Latest news with #LizCoulbourn
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Is Job Hopping Bad for the Careers of Gen Zers? We Asked Experts for Their Insight
All products featured on Teen Vogue are independently selected by Teen Vogue editors. However, when you buy something through our retail links, Condé Nast may earn an affiliate commission. Liz Coulbourn Work in Progress is a column about finding your way in the working world. Have a question for Rainesford Stauffer? Send it to TVworkinprogress@ I've been through two layoffs over the last three years. My current job is okay, but it can get extremely tedious, frustrating, and often both. There are aspects of this work that I wasn't quite prepared to deal with, like managing client expectations, and it's causing a lot of stress. I would like to look for something else, but I'm worried about what having three jobs over three years means for my resume. —AD, Canada Moving from job to job over a short stretch of time, a.k.a. 'job-hopping,' is a practice that has been in the headlines for years. Millennials were dubbed the 'job-hopping generation,' and then similar claims were also made about Gen Z. A 2023 report from ResumeLab noted that of the over 1,100 Gen Z workers it surveyed, 83% considered themselves 'job-hoppers,' and 19% said they had plans to stay in their current job for no more than a year. Generational discourse aside, the current labor market has shifted thoughts on how viable job- hopping actually is. Some experts say that changing jobs for a better salary or to move up in the workplace isn't necessarily happening as much right now, in part because there's less 'churn' in the workforce overall. Workers aren't switching jobs (or getting fired) as often, so there are fewer jobs to move into. Recent reporting from Business Insider detailed that overall job openings are down and hiring is occurring at its slowest pace in roughly a decade. Still, recent reporting from Fortune cited an ADP Research report outlining that about 75% of workers end up leaving a role before they ever get promoted within the workplace they're ditching. The unsteady political and economic environment might mean some people are staying put, but others may still seek out new positions as the cost of living increases or as companies revoke remote or hybrid work policies. Marcia Robinson, founder of the HBCU Career Center, tells Teen Vogue that there are many reasons younger workers want to move around the job arena. Part of it, she says, 'is they just don't feel they should put up with jobs that are not feeding them or allowing them to be able to do what else they want to in their lives.' Many don't want to repeat cycles they might have seen grandparents or parents endure, she adds, such as being loyal to a longtime employer only to be laid off or end up with the bare minimum for retirement. Younger workers also know that what companies are looking for is changing. We're in a skills market, Dr. Robinson explains, and it's rapidly shifting what companies need and look for: 'If they're in an opportunity that's not allowing them to grow or learn or build the skills they want, they might see leaving and going someplace else as an opportunity.' We spoke to experts about how to address job changes during interviews, and whether you really need to 'stick it out' for a year. Why make the switch? People switch jobs for all kinds of reasons. According to a 2023 report from LinkedIn, the main reasons millennials or Gen Z'ers consider changing jobs include higher compensation, opportunities to grow in a career, and flexible work arrangements. In addition, a 2023 research brief for the Shift Project found that younger workers who changed jobs during the 'great resignation' period of the COVID-19 pandemic found better positions with improved compensation and scheduling. This contradicts the popular but unsubstantiated claim that young people simply left jobs during this time because they didn't want to work. In reality, many young workers were in roles deemed 'essential' in the early years of the pandemic, while others struggled to find employment at all. The flip side of narratives about young people who don't want to work is that a lot of jobs don't pay well, don't provide good benefits, and have challenging schedules, says Kristen Harknett, a sociologist at the University of California San Francisco and co-director with the Shift Project. Young workers may worry that moving around could be viewed negatively by future employers but, Dr. Harknett tells Teen Vogue, the 'workers come, workers go' approach is bad for everyone. The churn in the workforce isn't just the result of employees moving from one job to another, she explains; it also stems from the choice by employers 'to say we're not going to work to hold on to the workers we have, we'll just keep hiring new ones.' Dr. Harknett continues, 'It's no surprise that it would be hard to