Connect with us

Business

The AI efficiency illusion: why cutting 1.1 million jobs will stifle, not scale, your strategy

Published

on



We are witnessing a false dawn of efficiency. Throughout 2025, corporate America has engaged in a frantic restructuring of the labor market, cutting more than 1.17 million jobs in the first 11 months of the year, a 54% increase from 2024. From the 14,000 corporate cuts at tech giants like Amazon to the nearly 300,000 federal civil service reductions, the narrative driving this contraction is uniform: we are shedding excess labor to make room for the streamlined, high-margin future of artificial intelligence.

But the data tells a different story. This is not a calculated pivot toward higher productivity. It is a hollowing-out strategy that trades immediate payroll savings for a catastrophic erosion of human capital. By viewing AI as a mechanism for replacement rather than augmentation, leaders are incurring a strategic debt that will erase future value, stifle innovation, and, crucially, institutionalize the kind of algorithmic bias that costs companies billions.

We are trying to build the future of work by burning down the infrastructure required to support it.

The Mathematics of the Hollowed-Out Workforce

The prevailing logic in the C-Suite is a simple subtraction equation: lower headcount plus automated tools equals higher margins. However, this ignores the negative externalities imposed on the workforce that remains.

While companies explicitly cited AI for roughly 55,000 cuts through November, there are far more job losses buried under the umbrella of restructuring, which accounted for over 128,000 job losses. Expert estimates suggest the true automation-influenced displacement is likely above 150,000. But the real cost isn’t on the severance line item; it is in the collapse of productivity among the survivors.

Seventy-four percent of employees who survive layoffs report a decline in their own productivity, while 77% witness an increase in operational errors. This phenomenon, often called the layoff survivor syndrome, is a drag on performance fueled by anxiety and the erosion of institutional trust. Volatility sends a signal to your top performers: leave before you are pushed out.

When companies cut costs by eliminating human capacity, they don’t get a leaner organization; they get an anxious, risk-averse, and error-prone one. The so-called productivity equation turns negative because the marginal productivity of the retained workforce plummets faster than the payroll costs decline.

The Tech-First Trap and the Compliance Gap

This productivity collapse is compounded by a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI generates value. While 85% of organizations are increasing their AI investment, only 6% are seeing a payback in under a year.

The answer lies in the implementation. A staggering 59% of organizations are taking a technology-first approach, treating AI as a bolt-on solution rather than undertaking organizational redesign. Even more alarming is where the cuts are happening. The 2025 layoffs are disproportionately targeting mid-layer management, including HR, talent acquisition, and compliance roles.

The result is a growing governance gap. At the exact moment companies are deploying black-box algorithms that require intense oversight, they are firing the overseers. 34% of organizations already expect a shortage in specialist compliance skills. By dismantling these internal guardrails, companies are not streamlining; they are removing the ethical braking systems required to prevent reputational and financial ruin.

AI is not a replacement for human judgment; it is an accelerator of it. But you cannot accelerate what you have already liquidated.

The Equity Penalty

Here is where the economic argument becomes inseparable from the equity argument. The hollowing out of 2025 has not been neutral. It has systematically targeted the very demographics that drive financial outperformance.

The data reveal a profound asymmetry in risk exposure. Women are significantly more vulnerable to the current wave of automation, with 79% of employed women concentrated in high-risk occupations compared to 58% of men. This differential means women are 1.4 times more exposed to displacement. We see this specifically in the hollowing out of critical pipeline positions that enable women to ascend to leadership.

However, the canary in the coal mine for the broader economy is the crisis facing Black women. By November 2025, the unemployment rate for Black women remained at a staggering 7.1%, more than double the 3.4% rate for White women. This was driven by a perfect storm: high exposure to private sector automation combined with the erasure of 300,000 federal jobs, a sector where Black women have historically found stability.

The reality on the ground confirms this is a systemic failure, not a skills gap. Keisha Bross, Director of Opportunity, Race and Justice at the NAACP, reports that she has “not seen interventions happening” to support this displaced workforce. The result? At recent NAACP job fairs, 80% of applicants held bachelor’s degrees yet were lining up for same-day interviews for low-wage roles. We are witnessing the hollowing out of the Black middle class in real-time.

