Inflation and Labor Market Dynamics

Working from home reduces the motherhood penalty by 77%. Seventy. Seven. Percent. A new study from Italy found that when mothers can work from home, they're less likely to reduce their hours and more likely to continue progressing in their careers. Which, when you think about it, is hardly shocking. It's much easier to stay on track at work when you're not spending two hours a day commuting, frantically trying to get to nursery before it closes and operating with the logistical complexity of a mid-sized military operation. But there's more.. Fathers' flexibility matters too. Some people insist on calling it the "parenthood penalty", but mothers and fathers do not experience parenthood in the labour market in the same way. Mothers take the financial hit. Fathers generally don't. However, when fathers have access to remote work, mothers' financial losses after childbirth are significantly smaller. Why? Because childcare, school pickups, sick days and life admin stop being Mum's problem by default and start becoming a shared responsibility. The researchers found that a father's ability to work remotely has almost as much impact on a mother's earnings as her own ability to do so. The report goes even further. It estimates that if all jobs that could be done remotely actually allowed people to work remotely, the lifetime gender earnings gap would shrink by 30%. Thirty percent. Just by letting people work from the place where they also happen to keep the tiny humans alive. Imagine that. https://lnkd.in/eBjMe3NM

The relocation decisions of male-female couples are predominantly determined by what's best for the man's career: 1. Couples are more likely to relocate when a man is laid off than after a woman is. 2. Men's earnings increase following a couple's move to a new commuting zone, while women's earnings stay the same or decline. This in part because women spend less time working, particularly in the first year after the move when they are more likely than men to be job hunting. The gender gap persists for at least five years and is largest among couples who are in their 20s. The researchers study Germany and Sweden, and attribute the results to relocation decisions being driven by antiquated gender norms. They conclude that "households in both countries place less weight on income earned by a woman compared to a man, particularly in Germany." By Seema Jayachandran, Lea Nassal, Matthew J. Notowidigdo, Marie Paul, Heather Sarsons, and Elin Sundberg. https://lnkd.in/eHSXi5Mj

The job market isn't frozen. It's being rebuilt while we watch. The talent market paradox: → 4% unemployment (historically low) → Hiring at lowest point in a decade → Voluntary quits dropped by 1/3 since 2022 → 67% of workers report feeling "stuck" This contradiction reveals a deeper change: → Job growth limited to healthcare and government → Professional services lost 225,000 job openings → Tech sector shed 73,000 openings in one year → Under 60% of subsectors expanding (recession signal) This pattern has historical precedent. Every major technological takes a while to catchup: → 1890s: Electrification initially stalled productivity → 1980s: Computerization temporarily reduced output → 2020s: AI deployment creating similar market paralysis What's different this time? Knowledge work—the sector that drove employment growth for decades—is the primary target. Each era transformed different sectors: manufacturing declined post-war, routine jobs vanished in the digital age, and now AI targets the knowledge professions once considered safe. This isn't just affecting new graduates and job seekers: → One-third of workers fear losing their jobs to cuts → Hiring plans frozen amid compounding uncertainty → Career progression pathways are disappearing → Traditional job ladders being fundamentally redesigned The consequences extend far beyond individual careers: → When workers don't change jobs, wages stagnate → Innovation stalls when talent stops circulating → Economic dynamism requires labor mobility → Skills mismatch deepens when transitions slow History shows these transitions eventually create more jobs than they destroy—but unevenly and with gaps between productivity and wages. We won't be returning to previous patterns: → Linear career paths giving way to "portfolio careers" → Domain expertise fusing with tech capabilities → Work focused on problems rather than stable positions → Knowledge work amplified through AI partnerships This isn't about navigating a tight job market—it's about understanding how economic value itself is being fundamentally restructured. The question isn't when will we return to normal. The question is: Are you positioning yourself to thrive in a post-freeze landscape? - Article from the The Atlantic

