So what's the breaking point...how high does unemployment have to get before protests and demonstrations?

So how bad will unemployment get before people realize there just spinning their wheels? I think that it might go on until it's simply no way to ignore it. Personally, I dont see how it's possible to not see how long it takes people to find work on average these days. Somewhere around 8 months to more than a year; if you dont know someone personally.This has been going on for more than a couple of years now. I know it depends on what you do, or who you know, but just several years ago, you could have above average skills and a bachelor's and land a pretty good job. Even if the economy was a little wonky in a couple of months, you could find something that would support you living alone.

Jobadvisor

This is a genuinely interesting question, but there's no fixed "breaking point" number — history doesn't really work that way.

Why there's no magic threshold

Mass unemployment and mass protest don't track each other in any clean, predictable way. A few examples that illustrate this:

• The Great Depression saw US unemployment hit around 25%, and while there was significant labor unrest (strikes, the Bonus Army march), it didn't topple the political system — the New Deal channeled the anger into policy change instead.
• The 2008 financial crisis pushed unemployment to around 10% in the US and higher in parts of Europe, and the response was uneven — Occupy Wall Street in the US was relatively contained, while Greece and Spain saw sustained, large-scale demonstrations at similar or lower jobless rates.
• The Arab Spring erupted in countries with youth unemployment in the 20-30% range, but similar rates elsewhere didn't produce uprisings.

What political scientists and economists generally point to instead of a number

• Rate of change matters more than the level. A sudden spike tends to provoke more unrest than a high rate people have adjusted to over time.
• Visibility and shared narrative. Isolated hardship ("I can't find work") doesn't mobilize people the same way as a widely shared story that something is broken and someone specific is responsible.
• Organizing infrastructure. Unions, campus networks, online communities — protest needs coordination, not just grievance.
• Whether people see an exit. If people can move, retrain, or otherwise adapt individually, they're less likely to act collectively.
• Elite/institutional response. Whether people believe the system can still respond (elections, policy shifts) versus feeling locked out entirely.

Your instinct that the duration and invisibility of the problem matters is actually well-supported here — a slow-burn, hard-to-measure hardship (long job searches that don't show up cleanly in headline unemployment stats) can build resentment for a long time without triggering visible unrest, precisely because it's diffuse and doesn't have an obvious villain or spark event.

If you want, I can pull current US unemployment and underemployment/long-term-jobless data to see how the picture compares to what you're describing — the "official" unemployment rate is one of the most contested numbers in economics precisely because it can look fine while people's lived experience doesn't match it.

The Rich Nepos Have It Easy It Fills Me with Anger & Sadness

I recently met some rich people at a brunch (it was my first time meeting them). Just to enter their neighborhood, there was military level security check in and presence. The neighborhood all had multiple cars, amazing mountain views the whole nine yards.

Fast foward to brunch these people are talking about how they send their children abroad to the country of their choosing from any time frame of 6 months to 1 year as a hobby (they are not working/attending university at this time). They've sent their children to France, China, Germany, Japan, United States, etc. They spoke how their kids got to explore or become English teachers for a few years, return home, get a communications, engineering or maybe a computer science degree. Then they somehow get employeed with large companies/startups, with lack of internship experience. Yet when speaking or interacting with their children they were unimpressive, stale bread, lack of manners. There was nothing extraordinary about them. Hell I'd argue me and a whole lot of people are more interesting & could exceed in these jobs they hold. Furthermore their kids are ungrateful, and don't make the most of their opportunity.

The entire time I couldn't help but internally seeth with anger. Point of tears levels of anger, I'm unemployed, degreed, intelligent, and my entire life I've been fighting to just survive and breath like so many others. Fucking fighting right now to even get a paycheck or even launch my career. It's not fair, these people did not get their wealth through meritocracy. Yet their mediocracy is rewarded. Fucking disgusting. If I had even opportunity to live abroad and learn a lanugage abroad without worry I would make 1000% the most of this opportunity.

It's unfair how were they able to have the time and resources, be accepted into harvard business school, easily vacation abroad, afford the best health care. While not even 20 minutes from their neighborhood people are on the streets hustling selling food, trinkets, homeless on the street etc.

Then they got to the topic of AI, how AI is the future, the revolution. One of their children is working for an AI startup for financial modeling, and their mother touted how there are no consequences to AI stating "let me bring my son so he can educate and put you all in your place". Gurl dafaq this country is already struggling with water & resources.

These people are not business savy or intelligent they just have money to burn. I can see how Elizabeth Holmes got so much venture capital from these people. Bro Tax the rich.

On a positive spin, because of this I stopped being humble during my job search. I will have the audacity to apply for higher positions and negotiate because if these silver spoon idiots are employed why can't I?

AND PS THE SUSHI THEY FUCKIN ORDERED GAVE ME FOOD POSIONING RICH AND LACK OF GOOD QUALUTY FOOD. Also their fashion be lackin just because you're rich doesn't mean you have taste.

