AI is reshaping work faster than universities, employers, or governments can adapt.
In this intergenerational conversation, I talk with my son Tom about how artificial intelligence has destroyed the old promise: work hard, get good grades, and you'll get a good job.
From “ghost jobs” to algorithmic hiring and a two-tier workforce, this video explores what happens when AI changes everything — and how young people can still shape their future.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
I closed this week's Funding the Future podcast by saying:
We are living in a period of change. You are going to live through a lot more change than I've seen in my career.
The conversation that I was concluding was with my son, Tom, who, for the past eighteen months, has been behind the camera for every YouTube video we've made. For the first time, he came out from behind the lens to talk about something that directly affects his generation: how artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping employment, and what that means for young people trying to enter the world of work.
The conversation ranged from personal experience to hard data, and from graduate disillusionment to the new inequalities of AI. What emerged was a sobering, and at times disturbing, portrait of a labour market being transformed faster than most people — including employers — can comprehend.
The AI revolution without a plan
I began by noting that many businesses are rushing into AI adoption out of FOMO — the 'fear of missing out' — rather than as a consequence of having any coherent strategy. Few know why they might use it for, or with what consequences. Yet, despite this confusion, the impact on real people, and in particular young people, is already enormous.
Tom's observation was blunt: young people, students and graduates are entering a “confusing situation” in which they don't know what skills to acquire or what jobs will even exist.
When he started university in 2020, AI was a distant rumour. Four years later, it dominates everything in the world of work he faces. He likened it to the spread of smartphones; initially novel, then suddenly everywhere.
The result is a generation being told to invest in education without any clarity about where it will lead. That uncertainty is spreading fast.
Graduates are being squeezed out
The graduate employment system, as Tom described, has become dehumanised and alienating. Job applications are filtered through AI-driven forms that strip out personality and force applicants to re-enter every detail manually — “the most boring thing in the world,” he said. After hours of aptitude tests and algorithmic vetting, most applicants receive automated rejections, often with no feedback.
The scale of the mismatch is startling. A survey by Hult International Business School found that 98% of employers said they struggled to fill vacancies, but 89% admitted they did not want to hire graduates. In short, employers complain of a skills shortage while rejecting the very people they demand that the economy produce.
The absurdity deepens. In 2024, there were just 17,000 graduate jobs advertised in the UK, attracting 1.2 million applications, or about 70 applicants per job. Of course, many people applied for many jobs, but it is still the case that universities continue to expand their intake, producing another 465,000 graduates each year. Whatever the data underpinning the ratios, the arithmetic simply doesn't work.
No wonder Tom concluded: “The old idea — get good grades, go to a good university, get a good job — is dead.”
The rise of “ghost jobs”
If that weren't demoralising enough, many of the jobs graduates do apply for turn out to be ghosts. These are vacancies that companies post without any intention of filling them, whether to collect CV data, to signal “growth” to investors, or simply to test the market.
Tom cited data suggesting 30% of advertised positions are ghost jobs, rising to nearly 60% in some sectors. His friend applied to seven such roles, all of which remained online long after rejection letters arrived. Another firm Tom had applied to kept the same vacancy open for a year, re-advertising it every few months, but never seeming to want to actually fill it.
The result is an economy where hope is systematically wasted. Jobseekers spend weeks applying to roles that don't exist. Companies exploit the illusion of opportunity to mine personal data or inflate their image. It's a form of corporate dishonesty — employment wash, if you like — and it leaves young people exhausted and disillusioned.
AI and the death of entry-level work
Tom's own field of study was accounting and finance. Yet, as he discovered, the firms that once hired thousands of trainees are now scaling back. The Big Four accountancy firms, he noted, have cut graduate recruitment by between 6% and 29% in a single year.
Why? Because AI can already do much of the routine data work that once required human accountants. Employers are filling entry-level gaps with algorithms rather than apprentices.
The same pattern is visible in marketing, coding, and customer service — professions now being “AI-washed.” As one local business owner told me, his marketing agency has effectively become a tech firm: it writes AI prompts for clients instead of campaigns. The problem, he admitted, is that “if there are no juniors now, who replaces me when I retire?”
This is the new paradox of automation: short-term efficiency at the cost of long-term sustainability. If companies eliminate the bottom rung, there will be no ladder left to climb.
