🔍 Read the full analysis: Are Today’s AI Layoffs Echoing Four Decades Of Tech Disruption? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets 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 on Oct. 30, says workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about a month longer to find new work than other laid-off workers and were more likely to remain unemployed a year later. The estimate is not a direct count of confirmed AI-caused layoffs, and the note is not publicly available. Goldman’s public research on earlier technology-related job losses points to lasting wage and employment costs.
A Goldman Sachs client note dated Oct. 29 finds that workers classified as likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about one month longer to find new work than other laid-off workers, according to Fortune’s report the following day. The estimate suggests the early job-search costs may resemble those seen after earlier waves of technological change, but it does not identify every case as a confirmed AI-caused layoff.
Fortune reported that Goldman economist Pierfrancesco Mei compared the recent group with other displaced workers using a measure designed to identify likely AI-related job losses. The note said the likely AI-displaced group was about 10 percentage points more likely to remain unemployed a year after losing a job. These figures come from Fortune’s account; Goldman’s note was distributed to clients and is not publicly available for independent review.
Goldman’s estimate draws on more than 15,000 people who lost jobs from 2016 to 2025 in the Labor Department’s Displaced Worker Supplement to the Current Population Survey. The firm combined occupational exposure to AI, industry adoption and whether a position was eliminated. It classified the highest-scoring 30% as “likely AI-displaced.” Goldman reportedly found no significant outcome gap for job losses before 2023, when AI adoption began to rise.
The reported note also found differences by age. Workers aged 35 and older took about five weeks longer than comparable laid-off workers to return to full-time work, while workers under 35 took about three weeks longer. Fortune also reported that AI-displaced workers were more likely to leave their previous occupation and industry; among those rehired, some—especially older workers—returned to jobs with similar or higher AI exposure.
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
Job Losses Can Leave Long Tails
The issue is not only how many positions are eliminated, but what happens to workers afterward: time out of work, pay in the next job and future job stability. A longer search can mean lost income, while a lower-paid role can carry costs well beyond the initial layoff. The latest figures are an early estimate, but they focus attention on consequences that headline layoff counts do not capture.
Goldman’s historical findings suggest those consequences can persist. Its public research reports that workers displaced by technology took about a month longer to find work and earned more than 3% less in real terms after reemployment than comparison workers. Their real earnings growth over the following decade was nearly 10 percentage points lower. Those historical results do not prove that AI will produce the same outcomes, but they provide a basis for comparing the current experience.
The stakes extend to employers and policymakers as well as workers. If AI-related displacement grows during an economic slowdown, workers could face fewer openings just as they seek new jobs. Goldman’s historical research also links retraining after technology-related displacement with better wage growth and a lower chance of later unemployment, though the reported figures do not establish that training alone caused the difference.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (12th Generation, 2024), 16 GB, 7-inch Display, Jade
Logitech MX Brio Ultra HD 4K Webcam, Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Four Decades of Displacement Data
The new note draws on Goldman’s earlier public research, including a June 2026 “Top of Mind” report and a September summary by Mei and colleagues Jessica Rindels and David Mericle. That work examined workers in more than 300 occupations from the 1980s onward, using National Longitudinal Surveys that have followed more than 20,000 people through their careers. Researchers compared workers in occupations with greater exposure to technology with others over time.
Goldman’s public analysis found that technology-displaced workers lost more than 3% in real pay when they found new work, while workers laid off from stable or growing occupations saw negligible losses. It also reported that displaced workers had nearly 10 percentage points less real earnings growth over the next decade. In the historical data, people who retrained within three years had about two percentage points more real wage growth over ten years and a roughly 10-point lower likelihood of becoming unemployed again.
Government figures offer a separate view of reemployment among long-tenured workers, not specifically people laid off because of AI. By January 2026, 72.9% of those aged 25 to 54 were working again, compared with 57.3% of those aged 55 to 64. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also reported that about 49% of long-tenured workers who returned to full-time work earned as much as or more than before, down from about 62% two years earlier.
““comparable in magnitude””
— Pierfrancesco Mei, Goldman Sachs economist, as quoted in Fortune
How Many Layoffs AI Caused
The figures are reported estimates, not a direct count of workers who lost jobs because of AI. The U.S. government survey used in the analysis does not ask respondents whether AI caused their job loss, so Goldman inferred likely exposure using occupation, industry adoption and position elimination. The classification captures a group considered likely affected; it cannot establish that AI was the reason for each individual layoff.
Goldman’s note is not public, and the detailed figures in the recent analysis are based on Fortune’s reporting rather than independent examination of the document. The reported sample covers job losses through 2025, leaving open how outcomes may change as AI tools and workplace adoption evolve. Mei also cautioned that the effects by education and region are too early to assess. It is not yet clear how representative the early group is of workers affected in later years, or whether its outcomes will persist.
Tracking Reemployment and Wages
The next evidence will come from continued tracking of displaced workers: whether they return to full-time work, how long the search takes, what they earn afterward and whether they remain in the new role. Future data may also clarify differences by age, education, region and industry, and help test whether the early AI-exposure measure predicts job loss accurately.
Goldman’s reported analysis warns that displacement costs tend to be larger during economic downturns and that AI-related losses could accelerate if the economy slows. That is a forecast, not a confirmed outcome. For now, the note offers an early comparison with past technology shifts rather than a complete account of AI’s effects on employment.
Key Questions
What did Goldman Sachs find about likely AI-displaced workers?
According to Fortune’s report on a Goldman client note, workers classified as likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about one month longer to find work than other laid-off workers and were roughly 10 percentage points more likely to remain unemployed a year later.
Were these confirmed AI-caused layoffs?
No. The government survey does not ask whether AI caused a job loss. Goldman used a score based on AI exposure, industry adoption and position elimination to identify workers considered likely to have been displaced by AI.
Where did the recent figures come from?
Fortune reported the figures from a Goldman Sachs note dated Oct. 29, 2026. The note was sent to clients and is not publicly available, so the figures have not been independently checked against the document here.
What did Goldman’s historical research show?
Goldman’s public research found that workers displaced by earlier technology shifts took longer to find jobs, had more than 3% lower real pay after reemployment and experienced weaker real earnings growth over the following decade than comparison workers.
What remains uncertain about AI’s employment effects?
The scale of confirmed AI-caused layoffs, the longer-term outcomes for affected workers and differences by education or region remain unclear. Goldman’s recent figures are an early estimate, not a settled measure of AI’s total effect on employment.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
