[HN Gopher] Jumpstart: A recruitment startup flipping the job hu...
___________________________________________________________________
Jumpstart: A recruitment startup flipping the job hunt on its head
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 42 points
Date : 2023-04-16 01:03 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.maddyness.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.maddyness.com)
| EGreg wrote:
| So founder dating with vetted founders?
| concerned_ wrote:
| Software engineers need to start having serious conversations
| about whether non contract employment is even a good idea.
|
| Yes there are pitfalls to permanent contracting, and some folks
| dont have the stomach for it. As a contractor, I see employees
| doing less and less dedicated work, and also when it comes to
| devops training and cloud adoption employees usually seem behind
| the curve.
| ShadowBanThis01 wrote:
| So they have this whole article, and don't link to the
| "Jumpstart" site. At least not that I can see. And it's not
| exactly a unique name.
|
| Editorial failure.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| It's funny. At my company, the company was cheap. They paid
| "competitive" wages, which is code for "substantially less than
| prevailing."
|
| As a hiring manager, I was constantly in the position of having
| to pitch the job to the candidate.
|
| I feel it worked out. We got quite a few highly skilled people,
| that stayed for a long time, but the hiring process was quite
| gruelling, for me.
| pipes wrote:
| I'm not clicking this. Is it an infomercial?
| karpour wrote:
| The website gets stuck on the fancy loading animation in Firefox.
| Not a great (jump)start.
| whitemary wrote:
| People want security. Startups can't provide that. End of convo.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| If the economy is good and you are connected in the startup
| scene you can someday get a new job in a few days or weeks if a
| startup fails. there is no stigma in being involved in a failed
| startup.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Startups also want to pay you less and expect more out of you
| for that money. It used to be you could potentially get a
| payday out of the equity but lately it seems somehow, magically
| that ends up with the founders and investors. I don't see a
| compelling reason to work for a startup in 2023.
| version_five wrote:
| More control over your own destiny and the company's? If you
| just want to do what someone tells you and conform (which
| most people do, and that's fine) you're better off with a
| bigger company. If you want a chance to defence what you do,
| startup is better. I would agree that it's important to not
| join a startup that wants to pretend it's a big company, or
| you get the worst of both worlds.
| esafak wrote:
| Because you like the mission, and having a palpable impact,
| and dislike bureaucracy, and busy work.
|
| The equity equation for startups changed over time because
| the abundance of venture capital made it possible for
| startups to avoid going public to raise capital, and the
| attendant scrutiny. But this meant that workers' equity
| stayed illiquid longer. I do not think startups conspired
| against workers.
| curun1r wrote:
| There's more to life than money. Autonomy, mastery and
| purpose. Those are the textbook three dimensions of intrinsic
| motivators that lead to job satisfaction, and it's often much
| easier to find those in a startup. Working in a more
| established company can be soul sucking. Sure, you make more
| and you don't have to worry as much about the whole thing
| failing and needing to find another job, but you're in a
| position where you can meaningfully move the needle on the
| company's success. You're not a cog in a very large machine.
| You're going to be given more freedom on how to accomplish
| things. And the mission of a startup can often feel much more
| compelling.
|
| To some extent, it can feel very different depending on
| whether you've got a family to support. Having a family as a
| sense of purpose makes you want to choose something more
| solid in service of that. But to those without kids, finding
| purpose in work can feel more appealing and compromising on
| security and pay to get that freedom and sense of purpose can
| be much more compelling than trying to find purpose in money,
| which is just a losing proposition for most people.
| [deleted]
| EGreg wrote:
| Hey didnt the guy say end of convo?
|
| Now you've made him out to seem like a liar...
