What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?Accessibility helpSkip to navigationSkip to main contentSkip to footerSign InSubscribeOpen side navigation menuOpen search barFinancial TimesSubscribeSign InSearch the FTSearchClose search barCloseHomeWorldSectionsWorld HomeMiddle East warGlobal EconomyUKUSChinaAfricaAsia PacificEmerging MarketsEuropeWar in UkraineAmericasMiddle East & North AfricaMost ReadThere can only be one President Donald Trump, forever Wall Street bulls bet US stocks rally will defy bubble fearsSoftBank pledges €75bn to build Europe’s biggest AI facility in FranceIsrael captures Crusader castle in Lebanon pushHow Maine’s lobster revolt could cost Trump the SenateUSSectionsUS HomeUS EconomyUS CompaniesUS Politics & PolicyMost ReadThere can only be one President Donald Trump, forever Wall Street bulls bet US stocks rally will defy bubble fearsHow Maine’s lobster revolt could cost Trump the SenateJill Biden’s memoir revives painful memories as Democrats try to move onThe end of cheapCompaniesSectionsCompanies HomeEnergyFinancialsHealthIndustrialsMediaProfessional ServicesRetail & ConsumerTech SectorTelecomsTransportMost ReadWall Street bulls bet US stocks rally will defy bubble fearsSoftBank pledges €75bn to build Europe’s biggest AI facility in FranceAI is here. What do you want from it? Jamming-resistant radio maker seeks $3bn-plus saleFerrari’s Luce is a free option on a whole new market TechSectionsTech HomeArtificial intelligenceSemiconductorsCyber SecuritySocial MediaMost ReadWall Street bulls bet US stocks rally will defy bubble fearsSoftBank pledges €75bn to build Europe’s biggest AI facility in FranceAI is here. What do you want from it? How Iran’s military harnesses ChatGPTDotcom bubble IPOsMarketsSectionsMarkets HomeAlphavilleMarkets DataPrivate marketsEquitiesBondsCurrenciesCommoditiesCryptoMonetary Policy RadarWealth ManagementMoral MoneyETF HubAsset managementMost ReadWall Street bulls bet US stocks rally will defy bubble fearsIndia’s ‘city of glass’ under pressure as Gulf crisis chokes off energyRitz-Carlton Yacht lenders ease terms to keep luxury cruise line afloat Dotcom bubble IPOsFive emerging themes for US stock investors ClimateOpinionSectionsOpinion HomeColumnistsThe FT ViewThe Big ReadLexObituariesLettersMost ReadThere can only be one President Donald Trump, forever The end of cheapFerrari’s Luce is a free option on a whole new market The very British banality of the SNP’s shopping scandalNo restaurant should be too posh to serve tap waterLexStock Picking GameLife & ArtsSectionsLife & Arts HomeArtsBooksFood & DrinkFT MagazineHouse & HomeStylePuzzlesTravelFT GlobetrotterMost ReadJust how fancy is Yotam Ottolenghi’s new kitchen?No restaurant should be too posh to serve tap waterThe floor versus the ceilingYour wine collection may be worth less than you thinkA Mexican mix of surf and sierraHow To Spend ItMenuSearchHomeWorldUSCompaniesTechMarketsClimateOpinionLexStock Picking GameLife & ArtsHow To Spend ItFinancial TimesSubscribeSign InSearch the FTSearchClose search barCloseOpinion Data PointsWhat if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?New evidence suggests the rise of working from home has made entry-level hires a less attractive propositionJohn Burn-MurdochAdd to myFTGet instant alerts for this topicManage your delivery channels hereRemove from myFT© FT montage/Getty ImagesWhat if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring? on x (opens in a new window)What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring? on facebook (opens in a new window)What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring? on linkedin (opens in a new window)What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring? on whatsapp (opens in a new window)

Save

What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring? on x (opens in a new window)What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring? on facebook (opens in a new window)What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring? on linkedin (opens in a new window)What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring? on whatsapp (opens in a new window)

