• Republicans are feeling the strain of rising costs, with more saying it's a drag on their finances.
• Those voters are feeling generally bad about the economy as key midterm elections loom.
• Voters not approving of the party in power is common; what's unclear is how it'll play out.

Republicans are feeling the high-cost crunch.

The latest consumer sentiment reading out of the University of Michigan finds that, across the board, Americans are still feeling bad. While self-identified Republicans still feel better than their Democratic and Independent counterparts, they're increasingly feeling the pinch of rising prices.

From January to October 2026, the share of Republicans citing high prices as a drag on their finances rose the most out of all political factions. It's a sign that, even as their party holds Congress and the White House, Republican voters might still be feeling the heat — especially as inflation continues to rise.

And, more broadly, Republicans seem to be souring on economic conditions. A Pew Research survey of 5,062 American adults from September 28 to October 4 found that Republicans, and those who lean Republican, were becoming less likely to say that economic conditions in the country are good.

Historically, consumer sentiment and surveys asking voters about economic conditions tend to have strong partisan correlations. Democrats are more likely to say that the economy is doing well and they're optimistic about the future when a Democrat is president; Republicans do the same when the GOP holds the White House.

The shift in Republican sentiment illustrates just how bad Americans at large are feeling about the economy. A similar downshift happened among Democrats amid the inflationary spike during President Joe Biden's term.

"President Trump has implemented an aggressive, pro-growth economic agenda that has blunted Biden's historic 40-year high inflation crisis, driven economic growth, increased wages and created private-sector jobs in areas that had been hollowed out and shipped overseas," White House spokesman Matthew Middleton said in a statement. "The President has always been clear about temporary disruptions as a result of the Iran conflict, but this administration will continue to deliver economic wins for the American people over the next two years."

While 18% of Republicans surveyed by Pew in January 2026 said that President Donald Trump's economic policies have made economic conditions worse, that share grew to 35% in October 2026. Similarly, an increasing share — 14% in January versus 25% in October — said that they expect economic conditions to be worse a year from now.

Similarly, polling from SSRS's Economic Attitudes Tracker found that Republicans are now more likely to describe the economy as bad than good — and the share of Independents who think the economy is good has plummeted to 12%, compared to a high of 25% in August 2025.

The cost concerns come as Iran War volatility — and the resulting fallout on energy prices — kept inflation high. In September, the consumer price index accelerated more than anticipated, with skyrocketing energy prices driving the increase. That means that, for the sixth month in a row, inflation has outpaced wage increases. Meanwhile, the labor market is floundering, with the country adding a paltry 29,000 payrolls in September — a far cry from the 90,000 roles economists predicted.

Midterm Election Day is a week away, and partisan sentiment around prices is shaping up to be especially important at the ballot box. Affordability messaging has become a touchpoint in swing state elections, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle clamoring to show how their policies have and will bring down everyday costs.

But the declining sentiment among even the Republican base could be a warning sign for conservatives: An Ipsos/Washington Post/ABC News poll found that, in April, 34% of respondents said they trusted Republicans to do a better job of handling the economy, compared to 33% saying the same of Democrats. As of October 13, that had flipped. Just 28% of respondents said they'd trust Republicans to handle the economy better, while 37% said they'd trust the Democrats.

Italy has hit record-high employment of over 63 percent and historic low unemployment of 6.3 percent amid a major welfare overhaul led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. By Q2 2026, the workforce expanded to 24.36 million people.

In January 2024, Italy completely replaced its old guaranteed minimum income with two targeted programs. Averaging €672/month for 690,000 vulnerable households (elderly, disabled, families with kids), as of June 2026, active benefits are tied to mandatory job training, covering over 84,000 individuals, writes La Gaceta, citing data out of Istat.

Of former welfare recipients, 60 percent transitioned to the new benefits, and 26 percent of these households had at least one member find a job in 2024. However, around 850,000 families saw their income drop by an average of €2,600 per year due to stricter welfare criteria.

Especially in historically lagging Southern Italy (Mezzogiorno), the results have been impressive. The region grew 8.5 percent between 2021 and 2024 and creating nearly 500,000 jobs via tourism, construction, and EU funds.

Italy’s employment rate still lags 8 percentage points behind the eurozone average, bogged down by low youth and female workforce participation.

