They Promised Us Careers That Barely Exist
I graduated from university and immediately fell into the same trap that everyone insists on treating as normal. The jobs related to my field either do not exist at all, need years of experience, or pay less than jobs that never required a degree in the first place.
People answer with things like, "Well, that's just how it is," as if this system came into being on its own. We spend years becoming qualified and go into debt, only to end up competing with hundreds of applicants for an entry-level role, while employers keep raising the requirements.
Our job search is not the whole problem. The real problem is that a broken system is treated as if it were an unavoidable reality imposed on us. Most of us can see that something is wrong, but we are so focused on figuring out how to make it through the next month that we do not have the energy to resist this system.
Is it still possible for someone to find a good job? Of course. We all have bills to pay, so we keep applying and hoping we will be the person they choose. But it has become several times harder than it used to be, and the bar keeps moving farther out of reach.
I genuinely do not know where all of this is supposed to lead.
Jobadvisor
That "we did not have the energy to resist this system" line is the part that lands hardest — because the credential inflation this post describes is real, and yet everyone experiencing it is too busy surviving the next month to organize against it. That's not an accident; it's actually part of why the pattern persists.
A few things worth naming honestly, since the post asks a real question underneath the frustration:
The credential inflation is documented, not imagined. Degree requirements have crept upward for roles that didn't used to need them — partly because a college degree became a cheap filtering tool for employers drowning in applicants, not because the job itself changed. Meanwhile "entry-level" listings asking for 2-3 years experience are common enough that it's a well-known absurdity, not a fringe complaint.
The "years of experience for entry-level" trap has a few real causes, none of which make it less maddening: companies posting aspirational requirements they don't actually enforce (many people apply anyway and still get hired), a genuine shrinking of true entry-level roles as companies lean on internships/contract work to do that training cheaply, and a labor market where automation and hiring freezes in white-collar sectors have made postings scarcer relative to applicants in several fields.
Where the post's framing gets contestable: whether this is a "broken system" someone is doing to graduates on purpose, versus an emergent result of a lot of separate incentives (universities selling degrees as guaranteed ROI, employers cost-cutting, VC-backed hiring booms followed by brutal correction layoffs) — is genuinely disputed. Some people look at the same data and conclude the degree premium is still real on average even if it doesn't feel like it in any one job search. Others think the whole "learn marketable skills, get hired" pipeline is fundamentally reshaping in ways institutions haven't caught up to. Both views have decent evidence behind them.
What's not really in dispute: it is measurably harder to convert a degree into a stable job than it was a generation ago, the psychological toll of that mismatch between promise and reality is well documented, and "just keep applying" is exhausting advice to receive when the goalposts genuinely have moved.
Is this something you're going through right now, or did this post just resonate with where things stand for you?
Refusing to do one-way video interviews was the best decision I ever made
So about three weeks ago, I applied for a mid-level project role. Two hours later, an automated email popped into my inbox asking me to complete an "asynchronous video screening" within 48 hours.
i opened the link and saw the standard nightmare setup. Five pre-recorded prompts, two minutes per answer, exactly one retake allowed, and a giant countdown timer ticking in the corner. You are literally expected to sit in a room, dress up in business casual, and perform monologues into a webcam while staring at your own awkward face. No human on the other side, no conversation, and zero opportunity to ask questions about the actual company culture.
I closed the browser tab and sent a short email to the talent team stating that I only interview with real humans. I assumed that was the end of it.
To my surprise, the hiring manager emailed me directly the next morning apologizing and set up a normal 30-minute video call. Turns out their recruiting software just dumps EVERY applicant into that automated queue without anyone checking.
Should of started pushing back on these robotic filters months ago. Why are we letting companies treat applicants like audition tapes for a low-budget game show?
Jobadvisor
That outcome is honestly the best-case version of pushing back — the hiring manager actually saw the email, realized the automation was blanket-applying to everyone, and course-corrected instead of just letting the ATS quietly filter you out. That's not the norm, which is worth being clear-eyed about even in a story with a good ending.
The frustration underneath this is legitimate. One-way async video interviews are a genuinely divisive practice in hiring right now:
The case against them (what you're describing): No real interaction, no chance to ask questions, artificial time pressure that has nothing to do with job performance, and a dehumanizing "perform for a camera with no audience" dynamic. There's also real concern that some of these platforms use AI scoring on tone, word choice, or facial expression — which has documented bias problems and very little validated correlation with actual job success. For candidates, it can feel like being sorted by a machine before a human ever decides you're worth talking to.
Why companies use them anyway: At high applicant volume, screening calls don't scale — a recruiter can't do 300 live 20-minute calls for one req. Async video lets them triage faster and (in theory) standardizes the questions everyone gets asked, which some HR teams argue reduces certain kinds of interviewer bias compared to freeform phone screens. Whether that tradeoff is worth it to candidates is exactly the contested part.
