# Why Everyone Feels Like They're Losing > Source: > Published: 2026-05-27 19:55:36+00:00 We’re in a paradoxical situation where although America nominally is wealthier than ever, at the same time, it’s become too hard to succeed for the median person, whether in academia, business, or pretty much anything else in life. This contradiction can be explained by an increasingly skewed distribution of returns, where extreme outliers capture enormous gains, but the median does worse. The outliers inflate the mean, creating the illusion of shared success or a rising tide. This is especially prevalent in tech jobs, finance, and academia, where rejection rates are extremely high, but at the same time there are superstar performers who are immeasurably successful, from star academics, multi-billionaire AI founders and VCs, or multi-millionaire employees. Intense interviews and screening filter out all but the cream of the crop. This has led to an arms race between employers and “cheating software,” the latter designed to give applicants a needed leg up or reprieve in what has become a hiring hellscape. AI-enabled cheating attracted media attention in early 2025 with the overhyped but underwhelming Cluely, which became a viral [sensation](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/banned-columbia-backed-millions-21-190238271.html) when its 21-year-old creator is Chungin “Roy” Lee, a computer science student, was suspended from Columbia University. Increasingly sophisticated “interview coders” have since been developed, that can allow interviewees to avoid detection for a wide range of coding problems and follow-up questions. There are at least a dozen “Subreddits,” (e.g. r/codinginterview/) each with active discussion of people flagrantly, albeit anonymously, admitting to using this software and exchanging tips, such as which programs work best or which to avoid due to “detection”. The use of such software is arguably unethical, but we’ve crossed the point of no return. This software is deemed necessary when employers have created so many roadblocks to being hired. People rationalize it as not so much as fraud or cheating, but more like a crutch or leveling the playing field. In the comments, even on sites for a broader audience such as Hacker News or forums unrelated to such software, reader sentiment tends to condone the use of these programs or can relate. Endless filters and screening has led to a hiring process designed to exhaust and eliminate rather than evaluate. What hope is there when employers create increasingly high hurdles and endless hoops. Both sides are acting rationally in this sense: in a job market where the supply of skilled labor greatly exceeds demand creates an incentive for employers to be extremely choosy, and at the same time, this incentivizes job seekers to find ways to gain an edge. I too can relate–as I’ve written [here](https://greyenlightenment.com/2025/09/05/americans-lose-faith-that-hard-work-leads-to-economic-gains-wsj-norc-poll-finds/) and [here](https://greyenlightenment.com/2025/08/19/has-society-gotten-easier-or-harder/), everything has become “too hard”. The nostalgia for ’60s and ’70s engineers bothers me for this reason–brilliant people, no doubt–but products of an era when opportunity was abundant and competition was a fraction of what it is today. If you sent a résumé, a person actually read it. If you submitted a conference paper or to an academic journal, you would actually get “feedback,” not a form rejection letter. For example, the tweet below about Columbia University’s low acceptance rate for its history PhD program went massively viral, signifying considerable agreement. It’s like this for everything though–all universities, departments, tech/quant jobs…anything. columbia history phd has like a 1% acceptance rate lol [https://t.co/jFWYQGB9xK]— ana (@epagomenes) [May 24, 2026] Meanwhile, “today’s generation” navigates a brutally different landscape and gets dismissed as lazy, entitled, or docile for failing to meet an impossibly high bar, or for failing to improve when the rejection process (e.g. form letters, ghosting) leaves nothing that can possibly be gleaned from it other that you weren’t good enough? This isn’t just an uneven playing field–it’s a completely different game with different rules. Those revered figures would be steamrolled by the modern hiring process before they shipped a single line of code. It’s all dead and buried–that past we still romanticize–it’s over. Bromides such as the “firm handshake” amounts to motivational folklore for a world that no longer exists. Same for “[1,000 true fans](https://greyenlightenment.com/2022/06/26/1000-true-fans-long-tail-grit-and-other-popular-bullshit/)” by Kevin Kelly of Wired, which is advice that is as obsolete as his magazine. Sure, maybe it can work in theory, but don’t be surprised when the algorithm buries you, or the gatekeepers have moved the finish line or changed the rules again.