When Jessica Wachter, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, wanted to assess AI’s impact on the economy over the next few years, she faced a long list of business and technical uncertainties. So she started with what she calls a “remarkable fact” that is not in question: A handful of so-called hyperscalers are investing huge amounts of money to build AI data centers.

Instead of trying to predict how useful and widely deployed AI models will be, she simply asked how fast the hyperscalers’ earnings will need to grow to justify their spending through 2027, when—she and her collaborator estimate—expenditures will reach nearly $1.1 trillion. It’s a no-nonsense accounting approach to making sense of today’s historical AI buildout.

The results are eye-opening: The AI companies will need to increase their own productivity by a factor of 2.7 to break even by 2030, accounting for the cost of capital and a 15% return, and depreciation of the assets. Not impossible, says Wachter. The result would lead to the kind of economic growth that we saw during the US IT boom over a period of about 10 years starting in the mid-1990s. But, she says, for it to happen by 2030 “that’s a lot of growth compressed into a few years.” And if the hyperscalers cannot meet such profit goals?

“Then they will fall behind on their interest payments, and that risks bankruptcy,” says Wachter, who was previously the SEC’s chief economist and director of its division of economic and risk analysis. If a productivity boom “fails to materialize,” she and her coauthor conclude in their research paper, “the current buildout will be the largest misallocation of capital in history.”  

It doesn’t take superintelligence to realize that today’s large investments in the infrastructure for artificial intelligence come with huge risks. The hyperscalers will spend about $750 billion this year, building massive data centers scattered across the country. And the spending spree shows no signs of slowing. According to some projections, total AI capital investments from the hyperscaler companies—Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle (which partners with OpenAI)—could be more than $5 trillion over the next four years.

It’s one of the largest capital investments by any industry in history. But there’s a problem that’s obvious to anyone paying attention.

While the hyperscalers plan to spend trillions, total AI revenues will be around $150 billion to $200 billion this year, says Gary Gensler, who ran the SEC during the Biden administration and is now a professor at MIT’s Sloan School. “The challenge is that the spending does not have commensurate revenues yet. That’s a fact,” he says. “And then the question is, is that an investment that will be paid off in the future?”

At stake in that trillion-dollar question is the financial health of the giant AI companies and the overall US economy—the investments could soon balloon to around 3% of GDP. The answer could also determine the fate of the hugely expensive data centers themselves. 

No one really knows how profitable and useful these multibillion-dollar behemoths will be down the road. Though AI models have made dazzling progress over the last few years, it’s anyone’s guess how much compute capacity we will need. The technology could become more efficient and therefore less dependent on raw computational power. Or demand for AI products could slow, or customers could turn to cheaper models.

The risks, both to investors and to the economy, have become even greater this year, as these AI companies have begun borrowing large amounts of money to build more and more data centers. Free cash flow—operating cash flow minus capital expenditures—is expected to soon dip into negative territory for the group. Even Alphabet, known for generating and hoarding huge amounts of cash, reports in the latest quarter that its impressive revenues of nearly $120 billion were devoured by AI infrastructure spending, leaving it with a free cash deficit of some $5.9 billion—its first shortfall since Google went public in 2004.

In the near term, it’s not a big financial worry for most of the companies. They make a lot of money and have very deep pockets. But debt is expensive, and some investors are losing patience. If future demand for the data centers’ computation power drops, the companies will still be on the hook to pay back the borrowed money. What’s more, the risks are spreading to the rest of the economy as the loans get passed along via various financial mechanisms. 

It won’t be enough to simply cover the enormous price tags of the new data centers. Hyperscalers will also have to pay for the rising costs of capital as they borrow more money. They will need returns that are impressive enough to justify all their spending to investors and creditors. And to add to those concerns, they will have to make up for the depreciation of billions of dollars in chips housed within the facilities—a ticking time bomb buried in the investments.

