The Great Graduate Job Drought (ft.com) 35
Global hiring remains 20% below pre-pandemic levels and job switching has hit a 10-year low, according to a LinkedIn report, and new university graduates are bearing the brunt of a labor market that increasingly favors experienced candidates over fresh talent.
In the UK, the Institute of Student Employers found that graduate hiring fell 8% in the last academic year and employers now receive 140 applications for each vacancy, up from 86 per vacancy in 2022-23. US data from the New York Federal Reserve shows unemployment among recent college graduates aged 22-27 stands at 5.8% versus 4.1% for all workers.
Recruiter Reed had 180,000 graduate job postings in 2021 but only 55,000 in 2024. In a survey of Reed clients last year, 15% said they had reduced hiring because of AI. London mayor Sadiq Khan said the capital will be "at the sharpest edge" of AI-driven changes and that entry-level jobs will be first to go.
In the UK, the Institute of Student Employers found that graduate hiring fell 8% in the last academic year and employers now receive 140 applications for each vacancy, up from 86 per vacancy in 2022-23. US data from the New York Federal Reserve shows unemployment among recent college graduates aged 22-27 stands at 5.8% versus 4.1% for all workers.
Recruiter Reed had 180,000 graduate job postings in 2021 but only 55,000 in 2024. In a survey of Reed clients last year, 15% said they had reduced hiring because of AI. London mayor Sadiq Khan said the capital will be "at the sharpest edge" of AI-driven changes and that entry-level jobs will be first to go.
Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Typical abuser mentality. “Look what you made me do!”
The current administration is nothing but DEI hires. Are you going to convince me they all received their jobs based on merit and qualifications?
Re: Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
They are anti-diversity hires. They are all required to be sycophants.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a rather glaring underrepresentation of incompetent fucking morons in Government. You would have thought otherwise, but Trump came along to show us just how wrong we were.
I'd say he's just about gotten it to the point where it reflects the population at large, so really- he's the best DEI President there's ever been.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're totally right but so I think there's been something of a cultural shift where people no longer think you need a degree to do advanced things.
While this has always kinda been true for some people who are smart but don't want to go to college its also just plain letting people run things that they're actually incompetant at. I think its something like the enshittification of society by society, why have good expensive things that fewer, highly payed, well educated people can do - when you can j
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're totally right but so I think there's been something of a cultural shift where people no longer think you need a degree to do advanced things.
While this has always kinda been true for some people who are smart but don't want to go to college its also just plain letting people run things that they're actually incompetant at.
I think that is oversimplification.
I know in my experience that fresh graduates are coming in with some issues. Issues that might make them a problem employee. It is why I am working, called back after retirement and am making a shitload more money. They darn well would love to pay a fresh college graduate a small percentage of what I'm paid. Someone who frankly is potentially making a long career for themselves.
They tried, there was a big problem. So many new graduates don't have the social or inter
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course the numbers haven't caught up yet: Trump has made it clear that any statistician in the administration that publishes "bad" numbers is going to be fired.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Does your irony meter ever go off when you try the dementia thing?
Ah, yes, the old what-about-ism.
For the record, I (and many Democrats) wanted Biden to announce early-on that he was going to serve for 1-term, and make it easy for competitive primaries and selection of a credible candidate as his replacement. His loss of mental acuity was a problem (and I thought maybe he even could have stepped down early and get us over the 1st-woman-president roadblock by letting Harris lead for a time), but with Trump it is downright dangerous because he's a psychopath and there see
Re: (Score:2)
The correct way to address this criticism is exactly how you did, after invoking your fallacy.
"Yes, we acknowledge that Biden was not fit for office by the end. That doesn't excuse you, now. Your turn."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you claiming Harris had dementia? What actually happened is a Republican with dementia ran against a democrat who does not have dementia. TDS addled republicans still insist dementia was a deciding factor, so I can only assume you wanted someone with dementia. Makes me wonder why you disliked in in Biden but not Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We should have kept Biden. He might have died and still been more mentally here than Trump. Biden at least remembered what the Declaration of Independence and never declared a trade war with Mattel. He never tried to posture about conquering Greenland and was not going to invade Venezuela. Or a hundred other batshit / dementia inspired things Trump has done.
Most importantly: he didn't treat minorities or women like second class citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
because we are in a recession (the employment and other data just haven't caught up yet). AI is a convenient way to hide the fact that companies are worried and are holding off hiring. War, threats of war, and tariffs at the whim of a dementia-addled psychopath also contribute to economic uncertainty, which also discourages hiring.
