Career: Is That Even a Word Anymore?

⏱️ 16 min read                

What does it mean to have a career anymore? Not a job — a career. The arc, the investment, the story of a person growing inside an institution that grows with them. 

Ask workers across America right now, and you'll get a long pause, followed by a laugh that sounds more like a sigh.

CFOs at America's largest companies used the word "efficiency" on 307 earnings calls recently. That's up from 219 a year ago. Workers have a different word for what that means. They call it a funeral.

Welcome to That's Life, I Swear. This podcast is about life's happenings in this world that conjure up such words as intriguing, frightening, life-changing, inspiring, and more. I'm Rick Barron your host. 

That said, here's the rest of this story 

A Headline That Hits a Nerve

There is a particular kind of cultural happening that lands at exactly the right moment — not because it breaks news, but because it names something millions of people have been quietly living. "The loss of small perks and rise of AI have conspired to strip work of all fun; 'It feels like a funeral in the office right now’ is not hyperbole. However, the bigger question is what is the definition of the word ‘career’ now? It is, for a large and growing number of the American workforce, simply a description of today.

We find ourselves at a moment when corporate America is in the midst of what may be the most psychologically disorienting labor transformation in a generation. Understanding what and why it matters, requires examining three interlocking threads: 

1.      The slow erosion of workplace humanity through the removal of small perks

2.      The existential shadow cast by AI over every professional's sense of purpose

3.      The corporate language of "efficiency" has become the euphemism of our era for something far more destabilizing.

The Dell Coffee Moment: Small Perks, Symbolic Losses

Dell is charging its employees for office espresso coffee that was once free. The happening is a symbol of something much bigger — a slow, cumulative stripping away of small human pleasures in the name of efficiency.

This matters more than it might initially seem. Workplace perks — free coffee, casual Fridays, birthday lunches, the annual holiday party — were never primarily financial benefits. Their economic value to any individual employee was negligible. Their psychological value was something else entirely. They were signals. They said: We see you as a human being, not merely a unit of production. We are investing in your experience here, not just your output.

When those signals are removed, the message received is the inverse. And while no single perk removal is catastrophic, the cumulative effect of many such removals — happening simultaneously across thousands of companies over a compressed period of time — creates what organizational psychologists would recognize as a withdrawal of psychological safety. The implicit contract between employer and employee, already strained by years of remote work, return-to-office mandates, and wage stagnation, is now being renegotiated in plainly transactional terms. 

Workers are noticing. The result, according to workers across industries, is that office life has become something to endure rather than something to enjoy or invest in.

The irony is profound. At the very moment companies are demanding employees return to physical offices to restore "culture," they are simultaneously eliminating the small rituals and gestures that made that culture feel worth inhabiting. They are tearing down the house while demanding that people move back in.

The "Efficiency" Epidemic and What the Numbers Reveal

A very striking data point from research firm AlphaSense revealed that: CFOs at large U.S. companies mentioned "efficiency" at least once on 307 conference calls in the most recent quarter — up from 219 a year earlier and the highest level tracked since at least 2020. This is not a trivial linguistic shift. Corporate earnings calls are carefully scripted documents. Every word on them is deliberate. When "efficiency" becomes the most fashionable word in the executive vocabulary, it signals a philosophical orientation toward the workforce — and that orientation is one of reduction, not investment.

"Efficiency “, I like that word. It covers all manner of sin, doesn’t it?  In the context of these calls, it is almost never about making work better for the people doing it. It is about doing more with fewer people, or the same with less cost. It is, to put it plainly, the boardroom's polite word for layoffs, benefit cuts, right-sizing, [love that one] reduction in workforce [RIF],and headcount freezes. Pick your own euphemism if you will.

Funny, many companies went hog wild hiring people during the COVID-19 crisis. That was ‘their’ strategy, you know, the smart minds of management. The employees followed upper management's strategies, and when things failed, those who paid the price in the name of ‘efficiency’ were those down below. Yet, the smart mind of upper management got to stay and take another stab at the whiteboard. But I digress.   

