AI is taking up about six percent of junior positions in sectors that rely intensively on it as it is able to acquire basic knowledge for apparent jobs. Likewise, there were six percent more jobs in sectors that don’t rely on AI as intensively. It was found to be unable to fulfil senior positions.

Wait, even if at present this is showing up as a change in employment and not compensation, given Baumol’s cost disease implying that sectors like healthcare are relatively demand inelastic, would not suddenly freeing up more workers cause wages to most likely not rise as quickly (probably not decrease since wages are sticky downwards).

Especially since:

>Strikingly, the series for health aides, comprising nursing aides, psychiatric aides, and home health aides, show a quite different trend from software or customer service: employment for young workers has been growing faster than for older workers.

Which sees this increase in supply occur as predicted.

And the paper even makes the point that

>The limited changes we find for wages suggest that these effects may be offsetting, at least in the short run. Alternatively, the results could be explained by wage stickiness in the short run, consistent with recent evidence from Davis and Krolikowski (2025).

So tldr: are we going to see healthcare wages stay stagnant or even slightly fall due to the new influx of workers and in fact we’re standing on top of a massive worker chasm in the economy?