
Why a college degree no longer guarantees a good job
Tribune News Service
A college education used to be considered, along with homeownership, one of the key pillars of the American Dream. Is that still the case? Recent experiences of college graduates seeking employment raise questions about whether a university diploma remains the best pathway to pursuing happiness, as it once was. Consider the case of recent grad Lohanny Santo, whose TikTok video went viral with over 3.6 million 'likes' as she broke down in tears and vented her frustration over her inability to find even a minimum wage job. That was despite her dual degrees from Pace University and her ability to speak three languages. John York, a 24-year-old with a master's degree in math from New York University, writes that 'it feels like I am screaming into the void with each application I am filling out.'
With many recent graduates hitting the pavement searching for work, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED) says theunemployment rate for recent college grads with a bachelor's degree hit a high of 6.1% in May, up from 4.4% in April. It's even worse for young people with a master's degree, which FRED reports has an unemployment rate of 7.2%. The under-employment rate also rose sharply to 41.2%, according to the New York Federal Reserve. The payroll company ADP reported that hiring in May slowed to its lowest level in more than two years. This trend of rising unemployment and underemployment among recent college graduates looks even more dire when compared to the rest of the U.S., where unemployment has held steady at 4.2%. According to a new report from Oxford Economics, people with a bachelor's degree or higher have a higher unemployment rate than the national average, which is 'the first time this has happened in the last 45 years.' Matthew Martin, senior economist at Oxford Economics, told CBS MoneyWatch that this is especially noteworthy because 'those with higher educational attainment usually have better prospects overall than their peers with less.'
Job market for graduates growing grimmer: At various times in the past, college graduates have often struggled to find their first post-graduation job. But now their prospects look even grimmer. And the experts are not so clear on the reasons why the college-to-job transmission belt is working so poorly. But they have some theories. First, the number of available entry-level jobs may be declining. The campus recruiting company Handshake reports that the number of job postings on its platform for 2025 graduates has fallen 15 percent. Yet the number of applicants submitting their resumes for each available position has increased by 30%.
Second, ongoing economic uncertainty is playing a role. Going back to 2024, high prices and inflation led to shaky consumer demand and increased caution among employers, especially amid a rollercoaster presidential election, which contributed to hesitancy over hiring new workers. Today, economic uncertainty is even greater, spurred largely by President Donald Trump's aggressive and constantly evolving tariff agenda. That has led a number of businesses to hit "pause" on investment and growth, which in turn affects their hiring decisions. Brad Hersbein, senior economist at the Upjohn Institute, a labor-focused think tank, says, 'Young people are bearing the brunt of a lot of economic uncertainty. The people that you often are most hesitant in hiring when economic conditions are uncertain are entry-level positions.'
A third factor is in play, let's call it the 'DOGE effect.' Under pressure from the Trump administration's federal hiring freeze and budget cuts, several federal agencies have canceled intern programs for thousands of graduates, including those at USAID, the US Foreign Service, and the summer 2025 cycle of the Student Internship Program. Previous offers to participate in these internship programs have been rescinded, leaving these graduates stranded.
STEM jobs disappearing? However, the most compelling factor that has attracted increasing attention and warrants continued monitoring into the future is the impact of technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), on job prospects. For years, young people seeking a lucrative career were urged to dive into computer science and so-called STEM jobs (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math). From 2005 to 2023, the number of comp-sci majors in the US quadrupled. But now a new wrinkle is being observed in the unemployment reports. While the overall jobless rate has hit a high of 6.1%, the level among certain science-related occupations is even worse, including physics at 7.8% and computer engineering, 7.5%. The Oxford Economics report found that many entry-level positions in the tech sector are being displaced by recent advances in AI. Entry-level jobs in the STEM sector are particularly susceptible to automation and replacement. Says the report, 'The rise in the recent graduate unemployment rate is largely part of a mismatch between an oversupply of recent graduates in fields where business demand has waned.'
Not all computer science workers are exposed to this risk. Those who graduated several years ago and have accumulated more than a few years of work experience are doing well. However, those who perform lower-level, rote work are now competing with AI bots for jobs. With such a grim job outlook for entry-level coders, enrollment in computer science programs is starting to decline. This year enrollment in comp-sci majors grew by only 0.2% nationally, and at many programmes it appears to be in decline. At Stanford, widely considered one of the country's top programmes, the number of comp-sci majors has stalled, and at Princeton, the cohort of graduating comp-sci majors is projected to decline by 25%. The lead culprit for this dramatic shift, which will play out for years to come, is technology and AI. AI may well replace the very workers who built it.
New (or old?) career paths? It's too early to draw hard conclusions about these tech trends, but it seems clear that a college degree or even a STEM degree is no longer the guaranteed ticket to the American Dream it once was. Might new — or perhaps old — career paths present more opportunity? Last year, the CEOs of Home Depot and Walmart wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled 'Not Everyone Needs a College Degree.' Ted Decker and John Furner wrote, 'Young people have been told for decades that achieving the American Dream requires a college degree... While a college degree is a worthwhile path to prosperity, it isn't the only one.' The authors continued, 'The American Dream isn't dead, but the path to reach it might look different for job seekers today than it did for their parents. We owe it to younger generations to open our minds to the different opportunities workers have to learn new skills and achieve their dreams.'