Save

John Burn-MurdochPublishedMay 29 2026Jump to comments sectionPrint this pageUnlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.Graduates and other new entrants to the world of work have had a rough few years. A cool labour market for everyone has been icy for the youngest, with hiring of junior workers lagging the more experienced across a wide range of countries.The early-career hiring pullback has been especially pronounced in white-collar work — software and other tech roles foremost among them — leading observers to point to an obvious culprit: the rise of AI tools that can perform much of the work typically done by juniors, but are less able to replace the accumulated knowledge and experience of seasoned professionals.But a paper published last week suggests the particular woes of young would-be knowledge workers may not be due to AI, or at least not as much as assumed. What other large recent shock could tick the same boxes — hurting junior hiring more than senior, affecting knowledge work roles more than blue-collar jobs and hitting young coders especially hard? The authors Peter John Lambert and Yannick Schindler have a fascinating counter-proposal: the take-off of remote work.Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.The theory is persuasive. Early-career workers require more supervision than experienced hires, and build important skills, knowledge and social capital by observing and working alongside senior colleagues. Working from home adds friction to these processes, making entry-level workers more costly to bring on board in terms of time and resources and slowing their prospects for promotion. As such, the rise of remote work has worsened the trade-off for hiring entry-level workers, while leaving the calculus for senior hires unchanged.The evidence fits the theory. Lambert and Schindler analysed hundreds of millions of new hires and job postings and found that although both occupational exposure to AI and remote working rates line up with the outsized pullback in junior hiring, the link with AI evaporates once you account for whether a role is remote. In other words, it only looks like AI is behind the hiring crunch for junior software developers because coding jobs are also disproportionately done remotely. Jobs less exposed to AI but amenable to remote work (eg lawyers) have also seen weak junior hiring; roles with high AI exposure but an emphasis on in-person work (eg receptionists) have held up better.Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.None of this rules out AI as a threat to younger workers — remote work may even be a risk factor for AI displacement, since managers who mainly interact with reports over Slack may view their work as more automatable. The process may also be indirect: companies struggling to train and manage remote juniors may set a higher bar when hiring for these roles, with unfilled posts compounding into the trend we see in the data.But whatever the mechanism, Lambert and Schindler’s results are the latest evidence that for all the attention paid to the impact of AI, the take-off of remote work has been a hugely consequential and often under-discussed shift, with significant and unexpected impacts on the economy and society.Many of these have been pleasant surprises. One study earlier this year found that US fathers in remote-friendly occupations used the extra time at home to take on more childcare, and their wives’ earnings and employment rate rose. Another found remote work boosts birth rates.Nobody would argue these are shifts we should reverse, but the new data underscores a recurring result from remote work research — that what benefits mid- or late-career workers can harm the youngest.They also help explain an under-appreciated nuance to the story: contrary to the stereotype of boomers demanding that Gen Z return to the office, it is the youngest generation who is most opposed to fully remote roles and keen for their colleagues to spend more time in the office.Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.The rise of working from home has been a boon for thirtysomethings (such as myself) who are safely on the career conveyor belt and often juggling work with parenting. But it has hit the youngest workers twice: slowing their climb up the career ladder and now perhaps keeping some out of the labour market entirely. Demands for a return to five days in the office are a step too far — the evidence consistently shows hybrid arrangements get the best results — but next time you hear calls for an extra day in person, bear in mind the biggest beneficiaries won’t be the bosses, they’ll be the juniors.[email protected], @jburnmurdochCopyright The Financial Times Limited 2026. All rights reserved.Reuse this content (opens in new window) CommentsJump to comments section

