigious than today.
        ghaff 1mo ago
        IMO, the non-compete aspect is way overstated. People moved between the Route 128 computer companies all the time and even moved to California. If it was a slower pace than today, it probably had more to do with people not shifting jobs as often than litigation related to non-competes.
    - red-iron-pine 1mo ago
      > and the Stanford and UC Berkeley innovation ecosystem which is geographic... and let's also not forget the vast, heavy investments from the Navy and government during WW2. the SV wasn't just a couple of fancy colleges, San Fran is a major city that got a ton of investment. the DMV arguably is the east coast SV
    - encrypted_bird 1mo ago
      What does DMV stand for in this context?
      - ghostly_s 1mo ago
        DC, Maryland, and Virginia, a term only used in the DC area because those not in DC proper take offense at being lumped in with it or something I guess.
kurttheviking 1mo ago
More so than now, but one could still find work elsewhere. At least in the US, you would visit a local library and read newspapers to see job listings in other cities. Or, you could rely on "headhunters" who would work to collect available candidates for many companies; they would advertise their services as regional or national agencies. The market looked different but for someone who wanted to find a job somewhere else, there were ways to do it.
SL61 1mo ago
Interestingly, and maybe surprisingly, moving long-distance is less common than it was in the past. The total number of movers has decreased [1] while the percentage of those moves that are inter-state has stayed constant [2]. Another analysis from 2018 [3] looked specifically at people who move for jobs and found a huge drop since the 1980s. In the really old days you would move somewhere (often because you heard that some industry was booming there) and then look for work. Today you can't do that without a lot of savings. [1] https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/figure-a-1.1.png https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/d... [2] https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/figure-a-1.2.png https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/d... [3] https://www.challengergray.com/blog/historical-analysis-fewer-job-seekers-relocating-new-positions/ https://www.challengergray.com/blog/historical-analysis-fewe...
- eloisant 1mo ago
  I wonder how it relates with housing. Today you couldn't move without a job at your destination, because buying a house is expensive and renting requires a stable job.
  - red-iron-pine 1mo ago
    jobs back then also offered relocation bonuses or covered moving fees and similar my old man used to work for Big Oil back in the day, both in the US and internationally, and in basically all cases it wasn't even really a discussion -- "here's the cash to cover the move, how soon can you be here?" for international, esp. in places like Kenya or Australia, they had apartments or condos for short term workers that they'd put you in until you found something more permanent. after my folks had me + my siblings, they even had listings of nannies and maids pre-sourced so you could find reliable help once you landed.
BrenBarn 1mo ago
I think that is one reason why it was better.
crabbone 1mo ago
For context: my programming career started in Russia (while I didn't live there... it was a very unique situation at the time to have a remote job!), then for some twenty odd years in Israel (on-site), then another five in the Netherlands (work visa). I have an extremely negative impression from jobs that grant visas. Here are some points to consider: * Work visa is an extremely valuable asset to the worker. They will do a lot of bad things before they even consider endangering their status in the country they reside. This leads to a pathologically abusive workspace because no criticism ever goes up the administrative chain of command. This severely impacts product quality, creates a toxic working environment. * There's no good selection process for the applicants. On the other hand, applicants have a huge incentive to stick with whatever potential employer might employ them. This results in the overall poor quality of the workforce hired in such a way, it's also a workforce that's difficult to replace or to improve. In other words, after working in Israel as a programmer for some twenty years (Israel doesn't issue work visas to programmers) I've seen both good quality products and programmers as well as bad. When I came to the Netherlands I was in shock because of how poor was the quality of both the product and the workforce. At first, it didn't make sense to me: how on Earth if these people can pay more and have a bigger candidate pool do they end up with such bad outcomes? My bullet points above are the conclusions I came to while trying to understand the problem. Perhaps they are wrong, but the observation, definitely, isn't: the quality is so bad I want to cry.
CuriouslyC 1mo ago
I don't if it was exactly better, it was less "liquid." Given the reduced competition, you couldn't find primo jobs unless you moved to a hub (which is why most people are in NYC/SF/LA), but when you found a job it was more stable.

slopinthebag 1mo ago

The older I get the more I think the internet is a massive net negative due to effects like this. Another example is used car sales. Before the internet it was local and required work to find cars for sale. Now thanks to the internet we have "hustlers" who scour FB marketplace and craigslist and buy up all the deals to flip for profit.

klntsky 1mo ago
Someone who flips cars serves the seller by closing the deal faster
- eloisant 1mo ago
  No because they only buy the best deals that would have sold fast anyway
  - CTDOCodebases 1mo ago
    This happens with niche markets e.g. CRT TVs. Because CRTs are no longer made they are becoming rare but at the same time the market for them is small so what ends up happening is that opportunists take advantage of this and hoard them to create artificial scarcity. You could argue they are doing a service by saving them from ending up as e-waste but this isn't always the case. Sometimes sellers are just raising the floor price for their own benefit.
CTDOCodebases 1mo ago
It works in weird ways. Physical space e.g. hikes,lookouts etc get absolutely ruined now and sometimes even closed due to the low barrier of entry required to discover them and the type of people this attracts but the flip side is something uniquely good like a coffee shop can be a success from open day. I think the blog era was the best. If you were into something and applied some effort researching you could have many amazing experiences without having to rely on the luck of befriending knowledgeable people. However in today's world if you find something good it's only a matter of time that someone else discovers it uses social media to ruin it.