Evidence that AI is destroying jobs for young people

Here are the key themes from the Hacker News discussion:

The "AI Effect" is Lagging or Misattributed

Many users questioned the timing of job market fluctuations, particularly the drop in Software Engineer (SWE) roles in mid-2022, suggesting that widespread adoption of AI tools like LLM copilots occurred much later (late 2023/mid-2024). The concern is that AI is being used as a scapegoat for broader economic trends.

TuringNYC opened the discussion by asking: "How does one explain the drop starting January 2023 (esp for things like Customer Service Rep, which is an NLP-heavy task) when most corporations didnt even start LLM/NLP pilots until mid/late 2023? I skimmed thru the 100+ page paper but didnt see an explanation for this strange leading effect."
TuringNYC also noted: "The SWE figures dropped mid-2022 (almost magically in line with interest rate hikes) and LLM-copilots wasnt introduced for another year."
phyzome questioned: "Skimming this, I'm not sure why it couldn't be explained by the layoffs we had a couple years ago, which were primarily at tech companies (which are indeed more exposed to LLMs) and probably hit junior devs more."
whatever1 stated: "Software engineering is in correction mode since 2022, right after the Covid highs. AI is just the facade for job cuts."
jkk166 believes: "Any economic data from between 2020 and 2025 should be tossed in the garbage. We will have no idea what affect AI has or hasn't had until AI has been available outside of the extremely confounded current circumstances."
iJohnDoe echoed this sentiment: "A lot of CEOs are saying do more with less. Basically they are saying, “If there are any requests to hire additional people the first thing I ask them is if any AI tools have been tried first.”"

Economic Factors and Policy Changes (Interest Rates, Tax Law)

A significant portion of the discussion attributes the job market shifts to broader economic factors, most notably the end of the Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) and changes to tax laws, particularly Section 174 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

TuringNYC pointed out the timing: "SWE figures dropped mid-2022 (almost magically in line with interest rate hikes)... The paper notes they did an adjustment for the end of ZIRP."
yowlingcat expressed surprise at the lack of emphasis on this: "I don't get how interest rates is given at best a cursory phrase when ZIRP regime ending is one of the biggest macro events of the past several decades. Seems like it would deserve more of a spotlight."
advael proposed a specific reason for the SWE drop: "The 2022 drop for SWE is easy for me to explain, and it's not on these analysts' list of factors... In 2017, a tax bill was passed that cut a particular tax incentive in 2022... The incentive in question was a writeoff for 'Research and development'."
TuringNYC elaborated on the tax aspect: "For a software engineering business, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 significantly impacted how software costs can be expensed under Section 179. ... The report not addressing this elephant in the room is a disappointing."
kevindamm added: "I think it may have been a one-two punch of §174 and the end of ZIRP."
silisili inquired: "Section 174 was the big one that affected how SE salaries could be deducted, that many blamed for the start of layoffs. However, that's back for tax year 2025, so why aren't we seeing the jobs come back?"
MontyCarloHall responded regarding the Section 174 reversal: "It was only just reinstated, so it's probably too early to see the effects." He also mentioned the impact of Elon Musk's Twitter layoffs as a wake-up call: "There were so many prognostications that Twitter would imminently implode after downsizing from ~8k to ~1.5k employees, and when these claims never came to pass, it was a wake-up call to the rest of the industry."
pzo cited another potential factor affecting startups: "collapse of Silicon Valley Bank."

Corporate Coordination and Strategy (Conspiracy Theories and Strategic Planning)

Some users suggested that companies might be coordinating their actions, either formally or informally, to reduce headcount and force the adoption of AI, or simply to drive down talent costs.

thrawa8387336 offered a speculative anecdote: "This is a second hand anecdote but someone commented here or on X, that basically he was on a cruise and overheard two heads of HR of 2 big Co's talking to each other about shenanigans." The idea was that "If you annihilate the entry labor market, then after some time, you have no choice but to use AI because there is no one remaining with the skills."
tejohnso interpreted this: "It's describing the setting for a conspiracy theory. Multiple (in this case 2) people (in this case powerful ones) getting together and deciding that a certain outcome would be mutually beneficial."
le-mark posed the question: "IMO there exists a concerted effort to push this “ai takin our jerbs”. I just wonder by who and why?"
advael suggested: "People heavily invested in AI, obviously. We have an economy that's heavily driven by investor perception, and while "AI is taking jobs" sounds bad for workers or humanity as a whole, it can still be a sales pitch for investing in AI."
cyanydeez believed it's "lipstick on a pig": "We've seen tech companies collude before, and I'm guessing they're doing it again, trying to drive down the price of talent and make their employees less demanding."
jordanb noted: "Yeah my company started stepping up outsourcing in 2023. We also started some AI projects. The AI projects haven't made much progress but the outsourcing is at an extremely advanced stage."
iJohnDoe indicated that CEOs are asking about AI use: "If there are any requests to hire additional people the first thing I ask them is if any AI tools have been tried first."

