In 1983, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Wassily Leontief requested whether or not technological change may develop into so profound that “humans could go the way of horses” when tractors changed them in agriculture and transport within the early a part of the twentieth Century.* Won’t computer systems exchange the necessity for people who can assume the identical approach the combustion engine changed the necessity for literal horsepower?
This week, two analysts at Goldman Sachs tried to reply that query in a analysis paper cheerfully titled, “How Concerned Should We Be About a Job Apocalypse?”
Fairly, however not an excessive amount of, is their conclusion.
Joseph Briggs and Sarah Dong estimate, based mostly on Division of Labor job numbers, that 25% of all work hours could possibly be automated by AI. Thus, “We expect that the AI transition will lead to a meaningful amount of labor displacement.”
AI received’t exchange jobs in a uniform approach, nonetheless. “Our baseline forecast for a 15% AI-driven labor productivity uplift and the historical relationship between technologically driven productivity gains and job loss implies that 6-7% of jobs will be displaced over the adoption period,” they mentioned.
“We estimate a peak gross unemployment rate increase of around 0.6pp (corresponding to a 1 million increase in unemployed workers.”
Earlier eras of technological change have resulted within the creation of a mass of recent jobs that nobody beforehand was in a position to think about, the Goldman crew mentioned.
“Technological change is a main driver of long-run job growth via the creation of new occupations—only 40% of workers today are employed in occupations that existed 85 years ago—suggesting that AI will create new roles even as it renders others obsolete.”
“More than 6 million workers are currently employed in computer-related occupations that did not exist 30-40 years ago, while another 8-9 million are employed in roles enabled by the gig economy, e-commerce, content creation, or video games.”
Fundstrat head of analysis Tom Lee lately made the same comparability in an look on the Prof G Markets podcast with Scott Galloway and Ed Elson, evaluating the present AI growth to the introduction of flash-frozen meals within the Twenties. Citing his agency’s analysis, he claimed this lowered farm labor from 40% of the U.S. workforce to 2%, however sufficient new jobs had been created that the shift was general constructive.
“Let’s say there was a CNBC in 1920 and these economists were saying, ‘frozen food, if it comes along and it’s going to wipe out 95% of all farmers, this is going to wipe out the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy can’t survive frozen food … Instead it freed up time, right? And it created, it allowed people to be repurposed, and it created a completely new labor force.”
*Leontief initially wrote, “The role of humans as the most important factor of production is bound to diminish in the same way that the role of horses … was first diminished and then eliminated.” This has been truncated over time and is now extensively attributed to him as, “Humans could go the way of horses.”
Be part of us on the Fortune Office Innovation Summit Might 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The following period of office innovation is right here—and the outdated playbook is being rewritten. At this unique, high-energy occasion, the world’s most revolutionary leaders will convene to discover how AI, humanity, and technique converge to redefine, once more, the way forward for work. Register now.