Learning to master the machines
Yet not all the news is bleak. Tom and I both use AI every day in our work — for research, structuring videos, and accelerating creative processes. Used intelligently, it saves time and sparks ideas.
But, as we agreed, AI must be mastered, not served. The real risk is not that machines take our jobs, but that people forget how to think. Writing a good AI prompt is not like typing into Google. It's a craft requiring clarity, precision, and critical awareness — the very skills universities should be teaching.
Yet universities, fearful of cheating and plagiarism, have mostly retreated from AI training. They are preparing students for a world that no longer exists. The Hult survey again offers insight: 94% of graduates who learned AI skills said it improved their career prospects, but few are being offered the chance to learn those skills formally.
So, we have an education system afraid of the tools that define the modern workplace. That cannot last.
Job killer or job creator?
Tom's view was that AI is both: it destroys routine work but creates new opportunities for those with initiative. It can do in seconds what once took hours — from writing citations to data analysis — freeing people to focus on creativity, design, and strategy.
But he also warned of an emerging two-tier workforce:
- AI users — lower-paid, task-driven, and easily replaced;
- AI designers and strategists — fewer in number, but commanding far greater influence.
That divide, he suggested, will define his generation's inequality. Not just between rich and poor, but between those who learn to work with AI and those who are worked by it.
Lifelong learning or lifelong precarity?
Our conversation ended with something more hopeful. Over the past eighteen months, Tom has reinvented himself as a videographer, editor, and digital learner — mostly self-taught through online courses and peer learning. He has acquired a range of skills, from lighting and sound to AI-assisted editing, none of which existed in his original degree.
That, perhaps, is the lesson. In a world of accelerating change, learning can no longer stop at graduation. It must be continuous, self-directed, and creative. Those who adapt will find opportunities. Those who wait for the old job market to return will wait forever.
A new social contract for education and work
The deeper problem is, I think, systemic. We are asking young people to invest time, money, and hope into an education system that no longer guarantees them a livelihood.
Employers complain of shortages while excluding the newly qualified.
Universities sell courses while refusing to teach the skills employers now demand.
Governments celebrate “innovation” while ignoring the growing despair of those left out.
If we want AI to serve society, not enslave it, we need a new social contract between learning, work, and technology — one that recognises human potential as our most valuable form of intelligence.
As I said at the close of the podcast:
AI is changing the world, whether we like it or not. The only question that remains is whether we shape it — or let it shape us.
AI isn't the end of work. But it is the end of pretending that the old rules of education and employment still apply.
Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here.
One word of warning, though: please ensure you have the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
‘Useful conversation to have with my children doing their final year.
Thank you.
In Derbyshire, there is a saying about jumping the gun, adopting attitudes etc., before thinking them through called being a bit ‘previous’ and that is what the introduction of AI seems like to me. Behind all of it I am sure is just a desire to cut costs and also hoover up more of labour costs to increase profits.
I am still unsure however of AI’s ability to cope with infinite variety and the ‘god in the machine problem ‘ that it is created by us and carries what we don’t know or don’t like.
There are so many bad things about AI that the “good” things seem so obviously outweighed I’m not sure why there is a debate about it.
The overhyped stock market boom caused by AI will likely take the rest of the economy down with it when the bubble bursts.
The potential loss of jobs is not a by product with AI. It is its most attractive potential use for billionaires that want to get richer. AI will be used to attack the working class. Simple as that.
That is without going into the nefarious uses it is being put to by the Zionists in Palestine and elsewhere.
There are many studies showing deleterious effects on human learning and thinking after AI reliance over time. (Sorry, do not have links for these but Naked Capitalism has provided many in the last few months).
Yet when I commented here last week asking why you use AI and expressing disapproval you superciliously answered “what do you want me to do, use a feather pen?” Which is exactly the sort of mindless assumption of technological superiority that is fuelling this AI bubble in the first place.
I should have answered, but couldn’t be bothered (although I obviously can now) that you should make your videos and write your blog posts like you did before AI was available. Why you cannot do that I don’t know. Maybe because once used, AI inhibits or atrophies the old skills? Or you have just become addicted to the new normal?
Just because a technology exists doesn’t mean it should become widespread. Pernicious effects are never taken into account because they do not align with the interests of the billionaires that own the technology.
