Gen Z is prioritizing living over working because they've seen 'the legacy of broken promises' in corporate America, a future-of-work expert says
Gen Z is prioritizing living over working because they've seen 'the legacy of broken promises' in corporate America, a future-of-work expert says
A future-of-work expert said Gen Zers didn't have the "promise of stability" at work, so they're putting their personal lives and well-being first.
A future-of-work expert said Gen Zers didn't have the "promise of stability" at work, so they're putting their personal lives and well-being first.
You're viewing a single thread.
living over working
Yes, we all want that. But...
Are they eating air? Living with their parents? Accumulating debt?
What are their plans for the next 50 years, because living will get a hell of a lot harder than it is now.
We've all been forced to put work over life, just to survive long enough to work past retirement age.
You missed a word. It says "prioritizing living over working". The promise was to work hard and a lot to get a good lifestyle (house, a nice car or two, vacations). Now it's work hard but without those rewards in sight. So we cut back on working to a point where we can still have an okay lifestyle.
What does an OK lifestyle look like if you aren't prioritizing work?
I'm not being critical to sound like an ass. I think we're all stuck in the same, miserable, work-dependant lifestyle, and it's aweful.
I realize I'm privileged as my situation is a lot better than having to live paycheck to paycheck. However, if I wanted to get a nice house, decent car, vacations, etc. I'd have to put in a lot more work than the usual 40 hours. Instead of doing that though I looked at my finances and decided, I could reduce my hours to 35 without decreasing my quality of life too much so I did that instead.
I do understand though that people in precarious and less-compensated jobs cannot afford this luxury.
Yeah, if you've got a high-paying job then you have the means to not have to prioritize work. Hopefully, that remains constant over the next several decades.
But how many Gen Z'ers are in that position?
We keep seeing articles about Gen Z'ers not being able to afford rent, let alone food and other basic comforts. They are, or will be, forced to put work first. Not just working harder to get the luxuries of their grandparents or parents, but working harder to scrape by.
And I don't even see and end to this. Corporations will eventually abolish retirement, because very few will be able to retire the way things keep going.
I think the idea is that a lot of people prioritize only their work. The whole hustle grindset thing, working obscene hours to try to get rich. Instead of doing that, seeing that whole rat race for what it is, doing enough work to get by, and then actually enjoying your time elsewhere seems to be what this is advocating for.
I think the idea is that a lot of people prioritize only their work.
Is this really a thing? Has it ever been for the masses?
Sure, people might prioritize work over anything else when they are young, but that's often necessary to secure a future.
Other people live to work, but that's pretty rare.
Instead of doing that, seeing that whole rat race for what it is, doing enough work to get by, and then actually enjoying your time elsewhere seems to be what this is advocating for.
I thought that what most people do. Does anyone actually believe that working hard at their low-paying job is going to make them rich? I thought that idea was dead decades ago.
Just look at the hustle grindset, or sigma grind, or whatever you want to call it. No, most people aren't working 120 hours a week at a McDonald's, but a lot more are getting multiple jobs, side hustles, etc to get to "get ahead" in the game.
To get ahead or to get by? Nobody who's grinding two or three jobs is wealthy, and I think they're only doing it to pay the bills because a single job doesn't cut it anymore.
I've spoken with uber drivers who already have a "good job" but they need money to support their parents who are living with them, perhaps multiple kids, etc. It really sucks to be in that situation because work is all you do.
Do the minimum to put the food you like on the table, to afford a place to live, and then fuck off for the rest of the time. No OT, no projects outside of work hrs, no checking email overnight. Do your job, to the level that is strictly required, and reprioritize yourself any other time.
And you think that'll allow you to retire at 65? 85?
Look, I get it. I don't prioritize work over "life", but I'm not naive to believe that I'll have a comfortable retirement, because I won't.
I think the majority of us will stuggle tremendously in the coming decades.
I never said you'd be able to comfortably retire. That's another part of it. The younger generations know they won't retire at all, or at a reasonable time, so just do your 40, get enough to live, and go do something actually fulfilling.
Most don't expect to retire ever - they will work enough to survive until they die, naturally or otherwise.
Whether this is bleak realism or self-fulfilling, dangerous pessimism is an interesting question.
So because the generations before them made the wrong choice, they have as well?
If my kids live with my my whole life I am A-OK with that.
So because the generations before them made the wrong choice, they have as well?
I'm not punishing younger generations, I'm saying that they're even more screwed than previous generations, so they'll still need to work hard... it just won't get them any luxuries.
If my kids live with my my whole life I am A-OK with that.
You might be, but not everyone wants that, especially in homes where there is no separation (like no basement apartment). That could be a nightmare for both parents and the adult child.
I think you're agreeing with each other, except that no one in this thread actually thinks working hard will bring you anything in this day and age.
I don't think working hard these days will bring you anything except regrets later and life, and maybe put food on the table.
I... Yeah? We're agreeing with each other? What's the argument?