I'm obviously employed so this commentary isn't about me. I do, however, have several unemployed friends who say they've been unable to land a job in the past year.
Nearly every friend I speak to in the job market laments the same struggle: they apply for countless positions, tailor their resumes, write meticulous cover letters and then… silence. No calls back, no interviews, just the digital void.
Yet, turn on the news and the narrative shifts dramatically. We’re constantly told there are "so many jobs available," that the economy is robust, that companies are desperate to hire. This glaring disconnect leaves me wondering: what is actually going on?
This situation eerily echoes the early days of the pandemic, albeit with a crucial difference. Back then, workers genuinely seemed to have the upper hand. Companies, reeling from lockdowns and labor shortages, were indeed desperate. We saw sign-on bonuses, increased flexibility and a stronger emphasis on employee well-being. It felt like a long-overdue shift in power dynamics. Now, however, the pendulum seems to be swinging back, or perhaps, it’s merely stuck in a frustrating state of limbo.
One of the most frequent complaints I hear from job seekers, and one that resonates deeply with my own observations, is the extraordinary list of requirements tacked onto job advertisements. It's as if one standard role now demands the skills and experience of five different specialists.
A marketing co-ordinator needs to be a graphics designer, a social media strategist, a data analyst, an event planner and a web developer, all rolled into one.
A project manager must possess expert-level proficiency in half a dozen specialized software programs, have five years of experience in an obscure niche and be able to lead a team single-handedly from day 1.
It seems like the expectation is for every new hire to be a jack-of-all-trades, but here’s the kicker: they're certainly not offering the salary that would accompany each of those separate positions.
This isn't just a hurdle for new hires; it’s a burden on existing staff, too.
I recently saw a meme that perfectly captured this insidious trend: a picture of an office white board with a message scrawled on it, seemingly from management, stating that due to a "shortage of employees," everyone else would be expected to "pick up the slack" and "take on added roles/responsibilities." Below it, a sticky note had been added, simply stating, "Pay us more if you want us to do more." While it’s impossible to verify the authenticity of every meme, the sentiment it expresses is undeniably real, reflective of a widespread frustration simmering beneath the surface of today’s workforce.
This brings me to the core of my quandary: whose expectations are truly unreasonable here? Are employers expecting too much from their current and prospective employees, or are employees expecting to do too little for their given compensation?
From my vantage point, the answer leans heavily towards the former. It strikes me that many employers are operating under a deeply ingrained, outdated paradigm. They bemoan a "talent shortage" yet simultaneously set bars so high that only mythical candidates could clear them. They demand instant expertise across a multitude of disciplines without offering adequate training, mentorship, or, crucially, competitive compensation that reflects the expanded scope of work. It’s as if they want a unicorn, but are only willing to pay for a pony, and then complain when the pony can’t fly or breathe fire.
In this context, the idea that employees are "expecting to do too little" feels disingenuous.
So, I asked our Buff boss about this business approach. (I should note that the team at our parent company in Canada has been together for 20 years -- without turnover -- and our Buff team has been the same for four years -- with the only turnover when we were first getting started because two initial hires didn't gel with the rest of the team before we launched Buff Boy Brewing Co.)
"As a writer [before starting my own company], what I experienced at every company that needed -- or wanted -- a corporate writer was that it was never a full-time workload," the boss said. "There was writing that needed to be done but it never amounted to 40 hours per week. So, they never knew what to do with my time. Because of that, they'd expect me to do admin work or other tasks I wasn't hired for. When I'd leave [the company], they'd revise the job description to include those other tasks... and pay much less. For someone like me, with years of experience in professional writing, I wouldn't consider the revised role because it required me to do too much outside of my experise."
What about tacking on all those added responsibilities and not adjusting the pay accordingly?
"Our core business is media broadcasting and publishing," the boss said. "Everyone has their lane. There's some crossover because editors are writers, so they do both -- though it's not distinctly two different jobs, anyway. Writers edit and editors write. But we'd never expect a writer to do graphic design, or a graphic designer to write entertainment headlines. As for why some companies pile on the tasks, I think it's partially because of what I said earlier: the initial role might not fill the workday so extra duties could be assigned so it seems like a full-time role. It could also be that it's cheaper to operate a company with fewer people."
But, wait, there's more! The boss also has an opinion of employees.
"I once worked with a salesman-turned video producer at a company," the boss said. "He worked in another department and when a videographer role opened up, he applied and got it. The company brought me in to host their corporate podcast and he ended up being the audio guy, too. I spent one day per week with him when we'd record the podcast and each time he'd bitch about how he's paid "below industry standard." He did what seems to be typical: Google'd something like, "How much does a corporate video producer get paid?" The problem with that is it's not a good comparison for what he was doing. He was the "video guy" for those stupid workplace HR videos you're shown on your first day. The salaries he was seeing were for Fortune 500 companies with video professionals producing high-end content. Secondly, his experience was that he edited a video for a friend one time. He didn't have decades of experience and shelves of industry awards. He felt he wasn't compensated appropriately (why did he take the job then?) and refused to go above and beyond in his role until he was paid close to "industry standard." It seemed counterproductive because raises are based on you excelling at your role but he wouldn't put in the effort until he was paid what he thought he deserved. He'll never win in that scenario. Actually, I think he was eventually fired because of his attitude."
What job seekers are demanding is fair compensation for the value they bring, especially when that value is significantly amplified by the breadth of skills currently being demanded.
What existing employees are asking for is acknowledgment and proper remuneration for picking up the slack created by understaffing – a problem often exacerbated by those very unrealistic hiring expectations. The pandemic instilled in many a renewed sense of what constitutes a fair work-life balance and a deeper appreciation for their own worth. After years of being told to be grateful for any job, people are now, quite rightly, questioning whether they should be grateful for a job that demands the output of three people for the pay of one.
I believe employers are, in many cases, trying to maximize output with minimal investment. They aim to reduce headcount while maintaining or even increasing productivity, effectively offloading the work of multiple roles onto individuals. This strategy might seem cost-effective on paper, but in reality, it leads to widespread employee burnout, high turnover rates and a perpetually frustrated talent pool.
The "jobs available" narrative might be true in sheer numbers, but many of these are jobs with unreasonable demands, insufficient pay, or both – making them "available" because no one qualified and reasonable is willing to take them under those conditions.
Ultimately, the onus is on employers to recalibrate their expectations. If you need a jack-of-all-trades, be prepared to pay for a master of many. If you expect existing employees to shoulder additional responsibilities, then compensate them accordingly.
The world of work has changed. The pandemic wasn't just a blip; it revealed vulnerabilities and shifted priorities. For businesses to thrive, they must move beyond the illusion that they can get more for less. They need to invest in realistic job descriptions, fair wages and a supportive work environment.
Until then, I fear my friends will continue scrolling through job boards, bewildered by the disconnect, while that sticky note message – "pay us more if you want us to do more" – will echo louder and louder in the halls of companies struggling to find the "perfect" candidate who probably doesn't exist.