Over 61,000 employees have already been impacted by AI-driven layoffs in 2026, and at least 45 CEOs have announced layoffs citing efficiencies made by A.I. The layoffs have spread far beyond tech, touching financial services, logistics, consulting, media, retail, and manufacturing.

But there is a legitimate debate about how much of this is truly driven by A.I. versus how much is using A.I. as an ideological cover for decisions that would have been made anyway. Investor Marc Andreessen called A.I. the "silver-bullet excuse" for cutting workforces, arguing that essentially every large company is overstaffed — most by at least 25% and some by as much as 75% — and that the current wave of layoffs reflects widespread overstaffing during the pandemic, not genuine A.I. displacement. Even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledged that "there's some A.I. washing where people are blaming A.I. for layoffs that they would otherwise do."

This distinction matters enormously to workers. There is a difference between losing your job because a machine genuinely does it better, and losing your job because your employer over hired in 2021 and is now recalibrating — but blaming a robot to soften the public relations optics. The former is disorienting but comprehensible. The latter is a form of institutional dishonesty that corrodes trust in a way that may take a decade to repair.

The AI Specter: When Your Value Feels Provisional

Beyond layoffs and perhaps more corrosive: the psychological pressure on workers who haven't been laid off to constantly prove they cannot be replaced. Employees face more pressure to prove value in the age of A.I., contributing to an environment that feels transactional and less human, more output-focused and less meaning-focused.

This is a new kind of workplace anxiety, and it does not yet have a clean name. 

Hmm, I’ll take a stab at a name. How about The Value-Proof Economy or Performance Survival Mode. No?

It is not the old fear of being fired for poor performance. It is the more existential dread of being rendered redundant by a technology whose capabilities are expanding faster than any individual worker can adapt. It is the feeling of running on a treadmill that accelerates every quarter.

A Duke University survey conducted in partnership with the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta and Richmond found a wide gap between the perceived and actual productivity gains from AI — people's perceptions of AI's gains are larger than the reality, likely reflecting a delay in realized revenue. In other words, workers are living with maximum anxiety about A.I. displacement at a moment when the actual economic transformation may still be nascent. They are suffering the psychological consequences of a disruption that hasn't fully arrived yet, and it’s coming, while simultaneously being unable to dismiss it as fiction because the layoff announcements are very real.

Not so long ago, working in tech meant job security, extravagant perks, and a bring-your-whole-self-to-the-office culture rare in other industries. Now it looks like a regular job, with workers contending with constant fear of layoffs, longer hours, and an ever-growing list of responsibilities for the same pay. Tech was once the sector that served as a model of the aspirational workplace. Its collapse into ordinariness — or worse — signals something important: there is no longer an industry that workers can point to as evidence that work can be both 
 well-compensated and humane.

What Does "Career" Mean Anymore?

So, the real question that deserves more serious treatment than it typically receives in mainstream business journalism: What does the word "career" mean anymore?

For most of the twentieth century, a career implied something more than a sequence of jobs. It implied a narrative arc — a story of growth, increasing mastery, ascending responsibility, and accumulating security. The employer played a role in that story. You gave loyalty, effort, and time; the company gave you advancement, stability, and eventually a pension that reflected your decades of contribution. Around the middle of the last century, many hummed along on the rosy glow of plum benefits, robust job security, and the knowledge that the chief executive was making about 20 times a worker's pay, instead of 200. Today, that employee-employer pact can feel like a relic of a bygone era. Workers have swapped pensions and equity in their companies for more meager benefits that put the risk and onus on individuals.

By 2026, the very architecture of a career has been disassembled. Changing jobs used to be a reliable path to higher compensation; now, in many industries, it can result in a job offer being withdrawn if the candidate negotiates too aggressively. Loyalty to a company does not reliably produce loyalty in return — workers who have given fifteen or twenty years to an organization find themselves included in the same efficiency-driven headcount reductions as those who joined last quarter. The concept of "job security" has become almost quaint.