Follow the topics in this article

John Burn-Murdoch

Add to myFT

Data Points

Add to myFT

Employment

Add to myFT

CommentsUseful linksSupportHelp CentreContact UsAbout UsAccessibilityCareersSuppliersLegal & PrivacyTerms & ConditionsPrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyManage CookiesCopyrightSlavery Statement & PoliciesServicesShare News Tips SecurelyIndividual SubscriptionsProfessional SubscriptionsRepublishingExecutive Job SearchAdvertise with the FTFollow the FT on XFT ChannelsFT SchoolsToolsPortfolioFT AppFT Digital EditionFT EditAlerts HubBusiness School RankingsSubscription ManagerNews feedNewslettersCurrency ConverterCommunity & EventsFT Live EventsFT ForumsFT Leaders AcademyMore from the FT GroupMarkets data delayed by at least 15 minutes. © THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD 2026. FT and ‘Financial Times’ are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.The Financial Times and its journalism are subject to a self-regulation regime under the FT Editorial Code of Practice.Close side navigation menuEdition:InternationalUKSearch the FTSearchSubscribe for full accessTop sectionsHomeWorldShow more WorldMiddle East warGlobal EconomyUKUSChinaAfricaAsia PacificEmerging MarketsEuropeWar in UkraineAmericasMiddle East & North AfricaUSShow more USUS EconomyUS CompaniesUS Politics & PolicyCompaniesShow more CompaniesEnergyFinancialsHealthIndustrialsMediaProfessional ServicesRetail & ConsumerTech SectorTelecomsTransportTechShow more TechArtificial intelligenceSemiconductorsCyber SecuritySocial MediaMarketsShow more MarketsAlphavilleMarkets DataPrivate marketsEquitiesBondsCurrenciesCommoditiesCryptoMonetary Policy RadarWealth ManagementMoral MoneyETF HubAsset managementClimateOpinionShow more OpinionColumnistsThe FT ViewThe Big ReadLexObituariesLettersLexStock Picking GameWork & CareersShow more Work & CareersBusiness School RankingsBusiness EducationEurope's Start-Up HubsEntrepreneurshipRecruitmentBusiness BooksBusiness TravelWorking ItLife & ArtsShow more Life & ArtsArtsBooksFood & DrinkFT MagazineHouse & HomeStylePuzzlesTravelFT GlobetrotterPersonal FinanceShow more Personal FinanceProperty & MortgagesInvestmentsPensionsTaxBanking & SavingsAdvice & CommentHow To Spend ItSpecial ReportsFT recommendsAlphavilleFT EditLunch with the FTFT Globetrotter#techAsiaMoral MoneyVisual and data journalismNewslettersVideoPodcastsNews feedFT SchoolsFT Live EventsFT ForumsFT Leaders AcademymyFTPortfolioFT Digital EditionCrosswordOur AppsHelp CentreSubscribeSign In

New evidence suggests that the prevalence of working from home, rather than the rise of artificial intelligence, may be responsible for the current weakness in hiring junior employees. This postulation is presented by Peter John Lambert and Yannick Schindler, who analyzed hundreds of millions of new hires and job postings to propose a counter-explanation for the lagging hiring of entry-level workers, particularly in knowledge-based and technical roles. The authors suggest that the theory holds because early-career workers inherently require greater supervision and rely on observing and collaborating with senior colleagues to develop essential skills, knowledge, and social capital. The introduction of remote work complicates these developmental processes, creating friction that increases the time and resources required to onboard junior staff, thereby hindering their prospects for advancement while leaving the hiring calculus for more experienced personnel largely unaffected.

The empirical findings supporting this hypothesis indicate a nuanced relationship between remote work, AI exposure, and junior hiring. While both factors correlate with the observed pullback in junior hiring, the association with artificial intelligence diminishes once remote work status is taken into account. This implies that the impact is highly contingent on the work structure. For instance, the effect observed in junior software developers is partly due to the disproportionate remote nature of coding jobs; however, jobs less exposed to AI but which are amenable to remote work, such as legal professions, also experienced weak junior hiring. Conversely, roles with high AI exposure but which necessitate in-person interaction, like reception duties, demonstrated more stable junior hiring rates.

Furthermore, the consequence of remote work extends beyond simple hiring metrics by potentially creating indirect effects related to automation. The authors note that managers who primarily communicate through platforms like Slack, inherent in remote settings, may perceive their work as more susceptible to automation, which could influence hiring decisions. Companies grappling with the challenge of effectively training and managing junior employees in remote environments might consequently impose higher hiring standards, compounding the existing trend.

The research also highlights the broader societal impact of remote work, noting that while it has provided benefits for mid- and late-career workers—such as enabling fathers to engage more in childcare and boosting birth rates—it has adversely affected the youngest cohort of workers. This research offers an under-appreciated perspective on generational dynamics, indicating that contrary to the stereotype of older generations demanding a return to the office, it is the youngest generation who are most resistant to fully remote arrangements and advocate for more in-person interaction. The study suggests that while hybrid arrangements offer the best results, the potential shift in workplace expectations means that demands for increased in-person attendance must be viewed in the context of how these changes affect the trajectory of junior employees.