• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

'Spraying and praying' is ruining the Bay Area tech job market

P

philb2

2[H]4U
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
3,471
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/arti...m)&utm_source=share-by-email&utm_medium=email

To survive this nightmarish job market, candidates are now “spraying and praying,” as one career coach described it — or paying resume services to blast out thousands of CVs per day to game the system and land a gig. However, according to experts in the tech industry who spoke with SFGATE, this is only creating a vicious cycle of inefficiency that hurts both workers and companies.

Part of the problem is that a number of resume services that use AI have popped up online, Bryan Creely, a veteran tech recruiter and career coach, told SFGATE. These services, which all use the same prompts, ultimately churn out CVs that make every candidate look the same. When a candidate then pays a service to blast out thousands of applications per day, they might get blacklisted by recruiters, he continued. “There’s so much bad use of technology that screws people without them even realizing it,” Creely said.
 
The hiring process is to blame for this, not people trying to figure out how to find work. This is why I'm self-employed. I humored myself and tried looking for a job about a year ago ... did like 10 interviews over the course of about 10 months ... didn't land a single one. Half the time I was told I was overqualified or that I didn't have enough "experience" for a job that was barely a skillset. I used to be able to walk into a place and get hired. Now everything is stupid. Maybe these idiots should stop blaming AI and fix how they hire people.
 
Shoganai said:
The hiring process is to blame for this, not people trying to figure out how to find work. This is why I'm self-employed. I humored myself and tried looking for a job about a year ago ... did like 10 interviews over the course of about 10 months ... didn't land a single one. Half the time I was told I was overqualified or that I didn't have enough "experience" for a job that was barely a skillset. I used to be able to walk into a place and get hired. Now everything is stupid. Maybe these idiots should stop blaming AI and fix how they hire people.
Click to expand...

Yep.the tech job market is absolutely Fd and all the AI BS is just another symptom.

I was looking around the same time and barely got any interviews. One of them was a company that I somehow got into their automated interviewing process through there website. I don't think I was actually supposed to get interviewed because no american citizens were employed in their office. It was scheduled as a "video interview" but it was with 4 indian HR women and 1 chinese guy that spoke worse english than my 2 year old. I was the only person with my camera on...it was akward. The job description said they used angular but half way through I realized he was actually asking questions about angularjs which is over a decade out of date. It was an HR software company and I now I know why their software is so bad.

Also at one point in the interview he asked me about flex box but he pronounced "flex" without the "L" and a "U" instead of an "E".
 
sharknice said:
Yep.the tech job market is absolutely Fd and all the AI BS is just another symptom.

I was looking around the same time and barely got any interviews. One of them was a company that I somehow got into their automated interviewing process through there website. I don't think I was actually supposed to get interviewed because no american citizens were employed in their office. It was scheduled as a "video interview" but it was with 4 indian HR women and 1 chinese guy that spoke worse english than my 2 year old. I was the only person with my camera on...it was akward. The job description said they used angular but half way through I realized he was actually asking questions about angularjs which is over a decade out of date. It was an HR software company and I now I know why their software is so bad.

Also at one point in the interview he asked me about flex box but he pronounced "flex" without the "L" and a "U" instead of an "E".
Click to expand...
I have similar stories, without the AI, after the tech bubble burst in 2000.

A dev I knew told me that one interviewer wanted 10 years of Java experience, but at the time Java was only a few years old. Another job wanted a Ph. D to run a semiconductor process monitor. I also ran into discrimination if I didn't match the ethnic type of the foreign-born interviewer.
 
It has been this way for a couple years now. It is near impossible to land a job without connections now. Some of the international students at my university would straight up lie on their resumes too (clock is ticking for them, find a company to sponsor you or get out of the country), how are you supposed to compete with that? Sucks. Connections matter more than ever now
 
Last edited:
ivandagiant said:
It has been this way for a couple years now. It is near impossible to land a job without connections now. Some of the international students at my university would straight up lie on their resumes too (clock is ticking for them, find a company to sponsor you or get out of the country), how are you supposed to compete with that? Sucks. Connections matter more than ever now
Click to expand...
And I have the impression that LinkedIn is just not that useful these days.

