News: 0181837206

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Job Cuts Driven By AI Are Rising On Wall Street

(Tuesday April 21, 2026 @05:00PM (BeauHD) from the productivity-and-efficiency-era dept.)


Firms like Bank of America, Citi, Wells Fargo, and others are [1]reporting strong profits while reducing head count and automating more work . "All of them credited A.I. to some degree ... in areas ranging from the so-called back office, where tens of thousands of employees fill out paperwork to comply with various laws and regulations, to the front office, where seven-figure salaried professionals put together complicated financial transactions for corporate clients," reports the New York Times. From the report:

> Less than four months ago, Bank of America's chief executive, Brian T. Moynihan, volunteered in a TV interview what he would say to his 210,000 employees about the chance of artificial intelligence replacing human work. "You don't have to worry," he said. "It's not a threat to their jobs." Last week, after Bank of America reported $8.6 billion in profit for the first quarter -- $1.6 billion more than the same period a year earlier -- Mr. Moynihan struck a different tone. The bank's bottom line, he said, was helped by shedding 1,000 jobs through attrition by "eliminating work and applying technology," which he repeatedly specified was artificial intelligence. He predicted more of that in the months and years to come. "A.I. gives us places to go we haven't gone," Mr. Moynihan said.

>

> The veneer of Wall Street's longstanding assertion -- that A.I. will enhance human work, not replace it -- is rapidly peeling away, as evidenced by the current quarterly earnings season. JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo racked up $47 billion in collective profits, up 18 percent, while shedding 15,000 employees. All of them credited A.I. to some degree with helping cut jobs and automate work in areas ranging from the so-called back office, where tens of thousands of employees fill out paperwork to comply with various laws and regulations, to the front office, where seven-figure salaried professionals put together complicated financial transactions for corporate clients.

>

> [2]Unlike executives in Silicon Valley , few major financial figures are stating outright that A.I. is eliminating jobs. Citi, for example, has pledged to shrink its work force by 20,000 people through what one executive described to financial analysts last week as the company's "productivity and efficiency journey." The bank is paying for A.I. software from Anthropic, Google, Microsoft and OpenAI, to automatically read legal documents, approve account openings, send invoices for trades and organize sensitive customer data, among other tasks, according to public statements by bank executives and two people familiar with Citi's systems. Among the recent job cuts at Citi were scores of employees who were part of the bank's "A.I. Champions and Accelerators" program, according to the two people, who were not permitted by the bank to speak publicly. The program involves Citi employees who perform their day jobs while also working to persuade their colleagues to adopt A.I. technologies.



[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/21/business/ai-job-cuts-wall-street.html

[2] https://slashdot.org/story/26/02/26/2250206/jack-dorseys-block-cuts-nearly-half-of-its-staff-in-ai-gamble



Equilibrium (Score:3)

by broward ( 416376 )

[1]https://www.scry.llc/2025/01/2... [scry.llc]

"UBI (universal basic income) is a dysfunctional attempt by rentier capitalists to resist equilibrium. A better fix is redistribution of remaining work across the entire workforce. Income stays bound to work and creates more potential customers. During the 1930s, governments mandated shorter workweeks and banned child labor which forced a return to equilibrium."

[1] https://www.scry.llc/2025/01/27/equilibrium/

Re: (Score:3)

by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 )

Every single one of us knew that eliminating workers was the primary reason for the worldwide interest in AI. Everyone who said anything to the contrary was lying, and everyone who heard them knew it. Absolutely zero people believed that AI was going to lead us to some strange utopia where everyone was paid for work they didn't have to do anymore. The article's tone "oh look, they made all this money and didn't hire more people and its because of AI and oh what hypocrites they are!" is just silly. This

Re: (Score:1)

by machineghost ( 622031 )

> Every single one of us knew that eliminating workers was the primary reason for the worldwide interest in AI

You can say it like that, and make it sound super evil ... but none of us our crying over the 99.9% of horse shit sweepers who lost their jobs when automobiles were invented.

ELIMINATING JOBS IS NOT INHERENTLY A BAD THING! When technology improves things, jobs disappear ... and we all want technology to improve our society.

What is inherently bad is wealth concentration. AI is just a drop in the bucket of helping "the rich getting richer". Long before AI existed, the wealthy had already made systemic chan

Re: (Score:3)

by spitzak ( 4019 )

Automobiles employed a LOT of people, easily out numbering the ones that no longer picked up horse shit. That is a big difference from AI.

Re: (Score:2)

by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 )

> Absolutely zero people believed that AI was going to lead us to some strange utopia where everyone was paid for work they didn't have to do anymore.

I wish you were right, but [1]something tells me that you aren't [slashdot.org].

I'm pretty sure that "Alex Bores, a former Palantir employee and current Democratic House candidate in New York" is like you and me in that he also doesn't believe in an AI utopia for the proles. But he's betting that a lot of other proles WILL believe that - and I'm betting that he's right.

