- with all the cost and efficiency savings, will you be decreasing fees?
- Do you need the same number of executives now? If so, why?
- You say you’re laying off in preparation for AI. That implies AI isn’t enabled yet. Do you not understand your processes? Are you just waiting to see what breaks?
- Can you explain the difference between AI, LLMs, and Machine Learning?
I may be outing myself here but I know a colleague who works at AE in AI and it would not surprise me in the least if this person was involved with the reduction.
This happened in the 80s, the answer is that many businesses reliant on AI will go bust and larger entities will acquire and gut their tangible resources.
This is obvious to pretty much everyone but if you're laying off 5% and inflation over the past year has been about 5% (it was 3.7 the last quarter) .
Weird how those two numbers are about the same it's almost like these layoffs are probably to keep their budget balanced because inflation is higher... Weird.
Inflation is an average, not all parts of the operation inflate equally.
Human employees are not the only lever they can pull.
Edit: also, are you suggesting AI productivity gains don’t outpace inflation? If so, these businesses are extra fucked given how it’s driving up costs of energy, compute, and hardware.
It's the easiest lever to pull though. One that is the most predictable. And one that you have the most control over. You can't control oil prices in the future or right now but you can control your payroll.
Also most knowledge work today their highest line item is their employee payroll and when inflation goes up the payroll typically follows within the next year. So you just lay people off in order to make payroll next year. It's very simple and in the meantime you can tell people we're not giving out raises and pocket the money
A Gartner study of 350 global executives at $1B+ companies found that while 80% of companies piloting AI reported workforce reductions, there was no meaningful correlation between cutting headcount and achieving a higher ROI.
I think that if you put hand to bible on a lot of these companies "AI driven" would have less to do with the firings. It's just marketing and storytelling at this point.
Like sure, jobs are effected by AI, but companies are also downsizing and using that as a band-aid that sounds better.
Yeah it doesn't look good on paper if you say we're laying people off because of inflation higher oil prices and higher operating costs. And probably not great management.
So we'll just say AI because people generally think that if you say AI that means you're cutting costs and not features.
This is cope at this stage of AI in the workforce to be honest with you. If you’re insulated enough to not think there’s a broader downsizing of the white-collar workforce being driven by AI right now then you’re lying to yourself. It isn’t cyclical downsizing.
I think this is definitely true, as the rise of the AI era also coincided with the end of the ZIRP era, as well as the end of the Covid-fueled stimulus.
But I also think it's a huge mistake to just blanket discount the effect AI is having/will have on jobs, because it won't be pretty. Anthropic put out a really good, data-packed research report on how use of AI agents affects their own employees, and it's definitely worth a read, https://www.anthropic.com/research/employment-at-anthropic. And please, try to hold off from the knee jerk response of "of course Anthropic wants to make it sound like AI can do anything" before you actually read the report.
Some of my big takeaways:
Employment and hiring in junior roles, across tech and non-tech positions, is way down as agents are able to do a lot of this junior level work better. Obviously it doesn't take a lot of foresight to see the problems this will eventually cause.
Much less need for admin and operations-type roles. This mirrors what I've seen among my own ex-colleagues. Most of my software engineer friends who were laid off at least once in the past 5 years didn't take that long to find new jobs, but it's been an absolute bloodbath for those in project management and other support-type roles. I've seen some great folks with decades of experience, who have stellar reputations and are very highly regarded by former colleagues, be out of work for more than 2 years and counting.
The rate at which agent capabilities is improving is staggering, and agents are quickly "moving up the food chain" in terms of tasks they can handle. Again, this obviously doesn't bode well for the societal employment picture long term.
So sure, many companies are using AI as an excuse for layoffs, but if you aren't concerned about the huge negative impact that AI will have on employment, you've got your head in the sand.
Firms that adopt AI have stronger hiring. https://ramp.com/data/ai-jobs-impact
Other research finds no meaningful labor market disruption due to AI. https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/tracking-impact-ai-labor-market
The sectors of the economy most exposed to AI (Finance, Information, Insurance, Professional & Business Services) have seen a slow net job loss since the introduction of ChatGPT. However, this downward trend still leaves those sectors well above their pre-COVID employment levels. This trend also coincides with other macro shifts like the end of low interest rates. And there are few signs this downward trajectory is accelerating.
