Most people are unlikely to reach top 1% for income in any one year of their lifetime.
The top 1% for wealth is even a much higher bar to reach: you need to hold over $10 million. People ain't moving in and out of that bracket very often.
This is my understanding of wealth. I'm not sure where the original commenter you replied to got that notion. If anything it is known that wealth is squandered over generations.
As a Sheikh once said 'My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Lamborghini, his son will drive a Lamborghini, but his son will ride a camel'.
London financial industry traders and London voting residents are not related.
Greater London residents voted overall ~60% to Remain, but you'd expect that traders live in the Eastern boroughs, and outside London, in Essex (both up to ~70% Leave).
Primarily, the employer benefits - which is particularly evident in this case.
They can ask the applicant to do the work to prove themselves, with the pretence of an available job, and don't even have to consider the result of that work.
This scenario lays bare that the employer has all the power in the situation.
A great deal of that probably comes down to how much you respect/like your parent. I think both my sister and myself resemble our dad far more than our mom, and our mom definitely demonstrated her personal interest onto us. My dad in comparison, while not really engaging with our interests, certainly didn't actively try to get in their way like my mom did.
It's a legal minefield in the sense that there is legal trouble if a hiring manager says "I hired the other candidate because they were white", but there is no such trouble if they just privately think it.
When they asked them to prepare the presentation, they likely had full intention to consider them for hiring. Then, another candidate filled the role, meaning the company no longer would be able to hire the author.
Informing them of this and cancelling the interview is the most respectful thing they could have done. It's certainly better than wasting the author's time by making them give the presentation even though the company then knew there was no longer a position they could offer.
I highly doubt that the HR went from 0 to a hire in <1 week. The hired candidate was obviously already in a more advanced stage of the interviewing process when the OP was asked to make a presentation.
So they were double disrespectful: They asked for a presentation knowing that there's a very high chance it will be meaningless. They didn't have the courtesy to sit through the presentation they asked for, or at least offer a token of their appreciation for the time the OP put to prepare for the cancelled presentation.
>I highly doubt that the HR went from 0 to a hire in <1 week. The hired candidate was obviously already in a more advanced stage of the interviewing process when the OP was asked to make a presentation.
That doesn't change anything. The company had no idea if the other candidate would pass the final interview or accept the offer until the very moment when they did, at which point they would have canceled OP's presentation. And that's what they did.
>They asked for a presentation knowing that there's a very high chance it will be meaningless.
So are you saying the better option would be for the company to say "well, there's a small chance we might hire you, but instead of giving you the opportunity we're just going to go ahead and reject you without even giving you the chance"? No, that's disrespectful.
>They didn't have the courtesy to sit through the presentation they asked for
Telling the candidate to waste their time giving the presentation that they already know won't change any outcome is disrespectful. If that had happened, we would all be here commenting about how the company is assholish for wasting OP's time by making them give a pointless presentation.
You seem to be arguing as if the company wasting the author's time was a hypothetical. No, they veritably, absolutely, wasted his time.
The respectful thing to do, IMO, is not to ask people to perform this type of free work, specially if the likelihood of the preparation going to waste is this high.
Thankfully, no company so far has asked me to do something like this, because I would just refuse.
They didn't waste his time. OP put in work and in return the company gave them a chance to be hired. Once it was known that there was no longer a chance for them to be hired, the company told OP to stop putting in work for it.
If the company had known from the start that there was 0% chance of hiring OP, or if the company had allowed OP to give their presentation while already knowing that there was 0% chance that OP would be hired, that would be wasting their time. But that's not what they did.
You only seem to be repeating the same two arguments with no variation, and without actually addressing what other people are saying in response to those arguments. That makes it seem to me that not only you're not actually open to discussing the matter, but also that we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes "making someone else waste time" so I guess I'll just say that I agree to disagree.
Ironic, because your initial comment was just repeating the same argument that someone made before you with no variation. If you wanted a different response, you should have tried coming up with a novel thought rather than one that was already stated two comments above.
>> The respectful thing to do, IMO, is not to ask people to perform this type of free work
Could you share the link to where someone else presented that same point? In fact, I only commented because I found it odd that nobody had said it yet in this subthread.
I disagree with your statement that it was respectful.
Accepting your scenario, this suggests that they did not really want to hire the candidate and at best thought they might settle - when it came to it, they were not even willing to compare the candidate at the next stage, despite already asking them to do this work.
You say "strung along", I say "they were willing to give OP a chance at the job even though OP was not fully qualified for it, and when it was decided that the role was no longer available to OP, they told OP that rather than having OP waste their time giving a pointless presentation that wouldn't have changed anything".
I say "They asked OP to do a bunch of wasted work on the off-chance that their prize candidate was not available - even though they were not (under no circumstances) interested in considering the OP against the prize candidate"
There's a simple and known solution to not have to do this - which is to conduct fleets of interviews at the same time, so that you can fairly and accurately compare the candidates.
The task is bigger than I would personally consider doing unpaid, and I think that is the problem being identified here. It's an assessment of Public Speaking skills that don't immediately seem to be related to the job - I'd judge the company harshly for this.
But, if I had agreed to do this (if it was a paid, professional task), I would find the setting out of expectations extremely useful and appreciate it.
I want to know what to expect, so I can prepare for it, i.e. spend less time preparing for the unknown elements.
The purpose of the article, as I read it, is to identify that this claim was written into history by the nobility.