Videos, including asymmetrical video interviews where the candidate has to record themselves answering questions, are becoming more common for professional jobs as well. It's probably a great screening tool for identifying candidates with no self respect and no other options that can be treated badly throughout employment. If not illegal, this practice should at least be made socially unacceptable. I'm a capitalist, but this kind of thing is definitely an argument against unrestricted capitalism.

An obvious selling feature is that you can get an "ai fairness audit" that shows whatever algorithmic screening they do of these videos isn't affected by protected characteristics. So everyone can applaud about how progressive they are because they degrade everyone equally.

Ah I wouldn't worry about it. The courts don't accept statistical evidence of discrimination, the rejected applicant would actually need to prove discrimination on an individual basis. Source - https://www.culawreview.org/journal/what-constitutes-discrim...

> including asymmetrical video interviews where the candidate has to record themselves answering questions

As technology facilitates pushing this practice further up in the hiring pipeline, even to the point of initial contact, this presents a grim prospect for anyone who is already facing career headwinds due to ageism, let alone any of the other -isms. Ageism is a threat to to everyone regardless of gender, race, national origin etc. The makeup industry is going to be thrilled.

I've always been confused about how ageism, racism, sexism etc. are even compatible with capitalism.

If there's a vast under-employed pool of people of the "wrong" age, race, sex, etc. because "bad" companies refuse to employ them, why don't their "good" competitors seize the opportunity and hire all that untapped talent being left on the table?

you could also ask why were pro sports all white for decades before they began to look for talent outside that pool? didn't team owners (and local fans) want to win games above all else? eventually, yes, winning is what ultimately mattered most - but it took half a century for that priority to be fully recognized as the one that outranked all the others, including racial bias.

I think there are a few factors why both under-employed groups exist and we don't see the invisible hand creating upstarts consisting of old black women dominating their industry.

Many people, even those making hiring decisions, aren't in the entreprenuerial min/max hustle culture. Those employers will consider factors other than skills and the lowest agreeable wage. People tend to like other people similar to themselves so that leaves various undesirables unemployed longer.

The set of potential employers is sometimes limited, especially in the before times when people would only look for work for up to about an hour commute from where they live. Also filter employers down to an industry/skillset. Then filter by employers with openings that coincide when an applicant is looking for a job. Consider two dental technicians in a rural area that start looking for a job on the same day. If one of the three dentists in the region has a preference for some protected class, then the "wrong" applicant may be job hunting for a while longer.

There are also some jobs with tangible incentives for discrimination. Any role that benefits from sex appeal can favor young, attractive females. Jobs that are physically demanding can favor young and fit men.

To some degree it’s the fact that markets aren’t perfectly efficient and companies aren’t perfectly rational. Another component is that biases and stereotypes are often somewhat accurate, more so than random luck.

Capitalism doesn't run on rationality.

Companies don't want to employ people, they want to make money. Read about the antebellum american south and you will find answers to the questions you have posed. Race was invented for the purpose of companies obtaining free labor, and is a true capitalist "innovation". Modern naratives about for profit organizations are far too charitable. If companies were human they would all be psychopaths.

Because the efficient market hypothesis really only makes sense under a bunch of other assumptions; rational actors, perfect information, and parity between buyers and sellers.

Most markets that are important to you do not adhere to these constraints.

I've seen the "answer these questions in a video response" for several professional positions. I just opted out of applying there and was happier for it.

Yeah, that sort of thing is a really solid indicator that you probably don't want to work for the company. But will you have a choice?

McDonalds starts at $15 an hour, it's no longer minimum wage.

$15 is under minimum wage in many parts of the US

Is McDonalds paying the minimum wage anywhere in the US?

Maybe in a very rural area, but I'd be surprised to see a McD there to begin with. Do you have a source? I'm genuinely interested in looking at this more for unrelated reasons.

The federal minimum wage hasn't budged in 14 years. It's closer to the United Nations definitions of poverty than it is to resembling a wage.

> How disillusioned are the execs who come up with these ideas?

They love hearing themselves talk, they probably assume that everyone thinks the same way.

Requiring a video cover letter probably isn't even legal. It certainly opens you way up to allegations of discrimination and is therefore unwise.

I would assume that the employee acquisition middleware provider added "video cover letter" as a feature to distinguish their software suite, the procurement guy fell for it, and the hiring director said "hey, we paid for this feature, we should probably use it."

Asked about legality, the middleware provider would claim that "you see people in an interview, many jobs are remote now and a video cover letter is an extension of that."

That's not true, of course. Having images of the candidates ahead of interviewing allows you to discriminate without the candidate noticing your reaction to their appearance.

Law suits incoming.

Many high ranking fast food executives actively hate, detest, and despise their frontline employees, as in, consider them to be inferior human-like beings whose only duty in life is to cause trouble and give them grief and to cost them their bonuses in the process.

Frontline fast food employees are disobedient money making robots to them.

If the Stanford Prison Experiment could be reproduced ethically, I think using fast food executives as the guards and frontline as the prisoners, it would be very enlightening.