Throughout human history, the work has expanded to fit the time. It will be no different after this. Maybe we’ll build pyramids again, on Mars or something. Oddly enough there are a higher percentage of people working now than in 1950 prior to computers. There is false premise in economics that all jobs are useful and needed when in reality many jobs are counter productive, for instance a person who makes bombs is working in a counterproductive environment. The work results in many other jobs needed to repair the work of the bomb maker. The new economy will require many people to counter the unproductive uses of AI.
There is a biological need to drive production in people. It’s no different than Salmon swimming to spawning grounds. If we didn’t want jobs we have the ability to essentially eliminate huge parts of the economy already. AI isn’t needed for this. The reality is we want them so we invent them. Salmon can reproduce anywhere. They are kings like we are in the ecosystem and nothing challenges them. To ensure the next generation is as strong as the previous they play a mating game of swimming thousands of miles upriver. People and jobs are the same. They will swim upriver until they die just like every generation before, long past our days of worrying about predation.
> And please, try to hold off from the knee jerk response of "of course Anthropic wants to make it sound like AI can do anything" before you actually read the report.
Because they know the common retorts to the lies of their psychoactive digital drug dealers. The losers just adapt while still ignoring the lies lol.
No, I said that because idiots like yourself always come out with your braindead comments before actually reading the report.
If you first read the report and wanted to argue it was bullshit, that's fine. But all you Dunning Kruger champs love spouting the same shit and being so sure of yourself without actually reading anything.
>if you aren't concerned about the huge negative impact that AI will have on employment, you've got your head in the sand.
Every form of automation, in all human history, has been heralded as the death of labor, and yet has actually increased aggregate labor demand and aggregate labor participation.
Labor needs are moved. Layoffs reduce employment in roles that are automated, which shifts that employment to other roles that now have increased demand.
The incremental increase in production causes a decrease in the cost of production and an increase in the availability of the product, which overall increases total market demand faster than the increase in production can supply into the market.
I have yet to find a single instance where an automation actually decreased total aggregate demand for a product, or for labor in general.
Even in "obvious" cases like candles to lightbulbs, the overall demand for lighting products and the labor to produce lighting products went up. The same goes for horses to automobiles, and so on and so forth.
By all means, prove me wrong, it would be a first in 2,000 years of recorded human economy.
And, by the way, "it's different this time" is the same claim everyone makes, every single time. It's not "different this time". It's just like the thousands of other times.
It sounds a lot nicer to the shareholders that you’re firing people because “AI can do their jobs” rather than “we can’t afford our debt load at current interest rates”.
Getting rid of all those 6 figure salaries and benefits sure helps the bottom line for the shareholders too.
And that’s what this is also about: with a middle-income consumer that is going through a slow rolling extinction event, it comes down to cost cutting and convincing your top 5% consumer customers to keep on investing and keep on spending.
That matches a lot of these headlines: a real headcount target first, and the AI label second for the earnings slide. The five percent still hits real jobs either way.
AI is the Wall Street narrative corporations use to keep stock on the up and up. What they will not admit is a large percentage of jobs are moving to India and Canada to cut costs because their finances are wild in a volatile market.
If by AI, they mean Actual Indians - then yes, Visa and other corporations are preparing for AI.
They are preparing to destroy more American families and livelihoods by offshoring jobs to India. These companies need to be fined and tariffed into oblivion.
If companies insist on off shoring their workforce they should not be eligible for tax breaks and subsidies. They should've never been rewarded for doing this trash
They should be put on a blacklist for government contracts and grants. The US taxpayer should not be in the business of funding threats to national security, including economic security.
Kinda makes you wonder where the "fines and tariffs" folks were when this exact same process played out fifty years ago and was destroying the good blue collar jobs by the millions and replacing them with minimum wage McJobs
One of the biggest competitive advantages Amex has had is their customer service. It’s why I’ve been a customer. I’m fine with slightly higher fees and slightly worse interest on some accounts because I’ve gotten that back in customer service and additional perks. Especially considering the banking industry is notoriously horrific with customer service.
I do not doubt they will screw that up with A.I. and then find themselves struggling to compete at the margins with BAC, COF, and JP Morgan.