Performance of the expensive GPU chips at the core of the data centers—such compute electronics represent some 60% of costs—is roughly doubling every two years or so. The pace of progress helps explain the increasing wizardry of the AI models, but it comes with a cost. Owners of AI data centers that come online this year and next will need to spend billions more on the next generation of chips by the end of the decade if they want to stay competitive. Without the investments, says Mihir Kshirsagar at Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy, the data centers risk becoming “hulks,” stranded assets “scattered all over the place.”

To put it bluntly: The AI companies need to start making a lot more money. And they need to do it fast. But juicing their earnings alone still won’t be enough to sustain their data-center investments for the long term.

Productivity is everything

At some point, AI is also going to have to create broad economic growth to justify continuing the hyperscalers’ spending spree.

Sloan’s Gensler describes today’s large investments into AI infrastructure as “a parlay bet by the capital markets and the economy.” That means success will require winning three related but independent wagers: Hyperscalers must generate massive revenues, AI must boost widespread economic growth, and both must happen while the powerful but expensive so-called frontier models that rely on the data centers fend off cheaper versions, which many businesses might find good enough.

What makes this so tricky is that each wager depends on the other two but also poses its own challenges.

If the hyperscalers continue to spend huge amounts of money on data centers into the next decade, revenues will need to skyrocket into the trillions. Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh, a finance professor at Columbia Business School, bases his estimates on a scenario in which about 183 gigawatts of planned AI compute capacity is built between 2025 and 2032; he calculates that each gigawatt costs about $41 billion. Assuming a 10% return—the minimum that would be acceptable to most investors—“required” annual revenues will be roughly $3.7 trillion by 2032, he says.

Others get a similar number.

Winning the second part of the bet—productivity growth across the economy—will be crucial to achieving such numbers.

For a few years, AI companies could likely boost their revenues by simply selling subscriptions and tokens to all the businesses clamoring to get into AI. But eventually—and this might be happening already—those paying customers will need to justify their expenses by seeing bottom-line benefits from the technology. AI will need to fulfill its promise of making workers more productive and making businesses more efficient and profitable while expanding their products and services.

In economic jargon, that means customers will need to see productivity growth. Taken together, these results will mean the country is prospering and growing.

“If you don’t get the productivity gains, at some point people are going to sour on AI, and that will bring down investments and it would also limit revenue growth,” says Daron Acemoglu, an MIT economist and 2024 Nobel laureate. For the investments to be sustainable over, say, the next five to 10 years, we definitely “need to see productivity gains,” he says.

Most economists who watch the numbers closely agree that, for now, the economy-wide statistics show little or no productivity growth from AI. There are some hopeful signs it’s on the way, though. In a recent survey of some 6,000 senior business executives in the US, the UK, Germany, and Australia, the vast majority—around 90%—report no increase in productivity over the last three years. But they expect a boost of around 1.45% in total over the next three years; US executives anticipate a 2.25% bump over that time. 

In a follow-up survey, the respondents also reported plans for their businesses to spend more on AI, leading the authors to anticipate some $280 billion in private-sector AI expenditures by the end of 2026.

That’s good news for the hyperscalers. But it comes with a dose of bad news for those worried about AI’s impact on jobs. The executives expect to increase the productivity of their companies by increasing their sales while significantly cutting the number of employees.

If AI improves productivity by destroying jobs, public backlash to the technology—the kind we have seen around data centers, for example—will likely get worse. Perhaps it’s worth adding one more wager to the parlay bet described by Gensler: The public and local communities must feel that they are also benefiting from the massive investments in AI.

And let’s not forget how interdependent these wagers are; if productivity growth comes from companies running models like DeepSeek, then the hyperscalers’ revenues could collapse. If productivity comes from cutting jobs, a public backlash could block many of the planned investments—and stunt anticipated revenues. We will need to win all the wagers for the hyperscalers’ bet to pay off. 

We’re all part of the AI gamble now

It was one thing when the AI companies were spending cash they had accumulated over the years to build their own data centers. Then the risk was largely limited to their own balance sheets and shareholders. But it’s a higher-stakes game when much of the money is borrowed. Morgan Stanley, for one, calculates that more than half of the $2.9 trillion that hyperscalers will spend between 2025 and 2028 to build AI data centers will be financed with “external capital.”

