Why is that hard to see? With a lot of simplification about "good" and "bad" candidates...
It's the natural outcome of there being a very small group of bad candidates who apply for a lot of jobs, and a very large group of good candidates who don't apply for jobs very often. What if there's only 50 bad candidates in a particular region, but they all apply for every posted job opening? That's a lot of chaff to get through on every single job posting.
Things aren't that simple for a lot of reasons, but the basic idea holds - you don't need a huge number of people applying for jobs they're clearly unsuited for in order for those people to add up to a huge portion of applicants for any particular job opening.
Really good point. The really good candidate/engineer/whatever might end up only doing 3-10 interviews over 10 years, or less. They do well and get rewarded where they are at, and get picked up quickly when they do interview - and with a good offer.
The really badly interviewing candidate might end up doing 50 a month for a year before they stop looking - and be on the market in another 6 months to a year, where they do it all again.
You'll see the bad pennies a whole lot more often than the good ones.
It's the natural outcome of there being a very small group of bad candidates who apply for a lot of jobs, and a very large group of good candidates who don't apply for jobs very often. What if there's only 50 bad candidates in a particular region, but they all apply for every posted job opening? That's a lot of chaff to get through on every single job posting.
Things aren't that simple for a lot of reasons, but the basic idea holds - you don't need a huge number of people applying for jobs they're clearly unsuited for in order for those people to add up to a huge portion of applicants for any particular job opening.