h a l f b a k e r yEureka! Keeping naked people off the streets since 1999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Net Worth Corporation
An agency company that values people directly. Collects all credentials into a knowledgebase of facts based on the curriculum and direct exact experience experienced. Can value people directly | |
Recruitment is expensive and people are not
interchangeable cogs. Some people are more experienced
than others. Yet salaries are set based on years of
experience. There are experts (and economists) that miss
basic facts.
I propose we value people directly and we can use it to
distribute
resources.
Some universities teach courses that are not the same.
Students of one course might not know things another
course teaches. So If I was a recruiter I would weight
different itemised skills or experiences and appraise based
on that.
We can weigh different people based on that exact
ingredients of their experiences.
We can also value negative attributes such as bigotedness
or "doesn't admit when they are clearly wrong."
One CEO is not interchangeable with another CEO. Nor is a
chief technical officer equivalent to another.
Some people experience the same year 10 times and some
people genuinely have 10 separate years of different
experiences.
Let's turn experience into a number that should map to
reward.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
1. Good recruiters and HR departments already do this through the technology of the Interview and References to find the person who is best for the position. |
|
| |
2. Reducing this to a number is going exactly the wrong direction, because then you create a competitive ranking instead of selecting on real criteria. |
|
| |
Think of cafes. At the moment you choose which cafe to go to based on a complex set of criteria including location, personal recommendation, decor, food quality, staff friendliness, and other things that are personal to you (i.e. you would choose a different cafe to me). If you removed all that contextual information and had to choose which cafe to go to based only on a numerical score that would be obviously stupid. |
|
| |
pocmloc so how do you calculate who deserves
more in society? |
|
| |
Surely someone with more credentials deserves
more money as reward. |
|
| |
I am arguing for objectivity and clarity in the selection
process. You are arguing for qualitative
measurements when hiring people. |
|
| |
When people put Java in their CV there is a huge
variation in skill level for developers when they say
they write Java. Most interviews do a coding test and
this cuts out 50% of people who cannot program. |
|
| |
// Surely someone with more credentials deserves more money as reward.// |
|
| |
Can't tell whether you're trolling. Either way [-] for the idea. |
|
| |
//how do you calculate who deserves more in society?// At a very crude level, by how much resource use AND/OR attention is given to them by the general collective of other humans. |
|
| |
I don't remember where I saw it, but "you are paid according
to how much it would cost to replace you". |
|
| |