Technology is never “neutral” as its propagandists like to claim. It always serves the interests of those that own it. And that is never the general population who are, always, the most subject to its changes in the means of production.
I remember a story a few years ago that interviewed high level managers and CEOs at social media companies. Without exception none of them allowed their children to use social media on their phones.
All that mind numbing crap is just for the rest of it.
A question or three Alan, before I address what you say, before doing which I need to know the answers to these framing questions.
First, do you use Google, and maybe Wikipedia or other online resources? If so, why?
Second, have you actually used AI, and what for? Please be precise, it will help me. Are you just uisng it like Google or are you asking it to do something else, and if so how?
Third, what do you think has changed as a result of my use of AI? How do you know?
You are being very direct about what you expect of me. I want to know why, based on what evidence. This will greatly assist the AI series I am working on. So, thank you in advance.
OK, answers.
1) Well, I bought my first computer in 1998 I think. Back then search wasn’t such a thing. It was surfing and emails. The infancy of the internet. But that was obviously seized on by tech monopolists like Google. The first ability to search was awesome and Google dominated that by being superior early on. But, with monopolistic practices like buying up rivals they did not have to improve. Indeed, see Cory Doctorow and the idea of “enshitiffication” for how the internet we have now is not as good as it could have been or, even, how it used to be.
I use Wikipedia sometimes but not Google search. I now use other search engines and never Chrome so I can be free of the corporatised profit seeking and ads for my searches. The fact that most humans cannot be bothered to do this is what drives the Google profit model.
2) I don’t use AI, although resisting it is becoming harder and harder. I,hate the constant imposition,of,commas, for example which I have left here rather than delete the, as I usually do. I assume a spell,checker is a primitive AI model? It sucks. I am not a high powered academic like you, just a self educated chap,that does,not need or want the assistance I am being offered. I,can do it myself. With extra commas if need be!
3) I do not know what has changed in your articles since you started using AI. I,have only,subscribed to your blog in the last couple,of,years so,I do not know, how it was different,before that. (I,cannot be bothered to,delete these bloody commas!) So, consequently, I do not know how it has improved either. Not that much I’d guess. It is still you isn’t it.
I hope that helps.
We need to remember that any technology that is promoted by every mainstream media outlet is singing the tune of the people that own the media outlets. No technology is impartial.
As an aside, that is why my enthusiasm for your articles are somewhat circumscribed when they start with “as the Guardian says today” etc.
I know what the Guardian will say almost every day. Or the Telegraph. That is why I stopped reading their articles and started reading alternative media like you.
Keep up the good work.
1. Thank you. Appreciated. This helps me frame what i am writing.
2. If you use search engines and Wikipedia you might as well use AI. The point is though that few people use search engines at all well (there is actually a guide on this blog) so they get poor results and the same is true with AI. An example is your comma problem. I have never seen that, ever, but if I did I would give it an instruction not to do it. I remain in command of it, not it me. You ate letting it take command.
3. I use AI as an assistant – but never to create. That’s it. I command it. And I always check the results. Jacqueline finds it hard to tell when i have used AI here, and she edits material here as well.
4. Thanks, again.
I might make two comments.
The first it that when I started work – not long after you Richard! there were large numbers of staff ‘pushing paper’ that has all gone thanks not to AI but massive developments in IT, so in part AI isnt a separate issue its just the next step.
Then of course what about Reginald Mitchell? Started as an apprentice at Kerr Stuart, steam locomotive builders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr,_Stuart_and_Company
Then went into aviation and designed the Supermarine Spitfire.
You can and of course people do move into entirely different areas of work using what you have already learnt and by learning more.
Might the reaction of too many A I using and expecting to use A I indicate something of a parasitical attitude to society?
As has been suggested, might much the same number of people employed for much less time keep profit margins much the same, keep citizens wealthy enough to buy, pay debts, maintain good health etc. and live more lively lives which would enhance society rather than harm it?
Might government, which seems to be/is more caring of employers and rentiers than the regular citizens, and their children whom they are paid to serve, have similar parasitical tendences?
I hope to address these issues soon. Might your wait? It will happen.
Thanks for the useful insight into the graduate market despite its problems I think your son demonstrated the benefits of a university education, the ability to research, to learn and adapt and, to me, these are the essential skills required in these changing times. It seems if employers prefer to use AI to reduce its graduate workforce then we are left with a huge pool of under utilised talent.
