Some Gen Z Workers Are Quitting Jobs Over 'Sunday Scaries'
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The "Sunday scaries" have been known to affect employees across the board, but Gen Z appears to have a special sensitivity to the anxiety that can hit right before a new work week.
In a new report from Resume.io, roughly one in five Gen Z workers said they actually quit their job over the "Sunday scaries."
"This generation is the first to prioritize mental health over wealth," Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, told Newsweek in part.
Why It Matters
The younger generation, which includes workers up to the age of 28, has quickly earned a bad reputation among employers.
A recent report from Intelligent.com revealed that one in six businesses said they were hesitant to hire recent college graduates over concerns about how prepared they are for the work, as well as their communication skills and professionalism.
And a whopping six in 10 employers had already fired college graduates who were hired in 2024 in September of last year.
Woman lying in a hammock and working with a notebook on January 12, 2010 in Varkala near Trivandrum, Kerala, India.
Woman lying in a hammock and working with a notebook on January 12, 2010 in Varkala near Trivandrum, Kerala, India.
EyesWideOpen/Getty Images
What To Know
The "Sunday scaries" are having damaging effects on the newest crop of employees.
Today, the "Sunday scaries" generally refer to the anxiety and dread that can occur right before the work week begins, usually on Sunday evening. The term first originated on Urban Dictionary in 2009 and has now been a common reference for many workers dealing with high levels of stress and burnout.
In the Resume.io survey of 1,000 Americans, 20.2 percent of Gen Z workers said they had quit a job over the Sunday scaries. And 45.9 percent have considered doing so.
Across the larger worker population, one in seven employees said they experienced Sunday anxiety every week, and 11.7 percent have quit a job over it.
"This generation is the first to prioritize mental health over wealth," Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, told Newsweek. "They've watched their parents sacrifice for 'job security,' only to face layoffs, recession, and stress-related illness. Gen Z isn't job hopping because they're flaky. They're hunting for alignment. Purpose. Boundaries. If they can't find it? They leave."
Gen Z was also more likely to report that their job negatively impacts their mental health, with 71.6 percent indicating their job has at least a somewhat negative effect on their well-being. Meanwhile, only 44.6 percent of millennials, 37.8 percent of Gen X, and just 27.3 percent of Boomers said the same.
The top contributors to the Sunday scaries included workload and deadlines (33.1 percent), burnout and exhaustion (23.6 percent) and unrealistic expectations (15.7 percent).
Generally, entry-level jobs were the most vulnerable to Sunday anxiety, with 19.6 percent of those workers saying that they feel it every Sunday.
"The pressure and workload that is placed upon many in professional positions is increasing and it feels like many young people are being asked to do the work of two or three employees," Matthew Solit, the executive clinical director at LifeStance Health, told Newsweek.
"The workplace culture in America does not always favor rest and time away from work, instead favor checking emails while out of office and working long hours. Simply put, the burnout factor is higher, and the youngest generations are seeing it and struggling more to cope."
What People Are Saying
Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, told Newsweek: "For Gen Z, 'Sunday Scaries' has become a flashing red siren. Warning of burnout, toxic work cultures, and lives out of balance. They're not lazy. They're just not willing to sell their soul for a paycheck that can't cover rent and therapy."
Matthew Solit, the executive clinical director at LifeStance Health, told Newsweek: "The 'Sunday Scaries' is a very real phenomenon and at times can be debilitating for anyone in any generation. Gen Z is particularly impacted by it given how fresh this group is in the workforce and the fact that the oldest of this generation is currently 28. For Gen Z and even many millennials, the idea of what life and success in the workforce would look like did not live up to the vision that was projected on them by other generations. Many in this age group find themselves in high-stress and low-return positions that they did not envision."
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "The anxiety and profound lack of connection with their current employer brings on the Sunday scaries. Many are feeling overworked and possibly overlooked as the cost of everything increases. I bet there is a significant correlation between job satisfaction and compensation, which many GenZ may feel left behind."
What Happens Next
Gen Z's reaction to Sunday scaries likely reflects a larger shift in the workforce, where employees are gaining more power, Ryan said.
"Older generations asked, 'How can I fit into this job?' Gen Z flips the script by asking 'How does this job fit into my life?' And yes, that makes some employers uncomfortable," Ryan said.
"Employers clinging to outdated 9 to 5s and performative wellness perks will hemorrhage true talent. But companies who adapt aka flexible hours, culture, mental health benefits, loyalty will be paid back to them. To me, this is just the pendulum of power swinging back to the workers, not the employers."
HR consultant Bryan Driscoll echoed this sentiment.
