this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
431 points (96.5% liked)

Showerthoughts

42414 readers
600 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
vatlark@lemmy.world
forkball@lemmy.world
SuperEars@lemmy.world
431
Companies should by law have to pay you for each interview round. (lemmy.ml)
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Not only does this disincentivize HR from running fake vacancies or stringing multiple candidates on just to keep their options open, but it also solves the problem of unemployed people job-searching effectively working full-time for free. The fact that companies would have to pay to hire workers would mean they try to make the selection as short and effective as possible.

Edit: From the business POV:

  • Businesses would have a limited budget for hiring so would limit process to 10 applicants and would have to pick those randomly. Less time spent on interviewing but also might miss the ideal candidate. Although the difference would fall sharply with larger pools.
  • And 000s of people now stuck wo any appls at all (although better than writing fake, futile appls), and no money. Not enough jobs on the market would translate into not enough paying applications for them to be able to substitute unemployment benefits.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sunsofold@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

Two immediate thoughts:

One key there is 'savvy manager.' I've met too many who would see a line item for interviews and say 'why is this so high? Don't the HR team vet these people. I'm cutting the budget for interviews. Hey, Direct Report, I just saved the company another several thousand dollars a year. Aren't I great?'

And neither way explains a reason one would do MORE interviews if candidates were paid than while they were free. The cost increase for doubling the number of interviewees while we still aren't paying them is ~$0. You could centuple the number of interviews and 100*0 is still 0. There is still no incentive to do something MORE after it has a cost. If you want to hire the right person, you'll do as many interviews as it takes, until the cost of interviews grows beyond the expected cost of hiring a suboptimal candidate. That's true now. Why would it be different then?