Before the Great Recession, the only time the long-term unemployed made up more than 25% of jobseekers in the postwar era was in 1983, during the S&L crisis. Since then, it's happened three times – most recently in December. What's going on? A dynamic labor market used to be the hallmark of the United States. Economists looked down their noses at countries like France, where a significant minority stayed unemployed for years while the majority had jobs for life. The constant churn in the United States was a sign that the economy always generated new opportunities for all kinds of workers. This clearly isn't the case anymore. Since data on hiring and firing rates became available in 2000, their sum – a rough measure of churn – has never been lower than in the past couple of years. The labor market is starting to look more, how do you say, French? I see two main causes for this transformation. One is the pace of technological change. When there's a rapid shift in the kinds of jobs available, it's harder for workers to adapt. It's especially hard for unemployed workers, since the best training usually happens on the job. So when technological revolutions start to arrive more frequently, the gap in skills between the employed and unemployed can widen. The other cause is inequality. We've seen enormous increases in wealth inequality over the past few decades, and we know that wealth affects access to opportunity. People with less wealth have fewer connections who can help them to get new jobs, and it's also harder for them to start businesses of their own. So they're more likely to stay unemployed. In most states, unemployment benefits end after 26 weeks. This means the long-term unemployed aren't receiving benefits, but they haven't stopped looking for jobs, either. They want to work; they just can't find the right fit. They need the labor market to return to its more dynamic self. To get there, we'll need to level the playing field for economic opportunity and help workers keep up with technological progress. More change is coming to the economy, so these are urgent matters. I'll have more on the problems and solutions in this Friday's High Yield Economics newsletter.

“I’m a CEO too, you know.” A friend once told me this with a wry smile. He was CEO of his 10-person startup. Then he paused: “But let’s be real - I’m not the CEO of DBS Bank.” That conversation stuck with me. Because not all titles are created equal. Singapore is drowning in inflated job titles. Recent data shows “Lead” titles jumped 38%, “Manager” postings up 24%. Salaries? Flat. One woman’s story: “Senior Manager” at 32, salary $4,200, taking meeting minutes. Her late-20s colleague? “Chief Operations Officer.” Fresh grad? “Manager.” This isn’t career progression. This is career fiction. I know a recruitment firm where everyone with 2-3 years becomes “Director of Talent Acquisition.” Sounds impressive until they try to move. A 28-year-old “Director” with 3 years experience? Hiring managers immediately know: small company, inflated title, coordinator-level work. The title becomes a liability, not an asset. Here’s what nobody warns you: In outplacement, inflated titles kill your chances. You get rejected because the title seems too junior, too inflated, or creates red flags. I’ve watched people explain their dotcom-era “Marketing Wizard” title for 25 years. Companies hand out fancy titles because it’s cheaper than raises. But it costs YOU. Future employers lowball you. You can’t take “lower” titles without looking like you’re moving backward. Your age, title, and experience don’t match up. You become unmarketable for legitimate senior roles. That “VP” title at a 15-person company just boxed you out of actual VP positions at real companies. My advice: Be cautious of small companies with big titles. Ask yourself: Will this title help or hurt me in 3 years? Would you rather be a “Director” at a startup making $5,000/month with no team, or a “Senior Executive” at an MNC making $7,000/month with actual leadership experience? The second option will always age better. Negotiate for substance, not style. Push for salary, scope, and actual reports over fancy titles. Document your real responsibilities. Be ready to “translate” your title in future interviews. And if title inflation is rampant, get your experience and leave. To fresh grads: If a small company offers you a “manager” or “senior” title straight out of school, be very careful. Your next job search will be exponentially harder when you’re 25 trying to explain why you’re a “Director” applying for mid-level roles. We need to stop pretending that inflating titles is harmless. It’s creating a generation with impressive LinkedIn profiles and unemployable resumes. Choose substance over style. Your future self will thank you. Yours sincerely, Supreme Commander of LinkedIn Hot Takes & Chief Evangelist of Calling Out BS

Continuing Claims Reach New Post-Pandemic High   The latest rise in continuing jobless claims stands in stark contrast to what the unemployment rate suggests about the labor market. Claims data now point to rising labor market slack, as business conditions grow increasingly uncertain amid shifting trade, fiscal, and monetary policies.   It’s now harder for unemployed workers to find jobs than at any point in the past three years. With business confidence still subdued compared to earlier this year, companies are pulling back on hiring—particularly for entry-level positions.   A much stricter immigration policy has placed a ceiling on the unemployment rate by limiting labor supply. But that doesn’t mean jobless workers can easily step in to fill open roles, as mismatches in skills or location remain key barriers.   The claims data align more closely with last week’s increase of just 74,000 in private payrolls—far below what the topline jobs number suggested.   While the unemployment rate remains a key labor market gauge for the Federal Reserve, this may be a moment when that single metric is no longer sufficient to guide its decision on interest rates.

You know it. I know it. Return to office isn't neutral. It disproportionately impacts women, especially mothers and caregivers. I was honored to share my thoughts with Taylor Telford for her latest The Washington Post piece exploring how aggressive RTO policies are pushing women's progress backwards. (Link in comments) As I shared in this piece, it is not a "choice" when the options are so limited. Women are once again finding themselves pushed out of the paid workforce. Some key takeaways from the article: 👉 After decades of gradual progress, the gender wage gap is widening again. In 2024, women earned just 80.9 cents for every dollar earned by men, dropping from 84 cents in 2022. 👉 For many women, especially those with caregiving responsibilities, rigid office policies are forcing "choices": accept demotions, take pay cuts, or leave entirely. 👉 Turnover among women at companies with strict in-office mandates is nearly THREE TIMES that of men. 👉 The lack of affordable, accessible childcare continues to widen the pay gap. 👉 Policies like RTO and limiting flexibility are stagnating women who feel forced to step off the ladder towards career growth to manage caregiving. This is exactly why at WRK/360, our mission is to help workplaces ACTUALLY be family and caregiving friendly. Not just in rhetoric, but in policy, culture, and practice. The dynamics the article highlights aren’t hypothetical; they are the exact challenges we work with our clients on daily. ✔️ We help companies design policies (e.g., hybrid, flexible schedules, core hours) that allow for collaboration without penalizing caregivers ✔️We coach leadership on equitable performance criteria so that remote or hybrid contributors are not implicitly devalued ✔️We partner with organizations to embed family-supportive programs that retain talent. HR and leadership teams: 👉 Still considering an RTO mandate? Think about what this really means for women and caregivers. 👉 Already have one in place? Run an audit on your turnover. How has this policy impacted men vs. women? Caregivers vs. non-caregivers? What talent are you losing? Together, we can protect the progress made over decades and stop pushing women and caregivers out of the paid workforce.

Job loss has fatal consequences: 🔹"For every 100,000 displaced men, there are 240 additional deaths in the first five years and 1,100 additional deaths twenty years after displacement." 🔹"Around 60% of the excess deaths occur among displaced workers, but a stunning 40% occur among partners of displaced men." 🔹"no such dire consequences are found after female job displacement" These results come from a study using Finish data from the last three decades. To identify the causal effects of job loss, only workers who lose their job because of plant closure or mass layoff are considered. Why is job loss fatal? The paper shows that "cardiovascular diseases, alcohol, and suicides are the main culprits for excess male mortality", while cause-specific mortality of the partners of displaced workers is less clear. The hospitalization data also show that job loss "carries a substantial psychological burden for men: Within five years after displacement, treatment for mental health issues increases by 17 percent, while alcohol-related visits or suicide attempts increase by 19 percent." Read the full paper here: Christina Gathmann, Kristiina Huttunen, Laura Jernström, Lauri Sääksvuori, Robin Stitzing (2025), In Sickness and in Health: Job Displacement and Health Spillovers in Couples, Review of Economics and Statistics, forthcoming. https://lnkd.in/emc5_7VX

The job market is slow. Offers are getting deferred. Sometimes even revoked. Major companies are not hiring as well as they did previously. How can one be better suited to face such employment challenges? 1. Upskilling: Continuous learning is the key. Acquiring new skills and staying updated with industry trends can make you a more attractive candidate. A subtle example for instance, in management consulting, mastering data analytics tools like Tableau or gaining proficiency in change management methodologies could set you apart. Stay ahead of industry trends to demonstrate adaptability and a willingness to grow. 2. Networking: Forge and maintain meaningful professional relationships, try to get 1-1 conversations with decision makers. Attend events, webinars, and online forums to connect with industry peers and potential employers. Your network can provide valuable insights, referrals, and opportunities that might not be advertised. I cannot emphasise on how networking helps & I have got x number of offers from amazing firms & folks, who just liked my content on LinkedIn! 3. Synergies: Collaborate and showcase versatility. Highlight how your skills can seamlessly complement various roles or departments within an organization. Emphasize your ability to contribute across functions, making you an asset in different scenarios. One thing I often do before talking to someone regarding a role is: Figuring out where can I add the best value in their organization by doing a deep dive beforehand. 4. Communication: Effective communication sets you apart. Tailor your resume, cover letters, and interviews to showcase your skills and accomplishments clearly. Articulate your value proposition and how you can address specific company needs, displaying your potential impact. These may seem like trivial tasks, but a neat mail and well-conveyed thoughts can make all the difference required between that offer and no offer. Remember, resilience and a proactive attitude are key. Stay persistent, remain open to different avenues, and continue adapting your approach based on market dynamics. Your proactive efforts will increase your chances of success even in challenging times. For everyone affected by the slow job market, stay strong my friends. For everyone, aspiring to sit for placements soon or in a couple of years, be well prepared, there’s a long road ahead! After all, we are in this together :) #Jobs #India

Jobless Claims Fall as Reemployment Slows and Hiring Demand Softens The U.S. Department of Labor reported that initial jobless claims came in at 202,000, below expectations of 212K and down from a revised 211K the prior week. The four week moving average declined to 207,750. Continuing claims increased to 1.841 million, up from 1.816 million. At the same time, the March Challenger report showed that U.S. companies announced over 60,000 job cuts, an increase from the prior month, while JOLTS data has continued to show a gradual decline in job openings. On the surface, this is a stable labor market. Layoffs remain low and initial claims are still sitting in a range that does not suggest broad stress. But the more important signal is in continuing claims. That increase tells us that when people do lose jobs, it is taking longer to find the next one. The labor market is not weakening through layoffs. It is becoming less fluid. That shift is showing up across multiple data points. The Challenger report tracks announced job cuts before they appear in official labor data, and the recent increase suggests companies are becoming more selective in how they manage headcount. At the same time, JOLTS data continues to show fewer job openings, which points to softer hiring demand. Put simply, the labor market is not breaking. It is tightening. And that distinction matters. A spike in layoffs hits quickly and visibly. A slowdown in hiring is quieter, but it changes outcomes over time. It can mean longer job searches, more downward pressure on wages for those switching roles, and less overall mobility. This is what a no hire no fire environment looks like. Companies are holding onto workers, but they are not in a rush to add more. When uncertainty rises, hiring is usually the first place you see it. It is also worth noting that this data reflects conditions before the most recent geopolitical tensions involving Iran. If that uncertainty carries forward, the more likely response is continued hesitation in hiring rather than an immediate increase in layoffs. For the broader economy, this creates a more uneven dynamic. Employment is still supporting spending, but the experience of the labor market is getting more restrictive. Some households will not feel much change. Others will feel it in slower job transitions and fewer options. At Havas Edge, we spend a lot of time on this relationship between layoffs, hiring demand, and reemployment because it tends to show up in consumer behavior before it shows up in the headline economic data.