There's two things you didn't touch upon with used cars (an area I'm very familiar with although, admittedly, from a while ago, due to working for my cousin's dealership). The first is the Carfax report. Used cars are almost never sold to even remotely savvy buyers without a Carfax report. Leaving aside how people put too much faith in them, I'm curious what the analogous version of that would be here.
The second is the test drive. Again, too much faith is put in a test drive. But the ability to use the product - even if only for 5-10 minutes - is an important factor. I've often thought something similar will be important to hiring in the future. Your (excellent amd thought provoking) article raises my belief in that.
Really, aptitude testing is going to need to be done. Interviewing gives an idea for "will they be a culture fit" but very little for performing the job. In my industry, we go very down the line. The idea being that because the LSAT is akin to an IQ test, employers look for signs someone has a high LSAT - ie, attending a prestigious school or working for a prestigious firm - even if those rarely correlate with improved skills beyond aptitude. Unfortunately, the much more direct route is illegal.
One final thing that seemingly does not apply to the tech sector but certainly applies to my (and I suspect many other) industries: the job market is often doubly harmed by lack of information. Not only do applicants hide much information, but so do employers. Often the idea is get the employee in the door for a shit job because they won't quit (due to the disastrous effect on their resume) so you mislead them about the job they're applying for. It's not particularly relevant to your main points but it's an interesting (to me) part of the analogy for many industries.
A few notes:
There's two things you didn't touch upon with used cars (an area I'm very familiar with although, admittedly, from a while ago, due to working for my cousin's dealership). The first is the Carfax report. Used cars are almost never sold to even remotely savvy buyers without a Carfax report. Leaving aside how people put too much faith in them, I'm curious what the analogous version of that would be here.
The second is the test drive. Again, too much faith is put in a test drive. But the ability to use the product - even if only for 5-10 minutes - is an important factor. I've often thought something similar will be important to hiring in the future. Your (excellent amd thought provoking) article raises my belief in that.
Really, aptitude testing is going to need to be done. Interviewing gives an idea for "will they be a culture fit" but very little for performing the job. In my industry, we go very down the line. The idea being that because the LSAT is akin to an IQ test, employers look for signs someone has a high LSAT - ie, attending a prestigious school or working for a prestigious firm - even if those rarely correlate with improved skills beyond aptitude. Unfortunately, the much more direct route is illegal.
One final thing that seemingly does not apply to the tech sector but certainly applies to my (and I suspect many other) industries: the job market is often doubly harmed by lack of information. Not only do applicants hide much information, but so do employers. Often the idea is get the employee in the door for a shit job because they won't quit (due to the disastrous effect on their resume) so you mislead them about the job they're applying for. It's not particularly relevant to your main points but it's an interesting (to me) part of the analogy for many industries.