←back to thread

AI adoption linked to 13% decline in jobs for young U.S. workers: study

(www.cnbc.com)
440 points pseudolus | 1 comments | 28 Aug 25 14:13 UTC | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
kerblang ◴[28 Aug 25 22:27 UTC] No.45057750[source]▶
High interest rates + tariff terror -> less investment -> less jobs

But let's blame AI

replies(19): >>45057802 #>>45057835 #>>45057896 #>>45058019 #>>45058030 #>>45058059 #>>45058070 #>>45058100 #>>45058231 #>>45058339 #>>45058429 #>>45058459 #>>45058497 #>>45058512 #>>45058575 #>>45058578 #>>45058645 #>>45058669 #>>45059576 #
ToValueFunfetti ◴[28 Aug 25 23:15 UTC] No.45058100[source]▶
You really do have to account for why this is mainly happening in industries that are adopting AI, why it's almost exclusively impacting entry-level positions (with senior positions steady or growing), and why controlling for broad economic conditions failed to correct this. I doubt very much that these three Stanford professors would be blindsided by the concept of rates and tarriffs.
replies(6): >>45058305 #>>45058340 #>>45058444 #>>45058523 #>>45058528 #>>45058609 #
1. ares623 ◴[29 Aug 25 00:17 UTC] No.45058523[source]▶
My personal theory is that the stock market rewards the behavior of cutting jobs as a signal of the company being on the AI bandwagon. Doesn't matter if the roles were needed or not. Line goes up, therefore it is good.

This is a complete reversal in the past where having a high headcount was an easy signal of a company's growth (i.e. more people, means more people building features, means more growth).

Investors are lazy. They see one line go down, they make the other line go up.

CEOs are lazy. They see line go up when other line goes down. So they make other line go down.

(I am aware that "line go up" is a stupid meme. But I think it's a perfect way to describe what's happening. It is stupid, lazy, absurd, memetic. It's the only thing that matters, stripped off of anything that is incidental. Line must go up.)