attract workers if the jobs themselves are so unappealing,' so it's worth flipping the script and asking whether these jobs are 'reasonable to expect somebody to want to pursue.' How long should you stick around? When we spoke to experts about quitting for a previous column, many suggested that the oft-repeated phrase 'Stick it out for a year' isn't one-size-fits-all advice. The decision depends on your situation, including financial realities, and whether you're comfortable with the potential consequences of leaving after one year. Paige Soltano, director of placement and outreach for Silberman College of Business at Fairleigh Dickinson University, doesn't think there is a specific amount of time one should stay in a job, though she does like to say a year. That gives you time to onboard and understand the expectations, contribute, and go through different seasons, she explains. During that time you're learning skills that will be useful, whether you stick with your current job or move on. But if the job is negatively impacting your well-being, Dr. Robinson says, she'd rather see someone job-hop than 'stay in a position two to three years and be so beaten down that when they leave, or they get let go because their work has suffered because of it, then they need months to regroup.' Think through what might be asked of you Dr. Robinson advises thinking ahead to the questions a hiring manager or recruiter might ask based on your resume. Their perspective could be that if you've been in a previous job for under a year, you might dislike the industry. You want to counter that in your cover letter, your resume, your LinkedIn profile, and your interview, Dr. Robinson advises: 'You want to emphasize how much you've actually learned. You want to talk about what your goals are, and how it is that what you're trying to move into aligns or fits with the goals that you have longer term.' During your interview, Dr. Robinson suggests, use language like: 'Here's why this step was really important. It allowed me to learn about XYZ. It introduced me to XYZ concept. I worked on a project that showed me XYZ is really important to me, so I want to pursue more of that.' She adds, 'Just have that answer ahead of time. Focus on your ability to learn and the skills that you pull[ed] together in the time you did work for an organization. You can be a significant contributor even in a short time.' Consider what you need before moving on Before moving into a new role, experts suggest, take stock of what you're hoping to gain by leaving. Keep factors like job satisfaction, compensation, and lifestyle in mind, Soltano advises, and consider what you think the next job should offer — then make a list of pros and cons. Soltano also notes the importance of trying to leave on a high note, including staying in touch with colleagues: 'Maybe the last three jobs, for whatever reason, didn't work out. [But] it's a small world, and you don't know who's going to remember you at the next job.' Dr. Robinson encourages workers to practice what she calls 'scanning the horizon' of the industry, looking into what political, economic, environmental, social, or legal factors might be shaping a field. 'Is this a growing industry? Is this an industry that's disappearing?' Robinson asks. Ideally, you want to be in an industry that will grow with you. That may also count for your current job: Could you ask for a promotion or apply for different roles within the organization? As Dr. Robinson puts it, when you're looking for a company where you want to apply, 'is it one that has a ladder that you can move up? Is it one that has bridges that you can move around?' Dr. Robinson also reframes the idea of changing jobs: 'You're seeking better and better alignment,' she explains, between the industry, your values, skills, and interests. She encourages young workers to be bold and unambiguous about who they are and what they're interested in when writing cover letters and resumes, on LinkedIn, and in person. 'It doesn't mean job-hopping is the end of your life,' she says. 'See it as a ladder.' Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take Originally Appeared on Teen Vogue Want more labor coverage? Billionaires Barely Pay Taxes — Here's How They Get Away With It American Work Culture Is the Problem — Not You What a Labor Union Is and How It Works What Is Retaliation in the Workplace? Here Are Your Rights and What to Know
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Is Teen Romance Dead? I'm 17 and I'm Sick of Snapchat Situationships