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Tell that to Microsoft, Google and Amazon employees that were
| just laid off by the 10s of thousands.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Most of them were not engineers
| ShadowBanThis01 wrote:
| Pfff, right. That seems to be a popular lie told by
| companies.
| ghaff wrote:
| It's probably more like a popular lie told by engineers.
| Yes, layoffs have been in a mixture of roles as far as I
| can tell. But there's definitely this wishful thinking in
| some circles that it's just administrative and marketing
| people.
| Eumenes wrote:
| You can usually get a solid 2-4 years at a place, thats pretty
| secure ... then jump to a new place
| projectazorian wrote:
| If a startup will let you work on things a more established
| company wouldn't, you can acquire skills that bolster your
| long-term income and job security.
|
| Also, not every startup is "pre-revenue" with 6 months of
| runway. There are many startups out there with real product-
| market fit, several years of runway, and prudent financial
| management in place.
| entropyneur wrote:
| Way to extrapolate your own preferences on everyone. For me,
| security isn't even on the list of things I look for in a job.
| I'd take a startup job over a mature company any day and I wish
| looking for startup jobs specifically was easier than it is
| now.
| tshanmu wrote:
| Big companies don't provide security as well. Job security as
| it was avaliable a generation ago does not exist in US as far
| as I know.
| rco8786 wrote:
| Relatively speaking the bigger the company the better the job
| security. Nothing is ever risk free. But a job at a large
| pubco is way more secure than a job at a random startup with
| 6 months of runway.
|
| It was exactly the same a generation ago. unless you're
| referring to industries that used to have strong unions 3-4
| generations ago or something.
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| A generation as in 20 years ago? Are you sure you want to
| claim that those people had job security? 3-4 years later,
| those people would be out of a job.
|
| 40 years? Lets see what Volker was doing to maintain that
| position.
|
| 60 years? Now you're getting to a place that the term might
| have made sense. But only in this place, and only if your
| entire career lasted less than 15 years.
|
| 80 years? Well, we're in a war, don't know how much that
| counts for job prospects but a military career is a career.
| Clubber wrote:
| I lived through the dot bomb 22 years ago and was
| unemployed for 6 months. Had to move to another city to
| find work. It's been this way since probably the beginning
| of the 1980s. Neoliberalism brought in by Reagan and
| reinforced by Clinton (and everyone since) killed that
| world.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
| ghaff wrote:
| The rust belt was rusting since before Reagan. From a
| well-paid secure middle-class [added: blue collar] jobs
| perspective it was the loss of all those union jobs to
| foreign competition that made that lifestyle a lot
| harder. I wouldn't blame any specific president or
| individual.
|
| Dot bomb was a specific nuclear winter for tech which I
| personally only managed to get through, albeit with not
| great earnings through the 2000s, with great fortune as I
| landed something new almost immediately. The broader
| economy was much less affected just as tech was less
| affected by 2008.
| mgarfias wrote:
| Yep. But the chances are greater that the startup will die in
| a given timeframe.
| [deleted]
| bartvk wrote:
| Keep in mind that they first focused on young people just
| finishing college. These typically don't yet have a family, nor
| experienced lifestyle inflation, so may be less focused on
| security.
| duxup wrote:
| I'm kinda lost on understanding what exactly is happening here.
|
| They've placed all of 270 people, "in junior roles within
| startups, across ops, sales, marketing and their niche: the
| founder associate role".
|
| And these very early start ups are paying Jumpstart? For access
| to a handful of vetted ... jr. people?
|
| People want to pay them for that?
|
| The larger question is of course if / how Jumpstart finds these
| quality candidates, and are the candidates paying Jumpstart too
| or something?
| ShadowBanThis01 wrote:
| I'm glad I wasn't the only one who doesn't get why this is so
| "turned on its head."
|
| Why all the hoopla over junior roles? It seems to me that
| startups need experienced people who are nonetheless excited
| about the startup environment and energy, and willing to go the
| extra mile. People like that might be harder to find, thus
| warranting a dedicated service. I'd be interested.
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| Yeah, I'm confused about it as well. It seems like the
| candidates are the ones getting most of the value out of the
| program, so they should be the ones paying, right? And that
| "founder associate" role they hype up, it sounds like it's
| more like a "founder's assistant" gig than anything, which
| still sounds misleading, because I'm sure these people get
| little to none of the upside of being a founder.
| projectazorian wrote:
| This seems like a boot camp by another name, albeit with a high
| bar for admission.
|
| Not that that's a bad thing, the few boot camps with some rigor
| to them do have a solid track record of generating candidates
| from non-traditional backgrounds.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-16 23:01 UTC)