Job applications have become significantly harder to get hired for due to a decrease in the effort required to apply. Ten years ago, interviews resulted from about 15% of applications, but now that number is as low as 2-3%. This dramatic shift is attributed to technologies like LinkedIn's Easy Apply and AI-generated application materials, which have reduced the cost of applying to nearly zero. While convenient for applicants, this ease of application has led to an overwhelming volume of submissions for employers. Recruiters now receive hundreds of applications for a single position, making manual review impractical. Consequently, Applicant Tracking Systems and AI screening tools have become essential, often filtering out candidates before a human ever sees their resume. This has created an "arms race" where streamlined applications and AI optimization are met with increasingly sophisticated automated screening. The unintended consequence is that employers may not find the best candidates but rather those who best satisfy screening algorithms. This phenomenon, akin to a tragedy of the commons, occurs when individual rational actions degrade a shared resource. The article argues that reducing friction in a single interaction doesn't optimize the entire system. Good design, it suggests, sometimes requires the right amount of friction to ensure the efficient functioning of a system. Over-optimizing the application process for individual convenience has overwhelmed human attention, a scarce resource in hiring. The article concludes that true good UX considers the impact of individual actions on the larger system, not just the ease of a single interaction.