AI Impact on the Job Market – News (November 21, 2025 to November 28, 2025)
Ever notice how the quietest changes often have the loudest impact? This week, while everyone was distracted by flashy AI demos, the Federal Reserve slipped a single sentence into its Beige Book that might just redraw the entire hiring map. More on that—and a whole lot more AI-induced job market weirdness—below.
HP’s AI Diet: 6,000 Jobs Gone by 2028
Let’s kick things off with some real numbers. HP announced it’s planning to cut up to 6,000 jobs by 2028, a hefty 10% of its global workforce. The reason? You guessed it: AI. According to President and CEO Enrique Lores, this isn’t just about slashing costs; it’s about “driving customer satisfaction, product innovation, and productivity through artificial intelligence adoption and enablement.” They’re projecting a cool $1 billion in annualized savings. Sounds good for shareholders, but what about those 6,000 people? This isn’t an isolated incident. It’s a bellwether.
Why is this important? HP is a major player, and this move validates AI as a legitimate cost-cutting strategy for large corporations. It signals to other companies that AI-driven restructuring is not only possible but potentially lucrative. It also sets a precedent for future job displacement, regardless of whether AI is actually the *only* reason, or if it is a convenient excuse.
The UK Joins the Fray: Law Firms and Layoffs
Across the pond, the trend continues. Clifford Chance, a UK law firm, is laying off around 50 business services staff in London, directly attributing the cuts to AI-driven changes. And in a sign of the times, the head of PwC has reconsidered plans to hire 100,000 people, admitting that AI has significantly altered the company’s hiring needs. The writing’s on the wall: AI isn’t just changing *what* we do; it’s changing *how many* of us are needed to do it.
Why is this important? These examples demonstrate that AI’s impact isn’t limited to tech companies or low-skilled jobs. Even highly skilled sectors like law and professional services are feeling the squeeze. This suggests a broader, more pervasive shift in the job market than initially anticipated.
Tech Titan Tussle: Conflicting Visions of the Future
The leaders of major tech companies can’t seem to agree on what the future holds. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, whose company is basically printing money thanks to the AI boom, is urging his employees to embrace AI for everything. He assures them it won’t replace their jobs, just change them. His mantra? “You’re not going to lose your job to an AI, but you’re going to lose your job to someone who uses AI.” This sentiment is similar to Hadi Partovi, CEO of Code.org’s past statement emphasizing that the greater displacement will be from workers who don’t know how to use AI.
On the other hand, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy has acknowledged that AI agents will lead to “fewer people doing some of the jobs that are being done today,” predicting a total corporate workforce reduction in the coming years. Google CEO Sundar Pichai is trying to play both sides, acknowledging the fears while framing AI as an “accelerator” that will create new jobs. It’s a classic case of “wait and see,” but with potentially massive consequences.
Why is this important? The conflicting messages from tech leaders reflect the uncertainty and anxiety surrounding AI’s impact. While some tout the potential for collaboration and new job creation, others acknowledge the reality of job displacement. This divergence highlights the need for careful planning and proactive adaptation to the changing landscape.
The Numbers Don’t Lie: Sobering Predictions from New Studies
Several new reports paint a concerning picture of the job market. The UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) warns that 2.1 million jobs in financial and professional services are at risk of being “substituted” by AI within the next decade. Another report from the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) predicts that up to 3 million low-skilled jobs in the UK could disappear by 2035, while demand for highly skilled professionals increases.
Stateside, an MIT study found that AI can already perform tasks equivalent to nearly 12% of the US workforce, representing about $1.2 trillion in wages. The impact is already visible in a decline in entry-level positions for younger workers. And a global survey by BearingPoint revealed that half of executives believe their workforce is already 10-19% over capacity due to automation and AI, with nearly half anticipating being 30-50% over capacity in three years.
Why is this important? These studies provide concrete evidence of AI’s potential to disrupt the job market on a massive scale. The numbers are staggering, and they highlight the urgent need for upskilling and reskilling initiatives to prepare workers for the changing demands of the workforce. The MIT study, in particular, is not a prophecy but a map of what is already possible, and for that reason, it is even more unsettling.
The IRS Gets a Shadow Workforce
In a move that flew under the radar, the IRS has begun deploying Salesforce’s Agentforce across several key departments. No flashy announcements, just a quiet integration of AI agents into the places where the government decides, interprets, and settles. The initial task is modest: case summarization and search. But the significance is huge.
Meanwhile, the IRS workforce has shrunk rapidly, from roughly 100,000 to about 75,000, with cuts concentrated in IT and HR. Insert a fleet of software agents into that vacuum, and you get a shadow org chart. The front line shifts from full-stack case work to orchestration and exception handling. The entry-level funnel narrows, while a smaller cadre of expert reviewers absorbs more responsibility.
