AI not affecting job market much so far, New York Fed says

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Trust in the Fed and macro backdrop

  • Some distrust the Fed’s assessment, citing its failure to foresee 2008 and disagreement over how well it handled 2019–2024 inflation.
  • Commenters debate whether inflation was “under control,” with back-and-forth on cumulative vs annual rates and whether rate hikes came too late.
  • A minority push semi‑conspiratorial views tying COVID, money printing, and hiring/firing cycles to deeper market instability; others push back and give a more conventional reading of pandemic-driven market moves.

How AI is (and isn’t) affecting jobs

  • Many agree that if current AI capabilities had already caused large-scale job loss, it would be alarming; the limited macro impact so far seems plausible.
  • Distinction is drawn between:
    • Little visible aggregate impact on employment figures.
    • Substantial impact on narratives, hiring pipelines, and justification for restructuring.

Measurement, self-reporting, and the headline

  • The Fed’s wording (“very few firms reported AI-induced layoffs”) is seen as narrower than the article title (“not affecting job market”).
  • Commenters note firms may avoid saying “we fired people for AI,” especially in surveys, creating self-report bias.
  • Others point out that some CEOs explicitly boast of AI-driven cuts, which gets turned into “AI killed tech jobs” headlines.

Sector-specific impacts and anecdotes

  • Commenters emphasize that aggregate stats can hide severe effects in niches: tech content, translation, low-end design, customer service, and parts of media/VFX.
  • Multiple anecdotes: teams told to cover laid-off colleagues’ work “with AI,” small firms avoiding hires because LLMs let existing staff do more, call centers and drive‑throughs experimenting with AI agents, and self‑checkout plus “AI” loss-prevention systems replacing some cashier roles.
  • Quality complaints are common (AI ads, local news visuals, customer service bots and IVRs) but companies accept them for cost reasons.

Entry-level and young workers

  • A linked Fed study suggests AI-heavy firms have sharply reduced jobs for young workers.
  • Thread consensus: incumbents are more likely to be retrained; the real hit is to new hiring and entry‑level roles—“you can’t be laid off if you were never hired.”

Hype, excuses, and future expectations

  • Many view AI as a convenient cover for correcting COVID-era overhiring, slower growth, and interest-rate pressure, alongside other tools like visas and offshoring.
  • Some argue AI hasn’t yet delivered big revenue or productivity gains and is overhyped; others believe displacement will accelerate once systems mature.
  • Several note the Fed itself expects more layoffs and reduced hiring from AI in the future, so the “no impact” framing is seen as “not yet, at scale.”