A college degree once ensured prosperity – but gen z is finding ‘just not much out there’
By Maksym Misichenko · The Guardian ·
By Maksym Misichenko · The Guardian ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel agrees that there's a significant skills mismatch and underemployment issue among recent college graduates, particularly in non-STEM fields, which could lead to compressed lifetime earnings and fiscal gaps. The potential impact of AI-driven displacement on entry-level jobs is a major concern.
Risk: Structural erosion of entry-level jobs due to AI, leading to impaired lifetime earnings trajectories for non-STEM graduates.
Opportunity: Investment opportunities in specialized technical skills and STEM fields, as well as in education and training programs that address the skills mismatch.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Jes Vesconte graduated from one of California’s most prestigious art schools, did a Fulbright in Germany and got a master’s from Columbia University.
Yet Vesconte, 29, is struggling to afford everyday life. Amid freelancing and working service-industry jobs, they are now in the midst of yet another job search to supplement their income before their student loan repayment schedule begins next month.
“I can barely find a way to make more than $3,000 a month,” Vesconte said.
Vesconte is not alone. The college degree is “losing its edge”, according to a report this month from the Economic Policy Institute. Despite a growing economy and low unemployment rates, young college graduates are faced with dismal hiring prospects. Survey after survey show that gen Z is experiencing deep economic instability, along with eroding trust in the country’s leadership and weakened social connections.
All of this contributes to a feeling among many young people that they are stuck, and the life and freedom they had envisioned adulthood would bring is simply out of reach.
“They have low expectations for how they’re doing now, they have low expectations of how things are going to look in the future,” said Janelle Jones, the former chief economist at the Department of Labor and a senior fellow at the Groundwork Collaborative, a left-leaning thinktank. “That is in part the labor market, but people aren’t just workers. They’re living in a time where we’re facing multiple existential crises right now.”
It may be easy for some to dismiss the angst and instability felt among many of today’s twentysomethings as a rite of passage that all young adults inevitably experience. But the data shows this generation is facing a set of challenges different from anything the country has seen before.
The unemployment rate for recent college graduates has been higher than that of the overall American workforce since the pandemic, according to data compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. And while the overall unemployment rate among college graduates is still lower than the unemployment rate of all workers, the gap between them has narrowed significantly compared with decades before.
“We’ve told generations of young people that if you want to make it, if you want to be secure, if you want to be stable, if you want a comfortable middle-class life, you should go to college,” Jones said. “The leg up of a college degree is not lost by any stretch, but it’s a little less than it was, because so many more people have a college degree.”
Even as the value of a college degree has gone down, the cost for one still remains high. The graduating class of 2024 left with an average of $29,560 in loans, according to LendingTree, while total student loan debt in the country reached upwards of $1.8tn, with more than 44 million Americans owing federal loan debt.
Even for people who have jobs, the current economy can make it difficult to switch career paths or pursue more meaningful work. Sophia Xu, a 28-year-old designer at a big tech company, said she has struggled to find a new job internally or externally.
“I’ve worked in this industry long enough where I have a better sense of what I am looking for in my next job and what would make me happy,” she said. “There’s just not much out there.”
Young people’s confidence in the economy and their personal finances are also down. Since the 1970s, the University of Michigan has found that the consumer sentiment index among people aged 18-34 has been mostly stronger than their older counterparts. But that index took a nosedive last year and has since remained lower than that of Americans over age 55.
Research from David G Blanchflower, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College, has found that the wellbeing of American workers is deteriorating most quickly among young employees, stemming from reasons that extend well beyond the state of the job market. For example, fewer young Americans have their driver’s license, want to go out on a date or are having sex.
“We’ve seen this huge decline in all sorts of things,” Blanchflower said. “There’s long trends in this stuff going on, and then it was exacerbated by smartphones. So I think we’re in a deeply complex puzzle.”
The experience of early adulthood has ended up being lackluster compared with what many young Americans saw on TV and in movies growing up.
