🔍 Read the full analysis: What Can Asia, Europe And The US Teach Us About AI And Government Work? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Prime made for students and young adults
- Fast, free delivery for dorm and study essentials
- Prime Video and Amazon Music included
- Member-only deals
TL;DR
A review of public-sector budgets and company announcements across Asia, Europe and the US finds substantial workforce cuts, but AI is often a proposed tool or a weakly supported explanation—not the stated cause. The evidence points to budget pressure and restructuring as major drivers, while researchers and policymakers warn that widespread automation could also reduce workers’ spending power.
A review of workforce plans across Asia, Europe and the United States finds that public agencies and companies are cutting or planning jobs, but the stated reasons often do not establish AI as the cause. The distinction matters: budgets, restructuring and skill mismatches account for many announced reductions, even as some companies explicitly credit AI with replacing or reducing work.
The comparison begins with two announcements made on October 26. The Dutch government told parliament that budget reductions could translate into roughly 25,000 fewer central-government full-time positions by 2035. Microsoft, meanwhile, offered a voluntary exit to about 60,000 employees, according to the source article. The announcements point to workforce reductions, but they do not show that both were driven by automation: the Dutch plan is a budget measure, and Microsoft said AI was not driving its offer.
The Dutch government’s progress letter puts annual central-government running-cost reductions at €3.49 billion from 2035, rising from €901 million in 2027. It describes the job estimate as rough. The letter lists measures such as simpler rules, shared workspaces, standard information technology and joint purchasing, with AI among several tools under consideration. It also cautions against assuming that digitalization will produce fewer staff. In the government’s account, earlier automation did not deliver promised staffing and cost savings; it brought new tasks, capacity needs and contractor use.
Other examples in the review show different stated rationales. Germany plans at least an 8% reduction in federal staff by 2029, while Hong Kong plans to cut 2% of civil-service posts in each of two years. India’s largest technology-services firm cited skill mismatches, according to the source. Japan’s Mizuho said its AI plan was not a headcount-reduction program. By contrast, Lufthansa links 4,000 administrative job cuts by 2030 to AI; Klarna’s annual report says its AI assistant does work equivalent to more than 850 full-time agents, while its reported headcount fell from 4,352 to 2,831 over two years. Those figures do not, by themselves, prove that AI caused the entire staffing decline.
Infographic 01 · The world map
Who is shrinking, and what reason they give
Sixteen public and private organizations. Budgets set most of the numbers. AI is named as the reason less often than the headlines suggest.
Europe
EU members first
- NetherlandspublicBudget
≈ 25,000 fewer full-time jobs by 2035, a rough estimate behind a €3.49B yearly cut. Letter warns not to overestimate AI.
- GermanypublicAI a tool
At least 8% fewer federal staff by 2029. AI as a means, plus missing workers.
- DenmarkpublicRedeploy
AI to free ≥ 50M hours, ≈ 30,000 full-time jobs, by 2035. For shortages and quality.
- LufthansaprivateAI named
≈ 4,000 admin jobs by 2030, citing digitalization and AI.
- KlarnaprivateAI named
Staff 4,352 → 2,831 (2023–25). AI assistant: work of 850+ agents (estimate).
Asia
public and private
- Hong KongpublicBudget
−2% of civil service posts in 2026-27 and 2027-28; > 10,000 posts this term.
- ChinapublicBrake
Cautious pace for AI in labor-intensive industries; advance warning encouraged.
- Mizuho · JapanprivateRedeploy
AI to take over the work of ≈ 5,000 of ≈ 15,000 clerical jobs in 10 years. “Not a headcount reduction.”
- DBS · SingaporeprivateAI named
≈ 4,000 temporary and contract roles not renewed over 3 years (announced Feb 2025).
- TCS · IndiaprivateNot AI
≈ 12,000 jobs, about 2% (2025). CEO: skill mismatch, not AI productivity gains.
United States
public and private
- Federal agenciespublicNot AI
≈ −256,000 staff, more than 11%, Dec 2024–Jan 2026. Directives, buyouts, hiring limits.
- CaliforniapublicNew rules
Order N-6-26: study AI’s job effects, reform layoff notices. No ban.
- MicrosoftprivateNot AI
≈ 60,000 exit offers, about 27% of staff. Spokesperson: AI not driving it.
- AmazonprivateLayers
16,000 corporate jobs (Jan 2026) after 14,000 (Oct 2025). Layers, culture.
- SalesforceprivateAI named
Support staff ≈ 9,000 → 5,000, CEO says, as AI agents handle half of chats.
- KrogerprivateTechnology
≈ 3,000 corporate jobs over 3 years. Memo: “Technology is reshaping what’s possible.”
Reasons as stated by each organization or, where marked, as reported. A category is a summary, not a verdict on the real cause.
Sources: Dutch letter to parliament, 26 Oct 2026, German Digital Ministry, Danish AI taskforce, Lufthansa, 29 Sep 2025, Klarna Form 20-F, Hong Kong Civil Service Bureau, 16 Mar 2026, State Council, gov.cn, 23 Oct 2026, Mizuho via Bloomberg, DBS via Fortune, TCS statement, GAO-26-108583, California EO N-6-26 (Akin Gump summary), Microsoft via KUOW, Amazon via CNBC, Salesforce via Fortune, Kroger via Fortune. Translations by Thorsten Meyer.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
Why Job-Cut Explanations Matter
For workers and policymakers, distinguishing a budget reduction from an AI-driven substitution changes what a job-cut announcement means. A department may reduce roles because its appropriation is lower, while a company may reorganize because demand or skills have shifted. If AI is named as the cause without supporting evidence, the public may misread both the technology’s present capabilities and the likely pace of employment change.
