🔍 Read the full analysis: AI Layoffs: 4 Lessons From 40 Years Of Technology Disruption on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech essentials 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 client note reported by Fortune says workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about a month longer to find new jobs than other laid-off workers and were more likely to remain unemployed a year later. The note is not public, and its estimates are not independently confirmed here; Goldman’s published historical research finds technology-related job losses have been linked to slower reemployment and lasting earnings penalties.
A Goldman Sachs note dated October 29, reported by Fortune, says workers likely displaced by AI 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. The note is not public, so those recent estimates are reported findings, not independently verified here; Goldman’s published research on earlier technology-driven job losses suggests the effects can extend beyond the initial period of unemployment.
Goldman economist Pierfrancesco Mei based the new analysis on Labor Department survey data covering more than 15,000 people who lost jobs between 2016 and 2025, according to Fortune’s account of the note. Because the government does not ask displaced workers whether AI caused their job loss, Goldman constructed an estimate using occupation-level AI exposure, industry adoption and whether a position was eliminated. It classified the top 30% of its resulting scores as “likely AI-displaced.”
The analysis reportedly found no significant difference between this group and other laid-off workers for job losses before 2023, when AI adoption began to rise. For losses since 2025, the reported estimates show a longer job search and a higher likelihood of still being unemployed after a year. Workers aged 35 and older reportedly took about five weeks longer than comparable laid-off workers to return to full-time work, compared with about three weeks for those under 35.
Fortune also reported that AI-displaced workers were more likely to leave their former occupation or industry. Yet some who found work moved into jobs with similar or higher AI exposure, particularly older workers. The figures describe a modeled group, not a government-identified count of people whose jobs were definitively eliminated by AI.
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 Can Outlast the Layoff
The findings shift attention from how many jobs are cut to what happens to workers afterward: time spent looking, pay in the next role and whether employment lasts. If the reported pattern holds, a layoff linked to AI may carry costs beyond a temporary gap in income, especially for workers who have difficulty returning to full-time work or must change industries.
Goldman’s public historical research offers a longer view. It found that workers displaced by technology took about a month longer to find work and earned more than 3% less in real pay when rehired, compared with workers laid off from stable or growing occupations. Over the following decade, their real earnings grew nearly 10 percentage points less than those of workers who were not laid off, according to the source material. These historical results are associations in the research, not a guarantee that every AI-displaced worker will have the same outcome.
The distribution of harm matters too. The reported age gap and government figures for long-tenured workers suggest that returning to work may be harder for some older workers. For employers and policymakers, the issue is not only whether AI changes staffing, but whether displaced workers can access useful retraining and stable jobs at comparable pay.
Products Worth Considering
Trezor Safe 7 Crypto Hardware Wallet
LG UltraGear 27G640A-B 27-Inch QHD IPS Gaming Monitor, 300Hz, 1ms, G-SYNC Compatible, FreeSync Premium, DisplayHDR 400
Apple MacBook Pro 16-inch (2021) with M1 Max, 64 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD – Space Grey
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Four Decades of Displacement Data
Goldman’s historical comparison draws on its published research, including a June 2026 “Top of Mind” report and a September summary by Mei, Jessica Rindels and David Mericle. The researchers tracked workers across more than 300 occupations, using National Longitudinal Surveys that have followed over 20,000 workers through their careers. They compared people in occupations most exposed to technology in each decade with workers in other jobs.
The source material says that the historical analysis found a pay penalty and slower earnings growth after technology-related displacement. It also reports that workers who retrained within three years had about two percentage points more real wage growth over ten years and a roughly 10-point lower chance of becoming unemployed again. Those figures describe the study’s historical findings; they do not establish that retraining alone caused the better outcomes.
Separate Bureau of Labor Statistics figures cited in the source show disparities among long-tenured workers who lost jobs. By January 2026, 72.9% of those aged 25 to 54 were working again, compared with 57.3% of those aged 55 to 64. Among long-tenured workers who returned to full-time work, about 49% earned as much as or more than before, down from about 62% two years earlier. These statistics cover laid-off workers generally, not only those displaced by AI.
““comparable in magnitude””
— Pierfrancesco Mei, Goldman Sachs economist, as quoted in Fortune’s report of the client note
How Much AI Caused the Losses
The Goldman client note is not publicly available; the new estimates are drawn from Fortune’s report, which quotes it. The source material says other outlets repeated Fortune’s numbers, but that does not amount to independent confirmation. Goldman’s method identifies workers whose occupation and industry characteristics make AI displacement more likely; it cannot establish in each case that AI directly caused a layoff.
The estimates also cover a relatively recent period, and the source says it is too early to assess outcomes across education, region and other dimensions. It remains unclear how much of the reported difference reflects AI adoption itself rather than other changes in industries, employers or the economy. The figures do not establish how many jobs AI has eliminated overall, nor whether the same patterns will persist as adoption and hiring conditions change.
Goldman’s historical research reports larger displacement costs during downturns, and its economists expect AI-related job losses to accelerate if the economy slows. That is a forecast, not a confirmed outcome.
Tracking Reemployment and Pay
The next evidence will come from tracking whether workers identified as likely AI-displaced return to work, how long their searches last and what they earn afterward. Future updates may clarify differences by age, education and region, areas Mei’s note says are not yet fully assessed.
Readers should also distinguish new AI-specific estimates from broader government labor statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics figures cited here concern long-tenured displaced workers generally, while Goldman’s AI estimates rely on a constructed exposure measure. Further public research or release of the client note could make the method and its limits easier to evaluate.
For now, the reported findings point to a longer adjustment for some workers, while the scale and duration of AI’s effects remain unsettled. A slowdown could worsen job-finding conditions, but whether that happens—and how it would affect this group—has not been established.
Key Questions
What did the new Goldman Sachs note report?
According to Fortune, workers Goldman 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 after a year. The note is not public, and the estimates have not been independently confirmed here.
How did Goldman identify workers likely displaced by AI?
Goldman reportedly combined occupation-level AI exposure, the pace of AI adoption in the industry and whether a position was eliminated. It classified the top 30% of the resulting scores as likely AI-displaced. This is a modeled estimate, not a direct survey response confirming AI caused each job loss.
No. Goldman’s historical research found an average real-pay penalty of more than 3% for technology-displaced workers who found new jobs. That result does not predict an individual worker’s outcome, and the recent AI estimates do not establish what each affected worker will earn.
Who appears to face a longer return to work?
Fortune reported that workers aged 35 and older took about five weeks longer than comparable laid-off workers to return to full-time work, versus about three weeks for workers under 35. Separate government figures cited in the source show lower reemployment among long-tenured workers aged 55 to 64 than among those aged 25 to 54, but those figures cover laid-off workers generally.
What remains unknown about AI layoffs?
The number of job losses directly caused by AI, the reliability of the modeled classification and how outcomes vary by education or region remain uncertain. The note’s underlying analysis is not public, and the recent data do not establish whether the reported patterns will continue.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