Leaders often view these statistics as a social problem. They are wrong. This is a P&L problem.

There is a hard, quantitative link between intersectional equity and revenue. Research across more than 4,000 companies in 29 countries shows that for every 10% increase in intersectional gender equity, there is a 1% to 2% increase in revenue. Venture capital data further reinforces this, showing that investments in female-founded startups yield a 63% better return on investment than those with male founders. By allowing layoffs to disproportionately target women and people of color, companies are forfeiting a measurable economic dividend.

The Algorithmic Risk Multiplier

The financial danger of a homogenous workforce extends directly into the AI models themselves. If your AI team and your data sources lack diversity, your algorithms will be biased. This is no longer a theoretical risk—it is a tangible liability.

More than one-third of organizations have already suffered negative impacts from AI bias, with 62% reporting lost revenue and 61% reporting lost customers. The legal doctrine of disparate impact creates massive liability for companies whose algorithms discriminate in hiring or lending, regardless of intent.

This tension is starkly visible. On one side, we have the nation’s largest civil rights organization, the NAACP, flagging systemic risk. On the other, we have tech giants like Google and Meta, recently crowned Time’s ‘Person of the Year’, who landed on the NAACP’s Consumer Advisory List by rolling back the very protections meant to ensure that revolution is equitable. This contradiction is not ideological; it’s economic: alienating a demographic with $1.7 trillion in annual buying power. When you remove the diverse talent capable of spotting bias, and the compliance officers capable of reporting it, you guarantee that your AI products will be flawed, biased, and ultimately, litigated.

A Framework for Human-Centric ROI

To reverse this erosion of value, executives must stop viewing labor as a cost to be minimized and start viewing work design as the primary investment vehicle for AI success.

1. Governance as a Profit Center

AI governance must move from the server room to the Boardroom. Boards must include members with the technical literacy to challenge management on model stability and data quality. We must recognize that responsible AI unlocks value and accelerates development by ensuring reliability.

2. Redesign: From Automation to Augmentation

We must shift our strategy from automation (replacing heads) to augmentation (increasing value). Data shows that job numbers actually grow in AI-exposed fields when companies focus on augmentation. This requires a massive investment in skilling, specifically targeting the non-degree holders who are 3.5 times more likely to lose their jobs.

3. Equity as a Growth Engine

Finally, we must embed intersectional equity into the core business strategy. This means using advanced analytics to monitor the talent lifecycle and ensure that restructuring efforts do not decimate the diversity pipeline. It means recognizing that the $12 trillion global economic opportunity of gender equity is only accessible if we actively retain women in the workforce.

The Choice

The 1.17 million layoffs of 2025 represent a fork in the road.

One path leads to a hollowed-out future: a short-term spike in cash flow followed by a long-term decline in innovation, a rise in algorithmic liability, and a workforce paralyzed by fear.

The other path recognizes that in the age of AI, humanity is the premium asset. It acknowledges that the only way to capture the exponential ROI of automation is to pair it with a diverse, resilient, and empowered human workforce.

You can cut your way to a quarterly profit, but you cannot cut your way to the future. True productivity requires us to stop subtracting humans and start solving for the convergence of equity, economics, and engineering.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Want a job in AI-era tech? Forget prestigious degrees—tech leaders want to see your GitHub projects and internships

Published

on



For decades, computer science has been sold as one of the surest paths to economic security. And leaders across politics and industry—from former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates—have at times urged students not to overlook the field, framing coding skills as the secret to stable, high-paying jobs.

But as artificial intelligence rapidly reshapes the workplace, that promise is starting to look less certain.

A new survey of more than 200 engineering leaders, conducted by tech training nonprofit CodePath and shared exclusively with Fortune, shows entry-level tech hiring is slowing. More than one-third of respondents, 38%, said their company has reduced the number of entry-level hiring over the past year, and nearly 1 in 7 reported pausing Gen Z hiring altogether.

At the same time, 18% said hiring had stayed the same, and 8% reported an increase. Despite the overall slowdown, CodePath CEO Michael Ellison—a Y Combinator alum—argues telling people to avoid tech right now would be a mistake.