And let's not forget good old-fashioned age discrimination.

Of course there has always been the issue of posting a phony job opening, to harvest resumes. Then later on if a recruiter presents you to that company, they can say that they already have your resume.

I'm retired now, but this thread is stirring up unpleasant memories.
 
Shoganai said:
The hiring process is to blame for this, not people trying to figure out how to find work. This is why I'm self-employed. I humored myself and tried looking for a job about a year ago ... did like 10 interviews over the course of about 10 months ... didn't land a single one. Half the time I was told I was overqualified or that I didn't have enough "experience" for a job that was barely a skillset. I used to be able to walk into a place and get hired. Now everything is stupid. Maybe these idiots should stop blaming AI and fix how they hire people.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised they didn't say "nobody wants to work". What's funny is that hiring managers are upset people are using AI to create resumes, so the hiring managers are using AI detection tools. The irony is lost to them. The best part of the article was this. They know the 4.3% unemployment is bull, and yet they're upset that people are trying harder for better paying jobs? What do they expect people to do?
"In June, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said that the unemployment rate is hovering at 4.3%, amounting to millions of Americans. But the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, which aims to provide a more accurate financial picture of middle- and low-income American households — said that about six times as many people are struggling to put food on the table. The true rate of unemployment, the institute said, is a staggering 24.6%. "


View: https://youtu.be/VdAmhumeoLQ?si=9gJCbBf9o5K64CqL
 
Shoganai said:
The hiring process is to blame for this, not people trying to figure out how to find work. This is why I'm self-employed. I humored myself and tried looking for a job about a year ago ... did like 10 interviews over the course of about 10 months ... didn't land a single one. Half the time I was told I was overqualified or that I didn't have enough "experience" for a job that was barely a skillset. I used to be able to walk into a place and get hired. Now everything is stupid. Maybe these idiots should stop blaming AI and fix how they hire people.
Click to expand...
What do you do?
 
DukenukemX said:
"In June, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said that the unemployment rate is hovering at 4.3%, amounting to millions of Americans. But the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, which aims to provide a more accurate financial picture of middle- and low-income American households — said that about six times as many people are struggling to put food on the table. The true rate of unemployment, the institute said, is a staggering 24.6%. "
Click to expand...


When you rewrite definitions of things to suit your bias from the outset you can make numbers up for anything

Ludwig Institute includes people working low wage jobs, and not looking for any other work or more work (as in, not even 'part-time' wanting 'full-time' but can't get it, which they also include as 'unemployed' to get to their results too) as 'unemployed' for that 24.6% number

“Using data compiled by the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the True Rate of Unemployment tracks the percentage of the U.S. labor force that does not have a full-time job (35+ hours a week) but wants one, has no job, or does not earn a living wage, conservatively pegged at $26,000 (in 2025 dollars) annually before taxes.”
Click to expand...

https://www.lisep.org/tru

“To be employed for the purposes of LISEP’s true employment concept, an individual must either have a full-time job (35+ hours per week) or have a part-time job but no desire to be full-time (e.g., students). The second stipulation is that an individual must earn at least [$20k–$26k adjusted] annually. …
LISEP’s True Rate of Unemployment measure … [includes] the proportion of people who are categorized as technically employed, but are employed on poverty-like wages (below $20,000 a year) and/or on a reduced workweek that they do not want.”
Click to expand...

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63ba0d84fe573c7513595d6e/63c1bb4dc740e1acb5d3b6dd_TRU White Paper.pdf
 
Last edited:
DukenukemX said:
"In June, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said that the unemployment rate is hovering at 4.3%, amounting to millions of Americans. But the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, which aims to provide a more accurate financial picture of middle- and low-income American households — said that about six times as many people are struggling to put food on the table. The true rate of unemployment, the institute said, is a staggering 24.6%. "
Click to expand...
That is shameful, very shameful. Thank the tax code for a lot of this.
 
