The website now says $100k+ talent. Guess they got enough push-back?

And frauds and embezzlers are hardly ever good-looking athletic alpha-male types who consider themselves too special to be counted among the ordinary folks….

Interviewers who judge by appearance probably get what they deserve.

In my experience, as a young job seeker, sites like Monster.com have been a complete waste of time because they are full of spammers and mass recruiters. That is, *everyone* on there is taking the shotgun approach – a sort of tragedy of the commons, if you will.

Also, while I felt the instant nails-on-the-chalkboard of “100k+ people”, it was a snaggy kind of feeling – that I knew I was being blase and seeing what I wanted in taking offense without further thought. The slogan was: “$100k+ talent looking for $100k+ jobs” – the second part of that sentence is intended to attract job seekers (with promises of a big salary) and the first part is to attract recruiters (with promises of quality people, i.e., people who merit $100,000 per year in salary for the talent, etc, that they bring to the job).

It’s easy to hear “$100k+ person”, get offended, and stop there. Think a bit further, they’re not valuing a whole person, they’re valuing what they can bring to a high-powered job. After a few seconds thought, I’m not offended, because I’m not a $100k+ person. Yet. :-)

@Jess – my instinctive response is to agree with you but a lot of these jobs are probably tech/management/strategy and I’ll bet that a surprising percentage are Indian. (A cop-out, I know, as that is outside the archetypal American race paradigm)

I suppose by “nobody” they mean the special $100K people, since everyone who wasn’t invited to play might feel a little differently about getting the chance.

I find it interesting that they use a zero-sum game as a metaphor, which makes the ad’s premise seem almost plausible. If they were playing hacky-sack instead (or any positive-sum game) the message would be “When you let everyone play, nobody loses.”

But then again, hacky-sack is clearly for communists, and how much fun would life be if we couldn’t mock those we perceive as socially beneath us? Of course, when I declare that someone is beneath me, that automatically implies others are above me… My brother makes seven figures, so he’s a very special $1,000K person who wouldn’t be caught dead associating with those pathetic $100K losers (I get to hang out with him occasionally only because he’s my brother).