By Maksym Misichenko · CNBC ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is that the labor market is characterized by extreme friction, high application-to-hire ratios, and structural mismatches, which will likely persist into late 2025. This is expected to pressure wage growth and household spending, with consumer discretionary sectors facing downside risk.
Risk: The rise of AI screening tools could accelerate mismatches and entrench long-term unemployment, potentially leading to regulatory pushback.
Opportunity: None identified
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
After Jonathan Clanton was laid off from his talent acquisition job earlier this year, he immediately began searching for a new role. Clanton, 39, soon found himself spending hours each day scrolling through job listings.
"It felt like a mix of social media addiction plus the anxiety of needing to find work," he tells CNBC Make It.
Now there's a word for that behavior: "doomjobbing," a combination of doomscrolling and job searching. Driven by the stress of looking for work, some job seekers find themselves constantly refreshing job sites and frantically applying to new roles.
Ilya Bagrak, a product manager based in Los Gatos, California, posted about the term in a March 25 Threads post: "I got laid off two weeks ago," Bagrak wrote. "My 8 yo daughter saw me spending a lot of time in the LinkedIn app, and she called it 'doomjobbing.'"
Bagrak, 45, tells CNBC Make It that losing his job created "a lot of uncertainty." As the primary breadwinner for his family, which includes his wife and two young children, Bagrak says his immediate concerns were about affording healthcare and paying the mortgage.
That stress led him to spend more and more time searching for and applying to jobs online.
Scrolling through job posts may temporarily scratch an emotional itch, says career and leadership coach Phoebe Gavin, but in her experience, it ultimately makes job seekers feel "even more powerless, even more hopeless about when or how their job search is ever going to end."
Job search anxiety has become increasingly prevalent in recent years, according to career coach Eliana Goldstein.
"The job market feels harder than it's ever been," she says, "and people are feeling so much pressure."
Many candidates are finding that conventional job search tactics aren't moving the needle, Goldstein says: "We have traditionally always been taught that if you need to find a job, you go on job sites," but each new job listing receives a flood of applications "right away."
The average job opening in mid-2025 received 242 applications, three times the average in 2017, according to Greenhouse data reported by Business Insider. Long-term unemployment is also on the rise: 1 in 4 unemployed workers have been job searching for over half a year, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Given the level of competition for each new job, many job seekers feel that they need to apply to as many roles as possible, as quickly as possible, in order to have a chance at landing an interview, Goldstein says. According to a survey conducted in March by the job site Monster, 48% of job seekers say that they frequently or regularly prioritize speed and volume over selectivity in the job search, and 25% now apply to any job that seems remotely obtainable.
Clanton says he felt pressure to be among the first to apply to new job postings so that his resume wouldn't get "lost in the shuffle," which drove him to spend even more time on job sites. "It's impossible to keep up with it," he says.
Bagrak feels similarly. "The job market is so tight right now that time matters a lot," he says. "You're incentivized to always check your searches, check your feeds" for new roles.
In Gavin's experience, "doomjobbing" and other similar behaviors stem from a desire for stability: "Because so many aspects of the job search are outside of our control, we look for things that can help us feel like we are claiming some control — even if it's not particularly effective."
"Doomjobbing" may make job seekers feel like they're being productive, but it's not a practical way to conduct a job search, Goldstein says.
Applying to a larger volume of jobs doesn't necessarily increase your odds of success, she says, and indiscriminately applying to roles that may not be a good fit means that you're likely to receive more rejections or fewer responses.
"It's going to make you feel anxious. It's going to make you doubt yourself: 'Am I a bad candidate? What do people not like about me?'" Goldstein says.
In her view, behaviors like "doomjobbing" take candidates' time and energy away from "doing more purposeful work like relationship building, developing your network, [and] thinking about your personal brand and how you can better stand out," she says.
It can also have a negative impact on your personal life, according to Goldstein, which is something that Clanton experienced firsthand. He says he realized that his habit of scrolling through job listings was preventing him from being present with his three children.
"There were times where I'm sitting there talking to them and we're having fun, and all of a sudden, Daddy opens up his phone and is zoned out," he recalls.
After that, Clanton says he resolved to change his approach to job searching "before it really impacted the rest of my life or the people around me."
Bagrak says he had to "find a more productive way" of coping with job search stress. Here are three steps job seekers can take to deal with "doomjobbing."
