English language Visionary Marketing Podcasts

The discourse around the job impact of artificial intelligence (AI) has reached fever pitch. Headlines scream about mass layoffs, and corporate press releases tout AI as the solution to workforce costs. Yet beneath this cacophony of alarm and hype lies a more nuanced reality. J.P. Gownder, Vice President and Principal Analyst on Forrester’s Future of Work team, has spent decades analysing how technology transforms the workplace. His latest report, The Forrester AI Job Impact Forecast for the US 2025-2030, cuts through the noise with empirical rigour. The verdict? The job apocalypse is not upon us, but a measured reckoning is coming. AI Job Impact in the US: Why the Apocalypse Can Wait JP Gownder is adamant: the AI job. apocalypse can wait. At least until 2030. Phew! All images in this post made with a combination of Midjourney, Gemini Nano Banana pro and Adobe Photoshop The Gap Between AI Job Impact Announcements and Reality When Klarna declared it would stop hiring humans, the tech world took notice. The Swedish fintech became a poster child for AI-driven workforce reduction. Yet a closer examination reveals a pattern Gownder has observed across hundreds of enterprise conversations: the disconnect between C-suite proclamations and operational reality. Nine out of ten companies announcing AI layoffs don’t actually have mature AI solutions ready. So most of the layoffs are financially driven and AI is just the scapegoat, at least today — J.P. Gownder, Forrester The phenomenon echoes what happened after IBM Watson’s Jeopardy victory in 2011, when panic about imminent job losses proved premature by half a decade. The mechanics of this gap are straightforward. A CEO announces a 20% workforce reduction with AI backfilling the work. But standing up an AI solution that actually performs those tasks requires 18 to 24 months, “if it works at all.” Meanwhile, the work still needs doing. Gownder has witnessed organisations that fired employees citing AI capabilities, only to quietly hire teams in lower-cost markets weeks later. “They’re firing people because of AI,” he observes, “and then three weeks later they hire a team in India because the labour is so much cheaper.” The AI narrative, in many cases, serves as convenient cover for old-fashioned cost arbitrage. Klarna’s trajectory illustrates this pattern. After aggressively cutting its workforce by 40% and touting an AI chatbot capable of doing the work of 700 customer service agents, the company reversed course. CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski acknowledged that the aggressive automation had resulted in “lower quality” service. The company is now recruiting human customer service agents in an “Uber-type setup.” Understanding the 6% AI Job Impact Forecast Forrester’s forecast projects a 6% net job loss by 2030, roughly 10.4 million positions in the US economy. Half of this impact stems from generative AI; the remainder from automation, physical robotics, and non-generative AI applications. The number may seem modest compared to the apocalyptic predictions circulating in media, but context matters. During the Great Recession of 2008-2009, the United States lost 8.7 million jobs. Those losses, however, were temporary, tied to macroeconomic conditions that eventually reversed. The jobs Forrester forecasts losing are “structurally replaced by machine labour” and may not return. AI impact on Jobs: I would expect to see a lot more freelance and consulting work to be happening, but it doesn’t mean that there won’t be a traditional job track somewhere as well. JP Gownder The methodology behind this figure draws on the O-Net dataset maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which catalogues over 800 job categories with detailed information about required skills and tasks. By mapping these against AI’s current and projected capabilities, Gownder and his colleague Michael O’Grady can identify which roles face the highest automation potential. “For jobs that involve skills and tasks that are heavily impacted by AI and automation, we predict more job loss,” Gownder explains. “In job categories that are less impacted, obviously, we would predict less.” Forrester analysed 800 different job types. It seems that Art therapy is the right way to go. The Solow Paradox and AI Productivity Robert Solow’s famous observation that “we see computers everywhere except in the productivity statistics” finds a new iteration in the AI era. The parallel is instructive. It took nearly three decades for the internet’s productivity impact to materialise. E-commerce is only now truly disrupting traditional retail, as evidenced by the shuttering of independent shops from New York to Paris. Could Forrester’s five-year window be too narrow? Gownder acknowledges the limitation inherent in forecasting: “Anything that you forecast