🔍 Read the full analysis: What AI Layoffs Could Mean For Workers, According To Goldman Sachs 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 note, reported by Fortune, estimates that workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about a month longer to find another job than other laid-off workers and were roughly 10 percentage points more likely to remain unemployed a year later. The estimate is preliminary: it uses a proxy for AI-related job loss, and Goldman says it is too early to assess outcomes across all groups and measures.
Workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 have taken about a month longer to find new jobs than other laid-off workers and were roughly 10 percentage points more likely to remain unemployed a year later, according to findings from a Goldman Sachs note reported by Fortune. The figures offer an early indication of how AI-related job loss may affect workers after a layoff, but rely on an estimate rather than direct government tracking of whether AI caused a job loss.
The client note, dated October 29, was written by Goldman economist Pierfrancesco Mei. Goldman’s note is not public; the figures in the new analysis come from Fortune’s report, which quotes it. The results should be treated as reported findings, not independently verified estimates. There is no government survey asking laid-off workers whether AI caused them to lose their jobs.
To estimate AI displacement, Goldman reportedly examined more than 15,000 people who lost jobs between 2016 and 2025, drawing on the Labor Department’s Displaced Worker Supplement to the Current Population Survey. It combined occupational exposure to AI, the pace of AI adoption in each industry and whether a position was eliminated. Workers in the top 30% of the resulting measure were classified as “likely AI-displaced.” Goldman found no significant difference from other laid-off workers for job losses before 2023, Fortune reported.
For losses since 2025, the analysis found longer returns to work among workers aged 35 and older: about five weeks longer to regain full-time work than comparable laid-off workers, compared with about three weeks for those under 35. The note also reportedly found that AI-displaced workers were more likely to leave their former occupation and industry. Among those rehired, however, some—especially older workers—entered 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
The Costs Continue After Layoffs
The findings focus on what happens after the job loss: time without work, the quality of reemployment and whether a worker can return to a stable role. A longer search can mean lost income and more difficulty keeping up with household expenses; a move into another job exposed to AI may also leave a worker vulnerable to further disruption. Those are potential consequences, not outcomes the new note establishes for every worker.
Goldman’s published research on earlier technology-related displacement provides a longer-term comparison. It found that workers who lost jobs to technological change took about one month longer to find work and earned more than 3% less in real pay when reemployed. Over the following decade, their real earnings grew nearly 10 percentage points less than those of workers who were never laid off. Those historical results do not prove AI will produce the same effects, but they show why the early job-search figures matter beyond the headline count of cuts.
The distribution of the effects also matters. The reported age gap suggests older workers may face a slower return to full-time employment. Separately, Bureau of Labor Statistics data covering long-tenured workers—not specifically people displaced by AI—show that 72.9% of those aged 25 to 54 were working again by January 2026, compared with 57.3% of those aged 55 to 64. The comparison gives general labor-market context, not proof that AI caused the difference.
Products Worth Considering
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
Sonos Era 100 SL Compact Microphone-Free Speaker – Black
Jackery Explorer 500 v2 Portable Power Station, 512Wh, 500W
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A Proxy for AI Job Loss
The new estimate is part of Goldman’s wider work on how technological change affects workers. In its public June 2026 “Top of Mind” report and a September summary, Mei and colleagues Jessica Rindels and David Mericle tracked workers across more than 300 occupations using National Longitudinal Surveys that have followed over 20,000 people through their careers. Their historical analysis found that workers displaced by technology faced slower reemployment and longer-term earnings penalties.
Goldman’s historical research also linked retraining with better outcomes. Workers displaced by technology who retrained within three years had about 2 percentage points more real wage growth over ten years and a roughly 10-point lower chance of becoming unemployed again, according to the source material. That is an association in the historical data, not a guarantee that retraining will produce the same result for every worker affected by AI.
Other labor-market figures add context but measure different populations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 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. Those figures concern displaced workers generally, not a confirmed group of AI-related layoffs.
““comparable in magnitude””
— Goldman Sachs economist Pierfrancesco Mei, as quoted in Fortune
How Much AI Caused the Displacement
The main uncertainty is how accurately Goldman’s measure identifies AI-caused job losses. The method combines exposure, industry adoption and position elimination; it does not directly establish that AI was the reason an individual worker was laid off. The “likely AI-displaced” label is therefore an analytical classification, not a confirmed account of each person’s circumstances.
The note itself is not public, so the new estimates are based on Fortune’s account and cannot be checked against the full analysis from the source material. It is also unclear how the results vary by education, region and other worker characteristics. Goldman’s historical findings concern earlier technological change and should not be treated as a forecast of the exact size or duration of AI’s effects.
Tracking Outcomes as AI Adoption Grows
The next step is to see whether further data confirm the reported pattern as more workers experience job changes amid wider AI adoption. Goldman has said it is too early to assess impacts across all dimensions. The figures may change as researchers observe additional job losses and follow affected workers into new roles.
For now, readers should distinguish the Goldman estimate from direct government counts: no government survey currently identifies AI as the cause of a layoff. Future public research or more detailed disclosures from Goldman could clarify the method and show whether longer searches, reemployment pay losses and age differences persist. Until then, the findings are an early signal, not a definitive tally of AI-driven unemployment.
Key Questions
What did Goldman Sachs find about workers likely displaced by AI?
Goldman’s note, as reported by Fortune, estimates that workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about one month longer to find another job and were roughly 10 percentage points more likely to remain unemployed a year later than other laid-off workers.
Does the estimate prove that AI caused these workers to lose their jobs?
No. The analysis used a proxy combining occupational AI exposure, industry adoption and whether a position was eliminated. It does not directly establish the cause of each layoff, and no government survey asks workers whether AI cost them their jobs.
Were older workers affected differently?
Fortune reported that workers aged 35 and older took about five weeks longer than comparable laid-off workers to return to full-time work, while those under 35 took about three weeks longer. Goldman also said the effects remain too early to assess fully across groups.
What does Goldman’s historical research say about retraining?
In Goldman’s historical data on technology displacement, workers who retrained within three years had about 2 percentage points more real wage growth over ten years and a roughly 10-point lower chance of becoming unemployed again. The findings describe an association and do not guarantee the same results for people displaced by AI.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
