The Disposable Workforce: A Shift in Employment, Not Attitudes

For decades, the notion has persisted that Gen Z rejects traditional careers. Instead, they supposedly prefer freelancing, day-trading, or side hustles. However, labor economist Paul Osterman disputes this narrative in his book, Disposable Workers: The Transformation of Employment.

Osterman’s research is based on a survey of over 6,000 U.S. adults aged 24 and up, along with nearly 100 interviews with workers, employers, and staffing agencies. His findings are striking: more than 55 million people – approximately 35% of the American workforce – fall into what he categorizes as “disposable” work. This includes freelancers, contractors, gig workers, and a group he named “marginal workers.”

Marginal workers are W-2 employees who are not treated as integral members of an organization. They’re hired with the expectation that they won’t stick around or advance. Osterman’s definition is broad, encompassing adjunct faculty, staff attorneys, high-turnover retail and service jobs, and even contract employees embedded in big tech companies without ever being on a path to full-time status.

Gig work, often cited as the epitome of modern employment flexibility, accounts for only 2% of the workforce. Osterman argues that these workers are all hired with the expectation of high turnover – they’re disposable.

This shift in employment patterns has been building since the postwar era, with roots in the breakdown of the labor “accord.” President Reagan’s 1981 firing of striking air traffic controllers marked a turning point, signaling that employers could no longer be expected to provide stable, long-term employment. Corporate strategy became increasingly focused on financialization and core competency thinking – the idea that most workers aren’t essential to a firm’s core business.

Osterman’s findings also challenge the narrative that younger workers are opting out of traditional careers in favor of entrepreneurial reinvention or flexibility. Instead, he says they’re just as committed to growing their career as previous generations were at the same age. The only shift is towards work-family issues – and this isn’t unique to Gen Z.

Chief economist Daniel Zhao agrees with Osterman’s conclusion. According to Glassdoor data, mentions of burnout in reviews have increased by 43% from last year, a trend attributed to accumulated pressure from layoffs, leadership demands, and AI-driven anxiety. It’s not due to a lack of ambition or laziness – it’s the opposite.

If employers have been hiring with the expectation that workers will be disposable, what does this say about their view of human capital? Are they treating workers as commodities rather than investments? This shift in employment patterns raises questions about job quality and the concept of a “good job.” What makes some employers create jobs that are meaningful and fulfilling, while others treat workers with disdain?

Osterman’s research suggests it’s not just economics – but also attitude. As we move forward, it’s essential to understand this shift in employment patterns. We need to recognize that the work available has changed more than people’s attitudes towards work. It’s time for employers to rethink their approach to human capital and start treating workers with respect and dignity.

The disposable workforce is a symptom of a larger problem – one that requires a fundamental shift in how we think about employment and worker value.