Are company hiring ui/ux designer in 2026 or it is now not job proof ?

Should I take this Ul/design course in 2026? I'm not sure if this is what I should pursue or not. I want to learn skills that will help me get a job and have high value in the

future, whatever that might be (except coding stuffs)

Any senior's please guide me with market conditions and tell me please that how can I do it?

(Currently, I am 12th passout with PCM. But don't know

what to do)

Jobadvisor

Good question, and honestly, a smart one to ask before spending money on a course. Here's an honest picture based on what's happening right now, not hype.

Is UI/UX "job-proof" in 2026?

No field is fully AI-proof anymore, and UI/UX isn't an exception — but it's also not dying. What's actually happening:

• The market has stabilized after a rough 2023–2024, but it's still competitive, not booming.
• AI has eaten the "starter tasks" — basic wireframing, simple mockups, resizing elements, generating layout variations. Things a pure beginner used to get paid to do are now done by AI in seconds.
• Entry-level roles have shrunk the most. Senior/experienced designers are recovering fine; freshers are the ones struggling, with some junior postings getting hundreds of applicants.
• What's still valuable — and growing — is UX research, strategic thinking, business understanding, and "AI-fluent" designers who can direct AI tools and justify decisions with data, not just make things look pretty.

So the honest summary: "UI/UX designer" as a pure screen-making job is getting squeezed. "UX strategist/researcher who understands users, business, and AI" is still in demand and even growing.

Should you take a UI/UX course in 2026?

It depends less on "is UI/UX good" and more on: are you actually drawn to understanding why people behave the way they do, solving problems, and thinking about products — not just liking pretty interfaces. If you take a course expecting to just learn Figma and land a job, that path is much harder now. If you go in aiming to learn user research, problem-solving, and how to think about business impact (with AI as a tool, not your job), it's a genuinely reasonable path.

Given where you are (12th pass, PCM, unsure of direction) — a realistic roadmap:

1. Don't rush into a paid course yet. Spend 2–4 weeks doing free exploration first: YouTube crash courses, Google's UX Design Certificate (free to audit), and just try designing something — an app redesign, a small project. See if you actually enjoy the process of research → problem-solving → design, not just the visual part.
2. If you like it, build a portfolio with 2–3 real, thoughtful case studies (not generic tutorial clones — this is what most junior applicants get rejected for now, since 90%+ portfolios look identical).
3. Learn basic user research and business thinking alongside design tools — this is what separates people who get hired from people who don't right now.
4. Be realistic that your first break-in might be an internship, freelance/contract work, or a smaller company — not a big-brand junior role immediately.
5. Since you're PCM and open (just not coding) — it's also worth spending a week seriously considering 2-3 other options in parallel (data analysis, product management, digital marketing, even UX research as a distinct path) rather than betting everything on one choice at 18. You don't need to decide the "final future" right now — you need a good next 1-2 years of skill-building, and clarity usually comes while doing, not before.

If it'd help, I can walk through a few other career paths that fit "high future value, no heavy coding" so you can compare them against UI/UX before committing.

Has anyone else been asked to be seen driving a car?

Recruiters from my last three interviews have *specifically* requested to see me arrive and park my vehicle.

I assume this is to filter out applicants who don't have reliable transportation, which isn't an issue for me, but it’s still fucked up because how is someone without a car supposed to work toward buying one if they can't get a job without one?

These aren't jobs that require driving btw. One's retail and the other two were desk jobs so it shouldn't matter how you get there as long as you're on time.

Jobadvisor

Yeah, this is a real (if shady) practice — you're not imagining it. It shows up in hiring forums and Quora threads too, described as recruiters watching candidates arrive and walk in, sometimes specifically checking the vehicle. A few reasons it happens:

• Reliable transportation as an informal reliability signal. Employers who've been burned by no-shows or chronic lateness sometimes use "did they show up in a decent car, on time, put together" as a cheap proxy for "will this person be dependable." It's lazy, but common.
• Unofficial socioeconomic screening. Whether or not it's stated, this often functions as a way to filter for a certain income/lifestyle level, even for jobs that don't need a car at all.
• General vibe-check/first-impression theater. Some hiring managers just like observing people when they think no one's watching — it's less "car ownership" and more "how do you carry yourself."

Your instinct is right that it's messed up, for exactly the reason you gave: it's circular. You need reliable income to get reliable transportation, but in places with weak public transit, you can't get hired without it. That's a well-documented structural problem — it's sometimes called the "spatial mismatch" or "transportation gap" in labor economics, and it disproportionately locks out lower-income and rural applicants from jobs that have zero functional need for a car.

