Not just AI, being young can put your job at risk: Here's why
Artificial intelligence and its dooming impact on jobs is a topic that has become a hot potato in news reports. We know how algorithms are replacing human intelligence. Yes, it is a bitter truth that automation is creeping into boardrooms and taking over. However, a truth, or rather a stereotype, lurks behind the curtains: youth itself can now be a liability. Not because they lack skill, not because of an absence of education, but simply because they are young.
The stereotype is sharp and stubborn. Younger workers are dismissed as entitled, unreliable, and too soft for the grind. They are labeled impatient, unreceptive to feedback, and distracted by side hustles. This mindset justifies shrinking and cutting off the first rung of the career ladder. It turns an entire generation into a perceived risk rather than an asset.
Yes, Generation Z has often challenged and dismantled the status quo that their predecessors were hesitant to question. But the questions that remain are: Is it right to stereotype and discriminate against them? Can we truly thrive as a nation by stripping the future generation of the opportunities they deserve?
AI as a scapegoat
Now, employers have artificial intelligence as a veil to hide the real reason. Machines can handle the basic tasks, they say, making the first rung less necessary. Yet evidence shows technology shifts tasks; it does not eliminate the need for training. Young workers learn judgment, resilience, and tacit knowledge, segments that machine cannot replicate. Without them, institutional know-how erodes.
Evidence from the US workplace
A 2024 survey by Intelligent.com highlights the extent of youngism in the United States. Among 966 business leaders, only 25 percent were eager to hire Gen Z freshers, while 17 percent expressed hesitation or outright reluctance. Employers cited perceived deficiencies in motivation, professionalism, and work ethic. Nearly half said young hires struggle to respond constructively to feedback, and 65 percent believed they show entitlement that disrupts team dynamics.
The report also revealed that three-quarters of companies found only a few Gen Z recruits met expectations after onboarding, and 60 percent had to fire at least one young hire. Internships, traditionally a bridge to full-time work, are less reliable: offer rates dropped to 62 percent, the lowest in over five years. These numbers show a disconnect between Gen Z’s potential and entrenched workplace norms.
The wider impact
Youngism extends beyond the workplace. Debt, stalled careers, and fewer opportunities delay home ownership, family formation, and long-term planning. Fertility rates drop. Frustration grows. Legally, federal age-bias protections start at 40, leaving Gen Z in a blind spot where prejudice thrives unseen.
The cost to companies
Sidelining young talent is not just unfair, but expensive. Can we really afford it? Recruitment costs rise and turnovers surge. Knowledge leaks as veterans depart. Short-term convenience becomes long-term fragility. Firms undercut innovation and weaken the very workforce they will later pay a premium to replace.
A path forward
Solutions are clear. Post real entry-level jobs with realistic requirements. Rebuild internship-to-job pathways. Introduce apprenticeships in white-collar fields with structured mentoring. Provide feedback, guidance, and support to help first-job entrants persist. Culture is the multiplier: Treating young employees as contributors rather than risks counters youngism while boosting long-term performance.
AI is not the main culprit. Youngism is. Marginalizing a generation threatens both individuals and organizations. Ignoring youth may seem expedient today, but the cost will be unavoidable tomorrow.
The stereotype is sharp and stubborn. Younger workers are dismissed as entitled, unreliable, and too soft for the grind. They are labeled impatient, unreceptive to feedback, and distracted by side hustles. This mindset justifies shrinking and cutting off the first rung of the career ladder. It turns an entire generation into a perceived risk rather than an asset.
Yes, Generation Z has often challenged and dismantled the status quo that their predecessors were hesitant to question. But the questions that remain are: Is it right to stereotype and discriminate against them? Can we truly thrive as a nation by stripping the future generation of the opportunities they deserve?
AI as a scapegoat
Now, employers have artificial intelligence as a veil to hide the real reason. Machines can handle the basic tasks, they say, making the first rung less necessary. Yet evidence shows technology shifts tasks; it does not eliminate the need for training. Young workers learn judgment, resilience, and tacit knowledge, segments that machine cannot replicate. Without them, institutional know-how erodes.
Evidence from the US workplace
A 2024 survey by Intelligent.com highlights the extent of youngism in the United States. Among 966 business leaders, only 25 percent were eager to hire Gen Z freshers, while 17 percent expressed hesitation or outright reluctance. Employers cited perceived deficiencies in motivation, professionalism, and work ethic. Nearly half said young hires struggle to respond constructively to feedback, and 65 percent believed they show entitlement that disrupts team dynamics.
The report also revealed that three-quarters of companies found only a few Gen Z recruits met expectations after onboarding, and 60 percent had to fire at least one young hire. Internships, traditionally a bridge to full-time work, are less reliable: offer rates dropped to 62 percent, the lowest in over five years. These numbers show a disconnect between Gen Z’s potential and entrenched workplace norms.
The wider impact
Youngism extends beyond the workplace. Debt, stalled careers, and fewer opportunities delay home ownership, family formation, and long-term planning. Fertility rates drop. Frustration grows. Legally, federal age-bias protections start at 40, leaving Gen Z in a blind spot where prejudice thrives unseen.
The cost to companies
Sidelining young talent is not just unfair, but expensive. Can we really afford it? Recruitment costs rise and turnovers surge. Knowledge leaks as veterans depart. Short-term convenience becomes long-term fragility. Firms undercut innovation and weaken the very workforce they will later pay a premium to replace.
A path forward
Solutions are clear. Post real entry-level jobs with realistic requirements. Rebuild internship-to-job pathways. Introduce apprenticeships in white-collar fields with structured mentoring. Provide feedback, guidance, and support to help first-job entrants persist. Culture is the multiplier: Treating young employees as contributors rather than risks counters youngism while boosting long-term performance.
AI is not the main culprit. Youngism is. Marginalizing a generation threatens both individuals and organizations. Ignoring youth may seem expedient today, but the cost will be unavoidable tomorrow.
Next Story