Two Companies, Too Much Power: Why America Needs More Competition in the Job Market

Who Really Controls Access to America’s Jobs?

Finding a job should be about a person’s skills, qualifications, experience, and willingness to work. Employers should be able to find the right candidates, and job seekers should have a fair opportunity to compete for positions. Yet, in an increasingly digital economy, a significant part of the hiring process depends on a relatively small number of powerful online employment platforms.

Two of the most recognizable names in this space are LinkedIn and Indeed. Millions of job seekers use these platforms to search for employment, while businesses rely on them to advertise openings and find potential employees. Their influence raises an important question: What happens when too much of the job-search process depends on a small number of companies?

The concern is not necessarily that two executives literally control every job in America. They do not. Employers make hiring decisions, and many other job boards, recruiting firms, company career pages, government employment services, and professional networks operate throughout the country. However, LinkedIn and Indeed have become major gateways through which people discover opportunities and employers search for talent.

When a small number of platforms have such substantial influence over how people find work, the consequences can affect workers, businesses, and the broader economy. Job seekers may become overly dependent on a few services, employers may struggle to process overwhelming application volumes, and smaller competitors may face significant obstacles when trying to introduce better ways of connecting people with work.

America needs a more competitive employment marketplace—one that gives job seekers more choices, helps employers find qualified candidates, and prevents any small group of companies from becoming indispensable gatekeepers to economic opportunity.

1. The Problem With Concentrated Power in Online Recruiting

The internet was supposed to make information more accessible. It gave businesses the opportunity to reach customers around the world and allowed individuals to discover opportunities that previously would have been difficult to find.

Online employment platforms brought similar advantages to hiring. Instead of searching newspaper classifieds, mailing resumes, or visiting businesses in person, applicants could create profiles, upload resumes, and apply for positions from their computers or phones.

LinkedIn and Indeed helped popularize different aspects of this transformation. Indeed became widely known for helping people search job listings, while LinkedIn combined professional networking, career information, recruiting, and business relationships.

These services provide real value. The problem arises when their influence becomes so significant that job seekers and employers feel they have little choice but to use them.

Imagine an employer who wants to hire a software developer. The company posts a position online and hopes to reach people with the necessary technical skills. A candidate looking for that same job may assume that the most visible listings on a major platform represent the best available opportunities.

Both sides are relying on the platform to connect them.

When a small number of services dominate that process, their decisions about visibility, search rankings, account access, advertising prices, and platform policies can have an outsized effect on the hiring experience.

The issue is not that a platform necessarily abuses this influence. The issue is that a market with limited alternatives gives users fewer options when a platform does not meet their needs.

A healthy employment ecosystem should give employers and job seekers meaningful alternatives rather than forcing them to depend on a handful of dominant services.

2. Why Two CEOs Should Not Become Gatekeepers to Economic Opportunity

No single executive should have unchecked power over another person’s ability to pursue a career. Fortunately, neither LinkedIn’s nor Indeed’s leadership has direct control over every employer or every hiring decision in America.

Nevertheless, the concern about concentrated platform power deserves serious attention.

Consider a hypothetical situation in which an entrepreneur creates a new employment website designed to compete with established job boards. The entrepreneur believes the existing system is inefficient and wants to develop a better way for businesses to find qualified workers.

The new company begins attracting attention. It introduces innovative recruiting tools, offers employers more affordable advertising, and helps candidates discover opportunities through industry-specific websites.

Now imagine that the entrepreneur encounters a dispute with a major platform, has an account restricted, or finds that access to an important distribution channel is suddenly unavailable. If the new business depends heavily on that platform for traffic, advertising, or professional networking, the consequences could be significant.

This is a hypothetical example, not an allegation that LinkedIn or Indeed has retaliated against a competitor or blocked someone from employment because of a personal disagreement.

The broader lesson is that businesses should not have to depend on the goodwill of powerful platforms to compete. Nor should workers have to rely on one or two services to maintain visibility in the labor market.

