
摩根大通(JPMorgan)首席执行官杰米·戴蒙(Jamie Dimon)去年在致股东信中道出了一个令人不安的事实:人工智能“可能削减某些岗位类别或职位”,并预言其对劳动力的影响将与印刷机、蒸汽机、电力和互联网类似。2025年,随着摩根大通、高盛(Goldman Sachs)和摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)宣布多轮裁员,这项技术成了首要怀疑对象。但专家告诉《财富》杂志,人工智能引发的金融岗位取代在很大程度上是“障眼法”。至少目前如此。
银行一边裁员,一边向人工智能领域投入数十亿美元,这理所当然引起了人们的质疑。企业已在运营中部署人工智能软件,例如代号为“苏格拉底”(Socrates)的工具,能在几秒内完成初级分析师数小时的工作。与此同时,花旗集团(Citigroup)的一份报告发现,54%的金融岗位“具有高度自动化潜力”,比例超过任何其他行业。但专家们一致认为,迄今为止,与人工智能相关的裁员微不足道。今年的银行业裁员潮是疫情期间过度招聘和经济不确定性共同导致的结果。
纽约大学斯特恩商学院(New York University Stern)未来管理中心主任罗伯特·西曼斯(Robert Seamans)告诉《财富》杂志:“如果有大公司声称‘因为人工智能,我们不打算招那么多人了’,或者‘因为人工智能,我们要裁员了’,我认为这有点障眼法的意味。”
他继续说道:“人工智能常常是各种问题的替罪羊,因为比起归咎于消费者需求疲软、关税带来的不确定性,或者过去几年疫情后过度招聘的人力资源策略失误,把责任推给人工智能要容易得多。”他补充道,“这比指责特朗普的关税政策所面临的政治风险小得多。”
专家告诉《财富》杂志,虽然人工智能目前还无法取代银行家和顾问,但营销人员和会计可能即将面临困境。顶尖商学院学位仍然物有所值;绝大多数顶尖MBA学生毕业后仍能很快获得工作机会。但随着人工智能推动生产力大幅提升,就业前景正在缩减,银行业员工人数可能在未来数年停滞不前。
人工智能正在抑制银行业招聘——这可能持续数年
尽管华尔街今年因一连串无情的裁员而登上头条,但整个银行和金融业的员工人数实际上相对稳定。
波士顿咨询公司(BCG)负责银行业与人才业务的董事总经理皮姆·希尔伯斯(Pim Hilbers)告诉《财富》杂志:“我认为过去十年银行业总体[员工数量]趋势是稳定至略有下降。我不认为这种情况会很快改变。”“这并不意味着每个人都会终身从事同一份工作。我认为我们看到的人员流动性比过去大得多。”
迄今为止,美国最大的金融机构并未进行大幅裁员。与2024年相比,美国银行(Bank of America)今年第三季度末仅减少了4名员工。同期,摩根大通的员工人数增加了2000人,其中超过三分之一的新员工被安排在企业运营部门。即使是今年实施了多轮裁员的高盛,今年9月也雇佣了48,300名员工——比去年增加了约1,800人。
银行目前还不准备裁减员工。专家告诉《财富》杂志,它们正在尽可能推迟员工数量的增长,依靠人工智能提升效率,直到被迫增加人力成本。他们预测这种招聘低迷期可能会持续数年。
埃森哲(Accenture)银行与资本市场行业组负责人迈克·阿博特(Mike Abbott)告诉《财富》杂志:“我交谈过的许多银行会说:‘听着,我想提高生产力,这样我就不必为了新增10亿美元贷款而再招100人。’这可能是大多数人的想法:未来24个月我都不必招聘,因为我能获得生产力提升。”
“随着人员自然流失,你无需招聘那么多人,但最终你会达到一个必须再次招聘的临界点。”
顶尖MBA学生依然成功——但工作机会在减少
尽管就业率依然强劲,MBA毕业生已经感受到了招聘市场的颤动。哥伦比亚商学院(Columbia Business School)2025届学生中约有92%获得了工作机会,纽约大学斯特恩商学院今年的MBA毕业生也有86%获得录用。去年,93%的沃顿商学院(Wharton)学生报告获得了工作机会,杜克大学(Duke)的这一比例为85%。
然而,这些顶尖商学院的教授提醒,这些数据并不能反映所有MBA项目的情况。例如,哥伦比亚商学院和纽约大学斯特恩商学院都位于美国金融中心纽约市。此外,这些精英大学拥有更多资源来培养学生技能,提升他们的市场价值。哥伦比亚商学院副教授丹尼尔·金(Daniel Keum)告诉《财富》杂志,Python编程课对该校所有MBA学生而言是“近乎必修”的课程。
尽管MBA工作机会率仍然很高,但细看之下,前景并不那么丰富。根据彭博社分析,自2021年以来,美国所有“七大”精英MBA项目(包括西北大学、麻省理工学院、斯坦福大学和哈佛大学)的就业安置结果均有所下降。2021年,哈佛大学仅有4%的MBA学生在毕业三个月内未获得任何工作机会;到2024年,这一数字激增至15%。麻省理工学院也出现了类似变化,其未获录用毕业生的比例在短短三年内从4.1%攀升至14.9%。
金融行业中依然安全的岗位——以及风险最高的岗位