Backed by strong employment and business resilience, Scope Ratings affirmed Italy’s BBB+ rating with a positive outlook. The agency forecasts 1 percent GDP growth, 3 percent inflation, and a reduced public deficit of 2.9 percent for 2026, noting positive consumption while low productivity remains a weak spot for the country.

Real GDP growth for 2026 for all of the EU is forecasted at 1.1 percent.

Last month, Italian PM Giorgia Meloni touted tourism and “Made in Italy” exports as key factors for helping the economy stay resilient.

The post Italy: Employment hits record high as Meloni touts tourism, ‘Made in Italy’ appeared first on Remix News.

Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy has unveiled a draft resolution designed to cushion the country’s wartime economic strain by pulling in qualified global talent to fill severe workforce deficits. The legislative framework outlines a structured method for evaluating international credentials and establishes a rolling registry of undermanned industries requiring immediate staffing relief.

At least 100,000 to 140,000 working-age Ukrainians have been killed since Russia invaded the country in early 2022, with some estimates for overall casualties (including wounded and missing) exceeding 500,000.

The exodus of Ukrainians from the country has not helped. In October 2025, Remix wrote about this very topic, with Ukraine’s former minister, Dmytro Kuleba, saying at the time that Ukraine may have to open its borders to Asian migrants due to the war. However, another major factor has been Ukraine’s abysmal birthrate. 

The country’s fertility rate stands at 1.0 child per woman, less than half of the 2.1 replacement-level, required for a population to maintain itself without immigration.

“After the end of the conflict, Ukraine may begin to be populated with Africans and Afghans in order to prevent a demographic catastrophe,” read a 2025 interview in Focus magazine with Vladimir Paniotto, director general of the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS).

Because the government’s new workforce policy is currently in the draft phase, the technical details and administrative requirements remain subject to revision prior to formal execution.

The framework is structured as a temporary pilot program. It is slated to operate for the duration of ongoing martial law and will automatically expire either two years after its inception or three months following the formal cessation of hostilities.

While macroeconomic experts view the policy as a necessary admission of the country’s deep labor challenges, analysts warn that the current text focuses heavily on regulatory compliance rather than active recruitment.

Volodymyr Landa, a prominent investment specialist, pointed out that the administrative journey remains overly complex for a country that is not historically a primary hub for global migration. Candidates require extensive document translations and it remains difficult to even discover active job openings. 

Another major hurdle is that candidates face very real physical dangers when relocating to an active conflict zone.

“Ukraine is not the number one destination for international labor migration, so we need to make this journey as simple and clear as possible,” Landa told Kyiv Independent.

The post Kyiv: Facing a depleted workforce, Ukraine tries to attract migrant labor appeared first on Remix News.

The Scottish government has confirmed that around 800 public sector workers are being paid despite having no jobs. One National Health Service employee has received a full salary and benefits for 17 years despite not having an actual job. Under Scotland's policy against "compulsory redundancy," any workers whose jobs become obsolete are kept on "redeployment" lists and allowed to remain on the payroll while waiting for suitable positions. The estimated cost of paying people to do nothing is £27 million ($36 million) per year, but the actual cost to taxpayers is likely far higher, because several public bodies have refused to disclose salary information for hundreds of these workers.

The post Brickbat: Money for Nothing appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Members of the European Parliament are visiting Amazon logistics centres in Germany and Poland this week to investigate working conditions and the use of digital monitoring systems, reopening a dispute between the technology company, European legislators and trade unions over employee rights.

The fact-finding mission, scheduled for 26th and 27th October, will examine how Amazon organises work, measures employee productivity and uses automated systems in warehouses. MEPs will meet management, employees, works councils and trade union representatives, with particular attention to whether technological changes are affecting workers’ health and their ability to exercise employment rights.

The investigation comes as the European Commission prepares its Quality Jobs Act, which is expected to address algorithmic management, occupational safety and working conditions across the European economy. Amazon’s extensive logistics network makes the company a prominent example of the questions legislators must resolve.

MEPs enter warehouses after prolonged dispute

The delegation is led by Li Andersson, chairwoman of Parliament’s Employment and Social Affairs Committee, and includes Belgian MEPs Liesbet Sommen and Estelle Ceulemans, alongside representatives from several other political groups.

According to the European trade union federation UNI Europa, MEPs will inspect facilities in Dortmund and Mönchengladbach on Monday before travelling to Poland on Tuesday.

The German visits will cover older warehouse operations and newer facilities incorporating robotics, allowing parliamentarians to compare different approaches to handling orders and managing employees. The Polish programme includes a major returns facility in the Katowice area.