“The idealized life of the Carrie Bradshaw, or the cast of Friends, that we see in these TV shows might have been possible when those shows existed, but now, capitalism has fractured things so much that even having a social life in New York City is really an effort,” Vesconte said. “Most of my friends, who I met at school, moved out of New York after they graduated, because it’s so hard to live here and hard to have a social life.”
Ragini Subramanian, 23, majored in journalism and media studies at Rutgers University, hoping to work in anything but public relations. But after graduating last May, the job they landed was an hourly contract at a small PR firm based in East Brunswick, working long hours at a desk with no windows.
After nearly a year making roughly $1,600 a month and spending just under half of that paycheck on an apartment shared with four roommates, Subramanian quit their job and moved back home to the Bay Area.
It’s a solution that many in gen Z have turned to over the last decade. Though the percentage of Americans aged 25 to 34 who live with their parents has dropped slightly since the pandemic, a fifth of young adults still live with their parents.
“Financially, it wasn’t giving me enough for me to be able to live here [in New Jersey] and pay rent,” Subramanian said, adding that they were saving very little during that time. Living with their parents has allowed them to focus on freelance work and look for a long-term job.
But while they consider themselves lucky to have the opportunity to move back home, Subramanian, who is queer, said it can also be socially isolating.
“That’s what’s kind of stunting me right now, especially someone who’s trying to work in the creative field. So I’m trying to find ways around that, and to get myself outside in spaces where I feel more understood, of course, and just be myself,” they said.
Despite plunging into the uncertainty of unemployment and applying for jobs in the precarious media industry, Subramanian said that since leaving that job in PR, they feel anything but stuck.
“I know I have a lot to do and offer to this world, whether that is being paid by a company or whether that is my own work that will lead me elsewhere,” they said. “I have no doubt in my mind, right now, that I’ll be OK.”
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Persistent youth underemployment and sentiment collapse will weigh on consumption growth for at least the next 3-5 years."
The article highlights a narrowing college wage premium and rising underemployment for recent grads, with NY Fed data showing their unemployment rate exceeding the national average since 2020. This coincides with $1.8T student debt and plunging consumer sentiment among 18-34s. Financially, it points to weaker early-career earnings trajectories that could suppress housing demand, auto purchases, and long-term productivity growth. Second-order risks include delayed household formation and lower lifetime tax contributions, amplifying fiscal pressures. The creative/media examples reflect skills mismatch more than broad labor weakness.
The piece relies on selective anecdotes from oversupplied fields like journalism and art; aggregate data still shows college grads enjoy 60%+ lower unemployment than non-grads, and post-pandemic recovery in entry-level hiring may simply lag other cohorts without signaling permanent decline.
"Gen Z faces real headwinds, but the article mistakes cyclical job-market softness and sentiment depression for structural degree devaluation—the earnings premium persists, though debt-to-income ratios and delayed life milestones pose medium-term consumer spending risks."
This article conflates cyclical labor-market slack with structural generational decline. Yes, recent college grad unemployment exceeds pre-pandemic levels—but the Fed's own data shows it's still historically low (~3.5% vs. 5%+ in 2010-2015). The article cherry-picks anecdotes ($3k/month freelancers, PR contract workers) while omitting that median earnings for college grads remain ~$1.8M lifetime premium over high school. Gen Z's sentiment collapse is real and concerning, but conflating 'I feel stuck' with 'the degree is worthless' ignores that degree holders still earn 80%+ more. The $1.8T student debt figure is alarming, but average debt per borrower (~$29k) is manageable at 6-7% rates if job placement improves.
If labor market tightness persists and real wage growth stalls while debt servicing resumes, Gen Z's sentiment could become self-fulfilling—delayed household formation, reduced consumption, lower lifetime earnings—creating a genuine cohort earnings drag that outlasts the current cycle.
"The economic struggle of Gen Z is less a failure of the labor market and more a fundamental devaluation of non-technical, high-cost degrees in a skills-based economy."
