🔍 Read the full analysis: AI Layoffs Raise An Old Question: What Happens To Workers Afterward? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A Goldman Sachs client note, reported by Fortune, estimates that workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about a month longer to find new work than other laid-off workers and were about 10 percentage points more likely to remain unemployed a year later. The estimate is based on a model, not a government survey that identifies AI-related job losses; Goldman says it is too early to assess several effects.
A Goldman Sachs client note dated October 29 estimates that workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about one 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 Fortune’s report. The findings matter because they focus on what happens after a job loss, while also relying on an estimate rather than a government count of workers who lost jobs specifically because of AI.
Fortune business editor Nick Lichtenberg reported the note’s findings on October 30, quoting Goldman economist Pierfrancesco Mei. Goldman’s client note is not public, and the figures about workers displaced since 2025 have not been independently confirmed from the document. The estimates should be read as reported findings, not as a direct count of AI-caused layoffs.
Goldman constructed a measure because no government survey asks whether AI caused a respondent’s job loss. As described by Fortune, the firm analyzed more than 15,000 people who lost jobs between 2016 and 2025, combining estimates of occupational AI exposure, industry adoption and whether a position was eliminated. Workers in the top 30% of its measure were classified as “likely AI-displaced.” Goldman reportedly found no significant difference between that group and other laid-off workers for job losses before 2023, when AI adoption began to rise.
For the group losing jobs since 2025, Fortune reported longer searches and a greater chance of still being unemployed after 12 months. The note also described different outcomes by age: workers aged 35 and older 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. It said AI-displaced workers were more likely to leave their former occupation or industry, but some who found work moved into 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 Cost of a Longer Job Search
A layoff’s effect is not captured by the number of jobs cut alone. How quickly workers find another position, whether it is full-time and what it pays can shape the lasting cost to a household. The Goldman figures, if borne out, point to a more difficult return to work for people whose jobs are especially exposed to AI and suggest that finding a new role may not end the disruption.
Goldman’s public historical research offers a longer view, though it does not prove that today’s AI-displaced workers will have the same outcomes. In studies spanning several decades, workers displaced by earlier technological change took about a month longer to find work and lost more than 3% in real pay when reemployed. Their real earnings growth over the following decade was nearly 10 percentage points lower than that of workers who had not been laid off, according to the source material’s account of the research.
The findings also bear on employers and policymakers weighing how to respond to workplace automation. If some displaced workers face longer searches or lower earnings, the consequences may extend beyond the initial restructuring. But the new estimate does not establish how many jobs AI has caused to disappear, or whether AI was the decisive cause of any individual layoff.
Products Worth Considering
Apple MacBook Pro 2023 with M2 Pro Chip, 14‑inch, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD – Space Gray
FLEXISPOT 60 x 30-Inch Bamboo Electric Standing Desk with White Frame
HP OfficeJet 250 Wireless Mobile All-in-One Inkjet Printer
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What Earlier Technology Layoffs Show
Goldman’s comparison draws on research published before this week’s client note. In a June 2026 “Top of Mind” report and a September summary, Mei, Jessica Rindels and David Mericle examined workers across more than 300 occupations, using National Longitudinal Surveys that have followed more than 20,000 workers over their careers. The researchers identified occupations most exposed to technology in each decade and tracked the employment outcomes of people who held those jobs.
That historical analysis found that technological displacement was associated with a slower return to work, lower real pay after reemployment and weaker earnings growth over time. The source material also reports that workers who retrained within three years had about 2 percentage points more real wage growth over the next decade and a roughly 10-point lower chance of becoming unemployed again. These are historical associations; they do not guarantee that retraining will produce the same result for workers displaced by AI today.
Separate Bureau of Labor Statistics figures cited in the source show how outcomes can vary by age among long-tenured workers laid off for any reason. 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 jobs, about 49% earned as much as before or more, down from about 62% two years earlier. These government figures are not limited to AI-related layoffs.
““comparable in magnitude””
— Pierfrancesco Mei, Goldman Sachs economist, as quoted in Fortune
Limits of the AI Displacement Estimate
The central uncertainty is attribution. The United States has no government survey that directly records whether AI caused someone to lose a job, so Goldman’s “likely AI-displaced” category is a constructed estimate. It combines occupational exposure, industry adoption and position elimination; it does not establish the reason for each individual layoff.
The underlying client note is not publicly available, and the findings for job losses since 2025 are presented here through Fortune’s reporting. The source material says other coverage repeated Fortune’s figures, but that does not amount to independent verification of the analysis. Goldman also said it was too early to assess all dimensions of the effects, including differences by education and region.
It is also unclear whether the reported patterns will persist as AI adoption changes, or how much of the observed job-search difficulty reflects other economic conditions. Goldman’s historical research indicates that displacement costs can be larger during downturns, and its economists expect AI-related job losses to accelerate if the economy slows. That is a forecast, not a confirmed outcome.
More Data Will Test the Findings
The next step is for further labor-market data and research to show whether the reported pattern continues as more workers move through job searches after potential AI-related layoffs. The current analysis cannot distinguish all AI-related job losses from layoffs caused by other business or economic factors, making that distinction important for interpreting future results.
Readers should also watch for additional public detail from Goldman or reporting that can examine the client note’s methods and findings directly. The source material does not identify a date for a public release or a specific follow-up study. Until then, the note’s estimates remain a reported early signal; the longer-term effects on reemployment, pay and job stability are still developing.
Key Questions
How many workers has AI displaced?
The source material does not provide a reliable total. The Goldman analysis estimates outcomes for workers classified as likely AI-displaced; it is not a count of all jobs lost because of AI. No government survey cited in the material directly asks whether AI caused a person’s job loss.
What did Goldman estimate about workers’ job searches?
According to Fortune’s report of Goldman’s October 29 client note, workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about one 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.
Were older workers affected differently?
The note, as reported by Fortune, estimated that workers aged 35 and older took about five weeks longer than comparable laid-off workers to return to full-time work. For workers under 35, the reported difference was about three weeks. These are estimates, not government counts of AI-caused layoffs.
Does retraining help workers displaced by technology?
Goldman’s historical research found that technology-displaced workers who retrained within three years had about 2 percentage points more real wage growth over the following decade and a roughly 10-point lower chance of becoming unemployed again. Those historical associations do not guarantee similar outcomes for people affected by AI now.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