Why is this important? The IRS rollout is a major validation of AI’s potential to transform government operations. It demonstrates that even highly regulated and sensitive institutions are willing to embrace AI to improve efficiency and reduce costs. But it also raises concerns about the potential for job displacement and the need for careful oversight to ensure fairness and transparency.
Amazon’s New Org Chart Is Measured in Megawatts
Amazon is cutting roughly 14,000 corporate jobs – about 4% of its white-collar ranks – and doubling down on generative AI. The message is clear: fewer people in the back office, more chips, more data centers, more power. While affected employees get 90 days to find another role, the new openings aren’t on adjacent teams; they’re in cold aisles and construction zones. The enterprise that once scaled by adding program managers is now scaling by adding megawatts.
Why is this important? Amazon’s move highlights a fundamental shift in how companies are scaling. They’re replacing human capital with technological infrastructure, leading to a labor migration from white-collar hubs to energy corridors. This means the jobs of the future might be less about spreadsheets and more about substations.
Washington Wants a Seat at the AI Bargaining Table
Washington state is trying something radical: treating AI like a decision that belongs at the bargaining table. House Bill 1622 would require public agencies to negotiate the decision to roll out or change an AI system that could affect wages or performance evaluations. This would give unions leverage to demand pre-deployment testing, audit rights, and transparent performance thresholds.
Why is this important? This bill could rewrite the power dynamics around AI adoption in the public sector. It would force agencies to consider the impact on workers and negotiate safeguards before implementing new systems. If this model spreads, public-sector AI would start to look very different, with procurement templates including audit clauses and training budgets bundled with licenses.
Three Million Quiet Goodbyes
The National Foundation for Educational Research estimates that between one and three million lower-skilled UK jobs could vanish by 2035 as AI and automation absorb tasks. It’s not a jobless future – total employment is projected to increase – but the growth is in professional roles, while the attrition is in entry-level positions. The escalator still runs, just with fewer steps at the bottom.
Why is this important? This report narrows the aperture, giving us a time-boxed estimate of AI’s impact on specific occupations. It also highlights a skills bottleneck: millions of workers need to cross a skills threshold that many entry-level roles didn’t previously require. “Low-skilled” work is becoming misnamed, as the remaining tasks skew towards human judgment, context, and coordination.
States Draw a Line Around Workplace AI
Thirty-five state attorneys general, led by New York’s Letitia James, told Congress: don’t wipe out state AI laws. This fight is about who decides how algorithms judge people at work and whether local safeguards survive the push for a single national standard. Colorado and California are already writing your implementation plan.
Why is this important? This letter signals a battle over the future of AI regulation in the workplace. If the states prevail, employers and HR tech vendors will face state-level obligations to test, document, disclose, and answer for algorithmic effects on people’s livelihoods. The smart money prepares for the stricter path and treats federal relief, if it comes, as a bonus rather than a plan.
MIT Puts a Price on AI Exposure
MIT researchers, working with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, unveiled their “Iceberg Index,” which estimates that today’s AI can already perform work equal to 11.7% of the U.S. labor market – about $1.2 trillion in wages. This isn’t a prophecy; it’s a description of the present, built from an agent-based simulation that models 151 million workers across 923 occupations.
Why is this important? The Iceberg Index provides a granular map of AI’s capabilities, revealing that the exposure is concentrated in routine cognitive functions like administration, finance, and HR. This means that most standard indicators are blind to where capability pressure is accumulating. The study reframes public planning, shifting the focus from “if” AI is real to “where, when, and how fast” to invest in reskilling.
The Beige Book’s Quiet Sentence That Redrew the Hiring Map
The Federal Reserve’s November Beige Book contained a single line that might just redraw the entire hiring map: a few employers said artificial intelligence had replaced entry-level roles or lifted productivity enough to pause new hiring. This unassuming formulation has huge implications.
Why is this important? This sentence dignifies the missing job with a name. AI is not just eliminating tasks inside existing roles; it is dissolving the entry point itself. This is where the central bank’s anecdote matters. It is not one company talking its book. It is a cross-section of districts, industries, and pay philosophies yielding a consistent pattern: when demand softens, firms have three levers—freeze, replace only, or cut. AI has become a fourth lever that magnifies the first two. The headcount stays flat; the output doesn’t. On paper, that looks like gentle normalization. In the corridors where careers begin, it looks like a locked door.
The bottom line? AI isn’t just changing the job market; it’s rewriting the rules. The impact is complex, uneven, and often hidden from plain sight. The key is to stay informed, adapt quickly, and advocate for policies that support workers in this rapidly evolving landscape. This isn’t a catastrophe, it’s a fact. It’s sometimes an opportunity for humans and companies to find new ways to thrive and grow.