The visit follows several years of strained relations between Amazon and the European Parliament.

In February 2024, Parliament withdrew permanent access badges from Amazon representatives following disagreements over the company’s participation in hearings and requests for visits to its warehouses.

Amazon disputed suggestions that it was avoiding scrutiny, maintaining that it had offered alternative arrangements for parliamentary visits during periods when its logistics operations were particularly busy.

Company executives eventually appeared before the Employment and Social Affairs Committee in January 2026, where they defended Amazon’s employment policies and workplace practices.

The controversy over digital surveillance

At the centre of the dispute is the increasingly widespread use of electronic systems to monitor productivity.

Warehouse employees commonly use handheld scanners, while automated systems can help allocate tasks, coordinate movements and identify delays in processing orders.

These technologies allow employers to manage substantial logistics operations with considerable precision. They also make it possible to collect detailed information about individual workers’ activities throughout their shifts.

Trade unions argue that such monitoring can create unreasonable performance pressure, particularly where targets are adjusted automatically or workers cannot challenge assessments generated by software.

The concerns are not confined to Amazon.

A European Commission survey examined by EU Today earlier this month found that 42 per cent of surveyed smaller and medium-sized businesses already used artificial intelligence or algorithmic management systems.

However, 49 per cent of respondents expressed distrust of automated systems making decisions about employees, illustrating the distinction between using technology to support management and delegating consequential decisions to algorithms.

Previous regulatory action

Amazon has already faced formal European regulatory scrutiny over workplace monitoring.

France’s data protection authority imposed a €32 million fine on Amazon France Logistique in December 2023, announcing the decision in January 2024. The regulator concluded that certain employee monitoring practices were excessively intrusive and breached data-protection requirements.

The investigation examined the collection and retention of detailed information from warehouse scanners, including productivity indicators and periods of inactivity.

Amazon rejected the regulator’s conclusions and subsequently appealed the decision. The penalty therefore needs to be distinguished from any final judicial determination of the dispute.

The case nevertheless demonstrates that workplace monitoring falls within existing European privacy legislation, independently of proposals for new employment rules.

EU Today has also reported on the application of European data-protection law to automated employment decisions, including the question of whether meaningful human review is available when software affects a person’s ability to work.

Amazon disputes allegations

Amazon maintains that its warehouse technology is intended to improve operational efficiency, safety and the reliability of deliveries.

In its January parliamentary testimony, the company defended its investment in employee training and insisted that workers have the right to join trade unions.

It also pointed to engagement with works councils and employee representative bodies across its European operations.

Trade unions contest the adequacy of those arrangements, particularly in Germany, where the ver.di union has repeatedly sought a collective agreement covering Amazon employees.

These competing positions will form part of the parliamentary delegation’s assessment.

Implications for EU employment legislation

The Commission’s Quality Jobs initiative addresses several questions raised by the Amazon dispute, including algorithmic management, psychosocial risks and the effectiveness of collective bargaining.

Legislators must determine how far employers should be required to disclose the operation of automated monitoring systems, how employees can contest decisions and what safeguards should apply when performance targets are generated by software.

Rules must also accommodate legitimate requirements for stock management, security and workplace safety.

The parliamentary visit will not itself establish whether Amazon has breached employment legislation. It is a fact-finding exercise intended to inform future policy discussions.

Its importance lies in giving legislators direct access to warehouse operations and employee accounts before deciding how European labour law should respond to increasingly automated workplaces.

• Bill Gates says AI will bring about an age of abundance in 20 years, but it'll be a rocky road.
• He predicted robots will displace human workers and "build houses, grow food, do surgery."
• Some jobs might be reserved for people, and work limits could preserve employment, Gates said.

Bill Gates says AI will create "true abundance," but the next two decades before it arrives will be "as tumultuous a period as there's been in human history."

"My big concern is this 20-year transition period, where they'll have winners and losers and a lot of disruption," the Microsoft cofounder and billionaire philanthropist said on the latest episode of the "Decoder" podcast.

Gates echoed widespread concerns about white-collar jobs, saying that telesales, telesupport, and accounting will disappear as AI will be able to do those "radically cheaper, radically faster, and even more accurately." As for blue-collar jobs, humanoid robots will take over those, he said.

