Unemployment in Turkey is no longer just an economic indicator; it has become a social phenomenon that is shaped and managed by political preferences and is increasingly taken for granted. Excluding children and pensioners, the number of those who are able to work but unemployed is over 3 million. According to TurkStat's November 2025 data, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was announced as 8.6 percent, and the number of unemployed increased by 54 thousand people in one month, reaching 3 million 98 thousand.
Although these figures are presented with the coldness of a technical statistic at first glance, the real gravity of the issue lies beyond the numbers, in life itself. The fact that women's unemployment has risen to 11.8 percent, youth unemployment remains at a high level of 15.4 percent and the idle labor force rate is still at 29.1 percent shows that unemployment is being concealed by narrow definitions. We are facing a labor market with a low labor force participation rate, a fragile employment rate and a labor market where working hours are increasing while security is decreasing.
At this point, one should ask: Is unemployment really decreasing or is the definition of unemployment being narrowed?
Employment growth in Turkey is based on low-paid, precarious and long working hours, rather than qualified and secure jobs. The increase in the actual weekly working hours to 42.3 hours does not show that more people are working, but that workers are getting more tired. This is not an employment policy that increases productivity; it is a choice that makes labor more intense, more fragile and more silent.
At the center of this preference is the Unemployment Insurance Fund. This fund, which was created with premiums deducted from workers and will reach approximately 500 billion TL by 2025, has become one of the most difficult public resources for the unemployed to access despite its name. The fund has grown and accumulated, but it is still conditional, limited and often inaccessible for the unemployed citizen. Exit codes, number of premium days and bureaucratic obstacles have transformed unemployment pay from a social right into an exception.
More importantly, this fund has been diverted from its original purpose. The significant difference between the size of the fund and the payments made to workers reveals how the resources have been diverted. These resources, which are supposed to be a guarantee for the unemployed, have been directed to financing employer incentives and various employment programs, while the citizen who is unemployed is left with the question “why can't you benefit?”.
The fund is in place, in the coffers, but it does not work for the unemployed. The fund is managed by the Board of Directors of İŞKUR, which includes representatives of the state and members of workers' and employers' confederations. However, the way in which it is managed and the priorities for its use have led the fund to deviate from its original purpose.
Another structural factor that deepens unemployment is the systematic erosion of job security. In a system where layoffs become easier, indefinite-term contracts become virtually meaningless, and severance pay becomes a subject of constant debate, unemployment becomes the common fate of not only the unemployed but also the employed. In a society without job security, union rights are weakened, wages are suppressed and democracy is confined to the ballot box.
The institutionalized form of this precariousness is subcontracted work. What should be a temporary form of employment has turned into a permanent social status in Turkey. The differences in wages, rights and future created between workers doing the same job disintegrate not only the labor market but also the sense of social justice. Subcontracting does not produce cheapness; it produces poverty, disorganization and permanent precariousness.
Another deep problem accompanying this picture is the meritocracy crisis. Public personnel recruitments, which should be based on objective criteria and equal competition, have been transformed into areas where political loyalty is tested under the name of interviews. Centralized exams such as KPSS have ceased to be decisive, and torpil, reference and affiliation have become de facto employment criteria. The fact that one of the two candidates with the same score is appointed and the other remains unemployed is not an individual misfortune; it is the collapse of the public mind. When merit disappears, public employment becomes a mechanism that consumes hope rather than reducing unemployment.
Despite all this, the political discourse on unemployment is still built around the concept of “patience”. Patience is preached to unemployed youth, patience is expected from precarious workers, patience is counseled to women who cannot find a job. Yet patience may be a virtue, but it cannot be the price of wrong policies. No one has to bear the consequences of other people's choices with patience.
Moreover, in a country where unemployment is so widespread, clinging to the discourse of “not liking jobs” is to lose touch with reality. It is not that young people don't like jobs; they reject a future without a future. Questioning a labor system where the minimum wage is below the poverty line and security has become an exception is not laziness; it is common sense.
There are questions that must now be asked openly: Who bears the political responsibility for this unemployment picture? On what grounds are those who misuse the unemployment fund, perpetuate subcontracting and push merit out of the system not held accountable? How is it so easy to hide behind the statistics published every month and make the responsibility for the years that have been lost from the lives of millions of people invisible?
The problem is not technical. There are resources, but no will. There are exams, not justice. There are jobs, but no security. None of these are coincidences; they are all political choices.
However, the solution is clear. Job security must be restored. Arbitrary dismissals should be made more difficult and workers should not be condemned to silence for fear of unemployment. Subcontracted work should be made an exception; subcontracted workers who do the actual work should be hired into secure positions. Access to unemployment pay should be facilitated and the resources of the 500 billion Unemployment Insurance Fund should be directed to its real owners, namely workers. Public employment programs for women and youth should be implemented and the social state approach should be strengthened instead of a labor system left to the mercy of the market.
Unemployment is not a fate. It is a managed choice. What is being managed in Turkey today is not unemployment, but the patience of the unemployed. However, the social state is obliged to organize not patience but security.
If there are no jobs, there is someone responsible.
If there is a fund but the unemployed do not receive it, this must be held to account.
If there are millions who pass the exam but cannot be appointed, this is a system problem.