not my expertise but a few thousand dollars seems like a pretty minor cost if you are going to end up paying them 75k a year plus benefits. the amount they spend on training will also be a few thousand.

if it cost them a few thousand dollars to expand pool so they hire someone 20% better then that seems worth it.

As per my CEO, it's ok to do endless interviews to find that one good candidate. It doesn't make sense to me but hey it's not my money. One of our engineering managers was complaining that they had to do 80 interviews to hire one candidate. Colossal waste of time and money. No wonder these companies are still not profitable.

And that candidate leaves as soon as they find a better paying job.

In 2+ years, I've done 331 interviews to hire in single digits.

Maybe you should buy a copy of this book [0] and subtly display it on your desk. Then hope he shows an interest to read it so you can gift it to him.

[0] https://algorithmstoliveby.com/

It could be your money. Money wasted doing this can't go towards your wage.

It's the Dastardly doctrine[1]

[1] https://youtu.be/6rq0RXRnWJU?t=7

The idea is that bringing on a wrong candidate will cause more damage than missing a right one.

There's definitely a balance to strike, some companies would rather bring on everyone and find out who sinks and who swims, others hate firing and will do virtually anything to avoid hiring someone who needs to be let go.

My company paid a bounty on referals, something on the order of $5k ... which is a fraction of what a head hunter would get.

Referred employees outperformed non-referred.

> Doesnt it cost them thousands of dollars

Not in cash terms. The recruiters/interviewers' salaries are "sunk costs" anyway.