The Cold, Hard Numbers Reveal "The Reality Two Years Later"

When artificial intelligence (AI), especially generative AI, began to rapidly spread, tech elites and corporate PR representatives in Silicon Valley were unanimous in their statements. "AI is not something that takes away human jobs. It is a 'reliable assistant (partner)' that supports human tasks and frees us from tedious routine work."

However, as of 2026, those sweet words are being exposed as mere "cushions (deceptions) to soften the upheaval" by ruthless data.

The latest "Global Talent Trends" survey by the major organizational and HR consulting firm Mercer, reported by the U.S. media "Gizmodo," has sent shockwaves through the global labor market. This large-scale survey, which included 12,000 people, including executives, HR managers, and general employees, revealed the astonishing fact that "99% of the CEOs surveyed predict and plan for layoffs due to the introduction of AI and automation within the next two years."

The figure of 99% statistically means "almost everyone without exception." The phase where "some advanced tech companies experimentally streamline their workforce" has completely ended. It has become clear that leaders across all industries view AI not as a "tool to enhance human productivity" but as the "ultimate cost-cutter to eliminate the high-cost resource of humans."

This article delves deeply into the "true intentions" of executives behind this shocking survey, the harsh reality faced by young workers targeted by these changes, and the real anger and cries of workers on social media (such as Reddit and X) in response to this news.

1. The Survey Reveals Executives' True Intentions: Management That Has Given Up on "Coexistence"

A closer look at Mercer's survey results further highlights the gap between the executives' "cold view of humans" and their "blind faith in automation."

The Highest ROI Brought by "Redesigning Work"

According to the survey, 63% of CEOs and executives believe that "fundamentally redesigning work to incorporate AI and automation is what brings the highest return on investment (ROI)." For companies, labor costs are always the largest fixed cost, accompanied by management costs and labor risks. The introduction of AI, which can solve these issues at once, is an unparalleled appeal to shareholders.

A Mere 32% Believe in "Coexistence"

On the other hand, only 32% of CEOs believe that "their workforce can effectively combine (coexist) human and machine capabilities." What does this number mean? It suggests that executives do not believe in, or have dismissed as worthless, the "time-consuming and costly process" of educating human workers on how to use AI and working together to maximize organizational performance.

For them, the optimal solution is not "human and AI fusion" but "replacing humans with AI." Instead of educating humans who are slow to learn how to handle machines or assert their rights, they calculate that it is quicker and more certain to "reform the organization" by AI-izing the system itself and eliminating unnecessary personnel from the start.

In fact, several analysts, including McLachlan, point out that this trend marks the beginning of a "structural recession for white-collar workers." While the waves of mechanization and robot introduction have mainly been in the realm of blue-collar (factory and on-site labor) work, the evolution of generative AI is directly impacting office workers, researchers, programmers, and analysts—occupations once called "knowledge-intensive."

2. The Crisis Hitting "Young and New Graduates": The Collapse of the OJT System

In this "AI-driven workforce reduction," the most mercilessly and initially affected are "early career workers" and "new graduates" who have just started their careers.

Automation of Routine Work Takes Away "Learning Opportunities"

Another survey by consulting firm Oliver Wyman clearly shows that the biggest victims of AI-driven workforce reductions are "entry-level employees."

When CEOs introduce AI, they naturally judge that the most automatable tasks are "routine, rule-based, and repetitive tasks." Traditionally, these tasks have been assigned to new employees and young staff as "training (OJT)" within corporate organizations.

• Data entry and organization of past data

• Creation and summarization of meeting minutes

• Basic market research and competitor material collection

• Simple coding and initial debugging

By repeatedly engaging in these "simple yet fundamental and gritty tasks," young workers understand the workings of the company's business, develop industry insights, and grow into mid-level and veteran employees capable of making advanced decisions in the future.

However, CEOs are now beginning to entrust all these tasks to "AI assistants that work 24/7 without complaints and complete tasks in seconds." As a result, the very reason for hiring young workers is disappearing.

The "Cooling" of the Young Labor Market Shown by the New York Fed

This impact is no longer a future prediction but an "already occurring reality." According to data released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the labor market for young people aged 22 to 27 is "visibly deteriorating." Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell also had to mention in a press conference that "AI may be partially involved in the weakening of the young labor market. This is because companies are increasingly automating tasks that would traditionally be entrusted to new graduates using AI tools."

The New York Times also reports that the employment environment for young people has "fallen to its most vulnerable level since the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic." Companies are beginning to close the doors to "inexperienced young workers" who need nurturing, seeking only highly skilled management personnel and experts who can utilize AI. This is equivalent to breaking the first step of the "career ladder" in the entire labor market.

3. The Mental Collapse of Workers: Declining Happiness and Fear of "AI Disparity"

While executives are excited about cost-cutting and efficiency, the mental damage suffered by workers on the ground is immeasurable.

The Changing Percentage of "Thriving"

According to the same Mercer survey, the percentage of employees who feel they are "thriving mentally and professionally" in their workplace has plummeted from 66% in 2024 to 44% in 2026. A 22-point drop in just two years indicates a "catastrophic collapse" in workplace happiness.2024年の66％から、2026年には44％へと急落した。わずか2年で22ポイントもの減少という数字は、労働現場における幸福度の「壊滅的な崩壊」を示している。

The underlying cause is, needless to say, the constant anxiety and fear of AI replacing jobs, the feeling of "it could be me tomorrow." The psychological stress brought on by having tasks that one has painstakingly completed suddenly handled by an AI tool, with a supervisor saying, "You don't need to do that task anymore," is akin to a complete denial of self-worth.