The review also highlights a wider economic risk. A single organization may find it financially sensible to reduce staffing or automate tasks. If many employers do so at once, however, workers’ lost wages can mean less spending at other businesses. That possibility is part of the argument made by David Shapiro, whose “automation imperative” framing says organizations face pressure to cut costs and follow competitors. It is an interpretation, not a settled finding that every organization must automate or that AI is already capable of replacing most office work.
Policy choices can shape incentives. The source cites research by economists at MIT and Boston University estimating that, after the 2017 US tax reform, the effective tax rate on labor was 25.5% to 33.5%, compared with about 5% for equipment and software. That estimate concerns tax treatment, not a direct count of jobs lost to AI. Still, it illustrates why the spread of automation is not determined by technical capability alone: tax rules, labor costs, public budgets and the risks of errors can all affect decisions.
Popular right now
De'Longhi Magnifica Evo Fully Automatic Espresso Machine with Manual Milk Frother, Silver
Shark PowerDetect Corded Stick Vacuum, Self-Cleaning (Eggplant, HZ4002)
Shark Rocket Corded Stick Vacuum (HV301) – Gray/Orange
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Automation Claim Was Checked
Shapiro, a YouTuber and author who writes about what he calls “post-labor economics,” uses “the automation imperative” to describe pressure on organizations to become more efficient. In his account, governments face budget limits, while businesses face shareholders and competitors. He argues that labor-saving technology becomes more attractive when labor is expensive and that US tax rules favor investment in equipment and software. These are his claims and framing; the review treats them as propositions to check rather than established conclusions.
The source article says its author used Shapiro’s examples as leads, checked figures against original documents where available, and added cases from Asia, Europe and the US. That approach exposes an important gap between announced cuts and demonstrated AI displacement. A company’s headcount can fall while AI use rises, but the two facts alone do not show that one caused the other. The strongest evidence in the examples comes where an organization itself connects a specific workforce change to AI; even then, the scale and causal contribution may need more detail.
Evidence on the broader labor market is also mixed. The source reports that US employers named AI in about one in five announced job cuts this year, while only 4% of New York-region service firms using AI said they had laid off workers because of it. These measures cover different populations and do not establish a single national rate of AI-driven job loss. They suggest that AI is part of public explanations for some cuts, while reported layoffs directly attributed to its use remain less common in the cited regional survey.
“Do not overestimate the staffing effects of digitalisation and AI.”
— The Dutch government’s progress letter to parliament
What the Job Figures Cannot Prove
The examples do not provide a complete, comparable count of jobs eliminated specifically because of AI. Some are announced targets, some are voluntary exit offers, and others are reported changes in headcount over time. Those categories are not interchangeable, and a plan’s job estimate may change as budgets and implementation develop.
Several figures need more detail before they can be compared directly, including the precise periods and definitions used for some company staffing totals. The source also reports broad US and New York-region measures, but the groups and methods differ. It is not clear from the supplied material how much of each organization’s workforce change reflects AI rather than demand, restructuring, cost-cutting or altered skill needs.
The Dutch estimate is explicitly described by the government as rough. The source says Microsoft’s spokesperson told a local radio station AI was not driving its voluntary exit offer, but the supplied material does not provide the spokesperson’s name or the full terms of the offer. The review also does not establish whether the planned reductions will result in actual departures at the stated scale.
Budgets and AI Plans to Track
The Dutch government says it will set out AI targets and savings plans in the first quarter of 2027. Those plans may clarify whether the technology is expected to change staffing, service delivery or costs—and how the government will measure those effects against the warning in its own review of past automation.
For the other cases, the next useful evidence will be implementation details: actual departures, the roles affected, the tasks automated, and whether organizations attribute specific changes to AI in subsequent reports. Policymakers in China, California and New York are also writing rules concerning AI and jobs, according to the source. The details and effects of those measures are not specified in the supplied material, so their impact remains to be seen.
Until such evidence is available, the clearest conclusion is limited but relevant: workforce reductions are occurring or planned across multiple regions, while AI is not a confirmed cause in many of the examples. Future disclosures and the results of government plans will show whether that balance changes.
Key Questions
Does the review show that AI is causing widespread job cuts?
No. It identifies some organizations that link job reductions or work replacement to AI, but many examples cite budgets, restructuring or skill mismatches. The evidence provided does not establish a common rate of AI-caused job loss across the regions.
What is the Netherlands planning?
The Dutch government’s budget plan is associated with a rough estimate of about 25,000 fewer central-government full-time positions by 2035. The government also says annual running-cost reductions are scheduled to reach €3.49 billion from 2035. The figures describe a plan and estimate, not a confirmed final count of departures.
What does David Shapiro mean by the automation imperative?
Shapiro uses the phrase for his argument that governments face budget pressure and companies face competitive and shareholder pressure to improve efficiency, encouraging automation. The phrase is his framing; it does not prove that every organization will automate or that AI is the reason for each job cut.
Why are the US and New York figures different?
The source reports that employers named AI in about one in five announced US job cuts this year, while 4% of New York-region service firms using AI said they had laid off workers because of it. These figures describe different populations and measures, so they should not be treated as directly comparable.
What evidence would clarify AI’s effect on employment?
More detailed reporting on actual departures, affected job functions, tasks assigned to AI, and employers’ stated reasons would help separate AI-related changes from budget cuts and restructuring. The Dutch government’s planned AI and savings targets in the first quarter of 2027 are one upcoming point to watch.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