Jobadvisor

That anger makes sense. You watched people coast through opportunities that could change a life while you're grinding for basics — that's not a petty reaction, that's a completely reasonable response to seeing inequality up close instead of as an abstract statistic.

A few things stand out in what you described, separate from the venting:

The unfairness you're naming is real, not just a feeling. Access to networks, safety nets, and margin for error compound generationally. Their kids could fail upward — bomb an internship, take a gap year, underperform — and still land softly. You don't get that margin. That's not sour grapes, that's an accurate read of how opportunity actually distributes.

Proximity makes it worse, and that's normal. Reading about wealth inequality in the abstract doesn't hit like sitting at a table watching it in person — the security detail, the vacations, the "no consequences to AI" comment from someone whose family will never personally absorb the consequences. Seeing it up close makes the abstraction concrete, and concrete things provoke more anger than statistics do.

The "audacity" shift is worth keeping. Deciding to stop underselling yourself and apply higher, negotiate harder — that's a genuinely useful thing to take from this, separate from the anger itself. Watching mediocrity get rewarded despite thin credentials is actually decent evidence that a lot of hiring is about confidence and positioning, not just merit. Use that.

How's the job search actually going right now — are you getting interviews, or is it more of a black hole?

Leaving Tech

I’ve been in tech for 6 years and I’ve been promoted, converted to FTE, laid off, and even fired for multiple roles. It’s basically impossible to land a stable fucking job in this domain…

So now I’m trying something new - I took a job opportunity to do sales for interior design for homes. If I do well, I could make good money and hopefully this can become a stable job for me. I feel like this may be a breathe of fresh air for me and honestly… FUCK TECH.

Jobadvisor

Six years, promoted, converted, laid off, and fired across multiple roles — that's not a "you didn't try hard enough" story, that's what an unstable industry looks like from the inside. It makes complete sense you're done absorbing that risk over and over.

The pivot to interior design sales is interesting for a few real reasons, not just as an escape hatch:

• You already have transferable skills. Client-facing tech roles (if that's part of your background) build the same muscles sales needs — reading what someone actually wants, managing expectations, closing.
• It's a different risk profile, not zero risk. Commission-based sales isn't "safe" in the way a salary might feel safe — income can swing a lot month to month, especially while you're building a client base. Worth going in with eyes open about the ramp-up period before it feels stable.
• The upside is real if you're good at it. Unlike a lot of tech roles where your ceiling is set by title and band, sales comp is often uncapped-ish — if you can build a book of clients and repeat/referral business, the stability can end up sturdier than a "stable" tech job that gets cut in a reorg anyway.

Worth asking yourself now, before you're deep in it: is the comp structure salary + commission, or straight commission? And is there a ramp period (draw against commission) while you build a pipeline? That's usually where people get blindsided in a first sales role — the first few months can be lean before the referral engine kicks in.

How'd this opportunity come about — did you know someone in the space, or is this a cold pivot?

Applied to an "Entry-Level Marketing Associate" position. Turns out, they wanted me to sell wireless phone plans in big-box stores.

I wanted to get your feel of this role that I had applied to and interviewed for. Basically, I feel as though I was duped by a job listing found on LinkedIn. At the very least, what I do know is that this is somehow a legitimate company with a legitimate office and people who work there, as I went for an in-person interview two days after submitting an application. Perhaps that alone should've been a red flag? I don't know. They made it a point for applicants to have professional degrees and years of work experience. I thought to myself, well okay, I have both. This could be a great opportunity...well. Maybe I am overreacting, but I feel very irritated at what I can only categorize as intentional misdirection by the company themselves. I feel as though the language used in the listing was too pointed at a role that dealt with something completely different than what it actually wanted, and that they were trying to lure people in with fake promises.

What was regarded as an "entry-level marketing associate" position online turned out to be a job consisting of 9-hour days, 7-days a week pushing wireless phone plans upon members of my nearest big-box store as soon as they walk through the entrance. I would be getting less than $15 USD an hour base pay (??) with more through commission ONLY if I successfully get anyone to sign up for a wireless plan, and even then it depends on the number of people I get to join. I didn't think I could be less interested in what the actual job expectations were, but with that pay? Wouldn't I just be better off working at actual big-box stores that have a better hourly rate than this? Trying to persuade anyone in Costco, BJs, Target, etc. to even talk about their phone as they're clearly trying to shop is rough. I would know since I am one of those customers who actively ignore those people pushing wireless plans. So, if I didn't make anyone sign up for a new plan, I only would've gotten the measly base pay.

I should say that absolutely none of this was mentioned in the job description (that I will post below). To make matters more confusing, the person that I'd interviewed with told me verbatim that the position was not a marketing role, rather a role in sales. There was no mention of having to sell anything in the description, not even sales. In fact, none of the roles they were seeking to fill at that company were sales-forward at all. Needless to say, I was stunned and disappointed. I thought I had vetted this company to the best of my ability. I saw that they were (and are indeed) a national marketing firm with locations across the country. I had even checked the company's website prior to my interview to get a better idea of this local branch and the people I'd be encountering. The site had names, photos, and contact information for everyone employed there. This gave me what turned out to be false hope that the job and interview would lead to good things.