The borrowing is leading some of the companies to engineer complex webs of financing that are becoming intertwined with much of the rest of the economy. “A lot of financial institutions, directly or indirectly, are exposed to these data centers either as lenders, or as guarantors of some of the debt, or as backers of the private credit funds who are funding these data centers,” says Columbia’s Van Nieuwerburgh. “People don’t even know they’re holding this stuff. It’s somewhere deep inside their pension fund. Ultimately, it’s backing their life insurance policies. And that risk is getting distributed everywhere in places that are invisible.”

As the investments in data centers have spiked, the financial engineering has become more byzantine.

Take, for example, Meta’s so-called Hyperion data center under construction in Richland, Louisiana. When the company announced the two gigawatts of compute capacity at a price tag of some $10 billion in late 2024 it was Meta’s largest planned data center. Greeted with much enthusiasm by state and local politicians, the project, located in the rural northeast corner of the state, was seen as a boon to the community. Entergy Louisiana, the state’s largest utility, rushed forward with proposals to build three large natural-gas power plants to service the massive data center.

Then last fall—the projected cost was now $30 billion—the financing got a lot more complex and, to some in the community, a lot more disconcerting. Meta transferred an 80% stake to the large (and troubled) private-credit firm Blue Owl Capital, forming a joint venture called Beignet (like the famed New Orleans pastry) to raise financing for the data center. Meta then signed a series of four-year leases with the joint venture, an arrangement that the company says gives it “long-term strategic flexibility.” To backstop the agreement, Meta provides the venture with what is called a residual value guarantee, in which it will make a cash payment to cover the value of the facility “following any non-renewal or termination of a lease.” Got all that? 

I hope so. The financial wheeling and dealing is actually even more convoluted, with a cast of wholly owned subsidiaries and LLCs. Beignet has set up Laidley LLC, which owns and operates the site as the landlord. In turn, Laidley leases the facilities to Meta’s wholly owned subsidiary Pelican Leap LLC, which is the tenant. And there is a series of four-year leases that cover the different buildings that make up the data center campus. 

It’s not a coincidence, says Van Nieuwerburgh, that the length of the leases matches the expected lifetime of the data center’s GPUs. While Meta has to pay off its loan if it terminates the leases early, that will still leave its investors “with an empty building and no cash flow,” he says. “And then they need to find a new tenant for a huge data center, and good luck with that.”

Meanwhile, Meta is doubling down on its bet. In July, the company announced it was expanding the data center to five gigawatts of compute capacity. The total price tag is now $50 billion (so far, Meta hasn’t said whether Blue Owl will be involved in financing the expansion). Meanwhile, Entergy is now planning to build seven more gas-fired power plants, bringing the total capacity of the facilities to around 7.5  gigawatts—some six times the amount of electricity used by New Orleans.

SCOTT BALL/THE NEW YORK TIMES VIA REDUX PICTURES

If the complex financing is a puzzle to many investors and even financial experts, it is even more baffling to those directly affected by the construction of the data center. The main worry concerns how Entergy’s spending on the natural-gas power plants will affect electricity prices, and who will be left paying the bill for the power if Meta walks away.

Entergy says it has a 20-year guarantee from Meta that the company will purchase electricity over that period to cover the costs of the power plants and related infrastructure.  But there are skeptics, especially given how fast the fortunes of the AI industry are changing. “In four years, is Mark Zuckerberg still going to be interested in this? Or is he going to throw in the towel?” asks Paul Arbaje, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has been advocating, largely unsuccessfully, for the Louisiana Public Service Commission to provide more transparency around the data center and its financing.

Even if the 20-year deal holds, consumer advocates are worried that Meta or its partners won’t fully cover all the costs, including those associated with operating and maintaining the power plants—and those additional costs that could be passed on to residential ratepayers. What’s more, says Logan Burke, the executive director of the Alliance for Affordable Energy, if Meta doesn’t end up needing as much power as Entergy planned (these projections are not public), consumers could be left paying for the surplus produced by the plants.