DukenukemX said:
I'm surprised they didn't say "nobody wants to work". What's funny is that hiring managers are upset people are using AI to create resumes, so the hiring managers are using AI detection tools. The irony is lost to them. The best part of the article was this. They know the 4.3% unemployment is bull, and yet they're upset that people are trying harder for better paying jobs? What do they expect people to do?
"In June, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said that the unemployment rate is hovering at 4.3%, amounting to millions of Americans. But the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, which aims to provide a more accurate financial picture of middle- and low-income American households — said that about six times as many people are struggling to put food on the table. The true rate of unemployment, the institute said, is a staggering 24.6%. "


View: https://youtu.be/VdAmhumeoLQ?si=9gJCbBf9o5K64CqL
Click to expand...


There's a big difference between "no body wants to work anymore", and "nobody wants to work for the money you're offering". A lot of companies refuse to admit this. Or you have the founder-types who work long hours and have a six-figured bonus on the line, seemingly unable to figure out why you're unwilling to pull the same hours to earn a free pizza lunch.
 
kram182 said:
https://x.com/0xRuzy/status/2072388244474597442

How timely this is making the rounds on twitter ATM:

View attachment 812822
Click to expand...

Salaries are taxed high, investments and capital gains are not. The latter is for a good reason, because you want people to be willing to put up risk capital in order to stimulate the economy, and they won't be willing to do so if they have to surrender the reward to the government.

A lot of people on the lower end of the income scale don't understand this because they're not active in the investment markets. A lot of them, particularly on the left, have been trained to see any disparate outcome as proof of a "systemic unfairness" of some kind (racism, sexism, etc). The irony is that they also don't understand that they pay some of the lowest taxes in the country. In a lot of cases, they pay very little specifically because they don't make enough. The rich and the middle class pick up the tab, but the rich lower their tax rates easily because most of their income comes from investments, not salary.

The key is to invest early. Your objective needs to be to make your capital generate a better return than your labour. Once you do that, you're set. To get to that point requires a level of sacrifice earlier in life that many people aren't willing to make though, unfortunately. Some because they genuinely can't, others because they'd rather satisfy desires now and aren't thinking ahead.
 
HockeyJon said:
Salaries are taxed high, investments and capital gains are not. The latter is for a good reason, because you want people to be willing to put up risk capital in order to stimulate the economy, and they won't be willing to do so if they have to surrender the reward to the government.
Click to expand...

Hey founders can pay almost no tax despite their enormous wealth, because they borrow against their stock to fund their lifestyles. No tax there.
 
philb2 said:
Hey founders can pay almost no tax despite their enormous wealth, because they borrow against their stock to fund their lifestyles. No tax there.
Click to expand...

And yet they still end up paying more in taxes than anyone ever (until they again pay the biggest amount the next time they do)

1783052314646.png



View: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/12/15/elon-musk-to-pay-record-high-12-billion-tax-bill.html



1783052631043.png
 
HockeyJon said:
Salaries are taxed high, investments and capital gains are not. The latter is for a good reason, because you want people to be willing to put up risk capital in order to stimulate the economy, and they won't be willing to do so if they have to surrender the reward to the government.

A lot of people on the lower end of the income scale don't understand this because they're not active in the investment markets. A lot of them, particularly on the left, have been trained to see any disparate outcome as proof of a "systemic unfairness" of some kind (racism, sexism, etc). The irony is that they also don't understand that they pay some of the lowest taxes in the country. In a lot of cases, they pay very little specifically because they don't make enough. The rich and the middle class pick up the tab, but the rich lower their tax rates easily because most of their income comes from investments, not salary.

