[Udo]

> That "False Positive" that you can "quickly fix" (by firing them) is a human being.

I would assert that's not the reason why we currently prefer false positives and don't care about false negatives. It's mostly about risk aversion and personal responsibility of the person who's doing the hiring. If you hire someone who doesn't work out, it's a failure that falls back on you. If you pass on someone amazing, nobody will ever know.

In my opinion, this is also the mechanism behind the "we just can't find enough good people" trope we hear so often. The sad truth is people who interview amazingly well don't even work out nearly as well as they hope. So instead of taking bigger risks on candidates who don't fit the risk aversion profile, they become even more conservative in the future. The climax of this pathology can be observed inside inefficient but high-profile companies who only hire top university grads so they can tell themselves "we only hire the best of the best at Acme Inc".

We're not really in danger of implementing the hiring model you criticize any time soon. But since you bring up the human cost of that hypothetical model, I disagree. Jobs are fluid to begin with, and that trend is going to intensify. It's not a problem as long as the company is generous with both relocation and employee exit procedures. Those who are not generous deserve to be called out anyway.