So... plumber, electrician, carpenter, anyone? AI and robots won't replace those occupations anytime soon, and their average salary is around $30 per hour for entry-level ($60,000 per year), and double that amount for skilled journeymen, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. As I discovered when I recently bought a home, it's not so easy to hire skilled craftsmen because there aren't enough of them, and they are in high demand. Might this become a more viable career path for more young job seekers? It seems likely that today's college graduates and younger entry-level applicants will have to be open to new career paths, as the old ones are starting to look more like dead ends.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
The wisdom of ending wind and solar subsidies
Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Ryan Strasser, Tribune News Service The recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act signals a major shift in federal energy policy. Among its provisions, the law accelerates the phase-out of tax credits for new wind and solar projects and eliminates long-term subsidies for renewable developers on public land. The law revives a principle that should guide all energy policy: Let the best ideas win on their own merit. Rolling back the subsidies should relieve pressure to use valuable land for solar and wind farms. Consider the direct land use involved in today's energy sector. Wind projects take up approximately 30,000 acres to produce the same amount of electricity as a 2,500-acre coal plant. Solar is also land-intensive, requiring about 5,000 acres for equivalent output. However, when government subsidies reduce the use of public land for renewable energy sources, investors are no longer incentivised to look at the tradeoffs of their land-use footprint. Land is a finite and valuable resource. Using it for energy comes at the expense of other potential uses. When developers receive subsidies, they do not have to account for the value of alternative uses for the land. If an energy source requires more land, it should pay for that land. Communities across the country are voicing concerns, objecting to large-scale wind and solar developments that disrupt local land use, strain water resources, and alter rural landscapes. According to Robert Bryce's Renewable Rejection Database, more than 800 wind and solar projects have been rejected or restricted by local governments in the United States since 2015. One example of the disadvantages of large-scale renewable energy projects is the Spotsylvania Solar Energy Center in Virginia, a solar facility that spans over 6,300 acres, one of the largest solar projects east of the Rockies. Locals raised their concerns over the project's environmental effects, particularly the clearing of 3,500 acres of forested land, which involved the removal of around a million trees. Residents feared toxic substances leaching from panels into groundwater, in addition to the heat generated by the installation of 1.8 million solar panels, manufactured by Chinese companies. Despite the opposition, full operation began in 2021. Virginians' average electricity rates rose from 10 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) in 2019 to 15 cents/kWh in June 2025. This 50% rise in energy prices over less than 6 years underscores that wind and solar projects generally don't save money and entail serious environmental and community costs of their own. Supporters of climate-change subsidies often argue that a rapid shift to renewable energy is necessary as they believe resource depletion or environmental harm is on the horizon. Even though America still holds centuries' worth of recoverable fossil fuels, this argument is flawed in its understanding of energy production. Coal, oil, and gas are the most efficient and profitable energy sources available. Over the past 20 years, wind and solar have received global subsidies of $9 trillion. The most recent data from the Energy Information Administration show that renewable energy sources received over $15 billion in federal subsidies in 2024, compared to $3 billion for fossil fuels. If renewable energy is truly the cheapest and most competitive option, why do its supporters call for lavish government support? Some argue that without such incentives, renewable energy investment will dry up. However, when the government gives special financial help to one type of energy, it makes it harder to see which energy sources are the best and most affordable. This distorts fair competition. If wind and solar energy are the future of America's energy sector, they should compete without the crutch of federal aid. Subsidizing large-scale land for renewable energy development raises electricity prices and uses public, taxpayer-owned lands. The result is not cleaner and more reliable energy, but misallocated resources. Spain offers a cautionary tale. With over half of its grid supplied by renewables and a national push toward 100% by 2050, the country suffered a 12-hour blackout on April 28. Two solar panels in southwest Spain went down, and the grid had insufficient inertia, or backup, to continue operating. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act represents more than just a shift in federal spending; it reflects a renewed commitment to competitive land use in America's energy sector. By phasing out preferential tax treatment and below-market land deals, the law encourages energy developers to compete on merits and meet America's rising energy demands with an approach rooted in efficiency, reliability, and competition.


Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
The need to focus on the economy's significance
The size of the national debt has become a preoccupation across the political spectrum. Democrats have complained about the $3.4 trillion increase in the debt projected to result from President Donald Trump's tax cut. This represents 10 percent of the projected gross domestic product for 2035. Republicans also scream about the debt, even as they pass tax cuts to make it larger at every opportunity. Let's be clear: The bulk of the current deficit is the result of reduced tax revenue, not legislated increases in spending. Tax revenue peaked at 20% of GDP in 2000. For those who don't remember, the economy was booming that year, with a 4% unemployment rate and 4.1% GDP growth, according to the Tribune News Service. The latest projections, following the passage of Trump's tax cuts, show that tax revenue will be just over 16% of GDP next year. The loss of tax revenue, compared with the 2000 peak, will add $1.2 trillion to the 2026 deficit. While spending has increased relative to the economy, most of the increase was not due to profligate government spending but rather the result of higher Social Security and Medicare spending. This rise is because the huge baby boom cohort was in their prime working years in 2000. Now they are in their 60s and 70s and mostly collecting benefits from these programmes. Stepping back from the causes of deficits and debt for a moment, we should ask: Is the debt a big problem? A debt of $35 trillion or $40 trillion can scare people and be good fodder for political rhetoric, but the real question is how it affects people's lives. None of us sees the debt, in the sense that it does not directly affect us in our daily lives. We do see the economy. We know whether it is creating jobs and whether wages are outpacing prices. If the economy can generate growth at a respectable pace and it is broadly shared, we can say that we, and our children, will be better off in the future than we are today. If the economy can sustain 2.5% growth, we will, on average, be 30% richer 10 years from now. And that will be true even if the debt continues to grow as is now projected. Despite the fearmongering rhetoric, investors will not flee from holding the assets and the currency of a country with a strong, rapidly growing economy. However, recent policy decisions should make us question whether we will have a strong, rapidly growing economy. The Trump administration has made it a top priority to sever longstanding trade relations, instead imposing tariffs and making deals that have the lifespan of one of his golf games. This will make other countries reluctant to trade with the United States. Canada, the European Union, and much of the rest of the world are rapidly looking to make trade deals that exclude the United States. Trump is also attempting to chase out a large share of the US workforce. This is most immediately the case with undocumented workers who mostly hold low-paying jobs in construction, restaurants and farming. However, the anti-immigrant policies are also chasing away highly skilled workers who are concerned about being targeted by ICE agents empowered to arrest and detain anyone they decide could be undocumented. The Trump administration is also gutting funding for the research that has been the basis of US leadership in areas like medical technology and artificial Intelligence. It has declared war on the energy revolution, removing subsidies and imposing taxes on electric vehicles and clean energy. These policies almost seem designed to be an axe blow to the country's economy. A year ago, the economy was growing at a healthy pace, unemployment was low, and inflation was falling; we were seeing an unprecedented boom in factory construction.


Gulf Today
5 days ago
- Gulf Today
This state may offer a cautionary tale
Homeownership has long been a hallmark of the American dream. And property taxes are part of being a homeowner. Recently, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has floated the idea of eliminating property taxes. For Floridians who are homeowners, the end of property taxes seems like a dream come true. But the question is: At what cost? That's the question Wyoming is grappling with. Earlier this year, Wyoming lawmakers passed a 25% cut to property taxes. The tax exemption applies to 'primary residential structures up to the first $100 million of the structure's fair market value.' At first glance, it looks like a win for homeowners, but municipalities are bracing for impact, according to the Tribune News Service. Like Florida, Wyoming doesn't impose a state income tax, making property tax revenue a key funding source for cities and municipalities — including fire and police departments, schools and other services. Fremont County, the fifth most populous in the state, has announced $300,000 in library cuts and warned that other services may see deeper cuts. Most troubling is the possibility of cuts for public schools, which receive 70% of their funding from property taxes and now face a serious deficit. According to the state's April 2025 long-term revenue expenditure forecast, Wyoming's school foundation program account — which is responsible for funding public schools — is projected to experience a $686 million deficit by 2029-30. While Wyoming has a population of 587,618, and is far different demographically from Florida — with a population of 23 million spread over 67 counties — the struggles Wyoming residents are facing may offer a preview of challenges Florida could expect if DeSantis' proposal becomes reality. Florida's unique challenges — including rapid population growth, the housing and insurance crisis and hurricane risks — create strong fiscal demands that exceed what Wyoming faces. These realities make property tax elimination, or even a deep cut, more problematic for the Sunshine State. The Florida Legislature recognised the need to think things through before barreling ahead to help DeSantis eliminate property taxes. The Legislature allocated $1 million in its proposed state budget for state economists to study the elimination of property taxes, a responsible position. The study would've given Florida's leaders a clearer picture of the implications of such a significant change. But DeSantis vetoed the budget item, dismissing it by saying, 'We don't need to give a bureaucracy money to study this. We know what needs to be done, so let's just do it.' That was a short-sighted move. Cutting or eliminating the state's property tax requires a plan and consideration of the impacts, and maybe even examining what's happening right now in Wyoming. As Budge Huskey, president and CEO of Premier Sotheby's International Realty, told Fox News Digital, 'At the end of the day, you cannot simply lower property taxes or eliminate property taxes without replacing at least a significant majority of that revenue through alternative means.' According to the Florida Policy Institute, property taxes make up an estimated 50% to 60% of the state's school district revenue. In order to replace revenue lost, Florida would most likely need to double its state sales tax to 12%, FPI found, resulting in the tax burden being shifted rather than eliminated. While DeSantis and fellow Republicans love to tout Florida as the 'free state,' removing property taxes from the state's financial equation would put local government into a funding free-fall. Giving Floridians financial relief is critical as the cost of living continues to rise, and Wyoming's efforts may offer some lessons. But slashing property taxes without a serious plan to manage the impacts isn't the way forward.