And if Meta terminates its leases early? “It gets complicated very quickly,” says Burke, who questions whether the shifting roster of financial entities will honor existing agreements. “That everybody is going to do what they’re saying they’re going to do over the next 20 years is just hard to believe.”

For UCS’s Arbaje the bottom line is this: “They’re making huge bets that these data centers will be worth it. Bet with your own money, not with ratepayer money.”

After the bubble

Predicting when the AI investment bubble will burst is a fool’s errand. But there is little doubt a day of reckoning is coming, given the irrational exuberance that has overtaken the hyperscalers and their investors. Of course, you might argue that this time is different, and that the rules of accounting and lessons of economic history don’t apply—that AI is too transformative. Maybe, but don’t count on it.

“History tells us that at some point you get a retrenchment, and it’s just a question of when and how severe,” says Sloan’s Gensler. It could be that today’s $750 billion spending rate “goes flat” or decreases next year. Or, he suggests, “we’re now in 2028 or 2029, and then all of sudden they’re retrenching because they’ve got enough capacity.” But, he adds, “you can be pretty assured there’ll be a retrenchment.” 

Though a so-called retrenchment might be inevitable, it’s worth keeping in mind that the fates of the financial bubble and the underlying AI technology revolution could be very different. Already, some Silicon Valley insiders are rooting for a crash; in a recent blog post the longtime venture capitalist Vijay Pande wrote that “the coming crash would be the best thing that happens to this technology.” The argument makes some sense. A crash could make AI investments more rational, calm the impulse to build billion-dollar data centers on every vacant field that CEOs fly over, and refocus investors on how to use the technology to create sustainable value.

But we should probably be careful what we wish for. After the bursting of the dot-com bubble at the beginning of the 2000s, hundreds of thousands lost their jobs, large and small companies alike went bankrupt, the economy of Silicon Valley and San Francisco was decimated (at least for a while), and the shocks sent the US into a mild recession in 2001. For the financial community and many tech workers, it was no fun.

Even more devastating for the economy and the average American was the great recession that began in late 2007. Comparing the financial engineering leading up to it and the methods deployed by hyperscalers today is sobering. So-called special purpose vehicles (SPVs) are back! If Columbia’s Van Nieuwerburgh is right about the dangers of letting investments from the hyperscalers get entangled throughout the economy, the fallout could be severe.

But technologies survived and even prospered in the aftermath of both downturns. The early 2000s, even in the face of the dot-com fiasco, were a time of great innovation and tech optimism. The froth came off the spending on silly technologies, helping to focus investments on more promising ones. It’s no coincidence that each of the hyperscalers rose out of the ashes of the crash or started up shortly after. The fiber-optic infrastructure built during the feverish telecom bubble that ran parallel to the dot-com one is still the backbone of much of today’s communication infrastructure; we wouldn’t have Facebook or Amazon or Google without it.

This time, however, we’re facing a unique risk: The huge financial investments by the hyperscalers have ensnared the future of AI itself with the fortunes of the massive data centers spreading around the country. The logic is founded on a deeply held belief about the power of scaling in AI; the bigger you build it, the smarter it gets. That might be true, but it’s unproven and a risky bet.

There are already plenty of red flags, from strong public opposition to the construction of new data centers to the competitive threat from cheaper, good-enough AI models to the rapid improvement of small, local AI models. None of these trends point toward a future dominated by frontier models housed in massive, billion-dollar data centers.

The financial bubble around the colossal spending by the hyperscalers will likely burst eventually—or maybe soon. It might be financially painful, but we’ll survive. Wall Street will survive. AI itself will survive, though it may look different and lose some of today’s hubris. The financial fate and future utility of the massive data centers fueled by trillions of dollars of spending, on the other hand, are far less certain.