Overhiring and Market Correction

A prevalent theme is that the job market, especially in tech, experienced significant overhiring during the pandemic, leading to a necessary correction that is independent of AI.

fuzzfactor stated: "The economy is destroying the jobs and AI is just the raven on the shoulder of a stumbling bull."
deelowe shared personal experience: "I personally sat in meetings in 2022 where we adjusted staffing projections in anticipation of AI efficiency. Sure some of it was 'overhiring,' but the reality was that those staffing goals were pre-ai. Once they were updated, that's when the layoffs started..."
MontyCarloHall suggested that companies realized they "overhired during ZIRP" and perhaps didn't need the headcount, citing the Twitter layoffs as an example.
blindriver argued: "They were lost because every company overhired from 2020-2022 and they have to absorb it given the drop in activity once the Pandemic was over."
choilive agreed that the weakness started before AI became dominant: "All the more reason to believe that while correlated, LLMs are certainly not the largest contributor, or even the cause of the job market weakness for young people. The more likely and simple explanation is that there are cracks forming in the economy not just in the US but globally..."
causal affirmed: "I was applying for jobs in 2022 and we all knew that the market was crap then because of overhiring during pandemic."
jampa described a "tragedy of the commons situation" with junior hiring: "The ZIRP era made companies hire people as if there was no tomorrow... Then everyone realized they were training junior engineers who would quickly get offers from other companies as 'Senior' and leave. So companies stopped hiring them."

The Role of Media and Hype in the AI Narrative

Several users touched upon how media outlets and the general hype surrounding AI contribute to the discourse, often for clicks or to drive investment.

samtho commented: "From the perspective of the publications, it’s fear-mongering which makes clicks. Out of control AI is a common sci-fi trope because it’s a convenient allegory for the uncaring systems that determine the quality or continuation of human life."
ivewonyoung identified key "pushers of this narrative": "CEOs of AI and AI adjacent companies... Media heavily pushing the above CEOs quotes, probably just for clicks and engagement."
daxfohl suggested "scapegoating AI" and that it might be a cover for a lack of new ideas: "I think what you mean is 'scapegoating AI'. I think there's also a pinch of 'we've run out of ideas / high margin projects'."
g42gregory expressed skepticism about articles from major publications: "My challenge here is that every time I see 'The Atlantic' or 'The New York Times', I can’t shake the feeling that it’s got to be a paid advertisement or some influence piece by a special interest group."
t0lo described media's role as promoting "dissolution of social and communal values and trying to erase the idea of intellectualism."

Customer Service Jobs and Offshoring

The discussion specifically addressed customer service roles, suggesting that offshoring and a lack of corporate investment in service quality are larger drivers than AI.

advael stated: "For customer service, my explanation is that companies literally do not care about customer service. Automated phone trees, outsourced call centers... businesses never seem to try to compete on doing better at it." They added that AI initiatives are a "cheap win with investors who want to hear about AI initiatives to lay off yet even more of this department".
awesome_dude mused about a side effect: "There's also some argument that, if people cannot get customer service to 'help' they stop asking for help - driving that cost down."
kraig911 observed: "I can't remember the last time I had a customer service call that took place with someone stateside. It's easy to point to AI when offshoring for favorable interest rates is really the reason."
giantg2 mentioned: "My company had multiple call center modernizing projects going on starting around 2021, including many NLP based routing and task upgrades."

The Nature of Entry-Level Roles and Skills

There was a debate about whether entry-level roles are inherently more susceptible to automation or displacement, with some arguing it’s about experience with complex tasks, while others defended the capabilities of young, less experienced workers.

TuringNYC implied that Customer Service Rep roles are "NLP-heavy" and should be affected by AI.
The original paper that sparked the discussion noted that "strategic thinking that goes into longer-horizon tasks may be something LLMs aren’t as good at, which aligns with why entry-level workers are more affected than experienced workers."
charcircuit challenged this notion: "This article continues to propagate the misconception that young is the same thing as inexperienced." They argued that "it only takes 2 to 3 years to rack up the 10,000 hours to 'master' something, young people can get very good at a lot of things."
dataexec suggested: "We can assume the two are so strongly correlated that it's not worth it to differentiate. Even though many exceptions exist."
dr_kiszonka asked: "What are those 'augmentative' jobs that fresh CS grads can transition to?"

The Impact of DEI Initiatives

A tangential but significant theme in the latter part of the discussion was the potential impact of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives on hiring and layoffs, with some suggesting it created hiring difficulties or altered layoff considerations.

throwmeaway222 listed "Ending DEI" as a factor: "10% Ending DEI."
tasty_freeze was skeptical: "Do you really think that companies were hiring that many unqualified people for DEI reasons?"
leetrout shared an anecdote: "I had two different hiring managers in two different companies explicitly tell me and others to hire women or PoC. Yes it was illegal. No one cares."
ajsnigrutin connected this to political trends: "Those same people then wonder why more and more young men are turning towards 'right wing' parties, how trump won, why AfD is on the rise, etc."
strken reframed it: "If you rephrase 'ending DEI' to 'reducing the risk of getting sued when laying off x% of staff', does it make any more sense?" They argued that DEI can be a "minor barrier to doing that for some cohorts" when trying to remove underperforming employees.