The Shifting Formula of Labor: From Quiet Quitting to FIRE, the Redesign of Work

The spread of early resignations among entry-level employees and quiet quitting
Changes in work patterns extending toward the FIRE movement
A transition from long-tenure models to self-directed work

An increasing number of entry-level employees are leaving organizations without completing three years of tenure. The choices they make after resignation have also diverged sharply from the past. Instead of pursuing conventional job changes, many are opting for more flexible paths such as freelancing, holding multiple jobs, or partial retirement. This trend reflects a broader shift toward “self-directed work,” in which individuals choose the manner and intensity of their labor rather than conforming to organizational long-tenure models. Experts argue that cumulative changes in worker perceptions following the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic have shifted the focus of labor from “where to work” to “how to work.”

Workers Choosing Multiple Jobs and Freelancing After Resignation

According to a survey on early turnover among entry-level employees released on the 28th by Incruit, a recruitment consulting firm, six out of ten companies reported experiencing early resignations among new hires. The survey, conducted among human resources managers at 446 domestic companies, showed that 60.9% of employees who resigned had worked for between one and three years, the largest share. This was followed by those with tenure of four months to less than one year at 32.9%, and three months or less at 6.3%. Human resources managers cited “mismatch in job fit” as the most common reason for early resignation, at 58.9%. Other reasons included low compensation (42.5%), incompatible corporate culture (26.6%), strained relationships with supervisors or colleagues (23.4%), and insufficient work-life balance (17.1%).

The perceptions of workers who actually experienced resignation, however, revealed a somewhat different pattern. In a survey conducted by job marketplace Albamon among 1,722 employees, 56.3% said they had resigned within the past year. Among them, the largest group, 28.4%, reported tenure of less than one year from hiring to resignation. The most frequently cited reason for leaving was “poor working conditions and benefits,” at 21.1%. This was followed by conflicts with supervisors or colleagues (14.1%), anxiety about the company’s future (13.9%), low pay (9.2%), and excessive workloads and frequent overtime (8.2%). Other responses included “corporate culture mismatch” (6.2%) and “work not aligned with personal aptitude” (5.7%).

Post-resignation choices have also evolved. According to the survey, the most preferred path after quitting was “holding multiple jobs or freelancing,” selected by 41% of respondents, followed by “complete job change” at 32% and selective work arrangements often referred to as “partial retirement” at 18%. In practice, a significant share of young people exiting the labor market are choosing freelancing over traditional employment. According to the Ministry of Employment and Labor and the Korea Employment Information Service, the number of platform workers reached 883,000 in 2024, up 33.6% from 661,000 in 2021. In particular, the number of young freelancers working in digital fields surged by 69.4% year-on-year, driven by the expansion of the platform economy.

Distancing From Work to Avoid Overcommitment to Organizations

Experts interpret these developments as reflecting a broader shift in attitudes toward work itself, extending beyond job-hopping or resignation trends among the MZ generation, defined as those born between the 1980s and early 2000s. While “job fit mismatch” is most frequently cited on the surface, analysts suggest that accumulated dissatisfaction with working conditions, compensation structures, and organizational culture plays a more decisive role than individual capability or attitude. The Albamon survey reinforces this view, as workers’ stated reasons for resignation centered on workplace factors such as poor conditions and benefits, interpersonal relationships, and concerns about corporate sustainability.

This reassessment is also evident in post-resignation decisions. Experts view the growing prevalence of multiple jobs, freelancing, and partial retirement as an attempt by workers to redesign how they work. As prolonged low-growth conditions erode the rationale for waiting for rewards through long tenure, the labor market has seen a clearer emphasis on work-life balance. Demand is rising for “self-directed work,” in which individuals select the form and intensity of labor aligned with their skills and objectives rather than adapting themselves to organizational job and compensation systems.

One of the earliest manifestations of this self-directed trend was “quiet quitting.” Emerging after the pandemic in 2022, quiet quitting refers to remaining employed while performing only the minimum duties required by the organization. It arose from a reevaluation of work-life balance during the pandemic and the broader wave of the “Great Resignation.” While some interpret it as apathy or avoidance of responsibility, prevailing analysis views it as a self-protective response to excessive workloads, opaque compensation, and uncertain career trajectories, signaling a decision to stop overinvesting oneself in the organization.

More recently, quiet quitting has functioned less as an endpoint and more as a transitional phase. Distancing within organizations has prompted workers to question whether to continue their current jobs, leading to more proactive efforts to redesign lifetime work patterns amid uncertain future prospects. Anthony Klotz, the organizational psychologist who popularized the concept of quiet quitting, has stated that “quiet quitting is not a declaration of doing less work, but an act of resetting boundaries so that work does not consume life.” Linda Hill, a professor at Harvard Business School, has similarly observed that “today’s workers are choosing the experience of work, not the job itself.”

The FIRE Movement and Choosing a Life Unbound by Work

The most extreme expression of self-directed work is the so-called FIRE movement—Financial Independence, Retire Early. FIRE adherents aim to achieve financial independence in their 30s or 40s and pursue early retirement. The movement originated in the United States in the 1990s and spread globally to countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands, and India after the 2008 global financial crisis. Interest intensified among millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, who entered the workforce amid prolonged economic stagnation. This generation is often characterized by shared skepticism toward traditional tenure-and-retirement models, shaped by witnessing their parents’ financial insecurity even after retirement.

Within the FIRE community, diverse subtypes have emerged. Two representative forms are Lean FIRE and Fat FIRE. Lean FIRE adherents maintain minimal living expenses through extreme frugality, prioritizing time autonomy and personal freedom over income or asset scale. Fat FIRE adherents, by contrast, seek to sustain or exceed their pre-retirement standard of living, emphasizing substantial asset accumulation and continued consumption prior to retirement.

Other variants combine partial labor with financial independence. Side FIRE adherents retire from their primary careers while generating supplemental income through secondary activities such as content creation, teaching, or investment-related work. Barista FIRE adherents rely on asset income for living expenses while working limited hours in part-time roles to supplement costs, maintain benefits, or achieve personal fulfillment. These groups share a common emphasis on selecting minimal, self-paced work rather than fully disengaging from labor.

Ultimately, FIRE does not represent a pursuit of a life without work, but a life not bound by work. It seeks to reduce dependence on wage labor and secure individual choice over whether and how to work. Nevertheless, FIRE is unlikely to serve as a universal solution. Its feasibility depends heavily on high initial income and intense saving, reflecting existing income disparities. Unequal starting points in asset accumulation limit its applicability, and exposure to financial market volatility introduces structural fragility. Moreover, early retirement does not guarantee stability or fulfillment, as challenges such as loss of identity, social isolation, and absence of meaningful activity may emerge after disengaging from formal work.