The key is to invest early. Your objective needs to be to make your capital generate a better return than your labour. Once you do that, you're set. To get to that point requires a level of sacrifice earlier in life that many people aren't willing to make though, unfortunately. Some because they genuinely can't, others because they'd rather satisfy desires now and aren't thinking ahead.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you don't have the money to invest because you can barely pay the bills that advice doesn't help, does it. The person working 2-3 part time jobs to put food on the table isn't saving money to invest. This fantasy that if people just "invested" or were "better with their money" isn't false, but it is a very limited viewpoint because it makes a poor assumption that all people have a choice. Yes, I have no doubt that some people are making poor choices either because they're idiots or because their parents raised them making poor choices themselves. Some people simply come from a long line of poor choices and don't have a clue how to live a different life. It takes a very determined mindset to break the cycle of poor choices. Some people, yes, are living at home with mom and dad while working full time and spending all their money on latte's and artisanal muffins ... sure. I'm sure those people exist as well. It takes all kinds and every generation assumes the worst about the one coming after them. My parents generation thought ours was a bunch of slackers and my generation thinks the young kids today are a bunch of slackers. It has pretty much always been this way but it doesn't make it true universally. It is a boring trope.

To the original point, yes, there is a functional reason for capital gains not being taxed high but the system has broken and the people at the top with all the investment money are the ones who are supposed to maintain it. The system so heavily favours them and they also control all methods of communication. They control the news, the social media sites, and everything else. They decide what you see and, for most people, how you see it. They've set the game up so people of political stripes sit around sniping at each other instead of trying to fix the system. Anyone with an interest in fixing the system is automatically shot down by anyone of a different political strip simply because they don't wear the same team colours. They're playing the vast majority of the public in a great game by manipulating the algorithms and buying up all the media. They make people angry when they want them angry and point them at convenient enemies. No, not everyone is incapable of seeing it but the majority are part of the process of just shitting on the "other guy".

So, yes, investment is the way to avoid taxes but just saying it doesn't fix the problem for most people.
 
kram182 said:
https://x.com/0xRuzy/status/2072388244474597442

How timely this is making the rounds on twitter ATM:

View attachment 812822
Click to expand...
Part of me is curious about the whole setup to this clip. Because he starts with a question, and then rants at her for her opinion, answering his questions wasn't an opinion. But then part of me feels like this whole back and forth was somewhat fabricated to make the host look smart, because she seems at the level that would give me a migraine and temporarily drop my IQ by 20 points if I have to listen to her for more than 10 minutes.

That said, the statements are true for the federal tax level yes, state tax does vary as different states have different setups, some have progressive tax systems e.g. California, some have flat taxes, and some even have no income tax at all, e.g. Texas, which is probably one of the reasons Musk left California for Texas not just to be closer to his company. Then there are other taxes like sales tax, property tax, etc, which are based on value of something other than income, but if we're comparing income brackets, those with less income tend to pay more as a percentage of their income than those with more income.

But as far as these discussions comparing billionaires to "the bottom 50%" (or "the poors") for how much taxes is paid is a bit more "complicated" and not apples to apples, because billionaires wealth growth is very rarely derived from income, i.e. that "Musk paid $12B in taxes" story is because he exercised stock options (i.e. he needed actual cash) but his wealth increased considerably more than the tax amount suggests, but wealth is not taxed in this country only income (**some wealth, if you own property, then you do get taxed on that but not by the feds), which often is where these ideas of "billionaire so and so paid 0% in taxes" stem from, because there very well could be years that they pay 0 in federal income tax yet they're billions wealthier, so the blue haired ninny isn't necessarily wrong she just was fed a singular data point (year) for an individual billionaire when she googled it that seemed to best support her thesis.

And then when they do pay taxes, again it's "complicated", the Musk example above was probably a mixture of income from compensation (not salary) and capital gains because he needed money, based on the total amount he paid I would almost bet my entire "wealth" that the vast majority was capital gains which is taxed at far lower than income tax rates.

So yeah comparing which groups pay what is certainly complicated, also the whole "top 1%" is not exclusively billionaires, hell the vast majority aren't, I want to say an annual income of around 500k puts you in that group, don't get me wrong that's great money, but that's no where close to billionaire level of money, which just to show how complicated things are billionaires may not even be in this group in certain years because their salaries may be $1 or something absurdly low and if they don't cash out any of their stock then they're bottom 50% not top 1%
 
sfsuphysics said:
Part of me is curious about the whole setup to this clip. Because he starts with a question, and then rants at her for her opinion, answering his questions wasn't an opinion. But then part of me feels like this whole back and forth was somewhat fabricated to make the host look smart, because she seems at the level that would give me a migraine and temporarily drop my IQ by 20 points if I have to listen to her for more than 10 minutes.

