Kind of reminiscent of the online dating market, at least for hetero relationships: From the man's point of view, he is flooding the field, swiping yes on every woman on the site, because there's a 0.0001% chance that he's matched. Consequently, from the woman's point of view, she is flooded with an absolutely huge deluge of "applicants" with nothing but blunt tools to hopelessly try to filter the garbage out. Neither side is satisfied, yet there appears to be no systematic way to improve the market. The status quo probably optimizes only the dating site's revenue at the expense of everything else being dysfunctional.
The main difference, of course, is that in the employment market people are generally taken out of the market when they get a job (although fully remote has driven a huge rise in moonlighting).
In the dating market, women are inundated with matches from hundreds of guys, so they just pick the hottest guy, have a short term fling, and the guy ditches her after a couple of dates and continues working through the rest of the women (often in parallel). So, the hottest guys are never taken off the market, meaning the middle tier guys get few chances, and women complain that "men are all the same" and only want ONS not a relationship.