Vanguard argues through their research that AI is not costing jobs.

There's a bunch of problems with this assertion and article.

First, Vanguard is a fund manager and broker that fundamentally makes money on companies growing and boosting market cap.

Second, the article quotes Vanguard as stating their data didn't see much in the way of AI jobs eliminated. That's likely because it didn't count freelancers and contractors in writing, graphic arts and coding as jobs per se, and companies weren't keen on telling the unemployed or public they outright fired people to replace them with AI. Instead, people were laid off for restructuring, efficiency and other buzzwords. It's a bit like Covid numbers - they didn't die from Covid, they died from other complicating factors (disregard the person you're watching drown in their own lungs filled with Covid phlegm).

Third, it's fairly obvious entry level positions have been eliminated en masse. While that doesn't equate directly to a job termination, it sure as hell means a job no longer exists for young people trying enter the work force.

The best part was this statement:

"For instance, the November Fed Beige Book, a compilation of anecdotes from businesses across the country, said “a few firms noted that artificial intelligence replaced entry-level positions or made existing workers productive enough to curb new hiring.”" note, anectotal....so, that's would be SUBJECTIVE data? Besides, why would a company own up to replacing people with computers? Bad press all the way around.