🔍 Read the full analysis: From Tech Shocks To AI Layoffs: Why The Aftermath Matters 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, described by Fortune but not publicly available, estimates that workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about a month longer to find work than other laid-off workers and were more likely to remain unemployed a year later. Goldman’s separate historical research links technology-related job loss to lasting pay and earnings setbacks, though the AI estimates are indirect and the effects are still developing.
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 a Goldman Sachs note reported by Fortune. The findings matter because they suggest that the cost of AI-related job loss may extend beyond the layoff itself, although Goldman’s estimate is indirect and its note is not public.
Goldman economist Pierfrancesco Mei compared workers classified as likely displaced by AI with other people who had lost jobs. Fortune’s October 30 account said the Goldman note was dated October 29. Because the note was sent to clients and was not publicly available, the figures for recent AI-related displacement are based on Fortune’s reporting and have not been independently checked against the note.
Goldman did not rely on a government survey that asks whether AI caused a person’s job loss; no such survey exists. Instead, the bank reportedly analyzed more than 15,000 people who lost jobs between 2016 and 2025, combining an occupation’s exposure to AI, the pace of AI adoption in its industry and whether the position was eliminated. Workers in the top 30% of the resulting score 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.
For workers who lost jobs since 2025, Fortune reported a longer job search and a greater chance of still being unemployed after a year. The reported age difference was also substantial: workers 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. The estimates describe a group identified by Goldman’s model, not confirmed individual cases of AI-caused job loss.
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 Loss Costs Can Persist
The reported findings shift attention from how many jobs are cut to what happens to workers afterward: how long they remain out of work, what they earn when rehired and whether they can keep the new job. If searches lengthen and workers return at lower pay, the effects can reach household income well after a company has finished announcing reductions.
Goldman’s public historical research gives a longer-term comparison, but it is not a forecast for every person affected by AI. In research covering technological displacement since the 1980s, the bank found that displaced workers took about one month longer to find work, lost more than 3% in real pay when reemployed and had real earnings growth nearly 10 percentage points lower over the following decade than workers who had not been laid off. Those figures describe past technology-related job losses, not measured outcomes for the current AI cohort.
The results also highlight possible differences among workers. Older workers reportedly took longer to return to full-time employment in the new analysis. Separate Bureau of Labor Statistics figures cited in the source material show that, among long-tenured workers aged 25 to 54, 72.9% were working again by January 2026, compared with 57.3% of those aged 55 to 64. That government comparison covers laid-off workers generally, not only people displaced by AI.
Popular right now
Vitamix 5200 Professional-Grade Blender, 64 oz. Container, Black
Vitamix Propel Series 750 Professional-Grade Blender, 4 Programs, Black
Ninja CREAMi 7-in-1 Ice Cream Maker, NC301
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Goldman Built Its Comparison
The recent estimate is part of a broader line of Goldman research. In its June 2026 “Top of Mind” report and a September summary, Mei and colleagues Jessica Rindels and David Mericle examined technology exposure across more than 300 occupations. They used National Longitudinal Surveys, which have followed more than 20,000 workers through their careers, to compare people in technology-exposed work with other workers over time.
That historical work found that people displaced by technology faced a slower return to work and a pay penalty. The source material also reports that 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. These are associations in Goldman’s historical analysis; they do not establish that retraining alone caused the difference or guarantee similar results for workers affected by AI today.
Other measures point to pressure on reemployment pay among long-tenured workers overall. The Bureau of Labor Statistics figures cited in the source say about 49% of those who returned to full-time work earned as much as before or more, down from about 62% two years earlier. This is not an AI-specific measure. It provides a broader labor-market comparison rather than proof of the effects of AI layoffs.
““comparable in magnitude””
— Pierfrancesco Mei, Goldman Sachs economist, as quoted in Fortune
AI Displacement Is Hard to Isolate
The central uncertainty is whether the workers identified by Goldman’s scoring method actually lost their jobs because of AI. The method combines occupational exposure, industry adoption and position elimination, but the source material says there is no government survey directly recording AI as the cause. “Likely AI-displaced” is therefore an estimate, not a confirmed count of AI-caused layoffs.
The Goldman note itself is not public, and the reported figures come from Fortune’s account. The available material does not provide enough detail to independently evaluate the full analysis, including how results vary by region, education or other worker characteristics. Mei said it was too early to assess impacts across all those dimensions.
It is also unclear whether the recent job-search gap will persist, whether workers will eventually regain lost earnings, or how much any outcome reflects AI rather than broader economic conditions. Goldman’s historical findings offer a comparison, but they cannot establish the future results of the current AI-related workforce changes.
Watch Jobs, Pay and Retraining
The next evidence will come from tracking whether workers classified as likely AI-displaced find new jobs, how long the search takes and what their pay and employment stability look like afterward. Public data on displaced workers can help show wider labor-market patterns, but it does not by itself identify AI as the cause of a specific job loss.
Goldman’s note, as reported, also suggests that a weaker economy could worsen displacement costs: the bank’s historical research finds larger costs during downturns, and its economists expect AI-related job losses to accelerate if the economy slows. That is a stated expectation, not a confirmed forecast of future layoffs. For now, the central question is whether the early gap reported by Fortune develops into the longer-term pay and employment damage seen in historical technology displacement.
Key Questions
What did Goldman Sachs report about workers likely displaced by AI?
According to Fortune’s report on a Goldman note, workers likely displaced since 2025 took about a month longer to find work than other laid-off workers and were roughly 10 percentage points more likely to remain unemployed a year later.
Did Goldman confirm that AI caused each worker’s job loss?
No. Goldman reportedly used a score based on occupational AI exposure, industry adoption and whether a position was eliminated. The group was described as “likely AI-displaced”; the method does not confirm the cause of each individual layoff.
What does Goldman’s historical research say about technology layoffs?
Goldman’s public research found that workers displaced by technology historically took about a month longer to find work, lost more than 3% in real pay when reemployed and had lower real earnings growth over the following decade than workers who were not laid off. These are historical findings, not guarantees of future outcomes for AI-displaced workers.
Which workers reportedly faced longer returns to full-time work?
In the new estimate described by Fortune, workers aged 35 and older took about five weeks longer to return to full-time work than comparable laid-off workers, compared with about three weeks for those under 35.
What remains unknown about the findings?
The Goldman note is not public, and no government survey directly asks whether AI caused a job loss. The exact role of AI, how outcomes differ by education or region, and whether the reported job-search gap will lead to lasting pay losses remain uncertain.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
