The phrase "In a world where there aren't enough butts to fill the seats in our offices" leads me to ask: if this is true, why does every job website discuss the increasing competition? Why do resume builders promise to differentiate resumes from the other 300 that came in for one position?

These are 2 opposing conversations taking place. I'd guess that those hiring say no one is qualified enough who comes along; and those searching will lament their inability to get an interview.

How can these both be true?

Speaking utterly from personal experience: much of the frustration and perceived lack of opportunity comes from very recent grads. Like most of us, they had to jockey for good opportunities for a few years before they connect, and then they stop complaining about not being able to find a job because they have one.

Another facet of this is that there is not as much upward mobility within arts organizations as there is in the for-profit world, working too lean to have room for middle management. Therefore to go "up," one must usually go "out." It's not so much lateral movement as leapfrogging.

I run a large theater in a metro area, but I'm 59, and still paying off my last student loan. (OK, I went back to school for a graduate degree, and I didn't hurry much when it was the cheapest money in my portfolio.) My #2 is a few years younger, but she's an artist and this is her day job. She probably wouldn't want (or be offered) my position if I left. Next below her: a part-timer in her 20's, taking night courses and trying to decide between publishing and theater. She wouldn't be the choice for #2.

On the production side, there is a full-time production manager with almost 20 years in the job, but right below him are a handful of technicians in their 20's and early 30's getting around $20/hour. One of them might, in fact, move up if the PM left... but where does that leave the others for the next 20 years?