If a job seeker is unfairly excluded from a platform, that person should have other effective ways to reach employers. If a startup cannot compete without permission from an established company, the market may need stronger competitive alternatives.

A fair system should make it possible for new employment services to emerge, challenge established practices, and win users by delivering better results.

Economic opportunity should be distributed through a competitive marketplace—not concentrated behind a small number of digital doors.

3. The Qualified Applicant Problem: When Good Candidates Get Lost in the Crowd

One of the biggest problems with today’s online hiring environment is not necessarily that employers receive too many unqualified applicants. It is that qualified applicants can be overlooked simply because there are too many people applying for the same job.

Imagine a company advertising a position for a marketing manager. The job requires five years of experience, knowledge of digital advertising, strong communication skills, and a record of managing successful campaigns.

Among the hundreds or even thousands of people who apply, there may be dozens of excellent candidates who meet every requirement. Some may have exceptional experience, impressive portfolios, and precisely the skills the employer needs.

Unfortunately, an employer cannot always give every application the attention it deserves.

Recruiters have limited time. They must review resumes, conduct interviews, communicate with hiring managers, coordinate schedules, and keep the business operating. When a single position attracts an enormous number of applications, reviewing every candidate thoroughly becomes difficult.

A qualified candidate might never receive an interview—not because that person lacks the necessary skills, but because the application was buried beneath hundreds of others.

This creates a frustrating situation for both sides.

The employer may believe that the best available candidates have been considered, even though several excellent applicants were never reviewed. Meanwhile, qualified job seekers may spend hours tailoring resumes and writing cover letters, only to receive an automated rejection or no response at all.

The problem becomes even more frustrating when applicants discover that the position has been filled by someone whose qualifications are comparable to their own. They may reasonably wonder whether their applications were ever meaningfully evaluated.

This does not mean employers deliberately overlook talented people. In many cases, they simply lack the resources or tools to evaluate every application fairly and efficiently.

However, when a hiring system makes it difficult to distinguish the strongest candidates from the enormous volume of submissions, everyone loses.

The problem is not always a shortage of qualified workers. Sometimes it is a shortage of effective ways to identify them.

How Application Overload Hurts Employers

An employer who receives 1,000 applications for one position faces a difficult task. Even if only a fraction of those applicants are qualified, identifying the strongest candidates requires time and careful evaluation.

A hiring manager might spend several minutes reviewing each resume. Across hundreds of applications, that workload can quickly consume days of productive time.

To manage the volume, employers may rely on keyword filters, automated screening software, or strict application rules. These tools can help narrow the field, but they can also miss qualified candidates whose resumes use different terminology or do not perfectly match a predetermined template.

An applicant with extensive practical experience might be overlooked because the resume describes relevant skills differently from the wording in the job advertisement.

Another candidate might possess exceptional abilities but lack a particular credential that the employer would have been willing to overlook after an interview.

When employers must process enormous numbers of applications, they may become more dependent on shortcuts. Those shortcuts can prevent them from discovering people who could have been excellent employees.

How Application Overload Hurts Job Seekers

For job seekers, the experience can be discouraging.

A person may spend years developing professional skills, earning certifications, completing a degree, and building a portfolio. After finding a suitable position, the applicant follows the instructions and submits a carefully prepared application.

Yet the candidate may never hear back.

When this happens repeatedly, job seekers can begin to question their abilities even when the real problem is the hiring process itself.

Some candidates respond by applying to even more positions, hoping that increasing the number of applications will improve their chances. Others use automated tools to submit resumes more quickly.

This can create a cycle in which more applications generate even more competition for recruiters’ attention, making it increasingly difficult for any individual applicant to stand out.

Qualified people may remain unemployed for longer than necessary, while employers struggle to fill positions that those same people could successfully perform.

The result is a frustrating disconnect between available talent and available jobs.