Collage by Liz Coulbourn In this op-ed, Gabby Burke wonders what happened to teen romance in the Snapchat era, examining the state of dating culture for youth. When I was 13, someone told me that if I didn't kiss a boy by 16, my chances of dying alone would go up by 60%. The science was questionable, but the damage was real. I'm now 17, unkissed, and statistically doomed, I guess — but very much still here. And maybe more confused than ever. I'm 17 years old and I've never had a serious relationship. I don't use Snapchat or participate in any kind of online dating, which, in 2025, is basically the same thing as not having a social life at all. I rarely post on the social media I do have and I keep a close circle of friends in real life. Data shows that my lack of social media use is not average for someone my age, but the dating aspect isn't so atypical — at least according to 2015 statistics, the most recent I could find, showing that only about one-third of teens at the time had ever been in a romantic relationship. Still, the idea of teen romance looms large in our culture, and in my teenage mind (every time I see my aunt, she reliably asks if there are 'any new boys,' so I know I'm not alone in my interest). But because of that social media piece, teen dating is, in my opinion, unrecognizable based on what it once was. Hallway flirting has been largely replaced by Snapchat streaks; 'do you want to hang out after school?' has disintegrated into DMs or cryptic Instagram stories. Asking someone out is cringe, swapped for 'hanging out' or 'talking,' probably defined differently based on who you ask. So, what happened to the kind of high school romance my aunt is constantly asking about? Why are the new rules of dating so... weird? Let's start with the obvious: social media. While it's easy to pin all the blame on Instagram and TikTok, I don't think it's the sole villain in this story; it's more like the instigator. A lot of kids my age grew up watching YouTubers like Piper Rockelle and Lev Cameron post weekly videos about how 'in love' they were — posting Q&A's about their romances, getting their partners lavish gifts, uploading full-blown music videos about their relationship. It was all curated, polished, sometimes fake, and all public. Somewhere along the way, that became the blueprint. Love was no longer about quiet moments, it was about Instagram highlights, public declarations, and aesthetic couple selfies. Relationships became performance art — and when everything's public, it's easy for things to fall apart under the spotlight. Now, even crushes are being reposted on TikTok. And when people do date, the world might know before their best friends do. We've stopped talking about our relationships with our mouths — we post them. "Why are the new rules of dating so... weird?" But if some teens are too open, others are too scared to even try. I fall into the second category. I'm a busy teen with a strict no-Snapchat policy (I just don't like the idea of an app that facilitates avoiding real conversations). In fact, I use social media to watch The Costco Guys, and that's about it. I don't post much, and I don't flirt online — which, apparently, means I don't exist romantically. I'm not alone. I've seen sweet, kind, totally normal teenage girls get torn apart for not dating. It's as if these online dalliances seem to serve as 'proof' that we're desirable, and opting out of that confuses, and even enrages, some people. But in what feels like a homogenous landscape, putting myself out there, especially online, feels like an emotional risk I'm not ready to take. It's not uncommon for teens like me to be afraid to be themselves, as we figure out exactly who ourselves actually are. But in our current online era, when our every move feels scrutinized and we're vulnerable to being accused of acting 'cringe,' the stakes feel even higher. So, here we are, stuck in the emotional limbo of situationships and flirty memes and secret DMs. I'm all for taking your time, but there's something unsettling about how normal it's become to half-date. To keep things vague. To never ask the question, 'So... what are we?' (Spoiler alert: If you have to ask, you already know the answer. ) 'Love was no longer about quiet moments, it was about Instagram highlights, public declarations, and aesthetic couple selfies.' The wildest part? Teens still want love — or at least I do. I know I'm not alone in feeling terrified of doing it wrong, of being too much, or not enough. Of loving someone who won't text back. Or worse — someone who leaves you on read. We grew up in a world that told us love should be public, but our feelings should be private. That we should be desirable but detached. Open but mysterious. Committed but not too committed. Is it any wonder that I'm confused and scared about seeking love? Maybe it's Tinder. Maybe it's TikTok. Maybe it's COVID. Or maybe high school love was never as magical as the movies made it out to be — we just really want it to be real. Either way, I am 17, still without a situationship, still not on Snapchat, still without a roster, still kind of okay with it and kind of not. Originally Appeared on Teen Vogue
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
RFK Wants to Send People to ‘Wellness Farms.' The US Already Tried That.