We will do more on this.
17000 jobs advertised in 2024 for nearly 450000 graduates is absolutely dire!!!
Before ascribing this all to AI is it not possible that some of it is due to the state of the economy caused by decades of neoliberal mismanagement?
The official unemployment rate is 4.7%, meaning that nearly 1.7 million people are unemployed. Whilst the government is trying to push the sick and unemployed into work, efforts to do so are like training people to sit down more quickly in a game of musical chairs. Yes, some people will be helped into work, but only by leaving others standing. What is needed is more chairs, not coaching to sit down quickly. We need more jobs which, despite repeated pledges, successive governments have failed to deliver.
The matter has been made worse by the increase to employers national insurance payments, which particularly disadvantages lower paid workers, such as those just starting work, and those who need training, again such as those just starting work.
Furthermore the general economic uncertainty is discouraging hiring.
Perhaps this might be seen as a hidden recession, where rather than thousands being thrown out of work, the victims are our young people who can’t get jobs.
And, yes, AI maybe making this worse. It is enabling the automated processing of job applications, which is making job applications harder. Conversely job speakers are resorting to using AI to create, and flood job advertisers with, applications. So it is becoming an AI arms race.
The core issue seems to be that employers don’t want to take on graduates who, inevitably, need training. For programming, or “coding”, the vast majority of coders now do “vibe” coding, i.e. code with the assistance of AI. AI can do the work of fresh graduates. It replaces enthusiastic yet inexperienced junior coders. It does not replace experienced skilled coders and I doubt it will for the foreseeable future. So employers want skilled coders, of whom there is a shortage, but won’t take on graduates.
As you say, this is setting up future problems if we don’t train today’s young people to replace those who eventually retire. This is, as you say, the usual issue of short-termism. Employers want to employ skilled employees but don’t want to pay to train them. In my view this is a market failure requiring government intervention and regulation.
Many thanks
Some thoughts:
Search for the statistics for successful AI implementation, and its not that great, even in the US.
Use AI and all those jobs are now being done by companies based overseas, ie you’re employing foreigners and those costs are the business world importing more. Trade figures are going to worsen.
What’s the backup when the AI fails, as it will temporarily? Whatever staff are left just have to struggle. But who knows what to do exactly? Memory fades, even if there is someone who did know. When the AI comes back on, all that has happened during the outage needs to be entered correctly – fat chance if it’s not rehearsed.
A significantly increased attack surface for malware; greater protection costs.
AI models are updated regularly; your models no longer even run, so you have to re-validate, that’s more uncosted effort.
Is your company information explicable to evidential standards if you were sued? (AI isn’t grounded yet) So no, at the moment its not. So you loose by default. Once there’s been a case, if this is the judgement given anywhere, insurance disappears and business stops.
Say US backed AI is everywhere and they want to exert political pressure on UK, the ultimate pressure point is there; ban the export of the use of US AI technology. UK caves in.
Think very long term; will the resources still be available to keep the AI running? Those GPUs only have a 5 year life at best and they are about 60% of the cost of data centres which count as CAPEX. But its not the CAPEX as I ever knew it. Amortising that expense over 5 years changes the sums somewhat.
Now think disaster that certain; we don’t know when, but there will be another Carrington event, or worse a Miyake event (10X Carrington); All those dispersed solar arrays, long exposed power cables; CME’s destroy them. No power=no AI
Is AI such a good idea?
AI exists.
You can’t wish it away.
It’s will not disappear now.
Your comments are falsely premised in that case. The question is how to use AI well, not to pretend it doesn’t exist. That is a dead end.
Just had a new roof. The workers were Romanian (company Belgian). Good chaps, worked hard. Plumbers (father & son team) took off & replaced the solar thermal panels on the roof. Not able to find young people interested in being a plumber (the father & son turnover circa 0.5million euros a year btw). In the Uk, there is a shortage of electricians and plumbers. Kevin, an electrician who covers farms noted that when he retires there is nobody to cover the farms (this is a man that can programme PLCs and motor drives). I’d suggest there is no shortage of demand for skilled jobs – but these are the ones traditionally looked down on as “just “trade”. Most of these jobs blend craft skills with tech understanding. I’d suggest they are +/- impervious to A.I. (absent robots that can doo all this stuff). Perhaps the problems now being faced are transition problems?
