This week in the US

  • Goldman's David Solomon dismissed the AI-jobs apocalypse in the New York Times.
  • Sam Altman said he was "pretty wrong" that entry-level work would suffer.
  • Former AI czar David Sacks endorsed Solomon's view and previously called job-loss fears a "hoax."
  • Vice President Vance has dismissed mass-unemployment fears as overstated.

Worth noting: Goldman is lead underwriter on SpaceX's $1.75T-valuation IPO and co-leads OpenAI's. Solomon is not a neutral observer.

Beijing went the other way

Per the Wall Street Journal, after Chinese employers told the government that 30%+ of roles could be wiped out by AI, regulators told tech firms: do not fire workers.

Companies must now justify layoffs and sometimes prove they are not AI-driven. Courts have ruled against employers in publicized AI-replacement cases.

Urban youth unemployment (ages 16-24) is already at 16%. The CCP cannot absorb a second wave of white-collar displacement. Social stability is the political product the government sells.

The irony

  • Americans are among the most negative on AI globally; Chinese citizens among the most positive. Per Stanford's 2026 AI Index, only 33% of Americans expect AI to improve their jobs (the global average is 40%). The US ranks last in trust that its government can regulate AI.
  • Data centers, the boom's physical backbone, are now local political flashpoints. Pew finds more Americans say they hurt than help.

The administration is dismissing a problem voters already see.

For senior leaders, two things

  • Operating in China: AI workforce strategy is a regulatory issue, not an HR one. Layoff justifications, AI-attribution audits, and court exposure all flow from this.
  • The US political ground is not fixed. California Governor Newsom signed an executive order on AI-displaced workers. If the data shifts, the pendulum swings fast. Boards that treat AI workforce displacement as inevitable, ungoverned, and politically safe are setting themselves up for a fast and ugly reversal.

The country with no electoral pressure is preparing for AI-driven layoffs. The one with elections is betting it does not happen.

Through the STAR lens: this is a Risk Budget question (what is the board's exposure to AI-driven workforce decisions in each jurisdiction?) and an Ability question (does management have the data, controls, and reporting cadence to defend the decisions they are making?). Boards that treat AI workforce strategy as an HR delegation rather than a fiduciary issue are misreading the regulatory and political environment.