nannePOPI

A lot of companies don't "need" anyone because they are not subject to profit and loss anymore. This is the result of government policies of cheap money, government contracts and higher and higher barriers to enter the market.

If there was a need, even if there were a lot of candidates managers would prefer the first to be enough. But they don't have a need, government policies give them all the time in the world. So for managers it's worse to get the "wrong" candidate than a sufficient one. Managers also prefer multiple rounds, testing, etc, because they can avoid blame by showing they hired someone that passed all the tests. At the same time for managers it's better to get one superstar they can brag about than a person that can do the job, because there is no job subject to profit and loss in the first place.

This is how I explain the current situation, situation I find absurd. I may be wrong, but that's what I think. I don't know if it can help, I think your pain is fully justified and this is my attempt at easing it. It helped me a little, knowing I'm not the problem and nor is the person in front of me (at least not really)

Reading about things like this I love the way we select people for university in Italy. There is a written test, multiple-choice questions.

Those who score higher, pass. Yes, it sounds like a system that favors test takers, but there are so many seats to take that if you don't score enough you really don't deserve the place (I say this as a person who was never smart not good at tests).

Nobody will consider anything else. Sadly, I've noticed a slight shift towards a more american way of talking about things like race and sex, even in universities, but I hope the legal system is strong enough to keep having neutral admissions.

Our economy is already in a bad place, last thing we need is young people being discriminated for anything but their ability to perform a task, even if arbitrary.

"So it’s possible that big companies are increasing their market power by using lobbying to capture politicians and regulators. If this is true, it’s very bad news for free markets and capitalism."

So, they managed to blame capitalism and the free market for the effects of lack of free market and the will of politicians and the public to accept regulation that causes less free market? What the hell!!!! This is the kind of culture that makes it possible for estabilished companies to lobby for increasing regulations. If there were a "free market at all cost" approach, maybe even punishment for those who attack the free market with lobbying, there would not be this kind of problem. There would be other problems, of course, but not this one. Of course, they had to blame even the lack of free market on the free market. Come on!

the housing market, especially in the US, is far from being capitalistic. You have all kind of weird rules, zoning laws maybe are the first culprit, and guess what is the result? You don't have enough houses, people are homeless and prices are most often ridiculous. This despite the fact that you have really a lot of land and the kind where you could build really high structures to house people.