Comment by tavavex
I'm not seeing how this article is clickbait of any kind. Betteridge's Law really only works for articles that manufacture a provocative question out of nowhere to attract readership, and then have to sheepishly back down in the article body because obviously it's not true. But this article is formulated as a question because it has genuine speculation about the future that nobody is quite sure about. It has points for both sides of the argument. There's no Yes/No answer here. How else would you format the title of such an article?
Did you read the article?
The author admits that the answer to his own question is no. Which, again, affirms Betteridge’s Law.
> A more plausible explanation for the present weak patch, and for companies’ reluctance to hire, is Trumpian uncertainty. That is now beginning to ease. The chaos of Mr Trump’s tariff roll-out seems to be receding. Deportations and changes to visa rules will remain disruptive, but businesses are starting to adapt. Although 2026 is unlikely to be a year of calm and clarity for America, it may well be a bit less frenzied. That would boost the labour market. American workers’ decade-long hot streak may have longer to run.
To paraphrase his conclusion: no. Things are soft, but in general, probably fine for 2026.
This is what I am saying - I’m sick of seeing sensational, clickbait, disaster-porn headlines, especially when the author timidly backs off and plays both sides once they have your attention. It’s such a lack of journalistic integrity.