What if the biggest AI layoffs aren’t layoffs at all?
This article reflects my personal experiences, observations, and opinions about artificial intelligence, automation, employment, and the changing workplace.
The Layoff We Usually Picture
When most people think about layoffs, they imagine a big announcement.
A company calls a meeting.
Employees are gathered into a room.
HR shows up.
People get escorted out.
And the news makes headlines.
That’s what we picture when we hear the word “layoff.”
But lately, I’ve been wondering if there’s another kind of layoff happening.
One that doesn’t make the news.
One that doesn’t come with an announcement.
One that happens so slowly that most people don’t even realize it’s happening until they’re living through it.
What if the biggest AI layoffs aren’t layoffs at all?
What if they’re happening one hour, one position, and one worker at a time?
Because when I look around, that’s what it feels like.
A position becomes vacant.
Nobody replaces it.
A department loses a worker.
The remaining employees absorb the workload.
A new software tool gets introduced.
Management says it’s there to help.
A few months later, fewer people are needed.
No announcement.
No headlines.
No public discussion.
Just fewer workers.
And that’s why I wanted to make this video.
Maybe Workers Aren’t Imagining It
In 2025, U.S.-based employers announced 1,206,374 job cuts, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. That’s a 58% increase over 2024 and the highest annual total since 2020.
The fourth quarter alone accounted for 259,948 announced job cuts, the highest fourth-quarter total since 2008.
In October 2025, U.S.-based employers announced 153,074 job cuts, the highest October total in more than 20 years. By the end of October, announced cuts for the year had already reached 1,099,500.
Some of the largest corporate announcements during 2025 included major workforce reductions at companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, Verizon, Kohl’s, and Chevron.
Those individual announcements were part of a much larger pattern of corporate restructuring and workforce reductions occurring throughout the year.
And technology was one of the largest sources of announced cuts.
The technology sector accounted for 154,445 announced job cuts in 2025, making it the largest private-sector category tracked by Challenger.
AI was specifically cited as a reason for 54,836 announced job cuts in 2025.
That’s an important distinction.
The 1.2 million figure is total announced job cuts, not 1.2 million jobs eliminated because of AI.
Companies cited many different reasons for those reductions, including restructuring, economic conditions, store and facility closures, government actions, and AI.
And 2026 started with another major wave.
In January 2026, U.S.-based employers announced 108,435 planned job cuts, the highest January total since 2009 and 118% higher than January 2025.
Among the largest announcements was UPS, which planned to eliminate up to 30,000 jobs and close 24 facilities. Amazon also announced plans to eliminate approximately 16,000 corporate positions.
Through July 2026, U.S.-based employers had announced 477,033 job cuts.
The technology sector accounted for 149,023 of those cuts, an increase of 67% compared with the same period in 2025.
I’m Living Through This Uncertainty Myself
The reason this topic hits close to home for me is because I’m living through uncertainty myself.
Right now, I’m a seasonal employee.
Recently my hours and my income were reduced by roughly 40 percent.
Forty percent.
That’s not a small adjustment.
That’s an adjustment that took me from middle class to poor.
That’s the kind of change that forces you to start asking questions.
What happens next?
How much further can this go?
Will the work still be there next year?
And when you start seeing companies talk about automation, artificial intelligence, and efficiency at the same time workers are seeing opportunities shrink…
Full-time opportunities have been dangled in my face for about 10 years, just to be given to someone else or eliminated after they used this to motivate me.
I don’t blame my direct management. This came from higher up, at an executive level.
I have sat there and watched them give opportunities to other people.
I’ve watched my friends and coworkers have to struggle like me, but some have a family to support. You sit there and watch them worry about what they are going to do for their loved ones.
You have management give opportunities to people that don’t even work for your company for a job that you are currently performing every day.
Technology Has Always Changed Work
Technology has always changed work.
As a civilization, we have constantly learned new ways to make survival and work easier—from fire to the wheel, to the Industrial Revolution.
This isn’t the first time.
And it probably won’t be the last.
Computers changed offices.
There is a Dead Kennedys song called “Soup Is Good Food” that talks about this same thing more than 40 years ago.
If you’re curious about the song, here’s a link to the song and the lyrics:
The internet changed business.
Automation changed manufacturing.
That’s not new.
What’s different now is the speed.
And maybe more importantly…
The scale.
Because AI isn’t being introduced into one industry.
It’s being introduced into almost all of them.
And we’re already seeing signs of it.
Researchers studying AI-exposed occupations have found that hiring has slowed in many entry-level and administrative roles as companies experiment with automation and AI-assisted workflows.
That doesn’t mean every job disappears.
