Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
AI: Jobs, Power & Money
2MAY

NBER: nine in ten firms untouched by AI

2 min read
15:17UTC

A multinational survey of 6,000 executives found most companies see no employment effect from AI. Inside those same firms, bosses and workers hold opposite forecasts.

← Back to Beijing court bans AI sackings as Big Tech burns cashJump to analysis ↓
EconomicDeveloping
Key takeaway

Bosses expect AI to cut jobs while their own employees expect it to create them.

A survey of nearly 6,000 senior executives across the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that 90% of firms report no impact on employment or productivity from AI so far. 1 Sixty-nine per cent of the surveyed firms actively use the technology. Nine in ten see nothing happening.

The contradiction sits inside the forecasts. Executives at these firms predict a 0.7% employment decline over the next three years. Employees at the same companies predict a 0.5% increase. 2 One group expects cuts. The other expects growth. They work in the same buildings, use the same tools, and hold irreconcilable views of what comes next.

During the 1990s offshoring wave, management planned relocations years before workers learned their roles would move overseas. Approximately 3.4 million US manufacturing jobs were lost between 1995 and 2005. Workers could not prepare because they did not know. The NBER data, spanning four countries with different labour market systems, suggests this gap is structural, not cultural . If executives act on private bearish forecasts without informing staff, displacement will arrive as a shock rather than a managed transition.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

A research body surveyed nearly 6,000 bosses across the US, UK, Germany, and Australia and asked whether AI has yet affected hiring or productivity at their companies. Nine in ten said no. But the same bosses predict employment at their firms will fall slightly over the next three years. Workers at those same companies predict it will rise slightly. Someone is wrong. Given that bosses set hiring plans, their forecast is more likely to be self-fulfilling.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

Information asymmetry within firms is the structural cause. Executives have access to strategic planning documents, vendor capability assessments, and board-level restructuring discussions that do not reach workers. The 1.2-percentage-point forecast gap (0.7% decline vs 0.5% increase) is more consistent with deliberate non-disclosure than with genuine disagreement.

The 69% active AI adoption rate combined with the 90% null employment impact suggests a deployment phase that is currently affecting task structure without reducing headcount. The NBER finding by Humlum and Vestergaard that LLM adoption produces occupational switching without net changes in hours or earnings supports this reading: impact is happening below the level of employment statistics.

Measurement lag is also structural. Employment surveys capture headcount but not task composition or hiring freeze effects. The Dallas Fed found displacement operating primarily through collapsed job-finding rates among workers under 25, a mechanism invisible to standard employment impact questions.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    The executive-employee forecast gap may widen as deployment accelerates, producing a shock dynamic similar to 1990s offshoring where workers had no preparation time.

    Medium term · Medium
  • Consequence

    Policymakers relying on current employment statistics will underestimate displacement risk because the primary mechanism is hiring suppression, not firing, which appears later in official data.

    Short term · High
  • Meaning

    The 90% null result at 69% adoption rates confirms the technology is in a pre-deployment productivity phase; the employment shock, if it arrives, will be sudden rather than gradual.

    Long term · Medium
Sources:NBER (Yotzov, Barrero, Bloom, Bunn, Davis et al)
Mentions:United Kingdom →Prima →United States →NBER →Anthropic →Dario Amodei →
First Reported In

Update #3 · The AI jobs data contradicts itself

NBER (Yotzov, Barrero, Bloom, Bunn, Davis et al)· 28 Mar 2026
Read original →
Causes and effects
This Event
NBER: nine in ten firms untouched by AI
The largest cross-country executive survey reveals a dangerous information gap: employers expect job losses while their own workers expect gains.
Led to
Three in four never file claims
NBER finding that 90% of firms report zero AI impact persists because measurement systems cannot see the displaced workers.
Occurred 28 Mar 2026
Read story →
Different Perspectives
UK financial regulators (BoE FPC / FCA)
UK financial regulators (BoE FPC / FCA)
The Bank of England's April FPC directive on agentic AI in payments was scoped around one frontier model; AISI confirmed a second model cleared the same 32-step threshold on 1 May. The supervisory architecture is one model behind the capability it was built to contain.
Indian IT sector workers (TCS, Infosys, Wipro)
Indian IT sector workers (TCS, Infosys, Wipro)
TCS posted its first annual revenue decline in the modern era, Infosys shed 8,400 workers in a quarter, and Wipro hit its zero-fresher target. Western Big Tech's AI automation is cannibalising the offshored-services model that employs roughly five million Indian IT workers.
Chinese workers (Hangzhou and Beijing plaintiffs)
Chinese workers (Hangzhou and Beijing plaintiffs)
Workers Zhou and Liu won cases that established a two-court doctrinal chain: AI adoption is the employer's deliberate strategy, placing the cost of displacement on the employer rather than the worker. Any Chinese employee facing AI-driven dismissal now has a citable legal route that American, British, and European counterparts do not.
Chinese government, courts, and domestic employers
Chinese government, courts, and domestic employers
The Hangzhou rulings were released on Workers' Day eve alongside the Ministry of Human Resources' recognition of 42 new AI occupations. Domestic firms now face mandatory retraining obligations; the Orgvue estimate of 8-14 months added to displacement timelines will feature in employer compliance briefings throughout 2026.
EU regulators and European Parliament
EU regulators and European Parliament
The second Digital Omnibus trilogue collapsed without agreement on 28 April; the third is scheduled for 13 May with the binding employer AI-literacy obligation still contested. Brussels is arguing over a non-binding encouragement clause while Beijing's courts have already bound employers.
US legislators (Warner, Rounds, Hawley, Sanders)
US legislators (Warner, Rounds, Hawley, Sanders)
Warner and Rounds produced the Economy of the Future Commission Act, the most concrete federal vehicle still moving, endorsed by the companies it would notionally regulate. The Sanders-AOC moratorium was killed by Democratic senators; the Hawley-Warner disclosure bill remains in committee with no floor date.