随着人工智能逐渐承担起繁琐工作——如准备幻灯片演示、整合客户数据、核对账目——人们担心所有初级分析师很快就会失业。但并非金融业所有工作都依赖相同的核心技能,专家告诉《财富》杂志,在人工智能颠覆的时代,有一些岗位正面临威胁。
令人意外的是,那些埋头苦干、辛苦制作定制PPT的入门级金融从业者并不会最先被淘汰。金告诉《财富》杂志,咨询和银行业工作“对自动化的抵抗力相当强”。他解释说,这些工作的任务容错率极低,客户甚至无法容忍最微小的错误。此外,每一笔商业交易都不同;没有两次收购是完全一样的,这使得该工作所需的人类批判性思维难以自动化。
“银行咨询[业务]实际上情况并不太糟。想想合规问题,那里1%的错误都是不被容忍的。这是无法接受的,”金说。“这就是为什么麦肯锡(McKinsey)和贝恩(Bain)的许多分析师工作已经自动化,但仍然极度依赖人力。”
与此同时,阿博特预测整个行业将出现技术岗位招聘热潮。根据埃森哲与《财富》杂志分享的数据,约76%的银行预计会因为代理式人工智能而增加技术岗位人员。但少数易受影响岗位的员工可能会看到人工智能进步带来的负面影响。根据埃森哲2024年的一份报告,估计美国银行员工73%的工作时间所处理的任务极有可能受到生成式人工智能的影响,未来三年内,早期采用人工智能的银行生产力将提高22%至30%。金认为会计和营销岗位受到的冲击将最为严重。
“会计人员的情况不太好,”金告诉《财富》杂志。“对于会计来说,以前是‘让我们根据输入的实体收据确保数字正确’。现在,人工智能可以做得很好……他们招聘的人数少多了。所以只有非常资深的人才能留下来。”(财富中文网)
译者:中慧言-王芳
摩根大通(JPMorgan)首席执行官杰米·戴蒙(Jamie Dimon)去年在致股东信中道出了一个令人不安的事实:人工智能“可能削减某些岗位类别或职位”,并预言其对劳动力的影响将与印刷机、蒸汽机、电力和互联网类似。2025年,随着摩根大通、高盛(Goldman Sachs)和摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)宣布多轮裁员,这项技术成了首要怀疑对象。但专家告诉《财富》杂志,人工智能引发的金融岗位取代在很大程度上是“障眼法”。至少目前如此。
银行一边裁员,一边向人工智能领域投入数十亿美元,这理所当然引起了人们的质疑。企业已在运营中部署人工智能软件,例如代号为“苏格拉底”(Socrates)的工具,能在几秒内完成初级分析师数小时的工作。与此同时,花旗集团(Citigroup)的一份报告发现,54%的金融岗位“具有高度自动化潜力”,比例超过任何其他行业。但专家们一致认为,迄今为止,与人工智能相关的裁员微不足道。今年的银行业裁员潮是疫情期间过度招聘和经济不确定性共同导致的结果。
纽约大学斯特恩商学院(New York University Stern)未来管理中心主任罗伯特·西曼斯(Robert Seamans)告诉《财富》杂志:“如果有大公司声称‘因为人工智能,我们不打算招那么多人了’,或者‘因为人工智能,我们要裁员了’,我认为这有点障眼法的意味。”
他继续说道:“人工智能常常是各种问题的替罪羊,因为比起归咎于消费者需求疲软、关税带来的不确定性,或者过去几年疫情后过度招聘的人力资源策略失误,把责任推给人工智能要容易得多。”他补充道,“这比指责特朗普的关税政策所面临的政治风险小得多。”
专家告诉《财富》杂志,虽然人工智能目前还无法取代银行家和顾问,但营销人员和会计可能即将面临困境。顶尖商学院学位仍然物有所值;绝大多数顶尖MBA学生毕业后仍能很快获得工作机会。但随着人工智能推动生产力大幅提升,就业前景正在缩减,银行业员工人数可能在未来数年停滞不前。
人工智能正在抑制银行业招聘——这可能持续数年
尽管华尔街今年因一连串无情的裁员而登上头条,但整个银行和金融业的员工人数实际上相对稳定。
波士顿咨询公司(BCG)负责银行业与人才业务的董事总经理皮姆·希尔伯斯(Pim Hilbers)告诉《财富》杂志:“我认为过去十年银行业总体[员工数量]趋势是稳定至略有下降。我不认为这种情况会很快改变。”“这并不意味着每个人都会终身从事同一份工作。我认为我们看到的人员流动性比过去大得多。”
迄今为止,美国最大的金融机构并未进行大幅裁员。与2024年相比,美国银行(Bank of America)今年第三季度末仅减少了4名员工。同期,摩根大通的员工人数增加了2000人,其中超过三分之一的新员工被安排在企业运营部门。即使是今年实施了多轮裁员的高盛,今年9月也雇佣了48,300名员工——比去年增加了约1,800人。
银行目前还不准备裁减员工。专家告诉《财富》杂志,它们正在尽可能推迟员工数量的增长,依靠人工智能提升效率,直到被迫增加人力成本。他们预测这种招聘低迷期可能会持续数年。
埃森哲(Accenture)银行与资本市场行业组负责人迈克·阿博特(Mike Abbott)告诉《财富》杂志:“我交谈过的许多银行会说:‘听着,我想提高生产力,这样我就不必为了新增10亿美元贷款而再招100人。’这可能是大多数人的想法:未来24个月我都不必招聘,因为我能获得生产力提升。”
