[michaelt]

Well, recruiters do produce /some/ value.

For employers, recruiters will do the dirty business the employers don't want to know about. For example, ignoring PII legislation to get a larger pool of contacts. Advertising highly paid nonexistent jobs to harvest CVs. Lying to candidates and pressuring them if they're wavering.

These convert into more hires.

For employees, recruiters will bypass bullshit job applicant websites that make you re-type your CV into their agonisingly long forms. They'll free you from emotionally draining work like customising your CV and writing a thoughtful cover letter - or even to really know what an employer does before applying to them. Often they'll also tell you interview questions in advance, and some will help you cheat on take-home tests.

This converts into less effort needed per job offer.

I'm not saying I like them - clearly, I see big disadvantages - but there are reasons they've lasted as long as they have, as an industry.

[cptskippy]

> These convert into more hires.

And more fires. This is why you see more and more Contract-To-Hire and Temp-To-Hire positions being posted.

Recruiters provide bad or inappropriate candidates to the employer. When we go through recruiters we spend a lot of wasted time interviewing candidates that should have never been sent to us.