Startups often pivot to other things well after YC funds them.

YC also backed Dreamworld which is the most obvious of scams: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26898266

Dunno what their validation process is, but every so often it reveals some glaring lapses.

(American here. Not defending the concept. Just stating facts.)

In developing countries, paying to have access to a job is common[0]. Highly sought after jobs for their social reputation (like airline attendent) often require applicants to pay a fee for the opportunity.

You also see this in roles that accept bribes. When police collect cash bribes, their bosses need to see some of that money. One way they do is by requiring people to pay upfront a fee to get access to the role of bribe accepter.

[0] - https://e.vnexpress.net/projects/in-vietnam-a-delicate-dance...

It's true, and that's exactly why it's a catastrophic idea and should be property identified as a form of corruption. In those countries (and you have some form of those issues creeping in western countries if you look attentively) you have an elite, a cast forming around some aspect of public management as the only way to get those kind of job is to get enough money to get it and the only way to get enough money is to be part of the cast. As such after only one generation those positions are filled by people that are 1) not the best and 2) often incompetent.

Could you try to find words? There’s so much outage but not a lot of cogent criticism.

This is going to heavily bias the job market in favor of people who have wealthy contacts willing to throw down money.

This might not seem quite as dystopian from the lens of just high paying silicon valley software jobs for in demand people. But imagine this system applied everywhere - it's horrendous.

It unbalances access to jobs by family wealth and creates yet another:tm: skip annoying thing if you are rich enough and/or have enough friends who are rich enough. Somebody coming out of a life hiccup like family issues or health issues is gonna have a harder time skipping the interview while also having a harder time interviewing.

The return on investment aspect could just get gamed by companies being excessively selective on which candidates they allow to stay past 2 months.

And finally it extends the worse thing that exists in our society: "It's easier to make money if you have money."

This is what creates and enforces our class system, this is what makes it harder for historically disadvantaged groups to get ahead, and such a product would just extend this.

Hiring people based on how many friends-with-money-to-burn they have is going to be extremely discriminatory.

E.g. in the US this is usually how we hire the President. The best fundraisers climb the party ranks and get the job. 98% of hired Presidents have been well-connected, rich, white men.

It creates various perverse incentives, so even if it might work if all the involved parties are well-behaved, it pushes the situation towards people not "behaving well", at which point the proposed system would not get good results.

It incentivizes abusive companies to fire people quickly after firing - most companies do it, but some do; and the proposed system would increase that.

It incentivizes behind-the-back deals with ex-coworkers, stressing ethics and relationships.

It incentivizes inequality - it gives an advantage to people with a wealthy "support network" and creates a barrier to people who don't have one, if a company prefers to do hiring this way.

To me it feels like a "you won a million dollars, please send us $1k to cover the wire transfer costs" scam. Employment in the US is at-will, as an employee I have zero guarantee that I won't be fired the very next day.

Edit: s/be/me

I like the idea. I get why it initially seems like buying jobs, but it is really just you being allowed to offer a guarantee that your word is backed up by something.

But it really is just buying jobs. For many people, the $50 minimum is nothing. For most people (in the US anyway), it's more than you'd be willing to invest in any coworker, no matter how good they are. And for many people, it's the difference between paying rent or not.

The kid from a rich family will have no problem getting his parents, and family friends to slap $50 down. The kid who grew up in public housing? Not gonna happen.

I want to like the idea. Having a better way to connect likely-qualified candidates and jobs is a good thing. But a set amount of money really isn't a good guarantee of anything.

I assume they require that the money comes from a former manager or co-worker and if you work in tech in the USA/Canada, $50 shouldn't be a lot to most co-workers.

And if you want to buy an internship, you can just plop your kid at a startup for free. Unpaid internships are how you buy experience already.

They claim to verify that all the money comes from former coworkers not friends and family.

I feel like many people have judged without really understanding the details.

They are asserting that, however, as this seems a very hard task to really prevent it and they simply assert that they will succeed (especially since if they don't succeed, they don't lose anything, the employer does) without providing any arguments why they think they have an effective solution to this hard problem, their assertion that they'll somehow beat all fraud attempts is simply not convincing.

But this would make it disproportionally easier for people with wealthier friends/family while creating a chilling effect against people from a poorer background, or immigrants.

As a job candidate I would consider doing this.

As a former colleague I would consider staking somebody.

As a hiring manager, I would not do this. It’s just too weird. Hiring is hard enough.

Would you change your mind if they managed to filter people sufficiently to make hiring take far fewer interviews and they could actually source good candidates?

It is weird now, but my parents also think it is weird to interview 8 times for one job.

Honestly, no, not until it’s proven out. and I fear there will be a selection bias where more questionable companies would use this first before established and reputable companies. They need to make it not weird first like sign Uber or another 2nd tier tech company and socialize the idea so it’s acceptable for small companies.

Otherwise you look like a scam.

This is what makes me think that when time comes to fund a start up, it'll be a piece of cake.

Not really. YCombinator throws a lot of relatively small amounts of money at the wall to see what sticks. Getting past that initial investment is the bit where you will fail. The runway the YCombinator cash will give you is not very long.

it's one if those ideas that sound bad initially but may turn out to be great in practice, like Airbnb

and reputation is much stronger signal than leetcode hoops

> may turn out to be great in practice, like Airbnb

As someone who thinks that affordable housing is a human right, I wouldn't describe Airbnb as "great in practice".

exactly. airBnB and Uber are all great on paper.

carpool, but let's call it ride share, because you go there anyway. 5 seconds later it's a billion dollar machine fighting labor laws. while the other one was supposed to be a bit better couch surfing, while you are on a longer vacation, you let someone to vacation at your place, brilliant. 5 minu5 later cities' housing markets are in flames due to tourists due to the induced demand of cheap apartments.

what the fuck.

yeah, hotels and taxi services were awful (both due to fucking NIMBYism of ossified cities that are unable to zone for high density and build transit networks), but the solution should have been something human centered, not startupization of that awfulness and appification of selfishness.

(yes, I used both services.)

I think that's another out-of-touch criticism where people who have no problem paying for expensive hotels don't understand why AirBnB provides value to people on a budget.

You think incorrectly. I've never been able to afford a hotel when travelling, much less an expensive one.

Much like I'll never be able to afford a house because of people who think that housing is an investment and not somewhere to live.

so where do you stay at when travelling?

Typically the couch of a friend in the area.

Airbnb is not a good example - it still has its own problems and controversy. But even with that said, it is nowhere near as ripe for abuse and fraud as Skip the Interview is.

Also, there's already a solution for reputation - the standard references system that already exists. This soon-to-be-former CEO is claiming that references are "useless," and then implies that someone being able to buy themselves a job by harassing their former coworkers for money is a better system. It's a ridiculous premise and would create incredibly toxic culture in professional networks.

Is there any evidence that the "startups" that we should be frustrated are getting funded are the ones started by people from diverse backgrounds? Chris Evans, the founder of the startup in the OP, doesn't sound like someone from a diverse background.

They've also backed meaningless ridiculous companies with your standard straight white male tech-bro founders, too, though.