That said, the statements are true for the federal tax level yes, state tax does vary as different states have different setups, some have progressive tax systems e.g. California, some have flat taxes, and some even have no income tax at all, e.g. Texas, which is probably one of the reasons Musk left California for Texas not just to be closer to his company. Then there are other taxes like sales tax, property tax, etc, which are based on value of something other than income, but if we're comparing income brackets, those with less income tend to pay more as a percentage of their income than those with more income.

But as far as these discussions comparing billionaires to "the bottom 50%" (or "the poors") for how much taxes is paid is a bit more "complicated" and not apples to apples, because billionaires wealth growth is very rarely derived from income, i.e. that "Musk paid $12B in taxes" story is because he exercised stock options (i.e. he needed actual cash) but his wealth increased considerably more than the tax amount suggests, but wealth is not taxed in this country only income (**some wealth, if you own property, then you do get taxed on that but not by the feds), which often is where these ideas of "billionaire so and so paid 0% in taxes" stem from, because there very well could be years that they pay 0 in federal income tax yet they're billions wealthier, so the blue haired ninny isn't necessarily wrong she just was fed a singular data point (year) for an individual billionaire when she googled it that seemed to best support her thesis.

And then when they do pay taxes, again it's "complicated", the Musk example above was probably a mixture of income from compensation (not salary) and capital gains because he needed money, based on the total amount he paid I would almost bet my entire "wealth" that the vast majority was capital gains which is taxed at far lower than income tax rates.

So yeah comparing which groups pay what is certainly complicated, also the whole "top 1%" is not exclusively billionaires, hell the vast majority aren't, I want to say an annual income of around 500k puts you in that group, don't get me wrong that's great money, but that's no where close to billionaire level of money, which just to show how complicated things are billionaires may not even be in this group in certain years because their salaries may be $1 or something absurdly low and if they don't cash out any of their stock then they're bottom 50% not top 1%
Click to expand...
There are lots of quite legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes on “income.” The tax code is certainly in need of some simplification. But we’re getting off topic:)
 
Lol this is probably years late now? This has been happening for quite a while now, as far as I know. Essentially everyone has been "spraying and praying" for quite a while. And these tech companies are being complete hypocritical fucktards. Like you're using AI to grade people now. Did you not think people would turn around and use AI to create what you're grading?

It's not even really tech companies, either, the hellscape extends pretty far.

That's not to say there aren't bad actors or honest people on both sides of the equation. I'm sure that there are some (rare) companies out there that do actually try to treat all candidates with respect, and then people who are abusing those companies by still sending in AI slop resumes.
 
I agree with many, this starta at the employers and it started long ago. It's not just a problem in the tech sector, it's everywhere.

I fully believe that a hire should be almost entirely on merit. Sure there's a few personalities that aren't going to mesh well in various environments.

And I'm going to throw out one that a lot are not going to like: it's not because of D&I. This is only a symptom of the greater problem. In fact I work for a very large company that is very big into D&I hires and I have no problem with it - provided that individual is a good candidate and all good candidates are being considered. Unfortunately this often isn't the case.

Think back, remember how they used to say "it's not what you know. It's who you know"? That right there is the problem. Not hiring on merit what so ever. D&I is just another excuse to continue this crap.

When I was in my teens, friend tried to get a summer job at a car wash. they wouldn't hire him becuse he didn't play a bunch of sports. it's not like he wasn't athletic. It's another example of discrimination that they get away with.

You guys will love this one, few years back they put up an external job posted that was exclusive to "women or those who identify as a woman". And believe it or not this wasn't illegal if only barely. Keep in mind this is Canada. I am not familiar with your various state laws.

It was only legal because our labor code does allow for hiring like this in extreme circumstances to balance a workforce between men and women. we really do have mostly men in my profession!

The fallout was glorious. The employees were so outraged they had to pull the ad down. The most angry ones were the women. I remember hearing the words "we don't need a hand out".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top