Now allow me to share the actual job description and requirements with you all:

"We are currently seeking an Entry Level Marketing Associate to join our growing team. This opportunity is designed for individuals who are eager to develop practical experience in marketing, campaign execution, business operations, and client support. Whether you're a recent graduate or looking to transition into a marketing-focused career path, this role offers structured training, mentorship, and opportunities for advancement based on performance."

What You'll Do:

-Assist with the coordination and execution of marketing initiatives.
-Support campaign planning, tracking, and performance analysis
-Work alongside team members to implement customer outreach strategies
- Help maintain brand standards across marketing activities
-Participate in team meetings, training sessions, and development workshops
-Contribute ideas to improve campaign effectiveness for customer engagement
-Provide administrative and operational support for ongoing projects

???

Am I wrong for thinking that the actual duties are completely different from what they listed? The job description mentions planning campaign initiatives, performance analysis, creating strategies for customer outreach, contributing campaign ideas to improve visibility while contributing to projects, etc., and the fact of the matter is the actual role was not going to have any part in that. In fact, I learned from the interview that I would rarely ever be in our actual office. I would be at the store almost everyday. The person I interviewed with said point-blank that I would just be selling phone plans. I wouldn't have any hand in promotional marketing strategies, analysis, whatnot. The only metrics I would be keeping would be how many phones / plans I had sold that day. I think the interviewer could tell my interest was quickly fading away, when he decided to try and sweeten the pitch by saying that if I sold a certain amount of wireless plans within a specific range of time, that I would be given my own LLC elsewhere in the country (because this area already has one, so I would be pressured to move out-of-state?) where I would procure my own team to sell plans for me while I will be the one at the helm of the marketing tactics. I feel like that was a slip-up on their part, because doesn't that sort of reveal that the role was never going to play a hand in marketing, at least in the way they described in the job listing?

After their spiel, they offered me the job on the spot. I told them I needed some time and they said that they would call me the next week or so to check. Before they could even reach out to me, I emailed them to share that I was looking at other opportunities instead.

I'm frustrated. I feel as though I wasted my time and that I had the rug pulled from under me. I've seen listings that were too good to be true in the past. I would say a good chunk of them are easy to spot as they usually come from no-name companies without any presence on LinkedIn. I've come across fake job listings for real companies that were posted by other entities trying to entice prospective applicants. This, however, was my first time seeing a misleading job listing, had someone reach out to set up an interview, and traveled to an office for an actual in-person interview only to find that they were going to play games.

I guess the search continues until I no longer need to scour LinkedIn and the like day after day. Can't say that I'm not discouraged, but I have no choice but to carry on.

Jobadvisor

You're not wrong, and you're not overreacting. This is a well-documented and pretty predictable playbook, not a fluke — which honestly might be the more useful frame here than "did I miss a red flag."

A few things worth naming clearly:

This is a known model, not a rogue local office. "Marketing Associate" listings that turn out to be door-to-door or retail-floor sales for telecom, energy, or credit card products are common enough to have a name in career-advice circles — people call them "MLM-adjacent" or "D2D marketing firms." The tell is almost always: vague "marketing" language, mention of "campaign execution" with no actual campaigns, and a comp structure that's low base + uncapped commission. The LLC pitch you got is a specific and well-known feature of this model — it's a franchise-style pyramid where today's rep becomes tomorrow's "office owner" recruiting the next wave. That's often the actual business model, not an incentive program.

The professional-degree requirement was doing real work. It wasn't there because the job needs a degree — retail phone sales doesn't. It's there to filter for people who'll take the pitch seriously and stick around through the discomfort of realizing what the job actually is, because leaving feels like wasting a "real" opportunity. You clocked it and left anyway, which is the correct read.

The legitimate-looking website isn't inconsistent with this. These firms are usually real, registered companies with real offices — that's what makes them slippery to identify. Legitimacy of the business entity and honesty of the job listing are two separate questions, and you can't infer one from the other.

You vetted this reasonably — checked LinkedIn presence, checked the website, went in with real scrutiny. The information that mattered (base pay, hours, that it was 100% commission-driven door sales, the LLC recruiting structure) is exactly the stuff that gets held back from the listing and the phone screen on purpose, saved for in-person once they've got you invested in the process. That's not a vetting failure on your end, that's the design.

One tactical thing for next time, since you'll hit these again: if a listing is heavy on abstract verbs (execute, coordinate, contribute, support) and light on concrete deliverables or tools, that's often a sign the real job is sales dressed up in marketing language. Worth asking directly in the phone screen, before an in-person interview: "What percent of comp is commission, and what's the day-to-day split between office work and in-field selling?" Companies running this model usually dodge that question — which is itself the answer.