“随着人员自然流失,你无需招聘那么多人,但最终你会达到一个必须再次招聘的临界点。”
顶尖MBA学生依然成功——但工作机会在减少
尽管就业率依然强劲,MBA毕业生已经感受到了招聘市场的颤动。哥伦比亚商学院(Columbia Business School)2025届学生中约有92%获得了工作机会,纽约大学斯特恩商学院今年的MBA毕业生也有86%获得录用。去年,93%的沃顿商学院(Wharton)学生报告获得了工作机会,杜克大学(Duke)的这一比例为85%。
然而,这些顶尖商学院的教授提醒,这些数据并不能反映所有MBA项目的情况。例如,哥伦比亚商学院和纽约大学斯特恩商学院都位于美国金融中心纽约市。此外,这些精英大学拥有更多资源来培养学生技能,提升他们的市场价值。哥伦比亚商学院副教授丹尼尔·金(Daniel Keum)告诉《财富》杂志,Python编程课对该校所有MBA学生而言是“近乎必修”的课程。
尽管MBA工作机会率仍然很高,但细看之下,前景并不那么丰富。根据彭博社分析,自2021年以来,美国所有“七大”精英MBA项目(包括西北大学、麻省理工学院、斯坦福大学和哈佛大学)的就业安置结果均有所下降。2021年,哈佛大学仅有4%的MBA学生在毕业三个月内未获得任何工作机会;到2024年,这一数字激增至15%。麻省理工学院也出现了类似变化,其未获录用毕业生的比例在短短三年内从4.1%攀升至14.9%。
金融行业中依然安全的岗位——以及风险最高的岗位
随着人工智能逐渐承担起繁琐工作——如准备幻灯片演示、整合客户数据、核对账目——人们担心所有初级分析师很快就会失业。但并非金融业所有工作都依赖相同的核心技能,专家告诉《财富》杂志,在人工智能颠覆的时代,有一些岗位正面临威胁。
令人意外的是,那些埋头苦干、辛苦制作定制PPT的入门级金融从业者并不会最先被淘汰。金告诉《财富》杂志,咨询和银行业工作“对自动化的抵抗力相当强”。他解释说,这些工作的任务容错率极低,客户甚至无法容忍最微小的错误。此外,每一笔商业交易都不同;没有两次收购是完全一样的,这使得该工作所需的人类批判性思维难以自动化。
“银行咨询[业务]实际上情况并不太糟。想想合规问题,那里1%的错误都是不被容忍的。这是无法接受的,”金说。“这就是为什么麦肯锡(McKinsey)和贝恩(Bain)的许多分析师工作已经自动化,但仍然极度依赖人力。”
与此同时,阿博特预测整个行业将出现技术岗位招聘热潮。根据埃森哲与《财富》杂志分享的数据,约76%的银行预计会因为代理式人工智能而增加技术岗位人员。但少数易受影响岗位的员工可能会看到人工智能进步带来的负面影响。根据埃森哲2024年的一份报告,估计美国银行员工73%的工作时间所处理的任务极有可能受到生成式人工智能的影响,未来三年内,早期采用人工智能的银行生产力将提高22%至30%。金认为会计和营销岗位受到的冲击将最为严重。
“会计人员的情况不太好,”金告诉《财富》杂志。“对于会计来说,以前是‘让我们根据输入的实体收据确保数字正确’。现在,人工智能可以做得很好……他们招聘的人数少多了。所以只有非常资深的人才能留下来。”(财富中文网)
译者:中慧言-王芳
In a letter to shareholders last year, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon delivered an uncomfortable truth: AI “may reduce certain job categories or roles,” predicting labor ramifications similar to the printing press, steam engine, electricity, and internet. The tech became the primary suspect as JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley issued several rounds of layoffs in 2025. But experts tell Fortune that an AI-fueled finance job takeover is largely “smoke and mirrors.” At least, for now.
