In 2025, job seekers around the world are facing an increasingly frustrating paradox. Open any recruitment site, and you’ll see a familiar phrase attached to “entry-level” roles: “2–5 years of relevant experience required.” From marketing to software development, administrative work to finance, employers seem to be seeking candidates who already possess experience that can only be gained through employment. For new graduates and career changers, this loop feels impossible to break, and the labor market is paying the price.
The phenomenon isn’t confined to one country. Across the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe, the so-called “experience trap” has become a defining feature of hiring. Data from Indeed and LinkedIn show that roughly one-third of so-called entry-level positions now demand at least three years of prior experience. In the UK, such roles have dropped to their lowest levels in five years, while similar trends have been observed in Germany and other parts of Europe, where job vacancies are falling and competition for each opening is intensifying.
In the tech and data sectors, automation and AI have compounded the issue, eliminating many true beginner-level jobs. A Stanford study recently found that junior roles in coding, customer service, and administration have fallen by 13 percent in just three years, replaced, in many cases, by AI-driven efficiency or consolidation of tasks among senior employees.
So why are companies demanding experience from people who are just starting? The reasons are both practical and systemic. Hiring managers often cite the cost and time involved in training newcomers. A worker with a few years under their belt can be productive from day one, while a fresh graduate might take months to reach full efficiency. In lean organizations where teams are smaller and deadlines tighter, managers may view the risk of hiring an inexperienced worker as too great.
Automated hiring systems further reinforce this bias: applicant tracking software frequently filters out resumes that don’t list a minimum number of years in a similar role, even if the candidate might have transferable skills or exceptional potential. In a way, experience has become an easy shorthand for reliability, but that shortcut may be excluding precisely the kind of adaptable, eager workers companies claim to want.
For job seekers, the emotional and practical toll of this mismatch is heavy. Young graduates spend months applying for roles, only to be told they lack the experience to qualify. Those hoping to change industries, perhaps after layoffs or burnout, face the same dilemma: experience in one field doesn’t seem to “count” in another. The result is a generation of capable workers stuck in a holding pattern, cobbling together unpaid internships, side projects, or freelance gigs in hopes of building the elusive résumé credibility employers demand. For those without financial safety nets, that can mean taking on underpaid or precarious work, leading to economic strain and mental fatigue. Online, forums like Reddit and LinkedIn overflow with complaints about this double bind: “Everyone wants experience, but no one’s willing to give it.”
The impact extends far beyond individual frustration. Employers themselves lose out when they filter too narrowly. By overvaluing prior experience, companies shrink their talent pool and risk overlooking diverse, creative, or unconventional candidates who might bring fresh ideas to the table. The insistence on “plug-and-play” employees drives wage inflation for mid-level workers while hollowing out the early-career pipeline that used to sustain industries. In effect, businesses are eating their seed corn, consuming talent that’s already mature without cultivating the next crop.
If this cycle continues, the long-term consequences could be severe. A generation of workers denied early opportunities will lack the growth and mentorship experiences needed to advance later. Productivity and innovation could stagnate as firms recycle the same limited set of candidates. And from a social perspective, the experience barrier deepens inequality, locking out those who can’t afford to gain unpaid experience just to get a foot in the door.
Breaking the loop will require collective effort. Employers can start by rethinking what “entry-level” truly means, rewriting job descriptions to focus on demonstrable skills rather than arbitrary year counts. Governments and educational institutions can strengthen apprenticeship programs, offering paid placements that bridge the gap between study and employment. Companies should also invest in mentorship and training, not as charity, but as a strategic investment in future capacity. Skill-based hiring is slowly gaining traction, emphasizing portfolios, certifications, or practical assessments over years served, but progress remains uneven. The goal should be to reward ability and potential, not just tenure.
Ultimately, demanding experience without providing avenues to earn it is a structural contradiction. If firms continue to treat experience as the sole currency of employability, millions of workers will remain locked outside opportunity, and employers themselves will face a talent drought of their own making. To fix the experience trap, the world of work must rediscover an old truth: every expert, at some point, was a beginner.
