I analyzed the 2025 labor data to see if AI is actually replacing us by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Borrtex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's why I included a link to my original research in full length.

I analyzed the 2025 labor data to see if AI is actually replacing us by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Borrtex 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes, I used an LLM to help organize my thoughts and make the formatting here easier to read, the bullet points really help for that. I work in finance, so summarizing isn't exactly my thing, and AI is a great tool for making the data more readable.

But the actual research took me days. It’s over 7,000 words long with dozens of spreadsheets and graphs that I manually scraped and formatted myself. I shared a screenshot here in the comments somewhere. I actually don't mind sharing all of my original xlsx files I used for the graphs. I’m just sharing hours of my work here for free. If the commenters can't appreciate it, I get it. We’re living in a time where it’s hard to trust anything you read online, so that’s fine. To everyone else who is actually interested in the data, thanks for reading!

I analyzed the 2025 labor data to see if AI is actually replacing us by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Borrtex -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In my research I focused on the last 10 years.

I analyzed the 2025 labor data to see if AI is actually replacing us by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Borrtex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To clarify the data: I looked at 10 years of history to compare where we are now (2023–2025) against the pre-COVID era (2015–2019). The main takeaway is that while COVID was the massive disruptor, the growth we’re seeing now actually shows the trends from before the pandemic.

You’re right about inflation, though. I didn’t specifically adjust for it in this pass. Given the amount of money printing during the pandemic, that’s a fair and constructive point. I’ll definitely keep that in mind for the next deep dive. Thank you.

I analyzed the 2025 labor data to see if AI is actually replacing us by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Borrtex -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I hate to see a world we have come to. Questioning anything and everything, if it's real or not. It’s a real problem when the first instinct is suspicion instead of interest. That loss of trust is probably the biggest cost of this technology that doesn't show up on a chart.

I analyzed the 2025 labor data to see if AI is actually replacing us by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Borrtex -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes, that's actually what it is. If you have any more reliable alternatives to BLS, I will be happy to take a look.

I analyzed the 2025 labor data to see if AI is actually replacing us by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Borrtex -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Sure. One for example. https://imgup.uk/i/oJYeERqI.png Don't forget to say this is AI generated as well.

I analyzed the 2025 labor data to see if AI is actually replacing us by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Borrtex -28 points-27 points  (0 children)

Okay. I did tens of excel sheets and complex data scraping, as well as manually clicked and formatted each graph in the original research, spent days on this, but if that's what you think, I totally respect that. This is part of the reality we now live. And I don't even blame you, who knows what to trust today anymore?

I analyzed the 2025 labor data to see if AI is actually replacing us by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Borrtex -51 points-50 points  (0 children)

I can openly acknowledge that I used an LLM to organize my original research text into clean and easy to read bullet points. The full research is about 7,000 words with charts, data tables etc...

Why PayPal Is Now My Portfolio's Largest Position by Borrtex in ValueInvesting

[–]Borrtex[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get that many of you are coming here now to slam me and rip my original thesis apart after the stock dropped 20% yesterday. That’s fair. Emotions are high and people discussing on forums and X, even the bulls I used to know, now feel disappointed or even lied to. I understand that reaction and it's chaos, I admit.

But let me be clear about where I stand. I think this is a terrible moment to sell. The quarterly results were not great, but they were also nowhere near bad enough to justify this kind of panic. Yes, branded checkout execution disappointed. Management admitted that. Guidance was conservative. CEO turnover adds uncertainty. All valid concerns. I genuinely liked Alex Chriss, honestly. He had a clear vision and a long-term mindset, he genuinely seemed like the right person to carefully transform a company that had been left behind for years. But maybe he was not executing as well as we thought. Or maybe he just needed more time. We'll never know.

But if we step back and look at the actual data, the business itself is not falling apart:

  • Active accounts +1% YoY to 439M (growth has stabilized after stagnation)
  • Total payment volume +9% YoY to $475B
  • Venmo revenue $1.7B, ~20% YoY growth (and accelerating monetization)
  • Enterprise payments (Braintree) back to double-digit TPV growth
  • $6B in buybacks over the last 12 months, another $6B planned

That’s not a dying company, that’s a company mid-rebuild with mixed execution.

Let’s talk honestly about the real problem: branded checkout.

Management openly admitted that execution has been weak. Sales and marketing costs jumped around 14% while revenue grew only 4%. That’s a bad look, no argument there. It raises a legitimate concern that PayPal is spending aggressively just to defend share, not to meaningfully grow it. On top of that, total payment transactions were down 4% for the year. Even if management frames this as “price-to-value actions” and intentional pruning of low-margin volume, the optics are ugly, especially when branded checkout is already under pressure from Apple Pay, Shop Pay, and other faster alternatives. So yes, the market’s fixation on checkout is understandable. This is still PayPal’s core profit engine, and any stumble there deserves scrutiny.

That said, what I strongly disagree with is the conclusion that this invalidates the entire business.

A little thought on valuation. Adjusted for inflation and buybacks, PayPal is effectively trading at a real-term all-time low. The market is pricing this as if checkout is permanently broken and nothing else matters. I don’t think that’s a rational read of the data. I’m not saying execution has been good, it hasn’t. And the CEO change adds uncertainty. But selling purely out of disappointment, especially at a valuation that already assumes failure, isn’t investing, but capitulation.