Why the Employment Industry Needs a Better Solution

The answer is not simply to encourage employers to hire faster or tell applicants to submit fewer resumes. The industry needs better ways to connect the right people with the right opportunities.

Employment platforms should help employers identify candidates based on relevant skills, experience, certifications, and job requirements. They should also help applicants discover openings that genuinely match their qualifications.

Instead of measuring success by the number of applications generated, platforms could emphasize qualified candidates, interview rates, hiring outcomes, and employee retention.

Employers would benefit from a smaller, more relevant pool of candidates. Job seekers would benefit from a better chance of being considered on their merits.

A thousand applications are not necessarily better than fifty well-matched applications. And a qualified candidate should not have to compete against an endless stream of submissions just to receive a fair review.

The goal should be to help employers find the right person—not to generate the largest possible pile of resumes.

4. How Poor Candidate Matching Can Contribute to Employee Churn

The hiring process does not end when an employer selects a candidate. The real test begins after that person starts working.

When a company hires someone who lacks the necessary skills, misunderstands the responsibilities, or is poorly matched to the organization’s needs, the employment relationship may not last.

However, the opposite problem can also occur: an employer may overlook better-qualified candidates and hire someone who appears suitable simply because that person was easier to identify among the applications received.

The employee might struggle to meet expectations. The employer may discover that the person requires more training than anticipated. The worker may realize that the job differs significantly from what the advertisement suggested. Eventually, one or both parties may decide that the arrangement is not working.

This can lead to employee turnover, commonly called employee churn.

Turnover can be expensive. Businesses may have to repeat the recruiting process, pay for additional training, redistribute work among existing employees, and deal with interruptions to productivity. Remaining staff members may become frustrated when they repeatedly have to help train replacements or cover vacant positions.

High turnover can also affect customers. When experienced employees leave, businesses may lose valuable knowledge, established relationships, and consistency in service.

Employee churn has many possible causes, including low wages, poor management, inadequate training, limited advancement opportunities, unrealistic expectations, and difficult working conditions. Online job boards are only one part of this broader picture.

Nevertheless, better candidate matching can help employers make stronger hiring decisions from the beginning.

If a job advertisement clearly communicates the responsibilities, required qualifications, compensation, working conditions, and opportunities for advancement, applicants can make better-informed decisions before accepting a position.

If recruiting platforms help employers identify candidates whose skills and expectations align with the role, businesses may have a better chance of finding employees who succeed and stay.

Better matching benefits everyone. Employers save time, workers find positions that suit their abilities, and businesses gain a better chance of building stable teams.

5. The Numbers Show That Employers Need Better Alternatives

The concerns surrounding online recruiting are not merely theoretical. Research suggests that employers are already struggling with the volume and quality of applications they receive.

According to iHire’s 2026 State of Online Recruiting report, 55.7% of surveyed hiring professionals identified receiving too many unqualified applicants as a major recruiting challenge. The report also found that 51.6% struggled with candidates who were unresponsive or disappeared during the hiring process.

These findings illustrate the broader challenge of making online recruiting effective. While the statistics concern unqualified applicants, the underlying issue of application volume also affects how much attention recruiters can devote to qualified candidates. The figures should not be interpreted as a direct measurement of qualified applicants being overlooked.

Employers need a better way to identify people who possess the required skills, understand the responsibilities, and genuinely want the position. Job seekers, meanwhile, need a better way to discover relevant openings without submitting countless applications into a system that may never respond.

This is where competition becomes important.

When multiple employment platforms compete to solve the same problem, they have stronger incentives to improve their services. One company might specialize in matching candidates by verified skills. Another might focus on specific industries. A third might develop better tools for presenting job opportunities to people who are likely to be interested in them.

Employers should be able to choose the service that produces the best hiring outcomes rather than simply using whichever platform has the greatest name recognition.

The goal should be to make recruiting more efficient, not to make the application counter grow.