Blaming AI instead of CEOs and Jack Welch / private equity downsizing is an attempt at PR by redirecting the ire of the masses at "AI" instead of CEOs.
Re: (Score:1)
The other replies in this thread have such a hard-on for bashing Trump that they missed the much more obvious answer:
College graduates are stupid.
A lot of degrees are garbage, and people leave college stupider than when they went in. With the exception of STEM fields and a few schools that actually teach you how to think, everyone else is getting a four-year extended adolescence and a pile of debt. It's the reason enrollment is down across the board; even the kids know they are getting screwed.
Busi
"at the sharpest edge" (Score:3)
London mayor Sadiq Khan said the capital will be "at the sharpest edge" of AI-driven changes and that entry-level jobs will be first to go.
It sounds like in a few years Sadiq and others will be desperate to get good people because most would have started at entry level.
Re: (Score:2)
He wasn't saying it's a good thing.
A lot of graduates in the UK are screwed because they need to be in the top 5% income bracket just to stop what they owe on their student loan from increasing, let alone paying it off. It's basically a graduate tax at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
We are in a recession (Score:2)
And of course zero jobs when the data center is are up and running because they're almost completel
no, it's AI (Score:2)
If one of the largest banks in openly admitting plans to NOT bring in entry le
Re: (Score:2)
AI is just the excuse. A CEO has a HUGE motivation to blame AI for layoffs, rather than poor company performance. Investors tend to fire CEOs for poor performance, but reward them for reducing costs in the name of AI. If you were a CEO, you'd blame (or credit) AI too.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, a quick review of GS financials, they've been pulling in ~9% average quarterly YoY growth for the last 2 years.
I think you haven't sufficiently considered the possibility that you're deluding yourself due to your feelings about AI.
Re: (Score:2)
"Past performance does not guarantee future returns."
Also, YouTube is not a source, it's a soapbox.
My comments go well beyond this one specific CEO, but about CEOs in general.
Re: (Score:2)
"Past performance does not guarantee future returns."
You said, "poor company performance". That is a literal implicit invocation of the recent past.
Also, YouTube is not a source, it's a soapbox.
Who said anything about YouTube?
My comments go well beyond this one specific CEO, but about CEOs in general.
And yet, your previous 2 sentences can only be described as desperately trying to keep a narrative afloat that has been called into question.
I consider this a point in favor of the hypothesis that you're just suffering from some AI-caused cognitive dissonance.
Re: (Score:2)
You inferred (recent past) I did not imply it.
The OP quoted the Goldman Sachs CEO from a YouTube video.
Not sure what narrative you're referring to.
Re: (Score:2)
You inferred (recent past) I did not imply it.
lol, wtf dude.
You said:
"A CEO has a HUGE motivation to blame AI for layoffs, rather than poor company performance." "Past performance does not guarantee future returns."
You're trying to dodge the anvil you've dropped on yourself.
The fact is, GS is and has been performing just fine. They're a perfect counter-example to your narrative.
The OP quoted the Goldman Sachs CEO from a YouTube video.
Ah, but you replied to me, not them, and I was not referring to a YouTube video.
Not sure what narrative you're referring to.
"A CEO has a HUGE motivation to blame AI for layoffs, rather than poor company performance."
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should read a little more closely before you reply. Let me break it down for you.
A CEO has a HUGE motivation to blame AI for layoffs, rather than poor company performance.
This is true whether the poor performance has already happened, or whether the CEO has reason to believe the poor performance is about to begin. That's why I said:
Past performance does not guarantee future returns.
Sure, Goldman has had good performance thus far, but that doesn't mean they will continue to enjoy good performance in...the next three years.
I hope this helps you understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should read a little more closely before you reply. Let me break it down for you.
Na, I get where you're trying to swivel your argument.
This is true whether the poor performance has already happened, or whether the CEO has reason to believe the poor performance is about to begin. That's why I said:
That's why you said:
Investors tend to fire CEOs for poor performance, but reward them for reducing costs in the name of AI.
As a hedge against a future downturn, this statement makes precisely zero sense.
Sure, Goldman has had good performance thus far, but that doesn't mean they will continue to enjoy good performance in...the next three years.
And should a downturn happen in 3 years, and yet he cut jobs for a completely non-related reason, guess who looks like an idiot?
I hope this helps you understand.
I understand that you're full of shit, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure whether your comments are intentionally distorting and misrepresenting what I said and intended to say, or whether you really are unable to understand. Either way, good luck on your credulous journey believing CEO hype.