"Quitting over the Sunday scaries isn't retreat - it's acknowledgement," Driscoll told Newsweek. "And it's a red flag for employers. It reflects a workforce that's no longer willing to tolerate toxic cultures, vague expectations, or the erosion of work-life balance. Gen Z is demanding better and if companies don't adapt, they'll keep losing talent."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Welltower raises annual FFO forecast on strong demand for senior housing
(Reuters) -Real estate investment trust Welltower raised its forecast for annual funds from operations on Monday, banking on steady demand for its assisted living and senior housing properties. The company expects 2025 normalized FFO, a key performance measure for REITs, to be in the range of $5.06 to $5.14 per share, compared to a previous projection of $4.90 to $5.04 per share. Analysts, on average, expect $4.97 apiece, according to data compiled by LSEG. The REIT owns housing, outpatient medical centers and healthcare properties with a focus on older adults and assisted living. It operates in the United States, Canada and the UK. It reported quarterly normalized FFO of $1.28 per share for the quarter, up 21.9% from last year. The growing number of elderly Americans and their rising healthcare expenditures have fueled increased demand for senior living facilities. Welltower's same-store net operating income from its senior housing properties rose 23.4% in the quarter. The Ohio-based company posted a net profit of 45 cents per share for the quarter, compared with a net profit of 42 cents per share reported a year earlier. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Are You an 'Above‑Average' Couple? Here's The Net Worth You Need to Be Richer Than 90% of Households
Think you and your spouse are crushing it financially? You might be doing better than you think — or not even close — depending on how you measure. According to personal finance site Financial Samurai, there's a big difference between being typical and being intentional. The site's benchmark for the "above-average person" doesn't come from ambition or vibes — it's built on clear expectations. To be considered above average, you're expected to graduate from college, which only about 36% of Americans do. You're expected to work diligently, save consistently, take full advantage of retirement accounts like 401(k)s or IRAs, track your finances, invest regularly, live within your means, and expect nothing from your parents, spouse, or the government. Don't Miss: Be part of the breakthrough that could replace plastic as we know it— $100k+ in investable assets? – no cost, no obligation. In short, if you're living like a C-student but expecting an A-lifestyle, Financial Samurai would not put you in the above-average category. Based on this profile, an above-average individual is projected to reach a net worth of around $660,250 by age 45. But what if there are two of you? Defining the Above-Average Couple Some might assume that two financially savvy individuals should simply double their solo benchmarks and call it a day. But Financial Samurai recommends a more conservative approach by using a 1.7x multiplier instead of 2. This accounts for the financial efficiencies that couples often enjoy when it comes to housing, utilities, food, insurance, and transportation. By applying this method, an above-average couple in their mid-40s should aim for a combined net worth of roughly $1.12 million. That target represents a couple who's aligned on money, disciplined with spending, and working toward common long-term goals. This isn't a figure reserved for doctors and tech executives — it's within reach for many dual-income households that save and invest consistently over time. Trending: Accredited Investors: Grab Pre-IPO Shares of the AI Company Powering Hasbro, Sephora & MGM— Where Does That Put You Nationally? The Federal Reserve's most recent Survey of Consumer Finances reports that the median net worth for U.S. households is around $192,900. That means half of American households are below that figure. The average net worth, skewed by ultra-high earners, is higher — roughly $1.06 million. If you're aiming for the top 10% of households, the bar is significantly higher. To join the top decile in America, you need a household net worth of at least $1.92 million. To break into the top 5%, you'll need around $3.78 million. The top 1% of households starts at approximately $13.7 million. By comparison, a Financial Samurai–style above-average couple may not be in the top 10% just yet — but they're still well ahead of most American households. Why Couples Have the Advantage Financially aligned couples often benefit from the natural efficiencies of sharing a household. Two people working together toward shared savings and investing goals can make faster progress than individuals operating separately. When couples reduce overlapping costs and increase financial communication, they compound their efforts — both literally and figuratively. Income alone isn't what separates average from above-average. Behavior, consistency, and clarity do. Financial Samurai emphasizes the importance of tracking net worth regularly, resisting lifestyle creep, and prioritizing long-term goals over short-term your household net worth is between $500,000 and $1 million, you're likely ahead of the national average but not yet in the top 10%. If you've crossed the $1.9 million threshold in your 40s or 50s, you're solidly within the wealthiest tier of U.S. households. Graded on a Curve? Not Quite "Above average" sounds like something you'd see on a report card — but real-life finances aren't graded on a curve. One couple's $1.2 million might mean financial freedom. For another, it barely covers the mortgage and daycare. Some want to upgrade their home. Others want to backpack through Europe. The point is: there's no universal benchmark. If you're living below your means, investing in a way that fits your risk level, and consistently working toward goals that matter to you, you're probably doing just fine. There's no gold star for hitting a number. The only standard that counts is the one you set together. Read Next: The average American couple has saved this much money for retirement —? Image: Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Warren Buffett's longtime Social Security warning is coming to fruition, with retirees facing an $18,000 annual cut