Haven’t you heard? White-collar jobs are going away, decimated by AI. Waves of layoffs in the tech sector (most recently at Coinbase and Meta and Cisco) are said to presage what will soon come for all of us knowledge workers. But before you quit your job as a software developer or financial analyst—or tech journalist—and look to join the plumbers’ union, it’s worth considering today’s economic research on whether artificial intelligence has actually begun to devour white-collar work.

Analysis of the data gathered for the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that the unemployment rate for the jobs potentially most affected by AI is actually lower than that for occupations less exposed to the technology. And, critically in the mind of economists, there are no signs that large numbers of people are shifting from jobs threatened by AI to supposedly safer ones, such as those involving mostly manual labor.

While the current labor statistics don’t preclude a sudden job upheaval in the coming years, they do throw doubt on the inevitability of the doomsday scenarios and the pace at which they’d unfold. Everyone in the AI community, it seems, is predicting that the technology will soon wipe out jobs, and everyone, it also seems, knows some young wannabe workers who can’t find one. Perhaps we haven’t seen any major disruption in the labor market statistics yet, people often say, but just wait. 

But maybe we should pay attention to what the data is showing us. And right now, the numbers paint a picture of a relatively stable labor market in which AI disruptions remain largely speculative.

“It could be disruptive, but the data is telling us right now that disruption is not yet here, and we have time to plan.”

“All of the available evidence to date suggests that AI’s impact on current labor market conditions is likely small right now,” says Erika McEntarfer, a labor economist who headed the BLS until President Trump fired her last fall after a jobs report that displeased the administration. (Not surprisingly, BLS reports of sluggish job growth have continued since her dismissal.)

McEntarfer, who is now a fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, says the relatively small impact that AI is having so far on today’s labor market “surprises many people, but it shouldn’t. What we know from history is that it takes time for innovations to work their way through changes in industries and changes in occupations. AI is unlikely to transform labor markets until it first transforms businesses.”

McEntarfer points to US Census data showing that only one in five companies are using AI in any business function. “The data are a great reality check on the fear that AI will be enormously disruptive,” she says. “It could be. It likely will be disruptive, but the data is telling us right now that disruption is not yet here, and that we have time to plan.”

Things ain’t great—but the question is why

The US job market, to be sure, sucks for many, especially younger would-be workers. Unemployment rates for recent college graduates stand at around 5.6%, well above the level for all workers. It’s a rate not seen since the pandemic and the years immediately after the 2008 recession. Even more troubling is that hiring rates have been particularly dismal during the post-covid economy, a trend that hits hard at young people trying to enter the workforce. If you’re a recent college graduate and looking for a tech job, no one, it can seem, is hiring.

There are signs that AI is contributing to the pain for the 22-to-25-year-olds seeking jobs in software development and other occupations that are feeling a big impact from AI. But these professions represent just a sliver of the overall labor market. What’s more, it’s uncertain how much blame AI should get for the job woes. Similarly unknown is whether the loss of entry-level jobs in AI-exposed occupations is a harbinger of what’s coming for others or simply an isolated symptom of what economists refer to as a “low-fire, low-hire” labor market caused by a variety of macroeconomic forces.

Insights into these uncertainties will tell us much about our working fates in the transition to an AI economy. There are no shortage of confident assertions and predictions about what is about to happen; while some people forecast the end of work, others say economic history teaches us that technology advances always lead to more and better jobs eventually. 

The honest answer is that no one knows for sure what AI will bring and whether this time will be different. To help figure it out, we need better and far more comprehensive data.

The statistics gleaned from the federal government’s monthly survey of 60,000 households for the BLS provide a broad overview of the changes to the labor market, while academics and even some AI companies have begun trying to gain a more granular view of specific jobs that are being affected. But the existing data-gathering tools don’t adequately explain how AI is affecting the huge and diverse US labor market.

There’s a long list of questions that we don’t have the data to fully answer. How is AI being used in the workplace? Does the increased use of AI mean the technology will replace workers, or will it make them more productive and valuable? Which occupations and skills are most affected? Who is in most peril from the changes? As David Deming, a professor of economics at Harvard University, puts it: “We’re sort of flying blind.”