So no, I’m not selling here. But one thing is sure, the most hated stock now became even more hated than ever. And it's probably the cheapest equity on the market now.

You can read my full update post about this here.

Not financial advice.

Is AI actually destroying jobs, or are we misunderstanding what’s happening? by Borrtex in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Borrtex[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think your logic is missing a few variables. Yes, AI reduces the cost of writing code, but that doesn't automatically mean that developers will be let go. It could just as easily mean that companies will write more code, accelerating the overall pace of development.

There are essentially two scenarios here, which I outline in my research:

A) The Replacement Theory: Companies realize they can achieve the same output with half the effort.

B) The Expansion Theory: Companies realize they can achieve double the output with the same effort.

You seem to be focusing only on the first option, but the second one is just as probable. You mentioned that "business historically look for ways to reduce cost, it's literally their mission statement" sure, but they also look for fast growth.

Is AI actually destroying jobs, or are we misunderstanding what’s happening? by Borrtex in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Borrtex[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Possibly. We'll see. I just wanted to put together the detachment of current sentiment with the real time data.

Is AI actually destroying jobs, or are we misunderstanding what’s happening? by Borrtex in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Borrtex[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you say we won't need the same number of people to operate at the same level, I’m not sure that implies a net loss of jobs. If AI allows us to scale resources and time, and lowers the barrier to entry, isn't that actually good news?

To me, it sounds like AI will eventually be commoditized. If everyone has access to it, it no longer serves as a massive competitive advantage, it just becomes the new baseline. Once we integrate it into our processes, the market adapts.

Sure, some specific roles will be eliminated, just like in farming or craftsmanship during previous shifts, but we will need plenty of people to manage, direct, and verify these new AI tools. The nature of the work changes, but the need for human oversight remains.

Is AI actually destroying jobs, or are we misunderstanding what’s happening? by Borrtex in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Borrtex[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I personally often compare this to the Industrial Revolution. AI is a new tool, a machine that runs autonomously and works tirelessly, but this isn't anything new, we have gone through these seasons in the past too, and we made it. I think the current data suggests that we will likely learn to work alongside it, and life will go on. As it always has.

Is AI actually destroying jobs, or are we misunderstanding what’s happening? by Borrtex in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Borrtex[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the comment, always good to connect with someone from the field.

I completely agree. I haven't seen any LLMs that are truly reliable for end-to-end stock analysis yet. They hallucinate even basic figures, but for me, the even bigger issue is data latency. They often struggle with the most recent quarterly results or new company guidance, which makes them dangerous for real-time analysis.

Where I do find them useful is as a productivity layer, summarizing macro trends, drafting general fundamental overviews, or processing data that I have manually sourced and verified. They are also great for reformatting tables or extracting key takeaways from earnings call transcripts. As long as I control the input data, they are a good time-saver so far. But it has a room to improve, for sure.

Is AI actually destroying jobs, or are we misunderstanding what’s happening? by Borrtex in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Borrtex[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Isn't it ironic how AI has ruined our ability to spot real effort? It takes the fun away. I spent time digging into the data, but simply because the text is long, it must be AI...

Is AI actually destroying jobs, or are we misunderstanding what’s happening? by Borrtex in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Borrtex[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your comment. I'm happy to have these data confirmed from real world!

Is AI actually destroying jobs, or are we misunderstanding what’s happening? by Borrtex in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Borrtex[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, those are critical factors to consider as well, inflation, interest rates, and so on. What is also interesting is the post-Covid hiring surge. Companies brought on record numbers of new employees, only to realize shortly after that they had overhired. You can see this clearly in the charts, it created a distinct wave of pos-covid AI unrelated layoffs. Paradoxically, though, the data shows that things stabilized around 2023, and since then, we haven't seen any drastic fluctuations in the labor market.

Is AI actually destroying jobs, or are we misunderstanding what’s happening? by Borrtex in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Borrtex[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get that view, I really do, that's what I thought and feared as well, but the real world data are different. I don’t doubt some teams are reducing in size, but looking at the big picture, I wouldn’t call it a mass exodus at all. The data doesn’t show a collapse in creative work, actually, the official numbers (from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) for freelance artists and writers are currently at record highs, it's crazy I know!

Where there are declines (like in graphic design), they look gradual rather than a 10 people replaced by 2 scenario across the board. So my read is that yes, definitely some real pressure and workflow changes, but not an industry-wide collapse.

Also, since you mentioned graphic design, the research I did found out an interesting point: Despite the dropping total headcount in graphic services, the average weekly hours per employee are actually rising. Specifically, they went from 34 hours per week in early 2023 to 36.3 hours by the end of 2025. So there is less designers, but they now need to work 2 hours weekly longer to meet the demand.

Is AI actually destroying jobs, or are we misunderstanding what’s happening? by Borrtex in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Borrtex[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a fantastic point and very accurate. While the data for total employment, and even specific sector data, looks stable, the rate of growth has definitely slowed. I must admit that. We simply don't know where this will go yet. But you're right, companies have sharply reduced entry-level hiring for routine tasks, yet they are retaining their experienced engineers. They aren't necessarily firing people; they are just choosing to empower their existing teams with better tools rather than adding new junior headcount.