But it does mean fewer openings can have a huge impact when millions of people are competing for work.
Especially workers over 40.
Especially workers trying to start over.
Especially workers already struggling to get a callback.
Customer service.
Administration.
Marketing.
Writing.
Research.
Data analysis.
Programming.
Accounting.
Support roles.
The list keeps growing.
And whenever a company can do the same work with fewer people…
There is going to be pressure to do exactly that.
Labor Is a Cost to a Company
Because from a corporate perspective, labor is often viewed as a cost.
A necessary cost.
But a cost.
And if technology reduces that cost, many companies will see that as a win.
The problem is that workers experience it very differently.
Because for workers, labor isn’t a cost.
It’s a paycheck.
It’s rent.
It’s groceries.
It’s healthcare.
It’s a car payment.
It’s keeping the lights on.
So while executives talk about efficiency…
They aren’t worried about any of the things I just said.
They’re financially secure.
People are wondering how they’re going to pay bills.
Executives aren’t worried about paying theirs and they damn sure aren’t worried about yours.
Allow me to elaborate.
Executives are focused on quarterly earnings, efficiency targets, and shareholder expectations.
Workers are focused on rent, groceries, healthcare, and keeping the lights on.
I just said the same thing twice.
One wasn’t as to the point as the first.
Anyways.
That’s a Very Different Conversation
That’s a very different conversation.
And I think that’s why so many people are uneasy right now.
Not because we’re anti-technology.
Not because we’re afraid of progress.
Because we can see where the incentives point.
It’s not us that’s for sure.
If technology can reduce labor costs…
What happens to the people whose labor is being reduced?
What happens to the worker whose hours are cut?
What happens to the department that never gets refilled?
What happens to the employee who’s told to do more with less?
What happens to the people trying to enter the workforce when fewer positions exist?
Those are the questions I don’t hear enough people asking.
Because everyone seems focused on what AI can do.
But not enough people are talking about what happens to the people left behind.
The Infrastructure Nobody Talks About
And there’s another part of this conversation that almost nobody talks about.
The infrastructure.
Because AI doesn’t run on magic.
It runs on data centers.
Massive buildings filled with servers.
Massive amounts of electricity.
Massive amounts of water.
Data-center expansion is increasingly becoming a local political issue because communities are dealing with the physical consequences of building this infrastructure.
The U.S. Department of Energy has projected that data centers could consume between 6.7% and 12% of total U.S. electricity by 2028, compared with approximately 4.4% in 2023.
And water is another concern.
Data centers can use water for cooling, although the amount varies considerably depending on the facility and cooling technology.
A 2024 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report estimated that U.S. data centers directly consumed approximately 66 billion liters of water in 2023, or about 17.4 billion gallons.
These numbers don’t mean every data center has the same environmental impact.
They don’t.
But they demonstrate why communities are paying attention as these facilities become larger and more numerous.
And we’re seeing that debate play out in several states.
Missouri: Data Centers Have Become a Local Political Issue
Missouri is a particularly relevant example because this isn’t just a debate happening somewhere far away.
Data-center development has become a local political issue across the state.
Independence: A $150 Billion Proposal Creates Controversy
In Independence, Missouri, residents have been dealing with one of the largest proposed data-center developments in the state.
The city approved approximately $150.6 billion in bonds connected to a proposed hyperscale data-center development by a Dutch AI company.
The project generated significant controversy over transparency, public involvement, and whether residents should have a direct say in the development.
A court ultimately blocked residents from putting the bond issue to a public vote.
The Independence controversy became part of a larger statewide debate over whether Missouri communities have enough information and authority when large data-center projects are proposed.
Missouri Independent — Data center backlash spills into Missouri primaries
Festus: A Community Pushes Back
Festus provides another example of how controversial these projects can become.
A proposed approximately $6 billion data center generated significant opposition from residents.
The Festus City Council ultimately approved the project’s development agreement by a 6–2 vote on March 30, 2026.
But the controversy did not end with the approval.
In the April 2026 election, voters removed all four incumbent city council members who were on the ballot.
Reporting on the election connected the results directly to the controversy surrounding the data-center project and concerns about transparency.
The project remains legally approved but has also faced lawsuits challenging actions taken by the city.
Missouri Independent — Google data center plan raises tax, transparency questions in rural Missouri
Spectrum News — Festus data center project
St. Charles: Community Opposition Helped Stop a Proposal
Missouri has also seen communities reject proposed developments.
In St. Charles, a proposed large-scale data-center development generated significant community opposition.
The project was ultimately withdrawn.
St. Charles later became one of the Missouri communities cited in discussions about local resistance to data centers.
