Over only the last 12 months, the comparators only include one other western European economy (so if its hitting France harder, for example, it would not be mentioned), its based on what companies say (which may not be accurate, or even honest). The UK economy is weak, and a number of the other economies in the comparison are just as weak, or weaker, and the UK's unemployment rate is rising from very low levels - unemployment in 2022 was the lowest it had been since the 70s. On the other hand Germany's rate is still higher than the UK's (and has been for many years) and had been rising until recently.
The other data is which jobs have seen the greatest falls in advertised vacancies. If you look at the graph it looks compelling with programmers and management consultants at the bottom - but these are also jobs that were likely to do badly in any downturn anyway.
There are also falls in vacancies for jobs completely unrelated to AI - bar staff, vets, vehicle cleaners, boat builders.... look at the graph on Bloomberg:
Oh Yeah, it's the AI. It can't be that GDP growth has stalled to 0.1 per quarter. We are definitely not heading for a recession guys. It's all unicorns rainbows and robot butlers in our future.
They also answer might these things quite casually. The response may not come from people who know. Its probably been delegated to someone quite junior.
I once saw a survey question (on what the view was of economic outlook and exchange rates) been bounced to someone junior, who then looked to an external source which based its answer partly on the previous version of the same survey.
Saying you are laying people off because AI, makes the company look like it's innovating and embracing new technology. Saying you are laying people off because costs are up and earnings are struggling reflects bad on the image of the company and the performance of the leadership. Everyone has incentives to lie.
What we would be seeing if the AI uptake was productive would be faster GDP growth, and an uptick in the job market as they would be looking for people to leverage the AI into even more productive gains.
Companies tend to lie towards their employees in similar ways as to the public. Very often most if the organization ends up believing the lies. The few people that do not tend to keep shut or go elsewhere.
A big issue is that by scalping out early stages of careers AI could create a large impact on employee development.
If AI means you don't need to hire so many 2-5 year experience employees it means you're not creating 5year + experience employees available for the market.
This might mean that AI expands it's niche, as experienced employees become more scared we'll have to push more of their work onto AI.
I'm not sure it's going to be all industries that have this issue. Some are far more reliant on junior roles.
Like SWE, but also accountants, lawyers and their paralegals, etc.
In the UK in particular the high costs associated with large workforces mean it's just too nice to cut headcount.
I do not see any compelling evidence or numbers to prove it on the article. Also, as a political write up it should consider other facts that can have influenced on the those outputs.
I wish journalism was not used for other purposes rather than what it is being used for
I'm sure this is purely due to awesome AI and not the long term fallout from Brexit. The investment bank conducting the "research" is surely not invested in AI either.
Over only the last 12 months, the comparators only include one other western European economy (so if its hitting France harder, for example, it would not be mentioned), its based on what companies say (which may not be accurate, or even honest). The UK economy is weak, and a number of the other economies in the comparison are just as weak, or weaker, and the UK's unemployment rate is rising from very low levels - unemployment in 2022 was the lowest it had been since the 70s. On the other hand Germany's rate is still higher than the UK's (and has been for many years) and had been rising until recently.
The other data is which jobs have seen the greatest falls in advertised vacancies. If you look at the graph it looks compelling with programmers and management consultants at the bottom - but these are also jobs that were likely to do badly in any downturn anyway.
There are also falls in vacancies for jobs completely unrelated to AI - bar staff, vets, vehicle cleaners, boat builders.... look at the graph on Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-26/ai-job-cu...
It's easier to say AI than it is to say "we can't really compete with china and the US and also brexit was a mistake".
Oh Yeah, it's the AI. It can't be that GDP growth has stalled to 0.1 per quarter. We are definitely not heading for a recession guys. It's all unicorns rainbows and robot butlers in our future.
> British companies reported that AI had resulted in net job losses over the past 12 months, down 8%
The companies responding know best why they do and don't hire.
Companies lie. Even if companies didn't lie, people within companies lie.
They also answer might these things quite casually. The response may not come from people who know. Its probably been delegated to someone quite junior.
I once saw a survey question (on what the view was of economic outlook and exchange rates) been bounced to someone junior, who then looked to an external source which based its answer partly on the previous version of the same survey.
Saying you are laying people off because AI, makes the company look like it's innovating and embracing new technology. Saying you are laying people off because costs are up and earnings are struggling reflects bad on the image of the company and the performance of the leadership. Everyone has incentives to lie.
What we would be seeing if the AI uptake was productive would be faster GDP growth, and an uptick in the job market as they would be looking for people to leverage the AI into even more productive gains.
I somewhat agree, but:
With your first point that would be in public, but they do not have the same incentives replying to a survey with the promise of confidentiality.
With the second yes, but not in the short term.
Companies tend to lie towards their employees in similar ways as to the public. Very often most if the organization ends up believing the lies. The few people that do not tend to keep shut or go elsewhere.
https://1funny.com/funny-joke-the-forecast/
It is October, and the Indians on a remote reservation ask their new Chief if the coming winter is going to be cold or mild…
:)
If that 8% was representative or even accurate then unemployment would have rocketed.
>It can't be that GDP growth has stalled to 0.1 per quarter.
Growth was 1.1% in 2025, not great but saying it was 0.1% per quarter is deceptive.
>We are definitely not heading for a recession guys.
The consensus for 2026 is 1.4%, definitely not a recession.
It was 0.1 the last two quarters.
2026 just started, these are all forecasts. I guess we will see.
> Oh Yeah, it's the AI. It can't be that GDP growth has stalled to 0.1 per quarter.
Why not both?
A big issue is that by scalping out early stages of careers AI could create a large impact on employee development.
If AI means you don't need to hire so many 2-5 year experience employees it means you're not creating 5year + experience employees available for the market.
This might mean that AI expands it's niche, as experienced employees become more scared we'll have to push more of their work onto AI.
I'm not sure it's going to be all industries that have this issue. Some are far more reliant on junior roles.
Like SWE, but also accountants, lawyers and their paralegals, etc.
In the UK in particular the high costs associated with large workforces mean it's just too nice to cut headcount.
I do not see any compelling evidence or numbers to prove it on the article. Also, as a political write up it should consider other facts that can have influenced on the those outputs.
I wish journalism was not used for other purposes rather than what it is being used for
> Also, as a political write up it should consider other facts that can have influenced on the those outputs.
Lots of those. That would mean a journalist actually address the complexity of cause and effect in a national economy. Not going to happen.
I'm sure this is purely due to awesome AI and not the long term fallout from Brexit. The investment bank conducting the "research" is surely not invested in AI either.
[dead]