6. Why America Needs a New Generation of Employment Websites

A competitive employment marketplace would include much more than a few general-purpose job boards.

Imagine a system in which thousands of specialized employment websites serve different professions, industries, geographic areas, and skill sets.

A healthcare employment platform could connect hospitals with nurses, medical technicians, and other qualified professionals. A technology-focused platform could connect software developers with companies looking for specific programming expertise. A manufacturing employment website could help factories find technicians, engineers, and skilled tradespeople.

These specialized platforms could develop a deeper understanding of the people and businesses they serve.

Instead of competing solely on the number of listings, they could compete on the quality of their matches, the usefulness of their tools, and the success of their customers.

A local employer might prefer a regional employment website because it understands the community and reaches people who live nearby. A company hiring internationally might choose a platform with strong global reach. A small business might prefer a lower-cost service that provides personalized recruiting support.

Different employers have different needs. One platform cannot necessarily serve every industry, profession, and hiring situation equally well.

More competition would give businesses greater flexibility and give job seekers more ways to discover opportunities.

It could also create opportunities for entrepreneurs to develop entirely new employment services without needing to displace an established platform overnight.

7. Employment Advertising Should Reach Candidates Where They Already Spend Their Time

One promising alternative is to expand employment advertising beyond traditional job boards.

Millions of people spend time reading blogs, visiting industry websites, following professional communities, watching videos, and exploring specialized online publications. These digital environments can provide opportunities to reach people based on their interests and professional backgrounds.

For example, a company seeking experienced automotive technicians could advertise on automotive websites. An employer looking for graphic designers could promote an opening on design-related blogs. A business searching for hospitality workers could advertise through websites that attract people interested in restaurants, hotels, and tourism.

This approach does not require every candidate to visit a job board and search for an opening. Instead, relevant employment opportunities can appear in places where potential candidates already spend their time.

An employment advertising network could coordinate this process by allowing publishers, bloggers, and website owners to display job advertisements that relate to their audiences.

Publishers could earn commissions when they participate in the network, creating a financial incentive to distribute relevant opportunities. Employers could gain access to audiences beyond the major employment platforms.

This model could also help smaller employment websites compete. Rather than having to attract every job seeker directly to their own website, they could distribute employment advertisements through a network of publishers and niche websites.

The objective would be to create a broader distribution system for job opportunities, allowing employers to reach qualified candidates across the internet.

Success would depend on more than advertising reach. Campaigns would need to be measured by qualified applications, interviews, hires, and retention—not simply clicks or impressions.

8. A Better Employment Platform Must Prioritize Quality Over Quantity

A new competitor cannot simply copy the existing model and expect to solve the problems associated with it.

The next generation of employment platforms should focus on improving the entire hiring experience.

First, job listings should clearly communicate the qualifications required for a position. Employers should distinguish between essential skills and preferred qualifications so that applicants can make informed decisions.

Second, platforms should provide better matching tools. Candidates could identify their skills, certifications, experience, salary expectations, and preferred working arrangements. Employers could use those details to find people whose backgrounds align with their requirements.

Third, platforms should encourage transparent job advertisements. Compensation ranges, working arrangements, location requirements, and hiring timelines should be communicated whenever possible.

Fourth, applicants should receive meaningful updates. Automated notifications can acknowledge applications, explain that a position has been filled, or inform candidates when they are no longer being considered.

Fifth, employment websites should protect privacy and treat applicants fairly. Personal information should be handled responsibly, and automated screening systems should be tested for errors and discriminatory outcomes.

Finally, employers should receive useful performance information. Instead of focusing exclusively on the number of applications, a platform could report how many applicants meet essential qualifications, progress to interviews, receive offers, and remain employed after hiring.

These improvements would create a more useful measure of recruiting success.

A platform that generates fewer applications but helps an employer hire the right person could be considerably more valuable than one that generates thousands of submissions and causes qualified candidates to get lost in the crowd.