In just seven years, Social Security will reach a fiscal cliff that could leave millions of American retirees with drastically reduced benefits, according to a recent analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). The think tank's new report projects that, unless Congress acts, Social Security's main trust fund will be insolvent by the end of 2032, triggering automatic and painful benefit cuts for everyone relying on the program. How painful? Around $18,000 less per year for retirees who depend on the program. This is not the first time the CRFB has warned about this, and it's a common refrain from no less than the Oracle of Omaha himself: famed investor Warren Buffett. The ticking clock Social Security and Medicare, the two bedrock programs supporting older Americans, are drawing closer to insolvency than many might realize. The most recent data, compiled from the programs' own trustees and enhanced by CRFB calculations, forecasts that by late 2032, Social Security's retirement program will no longer be able to pay out promised benefits in full. At that point, the law dictates that payments must be limited to the amount coming in from payroll taxes—resulting in an immediate, across-the-board benefit reduction. The scope of the cut: $18,100 shortfall for typical couples For millions of future retirees, the numbers are stark. CRFB's estimate reveals that a typical dual-earning couple retiring at the start of 2033 would see their annual Social Security benefit drop by approximately $18,100. The percentage cut is projected to be 24% for that year, instantly slashing retirement incomes for over 62 million Americans who depend on the program. The pain would be widespread but would vary by income and household type. For example, single-earner couples could see a $13,600 cut, while low-income, dual-earner couples face an $11,000 shortfall. And high-income couples might lose up to $24,000 a year. While the dollar cut is smaller for lower-income households, the relative burden is even more severe, devouring a larger share of retirement income and past earnings. Also, these cuts are in nominal dollars; adjusted to 2025 dollars, the actual cut would be about 15% less. What's causing the crisis? Social Security is funded by a dedicated payroll tax, but the gap between what goes out in benefits and what comes in through taxes is growing. The newly enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) has accelerated the timeline by reducing Social Security's revenue through tax rate cuts and an expanded senior standard deduction. According to CRFB, these policies increase the necessary benefit reduction by about one percentage point; if the changes become permanent, the benefit cuts would be even deeper. Over time, the gap is expected to worsen: By the end of the century, CRFB adds, Social Security could face required benefit cuts of over 30%, unless lawmakers shore up the program's finances. Despite these dire projections, many policymakers have pledged not to alter Social Security, promising to keep benefits untouched. But if nothing changes, the law automatically enforces cuts when the trust fund runs dry. The CRFB report urges policymakers to be candid about the situation and to work toward bipartisan solutions that secure Social Security's future. Ideas could include new revenue sources, adjusting benefits, or a combination—anything to avoid the 'steep and sudden' cut that looms for tens of millions. Without meaningful congressional action before 2032, the Social Security safety net will be abruptly—and dramatically—shrunk, so Americans approaching retirement will at least want to pay close attention to congressional action on the looming cliff. Buffett's bugbear Warren Buffett has been vocal about the dangers of Social Security insolvency and the looming benefit cuts that millions of retirees could face if action is not taken soon. The retiring Berkshire Hathaway CEO has stated that reducing Social Security payments below their current guaranteed levels would be a grave mistake, and urged prompt congressional action. Buffett, who has signed the Giving Pledge and has advocated for higher taxes on higher earners, has criticized the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes, arguing that higher earners—including himself—should contribute more. He's also suggested that Social Security's finances could partially be eased by raising the retirement age, with the 95-year-old investing legend himself working well beyond the standard end of most careers. CRFB background The CRFB is not just any think tank, either. It's a respected bipartisan institution that stretches back to 1981. Its board has consistently included former members and directors of key budgetary, fiscal, and policy institutions, such as the Congressional Budget Office, the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Federal Reserve. The CRFB regularly produces analyses of government spending, tax proposals, debt and deficit trends, and trust fund solvency (such as Social Security and Medicare), as well as recommendations and scorecards for major fiscal legislation. The CRFB has consistently advanced a centrist position on budgetary matters, regularly advocating for reducing federal deficits and controlling the growth of national debt. The organization has often criticized large spending bills that are not offset by reductions elsewhere, as well as tax cuts that are not revenue-neutral. The think tank favors reforms to federal 'entitlement' programs, especially Social Security and Medicare, aiming to make them fiscally sustainable, an emphasis that has drawn criticism from the left. For example, Paul Krugman characterized it as a 'deficit scold' when he was still with the New York Times. In the Social Security sphere, the CRFB has supported or proposed ideas like raising the retirement age, adjusting cost-of-living increases (using the chained CPI), increasing the amount of wages subject to payroll tax, and progressive indexing (in which benefits grow more slowly for higher earners). The CRFB has also weighed proposals for new revenue streams and some means-testing of benefits. On the right wing, the CRFB's proposed reforms to Social Security have drawn criticism for, as Charles Blahous of the Manhattan Institute put it, creating a structure more like 'welfare' than an earned income benefit. Still, the CRFB is widely respected in policy circles as a knowledgeable, data-driven budget watchdog, with a long track record of analysis and advocacy for sustainable fiscal policy. For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
