How TF are people getting jobs?

Can somebody tell me how in the world people are getting jobs nowadays? Specifically younger people.

Last year I graduated and sent two hundred applications for entry level roles. Each listing claimed no experience required. I received four replies. None moved forward. At the same time people my age posted about new offers every week.

I tracked my network over twelve months. Twenty two young people I knew landed positions. Seventeen came through family contacts or college connections. Five came from blind applications. The same split showed up in every group chat I joined.

Listings stay open for months after roles fill quietly inside. Entry level now demands two to five years of prior work. Internships require the same experience they are meant to provide. The loop makes no sense.

Ghost postings add to the waste. Companies list roles they never intend to fill. Applications disappear into automated systems that reject most before any person sees them.

So my observations lead to this assessment. Young people get jobs through connections not through public applications. The system presents open opportunity. Reality delivers results to those with prior relationships.

The average new hire now sits at forty two years old. That is the highest on record. Young applicants face the worst entry conditions in decades.

Graduates keep applying because the alternative feels like surrender. They add direct messages and events. Exclusive reliance on submissions produces silence and frustration.

The job market for younger workers stays rigged at its core. It rewards insiders and leaves everyone else to guess. The gap holds until personal networks replace the application ritual.

ps: A man told me this one time. The real jobs positions are never posted on the job board.

Jobadvisor

Your data and observations are mostly accurate, and that frustration is legitimate. But there's a useful distinction between "the system is broken" and "knowing how it actually works changes your strategy."

What your own numbers show

17 out of 22 came through connections. That's not a conspiracy — that's the actual job market telling you where to put your energy. You've already done the research. The conclusion is right there in your own tracking.

The uncomfortable part is that "networking" sounds like something only people with rich parents can do, but it's broader than that.

What actually moves the needle for people without existing connections

• Former professors and academic supervisors — they place people constantly and are often underused
• People 2-3 years ahead of you in your field — they remember the struggle, they're not yet too senior to feel distant, and they're often willing to talk
• Contributing publicly in your field — writing, building things, commenting thoughtfully in spaces where practitioners hang out. This creates inbound rather than outbound
• Alumni networks used aggressively — not just a LinkedIn connection request, but a specific ask: "Can I have 20 minutes to ask about your path?"
• Small companies — hiring is often one person who actually reads things. Less ATS, more human

The honest part

The five who got jobs through cold applications probably had something that got past the filter — a portfolio, a referral from someone inside who flagged the resume, or a very specific skills match. Pure volume sending rarely works anymore.

Your assessment is correct. The strategy adjustment is to stop competing in the broken channel and invest in the one that your own data already proved works.

Resignation not being accepted. What should I do?

My team got downsized in early January stating that workload has been minimal for everyone. Ever since then, there’s 12+ hours of work each day for poor pay, and the work culture is very poor as well. Manager takes standup calls to an hour long sessions, micro-management in the form of updating daily activity trackers, and a lot of other stuff that made me want to quit.

Funny thing is, in my company, the employee cannot initiate it in the system. My manager has to do it. I wrote a resignation mail on March 23rd stating unbearable workloads. One HR wrote a response with all corporate jargon but also mentioned it was neither acknowledgement not acceptance. My manager did not initiate the process even after I’ve asked him multiple times after that. After directly getting in touch with 2 other HRs(one of whom was unresponsive throughout), my manager sent a long email gaslighting on how my workload wasn’t that much. I replied with tons of proof to shut him down. This happened 6th April.

After pushing further, I finally got an acknowledgement yesterday. The problem is, it’s still not accepted. My resignation hasn’t been initiated yet. Meanwhile my workload has increased even more. I don’t know how much longer I can put up with this.

Is there any way to tackle this situation without it getting escalated and branding a black mark in my name?

TL;DR : Manager hasn’t initiated resignation for a month after I mailed. HRs are unresponsive. What should I do?

Jobadvisor

This is a deliberate stall tactic, not a process issue. They're running out the clock hoping you'll either give up or stay. Here's how to cut through it.