"If we don't choose to massively slow down or stop, then we will have robots that can build houses, grow food, do surgery," Gates said. "And none of the things that human labor provides to the economy will be necessary for most goods and services."

He also underscored how jarring it will be for someone like him, whose vast resources have allowed him to lead the charge toward eliminating malaria and tackling other humanitarian crises.

"And when the AI says to me, 'No, I'm better than you, you go play pickleball and I'll get back to you, I'm gonna take care of this' — I mean, it's kind of humorous, but it's not humorous," he said.

Gates shared his long-held view that work is vital to giving people a sense of purpose, a way to earn an income, a reason to show up every day, an avenue to build relationships with colleagues, and a path to build things and solve problems.

He suggested that certain activities such as art, sports, cooking, and childcare could one day be reserved for humans, "even though the AI could do those things better."

Gates also highlighted that measures such as early retirement and caps on working hours could help maintain some level of human employment.

He envisioned some people saying, "Let's be like the Amish and let's only use AI for certain things," so they won't have to give up "helping each other or coming up with unique ideas."

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon have both proposed a shorter workweek as a less painful alternative to AI-driven unemployment.

Gates is one of several tech leaders to warn of job disruption on the road to an age of abundance.

Elon Musk has predicted a "bumpy" transition and proposed government checks for all as the best solution to AI-driven job losses. He's said that technology will drive production costs so low that everyone can have "whatever stuff they want," work will become "optional," and it's not worth saving for retirement in 10 or 20 years as money won't matter.

Similarly, Anthropic's Dario Amodei has said that AI promises to "raise the quality of life for everyone," but the "short-term shock will be unprecedented in size."

However, OpenAI's Sam Altman said in May that AI hasn't eliminated as many white-collar jobs as he expected, and he no longer anticipates a "jobs apocalypse."

Despite widespread worry about AI taking corporate jobs, and high-profile layoffs at major companies such as Amazon and Meta, national unemployment hasn't increased materially during the AI boom.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Siobhan MacDermott, a 56-year-old tech founder based in Menlo Park, California. It's been edited for length and clarity.

I've never been underqualified for any job that I've applied to.

I was vice chair at Bank of America and principal at EY. I held senior roles in cybersecurity at AVG and McAfee. I've sat in boardrooms with Fortune 500 CEOs, advised governments, and built practices from scratch.

Then, in early 2024, when I was 54, I had to relocate from New York City to California for family reasons, leaving the management consulting job I'd held as a partner at The Consello Group. I didn't anticipate what could happen when someone tries to re-enter the institutional world in their 50s — particularly as a woman in a career space that doesn't fit neatly into a job description.

The most surprising barrier has been the gap between what I've actually done and what the market knows how to categorize. I'm worried because I'm not sure where the economy is heading, but I'm an absolute eternal optimist.

I'm not going to accept anything other than staying hopeful.

I felt like my job application was going into the ether

It's been frustrating to watch organizations that desperately need exactly what I've built not hire me.

When I started my job search, I reached out to my network to try to figure out what I could do, who'd vouch for me, and where open positions were. A lot of senior roles were being downsized, but I had a lot of people who initially wanted to help me find something.

The strategies that were a complete waste of time were LinkedIn Easy Apply, recruiter calls that went nowhere, and any process that involved a 45-minute competency-based interview with someone who'd never heard of the big companies I've worked for.

I spent the better portion of every day for over a year applying and looking for jobs. I obsessively searched on LinkedIn for new positions, applying over and over again on the site, company websites, emails, and more, but getting nowhere.

I sent out countless résumés and barely got any responses. These are jobs that I know I'm qualified or overqualified to do, but sometimes I didn't even get the courtesy of the automated "thank you for applying" response.

It was like my application went into the ether. I'd try to find the head of HR for these companies on LinkedIn and reach out to them because I wanted the feedback.

I started trying to think of interesting ways to get attention

The strategy that worked the best during my job search was bypassing HR entirely and using direct outreach to CEOs and board members.

I'd send them letters not even related to a job, but more of an observation of their company to get their attention. I tried to be crafty, saying, "Based on my external assessment of your company, here are some things that I think you should be doing as you think through your next quarter."

Reaching out to CEOs got me in the door, but then they'd send me down to somebody who was pretty junior who'd say, "You're overqualified for this job." They'd courtesy interview me because they'd been told to, but it didn't go beyond that.

Sometimes a CEO would send me to HR, and HR would look at my skill set and say, "It doesn't quite match."

