There are two levels here. It isn't affecting the actual job market (what the Fed's talking about), but it's having a huge impact on the narratives surrounding it and the pipelines feeding into it (e.g. resume spamming and slush pipe filtering).
The AI hype seems to be a smokescreen for mass layoffs from the CoVid era. The increased attention on the H-1B visa’s hiring process and labor market impact reveals a far more underreported and significant contributor to job shortages. Also, a lot of these companies have existed way longer than they should have.
Be happy you’re not employed in tech course content creation or something that is directly replaceable TODAY, like language translation or low-level graphic design.
> The AI hype seems to be a smokescreen for mass layoffs from the CoVid era
This. Better to tell markets "we can now downsize our workforce due to incredible efficiencies achieved by our AI initiative" than "we hired too many people, grew slower than expected and now we're making cuts"
A little tinfoil birdie told me that even the Covid era itself (and the resultant mass layoffs during, mass hiring following, and mass layoffs following that) were a smokescreen for (bond?) market instability. I personally tend to think that both were more of a, "Don't let a good crisis go to waste," situation.
Market hiccups? Use a pandemic panic to justify printing a ton of money.
Printed too much money? Distribute it to the "right" people through a hiring frenzy, personnel you totally need in order to build a metaverse or whatever.
Money ran out + overleveraging during the boom + market changes caused by the rapid socioeconomic shifts (e.g., commercial real estate tanking)? You can cover the bottom line for now with a lot of firing and consolidation, say it's AI's fault.
One way I had it explained to me (may be different now).. H-1B's are often a way of getting willing candidates who are overqualified to work tons of extra hours for years compared to other options.
How has humanity organised itself to maximize productivity throughout time? By means of slavery.
What really is h1b at the core? Its a modern form of slavery - it appears to be voluntary in nature (to a degree it is) but the key point is that it creates lock in. That lock in enables a slave-like culture to thrive. And this is what we see.
And btw just install Sundar and Satya as CEOs to voluntarily attract more Indian software engineers and so on...
Lmao its so easy to see whats been going on. These guys arent all that smart, even though they are worshipped.
A couple of things. I'm not disputing the findings here, but I do think there are some caveats to be aware of.
Firstly, this doesn't seem to differentiate between fields/industries. It's entirely possible for AI to devastate a particular segment (like graphic design or software dev, etc) while still appearing low-impact on the overall.
Secondly,
> "Businesses reported a notable increase in AI use over the past year, yet very few firms reported AI-induced layoffs," New York Fed economists wrote in the blog.
Is this only relying on self-reporting? What company wants to be the lightning rod who comes out and says, "we laid off a bunch of people and replaced with AI"? Maybe for huge public companies that can't fudge it this would be ok, but relying on self-reports comes with an inherent risk of bias
> What company wants to be the lightning rod who comes out and says, "we laid off a bunch of people and replaced with AI"?
Isn't that precisely what all publicly traded companies want to say, and are often saying? I feel like I read a new headline of some sociopathic CEO bragging about how many people he managed to lay off thanks to AI every day.
i can only speak to my personal experiences and not the entire "Job Market" but i have seen qualified, competent team members let go during "positive transformations" and expectations that their workload will be covered by others while corporate crows about how using AI will be such a force multiplier for those who remain.
Best as I can tell, and I'm just some guy, is there is a real problem with the job market, not just in the US. AI is mainly interesting for the media to report on and hype for CEOs and the kind of MBA airheads no one with any self respect should pay attention to. It's a fairly cool search, synthesis and retrieval tool with real value but it's not as impactful as 'thoughtleaders' want us to believe.
In the US as elsewhere it's a combination of factors, COVID overhiring and inflation, interest rates going up, market concentration and, US specific, the since Trump-reversed Trump-imposed tax changes. While this reversal probably helps the job market some in the immediate term the indicators of the fundamentals are flashing red everywhere and outside of the US it all just continues to be part of the same Omnirecession since 2008.
There seems to be wishful thinking on HN where people seem very biased in general against any article that claims AI is taking jobs, and supportive by default of any article that claims it isn't. For some reason many people just refuse to accept that AI could even just be one of many reasons leading to job loss.
AI hasn’t don’t anything. It hasn’t eliminated jobs. It hasn’t increased revenues. It’s just another shiny toy for people to play with and buy some mental laziness. It’s a nothing technology, empty calories.
I've seen it affecting in a few ways: Less customer service employees at call centers, replaced by lengthy, egregiously pedantic AI systems. Some fast food places are replacing employees with an AI drive through. I've also seen AI health coaching services that removes the dietitian/nutritionist/health coach from the equation. Not quite AI, but getting there, are the self checkouts slowly replacing front line cashiers, etc.
So I think it is affecting the job market, but not in the white collar, higher paying jobs that people tend to notice.
AI may not affect tech jobs in NYC and other marquee locations and big city hubs in the near future. We could see a trend of smaller office locations get shuttered, and more people asked to relocate to major hubs/HQs. So I can understand the picture in NYC.