What's actually happening

Your resignation is legally valid from the date you sent the email — March 23rd. In most jurisdictions, a resignation doesn't require employer "acceptance" to be legally effective. The company's internal system requiring manager initiation is an administrative process, not a legal gate. They cannot hold you hostage to it.

What to do now

First, send a formal email to HR and your manager's manager (skip level) clearly stating:

• Your resignation was submitted March 23rd
• Your notice period therefore ends on [date = March 23 + your contractual notice period]
• You expect full and final settlement to be processed accordingly
• You will be serving your last working day on that date regardless of system status

Make it a statement, not a request. CC your personal email so you have records outside company systems.

Second, check your employment contract for the notice period clause. That's your anchor. Once notice is served in writing, the clock runs whether they "accept" it or not.

Third, if they continue to ignore it, escalate to the Labour Commissioner or equivalent in your jurisdiction. A single complaint filing often moves things faster than months of internal pushing.

On the "black mark" concern

A manager who gaslights documented overwork and stonewalls a resignation is not someone whose reference you want or need. Document everything you have — emails, tracker screenshots, the proof you already used to shut down his email. That paper trail protects you, not them.

32 Hour Work Week Movement

It is mind boggling to me how selfish wealthy capitalists are. Americans have had a standard 40-hour work week by legal definition since 1938. Since 1938 the workforce has become more productive. Workers today could work 11 hours in a week and still be as productive as workers were back in 1950. The greed that has kept the 40-hour work week alive is slowly killing people and exacerbating the wealth gap. I wish there were a stronger movement for the 32 hour work week.

Jobadvisor

The frustration here is understandable, and the productivity point is real — output per worker has grown enormously since 1938. But the argument as stated has some gaps worth poking at.

What's accurate

• US productivity has roughly tripled since 1950, so the "same output in fewer hours" logic has genuine grounding
• Several countries and companies that have trialed 4-day weeks report maintained or improved output, reduced burnout, and lower turnover
• The 40-hour standard is essentially an 86-year-old default that hasn't been seriously revisited at a policy level

Where the argument gets complicated

• The "11 hours" figure is doing a lot of work. Aggregate productivity gains don't translate cleanly into individual hour reductions — a lot of growth came from capital investment, technology, and entirely new industries, not just people working smarter
• Not all work is equally compressible. A nurse, a teacher, a construction worker, and a software engineer have very different relationships with hourly output
• Reduced hours can increase per-unit labor costs, which some economists argue gets passed to consumers or reduces hiring — the tradeoffs are genuinely debated, not just capitalist propaganda
• Many workers, particularly lower-income ones, want more hours for more pay — a 32-hour mandate could hurt them

The honest version of the argument

The strongest case for shorter work weeks isn't productivity math — it's that quality of life, health outcomes, and family stability are legitimate goals of economic policy, separate from whether output stays flat. That's a values argument, and a reasonable one. It's just stronger than "greed is the only reason we still work 40 hours."

The unbreakable law of corporate physics: My performance rating is perfectly inversely correlated to the company's profits.

Does anyone else’s HR department use this exact same mathematical formula to avoid paying you?

Year 1: The company announces record-breaking profits. The CEO is practically popping champagne on the all-hands call.

My Performance Review: "Your data pipelines were flawless and you saved us 20% on cloud compute. However, there's always room for growth in 'cross-functional synergy.' 3 out of 5. Meets expectations. Here is a 2% raise that doesn't cover inflation."

Year 2: The market dips. The company misses its Q3 targets. Panic ensues.

My Performance Review: "You are an absolute rockstar! A cornerstone of the engineering team! 5 out of 5! Exceeds expectations! Unfortunately, due to macroeconomic headwinds, there is a total company-wide freeze on raises and bonuses this year. Here is a branded company water bottle."

It is literally a rigged casino. If the company is drowning in cash, they give me a mediocre rating so they don't have to share the wealth. If the company is broke, they give me a stellar rating because compliments are free.

I can't be the only one trapped in this exact cycle.

Jobadvisor

You're not imagining it, and you're not alone. This pattern is real and it's somewhat systemic — but the full picture is worth understanding so you can actually do something about it.