That happened quite a few times.

I adjusted my LinkedIn profile to get a better response, and that helped

I changed my gender to male and back to female a bunch of times to see if it made a difference — I didn't change my pronouns, just my actual gender. I felt like I had more responses on LinkedIn being thought to be male than female.

I also think being in Silicon Valley, you age out a lot faster than you do in other parts of the US, and it's definitely a highly male- dominated space. I had those two things working against me from the get-go.

So I removed the first six years of my career from my work experience on LinkedIn, and I took the dates off of my degrees so that people couldn't tell my age. This made me seem seven to 10 years younger, potentially. Once I took those dates off, I felt like I got more engagement on the site.

My job search in Silicon Valley went nowhere, so I decided to pivot and launch my own venture

I started my company out of necessity, and also out of intellectual boredom. I felt like my brain was starting to rot.

It happened about a year into job searching, when I started feeling financial pressure and frustration. I didn't want my full-time job to be looking for a job. My search wasn't looking like it was going anywhere in the foreseeable future, especially out in Silicon Valley. If you're a computer scientist or an engineer, there are jobs available, but I couldn't find a lot out here not in that space.

I started thinking, what am I good at? What do I know? What are all the pieces that I could put together? What problem can I identify that needs to be solved? That came together pretty quickly, and I launched two companies — Khaos Holdings, a strategic risk-intelligence company, and TeenAegis, a child-safety intelligence business, in January.

We're raising capital, and if the capital comes in, that will be the end of my job search. If the capital doesn't come in, then I'll keep searching — but I've decided that whatever I do will be adjacent to the problem I'm trying to solve now.

One good thing came out of the 2 years since my last job

Being out of work for two years shifted my retirement timeline eight to 10 years from digging into savings. However, since my job search started, I've really homed in on what I want to do with the rest of my career.

The journey I went on was a little bit of a midlife crisis. I asked myself, "What's my purpose in life?" as opposed to "What job do I want to have?" and then identified what skill set could bring me to that.

What led me to where I am was really thinking through questions like: What are all the issues that matter to me? What legacy do I want to leave? How do I want to think about my future for the next 10 or 15 years? How do I want to show up every day?

In the beginning, I was going to apply to anything that I could qualify for that would get me some money. Now I'm not going to do that because I don't think that's going to actually be fulfilling or make me happy. My sense of stability has required a deliberate reframe — from "security comes from a salary" to "security comes from what I've built and what I know."

I'm determined to make this work, but I also realize it may not

The hardest thing is maintaining a positive attitude day after day. If my company doesn't work out, then it's not like I can stop trying.

Taking mental health breaks is important because it's overwhelming, lonely, and hard. You lose your sense of self-worth when you're in this position; people look at you like, "Oh, you're the person who's still looking for a job." So it's hard to continue to put yourself out there.

Still, I do believe there's light at the end of the tunnel. It's just the question of how long the tunnel is.

Do you have a story to share about navigating your career in your 50s? If so, please reach out to the editor, Manseen Logan, at mlogan@businessinsider.com.

• Being a mom can be challenging and expensive.
• Some have turned to apps like Uber and Lyft to make extra money — or as their main source of income.
• Fill out our survey if you're a mom who does gig work.

Uber and Lyft often talk about the flexibility of working as a driver on their apps.

That aspect of the gig has attracted moms, among other people who often want to earn money outside a 9-to-5 schedule. The job can be appealing to mothers who need to juggle school drop-offs, childcare, and other obligations of parenting.

Others, including single moms, say they feel stuck in ride-hailing work and end up having to drive for Uber or Lyft at set times anyway, depending on when the most passengers need rides.

With costs like childcare and college rising, Uber and Lyft offer some moms a way to make extra money — if they can earn enough on the apps and keep costs like gas and car maintenance under control.

Business Insider wants to speak with moms who drive for Uber, Lyft, or other ride-hailing apps. We want to hear about how you combine the gig with taking care of your kids, including both what's working and what isn't. Please fill out the survey below.

A European Commission survey has found widespread adoption of artificial intelligence among smaller businesses, but considerable reluctance to allow automated systems to make decisions about employees. The findings expose a growing divide between technological investment and confidence in workplace automation.

Artificial intelligence is becoming established across European businesses, but almost half of companies remain unwilling to trust automated systems when decisions concern their employees, according to a European Commission survey published on 14th October.

