Goldman Sachs just quantified what happens to workers displaced by AI: a decade of earnings damage. Meanwhile, the US economy is absorbing the Iran war better than most — but the buffer is narrowing. Both stories have direct implications for who walks into your origination pipeline next quarter.
Two reports this week put sharper numbers on risks that consumer lenders have been watching in the abstract. The first: a Goldman Sachs analysis of 40 years of labor market data showing exactly how much damage AI-driven job displacement does to workers’ earnings — and for how long. The second: a clear-eyed assessment of how insulated the US economy actually is from the Iran war oil shock, and where that insulation ends. Together, they define the borrower environment you are underwriting into for the rest of 2026.
Goldman Sachs economists Pierfrancesco Mei and Jessica Rindels published a research note this week drawing on longitudinal data tracking more than 20,000 workers since 1980. Their conclusion is blunt: workers displaced by technology don’t just struggle in the short term — they spend the better part of a decade fighting to recover.
The key findings, in plain terms. Technology-displaced workers take approximately one month longer to find a new job than workers let go from stable industries. Upon reemployment, they suffer real earnings losses more than 3% larger. Over the following decade, their real earnings grow nearly 10 percentage points less than workers who were never displaced — and 5 percentage points less than workers displaced from non-tech roles. The core mechanism Goldman identifies is occupational downgrading: displaced workers slide into roles that are more routine and require fewer analytical skills, because the same technological forces that eliminated their old job also eroded the market value of their existing skills.
The scarring extends beyond paychecks. Workers displaced early in their careers — between ages 25 and 35 — accumulate less wealth over time, largely because they delay home purchases. They are also less likely to be married at any given age compared to peers who were never displaced, suggesting the economic shock reshapes their personal lives as well.
The timing dimension matters especially now. Goldman found that when technology displacement coincides with a recession, outcomes worsen materially — roughly three additional weeks of unemployment and five percentage points each for the risk of returning to unemployment or exiting the labor force entirely. With AI adoption accelerating at exactly the moment the Iran war is raising recession odds, that compounding risk is not theoretical.
The scale of current AI displacement makes this data immediately relevant. Over 52,000 US tech workers were laid off in the first quarter of 2026 alone, according to Challenger, Gray and Christmas — a 40% increase year over year in March. Goldman separately estimates that AI substitution has been suppressing new payroll growth by approximately 16,000 jobs per month over the past year.
There is one counterintuitive finding worth noting: younger, college-educated workers are faring significantly better than the prevailing narrative suggests. Goldman found that workers aged 25–35 with college degrees experience cumulative earnings losses roughly half as large as older displaced workers. They have greater occupational mobility and tend to move into roles that complement new technology rather than compete with it. Workers who retrain after displacement see approximately 2 percentage points of additional cumulative wage growth over the decade and a 10 percentage point lower probability of unemployment. The most vulnerable are not new graduates — they are mid-career workers in their 40s and 50s with narrow, routine skill sets and limited retraining options.
The lending implication: AI displacement is producing a specific borrower profile — mid-career, previously prime, now re-employed in a lower-wage role with a damaged earnings trajectory. These borrowers look acceptable on a point-in-time credit pull but carry a structural income risk that traditional underwriting does not capture. A 680 FICO score with a 2023 income figure and a 2025 job change into a lower-skilled role is a materially different credit risk than it appears. Income verification at origination is no longer sufficient — income trajectory is what matters.
The US economy has absorbed the Iran war oil shock better than almost any other major economy — and for structural reasons that are worth understanding clearly before assuming the insulation will hold.
The US is now the world’s largest oil producer, pumping over 13 million barrels per day. Its oil consumption per unit of economic output has fallen by almost 70% since 1980. Consumer spending on energy is now roughly one-third of what it was in the late 1970s, according to Morgan Stanley. These structural changes mean the US enters an oil shock from a fundamentally stronger position than it did during the 1973 embargo or the 1979 crisis.
But the buffer is not a wall. Oil is priced on global markets, and US consumers pay global prices regardless of domestic production levels. Gas prices have already climbed from around $3 per gallon before the war to above $4 — an increase of over $1 per gallon in roughly five weeks. For the average American household, Goldman estimates the Iran war oil shock is suppressing payroll growth by approximately 10,000 jobs per month, with leisure, hospitality, and retail taking the sharpest hits as consumers cut discretionary spending first.
The Strait of Hormuz is the critical variable. Through it passed roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply and one-fifth of global LNG trade before the conflict began. Geopolitical analyst Marko Papic of BCA Research estimates that as of early April, the war has removed 4.5 to 5 million barrels per day from global supply — roughly 5% of global consumption. That number, he writes, is likely to double by mid-April. Vanguard’s recession threshold remains $150 a barrel sustained through year-end. Brent is currently trading around $100–$112.
The channels where US insulation breaks down are specific and worth mapping. First, gas prices: highly visible, hitting lower-income households hardest, and crowding out discretionary spending immediately. Second, fertilizer: natural gas is 70–90% of ammonia production costs, and significant Gulf fertilizer supply has been disrupted — a food price shock that will hit grocery bills in Q3. Third, European weakness: US exports of goods and services depend on European buying power, and Europe is absorbing a far more severe energy shock. Fourth, financial conditions: the 10-year Treasury yield has risen roughly half a point since the war began to 4.4%, reflecting inflation concerns and diminishing rate-cut expectations — raising borrowing costs across the consumer credit stack.
The lending implication: The US consumer is not in crisis — but the cushion is compressing from multiple directions simultaneously. AI displacement is eroding income quality in the prime segment. The oil shock is squeezing disposable income for the near-prime and subprime segments. Treasury yields are keeping borrowing costs elevated. And the labor market, while holding at 4.3% unemployment, is generating jobs that are concentrated in lower-wage healthcare rather than the income-generating roles that drive consumer credit demand.
The origination environment is not collapsing. It is tightening. The lenders who will perform best through Q3 and Q4 are the ones who build that tightening into their models now — before it shows up in vintage delinquency data six months from now.
The Lending Pulse delivers weekly intelligence for consumer lending executives — macro signals, regulatory updates, earnings decoded, and company moves. Start your free month — no credit card required.
Start free month →