I have a feeling after the "First Taste" phase wears off, and AI companies need to pay off debt or try to make more money, they are going to raise the prices on tokens, and it's going to be a wash with these layoffs.
If you wonder why billionaires are giddy over AI, this is it. There is no scenario where the self centred 1% of the population economically is thinking about the good of humanity. If they were they would not be the 1%
Really wish there was more of an entity working to solve the issue of what happens when you reduce even just 5% of the white-collar workforce in America.
I understand a publicly traded company's top objective is to make money for their shareholders, but at what point do we get actual protection for workers vs. looking out for the wealthy to make even more profits? Factory workers have largely had a level of protection due to unions, but so many of us are in danger now without that coverage.
Very few factories outside automotive and aerospace have unions strong enough to be able to push back. At will employment applies in full.
Far too many white collar workers suffer from the "just world" fallacy and scream "OMG, SOCIALISM BAD" whenever any attempt to update the primitive USA labor laws comes up.
Funny how many of those folks are now talking about worker rights and protections now that they are the ones on the wrong end of mass firings.
Amazon are using AI for their customer service chat. I ended up asking to speak with a live associate to be able to solve my problem. Corporations should just chill out.
He added that the company will use AI to personalize customer experiences and offers, but assured investors that American Express is “not going to let assistants run rogue through our system.”
This whole article is full of corporate jargon and it means nothing. We are in a bad economy and we prob have two more years of it. This has nothing to do with AI.
Let me summarize. They had a bad quarter so they laid people off to pump up the numbers so the C-suite could get their bonus.
Saying AI is going to personalize customer experiences and offers? Huh? I work for a big financial services firm. The last thing these firms do is personalize customer experiences and offers. It only makes sense for them to cookie cutter everything. Personalizing is expensive.
I guess I find it strange that they announce American Express to be the signature tenant of 2 World Trade Center that they just started, and now they’re reducing head count…?
Reality is Amex was always number three after visa and mastercard. Merchants hate their high transaction fees. And most emerging countries are moving to open banking or sovereign payment ecosystems. Rip Amex.
Points credit cards are a pox on society and shouldn't be around, why should a business give up 2-3% of revenue to a credit card company, for a service that costs other countries 0.5% ish
"Greed" driven layoffs. These companies got sold a bill of goods by Altman and other liars and most have now discovered that no, AI isn't quite ready to completely replace all the people laid off. I'm all for disruption, but you know what else is great when you're running a company? Strategy and proper governance. This is what happens when cronies or nepo babies get promoted and only seek shareholder accolades and have a herd mentality, as opposed to capable people who think before they act.
I think a lot of this is just due to market softness and the AI story covers for these companies generally underperforming. I work in manufacturing and we are substantially down this year both from budget projections and vs PY. People have been laid off and there is no Ai replacement happening
magick_bandit | 19 hours ago
I wish we had more real reporters.
- with all the cost and efficiency savings, will you be decreasing fees?
- Do you need the same number of executives now? If so, why?
- You say you’re laying off in preparation for AI. That implies AI isn’t enabled yet. Do you not understand your processes? Are you just waiting to see what breaks?
- Can you explain the difference between AI, LLMs, and Machine Learning?
bashbrother2480 | 18 hours ago
It’s the ny post. They don’t have real reporters
FearlessPark4588 | 12 hours ago
Do you think the business is explaining any of these things to reporters or investors?
TheTimberFactory | 14 hours ago
I may be outing myself here but I know a colleague who works at AE in AI and it would not surprise me in the least if this person was involved with the reduction.
FeelingPixely | 17 hours ago
This happened in the 80s, the answer is that many businesses reliant on AI will go bust and larger entities will acquire and gut their tangible resources.
leathakkor | 17 hours ago
This is obvious to pretty much everyone but if you're laying off 5% and inflation over the past year has been about 5% (it was 3.7 the last quarter) .
Weird how those two numbers are about the same it's almost like these layoffs are probably to keep their budget balanced because inflation is higher... Weird.
magick_bandit | 16 hours ago
That doesn’t make any sense.
Inflation is an average, not all parts of the operation inflate equally.
Human employees are not the only lever they can pull.
