Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It clearly says founder/CEO in my profile and I still get these type of emails all the time. On the hiring side I see the other side of the problem though. Basically nobody has managed to adequately match supply and demand in the labor market. Huge opportunity, someone should go solve it



To be fair, founder/CEO means pretty much nothing on its own. Anyone can start a company for a few hundred bucks, put up a website, and call themselves a founder/CEO. You'd have to make the effort to actually look at what a person founded, and that's a level of effort that recruiter spam is never going to reach.


Yeah, the problem is you have folks neck-deep in MLM scam companies calling themselves CEOs and founders on LinkedIn.


Even legit tiny companies often have founders using the CEO title, it's not just a problem created by MLMs and scams. The CEO (or really any CXX) title is really only meaningful with other stats like how long the company has been alive, number of employees, monthly revenue, etc.


Is the matching algorithm the problem, or is it just that most companies don't want to pay people what they're worth?


People are worth what most companies are willing to pay them.


That doesn’t follow.

Like this blog post points out, there’s a ton of postings out there with these absurdly low pay expectations. And yet, companies can, and do, struggle to fill $120,000 a year jobs.

It can simultaneously be the case that the majority of the market is willing to pay peanuts AND the average developer routinely signs for far, far more than that.

The majority of the market simply never finds any takers whatsoever for their “genius social media idea I own it you have to sign an NDA for, you do all the work, $15/hr”.


Yes I don't disagree with that. I must correct myself, for my wording wasn't precise. People are worth what most employees' employers are willing to pay.


>People are worth what most employees' employers are willing to pay.

Companies must transact for labour at a rate that transfers wealth to them. On average, employees must be able generate more value to a firm than their wages, otherwise employing people would be a net negative to a firm.


You say transfer like it's coming from the employee. Adam Smith would say the wealth is being created by the resources that the company brings along with the labor that the employee brings.


>You say transfer like it's coming from the employee.

That's not what I said at all. The first sentence is a constraint on firm survival, not a statement about where wealth is derived.


No, people are worth whatever is the most any company is willing to pay them.


Almost - it's that, or the value they can create on their own, whichever is greater, as valued by that person.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: