Why are gen Z shunning ‘hustle culture’ in favour of long-term jobs? Here are three good reasonsThis article is more than 9 months oldOli Mould
- 30 thg 10, 2025
- 5 phút đọc
This article is more than 9 months old
Why are gen Z shunning ‘hustle culture’ in favour of long-term jobs? Here are three good reasons
This article is more than 9 months old
Unlike previous generations of workers, young people are prioritising stability over chaos and community over churn
Wed 8 Jan 2025 12.00 GMT
Share
For decades, we’ve been told that the modern workplace is a playground of freedom and choice. Flexibility, agility and autonomy have become buzz words in an employment marketplace saturated with an endless choice of job opportunities.
But the reality for most workers, especially younger ones who have recently joined the job market, is that jobs vanish as quickly as they appear, benefits are slashed, exploitation is rife and career paths once paved with middle-class respectability have crumbled under the relentless march of automation and the ubiquity of the platform economy.
It is perhaps no surprise, then, that young people are now looking for an “employer for life”. Recent research suggests that workers under the age of 27 are eager to stay at a single company for seven years – twice as long as the average tenure, according to official statistics. It appears as if gen Z want to emulate their grandparents’ career paths that were tied to one company with large pensions, a tight-knit family feel and gold watches upon retirement, and revert to a life of comfort and security rather than the endless grind of competing in the employment marketplace.
The first reason is that the modern “hustle” – a culture of relentless job-hopping for small marginal gains – has been exposed as a scam. The constant message from potential employers to be competitive, entrepreneurial and flexible has failed quite spectacularly to deliver the sunlit uplands of career fulfilment, riches and a healthy work-life balance. Instead, this generation is navigating a workplace of reducing benefits, pay and stability. Through their parents’ experiences, they’ve seen how austerity has eroded the social safety net and the human cost of a system that treats people like interchangeable cogs, all while dangling the carrot of an “opportunity” that is always just out of reach.
So now they are opting out. Instead of bouncing from job to job in search of some mythical dream placement, they’re keen to stay put, choosing stability over chaos, community over churn. In a world of zero-hour contracts and the pervasiveness of the competitive mindset, the idea of staying in one place long enough to grow roots is certainly appealing and, in the face of a work culture that demands you always seek the highest return, quite radical.
Second, younger workers, particularly those that have come through university over the past decade or so, have a particularly useful skill set to older generations, which isn’t immediately apparent in the short-term. The business world – ensnared as it is in social and political headwinds – is awash with disinformation, with media narratives that can change the bottom line in an instant (not to mention the culture wars discourse). Those who have grown up within the smog of this online media realm have the baked-in ability to decode it. But rarely are such skills apparent instantaneously; they are appreciated over time, valued by employers as employees bed into a role. With comfort, stability and a healthy work-life balance, a person’s more “qualitative” skills are able to come to the fore and ultimately they feel more appreciated as a human being.
There’s of course a deep irony here. For decades, companies demanded their workers’ loyalty while offering little in return. Then they ripped up the social contract, slashing benefits, automating jobs and prioritising shareholder returns above all else, offering little more than a lunchtime petting zoo or a yoga class as compensation. Perhaps now the pendulum is swinging back, but not because corporations suddenly developed a conscience – it’s because younger workers are demanding more.
Third – and more broadly – this shift also reflects a deeper cultural transformation catalysed by the perniciousness of the contemporary world of work. Chasing the highest salary at the expense of wellbeing is no longer the default. Today’s workers care far more about work-life balance, mental health and meaningful relationships, in and out of the office. They’re less interested in climbing the corporate ladder and more interested in creating workplaces that align with their values. They’re not asking for beanbag chairs or sleep pods; they’re demanding respect, purpose and the freedom to live a life that doesn’t revolve around work.
This is, of course, a direct challenge to the capitalist status quo, which necessitates a culture of burnout and disposability. But let’s not be naive: while corporations may publicly applaud this new generation of values-driven workers and have altered their corporate messaging, the same system that exploits the culture of precarity and endless flexibility could just as easily co-opt loyalty, squeezing more from employees under the guise of offering stability.
So where does this leave us? On the one hand, the change in attitude toward long-term employment is promising. It signals a collective desire to move beyond the shallow promises of hustle culture and toward something more humane. But it also raises a larger question: why have we got an employment system in which loyalty, stability and purpose feel so radical in the first place?
This isn’t just a story about young people wanting stability. It’s a story about the human cost of a system that has long prioritised profit over people. It’s a reminder that the workplace – indeed, the economy more broadly – isn’t just a means to an end. A healthy workplace and a properly functioning economy raise the wellbeing of everyone. After all, isn’t that what they are ultimately designed to do? Be systems of work and production that allow people to live fulfilling and satisfied lives and not concepts themselves to appease, feed and grow with every ounce of energy we have? Knowingly or not, gen Z have worked this out. Now the rest of us should, too.
Oli Mould is professor in human geography at Royal Holloway, University of London
An incredible self-own
In 1936, John Scott, son of the late Guardian owner and legendary editor CP Scott, did something unheard of for a media heir: he gave up his stake for the greater good.
After inheriting the newspaper, Scott renounced all financial benefit – bar his salary – in the Guardian (worth £1m at the time and around £62m today) and passed ownership over to the newly formed Scott Trust. The Trust would evolve to have one key mission: to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity.
That means the Guardian can’t be bought. Not by private equity, not by a conglomerate, and definitely not by a billionaire looking for a political mouthpiece.
Our independence means we can say what we want, report on who we want, challenge who we want, and stand up at a time when others are sitting down.
But this unique model also means we depend on readers like you from Vietnam to help fund our work. If you would rather the news you read was the result of decisions made by journalists and editors, not shareholders or ultra-wealthy tech bros, then, well, you know what to do:
Bình luận