[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/04/20/204204/former-palantir-employee-running-for-congress-unveils-ai-dividend-plan

A few things to keep in mind (Score:3)

by rsilvergun ( 571051 )

First yeah we're all going to chime in and say this will backfire.

It doesn't matter if it does. It's a blows up and costs a business some money odds are very good that the savings from wages will more than cover that.

What's worse is because we don't enforce antitrust law if a company goes down to tubes because it relied too heavily on AI it can just buy out any potential competitors and jack up prices on products you need to live and make back all the money.

Second there's basically two possibilities here, either the AI works and they got the fire a bunch of people or the AI doesn't work but they fired them anyway and the survivors have to work harder to keep their jobs.

Remember no antitrust law enforcement so if you get shit canned and try to start a business then you will be targeted and best case scenario you might get a buyout if you are under the radar long enough but more likely they just run you out of business.

Companies don't need good products anymore because they don't have to compete. So there is no floor and they can make things as shitty as they want and if you have a problem with it tough shit.

You could of course just stop consuming all together but at the very least you need food and shelter and medicine and some minimal financial services and transportation. So good luck stopping all consumption.

The point I'm getting at is that fundamental underpinnings of a functional economy have broken down and we refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Re: (Score:2)

by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

I thought it was a series of tubes. *smirk*

It's also clear he's never actually tried running his own business. The way that the deck is stacked against you isn't that you'll be targeted and run out of business (what is that anyway, a TV trope?), it's that you'll have a hard time achieving profitability because small businesses get raped on wholesaler pricing, and the bang for your buck when advertising does not scale down linearly.

Plus, unless you're staring a business to compete against something people r

Re: (Score:2)

by rsilvergun ( 571051 )

I'm aware of that wholesale pricing fucks small businesses, I'm assuming that your business is so much better that you are able to compete without the bulk wholesale advantage.

Whenever I bring up the fundamental problems of capitalism people tell me that it's okay because capitalism is self-correcting. If a business does bad things people will stop patronizing that business because there will be a competitor that does a better job with a better product.

You're actually just kind of proving my point.

Re:A few things to keep in mind (Score:5, Insightful)

by nightflameauto ( 6607976 )

The change that will need to take place will not happen until we see a world where company profits are decimated by the fact that no company employs enough humans to continue to drive consumerism. We decided a long time ago, at least here in the United States, that corporations are more important than people. We won't care when people are hurt. We'll care when companies are hurt. And the only hurt those entities understand is loss of profit.

Of course, the usual government reaction to loss of profits is to hand over tax dollars to the corporations to help them tide themselves over until the next wave of consumerism. If we end up in a world where there aren't enough people working to provide the government with income tax on a regular basis, and there aren't enough consumers to provide sales tax or a regular basis, and enough people are rendered homeless to start cutting into property taxes outside the larger corporate entities, then the government will have to come up with a new plan other than, "hand over money we can no longer provide." As much fun as it's been for them to pretend continually creating money from nothing is somehow providing it, that cycle is about to hit an end-point nobody's really ready for.

It's gonna get real interesting as automation continues to impact the workforce. What's really sad is we've seen signs it could happen coming for a while now, and no one with the power to do anything about it, or prepare for it, is willing to do anything more than preach about how glorious the future will be when no one can work a steady job and no one has the money from work to be able to consume as the entire economy requires to keep lubricated and running.

So that's just techno feudalism (Score:2)

by rsilvergun ( 571051 )

There are a bunch of billionaires, going on trillionaires, working to that goal. If we get to that point money doesn't matter anymore any more than money mattered to the kings.

Basically we are looking at the end of capitalism without socialism replacing it. Instead you will have a hereditary class of kings and queens, and they will have a handful of engineers to keep everything running and a handful of violent thugs to keep the engineers in line and to occasionally exterminate the masses of they become

Will AI ever replace the CEO? (Score:3)

by dschnur ( 61074 )

Here's a dystopian thought:

What if the first person to go was the CEO?

Would they still be pushing so hard to use AI?

Re: (Score:1)

by Narcocide ( 102829 )

If they replaced the CEO with AI, you can bet on it.

Enhance vs replace (Score:2)

by devslash0 ( 4203435 )

It's all the same. If you enhance a process it will take fewer resources to complete. Ergo, you need fewer people.

Yeah right (Score:2)

by BlueLightning ( 442320 )

Job cuts *excused* by AI, mostly. Still, given that this is the trend, shareholders will likely punish firms that don't do "AI" layoffs.

Another worry (Score:2)

by spitzak ( 4019 )

I'm pretty worried that all interdepartmental communication (those regulations, the forms for the regulations, invoices, contracts, lawsuits, etc) will transform into bloated gobbledygook that only AIs can read and write. They will have made their own language that we won't understand and will have to start trusting them to accurately translate between it and human language.

Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even
where there is no river.
-- Nikita Khrushchev