Summary of the Core Issues
The three major contradictions in the current job market—companies struggling to find employees, job seekers unable to land jobs, and existing employees being overwhelmed to the point of collapse—are not about a simple issue of having too many people or too few. Instead, they represent a structural mismatch within the entire recruitment and employment system. The combined “rational choices” of companies, HR professionals, job seekers, current employees, and recruitment platforms have created a self-perpetuating cycle: Companies want “perfect candidates” but are unwilling to offer high salaries; HR professionals, to avoid blame, only select candidates with no risks; job seekers are forced to exaggerate their resumes; companies, upon seeing fake resumes, raise their standards even further; when they can’t find enough employees, they pressure the existing staff; and as the staff holds on, companies become even less eager to hire. In the end, all three parties (companies, job seekers, and employees) become victims of this mismatch.
Detailed Analysis
1. Companies: Trying to Get “Top Talent” at a Low Cost
Companies have very specific requirements when hiring: 5 years of experience in the same industry, proficiency in three specialized software tools, experience leading large projects, and the ability to handle stress, among others. Essentially, they are looking for perfect employees who can be immediately put to use—without the need for training or adjustment, with low risk and controllable costs. However, such top-tier talent is either scarce or expensive. Most companies are actually thinking, “I want to spend $60 to get someone worth $100.”
For example, a position with a monthly salary of $8,000 may require 5 years of experience in that role, proficiency in AI tools, and leadership of a team of 10 people. This is like trying to buy a car with the budget for a bicycle; naturally, no suitable candidates will be found.
2. HR Professionals: Avoiding Blame by Choosing the “Error-Free”
Job seekers often think that HR professionals are too picky, but in reality, they are just trying to protect themselves. If they hire the wrong person (for instance, if a new employee performs poorly, management might blame HR), they could face criticism. On the other hand, if an employee performs well, the credit goes to the employee’s skills or the department’s management. Therefore, HR professionals prefer to choose candidates with flawless resumes: those with the right educational background, relevant industry experience, and a strong company background. These are “hard criteria” that allow them to say, “I followed the standards, so there was no mistake.” They are hesitant to hire highly capable individuals with mismatching resumes (e.g., those from different industries but who learn quickly) due to the risk.
3. Both Sides: Deceiving Each Other, Leading to Complete Trust Loss
Trust between companies and job seekers has long been broken:
- On the Job Seeker’s Side: Companies set excessively high standards, making it impossible to get an interview with an honest resume. Job seekers must exaggerate their skills (e.g., claiming to have led projects when they only participated in them, or stating proficiency in data analysis when they only know basic Excel).
- On the Company’s Side: After seeing too many exaggerated resumes, companies become skeptical of job seekers’ honesty and raise their standards even more (e.g., changing from requiring 3 years of experience to 5 years).
Companies also often misrepresent their job opportunities: claiming “two-day weekends” when it’s actually one day off, “9-to-6 hours” work when there are frequent overtime sessions, or “clear promotion paths” that never materialize. Job seekers, having been deceived too many times, no longer trust what companies say.
This mutual distrust creates a vicious cycle: Companies raise their standards, and job seekers exaggerate their resumes; in turn, companies raise their standards even more.
4. Existing Employees: Becoming the “Unfortunate Buffer”
Companies can’t find enough employees, so they shift the workload to the current staff. Tasks that used to be done by three people now have to be handled by two, leading to frequent overtime and burnout. Worse still, when companies see that the existing employees can handle the workload, they become even less motivated to hire new ones, further delaying the process and raising recruitment standards. Employees become the scapegoats of this mismatched system; their endurance only perpetuates its inefficiency.
5. Recruitment Platforms: Convenient but Counterproductive
Recruitment platforms are supposed to reduce information asymmetry but often make things worse:
- For HR Professionals: They receive hundreds of resumes for each position and can only use basic filters (education, years of experience, company background). Soft skills like responsibility and learning ability are ignored.
- For Job Seekers: If their precise resumes go unanswered, they resort to mass applications, sending dozens of resumes regardless of relevance. Companies, overwhelmed by low-quality applications, raise their standards even more.
Many positions on these platforms are fake—either reserved for future use or just for branding purposes without actual hiring intentions. Job seekers, facing a sea of irrelevant offers, become even more confused.
Conclusion
This mismatch is not the fault of any one party: Companies want to control costs, HR professionals want to avoid blame, job seekers want opportunities, and employees want to keep their jobs. Each choice seems rational, but collectively, it leads to market inefficiency and a competitive landscape characterized by “involvement without progress.” Understanding this logic helps us stop blaming ourselves for not being “good enough” or “efficient enough.” We are trapped in a systemic cycle. Instead of wasting energy on internal conflicts, we should first protect ourselves and then slowly seek ways to break this cycle.