“That’s just kind of like taking crazy pills if you end up choosing not to invest in the tools that make you the most powerful—of telling computers what you want them to do in an age where computers are becoming exponentially more powerful,” Ellison told Fortune. “So to me, it’s like saying, ‘don’t learn how to use the internet.’”

Ellison’s argument reflects a broader shift in how computer science fits into the AI economy. As generative AI tools become more capable, understanding how software works—and how to direct, customize, and integrate AI systems—is increasingly seen as a foundational skill rather than a specialized one.

That demand is already showing up in the labor market. AI literacy topped LinkedIn’s list of the skills professionals are prioritizing and companies are hiring for right now. And a Lightcast analysis of more than 1.3 billion job postings in 2024 found roles advertising at least one AI or generative AI skill offered an average of $18,000 more in annual compensation that those that did not.

Notably, the majority of those roles were outside the tech sector. Some 51% of jobs requiring AI skills were in non-tech industries, up from 44% in 2022—a sign coding and AI fluency are becoming relevant far beyond Silicon Valley.

The new secret to landing a tech job

Still, slowing hiring doesn’t mean aspiring technologists should give up. Instead, the CodePath data suggests candidates may need to rethink what they emphasize—and what they leave off—when applying for tech roles.

When asked which signals matter most outside the interview process, engineering leaders indicated proof of real-world skills matter far more than formal credentials. Side projects or portfolios topped the list, cited by 38% of respondents, followed by internship experience (35%), and public code portfolios like GitHub (34%).

Traditional markers of achievement, by contrast, carried far less weight. Just 4% of leaders said credentialing programs were a top influence in hiring decisions, while only 23% cited a candidate degree or academic focus and 17% pointed to school prestige.

The shift away from pedigree suggests employers are seeking evidence candidates can actually do the work. Greater fluency with AI tools and frameworks was the most common skill expectation for early-career hires, followed by faster time to writing production-ready code and the ability to learn new tools or programming languages quickly.

And despite buzz about tech layoffs, job opportunities do still exist. The U.S. federal government, for example, recently announced it would be hiring about 1,000 new engineers, data scientists, and AI specialists. No degrees or work experience is required—and salaries will range from $150,000 to $200,000. Meta has also still been hiring young talent in recent weeks, with job postings for roles such as product software engineers.

Ellison’s advice for those seeking roles is simple: Opportunities are out there as long as you are willing to dig in deeper—and build a portfolio that hiring managers are looking for.

“People are rewarded for being aggressive and for going after what they want,” he said. It’s surprising the opportunities that are hidden in plain sight.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

on



You’re not imagining it: The AI job squeeze isn’t some future apocalypse, it’s already quietly underway. 

Professor Yoshua Bengio spent four decades building the technology that is now coming for your job. He is a computer science professor at the Université de Montréal, a Turing Award winner, and one of the most-cited scientists in the world on Google Scholar—and now he’s turned his back on his life’s work to warn that your job is probably already under threat. 

Desk jobs, or as Bengio called them, “cognitive jobs, the jobs that you can do behind a keyboard,” will be the first casualties of automation. 

“It’s just a matter of time,” the AI pioneer stressed on Steven Bartlett’s Diary of a CEO podcast.

“Unless we hit a wall scientifically, like some obstacle prevents us from making progress to make AIs smarter and smarter, there’s going to be a time when they’ll be doing more and more, able to do more and more of the work that people do … And then, of course, it takes years for companies to really integrate that into their workflows, but they’re eager to do it. So it’s more a matter of time than, is it happening or not?”

And he admitted that it’s Gen Z new-hires who are currently being hit hardest by AI, as junior roles are the easiest to cut, consolidate, or backfill with software—but eventually everyone’s jobs will be impacted within five years.

It’s not just office jobs that are at risk; even trade jobs and democracy itself are threatened 

For years, degrees were pushed as the key to success for the young and aspirational looking to nab well-paying and stable jobs. But now, even highly educated students are finding themselves “unemployable” as employers launch a “wait-and-watch strategy” in the midst of AI. Graduates in the U.K. are facing the worst job market since 2018. And companies like Intel, IBM, and Google have been freezing thousands of would-be new roles that AI is expected to take over in the next five years.

But it’s not just a blip or a reflection of the current economy, Bengio warned. As more firms lean on AI and eventually robots, too, the technology will only get smarter, he said. 