Edit: also, are you suggesting AI productivity gains don’t outpace inflation? If so, these businesses are extra fucked given how it’s driving up costs of energy, compute, and hardware.
leathakkor | 16 hours ago
It's the easiest lever to pull though. One that is the most predictable. And one that you have the most control over. You can't control oil prices in the future or right now but you can control your payroll.
Also most knowledge work today their highest line item is their employee payroll and when inflation goes up the payroll typically follows within the next year. So you just lay people off in order to make payroll next year. It's very simple and in the meantime you can tell people we're not giving out raises and pocket the money
grumpyliberal | 16 hours ago
A Gartner study of 350 global executives at $1B+ companies found that while 80% of companies piloting AI reported workforce reductions, there was no meaningful correlation between cutting headcount and achieving a higher ROI.
Rizzanthrope | 16 hours ago
Yeah, but announcing layoffs and lying about it being because of AI does give a boost to the stock price.
grumpyliberal | 15 hours ago
And thus juices the stock options package and other compensation for executives.
DarkExecutor | 13 hours ago
The entire market is down, this is just another layoff
WiSeIVIaN | 19 hours ago
I think that if you put hand to bible on a lot of these companies "AI driven" would have less to do with the firings. It's just marketing and storytelling at this point.
Like sure, jobs are effected by AI, but companies are also downsizing and using that as a band-aid that sounds better.
leathakkor | 17 hours ago
Yeah it doesn't look good on paper if you say we're laying people off because of inflation higher oil prices and higher operating costs. And probably not great management.
So we'll just say AI because people generally think that if you say AI that means you're cutting costs and not features.
Nervous-Basis-1707 | 13 hours ago
This is cope at this stage of AI in the workforce to be honest with you. If you’re insulated enough to not think there’s a broader downsizing of the white-collar workforce being driven by AI right now then you’re lying to yourself. It isn’t cyclical downsizing.
honest_arbiter | 18 hours ago
I think this is definitely true, as the rise of the AI era also coincided with the end of the ZIRP era, as well as the end of the Covid-fueled stimulus.
But I also think it's a huge mistake to just blanket discount the effect AI is having/will have on jobs, because it won't be pretty. Anthropic put out a really good, data-packed research report on how use of AI agents affects their own employees, and it's definitely worth a read, https://www.anthropic.com/research/employment-at-anthropic. And please, try to hold off from the knee jerk response of "of course Anthropic wants to make it sound like AI can do anything" before you actually read the report.
Some of my big takeaways:
So sure, many companies are using AI as an excuse for layoffs, but if you aren't concerned about the huge negative impact that AI will have on employment, you've got your head in the sand.
WiSeIVIaN | 18 hours ago
I appreciate the response and will definitely read the linked report!
spaghettiking216 | 17 hours ago
Counterpoints.
Firms that adopt AI have stronger hiring. https://ramp.com/data/ai-jobs-impact
Other research finds no meaningful labor market disruption due to AI. https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/tracking-impact-ai-labor-market
The sectors of the economy most exposed to AI (Finance, Information, Insurance, Professional & Business Services) have seen a slow net job loss since the introduction of ChatGPT. However, this downward trend still leaves those sectors well above their pre-COVID employment levels. This trend also coincides with other macro shifts like the end of low interest rates. And there are few signs this downward trajectory is accelerating.
HeyUKidsGetOffMyLine | 18 hours ago
Throughout human history, the work has expanded to fit the time. It will be no different after this. Maybe we’ll build pyramids again, on Mars or something. Oddly enough there are a higher percentage of people working now than in 1950 prior to computers. There is false premise in economics that all jobs are useful and needed when in reality many jobs are counter productive, for instance a person who makes bombs is working in a counterproductive environment. The work results in many other jobs needed to repair the work of the bomb maker. The new economy will require many people to counter the unproductive uses of AI.
There is a biological need to drive production in people. It’s no different than Salmon swimming to spawning grounds. If we didn’t want jobs we have the ability to essentially eliminate huge parts of the economy already. AI isn’t needed for this. The reality is we want them so we invent them. Salmon can reproduce anywhere. They are kings like we are in the ecosystem and nothing challenges them. To ensure the next generation is as strong as the previous they play a mating game of swimming thousands of miles upriver. People and jobs are the same. They will swim upriver until they die just like every generation before, long past our days of worrying about predation.