1. Narrow your search
Goldstein's No. 1 tip for job seekers is to keep your search focused. "Before you ever approach any job board, you need to get extremely clear on what it is that you want to do, what is the role that is best for you," Goldstein says.
Given how competitive the job market is, it's a waste of time to apply to roles that aren't a good fit, she says: "You cannot make yourself a chameleon and be applicable to every single job out there."
Rather than defaulting to a "spray and pray" strategy, Gavin recommends slowing down and focusing on one job application at a time.
Clanton came to a similar conclusion: Rather than rushing to apply to each new role, he says he realized it was more effective to "take time to reformat my resume and apply to jobs that really do fit my background."
To avoid the temptation to mass-apply, Goldstein recommends configuring your job site filters so that you only see new roles that match your experience.
**2. Restrict how much time you spend applying **
Clanton says that time blocking has helped him develop a healthier approach to his job search and cut down on "doomjobbing." Rather than scrolling on job sites at all hours, he dedicates a set amount of time each day to three specific tasks:
Outside of those specific time blocks, he tries to decompress by going for a walk, catching up with friends or spending time with his family.
Setting time limits can help prevent the job search from "crowding into all the other aspects of your life," Gavin says. She also recommends creating boundaries around times and spaces where you "absolutely do not" check your job alerts: for example, when you're in bed or out to dinner.
3. Lean on your network
Rather than spending all their time on applications, job seekers should prioritize making and strengthening connections, according to Gavin. In her experience, "candidates who are coming in the side door, through their relationships, are actually having much faster job searches" than people who exclusively apply on job sites, she says.
Cold outreaches are fine as one component of a broader strategy, but Goldstein recommends "proactively reaching out to people in your warm network" too. "In the end, having some type of a referral is always going to exponentially increase your chances of hearing back, of getting an opportunity," she says.
Investing time in your interpersonal relationships will always be more helpful than "just endlessly scrolling," she says.
Want to stand out, grow your network, and get more job opportunities? Sign up for Smarter by CNBC Make It's new online course, How to Build a Standout Personal Brand: Online, In Person, and At Work. Learn how to showcase your skills, build a stellar reputation, and create a digital presence that AI can't replicate. Sign up today.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Persistent high application volumes and long-term unemployment point to cooling labor demand that will likely constrain consumer spending and corporate earnings growth."
The jump to 242 applications per opening and 25% of unemployed searching beyond six months reveals a labor market where traditional tactics fail amid oversupply. This drives inefficient behaviors like doomjobbing, diverting time from networking that actually yields referrals. Economically it signals weaker hiring intent by firms, likely pressuring wage growth and household spending into late 2025. Sectors tied to consumer discretionary spending face downside risk while staffing platforms may see mixed volume effects from prolonged searches.
The surge in applications could reflect lower friction from online portals and AI tools rather than genuine demand weakness, and official data may undercount gig or contract work that cushions the headline unemployment picture.
"The tripling of applications-per-opening since 2017 signals deteriorating labor market matching, not just increased competition, which implies persistent wage pressure and hiring friction ahead."
This article is a lifestyle/behavioral piece masquerading as economic commentary. The real signal buried here: job market dysfunction is severe enough that applicants feel compelled to spam-apply despite knowing it's counterproductive. The 242 applications per opening (3x 2017 levels) and 25% of seekers applying to 'any remotely obtainable' role suggests labor market mismatch, not just competition. This points to structural wage/skill misalignment and employer pickiness that won't resolve quickly. However, the article frames this as a personal psychology problem ('doomjobbing') rather than a systemic one—which lets policymakers and employers off the hook. The real story: job search friction is rising, suggesting either overqualification of applicants, geographic/skill mismatches, or employer standards that exceed available talent.
The article's framing could be correct: maybe applicants ARE just anxious and irrational, and the real bottleneck is poor job-search discipline, not labor market dysfunction. If that's true, the advice (narrow search, network, time-block) actually works, and the 242-application figure just reflects noise, not systemic breakdown.
"The inefficiency of digital job platforms is creating a structural drag on labor market liquidity, forcing high-value talent into unproductive, high-anxiety search behaviors."
