[taway_1212]

My logic is that if something needs to be actively sold (pushed via recruiters), it's most likely average at best. I'm betting that the best jobs don't go through recruiters (or maybe they do if that's the company-wide policy, but the hiring manager already has a candidate in mind when they posts the ad).

[ryandrake]

You've hit on a truth here. Most of the jobs available through recruiters are what I like to call "dog jobs". The ones that aren't filled internally and don't instantly get a line of top candidates because they are so good or pay so well--the ones that NEED someone to sell them. Those are the jobs that are available on job boards and that recruiters and are trying to fill--not the awesome ones.

Think about it like the real estate market (in normal markets, not Silicon Valley). Some houses sell before they even hit the market. A few also sell after the realtor does a few private showings. The rest are the "dog properties" that go on the MLS and need heavy marketing to sell.

[smallnamespace]

> The rest are the "dog properties" that go on the MLS and need heavy marketing to sell.

That's... a strange way to look at the housing market. The norm is to list your property and then see what bids you get. Putting your house on the market is not some weird trick to pass a crappy house on to a bunch of rubes, or am I misunderstanding you?

Like, how do you reliably find a willing buyer pre-listing, and how do you know that's a good price (other than just blindly trusting your agent), if you don't even bother listing it? Listing is as much about price discovery as it is about finding more buyers.

[ticviking]

The point is that the best homes(top 10%) rarely need to go on the market.

The hotter the market, the more realtors know buyers willing to pay a lot for the first home that meets all their needs. Hence more homes are sold before listed.

[daurnimator]

> The point is that the best homes(top 10%) rarely need to go on the market.

I think that's locale specific. Except in the 15million+ bracket, auctions (here in Melbourne at least) tend to get the best money for the seller.

[gamblor956]

The housing market in the Bay Area is very different from the housing market literally everywhere else in the US (except in some ways Manhattan). Pre-listing sales are very rare outside of SFBA and Manhattan, and the vast majority of domestic residential sales (>70%) are of MLS-listed houses/units, even in major metros like Chicago and LA.

The "dog properties" don't get listed on MLS at all; there is a cost to listing on MLS and the dog properties generally don't generate enough interest to justify the expense (and usually don't even attract a realtor willing to invest the effort).

[sumeno]

This assumes that the Venn diagram of "top candidates" and "people actively looking for jobs" overlaps significantly. The best candidate for a job may not be looking for a job so companies pay recruiters to find them.

If the quality that companies were getting from regular applications was better than the quality they get from their recruiters why would companies pay to have recruiters?

[ryandrake]

I think we're agreeing with each other. Recruiters are needed if the job does not fill itself naturally, and a job will tend to get the candidate flow it deserves.

If there's an awesome job available out there, with way above average pay, benefits, great opportunities for advancement, good work/life balance, etc., you'll fill it with a top talent. You're not going to need a recruiter. Word will get around even to people who are not actively looking, trust me. Similarly, if you have an "average pay for an average worker" kind of job, you'll find that average worker.

When you have a ho-hum average job but you want top talent, then you're going to need that recruiter because the job needs to be actively sold.

I invite anyone who works at a company that pays 3X average salaries or is well known for being an unbelievably great place to work to reply and tell me they have trouble hiring.

[kcorbitt]

Google and Facebook both pay reasonably above-market and have high employee satisfaction, and receive more resumes in a month than they could possibly hire in the next 10 years. They also both have ginormous internal recruiting departments.

They could definitely fill their need for new software engineers naturally, but presumably have data that the quality of candidates they get by bothering a substantial fraction of the world's software engineers on ~a yearly basis gets them better applicants and engineers.

[Anderkent]

> They could definitely fill their need for new software engineers naturally

Why do you think so? Just because you receive X resumes doesn't mean they're all qualified to work there.

[Chyzwar]

Jobs do not fill magically. Most of us is too busy with work, side projects or family to track if your amazing company have new hot opening.

Above average people are usually treated well in theirs jobs. If you want to hire them you need to actively approach and lure into applying. Even then, they will not bother to refresh algorithms questions for whiter-boarding.

Below average people are looking for jobs because they are on PIP or they have toxic relationship with management or they will never get promoted in current role and need to change jobs.

[sumeno]

I don't think it is really trying to sell the position, it's trying to find quality engineers who aren't looking.

Really talented engineers already have jobs and may not be actively looking to move, but if the right opportunity for the right company presents itself then they might consider it.