🔍 Read the full analysis: What Happens After An AI Layoff? Goldman Sachs Sees The Same Scars As 40 Years Of Tech Shocks 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 client note, reported by Fortune, estimates that workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 took 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. Goldman’s historical research finds technology-related layoffs were linked to slower reemployment and lasting wage losses, but the new AI figures rely on an estimate rather than a government measure of AI-caused job loss.
Workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 took 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 client note reported by Fortune. The findings suggest that the consequences of AI-related job cuts may extend beyond the initial layoff, though Goldman’s measure of AI displacement is an estimate, not a direct government count.
The note, dated October 29, 2026, was written by Goldman economist Pierfrancesco Mei and was not publicly available to the article’s author. The figures and descriptions of its methods come from Fortune’s report the following day, which quoted the note. They should be treated as reported findings rather than independently verified figures from the note.
Goldman reportedly analyzed more than 15,000 people who lost jobs between 2016 and 2025, using the Labor Department’s Displaced Worker Supplement to the Current Population Survey. Because the survey does not ask whether AI caused someone’s job loss, Goldman combined occupational exposure to AI, industry adoption, and whether the position was eliminated to estimate displacement. Workers in the top 30% of its measure were classed as “likely AI-displaced.” Goldman found no significant difference in outcomes between that group and other laid-off workers for job losses before 2023, Fortune reported.
For job losses since 2025, Fortune says Goldman found a longer search for work and a higher chance of still being unemployed a year later. The note also reportedly found that 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. AI-displaced workers were more likely to leave their previous occupation or industry; among those rehired, some—especially older workers—entered jobs with similar or greater 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 shift attention from the number of announced job cuts to what happens to workers afterward: how long they remain out of work, whether they return to full-time employment, and what they earn in a new role. A longer search or a move into a less secure or lower-paid job can leave effects that are not captured by a company’s initial layoff announcement.
Goldman’s open historical research offers a warning, but not a forecast for every worker affected by AI. It found that workers displaced by earlier technology shifts took about one month longer to find work than those laid off from stable or growing occupations. They lost more than 3% in real pay when reemployed and had nearly 10 percentage points less real earnings growth over the following decade than workers who were never laid off. Those results describe past technology-related displacement, not a measured outcome for all current AI layoffs.
The analysis also matters for employers and policymakers weighing the effects of automation. If workers take longer to regain stable employment, the costs of adoption may fall on individuals and local labor markets even when companies benefit. Goldman’s historical work associates retraining within three years with about two percentage points more real wage growth over ten years and a roughly 10-point lower chance of becoming unemployed again. That association does not establish that training alone caused the better outcomes.
Products Worth Considering
Samsung 27 Odyssey OLED G5 (G50SF) QHD Gaming Monitor
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation, Dewdrop Mint
Jackery Explorer 300 Portable Power Station, 292Wh
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Four Decades of Job Displacement
Goldman’s comparison draws on research published publicly in a June 2026 “Top of Mind” report and a September summary by Mei and colleagues Jessica Rindels and David Mericle. The researchers examined more than 300 occupations and used National Longitudinal Surveys tracking over 20,000 workers through their careers to study what followed technology-related job losses dating back to the 1980s.
Those historical results point to more than a temporary interruption in employment. Goldman reported that workers displaced from technology-exposed occupations experienced weaker subsequent earnings than workers who were never laid off. In the newer client note, the firm reportedly compared its estimated AI-displaced group with other laid-off workers, rather than with workers who had never lost a job. The comparison groups are different, so the historical and current figures should not be read as a single direct measure.
Some government figures provide broader context on reemployment, although they cover long-tenured laid-off workers generally, not people identified as displaced by AI. 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. It also reports 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. These figures indicate age and pay challenges in the wider laid-off workforce; they do not prove AI caused those outcomes.
““comparable in magnitude””
— Pierfrancesco Mei, Goldman Sachs economist, as quoted in Fortune
Limits of the AI Displacement Estimate
No government survey directly identifies AI-caused job losses, so Goldman’s classification depends on a constructed score combining exposure, adoption, and job elimination. A job may be highly exposed to AI without having been eliminated because of it, and the information provided does not establish the cause of each worker’s layoff. The estimate therefore identifies workers considered likely to have been displaced, not a confirmed count of AI-caused layoffs.
The client note was not publicly available in the source material, and Fortune is the cited source for its figures. It is not clear from the available account how the reported results vary by region, education, industry, or specific AI system. Nor does the analysis establish whether the longer job searches or unemployment outcomes were caused by AI exposure rather than other differences among workers and employers.
Goldman’s findings on retraining are historical associations, while the current AI-related sample covers a relatively recent period. The source does not provide enough detail to determine whether outcomes have changed since the analysis, or how they might shift as AI adoption and labor demand develop.
Tracking Reemployment and Pay
The next useful evidence will be whether workers identified as likely AI-displaced continue to show longer searches and weaker employment outcomes as more data become available. Future analyses could clarify how results differ by age, occupation, education, and region—areas Mei reportedly said were too early to assess fully.
Readers should also distinguish future estimates of exposure from confirmed job losses and watch for publicly released methods or data that allow independent checks of Goldman’s approach. The source material does not identify a scheduled follow-up from Goldman or a government measure specifically tracking AI-caused displacement. For now, the reported note points to a possible pattern, while the scale and longer-term effects of AI-related layoffs remain unsettled.
Key Questions
What did Goldman Sachs report about workers likely displaced by AI?
According to Fortune’s account of a Goldman client note, workers likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about one month longer to find new work and were roughly 10 percentage points more likely to remain unemployed a year later than other laid-off workers.
Does the estimate confirm that AI caused these workers’ layoffs?
No. The Labor Department survey used in the analysis does not ask whether AI caused a job loss. Goldman reportedly used a score combining occupational exposure, industry adoption, and job elimination to identify workers considered likely to have been displaced.
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. The available report does not provide a full breakdown across other demographic groups.
What does Goldman’s historical research say about technology layoffs?
Goldman’s public research found that workers displaced by earlier technology shifts took longer to find work and experienced wage and earnings-growth losses relative to comparison groups. These historical findings are not direct measurements of the long-term effects of current AI-related layoffs.
What remains unknown about AI-related job losses?
The number of layoffs directly caused by AI, the results across regions and education levels, and the longer-term employment and pay outcomes remain unclear. The client note was not public in the source material, and the reported findings rely on an estimate of displacement.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
