Economists Once Dismissed the A.I. Job Threat, but Not Anymore

[dalton99a]

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/03/business/economists-once-dismissed-the-ai-job-threat-but-not-anymore.html

https://dnyuz.com/2026/04/03/economists-once-dismissed-the-a-i-job-threat-but-not-anymore/

Economists Once Dismissed the A.I. Job Threat, but Not Anymore
Artificial intelligence hasn’t disrupted the labor market, economists say, but they are increasingly convinced that it will — and that policymakers are unprepared.
By Ben Casselman
April 3, 2026

Among tech evangelists in Silicon Valley, it has become conventional wisdom that artificial intelligence will rapidly reshape the labor market, for better or worse. Economists, however, have often discussed A.I.’s impact with a skepticism bordering on dismissiveness.

Rising unemployment among young college graduates? The result of high interest rates and macroeconomic uncertainty. Dire predictions of widespread job losses? A failure to understand the lessons of past technological revolutions. Even the layoffs that companies themselves blamed on artificial intelligence were often chalked up to “A.I.-washing” from executives looking for something to blame other than their own mismanagement.

Recently, however, the message from economists has undergone a subtle change. Most still do not see much evidence that A.I. is disrupting the job market. But they are starting to take seriously the possibility that it could someday soon. If it does, they are worried that policymakers are not ready to respond.

In a working paper published this week, a team of researchers surveyed economists about their outlook over the next five and 25 years. Most expect the economy to grow a bit more quickly as A.I. improves, but not to diverge substantially from historical patterns. If the technology improves rapidly — a possibility they consider unlikely but plausible — they envision a far more drastic scenario with faster growth but also greater inequality and the disappearance of millions of jobs.

...

[durablend]

1. Oh they're prepared allright

"OUT OF A JOB? SUCKS TO BE YOU!"

[OC375]

2. Break/Fix vs Maintenance

Two distinct ways to deal with complex systems.

Demonstrably, we choose wait to act until people are already hurt, have no juice, and are dependent on intervention. Always a million reasons to wait and see, not be too rash, and not change course too much until after I'm dead and buried. I've been made promises!

Then we put people on government programs (sometimes), fluff job numbers with disposable jobs, fight about who pays and gets paid for the trouble, and call ourselves an altruistic civilized bunch. "They''ll bounce back in the "new economy", and if they don't it's either their fault, or we need to double down and spend more on what didn't work every other time."

At some point, we'll realize that Door Dash, Blogger/YouTuber and AI-bot-tender aren't productive career alternatives for most, and that teaching old dogs new tricks is notoriously difficult, often for good reasons.

Physics beats philosophy most of the time, so we'll get there.

[ThoughtCriminal]

3. CEOs will embrace AI even if it is doing crappy work

Because they hate paying people.

AI can replace a lot of jobs in the same way that "Reality TV" replaces creative entertainment. Cheap, empty crap.