Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
"My only concern is that it wouldn't work, which I see as a problem."

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


           

Net Worth Corporation

An agency company that values people directly. Collects all credentials into a knowledgebase of facts based on the curriculum and direct exact experience experienced. Can value people directly
  (-3)
(-3)
  [vote for,
against]

Recruitment is expensive and people are not interchangeable cogs. Some people are more experienced than others. Yet salaries are set based on years of experience. There are experts (and economists) that miss basic facts.

I propose we value people directly and we can use it to distribute resources.

Some universities teach courses that are not the same. Students of one course might not know things another course teaches. So If I was a recruiter I would weight different itemised skills or experiences and appraise based on that.

We can weigh different people based on that exact ingredients of their experiences.

We can also value negative attributes such as bigotedness or "doesn't admit when they are clearly wrong."

One CEO is not interchangeable with another CEO. Nor is a chief technical officer equivalent to another.

Some people experience the same year 10 times and some people genuinely have 10 separate years of different experiences.

Let's turn experience into a number that should map to reward.

chronological, Jun 11 2022

[link]






       1. Good recruiters and HR departments already do this through the technology of the Interview and References to find the person who is best for the position.   

       2. Reducing this to a number is going exactly the wrong direction, because then you create a competitive ranking instead of selecting on real criteria.   

       Think of cafes. At the moment you choose which cafe to go to based on a complex set of criteria including location, personal recommendation, decor, food quality, staff friendliness, and other things that are personal to you (i.e. you would choose a different cafe to me). If you removed all that contextual information and had to choose which cafe to go to based only on a numerical score that would be obviously stupid.
pocmloc, Jun 11 2022
  

       pocmloc so how do you calculate who deserves more in society?   

       Surely someone with more credentials deserves more money as reward.   

       I am arguing for objectivity and clarity in the selection process. You are arguing for qualitative measurements when hiring people.   

       When people put Java in their CV there is a huge variation in skill level for developers when they say they write Java. Most interviews do a coding test and this cuts out 50% of people who cannot program.
chronological, Jun 11 2022
  

       // Surely someone with more credentials deserves more money as reward.//   

       Can't tell whether you're trolling. Either way [-] for the idea.
Voice, Jun 11 2022
  

       //how do you calculate who deserves more in society?// At a very crude level, by how much resource use AND/OR attention is given to them by the general collective of other humans.
pocmloc, Jun 11 2022
  

       I don't remember where I saw it, but "you are paid according to how much it would cost to replace you".
neutrinos_shadow, Jun 12 2022
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle