Skip to Content News Archives Economy Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials HomeFinancial TimesWhat 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 propositionAuthor of the article: You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.The rise of working from home has been a boon for thirtysomethings who are safely on the career conveyor belt. But it has slowed their climb up the career ladder. Photo by Seb Ra/Getty ImagesGraduates 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.Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorThe 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.Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againThe 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 analyzed 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.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 United States 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.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.© 2026 The Financial Times Ltd Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.