**I think paying to list a CV is a great idea**. As I said in a comment:

> Ninety-nine dollars is nominal. If you
> get a job making $1k/year more -- or
> the same job, but negotiate a better
> salary because hiring on SO is
> relatively cheap -- that's a [1000%]
> ROI. If you're out of work and land a
> job one day sooner you'll probably
> recoup your cost.

### Joel Coehoorn objected, "$99 is a huge risk if your current income is $0."

Yes, that's true. And if your current income is $0, isn't that all the more reason to do everything in your power to land a job ASAP? Let's say that having a listing on CSO will get you a job on average one day earlier. If that's the case, it makes sense as long as you'll end up making at more than $99/day. If you make $100/day, you'll end up $1 ahead on average. If you make $200/day (about $40,000/year), you'll end up $101 ahead. (Have fun playing with the formula. What if listing helps you get a job a week earlier and you make $300/day?*)

I'm not sure if Joel meant to imply that in addition to no income, the job-seeker has no savings, or so little savings that he has to choose between CSO and prescription drugs. If that's the case, I would expect you to ask a friend, family member, charity, the government, or even a businessperson to foot the bill. Depending on the nature of the relationship, you may pay them back, possibly with interest, once you have the job, and would probably still come out ahead.


### JohnMcG makes a [compelling argument][1]: "Never pay anyone to help you find a job." 

The problem is you're not paying to get a job. You're paying to get your foot in the door. You still have to have a good enough CV / rep / body of work on SO to get a phone call. And then you have to pass a series of interviews.

The thing about spam is *most of the time it doesn't work*. I don't know for sure, but I imagine most low-caliber developers who post on Monster don't end up getting jobs. At least, they don't get jobs with companies that have smart hiring practices. But if the cost of posting is zero, even the most miniscule chance of getting a job means you're averaging an infinite return on investment.

If he has any sense, a so-called developer who doesn't have a chance at getting a good programming job won't waste his money on CSO. That's especially true if he realizes that CSO isn't Monster. Its clients are looking for the *best* developers -- not just warm bodies.

**I don't think CSO will be flooded with pretenders**. Most of them won't even find the site. Of those that do, most will balk at the idea of paying for listings (bots certainly will). Of the few who are left, many will look at the cost/benefit ratio and realize their money is better spent on good resume paper. We can compete with with the few who are left. 

And it's not just about competing with a smaller pool of CVs. It's also about being better than the competition job sites, so that [top employers will come looking for us in the first place][2]. 



 



  
*And what if the job you get via CSO pays better than the job you'd otherwise get? What if it's closer to home so you save gas money, etc?

 


  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/24897/stackoverflow-careers/24981#24981
  [2]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/24897/stackoverflow-careers/24908#24908