Options to publish a paper "as is" without being able to produce "more results" I had worked on a computer vision problem three years ago, drafted a journal paper and submitted it to a top-tier journal. My rebuttal to the reviewers answered most of their concerns except "more results required" comment, so got rejected. By then I had changed jobs, but wanted to get this paper published, so quickly made some changes and submitted to another journal, after two rounds of to-fro with the reviewers, the editor rejected it saying, "come back with more results". I don't have access to data as I have changed jobs, so "more results" is out of question.

I am now toying with the idea of getting this paper published in an open-access journal (where I believe, my chances of getting it published is high) or Arvix.org.

Should I go for a low-quality open-access journal or arXiv.org? I want my work to be out there. It may not be award-winning work but it's research and I want it out there.

How does publishing in a low-quality open-access journal (or arXiv) affect a candidate's chances when applying for a job? I know some people who hire use a point system i.e. A-grade journal = 5 points, etc. Do they have a "negative point system" for low-quality open-access journals?
First: Put your paper on the arxiv. It's a preprint server. Then the work is "out there" and you are still free to submit it to any reasonable journal (as noted in the comments, not every journal takes papers that are already on a preprint server, so check that in advance). So my short answer is: do both.