In 2017, 24% of respondents to a Pew survey said their job or occupation was very important to their identity. By 2021, just 17% did, and later surveys corroborate this finding. The retreat from work as identity is not laziness or disengagement for its own sake — it is a rational psychological defense mechanism. If the institution will not invest in you, investing your identity in the institution is a formula for repeated grief. Workers, especially younger ones, appear to be learning this lesson, consciously or not.

The Compounding Effect: Why This Moment Feels Different

What is well captured is that none of these forces, in isolation, would be sufficient to produce the "funeral" atmosphere that workers describe. It is their convergence that is distinctive about this moment.

Remove the free coffee alone, and workers shrug. Add a return-to-office mandate that eliminates their commute-free mornings. Add AI-driven anxiety about job permanence. Add the knowledge that CFOs are using the word "efficiency" at record rates. Add watching colleagues be laid off and then — in some documented cases — rehired at lower salaries without raises or stock grants. Add back-to-back video calls that have replaced the spontaneous human interactions that made office life meaningful. Layer these on top of each other, and you produce something that is greater than the sum of its parts: a pervasive sense that the workplace no longer sees workers as ends in themselves, but purely as means to quarterly results.

A Wall Street Journal-NORC poll found that nearly 70% of people said they believe the American dream — that if you work hard, you will get ahead — no longer holds true or never did, the highest level in nearly 15 years of surveys. When the foundational promise of work — that effort is rewarded — collapses, work itself loses its motivational architecture. People still show up, but they show up differently.

What the Journal Gets Right — and What It Leaves Unsaid

The loss of joy at work is not a trivial problem. If you are spending the majority of your waking hours somewhere that is draining you, that is not a minor inconvenience — it is a quality of life issue that shows up in your health, your relationships, and your presence at home.

The relentless pursuit of "efficiency" is treated largely as a market phenomenon — a rational corporate response to competitive pressures — rather than as the product of specific choices by specific human beings about how to allocate the gains of a remarkably productive economy. The CEOs and CFOs who are most enthusiastic about the word "efficiency" are, in many cases, presiding over companies generating record profits.

A Diagnosis in Search of a Remedy

The American workplace is, at its core, a story about broken agreements. Work was never meant to be purely transactional, and workers — despite decades of corporate messaging designed to lower their expectations — appear to know it. They have not stopped wanting work to be meaningful, to be humane, to be worthy of their best hours. They have simply stopped believing that it will be. The funeral atmosphere workers describe is not a mood. It is a verdict.

Whether American corporations choose to take that verdict seriously — or double down on efficiency while the culture quietly collapses around them — will define the character of the workplace for the next decade. 

At the time of this writing, I saw that software giant Oracle announced a massive layoff of 30,000 people as AI spending ramps up. Cutting 30,000 employees could lead to $8 billion to $10 billion in incremental free cash flow, TD Cowen analysts noted.

At the same time of the announcement, Oracle hired a new CFO who will receive an annual base salary of $950,000 and will be eligible for a performance-based bonus with a target of $2.5 million. Plus, they will receive an equity grant with an intended value of $26 million. Guess they’ll be able to afford their own espresso coffee machine.

What was that word again, ah yes, ’efficiency.’ 

What can we learn from this story? What's the takeaway? 

For workers, the core lesson is that waiting for the institution to restore meaning is a losing strategy. When companies strip away the small gestures of humanity, the rational response isn't to grieve the old workplace forever — it's to locate meaning and identity outside your job title. 

The workers who seem to be navigating this era best are the ones who stopped letting their employer define their sense of worth. That's not cynicism; it's psychological self-preservation.

Well, there you go, my friends; that's life, I swear

For further information regarding the material covered in this episode, I invite you to visit my website, which can be found on Apple Podcasts, for show notes and the episode transcript.

As always, I thank you for the privilege of you listening and your interest. 

Be sure to subscribe here or wherever you listen to podcasts so you don't miss an episode. 

See you soon.