To Goldman Sachs, on the 15 Million Jobs Sacrificed to AI

Introduction: a letter to those who count jobs like numbers

Mr. Briggs, I read your projections

Dear Joseph Briggs, global chief economist at Goldman Sachs Research, I am writing to you after listening to your remarks on your bank's Exchanges podcast. You announced there that the adoption of artificial intelligence could displace roughly 9 percent of the American workforce, close to 15 million workers, over the next decade. You said it with the methodical calm of an economist who handles statistics the way others handle a hammer.

I am not writing to accuse you of lying. Your numbers, as far as I can judge, are serious, documented, and consistent with what other firms are also observing. But I am writing because there is a dizzying distance between a projection line on a chart and the lives of fifteen million people who will have to reinvent how they earn a living.

Why I chose to address you directly

I could have written a cold, detached analysis of this issue. I chose the open letter instead, because this subject deserves a direct, almost personal address to those who shape the dominant economic narrative on artificial intelligence. You are not solely responsible for this transformation, of course. But your voice, the voice of Goldman Sachs, carries real weight in how markets, governments and businesses anticipate this wave.

According to your own widely circulated report from early July 2026, the technology, consulting and graphic design sectors are particularly exposed, even as June data show a gain of only 57,000 jobs in the United States, well below economists' expectations.

What your numbers don't say on the ground

A hiring slowdown that already precedes the wave

Mr. Briggs, you know better than anyone that the June 2026 American jobs numbers already tell a troubling story. Only 57,000 jobs created, a figure well below market expectations, while several major tech companies have explicitly tied their waves of layoffs to the adoption of artificial intelligence in recent months.

This slowdown is not an isolated coincidence. It fits a trend documented for months by firms specializing in layoff tracking, which find that AI has become the most frequently cited reason American employers give for workforce cuts, month after month since the start of 2026.

The gap between the reassuring narrative and lived reality

Your official message remains optimistic in the long run: you repeat that economic history shows job destruction from a new technology is always followed, eventually, by the creation of new jobs. It's a classic argument, a respectable one, and probably partly true. But between the moment a worker loses their job and the moment a new position appears elsewhere in the economy, there is a life to get through, bills to pay, a family to feed.

You describe a shock comparable to the one in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Except that shock played out over an entire decade, with very real human hardship that macroeconomic statistics never truly captured in their methodological coldness.

Wall Street's responsibility in this acceleration

Markets applaud, workers pay the price

Let's say it plainly: every announcement of layoffs linked to artificial intelligence is generally welcomed by financial markets as a sign of budget discipline and operational efficiency. Shares of several major tech companies have climbed after announcing workforce cuts justified by AI adoption, a dynamic that your own institution, Goldman Sachs, helps fuel through its investment recommendations.

This mechanism creates a perverse incentive: the more a company lays off in the name of artificial intelligence, the more it is rewarded by markets, regardless of the technology's actual impact on its real productivity. Some analysts even describe a phenomenon of AI washing, where layoffs driven by ordinary financial considerations are dressed up as technology decisions to please investors.

A bank profiting from both sides of the equation

Goldman Sachsadvises the companies that automate, finances the fundraising rounds of artificial intelligence giants, and at the same time publishes reports on the social consequences of that very automation. That is, at the very least, a comfortable position, Mr. Briggs — observing and profiting from the same transformation simultaneously.

I am not saying this is illegitimate in itself. It is the very model of investment banking. But it deserves to be named clearly, rather than hidden behind the neutral, reassuring vocabulary of long-term economic projections.

What the West must understand about this technological race

Global competition leaves no room for waiting it out

I am not naive, Mr. Briggs. I know the West cannot simply slow its race toward artificial intelligence out of social caution, while China invests massively in its own technological capabilities to dominate this strategic sector for decades to come. Slowing down unilaterally would mean ceding a major strategic advantage to rivals who show no such social scruples.

