I agree with this approach.

In this field, unless you're hiring a junior engineer, you can have a reasonable expectation that a potential candidate will fly out for an interview even if it's a 100% remote job.

If they refuse, well, there's a chance it's just because they can't afford to. The chance is far greater, though, that you dodged a bullet.

What do you mean by "can't afford to?"

Because you can't possibly mean you think candidates are going to fly out for an interview at their own expense.

Traditionally (i.e. pre-Covid) flying out a senior candidate was the standard signal that both sides were taking the process seriously. And for competitive hires, the quality of the hotel and the restaurants they were taken to and the seniority of the people who joined for dinner were all very important indicators.

I've been working remote since 2009 but I kinda miss the old ways.

> the quality of the hotel and the restaurants they were taken to and the seniority of the people who joined for dinner were all very important indicators.

I maybe once misinterpreted this. I was flattered to be having dinner with the well-regarded co-founder and two other highly-ranked people, but I thought the nice hotel and the fancy restaurant was just their everyday extravagant lifestyle.

Despite being obviously unfamiliar and uncomfortable with the affluent lifestyle conventions, I did get the offer. Had I known that the nice restaurant and VIPs might be specifically to say that they valued me, I would've been more likely to accept the offer.

Speaking from the point of view of an interviewee rather than an interviewer... I would pay for flying out to someplace for an in-person interview on my own dime, if I thought I would get a reasonable return on investment.

If the interviewer _expected_ that I would pay for a cross-country (or cross-border) flight myself, that would cast a shadow on the opportunity for me.

I live in Europe and work for a company based in the USA.

I probably wouldn’t have had this job if the job listing had said that in-person interviews might be required, because if I read that back then I probably would have thought:

1. Flying all the way to the USA is expensive.

2. It takes a lot of time.

3. I’ll be exhausted from the flight when I arrive.

4. There’s probably a bunch of other people applying for this job. What’s the point in flying all that way for a job I don’t even know if I’ll get hired for.

In reality of course, there are other people working for that same company that live in Europe, including people in managerial roles, so if they had been the type of company to ask for an in-person interview they probably would have asked that I meet in a neighboring country. Not that I fly all the way to the USA for an interview.

Luckily for me, the job listing never said anything about any in-person interviews so I never started thinking about what it would mean to maybe have to fly to the USA and therefore I happily proceeded to apply for the job and after a take-home assignment and a few remote interviews I got hired :)

And now in present day, if I were to apply to a job in the current market I would probably apply even if the company was far away and mentioned that in-person interviews might be required. After all, it might not necessarily mean that long of a flight even. They could also have people working in countries near to you. And if the in-person interview does turn out to be too far away well you can always say no at that point. And in order to not waste too much of your own time you can keep applying and interviewing for other jobs in the meantime also, all the way up to when you finally get hired and have a contract for work signed.

You're reasoning doesn't make sense.

You're saying that if an employer expected you to pay for the flight for an interview, that would be a red flag.

But then you say that as an interviewer, you would be willing to pay for the flight for an interview (if you thought it would be reasonable ROI).

The situation where you would be willing to pay for the flight implies that the employer would not pay for the flight (or else why would you pay for the flight?). So according to your own logic, that would raise a red flag (because the employer won't pay for the flight and expects you to). Then why would you be willing to pay for the flight to interview at an employer that is raising a red flag for you? Makes no sense at all.

I have no idea _why_ they wrote that up, but the points do separately make sense. They're willing to pay for a flight in the abstract, just not in the current timeline where employers know they're supposed to pay for it.

Positive reading: cannot afford the time (off from their current employer, away from family, …)

Yeah, flying someplace for interviews used to be pretty much the necessary stage for interviews after (maybe) a phone interview.

On the employer's dime though.

Correct.

> What do you mean by "can't afford to?"

Cat boarding is pricey. I couldn't afford it right now, even for a very short trip. I doubt any job would offer to pick up the tab.

I presume your cat is like all other cats and shits inside the house.

Get an automated food/water dispenser, save yourself some money.

For seniors maybe but for juniors it’s not rare to have to fly out in your own dime unfortunately.

For finding my first job I had to pay for a few trips myself (flights and hotel).