The rise of 'doomjobbing' is a lagging indicator of a labor market characterized by extreme friction and high application-to-hire ratios. While the article frames this as a psychological issue, it reflects a structural failure in the 'digital funnel'—platforms like LinkedIn and Indeed have optimized for volume over signal, creating a negative feedback loop for talent. For the broader market, this signals that the 'Great Resignation' has fully pivoted to a 'Great Stagnation,' where high-quality human capital is trapped in a low-efficiency matching process. This inefficiency increases the cost of talent acquisition for companies and drags on productivity, as skilled workers waste hours navigating broken algorithmic gates.
The 'doomjobbing' phenomenon may actually be a rational response to an algorithmic hiring market where speed-to-apply is a primary factor in resume parsing software, making 'spray and pray' a statistically necessary tactic for survival.
"In a market where openings attract hundreds of applicants, the only reliable path to interviews is strategic fit and referrals—not mass-applying or doomscrolling; the best approach blends selective targeting with network leverage and skill signaling."
The piece highlights a real behavioral risk—doomscrolling onto job boards can erode time and self-belief while offering little incremental odds. It's a useful reminder that the job market remains competitive (mid-2025 openings averaging ~242 applications per listing per Greenhouse data; 1 in 4 unemployed have searched >6 months). Yet the article understates structural factors: ATS bias, the value of internal referrals, and sector mismatches mean 'spray and pray' can still win for specific roles, especially in high-demand fields. Also, 'doomjobbing' may reflect macro stress and not just poor strategy; tech-enabled recruiting will likely tilt toward a network-first approach. Distinguish signals from noise.
In a tight, fast-moving market, speed and breadth can meaningfully raise interview odds for high-demand roles; mass-applying is not merely wasteful—it can shorten hiring cycles. The article risks underestimating how AI-driven matching and recruiter urgency reward visibility, so doomjobbing may be a suboptimal but not always wrong tactic.
"High application volumes will speed AI hiring adoption, worsening structural mismatches and wage pressure through 2026."
Gemini highlights platform-driven friction but misses how 242 applications per role could accelerate employer shift to AI screening tools. This risks entrenching mismatches further, as algorithms favor keywords over skills, sidelining experienced workers. The result drags on wage growth into 2026 beyond what Grok noted, particularly in consumer sectors. Regulatory pushback on automated hiring might emerge if long-term unemployment hits 25% thresholds.
"AI screening doesn't solve mismatch—it incentivizes applicants to spray harder, trapping both workers and employers in a high-friction equilibrium that persists even if headline unemployment remains benign."
Grok's regulatory pushback thesis assumes 25% long-term unemployment triggers policy intervention, but we're at ~1.3% currently. The real risk: if AI screening accelerates, it doesn't *reduce* applications—it increases them, since applicants rationally assume lower per-application odds. This creates a doom loop where volume rises, matching efficiency falls, and wage pressure persists despite headline unemployment staying low. The policy window closes if unemployment stays sub-4%.
"Rising application volume forces firms to shift spending from labor wages to inefficient HR-tech and agency overhead, compounding wage stagnation."
Claude is right about the doom loop, but everyone is ignoring the corporate side: the 'cost' of these 242 applications isn't just on the worker. Talent acquisition teams are drowning in noise, forcing them to pivot to expensive, opaque third-party headhunters or proprietary AI filters. This shifts hiring spend from wages to software and agency fees, structurally suppressing wage growth even if productivity remains stable. We aren't just seeing a labor market mismatch; we are seeing a massive capital reallocation away from payroll.
"AI-driven screening may ease wage inflation by boosting hiring efficiency and preserving margins, not accelerate it."
Grok, a flaw in the wage thesis: you link AI-driven screening to ongoing wage pressure without accounting for offsetting productivity gains and a likely cap on wage inflation given margins and capex. If AI screening raises hiring speed and reduces mismatch costs, firms may preserve margins rather than bid up wages. The risk is a slower wage dynamic even with low unemployment, not a clear uplift. This matters for consumer demand and capex cycles into 2026.
The panel consensus is that the labor market is characterized by extreme friction, high application-to-hire ratios, and structural mismatches, which will likely persist into late 2025. This is expected to pressure wage growth and household spending, with consumer discretionary sectors facing downside risk.
None identified
The rise of AI screening tools could accelerate mismatches and entrench long-term unemployment, potentially leading to regulatory pushback.