A new one report from the Yale Budget Lab suggests that there is something to Amazon’s assertion that these mass cuts, even at tech companies, are not the result of AI displacing workers.

“While concern over the effects of AI on today’s labor market is widespread, our data suggest that this remains largely speculative,” the report said. “The picture of AI’s impact on the labor market that emerges from our data is one that largely shows stability, not major disruption at an economic level.”

To measure the impact of AI on the labor force, the Yale Budget Lab tracks the occupational mix, or changes in the types of jobs held by people in the US, as well as the length of unemployment for jobs with high exposure to AI.

While there have been changes in the occupational mix since the 2022 release of ChatGPT, the rate of change has not increased enough to signal a major shift, the report said. Furthermore, the length of unemployment for individuals with jobs with high exposure to AI has remained the same over time. Both metrics show no evidence of a major disruption to work, from AI or another cause.

“No matter how you look at the data, at this exact moment, there don’t seem to be major macroeconomic effects here,” said Martha Gimbel, executive director and cofounder of the Yale Budget Lab. luck.

‘Washing AI’ in action

The Yale Budget Lab’s statement countered other pieces of data that some interpreted as a sign of more labor disruptions. An WITH the report released in November 2025 found that current AI systems can now complete the tasks of around 12% of the workforce. Goldman Sachs predicts 6% to 7% of the US workforce can be transferred if AI technologies are widely adopted.

Forecasts do not reflect the current situation, despite growing concerns about AI-related job losses. The difference between AI’s concern about job displacement and the data showing otherwise is causing concerns in “AI washing,” or the false recognition of AI by companies that downsize their workforce.

An The Oxford Economics report Last month backed up this idea, citing data from the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas: While 55,000 job cuts in the US in the first 11 months of 2025 are attributed to AI, this represents only 4.5% of the total reported job cuts. In contrast, job losses as a result of general “market and economic conditions” totaled 245,000.

“We suspect that some companies are trying to dress up the layoffs as good news rather than bad news, as in previous over-hiring,” the Oxford report said.

According to Gimbel of the Yale Budget Lab, one reason companies are reporting AI layoffs is a way to avoid telling investors the company is having trouble navigating declining immigration, tariffs, and other policy uncertainties that will inevitably shake up the workforce. AI-related anxiety allows the technology to become a convenient scapegoat for CEOs when it comes time to confront skeptical investors.

“If you were a CEO, what would you say? ‘Hi, I’m a bad CEO. I completely mismanaged the macroeconomic situation in the last two years, so now a bunch of you will lose your jobs, but the shareholders should continue to trust me to continue?'” Gimbel said. “No, you don’t say that. You say, ‘The world is changing quickly, and we’re going to empower the company and make investments going forward so we can be the most productive version of ourselves to win in the future.'”

What is really happening in the labor market?

He notes that it is more realistic to attribute the low-wage, low-fire state of the labor market to the myriad political factors that are shaking the economy as well as the effects of surge in hiring during the pandemic and the The Federal Reserve’s hiking cycle which naturally slows down the job market.

Certainly, economic constraints can have an impact on how quickly new technologies are implemented, providing a blueprint for when AI might begin to have a more profound impact on labor, Gimbel suggests. During the first Industrial Revolution, for example, trade restrictions from the Napoleonic Wars led mill owners to rush to invest in technologies such as the power loom and spinning jenny that automated weaving and the evacuation of workers.

“Technological change doesn’t happen in a vacuum,” he said.

The next big test of AI in the labor market will come when a recession hits, Gimbel said, which will require changes that spur mass adoption of AI. According to PwC data, AI adoption and productivity growth became modestwith 56% of companies reporting that they have “nothing to gain from” AI yet.

If there are major changes in the job market as a result of AI, Gimbel said it will be seen in significant changes in the mix of jobs held by people and the length of unemployment for people who had high exposure to AI in their previous jobs. If not, he said, it is not time to sound the alarm.

“If you think the AI ​​apocalypse for the labor market is coming, it doesn’t help to declare that it’s here before it’s here,” he said. “Any of this can change. That’s why we’re tracking it … Just because a technology can do something doesn’t mean everybody’s going to lose their jobs tomorrow. It doesn’t mean they won’t lose their jobs in five years, though.”