Goldman Sachs Connects AI Layoff Scars To 40 Years Of Tech Shocks

🔍 Read the full analysis: Goldman Sachs Connects AI Layoff Scars To 40 Years Of Tech Shocks on ThorstenMeyerAI.com

Buying for a business?Offer from Amazon

Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies

• Business-only prices and quantity discounts
• Tax-exempt purchasing
• Multiple users, one account, clear invoices

Create a free Business account →Free to register

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.Hide

Workers whose jobs were likely displaced by AI since 2025 took about a 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, according to a Goldman Sachs note reported by Fortune. The comparison links the early effects of AI-related job loss to decades of research on workers displaced by earlier technologies, whose employment and earnings often remained affected long after they found another job.

Goldman economist Pierfrancesco Mei wrote the client note, dated October 29, 2026. The note is not public; the new figures are drawn from Fortune’s report, which quotes it. They should be treated as reported findings, not as estimates independently verified from the underlying note. No government survey directly asks workers whether AI caused their job loss, so Goldman used an indirect method to identify people it considered likely to have been displaced by AI.

As described in the report, Goldman analyzed Labor Department data on more than 15,000 people who lost jobs between 2016 and 2025. It combined occupational exposure to AI, the rate of AI adoption in the industry and whether the position was eliminated to create a score. Workers in the top 30% were classified as “likely AI-displaced.” Goldman reportedly found no significant difference in outcomes between that group and other laid-off workers for job losses before 2023, when AI adoption began to rise.

For job losses since 2025, the reported results show a longer return to work and a higher chance of still being unemployed after a year. Workers aged 35 and older took about five weeks longer than comparable laid-off workers to return to full-time employment, while those under 35 took about three weeks longer. Goldman also found that AI-displaced workers were more likely to leave their previous occupation and industry. Some who returned to work, particularly older workers, reportedly took jobs with similar or higher AI exposure.

The Costs Can Outlast the Layoff

The distinction between losing a job and recovering from the loss matters for workers, employers and policymakers. A longer job search can mean more time without wages, while a lower-paying replacement job can carry a cost well after reemployment. Goldman’s historical research suggests that a return to work does not necessarily restore a worker’s prior earnings path.

Goldman’s public research on technology-related job displacement found that affected workers took about one month longer to find new jobs and lost more than 3% in real pay when reemployed. Over the following decade, their real earnings growth was nearly 10 percentage points lower than for workers who had never been laid off. These are historical results, not a forecast that every worker displaced by AI will experience the same outcome.

The findings also point to uneven effects. The reported age gap suggests older workers may face a slower return to full-time work, while the occupational and industry changes indicate that some workers may not be able to resume similar careers. Goldman’s historical analysis found that retraining within three years was associated 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 retraining alone caused the difference.

Popular right now

Vitamix 5200 Professional-Grade Blender, 64 oz. Container, Black

AmazonView Latest Price

Bose QuietComfort Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones, Petal Pink

AmazonView Latest Price

Ninja Foodi 8-Quart DualZone 6-in-1 Air Fryer, Grey (DZ201)

AmazonView Latest Price

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.

Four Decades of Displacement Data

The new comparison draws on Goldman 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 and used National Longitudinal Surveys following over 20,000 workers through their careers. They tracked people in occupations most exposed to technology in different decades and compared their later job and earnings outcomes with those of other workers.

In that historical analysis, technology-displaced workers took longer to find new work and experienced a larger pay reduction on reemployment than workers laid off from stable or growing occupations. Goldman’s research also found that the costs of displacement were larger during economic downturns. Its economists expect AI-related job losses to accelerate if the economy slows; that is an outlook, not a confirmed future outcome.

Separate Labor Department 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. Those figures cover laid-off workers generally, not just people whose job loss was linked to AI. The same data showed that about 49% of long-tenured workers who returned to full-time employment earned as much as before or more, down from about 62% two years earlier.

““comparable in magnitude””

— Pierfrancesco Mei, Goldman Sachs economist, as quoted in Fortune

Limits of the AI Job Estimate

The reported figures depend on Goldman’s definition of likely AI displacement, which combines exposure, industry adoption and position elimination. Because the government does not directly ask whether AI caused a worker’s job loss, the method cannot establish that AI was the reason for each individual layoff. Other factors may also have contributed.

The underlying October note is not public, and the figures in the new analysis are reported through Fortune rather than verified against the note here. It is also too early to assess outcomes across education and region, according to Mei. The available information does not establish how many workers will ultimately find comparable jobs, whether current patterns will persist, or how much of the reported difference is attributable to AI rather than broader labor-market conditions.

More Evidence as Workers Reenter Jobs

The next step is to see whether further data confirm the reported gap as more workers displaced since 2025 move through job searches and into new roles. A clearer picture will depend on longer follow-up, stronger evidence about the reasons for individual layoffs, and analysis of outcomes by age, education, region, occupation and industry.

Goldman’s historical work suggests that the first measure to watch should not be layoffs alone. Time to reemployment, pay in the next job, subsequent job stability and whether workers return to comparable occupations will help show whether AI-related displacement is following the pattern seen in earlier technology shocks. The available note does not set out a specific date for a follow-up analysis.

Key Questions

What did Goldman Sachs report about workers likely displaced by AI?

According to Fortune’s report on a Goldman client note, workers who likely lost jobs to AI since 2025 took about a 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.

How did Goldman identify likely AI-related job losses?

Goldman reportedly combined occupational exposure to AI, the pace of AI adoption in a worker’s industry and whether the position was eliminated. It classified workers in the top 30% of its score as likely AI-displaced. The method is an estimate; it does not directly confirm why any individual lost a job.

Does the research show that all AI-displaced workers will lose pay?

No. Goldman’s public historical research found average real-pay losses among workers displaced by earlier technologies, but that result does not predict every worker’s outcome or prove that AI will produce the same effects.

Who appears to face a longer return to work?

The reported Goldman note found a larger delay for workers aged 35 and older: about five weeks longer to return to full-time work than comparable laid-off workers, versus about three weeks for workers under 35. These estimates are reported by Fortune and rely on Goldman’s indirect classification of likely AI displacement.

What remains unknown about AI-related layoffs?

The available information does not establish the cause of each layoff, how outcomes differ by education or region, or whether the reported job-search and unemployment gaps will persist. Goldman’s October note is not public, and the new figures have not been independently confirmed here.

Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com