Between new business requirements and the rise of AI, the difficulties in integrating young people come less from a lack of commitment than from increasingly difficult access to their first job.
While the rate of unemployment in France is once again approaching 8%, according to the latest figures published by INSEE, the situation of young people remains a blind spot in the economic debate. Behind the national average, the generational reality is a challenge: nearly 13% of 15–29 year olds are neither in employment nor in training and access to the first position remains an obstacle course. The paradox is striking. Companies are warning about the talent shortage and the difficulties of recruitment, at the same time, a trained and qualified generation, ready to commit, comes up against closed doors. Far from the clichés about a more volatile or less loyal youth, the observation is probably simpler: the problem seems in fact less the commitment of young people… than access to the first step.
The “experienced junior”, an absurdity that has become the norm
The main obstacle is now clearly identified: the first job. In many sectors, so-called “junior” positions require two, three, sometimes five years of experience. And the oxymoron has finally become commonplace. Companies are looking for immediately operational profiles, capable of producing from day one, while deploring the difficulty in recruiting. This paradox, which is not anecdotal, weakens the skills renewal chain.
This barrier is all the more striking since, on paper, young people have never been so trained. Internships, work-study programs, professionalizing schemes… everything helps to prepare them for the world of work. And yet, many come up against an invisible ceiling at the end of their journey: lack of job opportunities, series of precarious contracts, inability to access a first Permanent contract. The alternation, in particular, crystallizes tensions. Thought of as an integration lever, it is sometimes used as an adjustment variable, without any prospect of hiring. Training young people without the intention of integrating them sustainably may seem rational in the short term. But in the medium term, it is a loss of value, and let’s go even further, in the long term, it is a direct risk for the transmission of knowledge and the capacity of organizations to prepare for their succession (especially in a French society whose demographics are aging).
A candidate experience that weakens the relationship even before hiring
Another signal, long received as marginal, is gradually becoming massive: the deterioration of the candidate experience (for positions – for internships or work-study programs, things are going much better). Opaque processes, automated responses, lack of feedback, endless delays… for many young people, the recruitment is experienced as an impersonal, sometimes contemptuous mechanism. The first contact with the professional world is made under the sign of silence or standardized rejection. However, recruiting is not limited to selecting a profile, it is above all an act of management. It is the first concrete manifestation of an organization’s culture. So every poorly designed process has a lasting effect on the perception of a company, or even an industry. At a time when employer attractiveness is a strategic issue, this relational deterioration has an invisible but real cost.
What’s more, this initial distrust fuels misunderstandings. Companies denounce a lack of commitment where young people denounce a lack of consideration and ultimately, the misunderstanding crystallizes upon entry. Rehabilitating recruitment as a relationship (clarifying expectations, explaining criteria, providing feedback, assuming a learning logic) constitutes a simple but structuring lever. We don’t just recruit immediate skills, we invest in potential.
It is not the work that is rejected, but the access models and soon the positions themselves
Contrary to stereotypes, young people refuse neither effort nor commitment. They question models that they consider ineffective or disconnected: presenteeism as proof of involvement, rigid organizations, lack of clarity of pathways, lack of recognition, etc. They expect clear missions, accessible management, understandable perspectives and respected balance. This generational gap is not a threat. It constitutes an opportunity for transformation, provided it is approached without caricature.
Access to employment also remains highly dependent on the network. Those who master the codes or benefit from co-optation leave with a head start while others, with equal skills, must make a disproportionate effort to take the same step. This dependence directly questions equality of opportunity and the capacity of labor market to capture all available talent. Mentoring, tutoring, transparency of pathways and openness of recommendation processes are levers that are still under-exploited.
A risk amplified by artificial intelligence
Added to this is an emerging risk: the impact of artificial intelligence on entry-level positions. career. Tasks historically assigned to beginners are among the first to be automated. If this trend continues, the danger is clear. “Junior” positions could become even more rare, further raising the entry threshold. AI can be a powerful lever for increasing skills, but on one condition: it must be thought of as a tool for increasing human talent and not as a substitute for first professional experiences. Without a learning ramp, there is no future expertise.
If unemployment starts to rise again, the question of first employment can no longer be treated as a peripheral subject. It is at the heart of our economic dynamics. An economy that complicates access to one’s first step mechanically slows down the renewal of one’s skills. At a time when growth remains fragile and technological transformations are accelerating, investing in early careers is neither a social gesture nor a concession generational. It’s a competitive choice. Preparing the next generation means securing the productive future. Otherwise, we risk transforming cyclical tension on employment into structural fragility.
