The other data is which jobs have seen the greatest falls in advertised vacancies. If you look at the graph it looks compelling with programmers and management consultants at the bottom - but these are also jobs that were likely to do badly in any downturn anyway.
There are also falls in vacancies for jobs completely unrelated to AI - bar staff, vets, vehicle cleaners, boat builders.... look at the graph on Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-26/ai-job-cu...
If AI means you don't need to hire so many 2-5 year experience employees it means you're not creating 5year + experience employees available for the market.
This might mean that AI expands it's niche, as experienced employees become more scared we'll have to push more of their work onto AI.
I'm not sure it's going to be all industries that have this issue. Some are far more reliant on junior roles.
Like SWE, but also accountants, lawyers and their paralegals, etc.
I wish journalism was not used for other purposes rather than what it is being used for
Lots of those. That would mean a journalist actually address the complexity of cause and effect in a national economy. Not going to happen.
Why not both?
The companies responding know best why they do and don't hire.
I once saw a survey question (on what the view was of economic outlook and exchange rates) been bounced to someone junior, who then looked to an external source which based its answer partly on the previous version of the same survey.
What we would be seeing if the AI uptake was productive would be faster GDP growth, and an uptick in the job market as they would be looking for people to leverage the AI into even more productive gains.
It is October, and the Indians on a remote reservation ask their new Chief if the coming winter is going to be cold or mild…
:)