With respect to other comments; I use chatGPT to save time – I needed to digitise the output of 3 rogowski coils (one on each phase of a three phase system). Could have spent half a day putting it together. Got ChatGPT to do it in half an hour down to parts lists, PCB layouts and programming. Probably extend it to providing protection for DC systems & save myself a packet of money.
Thanks
A personal view. I went to university in 1957, because I was very interested in chemistry. I had only O level Physics; my girls’ school didn’t teach it. I got a first in both Pt I and Pt II Natural Sciences, then did a Ph.D. The most useful part of this in later life was my hobby of investigating parapsychology, where I learnt to design experiments and weigh evidence. (The experiments were all failures in finding effects, but they were well designed). Perhaps the problem for modern students is that they think university will help them to a better job, and they don’t have the commitment to learning more about a particular subject. Perhaps, as with happiness, successful life post university is not something to aim at but a by-product of something else?
Much to agree with.
I studied economics because I had a passion for it.
Good to draw attention to this. I’ve been skeptical about the ‘work hard, get good qualifications, get a good job’ idea for some time. I’ve gone the ‘mum route’ into low-paid p/t work and find job applications soul-destroying. It is worse for my children in their 20s. Absolutely dire.
Retired Computer Scientist here (with good understanding of ‘AI’), with two graduate sons who struggle in the job market. Current AI is essentially just a database lookup with relaxed query parameters that can generalise to some extent but with very little ability to reason. Businesses used to need juniors, to do the mundane work. Generative AI can now do that reasonably well, providing phrased well and it’s checked for confabulation.
Service businesses especially can partially automate juniors with this technology. Given the expense and hassle of employing people they would like to dispense of that need. They also wish to sound up to date and innovative. Companies are going through a speculative phase at the moment, can they dispense with labour, save money and automate everything.
It’s a bit like Crypto currencies, get in there early, talk it up, get others to buy in and inflate the value then sell at a huge profit. Get rich quick for the minimal effort and keep the gains yourself. As a society we need to change this dynamic. In order to do that we need to see it, recognise it’s wider harms, educate with our findings and show another, better way. We need to understand Greed. This channel and some others are helping, Garry Stevenson, Steve Keen, Zack Polanski, Yanis Varoufakis and many others. Thank you.
Thanks
I found the analysis here illuminating : https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/the-ai-bubble-and-the-u-s-economy-how-long-do-hallucinations-last
With particular reference to – “OpenAI’s internal tests show GPT-5 ‘hallucinates’ in circa one in 10 responses on certain factual tasks, when connected to the internet. However, without web-browsing access, GPT-5 is wrong in almost 1 in 2 responses, which should be troublesome.
Even more worrisome, ‘hallucinations’ may also reflect biases buried within datasets. For instance, an LLM might ‘hallucinate’ crime statistics that align with racial or political biases simply because it has learned from biased data.” and.” AI chatbots can be and are actively used to spread misinformation. According to recent research, chatbots spread false claims when prompted with questions about controversial news topics 35% of the time — almost double the 18% rate of a year ago. AI curates, orders, presents, and censors information, influencing interpretation and debate, while pushing dominant (average or preferred) viewpoints while suppressing alternatives, quietly removing inconvenient facts or making up convenient ones. The key issue is: Who controls the algorithms?
We lean heavily on AI at our peril currently and for a young person trying to navigate their way through it in the world of work must be the mother of all nightmares.
Worryingly AI’s latent potential to decimate economies is going to be almost impossible for anyone to insulate themselves from.
They key issue is AI knows nothing. Use i as a tool. Defne what it should look at. Check the output. Decide to be in charge. It’s not hard.
Technology has been replacing labour since we invented the wheel… that’s the whole point of it.
We can’t afford to be Luddite about these things, as the AI genie is out of the bottle. My first job doing clerical data entry in the civil service has been completely automated for years now. People move on!
As Richard says, learn how to use the tool and it will be useful. You’ll figure out other ways to productively use your time. Nil Desperandum!
I am working on my guide to AI.
