I’m a veteran of the NYC IT staffing market but recent years have me disillusioned with the business and just doing some consulting work and taking some down time. A recent health scare really makes me want to make some big life changes that include focusing on work that matters. I think we can reduce our family spending to the point where we could take a family pay cut but do work we find fulfilling that ultimately makes a difference in the world. In my mind the goal would be to somehow have a formula that gives 50% of every placement to charity and the rest to cover payroll and overhead until we reach our 150k total salaries at which time everything short of overhead would go to charity. If our message resonated with companies and candidates to a point where our daily focus could be service rather than sales the amount we could give away (as two normal working people) could be incredible.
Question to the HN crowd: Am I crazy, could this work?
I would say instead of just giving away the $$ to charity, why don't you put it towards helping low-income people have career advancement, or training homeless vets, or ex-cons?
There is absolutely no way you will be able to skimp on sales and focus on service. Real businesses pay people large sums because they think they’re worth the price, not out of the kindness of their hearts. If you want to donate a lot of money you’re going to be doing the same kind of work as now and donating more money. Services don’t sell themselves.
If running a staffing agency and donating money doesn’t sound super rewarding all by itself consider taking on people who need a break, training them and sending them out into the working world until they move on.
Look at what Lambda School and Jessica Livingston are doing. http://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/women-learn-to-program-t...
Could you sponsor one person a quarter to do this, to come to your office while doing it and get paid, and then work for you for nine months after?
Or you could work for a company or organisation you actually thought was making a positive difference in the world. I think Lambda School is awesome because they’re trying to make a Lin education that leads to a good job available everywhere. I’m sure you can think of some company you admire.
Or look at the 80,000 hours job board, the product of some smart people looking for jobs that they think will make a big positive impact.
https://80000hours.org/job-board
They're mostly smart people, and I respect them for sticking to their principles.
However, I don't think working at something you feel neutral, or negative, towards, and then donating the bulk of your income, is a path to personal happiness.
You need to do more thinking and reflection on your personal values, priorities, and the work you personally find fulfilling, meaningful, worthwhile. It can take years of thinking to figure out your purpose, but it can be done.
Try this as a place to start:
https://www.romangelperin.com/shop/self-actualizing-people-i...
Or maybe this: http://aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-centr...
https://80000hours.org/articles/comparative-advantage/#shoul...
> Should I earn to give or do direct work?
> We often advise people who say: “I have high earning potential, so I have good personal fit with earning to give, so I should earn to give”.
> But this doesn’t follow. We’re in a situation where we need the right ratio of funders to direct workers, so what matters is comparative advantage. This means you need to compare your earning potential to other people in the community who might do direct work or earn to give.
> If they have even higher earning potential, then you might have a comparative advantage in direct work, even though you have high earning potential compared to people in general.
> Cases like this might be common. There are people doing direct work in the community who could donate over $500,000 per year earning to give. So, even if you have earning potential this high, you might still have a comparative advantage in direct work.
> Of course, some people’s comparative advantage will be earning to give. If it looks like you might be less good than existing people doing direct work, or you have struggled to find work in direct work, we think that earning to give is a great alternative.
Many people I worked with would I think not only want to work with an agency that supports charities, but you could go a step further and also help those employees use their skills at the charities to volunteer, the companies support them too.
Always happy to talk, just ping me a note!
And I suspect that candidates have little loyalty to staffing agencies -- vs more of a broadcast. So you need to keep hustling.
Could you turn these two threads into two birds to kill with one stone? I'm thinking perhaps instead of donating to a 3rd party charity, are you able to perhaps do something like a training and internship program for disadvantaged candidates, be them career switchers, vets, non-college graduates, basically people that slip through HR-nets, with your clients where to get the clients on-board your people into post-training junior experience-building roles for a few months (no or minimal fee for client, you pay a retainer salary to your people) then after 3 or 6 or 9 months if the client wants to retain them you get a lump-fee (and perhaps they stay on your books as an agency too).
Sorry, just thinking aloud. But something like the above seems not only to be a one-off killing two birds with one stone, but might be a sustainable model depending on how you get client buy-in.
Why are you disillusioned with the business?
Why do you feel that simply giving half the money to charity somehow makes it okay to continue working in an industry that you currently see in a negative light?
Do you think you could make a staffing firm that would solve the issues within the industry such that you would stop feeling negatively about it?
I'm all for some charitable giving. I think that helps make the world work better. The world needs some means to help those folks for whom life simply isn't working for some reason.
But I generally feel that when people see regular paid work so negatively and their answer is to do the same work, but give away most of the profit, then this suggests the system is broken. Something is fundamentally wrong. A new model is needed so people can feel that their paid job actually matters and is a positive thing.
Best of luck.
If it were me I'd do an employee owned nonprofit, than a 'profits go to charity'.
So, giving away a % of the revenues shouldn't be necessary, as long as the business does something meaningful for society.
Looks like you would help people make a living, while helping companies find talent. That seems more-than-enough meaningful.
And if you'd like to be even more meaningful, you may experiment with how you select your clients -- so they, too, do meaningful things.
I'd keep all the revenues, not out of greed, but simply so that you don't suffer, allowing you to keep helping society in the long run.
From an economist's view, it is clear that such "market behavior" may be efficient in allocation of ressources, but not morally or ethically efficient. There are many "pareto efficient" equilibria, for example, but the subset of those which are socially desireable is small. Since we are not aware of a good regulatory mechanism that ensures both allocative and distributive efficiency, it is certainly commendable for individuals with wealth to throw their weight into making society better for more people. Another sense of how this may be desirable is that the more we look toward the long term, the more important social incentives should become - while we as humans often think very myopically. This is a view of efficiency.
From a sociologist's perspective, one may say that social norms - for example how much we can and should help other people - are driven by both the behavior around us, and what we observed in the past. So, being able to help people and improve society is something that can move us, collectively, to a better path. And not doing so, may cement a system that is not really desirable, yet binding for individuals.
So indeed, doing things like this may not only feel meaningful, but they are meaningful. And meaning in our actions is important for personal happiness.
It seems like the changes you're proposing are (1) cutting your own spending, and (2) publicizing your charity goals. But neither (1) nor (2) alters your work or gives money to your clients. Are you hoping (2) will bring you clients you admire, because they like your charitable goals?
It could work, in the sense that NYC IT staffing had better spin off >$75k/per employee in profit. But it doesn't seem to optimize for gains to charities or your personal pleasure.
If you want do this for your own reasons, great, I am sure it could deliver a lot of meaning and satisfaction in a field where that is perhaps hard to come by.
(Shameless plug - I do happen to be on the job market in NYC now, if you wanted to connect or offer any advice I'd be receptive, email in my profile).
Please remember to keep your hiring process human too and inculcate a culture among seekers where job attributes thus relevant are paid attention to.
As someone who worked in the wall-street in a quant role it can be a mad rush to nowhere and easy to get lost. So if you succeed, you'd be helping a whole lot of people.
Remember though- businesses take time to setup. The more you deviate from the normal the longer it may take you to get established.
If you're still going to be a staffing agency making income from placements, what changes will you implement to transform it into a "service"?
And what's the difference between your idea and simply being an individual who donates a portion of their income to charity?