La crisis de contratación de la generación Z: un cambio estructural en los mercados laborales y su impacto sobre el crecimiento económico futuro

The labor market is undergoing a seismic transformation driven by Gen Z's evolving preferences and structural economic shifts. For long-term investors, understanding this generational pivot is critical to navigating risks and identifying opportunities in a rapidly realigning economy. Gen Z, now entering the workforce in significant numbers, is reshaping employment norms, prioritizing stability, purpose, and adaptability over traditional corporate hierarchies. This shift is not merely a demographic trend but a structural reconfiguration of labor markets with profound implications for capital allocation and sectoral performance.

Structural Shifts in Gen Z Employment

Gen Z's labor participation is marked by stark contrasts. While their unemployment rate in July 2025 stood at 10.6%-historically low for non-recessionary periods-this masks deeper challenges. Labor force participation for Gen Z men has declined precipitously since the early 2000s, driven by aging populations and shifting educational commitments. Meanwhile, 58% of Gen Z graduates remain unemployed in full-time roles, compared to 25% of prior generations. This cohort is also redefining work itself: only 45% hold traditional full-time jobs, with many embracing hybrid arrangements or side hustles to balance financial and professional goals according to workplace surveys.

The rise of AI further complicates the landscape. Over half of Gen Z workers use generative AI tools for skill development, yet 63% fear AI will eliminate jobs or hinder entry into the workforce. This duality-leveraging AI while fearing its disruptive potential-highlights the tension between technological advancement and labor displacement.

Sectoral Reallocation and Investment Risks

Gen Z's career preferences are accelerating capital reallocation across sectors. Technology, healthcare, government, and skilled trades are emerging as high-impact areas, driven by perceived resilience to automation and alignment with Gen Z's values. Computer science degrees have surged by 23% year-over-year, while enrollment in trade-focused institutions has grown by 20% since 2020. These sectors offer stability, competitive wages, and hands-on work, with 42% of Gen Z already pursuing or working in skilled trades.

Conversely, traditional corporate roles and industries vulnerable to automation face heightened risks. The K-shaped recovery-where affluent households benefit from asset gains while younger workers grapple with stagnant wages-exacerbates these divides. For instance, the U.S. manufacturing sector, despite a contraction in 2025, is adopting AI-driven solutions to remain competitive, with Deloitte projecting that 25% of manufacturers will deploy physical AI (e.g., autonomous robots) by 2027. Investors must weigh the long-term viability of such sectors against Gen Z's demand for purpose-driven, flexible roles.

Capital Flows: AI vs. Skilled Trades

Q3 2025 data reveals a stark divergence in capital allocation. The AI sector captured 46.4% of global venture capital funding, with mega-rounds like Anthropic's $13 billion investment underscoring the sector's dominance according to Q3 analysis. Meanwhile, skilled trades and infrastructure benefited indirectly from AI's infrastructure demands, with construction jobs surging due to data center expansion. This duality reflects Gen Z's pragmatic approach: while they seek AI-resistant roles, they also contribute to the physical infrastructure enabling AI's growth.

However, risks persist. AI's high valuations and uncertain profitability paths create volatility, while skilled trades face challenges in scaling training programs to meet demand according to market analysis. For investors, the key lies in balancing exposure to high-growth AI sectors with the stability of trades that Gen Z prioritizes.

Strategic Implications for Investors

Long-term investors must adapt to Gen Z's labor-driven reallocation of capital. Sectors offering flexible work arrangements, skill-based growth paths, and alignment with personal values are more likely to retain talent and drive innovation according to industry research. Conversely, industries failing to address Gen Z's emphasis on mental health, work-life balance, and purpose risk high attrition and missed opportunities as reported in workforce studies.

Policy and corporate strategies will also play a role. Governments and employers must invest in mentorship, AI skills training, and hybrid work models to align with Gen Z's expectations as found in talent surveys. For investors, this means prioritizing companies that integrate these elements into their value propositions.

Conclusion

The Gen Z hiring crisis is not a temporary anomaly but a structural shift with lasting economic consequences. As this generation reshapes labor markets, investors must reallocate capital toward sectors that align with their preferences for stability, purpose, and adaptability. While AI and skilled trades present compelling opportunities, the risks of misalignment-whether through automation vulnerability or cultural mismatch-demand careful scrutiny. The future of economic growth hinges on understanding and responding to Gen Z's transformative impact on work.