[rewmie]

> I honestly think you should aim to make jobseekers pay instead of the job offerers.

If I was a job seeker, specially if I was out of a job, I would never ever spend a single cent on a job application service, particularly one that does not work as a job board.

All job boards such as LinkedIn already support some job application tracker features, including through third-party services. If you have access to a text file/spreadsheet, you can easily fill in the blanks to track your own job applications. Any third party job application service ends up being only the n+1 webapp you'll be using anyway,so why pay for the one out of n+1 particularly if it doesn't add any value?

There are plenty of job application tracking services out there already, but from the applicant's pov the only issue worth fixing is how you end up using a different service for each company you applied for. Job boards such as LinkedIn kind of mitigate this problem due to its massive adoption, but still some companies only use LinkedIn to route applicants to their own service. Adding yet another job application tracker to the mix solves nothing, and is definitely not worth paying for as an applicant.

[Grimburger]

> If I was a job seeker, specially if I was out of a job, I would never ever spend a single cent on a job application service

Find this very hard to believe. You really wouldn't spend $1 to submit a job application to a position that is your bread and butter while unemployed? Even if it meant there wasn't hundreds of others spamming the same endpoint? Taking such an ideological high ground over a few cents rarely works out well.

I've seen/been on both ends long before covid/wfh stuff and the worldwide remote market is a complete fucking mess today due to automation, it's bots all the way down and not a single bit closer to good client/contractor relationships, you really have to wade through the weeds to find anyone half decent.

Again, I ask you to post a job online and see the results for yourself then reconsider my comment.

[rewmie]

> Find this very hard to believe. You really wouldn't spend $1 to submit a job application to a position that is your bread and butter while unemployed?

No, it's a stupid concept, and one that turns posting fake job ads into a profitable scam.

> Even if it meant there wasn't hundreds of others spamming the same endpoint?

Take a minute to think about that nonsense. Do you really think a company will want to risk losing the ideal candidate to fill it's position just because some mastermind decided to charge for each application?

Specially when every single company out there already has no problem posting their own job ads without charging applicants.

> Taking such an ideological high ground over a few cents rarely works out well.

Nonsense. It's a stupid move that goes against the best interests of all parties involved. But don't take my word for it. Go ahead and invest your cash on yet another job tracking service and put a paywall on applicants. Best of luck.

[Grimburger]

> turns posting fake job ads into a profitable scam

God forbid that the average software developer actually does 5 mins of research into the company before shooting off a resume, even worse before loading 700 npm packages and running build scripts on their computer for a quick "test" assessment?

All I see in this thread is reactionary stuff from people who get kneejerk offended by the idea of paying to apply to jobs. The market is getting entirely automated from end to end and some who want to hire don't particularly want that.

[sweetjuly]

This is already how it works for renting an apartment in the US (and often up to $75 per applicant, so each roommate has to pay!), the fact that companies don't charge you an application fee is merely convention. I'd be horrified but not surprised if we see a day where minimum wage jobs start charging an application fee to "cover the cost of background checks" or some other nonsense like that as corporate greed stretches ever further.