🔍 Read the full analysis: Why The Fallout From AI Layoffs May Recall Past Tech Shocks on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get audio and creator gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
A Goldman Sachs note dated Oct. 29, as reported by Fortune, estimates that workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about a month longer to find work than other laid-off workers. The findings resemble Goldman’s historical research on technology-driven job losses, but the new estimates rely on an indirect measure of AI displacement and remain early.
A Goldman Sachs note dated Oct. 29 estimates that workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about one month longer to find new jobs than other laid-off workers, according to Fortune’s report the following day. The result resembles the lasting employment and pay setbacks found in Goldman’s research on earlier technology-related job losses, though the new estimates are preliminary and based on an indirect measure of AI displacement.
Goldman economist Pierfrancesco Mei and colleagues used U.S. labor data to identify workers whose job losses were more likely to be connected to AI. No government survey directly asks whether AI caused a person to lose a job. Goldman instead combined occupational exposure to AI, the pace of AI adoption in an industry and whether a position was eliminated. It classified the highest-scoring 30% as “likely AI-displaced.”
Fortune reported that, among job losses since 2025, this group was about 10 percentage points more likely to remain unemployed a year later than other displaced workers. Workers aged 35 and older took about five weeks longer to return to full-time work, compared with about three weeks for workers under 35. The figures come from Fortune’s account of a Goldman note that is not public; they have not been independently verified here.
Goldman’s public research provides a longer historical comparison. Its studies of workers displaced by technology since the 1980s found that they took about a month longer to find work and earned more than 3% less in real pay after reemployment, according to the source material. Over the following decade, their real earnings growth was nearly 10 percentage points lower than that of workers who had not been laid off. These historical findings are separate from the newer AI estimates.
Infographic 01 · What happens after the pink slip
The first AI layoffs look like 40 years of tech layoffs
A longer search, a smaller paycheck and slower growth for years. Goldman’s new estimate for AI-exposed workers lines up with its long-run history.
The first AI wave, since 2025
Likely AI-displaced vs. other laid-off workers, US. Note not public; figures as reported by Fortune.
Forty years of tech shocks
Workers displaced from technology-disrupted occupations, US.
“Comparable in magnitude” to earlier waves of technological change, whose damage was “long-lasting.”Goldman Sachs economist Pierfrancesco Mei, as quoted by Fortune
How Goldman spots “AI-displaced” workers: no survey asks about AI, so it scores each job loss by the occupation’s AI exposure, the industry’s AI adoption and whether the position was eliminated, and treats the top 30% as likely AI-displaced (more than 15,000 workers, 2016–2025). An estimate, not a count.
Sources: Fortune, 30 Oct 2026 (reporting the Goldman note of 29 Oct 2026) · Goldman Sachs, Top of Mind #149, 25 Jun 2026, p. 15 · Goldman Sachs Insights, 11 Sep 2026. pp = percentage points.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
The Costs Extend Beyond Layoff Day
The findings shift attention from the number of announced cuts to what happens to workers afterward: time out of work, pay in the next job and the durability of reemployment. If the new estimates hold, the economic impact of AI-related displacement may persist after a worker is hired again, as it did in Goldman’s historical analysis of technology-driven job losses.
The age difference also matters for workers and employers. Fortune’s account says workers aged 35 and older took longer to return to full-time employment than those under 35. Separately, government data cited in the source material shows that 57.3% of long-tenured workers aged 55 to 64 were working again by January 2026, compared with 72.9% of those aged 25 to 54. That government comparison covers long-tenured displaced workers broadly, not workers identified as displaced by AI.
The source material also reports a decline in the share of long-tenured workers who returned to full-time work earning as much as before or more: about 49%, down from about 62% two years earlier, citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Together, these figures underline why a layoff count alone cannot show the full cost to households or the labor market.
