This careers question on SO would in the normal scheme of things have been closed as not programming related. But as it has a bounty, we can't do that. Is the bounty system really intended for this kind of question? Note it is Community Wiki, so there can be no correct answer and it is hard to see how the OP is going to justify the final bounty award.
Community Wiki doesn't necessarily mean that there can't be a correct answer. This is why you can accept answers on a CW question.
Besides, I don't think the poster used the bounty to shield his question from closing. He obviously believes his question is legitimate (and others do too, obviously), and wanted to pop it to the "featured" tab, to gain more attention.
However, I agree that such question shouldn't be on SO, as it would be more suited on one of the emerging stack Exchange sites. I guess that such questions were tolerated for a while, before any alternative (from what I see in "related" questions).
This question should probably be closed, but there is indeed not much to be done about it with a bounty, and this is the issue right now. But at worst, it will last only 4 days, and then it will fall under close votes as fast as it will be possible.
This is a duplicate of my question here, which Jeff closed.
The best response there was to flag for a moderator's attention. It would also help to try to jump on these things and close them early, before the questioner can put a bounty on them.
I just flagged the original careers question.
I'd say the bounty system is intended for anyone who wants to get more attention for their question and so, yes, it is intended for questions like this.
The problem really is that bounty questions turn reputation into currency, leading to special rules for bounty questions to prevent gaming the system. I could do without the bounty system entirely -- perhaps all we really need is a fixed number of "markers" that one could turn in to get a question boosted to the front page to attract more attention or perhaps the ability to trade reputation for an extended boost without the attendent grant of reputation to the accepted answerer. That would enable us to keep the same close rules in effect and still get some extra attention for a question needing answers.