This is important because it demonstrates that opposition doesn’t always result in a project being built anyway.
Sometimes a developer decides not to proceed.
Pacific: Another Project Is Withdrawn
There is also a more recent example in Pacific, Missouri.
Beltline Energy proposed a potential data-center development involving approximately 500 acres and an estimated investment of approximately $16 billion.
The proposal generated opposition from residents.
Pacific subsequently adopted a one-year moratorium on data-center development.
Two days later, Beltline Energy withdrew its rezoning application.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the company has permanently abandoned data-center development in the area.
But it does demonstrate something important:
Local opposition can change what happens to a proposed project.
Data Center Dynamics — Beltline Energy withdraws data center proposal in Pacific, Missouri
Amazon: Missouri Is Also Actively Encouraging Data Centers
At the same time that some Missouri communities are pushing back, the state government is actively encouraging major data-center investment.
On June 15, 2026, Amazon announced plans to invest approximately $10 billion in a new data-center campus in Montgomery County near New Florence, Missouri.
Governor Mike Kehoe appeared at the announcement and described the project as an investment in Missouri’s future.
The project is expected to create approximately 400 direct jobs, along with thousands of construction jobs.
Montgomery County estimates the investment could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in new property-tax revenue over the next 25 years.
Missouri Department of Economic Development — Amazon Investing $10 Billion in Montgomery County
But even this project has generated controversy.
Amazon’s project is already under construction, and Google has announced another $15 billion data-center investment nearby.
Some Montgomery County residents have questioned how the projects were approved and whether residents had enough opportunity to participate in the decisions.
A countywide survey reported by the Missouri Independent found that nearly 85% of the 1,461 respondents opposed the data-center development, while almost 11% supported it.
The survey was conducted by the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, so it should be understood as a survey of respondents rather than a scientific statewide poll.
Missouri Independent — Data center backlash spills into Missouri primaries
The Google project has also raised questions about tax incentives.
Montgomery County has proposed giving Google a 70% personal-property-tax abatement covering equipment such as servers.
Amazon’s project is scheduled to receive personal-property-tax exemptions ranging from 75% to 95% between 2028 and 2052, according to the county’s cost-benefit analysis.
Missouri Independent — Google data center plan raises tax, transparency questions
So Missouri is simultaneously experiencing two very different reactions to the data-center boom.
Some communities are saying:
We don’t want this here.
Other communities and state officials are saying:
We want the investment, jobs, and tax revenue.
And some communities are saying:
If it’s going to happen, we want more control over how it happens.
Missouri Is Now Seeing Both Sides of the Debate
These examples show why the data-center debate in Missouri is becoming complicated.
Independence has faced controversy over an enormous proposed development and questions about public involvement.
Festus saw intense community opposition followed by the removal of four incumbent city council members from the ballot.
St. Charles saw a proposed project withdrawn after community opposition.
Pacific imposed a moratorium and subsequently saw a $16 billion proposal withdrawn.
At the same time, Montgomery County is moving forward with major Amazon and Google projects, with billions of dollars in investment and promises of jobs and tax revenue.
The state’s own policies acknowledge some of the concerns.
Missouri lawmakers have considered legislation dealing with the costs of electricity and water associated with large-load customers such as data centers. One proposal would have required higher rates for large electricity users and additional requirements for very large water users.
The legislation did not receive a committee vote during the 2026 session.
Meanwhile, Missouri’s 2026 political campaigns have increasingly focused on data-center development.
Sixteen Missouri lawmakers even asked Governor Mike Kehoe to call a special legislative session to address concerns surrounding large-scale data-center development.
The Missouri Independent reported that lawmakers were concerned about the speed of development, transparency, public input, electricity, water, and whether existing laws adequately protect communities.
Missouri Independent — Data center backlash spills into Missouri primaries
And that’s what makes Missouri interesting.
This isn’t simply a question of whether people like or dislike AI.
It’s becoming a question about land, electricity, water, taxes, jobs, infrastructure, local control, and public participation.
The technology may be digital.
The consequences aren’t.
Georgia: A Data-Center Boom Meets Growing Resistance
Georgia provides another major example.
The state has aggressively pursued data-center development, but the issue has also become increasingly controversial.
Georgia lawmakers considered proposals dealing with data-center tax incentives, energy costs, and potential restrictions during 2026.
The debate included concerns about whether ordinary electricity customers could ultimately bear some of the costs associated with increased electricity demand.
And then there is Effingham County, near Savannah.
OpenAI announced plans for a $20 billion data-center campus in the area.
Residents were not exactly welcoming.
