Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

How is causality figured out here? How do we know it's not just a "standard" market downturn/downsizing to compensate for previous overhiring etc.?


It's simple - if they claim the loss in job numbers is due to AI, not economic downturn, that will cause more people to click on the article.


I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that.

Let's take the blame a bit farther back.

Instead of the person writing the article, what about the companies laying people off. It looks much better to say "Costs savings for going to AI" versus "Economic uncertainty in future orders"


The report comes from a firm called Challenger, Gray, and Christmas, which sells coaching and "career transition" services.

This is marketing.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: