New data complicates the AI jobs debate: AI spenders are hiring, not firing

The narrative that artificial intelligence is a direct threat to jobs, especially for entry-level workers, has become a near-daily headline. Each new round of corporate layoffs, often attributed to AI-related efficiencies, reinforces a growing anxiety. Through May 2026, companies have announced nearly 90,000 job cuts tied to AI, and projections suggest up to 15% of U.S. roles could be eliminated over the next five years. For a generation entering the workforce, the message from the tech industry — that AI will also create new opportunities — can feel hollow.

A recent report from Ramp, a corporate spend management platform, and Revelio Labs, a workforce analytics firm, introduces a more nuanced, and perhaps surprising, data point into this debate. The report, which analyzes enterprise AI spending and workforce records from nearly 22,000 companies, suggests that the firms investing most heavily in AI are actually growing their headcount faster than their peers.

The data: AI spenders are hiring

The report identifies a group of firms it calls “high-intensity adopters” — companies that spend an average of $30 per employee per month on AI tools in the first quarter of adoption. These companies saw overall headcount increase by 10.2%. Importantly, job growth was not limited to engineering roles. It was observed across functions including sales, administration, customer service, finance, marketing, and scientific research. The strongest growth was seen in the information sector, which encompasses software, internet, media, and other tech-adjacent firms.

This counters the simple substitution narrative — the idea that AI is primarily a tool for replacing human labor. Instead, the data suggests that for some firms, AI is functioning as a tool for expansion. “For software and technology firms, AI can make core output cheaper or faster to produce,” the report notes, “Lower production costs in these workflows can raise the return to expanding the whole firm, not just the engineering team.”

A critical caveat: Correlation is not causation

Despite these positive signals, the report’s authors are careful to avoid overstating their findings. The data skews heavily toward tech-forward, venture-backed knowledge-work firms that may be growing rapidly for other reasons. It is difficult to isolate whether AI is driving the hiring, or simply appearing on the balance sheets of companies that are already expanding.

“This paper does not show that AI universally creates jobs,” the authors state plainly. “But it does counter claims that AI will lead to broad job losses.” This is a meaningful distinction. The report also challenges the idea that AI is eliminating all junior-level positions. While research from Goldman Sachs has found that AI has erased roughly 16,000 net jobs per month over the past year, with Gen Z and entry-level workers bearing the brunt, the Ramp/Revelio Labs data shows that among high-intensity AI adopters, entry-level headcount actually rose by 12%.

The widening gap: Who benefits from AI?

The report’s most significant implication may be its suggestion of a growing divide between firms that can successfully integrate AI and those that cannot. Companies that merely purchase subscriptions and run pilots without making sustained, strategic investments do not see the same headcount gains. This sets up a potential two-tier market: one where firms with resources — capital, technical staff, founder networks, and management bandwidth — turn AI adoption into genuine business expansion, and another where firms are left experimenting without tangible results.

The authors speculate that this gap may continue to widen, stating: “Firms without those channels may fall behind.” This suggests that the real story of AI and employment may not be about a simple loss or gain of jobs, but about a redistribution of opportunity toward already-resourced firms.

Conclusion

The Ramp and Revelio Labs report does not resolve the AI jobs debate, but it provides essential texture to a conversation often dominated by fear and sweeping predictions. It suggests that AI is not an inevitable job-killer, but a tool whose impact depends heavily on the context of its adoption. For policymakers, educators, and workers, the key takeaway may be less about the technology itself and more about the structural conditions that determine who gets to benefit from it.

FAQs

Q1: Does the Ramp and Revelio Labs report prove that AI creates jobs?
The report does not prove that AI universally creates jobs. It shows a correlation between high AI spending and headcount growth at a specific set of tech-forward firms, but the authors caution that causation is not established.

Q2: Are entry-level jobs safe from AI?
The report found that entry-level headcount rose by 12% at high-intensity AI adopters, but other research (e.g., from Goldman Sachs) shows that entry-level workers have been disproportionately affected by AI-related job losses overall. The picture is mixed and depends on the firm and sector.

Q3: What is the main takeaway for workers?
The report suggests that the benefits of AI adoption are not evenly distributed. Firms with existing resources are better positioned to use AI for expansion, potentially widening the gap between high-performing and struggling companies. Workers may want to focus on firms with a track record of strategic technology investment.