The warning has become routine. Each new round of layoffs is swiftly followed by explanations invoking automation, artificial intelligence, and the future of work. Together, they form a narrative of inevitability, one in which machines are already reshaping employment and human workers are steadily being replaced.Yet a closer examination of the data suggests a far less dramatic reality. A new research briefing from Oxford Economics challenges the claim that AI is currently driving large-scale job losses, arguing that the technology is being overstated as a cause of unemployment and, in some cases, used to reframe conventional business setbacks.
Oxford Economics report challenges AI job loss claims
In a January 7 report, Oxford Economics said firms do not appear to be replacing workers with artificial intelligence on a significant scale. While isolated examples of AI-related displacement exist, the firm found no macroeconomic evidence of a structural employment shift caused by automation.Instead, the researchers pointed to more traditional factors, including weaker consumer demand and excessive hiring during the post-pandemic expansion. “We suspect some firms are trying to dress up layoffs as a good news story rather than bad news,” the report stated.
Investor messaging drives AI attribution
The report noted that attributing job cuts to AI adoption sends a more favourable signal to investors than acknowledging strategic miscalculations or cyclical downturns. Positioning layoffs as part of a technological transition allows companies to present themselves as forward-looking, even as they reduce headcount.Oxford Economics warned that exaggerating the part played by AI in layoffs may lead to a misunderstanding of the issue and policy discussion. The company explained that presenting normal job redundancies as a result of AI technology becoming a necessity may cause the spread of unwarranted fears that the present data do not confirm.AI is forecast to be one of the major factors shaping the future of the job market; however, the study came to the conclusion that the current effect of AI on jobs is rather marginal, and hence, the main driver of employment still remains the state of the economy.
Layoff data shows AI impact remains limited
Data from Challenger, Gray & Christmas, as cited in the report, reveal that layoffs related to AI have continued to represent only a small fraction of total job losses. In the first 11 months of 2025 alone, almost 55,000 job cuts in the US were ascribed to AI, making up more than 75% of the total AI-related layoffs reported since 2023.
Broader labour market context weakens automation narrative
Oxford Economics noted that between 1.5 million and 1.8 million workers lose their jobs in the US each month under normal labour market conditions. Against that backdrop, AI-related job losses remain marginal and do not indicate a systemic shift.The firm said the data aligns more closely with cyclical economic adjustment than with widespread automation-driven displacement.
Productivity trends do not signal labour replacement
The report also examined productivity data to assess whether AI is replacing labour at scale. If automation were significantly reducing labour demand, output per worker would be rising sharply.Instead, Oxford Economics found that productivity growth has slowed. “If AI were already replacing labour at scale, productivity growth should be accelerating. Generally, it isn’t,” the report stated. The firm said the trend suggests AI adoption remains uneven and largely experimental.
Narrative risk outweighs economic impact
Oxford Economics warned that exaggerating AI’s part in layoffs could lead to a misunderstanding of the facts by the public and the policy debate getting sidetracked. The company added that portraying ordinary job cuts as something caused by technology is a sure way of making people fear a future that the data at hand does not actually support.Admittedly, AI will surely have a say in the future of work, but the study ended up pointing out that its current impact on employment is still marginal, and the main driver of changes in employment has been the economic situation.
About the Author
