The US labor market added 178,000 jobs in March, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Summary
- Job growth in March remains modest while tech hiring remains weak and entry-level roles continue to shrink.
- The use of AI is increasing in offices, but many employees report redundancies, frustration, and low trust.
- Managers have seen benefits from AI tools, while employees face more mistakes and tests every day.
The data showed little change from the previous month, as companies continued to talk about AI-led growth and workplace efficiency.
That gap has kept attention on whether AI will increase employment and output as promised. Recent labor, workplace, and industry reports show a more mixed picture, especially for technical and entry-level roles.
Most job growth in March came from health care, construction, transportation and warehousing, and social assistance. Health care added 76,000 jobs, while construction gained 26,000 and transportation and warehousing added 21,000.
BLS data did not show the same strength in technology-related areas. Providers of computer infrastructure and web search sites showed little movement, while computer programming and related services lost 13,000 jobs during the month.
That pattern stands in contrast to public claims that tech employment is recovering. Marc Andreessen said fears about AI-led job losses are overblown and shared data showing more job openings at tech firms.
But openness doesn’t always lead to hiring. Labor figures for March showed that the strongest hiring came from sectors outside of basic technology, while related digital services remained flat or declined.
A recent Goldman Sachs report, cited by Fortune, said AI has cut about 16,000 jobs per month over the past year. At the same time, a 2025 study by SignalFire said that new student employment has dropped by 50% from levels seen before the COVID-19 pandemic.
SignalFire said, “The technology door was once wide open for new grads. Today, it’s not as wide open.” The report linked that shift to smaller funding rounds, leaner teams, fewer graduate programs, and increased use of AI.
Goldman Sachs also warned that workers displaced by technology tend to move into traditional jobs. The report said this change could reduce the number of their existing skills and weaken the results of workers for years.
That concern has fueled the debate about AI and employment. While some leaders are still anticipating long-term benefits, recent data have kept the focus on current hiring patterns and who is bearing the costs of change.
Work experience is not the same as an executive’s hope
Managers continue to report strong support for AI tools. The Harvard Business Review said 80% of leaders use AI on a weekly basis, and 74% reported positive returns on early deployments.
Workers reported different experiences. Mercer said 43% of workers find their jobs too stressful, and Workday said about four hours are lost to adjusting AI output for every 10 hours of claimed benefits.
Harvard Business Review also identified “workslop,” which is defined as content that looks polished but lacks substance. Researchers said that 41% of workers have seen this type of product, each case adding about two hours of rework.
Workday said only 14% of respondents “get positive results from the use of AI.” That result suggests that many workplaces still face errors, more revisions, and weaker confidence in results.
OpenAI warns that policy may remain behind the change
The disconnect between executive use and the day-to-day experience of employees may come from how teams use the tools. The Harvard Business Review said that senior leaders often use AI in strategy, planning, and coordination, where programs tend to perform better.
For routine tasks that require constant precision, the results seem less reliable. Brian Solis of ServiceNow called this burden the “AI tax,” which he described as “More testing. More rework. More worry.”
OpenAI also acknowledged that AI is changing work. Its policy ideas included comprehensive health care coverage, support for retirement savings, and a new industrial agenda.
The company said its proposals are early and are intended to start negotiations. It also warned, “Unless policy keeps pace with technological change, the institutions and safety nets needed to achieve this change may lag behind.”
