
Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey
BLS monthly survey of job openings, hires, and separations; February 2026 hiring rate of 3.1% is the basis for Stanford's 34-to-1 AI displacement finding.
Last refreshed: 24 May 2026 · Appears in 1 active topic
Two federal institutions read JOLTS and reached opposite conclusions on AI jobs. Which is right?
Timeline for Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey
Mentioned in: India's GCCs absorb the offshored work
AI: Jobs, Power & MoneyTwo federal studies split on AI jobs
AI: Jobs, Power & MoneyMentioned in: Meta codes its own org chart
AI: Jobs, Power & MoneyMentioned in: UK vacancies frozen at 721,000 for six months
AI: Jobs, Power & MoneyStanford: AI costs 34 hires per layoff
AI: Jobs, Power & Money- What does the JOLTS survey tell us about AI job losses?
- JOLTS February 2026 showed a 3.1% hiring rate, the lowest since April 2020. Stanford applied the 0.6-point decline from 2023 to the full workforce and found AI is suppressing roughly 1 million annual hires (34 times the declared AI layoff count). The New York Fed's May 2026 study contested this, finding the decline in AI-exposed postings predates ChatGPT.Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics / Stanford Digital Economy Lab / New York Fed
- What is the JOLTS survey and why is it used to measure AI layoffs?
- JOLTS is the BLS monthly measure of US job market flows: openings, hires, and separations. Because AI displacement works largely through hires not happening rather than announced cuts, JOLTS captures what Challenger redundancy data misses. However, the NY Fed's May 2026 study found the JOLTS hiring decline predates AI, complicating the causal story.Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
- Why was the JOLTS hiring rate so low in February 2026?
- At 3.1%, the February 2026 JOLTS hiring rate was the lowest since April 2020. Stanford attributes the 0.6-point decline from the 2023 baseline to AI-driven suppression of entry-level hiring. The New York Fed's study disputes AI causation, finding the decline predates ChatGPT's release.Source: Stanford Digital Economy Lab
- Why do the New York Fed and Stanford disagree about what JOLTS shows?
- Stanford reads the aggregate JOLTS hiring rate and attributes its fall to AI, concentrating the effect on under-25s. The NY Fed reads occupation-level job postings and finds the decline in AI-exposed roles began in 2021, before ChatGPT launched in December 2022. The disagreement is about which dataset and which timing evidence is the right measure of AI's effect.Source: New York Fed Liberty Street Economics
Background
The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) is the Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly measure of US labour market flow, tracking job openings, hires, and separations across the nonfarm economy. Its February 2026 data, released March 2026, recorded a 3.1% hiring rate, the lowest since April 2020 at the onset of the pandemic. That reading became the starting point for Stanford Digital Economy Lab's April 2026 analysis, which applied the 0.6 percentage point decline from the 2023 baseline to the 158.6 million nonfarm workforce and calculated that AI is suppressing roughly 950,000 to 1 million annual hires.
JOLTS is distinct from the headline unemployment rate: it measures flows, not stocks. A declining hiring rate shows that employers are hiring less frequently without necessarily cutting existing staff: the dominant pattern Stanford identifies as the primary AI displacement channel. By contrast, Challenger, Gray & Christmas tracks declared redundancies, which represent the visible surface of displacement. The 34-to-1 ratio Stanford derives from these two sources is the gap between what is visible and what is happening.
On 14 May 2026, the New York Fed published an occupation-level study of job-posting data that directly contested Stanford's use of JOLTS. The NY Fed researchers found that the relative decline in postings for AI-exposed roles began before ChatGPT shipped in December 2022, and that junior and senior roles fell at similar rates, removing the timing evidence and the under-25s concentration that Stanford's causal story requires. That finding means the same JOLTS data now supports two opposed policy conclusions: Stanford reads it as evidence AI is suppressing a million hires a year; the NY Fed reads occupation-level postings and finds AI is not the cause at all. Until the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes its delayed GenAI workplace paper, JOLTS remains the primary federal input to the displacement argument while the causal interpretation is contested.