Connect with us

Business

Suzy Welch worries that Gen Z is ‘unemployable’—and some leaders are intervening to teach them basic life skills

Published

on



Suzy Welch’s bold claim that Generation Z is “unemployable” has sparked lively debate in corporate America, prompting a wave of interventions by both companies and colleges to equip young adults with basic life and professional skills. The critique, rooted in research and observations about generational values and preparedness, is now colliding with practical workplace realities, as managers and educators scramble to bridge gaps between Gen Z expectations and employer demands.

Welch, an NYU professor and business journalist, published a widely discussed op-ed in The Wall Street Journal asserting that the major values prized by hiring managers—achievement, learning, and a strong desire to work—are priorities for only about 2% of Gen Z students surveyed. Instead, most young adults place greater emphasis on self-care, authenticity, and helping others. This mismatch, Welch and supporters argue, leaves many Gen Zers perceived as ill-prepared or unwilling to adapt to conventional professional expectations, a sentiment backed by business leaders surveyed in 2024: one in six expressed reluctance to hire recent graduates, with three-quarters labeling hires as “unsatisfactory.” It’s tough criticism coming from Welch, who created New York University’s most popular business school course ever, meeting the values-obsessed Gen Z where they are with a class dedicated on “purpose.”

Fortune has been covering the plight of Gen Z from various angles throughout 2025, a year gripped by anxiety over artificial intelligence, early indications of a shrinking entry-level job market and a labor market marked by, in the words of Jerome Powell, a “low-hire, low-fire” mentality. Multiple leaders have told Fortune that with rote tasks exposed to automation by AI, “human skills” matter more than ever, and yet Gen Z workers appear to have a deficit of exactly those. The “Gen Z stare” phenomenon went viral as older generations vented their frustration at awkward interactions in service or professional contexts, even as evidence emerged that young workers are not poorer or unemployed in greater numbers, but they’re gripped by an unusual, emerging quarterlife crisis and a rising sense of “despair.”

Some leaders are taking action to arrest what they see as a failure to communicate. One is Rebecca Adams, the chief people officer of Cohesity, a $1.5 billion AI startup. The mother of two Gen Zers herself, Adams decided to send all of the managers at her 6,000-plus-employee company to specific training on how to interact successfully with Gen Z. Another is Liz Feld, CEO of Radical Hope, a nonprofit dedicated to equipping young adults on college campuses with better communication, interpersonal and emotional intelligence skills. Noting “elevated anxiety, stress and depression over the last few years,” Radical Hope began as a pilot at NYU in 2020 and has grown to 75 college campuses.

In an interview with Fortune, Adams described learning things from her children that gave her empathy for entry-level workers at her company, while opening her eyes to the need for additional training on how to behave at work. Feld described something similar from the opposite angle: “Their parents have been making so many decisions for them that when they arrive on college campus, they are completely unprepared to just do the simplest things for themselves.”

A gap in the market: workplace etiquette

Adams described situations where interns and new hires struggled with seemingly simple professional decorum: missing meetings for personal commitments or failing to grasp basic calendar tools. Such experiences have pushed Cohesity to provide explicit instructions on seemingly elementary things from managing calendars to the etiquette of meetings. Adams views these interventions not as hand-holding, but as essential adaptations to a new workplace culture, where transparency, constant feedback, and a search for meaning are fundamental.

“They want to know why, how, they want constant feedback,” Adams said of her Gen Z employees. At the same time, she said, “it also is mindboggling” to see how differently young people approach work.

Adams said Cohesity has had to teach the managers how to lead this generation of workers, while also teaching some seemingly “basic things” to younger workers, like “how do I manage my calendar? You actually have to accept the meeting request. You can’t just walk out of the meeting that you’re in because you have another one while it’s still going on.”

She relayed an anecdote about a manager/intern lunch program where a senior leader treats an intern to lunch. In this instance, she said, a manager was waiting for an intern who was so successful they were due to convert to a full-time job, but this intern didn’t get the memo that a work meeting was more important than this lunch. “Sorry, I’m late, I just had to walk, I was just in a meeting,” the intern explained. When the manager offered to reschedule, the intern said they had “a lot going on” anyway, so they figured it was fine to leave the meeting early to take lunch.

Or consider Adams’ 20-year-old son and the subject of which internship he would choose to take. His attitude was something like “I really need to love the job and I need to love the company.” Adams told Fortune she was baffled by this: “What do you mean? I was a waitress for many years.”