"AI Disparity" as a New Reason for Leaving

Furthermore, 35% of employees said they would consider leaving the organization if they felt there was inequality (disparity) in access to AI resources and appropriate AI training within their company.

The fear of "internal AI disparity," where only a select few who can master AI are favored while those not given learning opportunities are put on the "blacklist for layoffs" as "inefficient and unnecessary personnel," is spreading among workers. However, ironically, even if one quits the company, the cruel reality of the current market is that the CEO of the next company is also "99% likely planning layoffs due to AI."

4. Reactions on Social Media: Exploding Anger and Resignation to the Cold "System"

When the shocking news that "99% of CEOs plan AI layoffs" spread across the internet, major overseas forums like Reddit (especially r/technology and r/jobs) and X (formerly Twitter) were flooded with thousands of comments, literally "igniting" the platforms.

Let's categorize and examine the real voices, sarcasm, and resignation expressed by workers.

Reaction 1: "Improving AI Performance" Is Just a Pretense. The Real Motive Is "Familiar Layoffs"

The most agreed-upon sentiment on social media was the cynical observation that "executives are not introducing AI because it is superior. They simply want to lay off employees to boost stock prices, using AI as the perfect excuse (justification)."

Reddit User A (Rating: 4.2k Upvotes) "They are just itching to lay people off. That's their most skilled job. AI is just the biggest and most convenient 'excuse' they've gotten in years. If the word AI didn't exist, they would have used terms like 'macroeconomic uncertainty' or 'supply chain efficiency' to fire us in exactly the same way."

Reddit User B "It's hard to innovate and grow a company. But it's ridiculously easy to fire 10% of the workforce, artificially boost next quarter's profit forecasts, and secure their bonuses through stock buybacks. The reason CEOs can agree '99%' of the time is that it's the quickest way to line their own pockets."

Reaction 2: The Reality on the Ground "Humans Are Fixing the Garbage Spit Out by AI for Free"

Many white-collar workers are expressing dissatisfaction with the gap between the "beautiful dream of automation" seen by management and the "nightmare of cleaning up after AI" happening on the ground.

Reddit User C "My boss introduced AI at my company and reduced the team size. Guess what happened? The few remaining humans are stuck working overtime to check and fix the 'error-ridden garbage data' and 'non-functional code' that AI spits out. Productivity hasn't increased; stress has tripled. Yet management is celebrating, saying 'AI has reduced costs!' and bragging at ridiculous conferences."

Reddit User D "What's happening isn't job replacement by AI. It's a dumping of human dignity, where low-paid humans are forced to 'review' and fix the incomplete output generated by AI. And even that review layer, the company says, will be 'fired within two years.' It's madness."

Reaction 3: The Despair of the Young "How Are We Supposed to Gain Experience?"

Especially from new graduates and early-career users, there is a clear expression of lost hope for the future and anger at the system.

Reddit User E "I graduated from college and finally got a job. But within a few months of joining, all the research tasks I was assigned were switched to AI. Seniors say 'use AI to do it efficiently,' but unless I do the gritty work myself, I can't understand the meaning behind the data. Are we a generation that isn't even allowed to take the 'first step' to learn?"

Reddit User F "If every company wants only 'immediately effective mid-level employees' and replaces new graduates' jobs with AI, where do they think the 'mid-level employees' of ten years from now will come from? Executives are only thinking about the profits for the few years until they retire. After they leave, we'll be left in the scorched earth."

Reaction 4: The Ultimate Paradox "If Everyone Is Fired, Who Will Buy the Products?"

There were also many voices raising fundamental questions about the sustainability of the entire economic system.

Reddit User G "Suppose 99% of companies fire employees and bring labor costs close to zero. Great, the profit margin is the highest. But I have one question. With no jobs and no income, how will the former workers buy the products or services that the company mass-produced using AI? Don't those high-paid CEOs realize they're destroying the economic cycle themselves?"

Reddit User H "B2B service companies will have AI attend meetings and eliminate human consultants and analysts. But client companies are also firing humans. Soon, we'll have a dystopia where AI contracts with each other in a market with no buyers."

5. Expert Perspectives: The "Inconvenient Truth" of the Economy and Counterarguments

The fact that 99% of executives are positive about layoffs might seem like a "complete victory for AI," but macroeconomic and organizational theory experts do not necessarily agree. There is an "inconvenient truth" hidden within the current AI bubble.

The "Low Success Rate" of AI Investments and the Productivity Trap

As pointed out in the SNS discussions, research data exists showing that "90-95% of AI implementations fail to generate clear profits." Generative AI greatly contributes to shortening individual tasks like drafting text or generating images by a few minutes, but linking it to "sustainable company-wide revenue" or "overwhelming differentiation from other companies" is extremely difficult.

In fact, when factoring in costs for verifying AI output accuracy (hallucination countermeasures), expensive API usage fees, and infrastructure maintenance costs, there are even cases where it ends up being more expensive than hiring humans. Nevertheless, CEOs "resort to layoffs" because if they don't, they fear being seen by the market (investors) as "a company lagging behind in the AI revolution," which would lower their stock prices. In other words, part of the current AI layoffs strongly reflects a "performance for shareholders" without substance.

Counterargument: The "Optimism" of Goldman Sachs CEO

Not all top executives are dyed in this pessimistic scenario. David Solomon, CEO of U.S. financial giant