StopICE2026 | 12 hours ago
Anthropic lie like crazy and are pushing the narrative to overstate how useful Claude is
Olangotang | 11 hours ago
That's why they prefaced with:
> And please, try to hold off from the knee jerk response of "of course Anthropic wants to make it sound like AI can do anything" before you actually read the report.
Because they know the common retorts to the lies of their psychoactive digital drug dealers. The losers just adapt while still ignoring the lies lol.
honest_arbiter | 10 hours ago
No, I said that because idiots like yourself always come out with your braindead comments before actually reading the report.
If you first read the report and wanted to argue it was bullshit, that's fine. But all you Dunning Kruger champs love spouting the same shit and being so sure of yourself without actually reading anything.
TimSylvester_ | 11 hours ago
>if you aren't concerned about the huge negative impact that AI will have on employment, you've got your head in the sand.
Every form of automation, in all human history, has been heralded as the death of labor, and yet has actually increased aggregate labor demand and aggregate labor participation.
Labor needs are moved. Layoffs reduce employment in roles that are automated, which shifts that employment to other roles that now have increased demand.
The incremental increase in production causes a decrease in the cost of production and an increase in the availability of the product, which overall increases total market demand faster than the increase in production can supply into the market.
I have yet to find a single instance where an automation actually decreased total aggregate demand for a product, or for labor in general.
Even in "obvious" cases like candles to lightbulbs, the overall demand for lighting products and the labor to produce lighting products went up. The same goes for horses to automobiles, and so on and so forth.
By all means, prove me wrong, it would be a first in 2,000 years of recorded human economy.
And, by the way, "it's different this time" is the same claim everyone makes, every single time. It's not "different this time". It's just like the thousands of other times.
ElectroMagnetsYo | 17 hours ago
It sounds a lot nicer to the shareholders that you’re firing people because “AI can do their jobs” rather than “we can’t afford our debt load at current interest rates”.
082426grateful | 16 hours ago
Getting rid of all those 6 figure salaries and benefits sure helps the bottom line for the shareholders too.
And that’s what this is also about: with a middle-income consumer that is going through a slow rolling extinction event, it comes down to cost cutting and convincing your top 5% consumer customers to keep on investing and keep on spending.
swtormy | 16 hours ago
That matches a lot of these headlines: a real headcount target first, and the AI label second for the earnings slide. The five percent still hits real jobs either way.
The_Lady_is_Here | 18 hours ago
Sigh.
We are losing jobs to offshoring. Not AI.
AI is the Wall Street narrative corporations use to keep stock on the up and up. What they will not admit is a large percentage of jobs are moving to India and Canada to cut costs because their finances are wild in a volatile market.
MittenstheGlove | 17 hours ago
This part. I feel like a lot of modern economics lost the plot somewhere.
Jussttjustin | 17 hours ago
Actual Indians
They didn't say which AI
TechnicalParty4207 | 14 hours ago
Offshoring is losing their jobs to automation. This was very predictable.
Famous_Owl_840 | 17 hours ago
If by AI, they mean Actual Indians - then yes, Visa and other corporations are preparing for AI.
They are preparing to destroy more American families and livelihoods by offshoring jobs to India. These companies need to be fined and tariffed into oblivion.
beepbeepsheepbot | 16 hours ago
If companies insist on off shoring their workforce they should not be eligible for tax breaks and subsidies. They should've never been rewarded for doing this trash
082426grateful | 16 hours ago
Agree, but these companies fund politicians. On both sides of the aisle.
It’s not going to happen. They will continue to enjoy the milk and honey of American consumers, while erasing the US jobs they once created.
oursland | 11 hours ago
They should be put on a blacklist for government contracts and grants. The US taxpayer should not be in the business of funding threats to national security, including economic security.
Tall-Control8992 | 5 hours ago
Kinda makes you wonder where the "fines and tariffs" folks were when this exact same process played out fifty years ago and was destroying the good blue collar jobs by the millions and replacing them with minimum wage McJobs
EchoInternational856 | 16 hours ago
One of the biggest competitive advantages Amex has had is their customer service. It’s why I’ve been a customer. I’m fine with slightly higher fees and slightly worse interest on some accounts because I’ve gotten that back in customer service and additional perks. Especially considering the banking industry is notoriously horrific with customer service.