This geopolitical reality makes the debate more complex than a simple choice between progress and protecting workers. The West must run this technological race, or risk being overtaken by powers that share neither its democratic values nor its concern, however imperfect, for the social protection of its citizens.

Running the race without abandoning those who stumble

But running this race should not mean abandoning displaced workers to their fate. Western governments, companies, and institutions like yours share a collective responsibility: invest massively in professional retraining, in social safety nets, in concrete support for workers whose positions disappear in the name of algorithmic efficiency.

It is this balance between technological ambition and social responsibility that your report, however statistically rigorous, does not, in my view, develop enough.

The real weight of these numbers on American families

Fifteen million is not a statistical abstraction

Fifteen millionworkers, Mr. Briggs, is not an abstract figure on a slide. It is the equivalent of the entire population of several U.S. states combined. These are engineers, graphic designers, consultants, analysts who will have to, in your own words, leave their current positions and find new work elsewhere in the economy.

You emphasize the temporary nature of this disruption, comparing it to past major technological transitions. But every generation of displaced workers experiences its own transition as a personal rupture, not as a reassuring historical statistic tucked into an economic research report.

Young workers, the first silent victims

Several studies parallel to yours note that entry-level positions, traditionally held by young graduates entering the workforce, are among the most exposed to this intelligent automation. An entire generation could see its entry into working life delayed, complicated, or even jeopardized by this accelerated transformation of the American job market.

This reality deserves particular attention from economic policymakers, rather than a single line in an optimistic report about the long-term benefits of AI-driven productivity.

What I humbly propose to your institution

Greater transparency on the real drivers of layoffs

Mr. Briggs, I respectfully propose that Goldman Sachs push further the transparency effort already underway with its tracking of AI adoption. Clearly distinguishing, company by company, what is genuinely driven by technological automation from what is really a classic financial decision dressed up as a technology choice would help the public better understand the true scale of this transformation.

This clarity would be useful not only to the workers affected, but also to policymakers who need to calibrate their regulatory responses based on the reality of the phenomenon, rather than on announcements sometimes exaggerated for financial communication purposes.

An investment in retraining commensurate with the profits generated

I also invite you, Mr. Briggs, to advocate internally for financial institutions that profit from this wave of automation to contribute proportionally to funding professional retraining programs. It would only be consistent for those who benefit most from this transformation to actively help ease its most painful effects on displaced workers.

This would not be an act of charity, but an investment in the long-term social stability of a Western economy that needs cohesion to keep innovating without fracturing politically and socially.

The American political context surrounding this transformation

A debate that crosses traditional partisan lines

This issue of automation through artificial intelligence cuts across the usual political divides in the United States. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers are worried, each in their own way, about the impact of this transformation on their respective constituents, particularly in the industrial and tech regions most exposed to these labor market upheavals.

This unusual convergence of concerns could, in theory, open the door to bipartisan legislative solutions, even though the current American political landscape, marked by deep divisions on many other issues, makes that prospect uncertain in the short term.

The limits of current regulation in the face of the speed of change

No federal law today requires American employers to specify whether artificial intelligence played a role in a given layoff decision. This lack of a clear regulatory framework significantly complicates the work of researchers and policymakers trying to measure the true scale of the phenomenon, beyond the sometimes contradictory estimates published by different economic analysis firms.

This regulatory gray zone paradoxically benefits companies that wish, for various reasons, to either exaggerate or downplay the role of artificial intelligence in their workforce management decisions.

A historical comparison that deserves nuance

The industrial revolution did not spare an entire generation

You often invoke, Mr. Briggs, past major technological transitions to reassure people about the ultimate outcome of this current transformation. But it's worth remembering that the industrial revolution, just like the rise of computing in the 1990s, did not spare the generations who lived through them head-on. The long-term benefits, however real, never fully offset the individual suffering experienced during the transition itself.

This historical nuance deserves to be integrated more honestly into the public discourse on artificial intelligence, rather than reduced to a reassuring formula mechanically repeated in every optimistic economic report on the subject.