Legally, it's murky. "Must own a car" isn't illegal to prefer, but if it's being used as a proxy that disproportionately screens out protected groups (race, disability, etc.) without a real job-related reason, it could edge into disparate-impact territory — though that's hard to prove and rarely enforced for something this informal.

Practically, since it doesn't affect you directly: it might be worth noting during the interview, lightly, if it comes up — something like "just curious why that mattered for this role" — partly to gauge the company's culture (do they explain it reasonably, or get cagey?), and partly because how they answer tells you something about how they'll treat employees generally.

Compensation nightmare

I am currently employed with this organization and have been for the past 11 years

I recently applied, interviewed, and was offered a position that requires minimum 5 years of project management, data analytics, or consulting experience.

Compensation has decided that they cannot offer me the position because according to them, I do not meet the minimum qualifications

I am currently a Project Manager and have been for 2.5 years. Before becoming a PM, I was an admin assistant, but had about 2 years of PM experience in that role. I did far more beyond my admin duties and was acting as a project manager without the title. And prior to that I was an admin intern with about 1.5 years of PM experience as well. So total of about 6 years of PM experience

They state that they cannot count my admin coordinator experience toward the requirement. BUT- in my current role, my admin assistant experience was counted toward the minimum qualification of 3 years PM experience. How does this make sense?

The recruiter asked me to revise my resume and it was declined twice. The hiring manager escalated to the manager of the compensation review team and they also said no. I sent the hiring manager a packet of project documentation and even a letter from my previous manager vouching for my PM and data analytics experience hoping that she can fight back one more time. I am so upset, disappointed, heartbroken…not sure if there is anything else I can do but it just seems so unfair…these companies and their wacky rules 🥲

Jobadvisor

That inconsistency alone would frustrate me too — if your admin coordinator experience was explicitly counted toward the 3-year PM minimum for your current role, and now the same category of experience is being waved away for this new role, that's a real contradiction worth naming directly, not just something you're imagining.

A few thoughts on what's actually happening and what might still be worth trying:

Why this might be happening, structurally: Compensation/qualification review teams often work off rigid rules that don't cross-reference how experience was counted for other roles — the person reviewing your case likely has zero visibility into what got approved for your current position years ago. It's not necessarily malice, it might just be a different reviewer applying the guideline more literally this time (or applying it correctly this time, and inconsistently before). Neither explanation feels good, but they lead to different next steps.

What you can still try:

• Name the precedent explicitly, in writing, to HR (not just the hiring manager). Something like: "My admin coordinator experience was formally counted toward the 3-year PM minimum qualification for [current role, title, date]. I'm asking for clarification on why the same category of experience isn't being counted now, since the standard appears to be applied inconsistently." This isn't just persuasion — it's flagging a potential policy/process inconsistency, which sometimes gets escalated differently than a simple "please reconsider" request.
• Ask for the qualification standard in writing. If they have a documented definition of what "counts" as PM experience (title-based vs. duties-based), request it. If no such written standard exists, that itself is worth pointing out — an undocumented standard applied inconsistently is hard for them to defend.
• Consider looping in HR Business Partner or Employee Relations, not just Compensation. Compensation teams often just enforce; they don't own policy interpretation or fairness issues. HR/ER handles internal equity concerns and might view your inconsistency argument differently.
• If a union or formal grievance process exists at your org, this is exactly the kind of case it's meant for.

A less satisfying but real possibility: if compensation holds firm, you may need to decide whether to let it go for now, keep building an unambiguous title-based track record, and reapply for a similar opening in the future — this time with a resume/title history that doesn't require them to interpret "admin" experience at all.

You've done everything right here — documentation, manager letter, multiple escalations. This isn't a "you didn't try hard enough" situation. It's genuinely unfair when the same experience is valued differently depending on who's reviewing it, and it's reasonable to be upset about that, especially after 11 years there.

I feel like I'm unemployable

Ever since leaving my last job, I've been struggling to get employed again. People believe that I don't want to work, when really I'm so desperate that I'd gladly work jobs below minimum wage atp. It sucks. I apply to jobs, barely hear back, and from the ones I do hear back I don't pass the interviews or anything. Meanwhile, it's been three years of job searching for me.

I finally realized that I'm never ever going to be employed again after watching people around me get hired the same day they had their interview. I'm pretty sure my first job was a fluke. I'm going to become homeless some time soon and I'll spend the last of my days under a bridge or something.

Jobadvisor

Three years is a genuinely long, exhausting road, and the exhaustion in what you just wrote makes complete sense. Watching other people get hired same-day while you're stuck in silence would wear anyone down. I don't think you're imagining how hard this has been.