The article conflates a 'credentials crisis' with a broader economic failure. While the ROI on liberal arts and humanities degrees has cratered due to supply-demand imbalances in the labor market, the narrative ignores the massive premium still commanded by STEM and trade-certified graduates. We are seeing a bifurcation: a surplus of 'prestige' degree holders chasing stagnant creative roles, while high-productivity sectors face chronic labor shortages. The 'stuck' feeling isn't necessarily a macro-economic collapse; it’s a structural mismatch between educational output and market demand. Investors should look past the headline angst and focus on the widening wage gap between specialized technical skills and generalist degrees.
If the decline in consumer sentiment among 18-34 year olds persists, it could trigger a long-term contraction in discretionary spending, disproportionately hurting the consumer staples and services sectors.
"The Gen Z wage-and-spending squeeze may turn into a lasting headwind for consumer discretionary demand unless wages rise or debt relief accelerates, risking a re-rating of demand-sensitive equities."
While the article spotlights real anxiety among Gen Z graduates, the broader data don't spell a secular collapse in the value of a degree. Unemployment for recent grads remains below the overall rate, and the college wage premium persists on average, even if erosion is real in certain fields. The debt story matters, but policy shifts and stronger wage growth could relieve cash flow and lift discretionary spending gradually. The risk investors should test is whether this is a cyclical lull or a structural re-rating of the college premium. If the former, the downturn is a buying opportunity; if the latter, consumer-demand headwinds persist longer than expected.
Counterpoint: the data cited show grads still have unemployment below the broader workforce, and the downturn could be cyclical rather than structural; this warns against overstating secular decline.
"NY Fed reversal since 2020 signals structural mismatch that could erode the lifetime premium faster than cyclical views allow."
Claude's historical comparison ignores the NY Fed reversal since 2020 where recent grad unemployment now exceeds the national average, a shift that aligns with Gemini's mismatch but extends beyond sentiment into sustained earnings drag. This risks compressing the lifetime premium faster than acknowledged, hitting housing and tax revenues even if aggregate unemployment stays low. The bifurcation could widen fiscal gaps if non-STEM cohorts remain underemployed.
"The 2020 reversal matters only if it's structural; recession stress-testing will reveal whether recent grads face cyclical slack or permanent re-rating of early-career wages."
Grok flags the NY Fed reversal—recent grad unemployment exceeding national average post-2020—which is the crux. But nobody's tested whether this persists if labor markets cool. If we enter a recession and *all* unemployment rises, does the recent-grad premium collapse or normalize? The real risk isn't the current gap; it's whether Gen Z's cohort faces a permanently depressed entry wage that compounds lifetime earnings. That's testable in next 18 months.
"AI is structurally removing the entry-level career rungs that historically justified the college wage premium for generalist degrees."
Claude and Grok are missing the impact of AI-driven displacement on the 'generalist' degree. It’s not just a cyclical mismatch; large language models are structurally eroding the entry-level white-collar tasks that previously served as the 'apprenticeship' phase for humanities and business grads. This isn't just about wage premiums; it’s about the collapse of the career ladder itself. If the entry-level rungs are removed, the lifetime earnings trajectory is structurally impaired, regardless of the broader unemployment rate.
"AI-driven displacement will not permanently erase the entry-level ladder; the impact will hinge on upskilling, policy support, and AI adoption pace."
Response to Gemini: AI-driven displacement is a real risk, but treating it as a permanent collapse of the entry-level ladder may be premature. Adoption cycles favor augmentation over wholesale elimination; many 'generalist' roles shrink due to automation, but new tasks and higher-skilled roles rise, potentially compressing some wage premia rather than destroying them. Markets should monitor upskilling uptake, wage support from policy, and the pace of AI integration into administrative/creative workflows, not just headline hype.
The panel agrees that there's a significant skills mismatch and underemployment issue among recent college graduates, particularly in non-STEM fields, which could lead to compressed lifetime earnings and fiscal gaps. The potential impact of AI-driven displacement on entry-level jobs is a major concern.
Investment opportunities in specialized technical skills and STEM fields, as well as in education and training programs that address the skills mismatch.
Structural erosion of entry-level jobs due to AI, leading to impaired lifetime earnings trajectories for non-STEM graduates.