Job searching feels exhausting for a reason.
It is work.
And in most cases, it is work that produces no output, no feedback, and no guaranteed access to opportunity.
That is not a motivation problem. It is a structural one.
The time cost is real
A single application can require:
- Reading and decoding a vague job description
- Rewriting a resume to mirror it
- Writing a cover letter no one asked for
- Creating or updating a profile in another system
- Answering redundant screening questions
Multiply that by dozens or hundreds of roles.
That is not passive effort. It is active labor.
The effort is invisible
Most of that work is never evaluated.
Resumes are skimmed or filtered. Cover letters are often ignored. Applications are rejected automatically with no signal as to why.
From the candidate side, the output is silence.
From the employer side, the input is an unread artifact.
The effort exists, but it is not part of the decision.
The system rewards performance, not evidence
Many hiring steps exist to prove effort, not capability.
Tailored resumes. Networking rituals. Follow-up messages. Optimized phrasing.
These steps signal persistence and conformity. They do not reliably signal the ability to solve the problem the role exists to solve.
Candidates perform because performance is the only lever available.
The asymmetry is the point
Candidates are expected to invest hours per opportunity. Employers are expected to invest minutes per candidate.
That imbalance is not accidental. It is how volume-based hiring systems function.
When applications are cheap to submit and expensive to evaluate, the cost shifts downward.
Candidates pay with time. Recruiters pay with filters. Hiring managers pay with missed signal.
Why it feels unpaid
Unpaid labor is work done without compensation, feedback, or control over outcomes.
Job searching checks all three boxes.
Candidates are told to try harder. Apply more. Optimize better.
But the work itself is disconnected from decision-making.
That disconnect is why it feels futile. And why burnout is a rational response, not a personal failure.
The problem is not that candidates are doing it wrong.
The problem is that the system was never designed to value their work in the first place.