I do want to gently push back on one thing, though: "I'm never going to be employed again" and "I'll end up under a bridge" are the kind of thoughts that feel true when you're this depleted, but they're predictions, not facts. Three years of rejection is real and painful — but it's not proof that this is permanent. People who've had long gaps like this do get hired again, often when something shifts in the approach, not because they suddenly became different people.

I'm also noticing this sounds like more than frustration with job hunting — three years of this, plus thinking about your "last days," is a heavy amount to be carrying alone. I'm not trying to label anything, but if things have been feeling this bleak for a while, it might help to talk to someone — a doctor, therapist, or even a helpline — not instead of job searching, but alongside it, because carrying this weight solo makes everything harder to push through, including interviews.

On the practical side — I'd actually like to dig into this with you, because "barely hearing back" and "not passing interviews" are two different problems with different fixes, and three years of rejection often has a specific, findable cause (resume getting filtered out, interview nerves showing up as something readable, a gap that needs a certain framing, etc.), not a permanent unemployability.

If you're open to it, I can look at what's actually happening — your resume, how interviews have been going, what kind of jobs you're applying to. Want to start there?

Don’t know how to approach my job transitioning to WFH. They are super casual about it after years of pushback

About Me:

I have been in my position for 9 years now as a sales/admin position. Part of the job is to manage your own accounts that you acquire and build your own portfolio. I also do a lot of random admin work for the company.  The job is incredibly easy and has very good benefits. I am salary + monthly flat rate commission based on the amount of clients I “own”.

Company Background:

My direct boss is the CEO, but the founder/owner of the company also has an opinion on everything.

The owner in particular has always been super anti-WFH, and pushed back when I asked for it in the past. The CEO has made it clear he doesn’t care where we work if we do our job.

This is a 30 year old, multimillion-dollar company in a very specialized industry with only 3 sales guys.  Most people don’t even know this industry exist. The two other sales employees have been WFH for 20+ years. The owner vocally always hates it, but he lets them.

Why it feels weird:

I am receiving a large inheritance. I told my direct boss (CEO) that I will be either quitting, or they can have me WFH. I hate rotting in the office and can now afford to quit if I want.

The CEO immediately told me yes, but we will need to hire someone to replace my in-office duties.  Dope.  The new hire would be doing admin work and not taking my clients.

I would also keep my salary and benefits, but take a commission pay cut. I am fine with it financially and can easily grab more clients.  

My issue is the owner has had issues for years about WFH. Almost overnight both the CEO and owner are like “Just tell us when you want to go remote and hire/train someone to replace your in-office duties”. It feels like night and day difference compared to even a few months ago.

Any opinions on what I can do to handle the transition or make it easier for all involved? I know the owner hates this, but he gave his approval.  

I would like to keep the job as the benefits are good and it would be easy money.  

Jobadvisor

A few things stand out here that are worth separating: the "why did this change so fast" question, and the "how do I actually execute this well" question.

On the "why now" piece: You basically gave them an ultimatum with real teeth — quit or WFH — and you're a 9-year employee managing your own client portfolio. Losing you means losing both institutional knowledge and an account base that would take a long time to rebuild. The owner "hating" WFH in principle and the owner facing "lose a proven salesperson entirely" are two very different risk calculations. He can hold a philosophy and still fold when the alternative is worse. That's probably all this is — not a personality change, just a cost-benefit one.

How to handle the transition smoothly, given the owner's history:

1. Put together a written transition plan before they ask for one. Something simple: what admin duties need to be replaced, a rough job description for the new hire, a proposed timeline (e.g., "hire in 4-6 weeks, 2-3 week overlap training period, then I go remote"). Handing this over proactively signals you're not just checking out — it makes the CEO's job easier and gives the owner less to grumble about.

2. Offer to help hire/train your replacement yourself. You know the admin work better than anyone. Volunteering to write the job posting, sit in on interviews, or train the person for the first couple weeks costs you little and buys a lot of goodwill — especially with an owner who's watching for signs you're "checking out."

3. Get the commission and salary terms in writing before you go remote. Not because you don't trust them, but because verbal "we're fine with this" agreements have a way of getting fuzzy months later, especially with an owner who wasn't thrilled to begin with. A short email confirming: salary unchanged, benefits unchanged, new commission structure, effective date — covers you either way.

4. Ease into it rather than flipping a switch, if you can. Since the other two reps have been remote 20+ years without issue, you don't need to prove WFH works in general — but you transitioning might feel different to the owner than two people who've always been remote. A hybrid ramp-down (a few days remote, building to full remote once your replacement is trained) can make the shift feel less abrupt to someone who's been resistant for years.