Just to counter your anecdote with another of equal value, the only time I’ve ever traveled for an interview was for my first software dev job when I had zero experience. Flight and hotel was paid for by the company. I’ve never heard of anyone other than an employer paying for interview travel expenses.

Same, I was always either able to interview fully remotely or had my trip and hotel paid for even for junior roles.

I have 15 YOE and I am a very qualified senior candidate, at least IMO.

There is no world where I would take an interview that I had to fly out and stay at a hotel on my own dime. That would 100% sound like some sort of scam job to me.

Seconded.

Fly out and hotel yes, on own dime, no.

I’ve seen the movie Dead Man. No way am I paying my own flight and lodging costs for a potential employer that has no accountability to me.

To be clear, you expect candidates to fly out on their own dime just for the interview?

I think the expectation is that any travel is paid for by the company. I've even had a per diem given to me to pay for meals as well.

That was always the norm for me.

Not candidates for a position I'm hiring for, no.

But positions that I'm applying to? I'm senior enough now that if I can't negotiate a paid-travel interview, clearly I either don't care enough and should cross that opportunity off my list, or it's tempting enough that I don't care.

It's more about the reaction by obvious scammers.

What’s the scam? Get a job they can’t do…continue to get paid?

1 paycheck of just a few thousand dollars USD is a lot of money in other countries.

The scam is hold on to the job for at least 1 paycheck. It’s a expensive for companies to (legally) fire people, so if you get hired you typically can get at least a few grand even if you do zero work.

> It’s a expensive for companies to (legally) fire people

Maybe in Europe, in the US it's an email.

Due to the wealth disparities involved, a month’s Silicon Valley money is a years income for a scammer in a poor country.

So just produce LLM-level code, make excuses, say you’re learning the code base, get lots of help from colleagues, turn in mediocre work, and if you can hang on for three months before they fire you - that’s decent money!

Hell, you might even get promoted to management!

> So just produce LLM-level code, make excuses, say you’re learning the code base, get lots of help from colleagues, turn in mediocre work

If they switched from doing all this to pressing people for estimates.

Yep, with very little upfront cost needed.

You're talking about the entity trying to make people spend a nontrivial sum of money, time, and effort to get a job, right?

I agree, though you should pay. The scammers aren’t going to take you up, because they know that the in person will catch them out.

Obviously that’s a financial burden to the company, but minimal compared to the long term costs to the company of an employee.

I can’t imagine you actually work in the US in software and expect candidates to pay to fly out for an interview.

I would withdraw from the process immediately if I encountered a company so cheap

Not only withdraw, but post publicly about said company. That's so beyond the pale it's gotta be a joke

I’ve flown myself out for interviews at companies that were dream jobs. Think: sports industries, not insurance companies. They tended to be small and didn’t have the resources to put together reservations (and would have taken months to figure out budgeting situations)

Yes, I wanted to work for them so badly it was well worth the risk. Sometimes you see opportunities and want to pay for them.

>They tended to be small and didn’t have the resources to put together reservations (and would have taken months to figure out budgeting situations)

This makes no sense. If they can't afford a one-off line item like travel arrangements, how can they possibly make payroll reliably? You're describing either a company with no financial buffer, or one that's asking prospective applicants to subsidize them.

To be honest the DC intern economy runs on rich parents willing to subsidize their kids rubbing shoulders with power.

This is a completely separate problem. Not as bad as in the U.K. but you still have the situation where wages low down in many industries are so poor you can’t afford to take the job unless your parents subsidise you (either they live close enough to give you free housing or they pay your rent for the first 5 years)

Once you “make it” then you have your six figure salary and are good to go.

This is by design to ensure the right people get the jobs.

I don’t have a generalized answer, but they have been making it, I guess is the answer? It’s been over 6 years since I interviewed, but talking with friends they haven’t missed a payroll. Sometimes smoke indicates a fire, sometimes it indicates bbq I guess.

Can’t edit the comment anymore.

But it’s implied that the company would pay for all travel.

The “gotcha” is that the company would also see the departing airport, which exposes foreign candidates posing as US citizens.