To gather more insight into some of these questions, Deming and his colleagues have been surveying several thousand people every three months since 2024, asking them basic questions: Do you use generative AI, and how often? Does it save you time at work? Tracking the answers over time gives the economists important clues (it’s used by a little over 40% of workers but adoption varies by sectors) and allows them to estimate productivity gains (they’ve found some, but nothing economy-shaking). It has also helps document how quickly AI has been adopted in the workplace and how it compares with earlier technologies such as the PC and the internet (the pace has been faster but roughly in the same ballpark).

It’s far from a complete picture of how AI is changing work. But it provides some intriguing results; for example, a fair number of workers in manufacturing and other industrial sectors have tried AI. Deming’s results show that while businesses in general might be relatively slow to formally adopt the technology, lots of their employees are using it.

The young are most vulnerable

But by themselves the exposure results are not a true predictor of which jobs will be lost to AI. That depends on the kinds of tasks done by the technology, the extent to which the AI is adopted, various business calculations about the value of workers, and even the costs of deploying AI. But the exposure findings are a valuable starting point. 

In a working paper called “Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence,” researchers at the Stanford Digital Economy Lab looked at 950 jobs, placing the occupations into five categories from least exposed to most. Then they used a vast data set from ADP, the world’s largest payroll provider, to look at employment growth in each of the categories. Their exclusive access to the ADP data set, which is far larger than the one available through the BLS, allows the researchers to better spot impacts by demographic. When they examined what was happening to different age groups, says Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of the lab who led the effort, “it was extremely striking.”

They spotted the drop in head count for 22-to-25-year-olds in the most exposed occupations, such as software development and customer service, beginning in late 2022, when ChatGPT was first publicly released. Other researchers reported evidence that the decline in these jobs began well before ChatGPT and questioned whether the labor market could react so quickly to the introduction of AI technology. 

But while the Stanford researchers acknowledge that other factors in addition to AI probably contributed to the early declines, they say that after controlling for those factors, they saw convincing evidence of a significant effect from AI after 2024 and growing in 2025 to a 16% decline in entry-level jobs in AI-exposed occupations. In contrast, head count grew for older workers in the same occupations, as did the number of jobs in the less exposed occupations.

Digging deeper into the data, the researchers found another important clue, though one that wasn’t totally unexpected. The impact on head counts depended on how AI was being used. It was specifically the jobs where tasks could be automated (that is, AI could do them “with minimal human involvement”) that accounted for the decrease in employment—jobs for people like software developers. In jobs where AI was mainly used but to augment human work, head counts grew faster than the average for entry-level workers.

That’s consistent with one explanation for the woes of many young would-be workers. It could be, according to the Stanford paper, that entry-level jobs depend more on the types of knowledge that people acquire through education but that can readily be mimicked by AI; the authors call this codified knowledge. It might be particularly easy to automate such tasks as entry-level coding. In contrast, older workers have more so-called tacit knowledge, the type based on their experience. That type of wisdom is harder for AI to replace.

Despite the findings about AI’s impact on young workers, Bharat Chandar, an economist at Stanford and one of the authors (along with Brynjolfsson and Ruyu Chen), stresses that it’s still early when it comes to understanding how the technology will affect jobs in the future. It could be that the job loss will spread to older workers and to less AI-exposed occupations, he says. But Chandar says it is also possible that firms and workers will adjust to shifting labor demands, and the effects will level off or even disappear.

A recent paper by economists at the Federal Reserve Board found, not surprisingly, that annual employment growth for coders has slowed significantly—by about 3%—since the introduction of ChatGPT. But here’s a critical detail: Overall employment for coders continues to grow. Employment in coding jobs is still rising, they noted, just more slowly than before 2022. 

In short, coding jobs are not going away, at least not anytime soon. But it’s an occupation that is clearly being transformed by AI.

