trailEarly-career workers in AI-exposed occupations have experienced relative employment declines since generative AI adoption
Employers respond to generative AI mainly by reorganizing workers' tasks rather than changing pay or hours
AI-related employment declines are concentrated in occupations where AI automates rather than augments human labor
Convergent payroll and résumé evidence· for
US early-career workers aged 22-25 in the most AI-exposed occupations saw a 16% relative employment decline since generative AI's widespread adoption
The observed AI-related employment decline is robust to excluding technology firms and remote-work-amenable occupations
Employment for less AI-exposed workers and more experienced workers in AI-exposed occupations has stayed stable or grown
ADP payroll data are broadly representative of overall US labor-market trends
Within firms adopting generative AI, junior employment has declined sharply while senior employment stayed largely unchanged
atomic
Pre-existing hiring slowdown· against
Hiring for AI-exposed occupations began declining before ChatGPT's release in November 2022
shared · shown elsewhere
Representative survey data show no differential decline· against
Unemployment has risen less for workers in AI-exposed occupations than for less-exposed workers
atomic
US aggregate labor-market data show no relationship between occupational AI exposure and changes in employment or unemployment since ChatGPT's release
atomic
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Early-career workers in AI-exposed occupations have experienced relative employment declines since generative AI adoption
⇄ContestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →credence 0.60Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
2depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.