People have rightfully raised eyebrows as banks trim their workforces and funnel billions into AI capabilities. Businesses have already deployed the software in their operations, using monikers for AI tools like “Socrates,” performing hours worth of junior-level analyst tasks in just seconds. Simultaneously, a report from Citigroup has found that 54% of financial jobs “have a high potential for automation”—more than any other sector. But experts agree that AI-related layoffs have been insignificant, so far. This year’s flow of banking headcount reductions are a result of pandemic-era overhiring and economic uncertainty.
“If there’s a large company that might say, ‘Well, we’re not planning to hire as much because of AI,’ or maybe ‘We’re letting people go because of AI,’ I think there’s a little bit of smoke and mirrors there,” Robert Seamans, director of New York University Stern’s Center for the Future of Management, tells Fortune.
“AI is often a scapegoat for things, because it’s easier to blame AI than it is to blame softening consumer demand, or uncertainty because of tariffs, or maybe poor HR strategy the past few years in terms of over hiring coming out of COVID,” he continues, adding that “there’s a lot less political risk than blaming the President’s tariffs.”
While AI isn’t capable of replacing bankers and consultants just yet, there could be trouble on the horizon for marketers and accountants, experts tell Fortune. And elite business degrees are still worth their while; the vast majority of top MBA students are still locking in job offers soon after graduation. But prospects are dwindling, and banking headcounts could stagnate for years as AI drives a massive productivity boom.
AI is stifling hiring in the banking industry—and it could last for years
Despite Wall Street making headlines for its relentless string of layoffs this year, headcounts across banking and finance have actually been relatively steady.
“I think the general [headcount] trend in the banking industry over the last decade is stable to slightly declining. I don’t see that changing anytime soon,” Pim Hilbers, a managing director working with banking and talent at BCG, tells Fortune. “That doesn’t mean that everybody just stays in their job for life. I think we see a lot more mobility than we saw in the past.”
