🔍 Read the full analysis: What Happens When AI Displaces Workers? Goldman Sachs Looks To History 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 note dated October 29, 2026, estimates that workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 have taken about a month longer to find work and are roughly 10 percentage points more likely to remain unemployed a year later than other laid-off workers. The note is not public, and the figures come from Fortune’s report; Goldman’s published research on earlier technology-related job losses finds lasting effects on pay and earnings.
Goldman Sachs estimates that workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 have taken about one month longer to find new jobs than other laid-off workers, and are roughly 10 percentage points more likely to remain unemployed a year later. The figures come from a client note by economist Pierfrancesco Mei, dated October 29 and described by Fortune the next day; the note itself is not public, so the results have not been independently checked against the original document.
According to Fortune’s account, Goldman used Labor Department data on displaced workers to estimate who was likely to have lost a job because of AI. The government survey does not ask respondents whether AI caused their job loss. Goldman instead combined each occupation’s AI exposure, the pace of AI adoption in its industry and whether the position was eliminated to build a measure of likely displacement.
The analysis covered more than 15,000 people who lost jobs between 2016 and 2025, Fortune reported. Goldman classified the top 30% on its measure as “likely AI-displaced.” The report found no significant difference in job-loss outcomes between this group and other laid-off workers before 2023, when AI adoption began to rise, according to Fortune. The post-2025 comparisons are estimates, not a direct count of workers whose employers explicitly attributed a layoff to AI.
For workers in the likely AI-displaced group, Fortune reported a longer return to work and a greater chance of remaining unemployed after a year. The note also found an age difference: people 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. AI-displaced workers were also 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 Costs Can Outlast the Layoff
The findings focus on what happens after a job ends, rather than counting layoffs alone. A longer job search can mean a longer period without earnings, while a lower-paid or less stable next job can carry costs beyond the initial unemployment spell. That distinction matters for workers, employers and policymakers trying to understand whether AI-related displacement is a short interruption or a longer change in a person’s working life.
Goldman’s historical research suggests the risks may extend to pay and career progression. In its public analysis of earlier technology-related job losses, workers who found new jobs experienced more than a 3% decline in real pay on reemployment, compared with negligible losses among workers laid off from stable or growing occupations. Over the following decade, their real earnings growth was nearly 10 percentage points lower. Those historical results do not establish what will happen to today’s AI-displaced workers, but they provide a comparison for the new, still limited evidence.
The reported age gap also points to unequal effects. Older workers in Goldman’s estimate took longer to return to full-time work, while government data on displaced workers show a similar pattern among some age groups. That does not prove AI itself caused the difference: the government figures cover layoffs generally, and outcomes can reflect factors such as industry, location and the state of the labor market.
Products Worth Considering
Brother QL-800 High-Speed Professional Thermal Label Printer
Dell 24 Plus Monitor S2425HSM – 23.8 FHD (1920×1080) 144Hz 1ms, 2 x 3W Speakers, HDMI, Height/Tilt/Pivot/Swivel Adjustability, AMD FreeSync
Canon IVY 2 Mini Photo Printer Bundle, Pure White, with 110 ZINK Prints and Protective Case
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Earlier Waves Offer a Comparison
Goldman’s historical benchmark comes from research published in its June 2026 “Top of Mind” report and a September summary. Mei, Jessica Rindels and David Mericle examined more than 300 occupations over several decades, using National Longitudinal Surveys that followed more than 20,000 workers through their careers. They compared people in occupations more exposed to technology with workers in jobs that were stable or growing.
Goldman’s public research found that workers displaced by technology took about one month longer to find another job and faced weaker real-pay outcomes after reemployment. It also found that their real earnings grew nearly 10 percentage points less over the next decade than earnings for workers who were never laid off. These figures describe the historical research; they are not forecasts of the exact impact of AI on current workers.
Government data offer additional, but broader, context. The source material reports that 72.9% of long-tenured workers aged 25 to 54 were working again by January 2026, compared with 57.3% of those aged 55 to 64. Those numbers cover long-tenured displaced workers generally, not a group identified as losing jobs to AI. The same source says the share of long-tenured workers who found full-time work and earned as much as or more than before was about 49%, down from about 62% two years earlier.
““comparable in magnitude””
— Pierfrancesco Mei, Goldman Sachs economist, as quoted in Fortune
AI’s Exact Role Is Uncertain
The October note is not public, and the figures in this article’s source material come from Fortune’s reporting rather than direct review of the document. The estimate also depends on Goldman’s method for identifying likely AI displacement. Because the underlying government survey does not record whether AI caused a job loss, the group is a proxy, not a verified list of workers laid off because of AI.
The reported results cover a relatively early period of AI adoption and do not settle how outcomes will change as employers use the technology more widely. Goldman said it was too early to assess differences by education and region. It is also unclear from the reported material how much of the longer job search reflects AI exposure itself, rather than differences in occupations, industries, location or other labor-market conditions.
The historical findings are informative but not a guarantee that AI-related job losses will produce the same wage and earnings effects. The source material says Goldman expects AI-related losses to speed up when the economy slows and finds displacement costs are larger in downturns. Those are economic assessments, not confirmation that a particular recession or wave of layoffs is imminent.
More Data Will Test the Estimate
The next step is better evidence on which workers lose jobs because of AI and what happens to them afterward. Government surveys currently do not directly ask whether AI caused a displacement, leaving researchers to rely on measures such as occupation exposure, industry adoption and job elimination. Future data that link the reason for a layoff to workers’ subsequent employment and pay could test Goldman’s estimate more directly.
Goldman’s historical analysis also points to retraining as a possible factor in recovery, though it does not establish that training alone caused better outcomes. In the historical data described in the source material, technology-displaced 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 source does not specify the comparison details for those figures, so they should be read as reported associations, not a promise of results for any individual worker.
For now, the October note offers an early comparison rather than a final account of AI’s labor-market effects. Further observations will show whether longer job searches persist, whether workers return to similar roles or move into other fields, and whether reemployment brings comparable pay. A slowdown could also change the pace and cost of displacement, but its effect remains uncertain.
Key Questions
What did Goldman Sachs find about workers likely displaced by AI?
Fortune reported that Goldman’s October 29 client note estimated these workers took about one month longer to find new work and were roughly 10 percentage points more likely than other laid-off workers to remain unemployed a year later.
Did Goldman directly identify workers laid off because of AI?
No. The Labor Department survey used in the analysis does not ask whether AI caused a job loss. Goldman created a proxy measure using occupation exposure, industry adoption and whether a position was eliminated.
Are the findings confirmed by the original Goldman note?
The note is not public. The figures are attributed to Fortune’s report, which quoted it; the source material says they have not been independently confirmed against the original document.
Goldman’s public research found that workers displaced by earlier technology took longer to find work, lost more than 3% in real pay when reemployed and had weaker real earnings growth over the following decade than workers who were never laid off. Those historical results do not determine what will happen to current AI-displaced workers.
What remains unknown about AI-related job losses?
It is not yet clear how the outcomes vary by education and region, how much AI itself explains the reported differences, or whether the early pattern will persist as adoption grows. The estimate is based on a proxy because the available government survey does not directly record AI as the cause of a layoff.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
