AI Not Affecting Job Market Much So Far, New York Fed Says (usnews.com)
- Reference: 0179007432
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/09/04/168211/ai-not-affecting-job-market-much-so-far-new-york-fed-says
- Source link: https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2025-09-04/ai-not-affecting-job-market-much-so-far-new-york-fed-says
> "Businesses reported a notable increase in AI use over the past year, yet very few firms reported AI-induced layoffs," New York Fed economists wrote in the blog. "Indeed, for those already employed, our results indicate AI is more likely to result in retraining than job loss, similar to our findings from last year," and so far the technology does not point to "significant reductions in employment."
>
> There has been broad concern that AI could create major headwinds for hiring in the coming years, with the technology hitting highly-paid professional and managerial jobs the hardest. Investors are plowing cash into AI investments at a time when employment has already begun to show some softness, although job market changes related to AI will almost certainly play out over a long time horizon. The New York Fed blog noted that the modest impact on jobs so far may not hold in the future. "Looking ahead, firms anticipate more significant layoffs and scaled-back hiring as they continue to integrate AI into their operations," New York Fed researchers wrote.
[1] https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2025-09-04/ai-not-affecting-job-market-much-so-far-new-york-fed-says
Obviously..... (Score:1)
It has nothing to do with the tens of thousands of white collar layoffs over the last 5 years or so.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're saying this factually, and not sarcastically. That being the case, I agree.
Regardless, tens of thousands of jobs sounds like a lot, until you look at the overall white collar job marketplace, which stands at about 70 million, according to BLS. There was a huge spike in white collar hiring in 2021-2, making the current market seem dreadful by comparison. But overall, the white collar job market is still quite healthy.
Defined the word disrupt (Score:1)
I guess it depends on what you mean by disrupting the job market. If you mean the total number of jobs, that is likely to continue growing. However, certain fields seem very ripe for disruption such as HR.
Re: (Score:3)
It disrupts the job market, as $hypeproduct of $startup disrupts whatever market $startup is targeting.
Everyone likes to claim to disrupt something and most the time they only disrupt hot air.
New technology always Disrupts jobs, not eliminate (Score:3, Insightful)
When new technology comes along it always gets people fired/layed off. But it does not, cannot reduce the number of jobs. People have to find the already existing jobs that were not being filled before and fill them.
There are always more jobs, because jobs are not created or destroyed by technology or by rich people. There is no such thing as a 'job creator'.
Jobs are created by human desires, and boy are we greedy sobs. There is always another job out there. Something people want done that we cannot do ourselves. New technology also creates new industries that could not exist without the same technology that destroyed the old jobs.
1,000 years ago the wine industry had vineyards, bottlers, and distributors. Now we have Sommeliers, wine bars, wine clubs, a ton of wine related products people make and sell, wine tastings, etc. etc. etc.
New technology disrupts the job market, it does not destroy jobs, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is making sure there's plenty of job openings for former programmers at Apple to go pick apples. A job for a job, you know. Not like there's any difference in what kind of job you're doing, surely they all pay the same and are equally engaging.
So not really (Score:3)
You could be forgiven for not knowing this if you hadn't taken at least a 200 level American history course in college. I briefly flirted with becoming a history teacher so that's why I know this crap...
So after the industrial revolutions no, people didn't just go get new jobs. There was a lot of technological unemployment.
It took the destruction and innovation from world war 1 and 2 to get us back to full employment. The luddites didn't have jobs lined up a few weeks after the factories started kic
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. From the past 15 years of job statistics, I see a steady decrease of paid work at the speed of 0.4% of total population per year. The drop is especially high in manufacturing and in the health care there is even increase of work.
And I have a reason for this. It is not that we are running out of work or jobs. We are running out of paying customers. I like to think it so that humans have some basic needs like food, shelter, health, entertainment etc.
- For food, as we know, automation has transform
cancels out (Score:2)
Probably all the jobs lost because "we now let AI do that!" are cancelled out by the jobs gained "we need to hire somebody to check the AIs work and fix all the problems it has!"
Tariffs (Score:1)
Don't blame AI for the uncertainty and the killing of long-term planning and budgeting brought on by tariffs.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are you implying that corporations do long-term planning? I thought they only looked ahead 1-2 quarters!
As expected (Score:2)
Genuine progress is being made in developing useful AI tools
Also, a lot of really silly uses are being found
Hypemongers, pundits and other assorted weasels make exaggerated claims that AI will allow companies to replace all of their workers
Investment flows abundantly
Executives believe salesweasels and buy expensive, immature products
The promised results fail to materialize
Meanwhile, expert workers find real uses for the tech on their own
I watch the show with amusement
Since hiring is massively slow (Score:2)
Of course not effecting, hiring has slowed to a snail pace....
Facts vs. fears (Score:2)
When there's a new, super-hyped technology, fears always run rampant. Facts generally don't turn out to be as good as the hype, or as bad as the fears.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Always the same crap with the human race. No insight, but hyped or panicked.
Interesting (Score:2)
Hence AI does provide a good pretext for firing people, but not a good reason.
See Below (Score:2)
Please see below (Robinhood CEO) for a different perspective.
Re: (Score:3)
So, one source (the New York Fed) cites actual statistics, while the other (Robinhood CEO) is prognosticating based on nothing more than wild dreams. It seems clear which take has more substance.