9. Competition Would Give Workers More Independence

A competitive employment market would not benefit employers alone. It could also give workers greater control over their professional futures.

Job seekers should not feel that they must maintain a presence on one particular website to have a realistic chance of finding work.

Different platforms could offer different advantages. One might specialize in remote employment, another in entry-level opportunities, and another in connecting experienced professionals with executive positions.

Workers could choose which services best fit their needs.

Competition could also encourage companies to develop more transparent search systems, better privacy controls, improved accessibility, and clearer explanations of how job recommendations are generated.

An employment platform should help people find opportunities, not make them feel trapped in a digital system they cannot understand or influence.

There should also be safeguards against arbitrary exclusion. Clear policies, fair appeals processes, and meaningful ways to correct inaccurate information would help protect users when platform decisions affect their professional visibility.

No business can guarantee that every candidate will receive an interview or that every job seeker will find employment. Employers must retain the ability to choose candidates who meet legitimate job requirements.

But people should have multiple ways to present their qualifications and connect with potential employers.

The ability to pursue a livelihood is too important for the employment marketplace to lack meaningful alternatives.

10. Building a Fairer Future for American Hiring

Creating a more competitive employment industry will require more than launching another website.

New platforms must earn the trust of employers and workers. They must attract enough relevant job listings to interest candidates while also attracting enough qualified candidates to satisfy employers.

They will need sustainable business models, effective marketing, reliable technology, strong privacy protections, and a clear reason for users to choose them over established services.

Partnerships can help accelerate this process. Universities, trade schools, professional associations, industry publications, staffing firms, and local business organizations could all help distribute employment opportunities through alternative channels.

Public employment services and company career pages should remain part of the broader ecosystem as well.

Policymakers and competition authorities can also examine whether particular business practices create unreasonable barriers to entry or make it unnecessarily difficult for users to switch services. Any regulatory response should be based on evidence and established legal standards rather than assumptions about individual executives.

The objective should not be to punish successful companies simply because they are large. It should be to preserve an environment in which other businesses can compete, innovate, and offer better services.

A healthy market gives customers choices and gives new ideas an opportunity to succeed.

When an established platform performs well, it should earn its customers through the value it provides. When a competitor develops a better solution, that competitor should have a fair chance to reach the market.

That principle is particularly important in employment because the consequences extend beyond ordinary consumer purchases. A person’s ability to find work affects financial stability, family security, professional development, and long-term economic opportunity.

Conclusion: America Needs More Doors to Opportunity

LinkedIn and Indeed have made online recruiting more accessible, and millions of people benefit from the services they provide. The argument for greater competition is not that these companies have no value. It is that America’s employment marketplace should not depend too heavily on any small number of platforms.

No two executives literally control every job in the country. Employers retain hiring authority, and many alternative channels exist. Nevertheless, when a few major companies play such influential roles in connecting employers and candidates, it is reasonable to ask whether the marketplace offers enough competition and choice.

The problems deserve attention: employers overwhelmed by application volume, qualified workers overlooked because recruiters cannot review every resume, businesses struggling with repeated turnover, and new employment companies facing the challenge of competing against established names.

A better system would prioritize relevant candidates over raw application volume, improve transparency, protect user privacy, and help employers connect with people who are genuinely suited to their positions.

It would also encourage new employment websites, niche job boards, and internet-wide advertising networks that bring opportunities directly to relevant audiences.

America does not need fewer opportunities to find work. It needs more ways to access them.

The future of hiring should be built around choice, competition, transparency, and better connections between people and businesses. No worker should feel that a single website determines their professional future, and no qualified applicant should be overlooked simply because an employer receives more applications than it can reasonably evaluate.

By encouraging more competitors and developing smarter ways to distribute employment opportunities, we can work toward an employment marketplace that serves workers, employers, entrepreneurs, and the American economy more effectively.