But if they’re talking about New York state as a whole, then I’d question their data/or inference. Companies in the area haven’t hired much in the last couple of years. Now we’ve got more layoff pressure on top of the non-existent hiring. The other day, Mark Benioff (Salesforce CEO) very clearly said on TV that his main problem is that he “need(s) fewer heads”.
Edit: Lightly updated my outlook to sound less decisive because I don’t really know anymore. So much is up in the air. Policy decisions at the government level could alter how it all plays out.
>"Indeed, for those already employed, our results indicate AI is more likely to result in retraining than job loss, similar to our findings from last year
>The New York Fed blog noted that the modest impact on jobs so far may not hold in the future. "Looking ahead, firms anticipate more significant layoffs and scaled-back hiring as they continue to integrate AI into their operations," New York Fed researchers wrote.
Oh okay, so the title should be "AI not affecting the [financial] Job Market... yet"
the NY Fed actually said "very few firms reported AI-induced layoffs"
this is quite different than "not affecting job market"
We don't expect mass layoffs from AI (yet), but we do see companies not hiring, especially entry level workers, because of the promises of AI (real or imagined)
31 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 49.0 ms ] threadBe happy you’re not employed in tech course content creation or something that is directly replaceable TODAY, like language translation or low-level graphic design.
This. Better to tell markets "we can now downsize our workforce due to incredible efficiencies achieved by our AI initiative" than "we hired too many people, grew slower than expected and now we're making cuts"
Market hiccups? Use a pandemic panic to justify printing a ton of money.
Printed too much money? Distribute it to the "right" people through a hiring frenzy, personnel you totally need in order to build a metaverse or whatever.
Money ran out + overleveraging during the boom + market changes caused by the rapid socioeconomic shifts (e.g., commercial real estate tanking)? You can cover the bottom line for now with a lot of firing and consolidation, say it's AI's fault.
How has humanity organised itself to maximize productivity throughout time? By means of slavery.
What really is h1b at the core? Its a modern form of slavery - it appears to be voluntary in nature (to a degree it is) but the key point is that it creates lock in. That lock in enables a slave-like culture to thrive. And this is what we see.
And btw just install Sundar and Satya as CEOs to voluntarily attract more Indian software engineers and so on...
Lmao its so easy to see whats been going on. These guys arent all that smart, even though they are worshipped.
And why not? It benefits them. I get it. But lets be real about it.
Firstly, this doesn't seem to differentiate between fields/industries. It's entirely possible for AI to devastate a particular segment (like graphic design or software dev, etc) while still appearing low-impact on the overall.
Secondly,
> "Businesses reported a notable increase in AI use over the past year, yet very few firms reported AI-induced layoffs," New York Fed economists wrote in the blog.
Is this only relying on self-reporting? What company wants to be the lightning rod who comes out and says, "we laid off a bunch of people and replaced with AI"? Maybe for huge public companies that can't fudge it this would be ok, but relying on self-reports comes with an inherent risk of bias
Isn't that precisely what all publicly traded companies want to say, and are often saying? I feel like I read a new headline of some sociopathic CEO bragging about how many people he managed to lay off thanks to AI every day.
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff says his company has cut 4,000 customer service jobs as AI steps in: ‘I need less heads’
seems not true ?
In the US as elsewhere it's a combination of factors, COVID overhiring and inflation, interest rates going up, market concentration and, US specific, the since Trump-reversed Trump-imposed tax changes. While this reversal probably helps the job market some in the immediate term the indicators of the fundamentals are flashing red everywhere and outside of the US it all just continues to be part of the same Omnirecession since 2008.
Technology of any kind evolves all societies.
So I think it is affecting the job market, but not in the white collar, higher paying jobs that people tend to notice.
Maybe it hasn’t come for jobs that are not entry level yet.
But if they’re talking about New York state as a whole, then I’d question their data/or inference. Companies in the area haven’t hired much in the last couple of years. Now we’ve got more layoff pressure on top of the non-existent hiring. The other day, Mark Benioff (Salesforce CEO) very clearly said on TV that his main problem is that he “need(s) fewer heads”.
Edit: Lightly updated my outlook to sound less decisive because I don’t really know anymore. So much is up in the air. Policy decisions at the government level could alter how it all plays out.
I guess that angle it doesn't contradict this other posting earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45121342
Can't be laid off if you were never hired.
>The New York Fed blog noted that the modest impact on jobs so far may not hold in the future. "Looking ahead, firms anticipate more significant layoffs and scaled-back hiring as they continue to integrate AI into their operations," New York Fed researchers wrote.
Oh okay, so the title should be "AI not affecting the [financial] Job Market... yet"
the NY Fed actually said "very few firms reported AI-induced layoffs"
this is quite different than "not affecting job market"
We don't expect mass layoffs from AI (yet), but we do see companies not hiring, especially entry level workers, because of the promises of AI (real or imagined)
The Evidence That AI Is Destroying Jobs For Young People Just Got Stronger
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45121342