[greenyoda]

But in many cases, that answer would be BS. Lots of people have been laid off from their jobs, and would be happy with any job in their field that allows them to feed their family and pay their rent. Their primary objective might not be to grow their career or compensation, just to quickly find a job that pays enough and doesn't suck too much. And if their skills didn't match the ones you needed, they would have never progressed to the point of getting an interview with you, so there's really nothing new to be learned from that answer.

[s1artibartfast]

Sure, the answer might be different for different circumstances, but it isnt really a hard question. As I stated elsewhere, I think the assumption is that a decent candidate should be able to come up with at least one thing they like about a company or look forward to without lying when given a completely blank slate to work with. If you are seeking stability, that can be part of an answer too.

> And if their skills didn't match the ones you needed, they would have never progressed to the point of getting an interview with you, so there's really nothing new to be learned from that answer.

I think this sentiment is part of the challenge. It isn't just a question of skills, but a personal question of motivation and compatibility, and somehow that is being lost. All I'm seeing is that a potential employee that either doesn't understand my question or thinks their time is too valuable to answer it.