The Eurobarometer findings show that 42 per cent of the small and medium-sized enterprises and mid-cap companies surveyed already use artificial intelligence or algorithmic management systems, although most deployment remains limited or experimental. A further 21 per cent intend to introduce such technologies in the future.

Despite this expanding adoption, 49 per cent of respondents said they did not trust artificial intelligence or automated systems to make staff-related decisions. The figures suggest that companies increasingly distinguish between using technology to improve business processes and delegating managerial responsibility to software.

The Commission’s survey of European businesses was conducted between March and April 2026, involving approximately 12,826 telephone interviews with company leaders across the EU’s 27 member states.

Businesses prefer assistance to automation

The survey provides a more detailed picture of workplace AI than conventional statistics measuring whether companies have adopted the technology.

Among the businesses interviewed, customer service and client relations were the most commonly reported areas of application, accounting for 47 per cent. Monitoring employee performance and productivity accounted for 36 per cent, while logistics, planning and staff scheduling represented 30 per cent.

These functions differ substantially in their consequences for workers and managers.

A system that helps organise deliveries or forecasts customer demand may improve efficiency without directly determining employees’ working conditions. Software that evaluates performance, allocates shifts or recommends staffing changes can influence employment decisions and requires a different level of organisational supervision.

The survey found that 61 per cent of companies considered AI useful in supporting decisions. However, human involvement remained central: 90 per cent of respondents reported that people continued to make decisions, while fully automated decisions accounted for only 2 per cent.

The results undermine the assumption that adopting AI necessarily means transferring control of business operations to autonomous systems.

For many companies, the immediate commercial value lies in processing information more rapidly, identifying patterns and reducing administrative workloads rather than removing human management entirely.

Investment costs remain a substantial barrier

Financial and organisational obstacles continue to limit adoption.

Half of the companies surveyed cited high investment costs, while 49 per cent identified legal uncertainty and 48 per cent pointed to insufficient expertise.

These findings are particularly relevant to small businesses, which frequently lack dedicated technology teams, extensive data infrastructure or the resources to evaluate complex software systems independently.

For such businesses, purchasing AI tools is only one component of the investment. Implementation can also require employee training, changes to internal procedures, data-security assessments and continuing technical support.

The findings add a workplace dimension to concerns raised in EU Today’s earlier examination of Europe’s AI productivity gap, which identified investment, computing capacity and organisational restructuring as obstacles to translating adoption into higher productivity.

A company may purchase sophisticated software without necessarily achieving corresponding improvements in performance. Those improvements depend on whether the technology is integrated into everyday operations and whether employees have the skills to use it effectively.

Brussels prepares further workplace legislation

The survey arrives while the European Commission is considering additional rules on algorithmic management through its proposed Quality Jobs Act.

The initiative is intended to address working conditions, workers’ rights and the increasing use of automated systems in managing employees.

A consultation launched in July asked European employers and trade unions to consider transparency in automated decisions, excessive workplace monitoring and the responsibilities of companies using AI.

The second consultation phase ended in September, allowing social partners to propose negotiated arrangements before the Commission determines its next legislative steps.

The broader regulatory framework is already changing. As EU Today explained when the AI Act entered a new enforcement phase, Brussels has begun enforcing certain obligations for general-purpose AI models, while important requirements for high-risk applications, including employment-related systems, follow a later timetable.

Stand-alone high-risk systems are scheduled to face the relevant obligations from December 2027, with another deadline in August 2028 for high-risk systems embedded in regulated products.

The distinction matters for employers planning investments today. Existing data-protection and employment obligations continue to apply, but some of the AI Act’s more specific compliance requirements remain subject to transition periods.

The Commission’s latest survey indicates that businesses are already exercising caution independently of these future obligations. Their reluctance to automate sensitive staff decisions suggests that accountability, reliability and employee confidence will remain important factors in determining how extensively artificial intelligence is deployed.

For Brussels, the challenge is to establish workable rules for that transition without making implementation prohibitively expensive for smaller companies, which account for much of Europe’s employment and commercial activity.

Four in five new jobs created in Britain since 2014 were taken by migrants while the number of British people on out-of-work benefits increased by 2.3 million, according to a report from the Centre for Social Justice.

The post Migrants Taking Four in Five New Jobs appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

You need 35 years of National Insurance contributions to get the full state pension. Ah, says David Craig, but the unemployed get 'pension credit', which pays exactly the same and comes with piles of freebies thrown in.