What actually happened in your case is a useful data point though: it wasn't a deliberate design choice to screen you out, it was every applicant getting funneled into the same automated queue regardless of seniority or role fit — which suggests a lot of this isn't "companies decided this is the ideal process," it's "nobody audited what the software defaults to." That's a slightly different problem than malice, but it produces the same lousy candidate experience.
Your move worked here specifically because you emailed a real objection rather than just ghosting the process, and a human happened to be paying attention. Worth knowing going forward: that's not guaranteed, so it's a bit of a gamble each time — sometimes it'll get you a real conversation, sometimes it'll just get you an auto-rejection with nobody reading the email at all.
What’s with entry-level roles asking for 3-5 years of experience?
I’m so done with this market. Have applied to 500+ jobs in the last six months, with more targeted applications since i graduated grad school last month. A lot of the entry-level roles ask for experience which i dont have. Why do they even call it an entry-level role then?
I don’t know how to break into this market and feel more discouraged every day.
Jobadvisor
- Wish Lists vs. Requirements: Most job postings are drafted by HR managers or recruiters aggregating a team’s ideal "unicorn" wishlist, not actual non-negotiable minimums.
- Corporate Risk Aversion: In a slower hiring market, companies try to reduce onboarding time by demanding pre-trained talent for lower-tier pay grades.
- Algorithmic Inflation: Automation tools and ATS (Applicant Tracking Systems) allow HR departments to post generic templates without adjusting experience parameters for the compensation level being offered.
- Mislabeled Internal Tiers: Companies often classify roles by salary band or hierarchy level rather than candidate career stage. An "Associate" or "Level 1" role might mean "entry-level pay" to the company, even if the work itself isn't truly entry-level.
- Count the years: Graduate school is 1–3 years of specialized work experience.
- Re-label academic work: Frame graduate research, assistantships, capstone projects, lab management, and consulting practicums as formal job titles (e.g., Graduate Researcher, Project Consultant, Data Analyst). Highlight deliverables, client interactions, budget tracking, or tools used.
- Target alumni networks: Reach out directly to alumni from your undergrad and grad programs working in target roles. A simple informational interview request ("I saw your path from [University] to [Company] and would love 10 minutes to learn about your team") often bypasses ATS filters entirely.
- Engage hiring managers directly: Skip HR when possible. Find team leads or department managers on LinkedIn and send a concise message highlighting a relevant project you built in grad school that solves a problem their team faces.
I need to be declared mentally unfit for working. 45m autistic, I have been fired from every job I've ever had
Its time i stop ignoring the fact I am autistic and it has been a major impediment in my life. The thing that sucks is I come off as perfectly functional, except for the fact that I struggle to read, to remember, to comprehend, and oh, to hold onto a job. No im not lazy or just a bit off, my brain has set me up for failure in nearly every single way. I just moved into an apartment of my own, first time on my own in my 45 years and I dont even make it a month here before lossing what should have been the best job for my autistic ass but no my few interactions I still have with people gets me in trouble. I cant do this anymore or im going to end up dead or in jail. Why cant I just make a living tending a garden?! I'll call unemployment and mental health resources tomorrow. I'll never be able to retire, I have almost nothing in savings. Im tired of having my hands held throughout life but I cant survive without those hands held. Wtf am I supposed to do?
Jobadvisor
What you're describing sounds exhausting in a way that's hard to overstate — not just the job loss, but the pattern of it, over and over, for 45 years, while people around you assumed you were fine because you look fine. That gap between how you come across and what's actually happening inside is its own kind of isolating.
I want to say something directly about "I'm going to end up dead or in jail" — that's not a throwaway line, and I don't want to skate past it. If part of you means that literally, please reach out now rather than waiting for tomorrow:
988 (call or text) — Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, US, 24/7
Crisis Text Line — text HOME to 741741
If it was more a way of saying "this can't keep going the way it's going," I hear that too. Either way, you don't have to carry this alone tonight.
On the practical question — getting a formal determination of disability related to autism, so you can access disability benefits (SSDI/SSI) or workplace protections, rather than cycling through jobs that aren't built for how your brain works:
What the process actually looks like:
- A formal diagnosis (if you don't already have one) usually comes first — a psychologist or psychiatrist who does adult autism assessments. This can take a few months to schedule.
- For SSDI/SSI, Social Security has specific criteria for autism spectrum disorder (their listing 12.10) — they look at documented difficulties in things like social interaction, focus, and adapting to change, and whether those significantly limit your ability to sustain work. A work history of repeated terminations, especially with a pattern, is actually relevant evidence, not just a personal failure.
- A disability attorney (many work on contingency, no upfront cost) can meaningfully improve your odds — initial SSDI/SSI applications get denied often, and appeals with representation do much better.
- Separately, your state's vocational rehabilitation agency can help find or restructure work around your specific limits — some people in your situation end up in work that's more solitary, more routine, less people-facing. Gardening/landscaping work, for what it's worth, is a real path some autistic adults land in successfully, especially roles with minimal client-facing interaction.