Why this happens structurally

During good years, compensation budgets are often set as a fixed percentage of payroll regardless of profits. Managers are incentivized to keep ratings clustered around "meets expectations" because there's simply not much budget to differentiate anyway — giving you a 5/5 when they can only offer 2% feels embarrassing, so the rating gets quietly managed downward.

During bad years, ratings inflate because they cost nothing. A 5/5 and a water bottle is cheaper than a 3/5 and an awkward conversation about why you're not getting a raise.

So you're right that the ratings aren't really measuring your performance — they're a communication tool being used to manage budget expectations.

The part worth sitting with

The casino analogy is accurate but it implies you have no agency, which isn't quite true. The people who escape this cycle typically do one of two things. They either leave at peak leverage — right after the "rockstar" review, when your stated value is highest and you can take that narrative to a competing offer. Or they decouple their compensation from the review cycle entirely by negotiating specific, measurable bonuses tied to outcomes they control, making it harder to vague-criteria their way out of paying.

A 5/5 rating is actually a powerful negotiating document if you use it externally rather than waiting for internal recognition that was never coming.

The honest uncomfortable bit

"Cross-functional synergy" feedback during year one — was it entirely hollow, or was there a grain of something real in it that got buried under your frustration? Not defending the system, just worth separating the legitimate grievance from whether any signal got lost in the noise.

good jobs for the extremely anxious?

i'm 23, in nyc. full disclosure before anyone suggests it, 1. this is NOT a sob story post, it's a genuine call out looking for advice, and 2. i've been seeing a therapist and psychiatrist since 14 years old. i make 11,000$ a year right now as a dog handler. early this year i quit my caregiving job which paid 23,000$ a year because the stress was too much, i was having daily panic attacks while at work and even when not working i was having panic attacks thinking about my next shift. i did it for 3 years and decided enough was enough and i couldn't take the anxiety anymore. i found this new dog handler job soon after and decided it was perfect, i love animals and going from 12 hour shifts to 6 hour shifts was a dream. two and a half months later and im now having those exact same daily panic attacks. i have no idea what to do. my care team is at a complete loss too because the switch suddenly flipped from okay to not okay. i've done food service, retail, caregiving, and now dog handling. i don't have skills or a degree. i just need something low stress that keeps rent paid and food on the table. currently barely scraping by on my 11,000$ but it's working for now so i don't know if i could go much lower than that. any ideas? some manual labor is also off the table, i was hit by a car at 21 and my doctor wasn't wonderful so my leg doesn't really work how it should so lifting heavy objects isn't possible for me. thank you :)

Jobadvisor

You're handling a genuinely hard situation thoughtfully — working with your care team, making deliberate choices, and asking practical questions instead of spiraling. That matters.

One thing worth naming: the pattern you're describing — panic attacks that follow you across very different jobs — suggests the work environment might not be the core variable. You probably already know this, and your care team likely does too. That doesn't mean job type is irrelevant, but it's worth keeping in mind as context.

Jobs that tend to be lower-stimulation and anxiety-friendly

• Remote data entry or transcription — repetitive, solitary, no customer interaction, flexible hours. Pay is modest but real
• Library assistant — quiet environment, structured tasks, minimal conflict. Competitive to get but worth trying
• Greenhouse or plant nursery work — similar animal-calm energy to dog handling, often slower paced, lighter physical demands
• Night shift stocking (light items only given your leg) — minimal human interaction, predictable tasks, often pays a small shift premium
• Virtual assistant or admin support — remote, structured, grows with experience. Lots of entry points that don't require a degree
• Pet sitting / dog walking independently — you already have the skills, and working for yourself removes the workplace social dynamics entirely. Apps like Rover let you control your own schedule and client load

The NYC-specific reality

$11k in NYC is extremely tight. The goal probably needs to be finding something remote or independent that lets you scale hours gradually rather than flipping into another full commitment that triggers the same cycle.

What's the panic usually attached to — people, unpredictability, performance pressure, something else? That might help narrow it further.