Loading today’s stories
Invest1 distinct publisher3 min readPublished
A Kellogg study of 50 million job ads finds remote roles want 25% more skills at the same title and employer, while the New York Fed attributes 64% of the rise in young-graduate unemployment to working from home.
The Investor · Invest desk
Compiled by The InvestorSomething wrong?How this is made
The arithmetic behind that 64% is smaller than the number sounds. It is also more useful. Unemployment among college graduates under 29 went from 3.1% in 2017-2019 to 3.7% in 2022-2025 [2], which is 0.6 of a percentage point, or about 19% on the base [1]; assign the New York Fed's 64% [5] and roughly 0.38 points sit with working from home, leaving about 0.22 points for automation, cohort size, credential inflation and everything else the labour market did in those six years [2]. Nobody should wave that residual away. The comparison that carries more weight is the other one: experienced graduates moved the opposite way, 1.9% to 1.8% [3], so the spread between the two cohorts widened from 1.2 points to 1.9 points, up about 58% [3]. Demand shocks do not usually sort themselves that neatly by tenure.
What makes this a pipeline story rather than a hiring-market story is the posting-level finding. Holding title, employer and year constant, the remote version of a job asked for 25% more skills, more experience and slightly higher credentials than the in-office version [4], across more than 50 million ads in 28 European countries plus interviews and an experiment with US hiring managers [11]. That is a training cost moving to the other side of the table. Shinan Wang, the Kellogg co-author, puts the mechanism plainly: juniors need mentors, need to watch how others work, and firms respond by wanting people who already have the skills [6]. The effect concentrated in fully remote roles, with hybrid postings resembling in-person ones [7], which means the cheapest available remedy is a schedule rather than a budget line, and 35% of employees doing at least some work from home [1] is the size of the exposure.
Raising the entry bar has a name. A firm that does it stops funding the apprenticeship that historically produced future managers who were cheap to train and easy to move up [10], and starts renting three years of someone else's training at market price, and repeating that choice for a decade produces a bench nobody built. Meanwhile nearly half of recent graduates say AI is already affecting hiring in their field [8], which is a survey of belief, not of payroll.
This is probably wrong in one direction, but the more interesting version of the thesis is that the AI attribution is doing public-relations work for the remote-work attribution, because "the model took the job" describes an external force while "we stopped teaching" describes an internal cost that somebody approved. Emma Harrington, co-author of the Fed analysis, allows it may not be either-or [9]. Two ways this reads differently: if office mandates keep spreading and the 1.9-point cohort gap does not close, training was not the binding constraint and composition or automation wins the argument; and if the skills premium shows up in postings for experienced roles too, the 25% is screening noise rather than a missing classroom.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
Last year 35% of employees did at least some of their work at home, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics study.
Unemployment for college graduates younger than 29 averaged 3.1% in 2017 to 2019 and jumped to 3.7% in 2022 through 2025, according to Federal Reserve Bank of New York data.
Over the same period, the unemployment rate for more experienced college graduates fell to 1.8% from 1.9%.
A study published in Administrative Science Quarterly found remote positions required 25% more skills, more experience and slightly higher educational credentials than non-remote counterparts with the same title, same employer and same year.
Economists authoring a recent Federal Reserve Bank of New York analysis estimate that working from home is behind 64% of the recent rise in unemployment among young college graduates.
Shinan Wang, study co-author and doctoral candidate at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management, said remote jobs make on-the-job training and support hard, that junior staff need mentors and to watch how others work, and that firms therefore raise hiring requirements because they want people who already have the skills.
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
1 article · August 29, 2026
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
invest
The 4.1% jobless rate is now a composition story, not a stability story1 distinct publisher
product
Rillet's $100M reads as proof mid-market ERP is rip-and-replace, mostly at the cheap end1 distinct publisher
leadership
AI's answer keys are being written for $85 an hour by people who cannot get other work1 distinct publisher
invest
CoreWeave's $1.2M CEO sale is noise. The $2.3 billion behind it is the number to underwrite1 distinct publisher
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Two serious studies, one retelling
The underlying material is strong for this genre — a peer-reviewed Administrative Science Quarterly paper with 50 million postings behind it, a New York Fed analysis, BLS data — but a reader gets all of it secondhand from The Daily Upside, with no links, no effect sizes beyond the two headline percentages, and no confidence intervals on a causal estimate as specific as 64%. The 25% skill premium is the sturdiest number in the story because its comparison holds title, employer and year fixed; the weakest is the unattributed passage about why firms have always liked hiring rookies.
The behaviour is already widespread
This is not a pilot being talked up. Remote work touches 35% of US employees by the BLS count, and the raised hiring bar shows up in more than 50 million real job advertisements rather than in survey intentions — employers have already changed what they ask for. What is not established is how many firms have deliberately reconsidered the trade-off, since not one employer in the story speaks about its own practice.
Precise shares, modest movements
The two studies are reported faithfully — the overreach is in proportion, not accuracy. '64% of the rise' sounds like a settled verdict on a large problem, yet the rise itself is 0.6 of a percentage point, and the story never converts the share into the roughly 0.38 points it implies. The framing that remote work may be more culpable than AI also does more work than the evidence: predating AI's effects is not the same as outweighing them, which is close to what Harrington herself cautions.
Researchers and a jobs marketplace, each with a stake
Nobody here is selling a product to the reader, but the voices are not disinterested either. Both quoted economists are promoting their own papers, and the one number describing graduates' own perceptions comes from ZipRecruiter, a hiring marketplace whose visibility rises with every story about a difficult graduate job market. The Daily Upside's own newsletter sign-up sits inside the piece. None of that distorts the findings; it does explain why the AI-versus-remote framing is the hook.
Convergent mechanism, single messenger
Confidence is held up by two independent research efforts landing on the same explanation — training is harder at a distance, so employers screen harder — and by the hybrid comparison behaving exactly as that story predicts. It is held down by the fact that one publisher carries the whole account, that the posting evidence is European while the unemployment series is American, and that the alternative explanation the story itself raises, pandemic-era schooling, is never tested against the data.