> it's just because they can't afford to

Wait, is this another norm that corporate America broke in the last couple of decades? Do people now expect to pay to fly to interviews? When did this happen?

I have a better idea: pay to get through every step of the recruiting process, with steep increase for each stage. Who paid the most - get the job!

There's already industries that think you should pay them for the honor to work for them. (at least companies within said industries i worked for, in gaming, luxury, sports... it's not uncommon). I'm surprised they didn't charge for applications but they'll definitely pay lower wages because the rest is paid for by having their name on your resume.

i saw a tiktok where the guy had his phone propped up but not in view of his webcam, and basically the interviewer's mic was going through his phone on some llm and the llm was spitting out responses for him to reply to the soft questions his interviewer was asking. the interviewer also made him "quickly" turn on his screen sharing so he could see that his computer didn't have anything assisting him.

i haven't done an interview in a while, it's kinda crazy all the things people are pulling now for interviews on both sides. the process feels really broken.

Generally that's why the soft skills questions generally want a response in a STAR (situation, task, action, result) format. It's a lot harder to lie about a story and keep yourself consistent through a back and forth.

But like.. what happens after this supposed trick? I don’t understand how they wouldn’t just be fired after the first week if they can’t actually do the job?

Is it that they are applying to places where you don’t pair program?

Get hired. Go through onboarding. Collect your hiring bonus. Get a few weeks for your first project and fail at it. It gets written off as "they're just new here". Use some "unlimited" vacation time. Get more projects and keep failing at them. Get put on a new team because the eng director wants to give you another chance, and repeat the whole process. Eventually get put on a PIP. Show no improvement at the end of it. Accept a severance in exchange for "resigning" and signing an NDA/liability waiver.

At a large company it is possible for this entire process to draw out for 3-6 months, and you collecting >$100K in in that period.

Signing bonuses almost always have clawback provisions, and I've never heard of someone getting severance from being fired for cause (performance). The only way I can see your scenario playing out is if the employee has some kind of real leverage over the company (e.g., family connections, political backing, etc.).

> Signing bonuses almost always have clawback provisions

Written on a piece of paper, yes, but no company is actually going to sue you in court to recover it. It will cost them more than the value of the bonus to do so. And they know you have already spent the money.

> I've never heard of someone getting severance from being fired for cause (performance)

At large tech companies it is standard for people going through the PIP process to get the option of taking a severance and walking away (and waiving their right to sue the company) instead of waiting for their manager and HR to draw up the paperwork to fire them.

Most places have such chaotic onboarding that it would take a few months to truly get signal that the employee knew nothing.

If it’s remote, sometimes they’ll pay someone else to do the work and pocket the difference. And/or the job may just be a ruse to get credentials in the org because it’s an espionage target or to use as a launch point to go after an espionage target.

That's assuming the interview process tests for job performance with any sort of accuracy.

The reality is that most developers are bad at their jobs.

Also, there's the "fake it till you make it" thinking.

In my ten years I’ve never worked at a place where pairing was the norm. I would love to experience that kind of culture

Agreed, I've worked in a dozen firms now in many different teams and never seen anyone pairing.

In most cases in corporations you are not interviewed by people you will be working with. Interview stage is a generic assessment by random people. Yo simply need to pass them. Also they are usually asking questions not related to the real job.

You're making the (large) assumption that the interviews are actually relevant to the position.

I do technical hiring for remote senior Java roles. I have not noticed a fake applicant problem. Can you share more about it?

I see plenty of people with poor technical skills claiming to be senior. They seem to be real enough though.

In fairness, its probably a lot harder to tell llm java code from human made java code.

People who are serious about doing remote work are going to pass on anything that indicates hybrid. The simplest screening technique is to give instructions within the job post to submit via email rather than the job board form. Even before LLM slop became the norm people were spamming their resumes with Easy Apply.

What do you do when a real person says they'd be happy to meet your fake employee?

were honest with the candidate about why we asked the question.

As someone looking for remote work atm, can confirm this sounds fair to me: if the employer looks legit and would fly me out (like my current employer did), I'd be totally willing to do an onsite interview.

Right now my approach has been focused less on proving my skills, and more on proving I'm a real person. Hah.