There's a lot of nuance into not only finding a job, but being hired for it along with maintaining the position without being laid off or fired. I mean, why is the act of finding a job inconvenient since you got to account: required qualifications or previous experience in (field), you can have the prerequisites but won't guarantee whether you'll be called in for an interview (as they just "ghost" you after submitting resume).

It doesn't matter if the job interview is done in person or via a zoom call, whatever the case is: the discretion is up to the company or employer on them thinking "you're what we're looking for" even if you aced all their questions, however majority just "ghost" you on that too never knowing if they hired you or not unless you ask them regarding the status on if they hired you or be like "sorry, we've found someone else".

Why is the process of both looking for a job and securing one after being hired so inconvenient? Submitting resume & cover letter online does not cut it since you take into account whether that employer or company will respond is betting the lottery (one day, you managed to land a job interview but later get told they don't want you anymore) or (submit 100+ applications on any position to only be met with silence).

because the middleman needs it to be inconvenient so they can take their cut.

Its pretty simple? Setup a job profile on seek and you can 1 click apply to everything. Next step is just answer a phone call and then come in for an interview or two.

How is it in other places?

sites like indeed did have 1clik apply, maybe theys till do. but its now AI-managed resumes, you had to apply with, or they force you to log into the Companys own website and make a new "candidate account.
also depends on your industry.

Because you're the download.
If applying for 50 jobs is a pain in the ass, try choosing one person between 50 applicants.

The process is made as convenient as possible for those that do the hiring, the paying customers.

If you want convenience you hire a manager, like actors. You have a job, he gets a cut, you lose your job, he finds a new one to keep his cut.

Last time I was searching for a job I didn't even look for ones with open positions. There's so many people applying that I won't even bother. I simply looked up a company I wanted to work for and cold-emailed them with a free-form application. I didn't even attach a CV or anything. The second company I emailed called me in for an interview. I've previously also just gone to the physical location and asked face to face. If they tell me to send an email application I say that I won't and then go to the next place.

Every time I bring this up I get ridiculed for my boomer advice yet somehow I'm not the one ever complaining about unemployment or financial struggles.

Nowadays I run my own company and if I ever hire an employee it's not going to be someone who sent me a formal application. It's someone who calls me asking for work while also demonstrating genuine enthusiasm about it. I could not care less what their credentials are - I want someone who is motivated and takes pride in their work.

If finding a job is a nightmare, people are less likely to go job hopping for better pay.

A sign of a good capitalism is that you always have a few percent of jobless people. This establishes the power of employers over workers. doG forbid it should ever be the other way round, even by a 0.1%!

That's why you have to bend over backwards to get a job, not your prospective employer.

Modern capitalist systems typically have a higher employment rate than in feudal times, which were furthermore hardly characterized by an emphasis on worker rights.

Capitalism doesn't necessitate or imply strong worker rights and a strong welfare state, but a capitalist system can provide the framework to implement these. Indeed, the permanently unemployed in prosperous societies generally are substantially better off than the working poor in the US. At the same time, these societies generally have a higher employment rate than the US. For example, in the Netherlands, where the lowest income a single-person household (employed or not) may legally have is around $2000 per month, the employment rate is 82.4% (Q3 2025) versus 71.9% (Q2 2024) in the US.

You're not wrong but what I wrote applies to the two EU countries I call my home as much as it applies to OP's situation which I guess is the USA.

In other words: I perfectly recognize and also advocate that things are better in some "capitalist" countries than in others, but that doesn't mean they're perfect.

And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see

I think a problem many Lemmy users (especially Americans) have is that they recognize certain problems, but don't spend enough time figuring out the state of things in the world and what has already been attempted to address those problems. If one stops thinking at "capitalism bad," then it becomes difficult to think of concrete and feasible steps forward, even if those concrete steps are just "copy what others have done better, and then see what we can improve from there."

Amen to that last sentence.

"The Arrogance of Youth" I often think; I find it soothing because it means that they will learn eventually. But it's also ageist. And it's not always that anyhow, people of any age can be incredibly resistant to seeing reality and reflecting on it.

Because the process is designed to be a humiliation ritual that drowns you in desperation, so that you'll work for less and still feel happy about "landing a job".

while also demonstrating genuine enthusiasm about it.

Well you're either hiring suckers or you're a sucker for believing their act.

Having a few percent of unemployed people doesn't really give employers power. It takes time to find a new job though, so there always will be a few percent, unless no-one ever changes job... and that is a bad sign.

The answer is obvious if you think about it for even two seconds: a digital download is a product that only one person (you) need to decide on. You want it, so you download it. Done.

Just because you want a job does not mean that the employer wants to give it to you. Two parties need to agree that you get it, not just one, so it can never be as convenient.

The actual process (submitting a CV) is piss easy. The problem is getting rejected/ghosted.

This is my thing with ai and such. I mean even before it you would think that all the information put on linkedin would be enough for an algorithm to find all the people in the proper region who have open to work who have the proper qualifications. The AI hype should make this a paltry task. Why is anyone need to do anything outside of marking themselves open to work. Why would the individual even need to seek out something? We should be getting contacts for jobs available and going forward with those. When it comes down to it things just don't function the way they are made out to.

Have you perhaps noticed that the government is doing everything it can for billionaires and giant corporations...?

Being able to find and move between jobs/fields is called "mobility". The easier that is, the higher wages they have to pay and the less you're dependent on your current health insurance. Desperate people are more likely to accept worse working conditions. More work and less pay means less time/energy to job hunt, form unions, or engage in political activity. It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's a blueprint...

Applying for jobs is intentionally difficult. A company needs to be able to review applications as fast as they come in. By adding a lot of needless busywork to the application process, the company ensures that the candidate thinks applying to this job is worth 10 minutes of their life. The fear is if companies make it too easy to apply, candidates will just apply to every job posting they see without considering if they are qualified for the job.

That is also why companies have resume keyword filtering, AI candidate reviews, and recruiting interns administering standardized tests. Companies I have worked at put a lot of effort to not have (highly paid) hiring managers digging through resumes just to reject candidates lacking any relevant skills. I assume companies would rather immediately reject the ideal candidate because a computer did not understand that "automobile" and "automotive" are synonyms rather than rejected that candidate because they are the 501st person to apply for the job and the manager made an offer after reviewing 500 candidates.

If the point is just to slow down applications, it would be better if people did not have to play stupid games, but could set up a system where a person can only apply for a limited number of jobs (maybe 5/day). I would assume that that would not be realistic to build, since people would game the system by setting up duplicate accounts and the more you try to weed them out, the more you will have people denied access to jobs because of false positives.

Because some job ads for months, reposted and just to keep the interviewers pool ready... How TOS say, most of job ads are multiple copies of the same job ad and the job ad can be fake ( no intention to hire )

Also, if the download would potentially cost you thousands every month, you'd think about it for a long time, too.

Hiring is really difficult.

As if you couldn't tell when someone is genuinely into what they're doing. What a depressingly cynical view of the word.

Having a few percent of unemployed people doesn’t really give employers power.

If you see "employers" as a class of a system then yes it does. Things would be very different if there was always a slight draft in the other direction, esp wrt OP's question.

I mean, a download also involves two parties...

What's the "other direction"?

The best way to get a job is to show up naked at the employer of your choosing office, covered in honey, excrement, blood, whatever, and scream, as loudly as you can, that their ceo is reading your thoughts.

They'll be so impressed by your moxy the ceo will personally hand you an offer letter. This is how I became a director at openai.