The post Want the Highest State Pension? Don’t Bother Working Too Much appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

For Oakland Review of Books, Stephanie Uchino-Beach writes about getting laid off at an education tech company that transformed into an “AI-first outfit.” As as customer success manager, she acted as a liaison to district administrators, school principals, and teachers. While AI could automate some of her tasks, what about the core responsibilities of her CSM role: building real relationships and understanding an educator’s needs? An AI sees data points, not people. This is a sobering read from a former tech worker living in the Bay Area, and an edtech company that has gone all in on AI and forgotten about its mission.

Before I went to work for Silicon Valley, I was a lot of things. A few jobs before this last one, I was an elementary school teacher in Chicago, helping kids learn to read, creating units, planning lessons, and buying supplies with my own money on the weekends, like countless other teachers around the country. I grew up on the Peninsula, and I made the move into Customer Success to get a job that would let me move home. Tech was never my dream; it was a means to an end. My dad studied computer science and still works in tech to this day and enjoys it, so it seemed like a satisfying and fruitful career was plausible. I figured that once I broke in, all my problems would be solved: I could get a house, have a kid, and fulfill every middle-class dream that had always felt slightly out of reach for a millennial like myself. 

And yet, job after job, I consistently left feeling unsatisfied. Unsatisfied by how I wasn’t growing and wasn’t developing my skills. Unsatisfied with poor managers who were just in the right place at the right time to be promoted but so often lacked the skills to provide the same success for their employees. Unsatisfied with how the products I worked on could do wrong by the communities we sold them to, even though every company said they were “mission-driven” and “put our customers first.” 

It’s getting better all the time (Better, better, better) It’s getting better all the time I admit it’s getting better –The Beatles In an X post, Marko Jukic, senior analyst at Bismarck Analysis, lamented: “Enshittification” is sort of a “safe horny” term for what is really just outright impoverishment and declining living standards due to […]

The post US enshittification vs Chinese involution appeared first on Asia Times.

In this story for Dispatch, Lotte Brundle reports on a surprising trend: young women in the UK are pursuing careers in the death care industry. In a time of high unemployment, funeral home apprenticeships offer an alternative to university, where students accumulate significant debt. While the pay is low and the industry needs to do a better job building awareness that the trajectory exists, the young women who speak to Brundle find the work meaningful and rewarding.

Her inspiration to become an undertaker arrived, as many teenage epiphanies now do, via TikTok. Emily was 15 and had been considering becoming a teacher or journalist when she came across an American woman documenting life inside her own funeral home. “I’d never considered it as a career,” she says. “I didn’t know anyone who was an undertaker, but I just thought how interesting it was.”

Two hours later, she was still scrolling through the woman’s profile, engrossed. Running her own funeral home became Emily’s dream.

Between the first and the second quarter of 2026, 3.1 million unemployed persons aged 15-74 in the EU moved into employment, representing 23.2% of all unemployed in the first quarter of 2026. During this period, 7.0 million (52.8%) remained unemployed and 3.2 million (24.0%) moved out of the labour force.

These figures are taken from recently published data on labour market flows in the second quarter of 2026. The article presents a handful of findings from the more detailed Statistics Explained article on labour market flows.

Click to enlarge

Source dataset: lfsi_long_q

The visual and the table give an overview of all changes in labour market status. In the visual, the figures for employment, unemployment and out of the labour force refer to the number of people remaining in each status between the 2 quarters, while the arrows indicate the number of people moving from one status to another.

Click to enlarge

Source dataset: lfsi_long_q

Of all people in employment in the first quarter of 2026, 2.5 million (1.2%) became unemployed in the second quarter of 2026, and 4.8 million (2.3%) moved out of the labour force.

Of all people recorded as out of the labour force in the first quarter of 2026, 4.2 million (3.7%) entered employment in the second quarter of 2026 and 3.9 million (3.4%) became unemployed.

For more information

• Statistics Explained article on labour market flow statistics in the EU
• Thematic section on employment and unemployment (LFS)
• Database on the employment and unemployment (LFS)
• Metadata on labour market transitions

Methodological notes

• The labour market flows published from 2021 onwards are based on the EU Labour force survey (EU-LFS) carried out under Regulation (EU) 2019/1700 on European statistics relating to persons and households, using individual-level data collected from samples. Further information on the Regulation is available in the Statistics Explained article.
• The figures are based on seasonally adjusted data.