Collage by Liz Coulbourn Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take In a clip from a July 2024 virtual town hall that recirculated online earlier this year, now Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argues that the US should combat addiction by opening 'wellness farms' to help people get off opioids, antidepressants, and stimulants. Kennedy says people taking medications for conditions like depression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), along with those living with addiction, could spend three or four years growing organic produce on these farms to be 're-parented' and 'reconnect with communities.' RFK Jr. went on to declare during his confirmation hearing for the HHS secretary position that "a healthy person has a thousand dreams" while "a sick person has only one" — implying that the only dream a disabled person can have is of being cured. And in an April speech addressing the 'epidemic' of autism affecting U.S. children, RFK Jr. claimed: 'Autism destroys families…these are kids who will never pay taxes, they'll never hold a job, they'll never play baseball, they'll never write a poem, they'll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted…and we need to put an end to it.' Repeatedly, the man leading the nation's health department has affirmed his view of people with disabilities as a burden. Online, some users have compared RFK Jr.'s vision of 'wellness farms' with Nazi concentration or Japanese-American internment camps. Few, however, have made the connection to the disabled colonies established in the United States during the 19th and 20th centuries. In short: America has already tried wellness farms. Beginning in the 1890s and continuing through the first few decades of the 20th century, epileptic and "feebleminded' colonies sprung up around the US. The initial purpose of these colonies was to remove patients from overcrowded, badly run asylums and poorhouses in favor of farm life where they would have access to the outdoors. Under the colony model, patients generally lived in 'cottages' designed to be more homelike than institutional. Patients were also given jobs, and many were expected to work on colony farms where they grew their own food. Dr. William Spratling, the medical superintendent of the Craig Colony for Epileptics in New York, declared that the farm model meant, 'Nature, the great restorer, will have an opportunity to do her best.' It didn't work. Supporters of the colony model argued that — with time — clean air, sunshine, a restricted diet, and physical labor could heal patients of the medical conditions that ostracized them from society. But that didn't happen. Data from the Craig Colony — one of America's first epileptic colonies, opened in 1896 — illustrates this point. During the 1940s, thanks to funding and staff limitations because of World War II, conditions in North American institutions were particularly grim. The institution's 1943-1944 annual report to the state Commissioner of Mental Hygiene shows that less than 1% of patients were discharged as 'cured' that year. During that same period, over 200 patients attempted to leave the colony without permission, and over 5% of the total patient population died. If the goal was to actually segregate disabled people from public life, you could say the colony model succeeded. As Michael Rembis, associate professor and director of the Center for Disability Studies at the University at Buffalo, wrote in The Oxford Handbook of Disability History, the physicians, social workers, and state officials who ran colonies and other institutions for disabled individuals were 'driven by an ableist logic that was always infused with racialist, gendered, and class-based thinking' in their attempts at 'segregating, sterilizing, and generally restricting the world's disabled population.' Colonies also assured that disabled people would be shielded from public view, similar to the 19th- and 20th-century 'Ugly Laws' that made it illegal to exist in public spaces as a person with a visible disability. In the early 20th century, epileptic and feebleminded colonies became hotbeds for eugenics. In 1924, a teenage girl named Carrie Buck was institutionalized at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded after becoming pregnant outside of marriage. In part because Carrie's birth mother had also been institutionalized, the medical superintendent of the Virginia State Colony sought to have her sterilized — so she wouldn't pass down her alleged mental defect to any additional children. The resulting court case, Buck v. Bell, went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who wrote for the majority, declared in reference to Carrie, her birth mother, and Carrie's daughter that 'three generations of imbeciles are enough.' In the end, Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will. Buck v. Bell was never overturned, and 31 states still allow the forced sterilization of disabled people, according to a 2022 report from the National Women's Law Center. Across the country, up to 70,000 forced sterilizations took place throughout the 20th century, per NPR, with many of them occurring in colonies and other institutions. Rather