What history really teaches us about these transitions

Economic history mainly teaches that successful technological transitions are the ones where public authorities actively supported displaced workers, rather than leaving the market alone to absorb the social shock. It is this historical lesson, more than the simple promise of future job creation, that should guide Western public policy in the face of this new wave of intelligent automation.

Without that active support, there is a real risk of deepening the already profound inequalities running through American society, with potentially lasting political and social consequences for the country's democratic cohesion.

Concrete examples from sectors already affected

Graphic design, a profession upended in silence

Take the graphic design sector, which you yourself cite, Mr. Briggs, among the most exposed. Thousands of professionals who mastered complex software for years are now watching generative tools produce in seconds what used to take them hours. This is not a laboratory hypothesis — it is a lived reality for entire agencies quietly shrinking their creative staff without much media fanfare.

This media discretion is worth highlighting: unlike the massive waves of tech layoffs widely covered by the business press, these gradual disappearances of creative positions often fly under the radar of public opinion, even though they affect tens of thousands of workers across the country.

Consulting, a sector reinventing itself under pressure

The consulting sector, another field you identify as highly exposed, is undergoing a similar transformation. Major firms are cutting the number of junior analysts they hire each year, replacing part of that analytical work with artificial intelligence tools capable of producing preliminary reports in a fraction of the time it used to take.

This shift is profoundly changing the career prospects of an entire generation of young graduates who chose this path believing it would be a stable springboard toward future positions of responsibility.

The political dimension of this economic transformation

A rising electoral issue

As the November 2026 midterm elections approach, the issue of automation through artificial intelligence is starting to enter American political debate, alongside more traditional concerns about inflation and employment. Lawmakers from both parties sense growing anxiety among their constituents over this rapid transformation of the labor market.

This political pressure could, in the months ahead, push the American Congress to consider legislative proposals aimed at requiring greater corporate transparency about the role of artificial intelligence in workforce decisions, even though the outcome of these debates remains highly uncertain at this stage.

The role of individual states in the absence of clear federal law

In the absence of robust federal regulation, several American states, including California, have begun exploring local measures to address the impact of automation on employment. These initiatives, while still limited, reflect a growing awareness among local policymakers of a phenomenon the federal government is still struggling to regulate clearly.

This state-by-state regulatory fragmentation, however, creates additional uncertainty for both companies and workers, who must navigate an uneven legal landscape depending on where they live or work.

What other experts think of your projections

Voices more alarmist than yours

Mr. Briggs, your estimates, significant as they are, actually remain among the more moderate in the current debate. Other tech industry leaders describe far darker scenarios, with AI-linked unemployment rates that, in their view, could reach levels comparable to the worst economic crises of the past century.

This considerable gap between your projections and those of some tech leaders shows just how much scientific uncertainty remains about the true scale of this transformation, which in my view should encourage more collective caution rather than the confident certainties displayed on both sides of the debate.

More optimistic voices that also deserve to be heard

Conversely, some researchers point out that current labor market data do not yet show clear signs of a massive AI-driven employment collapse, even noting a hiring rebound in certain tech sectors otherwise considered among the most exposed to this automation.

This diversity of expert opinion reinforces my sense that we are collectively navigating a statistical fog, where caution and humility should take precedence over certainties asserted too quickly, in either direction.

What this means for overall Western competitiveness

A transformation that extends beyond American borders

Mr. Briggs, your report focuses on the United States, but this transformation touches the entire Western world, from Europe to Canada, to the United Kingdom. Every advanced economy will have to navigate similar challenges, in different social and political contexts that are equally sensitive to questions of employment and worker protection.

This international dimension makes coordinated Western action on this issue more urgent, rather than a country-by-country fragmented approach that risks creating competitiveness distortions among allies who should instead be presenting a united front against Chinese competition in this strategic sector.

China is watching these Western debates too

It should not be forgotten that China, our main strategic rival in this technological race, is watching closely how the West manages the social consequences of its own AI-driven transformation. A West that mismanages this transition socially exposes itself to internal political weakening that its authoritarian rivals will not hesitate to exploit to their advantage.