Adams also highlighted transparency going hand in hand with what could seem to be standoffishness. “I do think some of them are picky. There was one guy, amazing, did such a great job in his internship … he went above and beyond. And when we went to offer him the job, he said, ‘You know what? I think I just want to take a year off and travel because I’m graduating.’ And I was like, whoa.” Adams said if she was that intern’s mother, she would have said “You take that job. You can travel later.” But this generation is wired differently, and both sides need some new training to work together effectively.

Deep-seated fear of failure

Feld’s program, developed through discussions with thousands of students, focuses on skills that “we all got growing up at the kitchen table”—empathy, communication, setting priorities, and basic conflict resolution. Rather than group therapy, her program is pitched as a peer-led, activity-driven “experience.” Sessions may involve role-playing, stress management, time management, even sharing playlists for emotional support. Above all, there’s fundamental guidance for communicating face-to-face, as Feld says many Gen Zers are “afraid” of making small talk. “They’re threatened by it, and they will tell us that they see a rejection in a conversation as personal failure.”

Feld said the thousands of students that she’s interacted with have problems with the simplest things. “They won’t ask someone, ‘Do you want to go to the dining hall and grab dinner, you want to go grab a beer, you want to go for a walk, you want to get a coffee?’” If someone says no, she adds, “they internalize the whole thing. The face-to-face rejection is what they’re afraid of.” She said they simply never learned how, and technology enabled them to sidestep many seemingly basic steps in their development.

As she continued describing what she’s seen in her work, Feld’s fury and puzzlement grew in equal proportion. When asked about the reporting of some Gen Z job candidates bringing their parents to job interviews, Feld confirmed it’s very real. “We talk about it, and this goes back to the parents who actually think it’s appropriate to go to Bank of America for an interview with their child, who’s at Dartmouth, by the way … there are so many weird components to this that don’t add up.”

Feld said sometimes she hears that parents tell their young adult children, “I’m coming with you, you can’t do this on your own, which is … why would you ever say that to a 22-year-old?” She said the pressure is immense. “These young people feel like they have to perform for their own parents all the time.”

Adams separately described the huge pressures she sees young people putting on themselves, calling it “scary and fascinating. ” She said she sees Gen Z interns and colleagues being intensely focused on the future, recalling Jonathan Haidt’s thesis on Gen Z as the “anxious generation” raised on smartphones. Adams described a performance anxiety similar to what Feld identified, an attitude of: “I want to have everything locked in so that I can then decide if I want to get married, if I want to have kids, so I want to career-climb as much as possible before that, but I also want to travel and have lots of work-life balance.”

“When I’ve been meeting with them,” Adams said, “the pressure they put on themselves scares me.” She said there’s so much thought to picking the right major, optimizing the best career, performing at the top level at every moment, it was totally different for her. “My major didn’t equate to work for me. It was something I was interested in and it was the experience of going to college” that was more important.

Neither Adams nor Feld were aware of many of the viral catchphrases attributed to Gen Z. Adams used the phrase “locked in” to describe the attitude of her Gen Z colleagues, but clarified that she does not watch TikTok and never heard of “the great lock-in,” so her use of the phrase was coincidental. Feld, herself, had never heard of the “Gen Z stare” but she recognized the description of it.

“I see it when young adults mobile order,” Feld said, “And they go into Starbucks, or Dunkin’ Donuts, or Chipotle, and they won’t even say thank you, or they won’t even look at the person who’s giving them the bag. They’re on their phone, or pretending they’re on the phone, so they don’t have to even have an interaction.” She said she talked to a parent who had sent their son to a therapeutic boarding school, and this young adult was so afraid of interaction that she was actually, actively learning how to do this. “One of the exercises she had to practice at school was to go into a Dunkin’ Donuts or a McDonald’s and practice giving someone money [and getting change], like, as a 20-something-year-old.”

Feld said the most heartening thing is that these young adults “want to have in-person communication, they just don’t know how. A big eye-opener was that it’s actually a skill that they just didn’t learn, that they want to learn.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Senate Dems’ plan to fix Obamacare premiums adds nearly $300 billion to deficit, CRFB says

Published

on



The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.

With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.

“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.

The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.

CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.

Reversing recent guardrails

MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.

The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.

The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.

MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.

The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.

“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.

The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.​

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix–Warner Bros. deal sets up $72 billion antitrust test

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market. 

The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of ThronesFriends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.  

That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.

“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”

By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump. 

Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.

The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”

European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.

The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.

Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.

Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation. 

“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.

Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.

The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.

Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. 

Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of AI reasoning models comes with a big energy tradeoff

Published

on



Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.

AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.

The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.

The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives

More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.

Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said. 

The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.

“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”

To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.

The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.” 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.” 

Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.

Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.