[biztos]

What do you mean by "can't afford to?"

Because you can't possibly mean you think candidates are going to fly out for an interview at their own expense.

Traditionally (i.e. pre-Covid) flying out a senior candidate was the standard signal that both sides were taking the process seriously. And for competitive hires, the quality of the hotel and the restaurants they were taken to and the seniority of the people who joined for dinner were all very important indicators.

I've been working remote since 2009 but I kinda miss the old ways.

[neilv]

> the quality of the hotel and the restaurants they were taken to and the seniority of the people who joined for dinner were all very important indicators.

I maybe once misinterpreted this. I was flattered to be having dinner with the well-regarded co-founder and two other highly-ranked people, but I thought the nice hotel and the fancy restaurant was just their everyday extravagant lifestyle.

Despite being obviously unfamiliar and uncomfortable with the affluent lifestyle conventions, I did get the offer. Had I known that the nice restaurant and VIPs might be specifically to say that they valued me, I would've been more likely to accept the offer.

[rahkiin]

Positive reading: cannot afford the time (off from their current employer, away from family, …)

[bovermyer]

Speaking from the point of view of an interviewee rather than an interviewer... I would pay for flying out to someplace for an in-person interview on my own dime, if I thought I would get a reasonable return on investment.

If the interviewer _expected_ that I would pay for a cross-country (or cross-border) flight myself, that would cast a shadow on the opportunity for me.

[codetrotter]

I live in Europe and work for a company based in the USA.

I probably wouldn’t have had this job if the job listing had said that in-person interviews might be required, because if I read that back then I probably would have thought:

1. Flying all the way to the USA is expensive.

2. It takes a lot of time.

3. I’ll be exhausted from the flight when I arrive.

4. There’s probably a bunch of other people applying for this job. What’s the point in flying all that way for a job I don’t even know if I’ll get hired for.

In reality of course, there are other people working for that same company that live in Europe, including people in managerial roles, so if they had been the type of company to ask for an in-person interview they probably would have asked that I meet in a neighboring country. Not that I fly all the way to the USA for an interview.

Luckily for me, the job listing never said anything about any in-person interviews so I never started thinking about what it would mean to maybe have to fly to the USA and therefore I happily proceeded to apply for the job and after a take-home assignment and a few remote interviews I got hired :)

And now in present day, if I were to apply to a job in the current market I would probably apply even if the company was far away and mentioned that in-person interviews might be required. After all, it might not necessarily mean that long of a flight even. They could also have people working in countries near to you. And if the in-person interview does turn out to be too far away well you can always say no at that point. And in order to not waste too much of your own time you can keep applying and interviewing for other jobs in the meantime also, all the way up to when you finally get hired and have a contract for work signed.

[theonething]

You're reasoning doesn't make sense.

You're saying that if an employer expected you to pay for the flight for an interview, that would be a red flag.

But then you say that as an interviewer, you would be willing to pay for the flight for an interview (if you thought it would be reasonable ROI).

The situation where you would be willing to pay for the flight implies that the employer would not pay for the flight (or else why would you pay for the flight?). So according to your own logic, that would raise a red flag (because the employer won't pay for the flight and expects you to). Then why would you be willing to pay for the flight to interview at an employer that is raising a red flag for you? Makes no sense at all.

[hansvm]

I have no idea _why_ they wrote that up, but the points do separately make sense. They're willing to pay for a flight in the abstract, just not in the current timeline where employers know they're supposed to pay for it.

[nosioptar]

> What do you mean by "can't afford to?"

Cat boarding is pricey. I couldn't afford it right now, even for a very short trip. I doubt any job would offer to pick up the tab.

[dgfitz]

I presume your cat is like all other cats and shits inside the house.

Get an automated food/water dispenser, save yourself some money.

[benhurmarcel]

For seniors maybe but for juniors it’s not rare to have to fly out in your own dime unfortunately.

For finding my first job I had to pay for a few trips myself (flights and hotel).

[semiquaver]

Just to counter your anecdote with another of equal value, the only time I’ve ever traveled for an interview was for my first software dev job when I had zero experience. Flight and hotel was paid for by the company. I’ve never heard of anyone other than an employer paying for interview travel expenses.

[BehindBlueEyes]

Same, I was always either able to interview fully remotely or had my trip and hotel paid for even for junior roles.

[ghaff]

Yeah, flying someplace for interviews used to be pretty much the necessary stage for interviews after (maybe) a phone interview.

[brewdad]

On the employer's dime though.

[ghaff]

Correct.