One of the somewhat surprising wrinkles uncovered by recent research is that wages in sectors highly exposed to AI have risen relatively fast since the introduction of ChatGPT. One explanation is that employers are still willing to pay for the kinds of knowledge and experience that are, at least for now, hard to replace with AI. If true, this suggests not the end of work in AI-exposed jobs but, more specifically, the demise of the typical career model in which young graduates are hired to do software tasks that can be automated and are slowly trained to gain that valuable tacit experience. The earn-while-you-learn model might finally be broken—at least for some occupations.

The simple truth could be that coding skills are no longer a guarantee of a job. That may help to explain the drop-off of computer science majors at schools around the country. Future canaries in the cubicles are sniffing out the dangers of looking for a job when their skills can be matched by AI.

But a closer look at the data shows that students are not necessarily turning away from AI-related careers. Rather, they appear to be tailoring their skills to the changes they see underway as AI becomes increasingly important for various disciplines. Interest is rising in AI-adjacent fields like data science and cybersecurity. One fast-growing major: artificial intelligence itself (a recent addition to many college offerings).

Is this time different?

Anxiety over the potential of AI to replace workers is nothing new. I wrote “How Technology Is Destroying Jobs” in 2013, describing how a slew of new digital technologies, including AI, were beginning to threaten white-collar work. I wasn’t alone. It was a popular theme at a time when the labor market was sluggish and jobs were scarce. 

In one of his last days in office in late 2016, President Obama issued a report written by his top economic and science advisors warning that AI was threatening workers. Among the findings was that automated vehicles—especially driverless trucks—could eliminate 2.2 million to 3.1 million existing US jobs.  Around the same time, one of the pioneers of AI, Geoffrey Hinton, said that “people should stop training radiologists” because it was “completely obvious” the occupation was soon to be replaced by AI.

Perhaps this time is different, and we can put aside the lessons of economic history. Certainly, AI has gained unimaginable powers to do humanlike tasks. Perhaps it will devour jobs in ways that we’ve never seen before. And perhaps that will happen abruptly, without a warning buried in the labor statistics. But the previous bouts of AI job anxiety still hold a prescient lesson: Our real focus needs to be less on the dystopian fears and more on the very real transitions in the workplace that will likely affect millions of people.

“Even if there is not mass or even increased unemployment, the transition could still be very difficult,” says Jed Kolko, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former undersecretary of commerce in the Biden administration. “And what does a difficult transition period mean? It means people losing jobs, or people’s jobs being redefined in ways that make those jobs pay worse or be less meaningful. And some people whose jobs are threatened may not be able to adapt.”

The more we understand this transition, the better prepared we’ll be to deal with it.  And for that we’ll need better and more complete data.

For McEntarfer, the former commissioner of the BLS, the real question is the speed of any disruption. “If it happens at the normal pace of technological change, labor markets will have time to adapt. If there is a sudden and severe disruption, then that will be a big challenge for policymakers,” she says. “That’s really the most important question facing us right now: how rapid this transformation is going to be.” And, she adds, “we’ll know by watching the data.”

Two decades ago, the country was caught flat-footed by the so-called China shock as free-trade policies led to an influx of imports and the devastation of manufacturing jobs in many parts of the country. It took years for researchers to understand the data showing how the trade policies, generally welcomed by economists, were destroying communities. Today the threat of an economic transformation brought on by AI is far larger and points to potentially far more damage for huge groups of workers.

To head off another devastating labor transition, we will need well-timed government and business policies, especially programs to train and reskill workers. If McEntarfer and other labor economists are correct, we probably have time to design deliberate and effective strategies to manage the transition. But first we need to better understand what is going on—and how fast.

It’s hard to find an economist who is more enthusiastic about AI’s future than Stanford’s Brynjolfsson, who believes that we’re likely on the brink of a huge boost that will transform the economy. “Perhaps the best productivity growth of my lifetime is coming up,” he says.

But Brynjolfsson also warns that a lack of data is severely limiting our visibility into the economic and societal impacts that are coming. At a time when hundreds of billions are being spent on rolling out the technology, he says, “we’re not investing even 1% of that on understanding the transition.”