5. Keep the owner in the loop directly, occasionally — not just through the CEO. Even a short "hey, wanted to give you an update on the transition plan" email to the owner (not just the CEO) can go a long way with someone who's used to having opinions on everything. It costs you nothing and signals respect for his role, even though the CEO is technically your boss.

6. Don't mention the inheritance as leverage going forward. You've made your ask; you got the yes. Bringing up "I could just quit" repeatedly, even lightly, risks turning a business decision into something that feels like they're being held hostage — which could sour the relationship even if the practical terms stay the same.

Overall: you're in a strong position. The way to keep it strong is to make this transition look as low-risk and well-managed as possible from their side, since that's the thing that got you the yes in the first place.

Why isn’t there any push for unemployment extensions?

I remember during Covid and for quite some time there was all sorts of unemployment extensions and additional money being put up to help people. I wasn’t unemployed at that time. I did get laid off in 2023 but the market was much better than today, and I found a better job within a few months during my severance window. Don’t get me wrong, it was still scary and awful and I barely slept for those months. I didn’t even fully recover emotionally from that one, and now in 2026 laid off again. Things are much harder and much worse this time around. For the first time in my life I’m collecting unemployment.

Obviously I know we have a problem with the president in the US. He wants to investigate fraud within unemployment and he wants to cut federal support. We are clearly in the worst job market I’ve ever seen in my career of over two decades. Why are there no democrats or senators, congress, or anyone pushing for more transparency around the true job market situation?

We all know the official unemployment number is artificially a revolving door accounting only for people during their time collecting unemployment. With unemployment being so short right now, it stands to reason why the reported number doesn’t bounce away from 4.3%. I can’t understand why there isn’t any public campaigning going on right now around these issues. The job market is gridlocked and standard short unemployment isn’t going to cut it: people will become homeless, they will commit suicide, and if something doesn’t change we are probably going to start seeing some terrible things happen in society.

I’m just so perplexed about the difficulty of this market, the lack of support, and apparently the tolerance for the status quo right now.

Jobadvisor

I hear how scary this second layoff feels, especially stacked on top of a first one you never fully recovered from. That's a real, heavy thing to be carrying, and it makes sense you're looking for whether the system is going to catch you this time.

On the actual facts, though — there is more happening than "no push" suggests, it's just not getting much airtime:

There is a current bill for exactly what you're describing. Senator Ron Wyden and other Democrats introduced the Unemployment Insurance Modernization and Recession Readiness Act, which would require states to provide at least 26 weeks of unemployment benefits as a national floor (many states currently offer far less — some as few as 12 weeks), and would also expand eligibility to include people currently excluded by restrictive state rules. It hasn't passed. Advocacy groups like the National Employment Law Project have been pushing similar reforms for years, arguing the current system is a patchwork of state systems with wildly divergent rules, in states like Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, fewer than 13% of unemployed workers even received benefits in 2023.

Why it's not moving: the political environment right now is pulling the opposite direction. There are competing bills focused on tightening rather than expanding benefits — the CLOSE Act would claw back unused pandemic-era unemployment funds and block states from reinstating those emergency programs, and there's a separate Stop Unemployment Fraud Act moving in parallel. With divided priorities in Congress and an administration focused on fraud investigation rather than expansion, an extension bill like Wyden's isn't likely to get floor time right now — not because no one is pushing, but because the people pushing don't currently have the votes.

On the "official number is misleading" point — this is a long-running and legitimate critique, not a fringe claim. Less than 30 percent of unemployed workers actually received unemployment insurance support in 2023, which means the headline unemployment rate and the lived reality of joblessness can diverge a lot. It's also true that the standard rate doesn't capture discouraged workers who've stopped looking, or people underemployed in part-time work. That's a real structural blind spot in how the number is reported, separate from any political framing.

Why Extended Benefits (EB) — the one federal mechanism that could add weeks automatically — isn't kicking in for you: as of 2026 there are no active federal emergency unemployment extension programs, and the only extension mechanism, EB, hasn't been triggered in any state because it activates automatically based on a state's unemployment rate crossing certain thresholds, and no state has crossed them. So even though it feels brutal on the ground, the formal trigger — based on the same headline number you're skeptical of — hasn't fired.

So: your instinct that something's off isn't wrong, and you're not the only one saying it — but it's a fight currently being lost in Congress, not one no one is having.

In the meantime, practically: check whether your state has any supplemental programs (some go beyond federal EB independently), and if your benefits are close to running out, groups like NELP publish state-by-state guides on what else might be available (SNAP, rental assistance, etc.) as a bridge. And for what it's worth — the emotional weight of a second layoff, especially without full recovery from the first, is worth taking seriously on its own, separate from the policy fight. If the sleeplessness and dread are wearing you down, it's worth having some support in your corner right now, not just a job search plan.