Well, presumably your business charges something to mail out job applications to companies? Like an application fee, that charge incurs a cost to applicant which will do something (presumably reduce applicant volume).
Plus by making that fee optionally replaced with time spent writing the letter, people who don't have the finances to pay a whole bunch of application fees can still apply for as many jobs as they're willing to put in the time.
> I understand that recruiters/hiring managers/whatever get a lot of junk applications, but frankly, it is your job to sort through them. You are paid to do this.
Recruiters, hiring managers, and whatevers are humans too, with ordinary human limitations. Just because they are paid to do something doesn't mean they gain superhuman capabilities.
Even if I am a recruiter with nothing else to do, if I get 5k applications for a role each week, I won't individually review 5k applications in a week. It's not possible. So I will have to rely on some automated system that filters out most of those applications. Who knows how good that system is.
On the other hand, if I get 100 mail applications for a role each week, that I can review that.
I'm not in love with this proposal, but I definitely see the appeal. Adding a little cost/effort on the applicant side automatically filters out a ton of applicants that have not bothered to learn anything about the role or company.
In the past I've had success with adding things to the job description like: "please include a link to your favorite gif in your email." And that filters out about 95% of applicants who don't read the job description and don't have a gif link in their email. But with LLMs I imagine those kinds of filters work less well than before.
That's a fair point! It is true that recruiters are human and cannot review 5k applications per week.
I don't mean to say that recruiters must/should review all applications, because indeed this is sometimes impossible. I'm just saying that, as a recruiter, your job is to review applications and you should therefore not be making things harder for the applicants.
Asking for someone's favourite GIF to filter out junk applications is a great idea. This does not detriment the applicant, and it makes the recruiter's job easier. This is good. Making all applications mail-in is not good, because it detriments the applicant (by way of costing significantly more time and some money), while also not solving some of the larger problems when it comes to the job application process.
Nope. While there was a large increase in immigrant inflows, there is no evidence their enforcement decisions were significantly different than e.g. Trump 1.
What the statistics actually show is that the United States was a far more attractive destination for immigrants under Biden, but that enforcement policies were largely the same. That makes sense since enforcement policy is mostly set by Congress and not by POTUS.
The increased appeal of the US is entirely explained by the fact that the US economy was excelling far beyond any country in the world, and especially any country in the western hemisphere. At the same time, Central and South America were getting hit by successive political and economic shocks amplified by COVID.
The significant reduction in immigrants towards the tail end of Biden is not because they suddenly decided to "follow the law" and "close the border." It's that they decided NOT to follow the law anymore and to unilaterally ignore the asylum laws that Congress actually sets.
So really what you're seeing is the difference between the US being a desirable place to come to versus an undesirable one. I'm sympathetic to the argument that there's moral hazard involved in making the US appear to be highly desirable to people who we don't want to accept, but I'm not sympathetic at all to the view that that means the executive can simply ignore whatever laws they want, or they can turn the US into such a dystopian hellhole that only the most desperate immigrants around would bother attempting entry.
> On mobility, the India-EU FTA provides a facilitative and predictable framework for business mobility covering short-term, temporary and business travel in both directions.
Do you predict short term business travel from India will increase youth unemployment in Europe? Why?
Don’t you think a larger export market for EU products like cars will increase employment in the EU? That would be my prediction.
Does it say that about short term business travel only?
"offers an excellent opportunity for us to cooperate on facilitating labour mobility"
"This cooperation framework will facilitate the mobility of skilled workers, young professionals and seasonal works in shortage sectors"
"The Office will help Indian workers, students, and researchers find out about opportunities in Europe, starting with the ICT sector with the aim of expanding it further in the future."
Beyond that press release apparently it commits member states to EU commits to uncapping student visas for Indian students
Maybe I’m missing something, but why can’t it be true? If I’m a PhD deciding what to do with the next few years of my life, the fact that government jobs currently seem very unstable might make PhDs hesitant to choose this path. There’s probably also at least some PhDs (given the overwhelmingly left leaning politics of grad students) that don’t want to be involved with this administration. So maybe more PhDs are going into the private sector.
On the other side, budget cuts might mean that you have less money to spend on the PhDs that are interested.
So it doesn’t seem inherently contradictory to me.
There is basically no overlap between the things that economists generally say are good (free trade, carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, immigration, land value taxes, organ trade, congestion pricing, etc…) and the things that populists of either the left or right say are good (rent control, price controls, tariffs, wealth taxes, debt relief, minimum parking requirements, etc…).
Why would you (or anyone) be surprised that economically sound policies are not popular? They are not popular in the US. They are not popular in Europe. They’re not even popular on HN.
For reasons I don’t understand, almost everyone hates economics.
Economics is usually optimising for a narrow utility function, usually something to do with price discovery, but that doesn’t normally align with more human societal goals. Take, say, surge pricing. Maybe without surge pricing you pay $60 for a taxi but have to wait 30 mins when it’s busy. With surge pricing at busy times it’s $120, so people who can afford $120 wait 0 minutes but people who can only afford $60 have to wait 2 hours for surge pricing to end. “Economists generally” would say surge pricing was better, but voters and politicians are considering the wider trade off of whether it’s fair some people get to jump the queue and some people have to wait longer. There’s also usually a bait-and-switch where the people having to wait 2hrs are told that the $120 will generate more in taxes so if they vote for surge pricing they’d actually be better off, then the $120 is spent lobbying to ensure the taxes never materialise.
Well, those numbers economists are working to make bigger are often things that help the average citizen, like the median household income income, the median life expectancy, or the literacy rate. Sometimes economists are studying how to make numbers lower as well, like the median cost of housing or inflation.
Economics are hated because economical arguments are used to justify why we cannot do the necessary things all while doing things that bail out the rich for the tenth time.
You don't need to be an economist to realize who is getting fucked over. I am not from the US, but a vote for Trump for many was just a vote to burn it all down, especially because the other candidate was perceived to standing for perpetuating the status-quo.
I am not saying I like Trump. In 2016 when he was running for the first time I stood behind the back then very unpopular opinion that he is a fascist and I would have loved to have been wrong about it.
Economists claim to be like physicists, neutral and just observing, but somehow the economically benefitial measures always benefit the few at the cost of the many. Now that has nothing to do with economics per se. Marx was an economist after all. It has to do with how economics are used by the political class.
I have an interest in econophysics and what people think of as "economics" is mostly bullshit.
David Ruelle put it best in 1991 when he summed up economics as "We don't currently have the tools to properly study this subject". 35 years later we only have slightly better tools.
Economist here. (Started as programmer, worked in finance, got Masters in Econ.) Econ is a big field. I think it knows a lot at the microeconomics level. There are impressive mathematical tools and economists have found “natural experiments” which test causality.
Macroeconomists don’t know much at all. We can’t even create artificial economies - the agent-based simulations have dozens of parameters and our tools are bad at studying those imperfect fake economies.
I’ve looked a bit into econophysics. They seem more on the path to getting somewhere. But it’s still a long road.
reply