Products Worth Considering
Samsung 27 Odyssey OLED G5 (G50SF) QHD QD-OLED Gaming Monitor
DJI Osmo Mobile 8 3-Axis Phone Gimbal Stabilizer
Jackery Explorer 2000 v2 Portable Power Station, 2042Wh
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Goldman Compared AI Displacement
Goldman’s new estimate draws on the Labor Department’s Displaced Worker Supplement to the Current Population Survey. It examined more than 15,000 people who lost jobs between 2016 and 2025, using an AI exposure and adoption score to separate those more likely to have been affected. The source material says Goldman found no significant difference between its likely AI-displaced group and other laid-off workers for job losses before 2023, when AI adoption began to rise.
That approach is an estimate, not a direct count of confirmed AI-caused layoffs. A worker may lose a job for several reasons, and the score cannot establish that AI was the cause in an individual case. The historical comparison comes from Goldman’s public research, which tracked workers across more than 300 occupations using long-running National Longitudinal Surveys. The research found that workers displaced from occupations exposed to technological change faced slower reemployment and weaker pay outcomes.
Goldman’s historical analysis also suggests that retraining may be associated with better results. The source material says workers who retrained within three years had about two percentage points more real wage growth over the next decade and a roughly 10-point lower chance of becoming unemployed again. Those figures describe historical workers, not a tested guarantee for people displaced by AI today.
““comparable in magnitude””
— Goldman Sachs economist Pierfrancesco Mei, as quoted in Fortune
AI Layoffs Are Hard to Isolate
The central limitation is that Goldman’s estimate does not identify confirmed AI-caused job losses. Its score uses occupation exposure, industry adoption and position elimination as proxies, so the reported results should be treated as an early estimate rather than a definitive measure of AI’s effect on employment.
The underlying Goldman note is not public, and the details here rely on Fortune’s reporting. The sample of job losses since 2025 is also too recent to establish long-term outcomes. Mei said it was too early to assess effects across dimensions including education and region. The source material does not provide enough detail to determine how representative the early group is or whether the results will persist as AI adoption changes.
It is also unclear how many workers returning to work moved into jobs with comparable or higher AI exposure, or whether those jobs will remain stable. Fortune’s report says more AI-displaced workers left their former occupation and industry, while some rehired workers—especially older ones—entered roles with similar or higher exposure. Exposure alone does not establish that a job will be eliminated.
Watch Reemployment and Pay Data
The next meaningful test will be whether later labor-market data shows the same longer job searches and weaker reemployment for workers likely affected by AI. Follow-up data will also be needed to assess pay after reemployment, repeat unemployment and differences by age, education and region.
Economic conditions will matter. Goldman’s historical research finds that displacement costs are larger during downturns, and its economists expect AI-related job losses to accelerate if the economy slows, according to the source material. That is a forecast, not a confirmed outcome. For now, the reported estimates offer an early warning about possible costs while leaving the scale and duration of AI’s employment effects unresolved.
Key Questions
What did Goldman Sachs estimate about workers displaced by AI?
According to Fortune’s report on Goldman’s Oct. 29 note, workers classified as likely AI-displaced since 2025 took about a month longer to find new work than other laid-off workers and were roughly 10 percentage points more likely to remain unemployed a year later.
Does the estimate prove AI caused these job losses?
No. Goldman used a score based on occupational AI exposure, industry adoption and position elimination. It is an indirect estimate, not a record of workers whose employers confirmed AI caused their layoffs.
Which workers faced longer waits to return to full-time work?
Fortune reported that workers aged 35 and older took about five weeks longer to return to full-time work, compared with about three weeks for workers under 35. The figures are from the reported Goldman note and remain preliminary.
What does Goldman’s historical research say about technology layoffs?
Goldman’s public research found that workers displaced by technology took about a month longer to find work, lost more than 3% in real pay when reemployed and had nearly 10 percentage points less real earnings growth over the following decade than workers who were never laid off.
What remains unknown about AI-related job displacement?
The scale and long-term effects remain unclear. The new estimate does not directly confirm AI as the cause of individual layoffs, and Goldman said it is too early to assess outcomes across factors such as education and region.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