beyond five years is effectively an impression.” Yet the pace of technology adoption has accelerated dramatically. The telephone required 75 years to reach 100 million users from its 1878 introduction. The personal computer achieved the same milestone in 16 years. Mobile phones took seven years. ChatGPT? Two months. This compression suggests that while the Solow paradox may still apply, its timeline could be considerably shorter. “If there’s a job apocalypse, you’re going to have fewer people working because that’s what the apocalypse means. Those people would have to be producing more output. You cannot see a job apocalypse without aggregate productivity going up.” — J.P. Gownder, Forrester The productivity data tells a sobering story. From 1947 to 1973, US labour productivity grew at 2.7% annually. The current business cycle shows 1.8%. Even isolating the quarters since ChatGPT’s release yields only 2.2%. The numbers don’t lie, and they’re not yet showing the revolutionary gains AI proponents promise. Where the AI Job Impact Pressure Points Lie The AI job impact in the US will not be evenly distributed. Contact centre workers face continued pressure from automation that began with interactive voice response systems and now benefits from far more sophisticated solutions. Technical writers and web content creators occupy vulnerable ground. Insurance underwriters are seeing algorithmic encroachment; computer vision can now assess car accident damage from uploaded photos. Junior-level roles involving spreadsheet or presentation creation face mounting pressure. Software development presents a nuanced case. “If you are a junior level software developer,” Gownder notes, “we know that Claude does a great job of creating basic code.” Yet senior developers with architectural judgement and system-level understanding remain essential. The pattern repeats across knowledge work: AI augments more than it replaces, transforming job descriptions rather than eliminating positions entirely. “It’s not that there aren’t jobs that will go away,” he clarifies, “but they are much more specific and limited, and they need to be architected with the right technology to replace that job. It’s not everybody goes away.” Blue-collar work presents its own dynamics. Physical robotics will play a role in certain sectors: warehouse sorting and picking have improved through computer vision, and construction has seen experiments with brick-laying and cement-pouring robots. But the humanoid robots capturing media attention are unlikely to achieve significant workplace deployment within the forecast period. The physical world, with its infinite variations and unexpected challenges, remains stubbornly resistant to automation. The White-Collar AI Job Impact Misconception White-collar workers now constitute roughly 60% of the workforce in both the US and Europe, a dramatic shift from previous generations. These “symbolic analysts,” as Charles Handy termed them, don’t produce physical goods, which has led some to assume their work is easily transferable to AI systems. Gownder pushes back against this notion. “Most white-collar work is, in fact, fairly productive because there is something on the other end that someone is willing to pay for.” Software engineers create applications that enable other work. Physicians produce healthcare outcomes. Analysts help organisations make better decisions. The practical challenges of AI deployment in white-collar settings corroborate these theoretical objections. Hallucinations remain a persistent problem, introducing error margins that knowledge workers must catch and correct. Employees often lack the skills and understanding to use AI tools effectively. Organisations overextend their expectations of what AI can accomplish. “When it fails, it’s dramatic,” Gownder observes. The Deloitte incidents in Australia and Canada, where AI-generated content with obvious hallucinations reached government clients, illustrate the reputational risks of premature automation. The Australian government report contained fabricated academic citations and even a made-up quote from a federal court judgement. Both governments required refunds. “You don’t want to produce AI work slop and present it as your work without editing, without perspective. That is a losing proposition.” — J.P. Gownder, Forrester A Harvard Business Review study reinforces these concerns. Researchers found that executives who used ChatGPT to make predictions became significantly more optimistic, confident, and produced worse forecasts than those who consulted with peers. The authoritative voice of AI produces a strong sense of assurance, unchecked by the social regulation and useful scepticism that human consultation provides. AI Job Impact on Marketers and Digital Professionals For students entering digital marketing and related fields, the picture is complex but not nec