Hundreds of people attended a community meeting, while more than 100 protesters gathered outside. Residents questioned the project’s impact and complained about how the project had been presented to the community.
Then there’s Covington, Georgia, where the electricity requirements associated with a data center became another controversy.
A company began constructing a natural-gas-powered “pop-up” power plant intended to provide electricity to a data center.
Georgia environmental officials subsequently ordered construction to stop after determining that the project had begun without the required permits.
That raises another question:
What happens when the infrastructure required to power AI becomes an environmental and regulatory issue of its own?
Georgia has also seen controversy over transmission infrastructure needed to support growing electricity demand.
Residents have raised concerns about power-grid expansion and the impact of transmission projects on private property, including cases involving eminent domain.
The broader issue is important:
AI data centers require enormous amounts of electricity, and providing that electricity requires physical infrastructure.
Sometimes that infrastructure affects the communities where it is built.
The Georgia Water-Use Incident
There was also a separate water-use controversy involving the QTS data-center campus in Fayetteville, Georgia.
In 2025, residents near the facility reported low water pressure. When the county utility investigated, officials discovered two high-capacity water connections serving the developing data-center campus that were not properly integrated into the county’s billing system.
More than 29 million gallons of water had gone unaccounted for, and the county later issued QTS a bill of approximately $147,474 for the water. QTS paid the retroactive charges.
The incident became public after a county resident obtained the 2025 letter through a public-records request.
The initial county letter said that two water connections had been installed without the knowledge or inspection of county staff. However, Fayette County later clarified that the wording of that letter had caused misunderstandings. The county attributed the problem to its transition to a new smart-meter system, which left some QTS meters outside the new billing system. The county said there was no allegation of criminal wrongdoing.
QTS said the water was used during construction for activities including concrete work, dust control, and site preparation, rather than for cooling the operational data center.
The company says the completed facility will use a closed-loop cooling system that does not consume water for cooling once operational.
Fayette County has also said QTS’s water use represented less than 1% of the county’s monthly water supply.
At the same time, the incident generated community concern because residents had already been experiencing low water pressure, and the discovery occurred while the county was encouraging residents to conserve water.
The incident illustrates one of the infrastructure questions surrounding large data centers:
How much water is being used, how is that usage monitored, and how does the community know what is happening?
Related reporting:
- E&E News — A data center drained 30M gallons of water unnoticed
- Atlanta News First — Records raise questions about Georgia’s largest data center and its water use
Wyoming: Residents Are Asking Whether Enough Is Known
Wyoming provides another example.
In Park County, commissioners moved toward restricting data centers to specific areas and proposed prohibiting them across much of the county.
The commissioners cited public opposition and concerns about the potential consequences of large data-center developments.
At the same time, Wyoming is experiencing substantial interest in data-center development.
In Laramie County, a proposed project known as Project Jade could eventually require an extraordinary amount of electricity.
The project has been described as potentially requiring electricity comparable to the output of 10 nuclear power plants if fully developed.
Water has also become part of the Wyoming discussion.
Data-center developers have promoted technologies such as geothermal and closed-loop cooling systems as ways to reduce water consumption, while communities continue examining what large-scale development could mean for local resources.
Cheyenne: A Data Center Was Linked to Bacterial Contamination
Wyoming has also seen a particularly serious incident involving water infrastructure in Cheyenne.
In January 2026, workers at a Cheyenne wastewater facility discovered unusual bacterial growth during routine testing.
The bacterium was identified as Cupriavidus gilardii.
The contamination affected Cheyenne’s wastewater and reclaimed-water system, not the city’s drinking-water supply.
The Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities determined that the bacteria had entered the city’s wastewater system through wastewater associated with a contractor working on Meta’s data-center project.
The contamination passed through the city’s Crow Creek and Dry Creek wastewater treatment plants and interfered with the city’s reclaimed-water system.
The city had to drain and disinfect parts of the system and temporarily stop using reclaimed water for irrigation while testing and remediation took place.
The Board of Public Utilities subsequently revoked the contractor’s industrial discharge privileges and suspended certain types of wastewater discharges from data centers while the issue was investigated.
The incident also raised questions about communication with residents because the contamination was discovered months before the public was informed.
Meta has appealed the violation notice and disputes aspects of the findings and responsibility, so that portion of the matter remains an ongoing dispute.
The distinction here is important.
Cheyenne’s drinking water was not contaminated.
But a data-center construction project was linked by the city’s utility to contamination that disrupted municipal wastewater and reclaimed-water infrastructure and required extensive cleanup.
That raises another question for communities considering large data-center developments:
Can existing local infrastructure handle these facilities without creating problems that residents ultimately have to deal with?