than focusing on curing patients, colonies became about control: control over who got to live in communities and who didn't, and control over who would have the opportunity to have children. RFK Jr.'s fixation on wellness farms also risks stripping disabled Americans of the right to choose how they live their own lives. In 1999, the US Supreme Court declared that disabled Americans have the right to live and receive support in their communities when medically appropriate, rather than be forced into state-run institutions. Although RFK Jr. maintains that admission to his wellness farms would be voluntary, the Trump administration has essentially labeled people with disabilities, chronic health conditions, and neurodivergence — as well as the essential medications on which many of them rely — a threat to national security. This language makes it clear that disabled people are not welcome in this new 'Make America Healthy Again' era. Perhaps, then, it shouldn't be surprising that under the 'Make America Healthy Again' mantra we are seeing a resurgence of eugenecist talking points and attempts by lawmakers to strip back disabled people's rights. Last month, as The Guardian reported, a University of Texas at Austin-owned venue hosted a natalism conference featuring a number of controversial far-right and eugenics-aligned speakers who promote high birth rates. In her 'Disability Visibility' column for Teen Vogue, activist Alice Wong has called mask bans 'the new Ugly Laws.' And 17 state attorneys general are currently suing to fight the inclusion of gender dysphoria in a list of disabilities protected from discrimination under Section 504, the legislation that mandates any organization receiving federal funds must be physically accessible and provide accommodations to those who need it and that sets the foundation for the Americans With Disabilities Act. The lawsuit also challenges the constitutionality of Section 504, which many disability activists and legal experts fear could overturn protections disabled people rely on. For the disabled patients forced into colonies during the 19th and 20th centuries, life was not easy. In addition to forced (unpaid) labor and the risk of sterilization, patients sometimes underwent experimental treatments and lived in overcrowded conditions. New York's Craig Colony was so chronically understaffed that, as of fall 1943, over 30% of the colony's total positions were unfilled. Overcrowding became so severe at Craig that a 1944 state report described some buildings with 'conditions not duplicated in any other institution in the Department.' In one house designated for men deemed 'mentally incompetent,' the report found that: '…nearly two hundred patients walk up and down [the day room] with no place for most of them to sit except on the floor and nothing to keep them in the least occupied. In a corner closet are piled sixty mattresses foul with the smell of urine, waiting to be laid out in rows on the floor of the Day-Room when evening comes. In this building young boys are herded together with middle-aged and old men, all of them mental incompetents and some admittedly sexual perverts…. The contrast between these crowded buildings and the cow barn, where the dairy herd of the institution is kept, is marked. The cows are kept in clean spacious quarters, well provided with fodder, while certain of the wards of the State in this institution have lived and slept under conditions which members of the Commission felt could never have existed in a civilized community….' Wellness farms aren't about wellness at all. In practice, history shows us, they're about eliminating disabled people from public life. In 1899 the Craig Colony's Dr. Spratling proclaimed, 'Epilepsy is not so much a disease that can be reached with a single drug or the contents of a written prescription. It is more a condition that pervades every part of the human economy, a condition that needs to be eradicated, educated out of the system, so to speak.' Compare this to RFK Jr.'s assertion that disabled people taking psychiatric drugs should 'learn to get re-parented.' When a statement from the US health secretary in the 21st century sounds like a quote from 1899, I'd argue that's a return to eugenics, not an endorsement of modern medicine. Even if colonies did somehow 'cure' patients, disabled people deserve to choose how they live and to live with dignity. Disabilities don't ostracize the vulnerable from society or keep them in conditions worse than cattle; people do. What if, instead of upholding toxic wellness culture, we reject the eugenicist beliefs underpinning Make America Healthy Again? As disabled activist Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha said, we can still dream 'a future where disabled people survive, but more than that, we lead, we shape the world, we create futures infused with disabled knowledge and ways of living and imaginings.' Originally Appeared on Teen Vogue Want to read more Teen Vogue health coverage? How to Use Social Media Without Feeling Like Sh*t How to Get Birth Control If You're a Teen Students Face Worsening Mental Health, But How Will Schools Handle It? What Is A Period? 15 Things To Know About Your Menstrual Cycle