It is massively misunderstood – and so fails
In IT I’ve seen boom and bust periods, knowing people who spent 1-2 years out of work during the dotcom crash. Overall, the impact of AI is not as harsh as that period was on IT jobs, but there will be areas where the entry-level jobs are much harder to come by.
I do think there’s other factors at play. A higher retirement age means people are retiring later, providing less progression through the ranks and more experience having to look at lower-level jobs. Precarity means further delays to retirement, making this impact worse. Reduced support for businesses with Smart Grants, etc, means less new jobs. General uncertainty including the impact of the Trump administration reduces new jobs created. And there’s still residual impact from Covid-19.
AI will be a part of the picture, but its impact is more significant because of the range of other negative factors.
I would argue that adoption of AI will continue. It may help raise productivity. This SHOULD be beneficial if it supports growth or there is adequate redistribution to allow people to work less. Productivity gains are not a scourge, but a government that allows people to be left behind and unprotected when these changes arise is failing.
You are undoubtedly right that there are a range of negative consequences to AI, and we highlighted some.
Paul Krugman has noted recently that there is some sign that AI has increased productivity in West Coast America. He has also noted that there is no indication that this has resulted in an increase in the wage rate. In other words, wealth concentration is the consequence that will, no doubt, be one of the negatives in due course, more universally.
I found it very unhelpful as your discussion treated AI as if ‘more’ and ‘better’ are inevitable and focused only on the positives without question or hesitation. Some of the issues are environmental cost, the AI industry being a financial bubble, data security of chatbots like ChatGPT, and the growing list of AI failures in professional workplaces, one example being the UK High Court (https://www.ibanet.org/Technology-UK-judge-warns-lawyers-about-risks-of-AI-use-in-court). I personally am not convinced by the positivity around these LLMs, it feels more like hype.
I am baffled by your commentary for a number of reasons.
Most particularly, this piece did not discuss the merits, or otherwise of AI. It recognised the fact that AI exists, and nothing that you or I can do about it will ever change that fact: it’s take up has been at an enormous rate, and it will not go away again.
Secondly, we did not discuss whether AI could actually achieve results for employers; indeed, I suggested that it might not. Instead we discussed the fact that it is having an impact upon employment, particularly for young graduates, which I would’ve thought to be a concern of yours.
We never discussed whether AI was more or better, we simply accepted that it is in existence. So, how were our conclusions wrong?
I have, so far, refused to use Ai. I am the creative industry and I wont touch it – long term there is great fear it will do away with the ability to create, which will do away with human soul. Ai, in my experience, doesnt yet have the human nuance to be truly creative, like us.
In a studio space I know of, they have the 3 men camera team and its all run by machines.
I dont think Ai is the problem, its us the humans and the worst elements of us.
There is a great scene in the film Jurassic Park when Jeff Goldblum says ‘you have stood on the shoulders of giants, created these monsters, packaged it, slapped it on a flask, lunchbox… The scientists were so preoccupied with wether or not they could that they didnt stop to think if they should…’
I think your fears unjustified. I use AI to increase creativity. I will be explaining how in due course.
The post wasnt finished, I sent it by mistake, without reviewing!
Look forward to your series Richard, covering this matter.
Thanks
I think AI is just the latest blow to the younger ‘aspirational’ generation.
I qualified as an engineer in the 70’s and my cohort never even considered the possibility of not having a job soon after graduating, but over the years I’ve seen the arrival of cheap computer programmes which can do, for instance, many of the jobs once the domain of a stress engineer. They can do it cheaper, faster and sometimes better. I fully expect AI to have a similar effect in some professions.
I’m retired now, after a stroke and Parkinson’s diagnosis, and I need a little care help. Anyway, one of my carers has a science degree and is working part-time on minimum wage so her and her husband can share bringing up their young child. We chat a lot and she has two friends with engineering/science doctorates who have lowered their ‘aspirations’ to the extent that they are now applying for lab assistant positions!!
If AI further damages the prospects of the younger generation, we need to be taking a serious look at shorter working weeks for all, or we may well be looking at a revolution. The offspring of the middle classes are suffering now and once their comfortable parents aren’t so comortable anymore and realize the potential gravity of the situation facing their families they may get a thad angry. Bring it on if that shakes up the whole damned system.
Otherwise, maybe some wannabe barristers need to learn how to spell barista.
Thank you, and go well.