Related reporting:
- WyoFile — White colonies of petri-dish bacteria led to data-center pollution fine
- Wyoming Public Media — Meta appeals bacterial contamination violation
- U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman — Hageman demands answers from Meta over data-center water contamination
The debate has even entered Wyoming politics.
Governor Mark Gordon has opposed calls for broad data-center moratoriums, while opponents have pushed for greater local control and restrictions.
And data centers have become an issue in Wyoming’s 2026 political campaigns as well.
Again, the debate isn’t simply:
“Do you like technology?”
It’s:
“Where should these facilities be built?”
“How much should communities have to accommodate?”
“Who pays for the infrastructure?”
And:
“How much control should local residents have over what gets built around them?”
This Is Becoming a Much Bigger Conversation
Missouri, Georgia, and Wyoming are obviously very different states.
But they’re showing some of the same pattern.
Missouri is seeing local political backlash and elections influenced by data-center development.
Georgia is dealing with rapid development, electricity demand, tax incentives, environmental questions, water concerns, and community opposition.
Wyoming is seeing local governments consider restricting where data centers can be built because of public opposition and concerns about their effects.
And this isn’t just happening in those three states.
On July 18, 2026, opponents of data-center expansion held 142 protests across 42 states, in what Reuters described as a nationwide effort to organize opposition to the rapid buildout of AI infrastructure.
The political backlash is becoming difficult to ignore.
People may be interested in AI.
People may use AI.
People may believe AI has useful applications.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean they want a massive data center built next door.
And I think that’s an important distinction.
The technology may be digital.
The consequences aren’t.
Data centers require land.
They require electricity.
They require cooling.
They require water or other cooling infrastructure.
They require roads, transmission lines, substations, generators, and other physical infrastructure.
And ultimately, they require communities willing to host them.
So when we’re talking about the future of AI, I don’t think we can only talk about software and algorithms.
We also have to talk about the people living next to the buildings that make all of it possible.
And if communities are going to bear some of the costs of the AI economy, they deserve a voice in deciding what that economy looks like in their own backyards.
Maybe It Will Create Opportunity
And maybe that’s why there’s growing frustration.
People are being told this technology will create opportunity.
Maybe it will.
I honestly hope it does.
It seems that companies that are replacing people with AI and companies that create AI aren’t disclosing anything about how they are helping people or whether they are creating jobs.
Because right now many workers aren’t seeing the future they’re being promised.
They’re seeing longer job searches.
More competition.
Fewer responses from employers.
And more pressure to learn new skills just to stay where they already are.
But right now, many people aren’t seeing opportunities.
Especially with the large corporations.
We’re seeing uncertainty.
We’re seeing fewer openings.
We’re seeing more competition.
We’re seeing jobs requiring more skills for the same pay.
Or less.
Fewer entry-level positions.
And people are wondering where they fit into all of it.
I know I am.
Most People Aren’t Asking for Guarantees
Because I don’t think most people are asking for guarantees.
I don’t think most people are asking for special treatment.
People want the truth whether it’s about why they are not hiring and why they are just putting extra responsibility on fewer employees.
Companies don’t want to talk about greed or their selfish intent.
They don’t want to tell you that the easiest way to generate revenue is to cut their labor.
Because if they told the truth no one would buy their products and services.
I think most people just want a fair chance to earn a living.
To support themselves.
To support their families.
To build some form of stability.
And when technology starts threatening that stability, people pay attention.
As they should.
The AI Layoff Nobody Talks About
Maybe that’s the AI layoff nobody talks about.
Not the dramatic announcement.
Not the headline.
Not the press release.
The gradual reduction of opportunities.
The shrinking of hours.
The positions that quietly disappear.
The jobs that are never posted because software now does the work.
Or whoever is left does for the same amount of money.
No single moment.
No single event.
Just a slow change that workers feel long before anyone else notices.
And if that’s what’s happening…
Then workers deserve to be part of the conversation about what comes next.
Because we’re the ones living with the consequences.
What Do You Think?
Have you seen AI, automation, or new technology affect your workplace yet?
Does your community have a data center?
Has it brought all of the promises that were made along with it?
Did it create opportunities?
Or did it reduce them?
Leave a comment below.
Tell me what happened.
About The Exploited Worker 138
The Exploited Worker 138 is an independent publication exploring work, layoffs, unemployment, artificial intelligence, automation, the economy, and what it means to rebuild in a changing world.
The goal isn’t to pretend we have all the answers.
It’s to have the conversations that often don’t happen until after the job is gone.
Starting Over in a Broken System.