This is one more argument, Mr. Briggs, for institutions like yours to take the social dimension of this transformation seriously: not only out of human concern, but also as a strategic calculation against rivals watching for the slightest crack in Western social cohesion.

The role of tech companies themselves

Giants that could do more

Major American tech companies, several of which have announced AI-linked layoff waves in recent months, hold considerable financial resources. If they truly wanted to, they could invest far more in retraining programs for their own displaced employees, rather than settling for standard severance packages followed by a well-crafted press release.

Some companies have started experimenting with this kind of internal reskilling program, but these initiatives remain far too marginal to offset the scale of job cuts announced across the tech sector as a whole.

A missed opportunity for social leadership

I believe, Mr. Briggs, that the companies best positioned to master this technological transformation also have a unique opportunity to demonstrate exemplary social leadership, by investing massively in the professional future of their displaced employees rather than settling for the legal minimum required under current labor regulation.

This leadership opportunity, largely missed so far by the tech industry as a whole, could nonetheless durably strengthen public trust in these companies, at a moment when that trust is eroding considerably among large segments of the American population.

The psychological price of permanent uncertainty

Living in wait of an announced replacement

Mr. Briggs, beyond the numbers, there is a psychological dimension your reports almost never address: that of millions of workers now living in permanent uncertainty about whether their position will be next on the list of AI-linked cuts. This chronic anxiety carries a real cost to mental health and even to the productivity of workers who remain employed.

Studies in workplace psychology are beginning to document this new form of professional stress, specifically tied to the fear of automation, a phenomenon now affecting categories of workers who previously believed themselves shielded from this kind of worry, notably in so-called intellectual and creative professions.

The silence around workers' mental health

This silence around the psychological dimension of the AI transformation strikes me as one of the most significant blind spots in the current economic debate. We measure jobs destroyed and created, but we rarely measure the collective anxiety generated by this permanent uncertainty over the professional future of an entire society.

Integrating this human dimension into your future reports, Mr. Briggs, would give your institution additional credibility with a public that, rightly, is growing increasingly wary of strictly statistical narratives about this major transformation of American society.

Conclusion: an outstretched hand, not an indictment

What I really expect from this letter

Mr. Briggs, this letter is not an indictment against you or against Goldman Sachs. It is an invitation to step, even for a moment, outside the muted language of economic reports and fully acknowledge the human weight of your projections. Your fifteen million workers have names, faces, families, and they deserve better than a reassuring line about future job creation that will, someday, come along to replace them.

An invitation to action, not only to analysis

I hope this letter finds an echo, not in another statistical report, but in concrete action: more transparency, more investment in retraining, more consideration for those who will live this transition in their own lives rather than on a chart. That is the very least owed to a generation of workers caught in the gears of a revolution they did not choose.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my acknowledged biases

I am a columnist, not a trained economist, and I rely on public reports from Goldman Sachs and on verified journalistic analysis for this open letter. I am pro-West and I believe the technological race against China is necessary, but I remain critical of financial institutions that downplay the human cost of this transformation.

What I don't know, and my method

I do not know with certainty what proportion of layoffs currently attributed to artificial intelligence genuinely stem from that technology rather than from ordinary financial decisions. My method is to cite the official figures available, cross-reference several recognized economic sources, and explicitly flag areas of methodological uncertainty rather than claim a precision the current data does not support.

Sources

Primary sources

The News — AI will cost 15m US jobs, Goldman economist, July 2026

Goldman Sachs Exchanges — How will AI impact the labor market, July 3, 2026

Secondary sources

Newsweek — AI squeeze jobs figures

Yahoo Finance — AI jobs debate just got more complicated

Business Insider — Goldman Sachs economist predicts AI displacing 15 million jobs, July 3, 2026

USA Today — June 2026 jobs report shows hiring below expectations, July 2, 2026