“As companies are deploying more and more robots, they will be collecting more and more data. So eventually, it’s going to happen,” Bengio said when asked whether AI will be able to wipe out all work. Even young people trying to outsmart automation by ditching degrees or upskilling into trade jobs are destined for the same dead end.

“So if you do a physical job—as Geoffrey Hinton is often saying, you should be a plumber or something—it’s going to take more time [for AI to replace your job], but I think it’s only a temporary thing.” 

Now, knowing the devastation AI could cause, Bengio said he regrets his life’s work. 

“I should have seen this coming much earlier, but I didn’t pay much attention to the potentially catastrophic risks,” the 61-year-old admitted. “But my turning point was when ChatGPT came, and also with my grandson, I realized that it wasn’t clear if he would have a life 20 years from now, because we’re starting to see AI systems that are resisting being shut down.”

He’s since founded LawZero, a nonprofit organization focused on building safe and human-aligned AI systems. But at the current rate of change, his warning is clear: It’s not just jobs, even democracy could collapse in as little as two decades.

His message for CEOs? “Step back from your work. Talk to each other, and let’s see if together, we can solve the problem. Because if we are stuck in this competition, we’re going to take huge risks that are not good for you, not good for your children.”

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

on



If it wasn’t for a Volkswagen bus and a calculator, Apple might never have existed. At the time, the late cofounder Steve Jobs was in his early twenties and strapped for cash, but hooked on the idea that everyone should be able to own a home computer. The only problem? Like many founders, he didn’t have enough money to bring his vision to life.

So Jobs sold off his Volkswagen bus while fellow cofounder Steve Wozniak got money for his programmable calculator, raising $1,300 to pay for the prototype’s parts. And the first Apple computer, the Apple I, was born on April Fools’ Day, 1976.

The sacrifice paid off: A local computer dealer placed a $50,000 order for 100 units soon after it launched, with the product mainly bought up by hobby enthusiasts. But it made the entrepreneurial duo enough money to create Apple II for the mass market—the first personal computer to include a keyboard and color graphics. A year after its 1977 debut, it made nearly $3 million. 

“I was worth about over $1 million when I was 23, and over $10 million when I was 24, and over $100 million when I was 25,” Jobs told PBS in 1996. “And it wasn’t that important, because I never did it for the money.”

The days of selling their belongings to fund their fledgling business was long behind them.

From college dropout to $10.2 billion net worth: Jobs’ path to Apple success

Jobs didn’t discover his passion for technology in a college class; at age 12, the entrepreneur had already found his true calling, and took a massive leap of faith to pursue his dreams. 

A young Jobs thumbed through the yellow pages, and hunted down the phone number of Hewlett-Packard cofounder Bill Hewlett, ringing him up for a favor. At the time, the tween was in need of spare parts to build a frequency counter. But what he received was far better than some nuts and bolts; Hewlett offered Jobs an internship at the iconic $21.4 billion tech company, where he serendipitously met a talented engineer: Wozniak. 

Together, the pair started their first business, illegally selling “blue boxes” that allowed users to make free, long-distance telephone calls. Jobs reminisced about those years in the early 1970s as a “magical” time in his life that sent him on the path to soon create Apple. 

“Experiences like that taught us the power of ideas,” Jobs said in the 1998 documentary Silicon Valley: A 100-Year Renaissance. “If we hadn’t … made blue boxes, there would have been no Apple.”

Jobs later enrolled at Reed College in Portland, Ore., but his days of higher education were short-lived. He dropped out after just one semester, inevitably working for legendary brand Atari as a technician and games designer at just 18 years old. That would be the last time Jobs worked under somebody else; just two years later, Apple I hit the market, and Jobs was well on his way to becoming one of the most visionary tech pioneers in modern history. 

Fast-forward five decades later, and Apple is the second most valuable company in the world. The business sits in fourth place on the Fortune 500, having sold more than 3 billion iPhones, and boasting more than 100 million Mac users globally. 

At the time of his passing in 2011, Jobs was estimated to be worth $10.2 billion. Although he had enough money to buy a whole fleet of luxury cars shortly after founding Apple, selling his Volkswagen proved to be a critical sacrifice in making it to the top.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.