So far, America’s largest financial institutions haven’t been making deep workforce cuts. Bank of America employed just four fewer workers at the end of the third quarter this year, compared to 2024. In that same time period, JPMorgan saw its headcount climb by 2,000 employees, and more than a third of the new staffers were brought onto corporate operations. Even Goldman Sachs, which implemented multiple rounds of layoffs this year, employed 48,300 this September—around 1,800 staffers higher than the year before.
Banks aren’t ready to shed staffers just yet; experts tell Fortune they’re pulling back on headcount growth for as long as possible, leaning on AI efficiency gains until they’re forced to add more humans to payroll. They predict this sluggish period of hiring could last for years.
“Many of the banks I talked to will say, ‘Look, I want to get the productivity so that I don’t have to hire the next 100 people to put on another billion dollars of loans.’ That’s probably [what] the majority of thinking is: I just won’t have to hire for 24 months, because I can get the productivity,” Mike Abbott, industry group lead for Accenture’s banking and capital markets, tells Fortune.
“As attrition flows through, you don’t have to hire as many, but then eventually you hit a point where you’re going to have to hire again.”
Top MBA students are still succeeding—but job offers are declining
MBA graduates are already feeling the hiring tremors in lieu of strong employment rates. Around 92% of the class of 2025 students from Columbia Business School received job offers, as did 86% of this year’s NYU Stern MBA graduates. Last year, 93% of Wharton students reported receiving work opportunities, and at Duke, 85% nailed down an offer letter.
However, professors at these top business schools caution that the statistics aren’t a reflection of all MBA programs. Columbia and NYU Stern, for example, are nestled in the epicenter of U.S. finance: New York City. Additionally, these elite universities have more resources to skill students and boost their market value. Columbia Business School associate professor of business Daniel Keum tells Fortune that Python is an “almost required” class for all MBA pupils at the university.
And while MBA job offer rates remain high, take a peek under the hood, and the prospects aren’t as plentiful. Job placement outcomes at every single one of America’s “magnificent seven” elite MBA programs—including Northwestern, MIT, Stanford, and Harvard—have declined since 2021, according to a Bloomberg analysis. In 2021, only 4% of Harvard’s MBA students received no job offer within three months of graduation; by 2024, that figure swelled to 15%. MIT saw a similar change, with its share of offer-less graduates climbing from 4.1% to 14.9% in a matter of three years.
The finance roles that are still safe—and the ones most at risk
As AI has evolved to take on the grunt work—preparing slideshow presentations, synthesizing client data, and balancing checkbooks—it’s been feared that all junior-level analysts would soon get the boot. But not all jobs in the financial industry rely on the same core skills, and experts tell Fortune there are a few endangered roles in the era of AI disruption.
Surprisingly, the entry-level financial workers paying their dues and tediously crafting bespoke powerpoint presentations won’t be the first ones out the door. Keum tells Fortune that consulting and banking jobs “resist automation quite robustly.” He explains that their job tasks have little margin for error, as clients will not tolerate even the smallest mistake. Plus, every business deal is different; no two acquisitions are exactly alike, making it difficult to automate human critical thinking needed for the job.
“Banking consulting [is] actually not doing too bad. Think about compliance issues where that 1% mistake is not tolerated. It cannot be accepted,” Keum says. “That’s why a lot of analyst jobs at McKinsey and Bain are automated, but it’s still extremely human intensive.”
Simultaneously, Abbott predicts an industry-wide surge in tech hiring. Around 76% of banks expect to increase their tech headcount because of agentic AI, according to Accenture data shared with Fortune. But human staffers in a few vulnerable roles might see the adverse effect of AI’s gains. It’s estimated that 73% of working time spent by U.S. banking employees has high potential to be impacted by generative AI, according to a 2024 Accenture report, improving the productivity of early AI-adopters by 22% to 30% over the next three years. Keum sees accounting and marketing roles being hit the hardest.
“Accountants are not doing well,” Keum told Fortune. “For accounting, it was, ‘Let’s make sure that your numbers are correct based on physical receipts inputted. Now, AI can do that very well…They’re hiring a lot less. So only the extremely senior people survive.”