The Great Resignation Explained: Why Young Workers Refuse to “Just Put Up With It”

What started as a pandemic-era labor shift has matured into a wider reckoning: many workers — especially younger cohorts — stopped tolerating bad jobs. They quit in record numbers, but they didn’t do it for drama. They left because work stopped meeting basic expectations: fair pay, clear opportunity, respectful treatment, and reasonable balance. Understanding why young workers won’t “just put up with it” helps employers design better jobs and helps workers articulate what they need.

Below I break down the forces behind the Great Resignation, why it hit younger workers hardest, and what sustainable responses — for both companies and individuals — actually look like.

1. The surge wasn’t random — it was built on unmet needs

Data from 2021–22 documented a sharp rise in voluntary separations. When asked, majorities of leavers named low pay, lack of advancement, and feeling disrespected as top reasons for quitting. In short: people weren’t escaping work that paid and treated them well — they were exiting the opposite.

Why that matters: quitting is costly for workers and employers alike. People don’t leave safe-ish jobs lightly; many did so because the pandemic exposed how precarious and unrewarding certain roles were — especially in service, retail, and hospitality sectors.

2. Young workers felt the gap more intensely

Younger workers (late teens to early 30s) showed the highest quit rates in many service industries. During 2020–22, study after study found that younger cohorts quit at higher rates than older employees — and they did so for reasons beyond pay: unpredictable schedules, poor working conditions, and a lack of learning or promotion pathways were common triggers. For many, the pandemic catalyzed a reassessment of what work should be.

Practical takeaway: younger employees tend to place a higher premium on growth, autonomy, and meaningful management. If frontline jobs offer only low wages and chaotic schedules, it’s no surprise those workers vote with their feet.

3. Remote work and new expectations changed the calculus

One structural shock was remote work. For office workers, a period of successful remote or hybrid work reframed expectations about flexibility. Workers who experienced trust and autonomy became less willing to return to rigid schedules without a clear trade-off. Employers that didn’t adapt found talent harder to keep. McKinsey and other analysts pointed early to a “great renegotiation”: what employees demanded after the pandemic wasn’t indulgent — it was a reset on fairness and flexibility.

This matters because flexibility is now a baseline expectation in many white-collar roles; where it’s available, workers compare and choose accordingly.

4. Burnout, mental health and changing priorities

The pandemic amplified burnout and mental-health needs. For many young workers, chronic stress and a sense that employers didn’t care produced a low tolerance for toxic workplaces. “Quiet quitting” (doing the job but no more) and full resignation were different responses to the same problem: the job demanded more emotional labor than it returned. Gallup and other analysts linked declines in engagement to rising disillusionment and turnover.

In practice, employees increasingly evaluate a job by emotional as well as financial returns. Respect, predictable hours, and manageable workloads are part of the compensation package.

5. Economic mechanics made quitting possible — but not without risk

Two economic realities made exits feasible. First, tight labor markets in 2021–22 created opportunity: many sectors sought workers and wages rose for job-changers. Second, pandemic-era savings or government supports temporarily softened the short-term financial risk of leaving. But those conditions shifted over time; quitting remains a riskier bet when labor demand cools. BLS analyses show the timing and intensity of quits track with macro conditions and sectoral demand.

For younger workers, the calculus often weighs long-term career trajectory and skill-building more heavily than short-term risk. They’re betting that leaving a bad match will pay off in skills, pay, or wellbeing.

6. What employers can do (and why many haven’t fixed it)

The solutions are straightforward but not necessarily easy: better pay, stable scheduling, clear advancement pathways, respectful managers, and flexibility where possible. Companies that invested in these areas found retention improved; those that offered surface perks (ping-pong tables, snacks) without addressing core job quality did not. McKinsey and other consultancies urged organizations to listen, redesign jobs, and reskill — not just tinker at the margins.

A key point: patchwork, one-off benefits can’t substitute for fair wages and career architecture. Young workers often ask less for glamour and more for predictability and dignity.

7. Advice for workers: how to act strategically

If you’re a young worker weighing whether to leave, consider these practical steps:

• Map the trade-offs: short-term paycheck vs. long-term skill growth.

• Document accomplishments: make your case for promotion or a role change.

• Upskill intentionally: target skills that employers value and that transfer across roles.

• Build networks: internal mentors and external contacts make transitions safer.

• Have a runway: where possible, keep an emergency fund to reduce downside risk.

Leaving impulsively can backfire, but staying in a career-limiting role out of fear can cost years. The smart move is deliberate: plan, upskill, and exit with purpose.

Conclusion: Not entitlement — recalibration

The Great Resignation was not simply a fad or a temporary mood swing. It was a recalibration: workers, especially younger ones, reevaluated what work should deliver and refused to accept roles that didn’t provide fair compensation, growth, or respect. For employers, the lesson is blunt: fix the fundamentals or face repeated turnover. For workers, the lesson is hopeful but pragmatic: know your value, plan your moves, and don’t accept conditions you can improve.

When workers stop “just putting up with it,” what follows can be disruptive — but it also opens the door for better jobs, fairer workplaces, and a labor market that rewards genuine investment in people.