The demand for cushy white collar desk jobs (which weren't around 30 years ago) is crashing. Rest of the world, not so much.
Cushy white collar desk jobs were not around in the mid 90s?
US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI
21–30 of 303 posts
Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI
#22Will the people wake up? We need a modern take of the movie "They Live". Granted, any copy would not be anywhere near as good as the original, even for a B movie, but AI is really turning into skynet (but it sucks).
If you're checking on open-registration internet forums (HackerNews in particular), you will never see "the people" wake up.
If you're arguing against "AI" on HackerNews, you might as well join the Washington Generals. You and your opinion are tolerated only as long as there is a more popular pro-AI opinion in the replies to your comment.
Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI
#23Most of the job losses are in tech and it all started back in late 2022 and early 2023 arguably before AI was perceived as a real threat. I think after 3 years of tech hiring melting because of all the economic uncertainty people can't see the forest for the trees anymore. Justy $0.02
Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI
#24[deleted]
Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI
#25The demand for cushy white collar desk jobs (which weren't around 30 years ago) is crashing. Rest of the world, not so much.
Cushy white collar desk jobs were not around in the mid 90s?
Nope, Most American workers were just auto plant workers and soybean farmers until the internet was invented in 1991.
Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI
#26I think people are blaming AI for a recession caused by trump’s tarrifs and the oil crisis. Businesses fear that oil prices may explode until enough of the economy enters a recession that oil demand decreases, and are already feeling the supply crunch
Yet the stock market is reaching ATH, I don't think recession is the accurate word. I also think the fixation on Trump is misleading and takes away from the actual structural side effects of dollar issuance via unbacked fiat. It's convenient scapegoating to take your attention away from the long lingering issue of US dollar dominance and debt that is now causing large social divide and standard of living. The physics…
Note for others - "ATH" => "All-Time High"
Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI
#27Has anyone done the math on how many jobs AI has to replace in order to justify current valuations? Would be interesting to see imo
I think the goal is to replace workers who cost $10,000/mo with an AI agent that costs $8,000/mo
$8000/month is way too low. If you're only spending $8000/month on AI you're in drastic danger of being replaced by a more efficient AI firm.
Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI
#28That thing that reassures me is that I kind of think most people in software aren't doing much useful work anyway, so if the whole thing was really driven by hiring the fewest humans possible to get the work done, companies probably could have fired half of us even without AI.
This matches my experience at MSFT. Very little work for too many people, MSFT CFO also said in the latest earnings calls that MSFT will have fewer people next year than this year, they offered buyouts to tenured people, did layoffs in LinkedIn not sure if there’s more to come.
Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI
#29Would like to see the numbers if we exclude healthcare jobs. I think job growth has been net-negative across the board when healthcare is excluded.
Re: US is starting to see heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI
#30> saw a 0.2% drop in employment between May 2024 and May 2025
So, the "AI job losses" just happen to be before AI started to boom, during the kickoff of largest trade war in 100 years?
They don't mention the trade war at all in the piece? And no analysis whatsoever of what other factors could have resulted in "customer service representatives and certain types of secretaries and salespeople" being let go. Who the hell writes this crap? What was the point?