I do not doubt they will screw that up with A.I. and then find themselves struggling to compete at the margins with BAC, COF, and JP Morgan.
Feral_Nerd_22 | 17 hours ago
I have a feeling after the "First Taste" phase wears off, and AI companies need to pay off debt or try to make more money, they are going to raise the prices on tokens, and it's going to be a wash with these layoffs.
Brilliant_Towel2727 | 12 hours ago
They can get cheaper AI from China
OverallElephant7576 | 15 hours ago
If you wonder why billionaires are giddy over AI, this is it. There is no scenario where the self centred 1% of the population economically is thinking about the good of humanity. If they were they would not be the 1%
rvasko3 | 15 hours ago
Really wish there was more of an entity working to solve the issue of what happens when you reduce even just 5% of the white-collar workforce in America.
I understand a publicly traded company's top objective is to make money for their shareholders, but at what point do we get actual protection for workers vs. looking out for the wealthy to make even more profits? Factory workers have largely had a level of protection due to unions, but so many of us are in danger now without that coverage.
Tall-Control8992 | 9 hours ago
Very few factories outside automotive and aerospace have unions strong enough to be able to push back. At will employment applies in full.
Far too many white collar workers suffer from the "just world" fallacy and scream "OMG, SOCIALISM BAD" whenever any attempt to update the primitive USA labor laws comes up.
Funny how many of those folks are now talking about worker rights and protections now that they are the ones on the wrong end of mass firings.
pacman2081 | 14 hours ago
Some of the white collar workers are useless
rvasko3 | 13 hours ago
So that's reason to allow companies to plow ahead with this level of layoff?
pacman2081 | 13 hours ago
is there any rule that says useless people have to be on the payroll
Jazzlike_Relation705 | 5 hours ago
Isn’t this the whole point? Soon MOST people could be seen as “useless” in their jobs by the owner class.
So then what?
pacman2081 | 4 hours ago
even without AI, a good chunk of the white collar workforce add no value
Jazzlike_Relation705 | 3 hours ago
Remove the words “white collar”, and yes. That’s the point.
pacman2081 | 3 hours ago
I have not seen too many blue collar workers who are adding no value
Jazzlike_Relation705 | 2 hours ago
You are not a part of the owner class
pacman2081 | 2 hours ago
okay
mrjowei | 14 hours ago
Amazon are using AI for their customer service chat. I ended up asking to speak with a live associate to be able to solve my problem. Corporations should just chill out.
snorkeler247 | 14 hours ago
He added that the company will use AI to personalize customer experiences and offers, but assured investors that American Express is “not going to let assistants run rogue through our system.”
This whole article is full of corporate jargon and it means nothing. We are in a bad economy and we prob have two more years of it. This has nothing to do with AI.
Let me summarize. They had a bad quarter so they laid people off to pump up the numbers so the C-suite could get their bonus.
Saying AI is going to personalize customer experiences and offers? Huh? I work for a big financial services firm. The last thing these firms do is personalize customer experiences and offers. It only makes sense for them to cookie cutter everything. Personalizing is expensive.
HiFiGuy197 | 15 hours ago
I guess I find it strange that they announce American Express to be the signature tenant of 2 World Trade Center that they just started, and now they’re reducing head count…?
GoodMorningOttawa | 11 hours ago
Reality is Amex was always number three after visa and mastercard. Merchants hate their high transaction fees. And most emerging countries are moving to open banking or sovereign payment ecosystems. Rip Amex.
david1610 | 8 hours ago
Points credit cards are a pox on society and shouldn't be around, why should a business give up 2-3% of revenue to a credit card company, for a service that costs other countries 0.5% ish
DocCEN007 | 6 hours ago
"Greed" driven layoffs. These companies got sold a bill of goods by Altman and other liars and most have now discovered that no, AI isn't quite ready to completely replace all the people laid off. I'm all for disruption, but you know what else is great when you're running a company? Strategy and proper governance. This is what happens when cronies or nepo babies get promoted and only seek shareholder accolades and have a herd mentality, as opposed to capable people who think before they act.
Woodit | 13 hours ago
I think a lot of this is just due to market softness and the AI story covers for these companies generally underperforming. I work in manufacturing and we are substantially down this year both from budget projections and vs PY. People have been laid off and there is no Ai replacement happening