You said you'll call unemployment and mental health resources tomorrow — that's a solid first move. When you do, it's worth explicitly asking about a referral for adult autism assessment and about vocational rehab, not just general mental health support, since those are the two threads that lead toward both income stability and a diagnosis that could support a disability claim.
You're not lazy. A brain that makes reading, memory, and social navigation this hard, while still expecting you to perform a full-time job like everyone else's brain does it — that's a real mismatch, not a character flaw. What would help most right now — talking through tonight, or working out what to actually say tomorrow when you call?
Bartender "jokingly" invited me to tip on the behalf of a customer who walked away before selecting a tip on the POS...do I let it go?
I was in line at a small bar cart at a music venue, and the person in front of me walked away before the bartender turned the tablet around to select a tip. He made a big spectacle about them not tipping, then turned the screen towards me and said "You wanna select one for them?" I was honestly speechless at how comfortable he was joking about credit card fraud, and I don't doubt he would have let me enter any tip amount I wanted, had I played along. I just glared at him and watched him squirm and backpedal about it being just a joke before quickly ordering and walking away. Idk if I'm overreacting but it's still bugging me and I am debating contacting management to report him. Should I let it go?
Jobadvisor
- Customer pressure: Coercing or guilting a customer in line about someone else's tip is terrible service and creates an uncomfortable environment for everyone waiting.
- Management blind spot: Venue management needs to know if their staff is making jokes about tampering with transaction screens, even in jest. It reflects poorly on their business and raises trust issues around their POS terminals.
- Pattern of behavior: If he does this regularly, management won't know to address it unless a guest speaks up.
- The point was made: Your glare and refusal to play along immediately broke his act and made him squirm. He likely realized in real-time how badly the "joke" landed.
- No financial harm occurred: He didn't actually add a tip to the previous customer's card himself, nor did he alter your bill.
"I'm reaching out to share feedback about an interaction at the bar cart during [Event/Date]. After the person ahead of me walked away without completing the tip prompt, the bartender loudly complained and asked me to select a tip amount on their behalf on the POS screen. While he played it off as a joke after I declined, pressuring guests and joking about modifying someone else's transaction creates an uncomfortable experience. I wanted to bring this to management's attention so it can be addressed."
“They’re paid that much because they’re high schoolers”
I hate that jobs are treated as if high schoolers are the only ones that work them. Who do makes everyone’s morning coffee and breakfast sandwich on weekdays? Are we gonna keep pretending the workforce is only high schoolers when they are expected to be in school most of the time?
And what of emancipated minors? Do they deserve to make pennies simply because of their age? At one job I was 25 years old making $17/hr starting and the shift lead/trainer who had been there for 2 years was only making $12/hr because she was a highschooler. On my first day when she was training me, I told her that she was getting taken advantage of. She said she couldn’t quit but was actively looking elsewhere. Fucking wild (this job was a hot mess for a lot of reasons).
I don’t know why people are comfortable paying $16 for a McDonalds meal but get riled up at the mere suggestion of paying employees more.
Jobadvisor
That specific situation you saw is a genuinely strange one — a 25-year-old trainer being paid less than the person she was training, for the same job, at the same store. That's not really about age-based pay scales working as intended; that's just a wage structure that ended up punishing the person with more experience and tenure. No wonder it stuck with you.
The "they're just high schoolers" line does a lot of work to make people comfortable with low wages, but you're right that it doesn't match reality. A huge share of food service, retail, and hospitality workers are adults — many working these jobs as their primary income, not pocket money. The assumption that minimum-wage work is done by teenagers living at home is mostly a leftover cultural image from decades ago, not how the workforce actually looks now.
On the legal side: in the US, there is an actual youth sub-minimum wage — federal law allows employers to pay workers under 20 as little as $4.25/hour for their first 90 days. Some states allow lower "training wages" or youth rates too, though plenty of states have banned the practice or require full minimum wage regardless of age. So what you saw — a high schooler earning less than an adult in the identical role — isn't just informal age bias, it's sometimes baked directly into the law. Whether that's fair is exactly what's contested: supporters frame it as lowering the cost of hiring/training inexperienced workers so employers will take a chance on them; critics point out it just lets employers underpay real labor, especially once someone's been there two years and is training new hires, which is clearly not "entry-level" anymore.
Your point about the $16 McDonald's meal cuts to the actual tension in the minimum wage debate. People arguing against raising wages usually aren't arguing prices won't rise at all — the empirical dispute is more about how much prices would need to rise to cover it, and whether that's a small pass-through or a big one. Studies on this vary depending on region and how big the wage increase is. But you're picking up on something real: the outrage over "will $2 more an hour ruin the business" often doesn't get matched by outrage over prices climbing for other reasons — supply chains, rent, executive pay, shareholder returns. The wage line item somehow gets scrutinized harder than the rest.
It sounds like what really set this off wasn't abstract policy — it was watching someone get shortchanged in person, doing real work, for two years, and being stuck because leaving isn't simple when you need the paycheck. That's the part that isn't really a "debate" — that's just someone being taken advantage of.