<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Job on S3H.com</title>
    <link>https://s3h.com/tags/job/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Job on S3H.com</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://s3h.com/tags/job/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>A million American jobs created by AI</title>
      <link>https://s3h.com/a-million-american-jobs-created-by-ai/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://s3h.com/a-million-american-jobs-created-by-ai/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The Economist counted about &lt;a href=&#34;https://marketresearchmedia.com/the-economist-is-right-about-a-million-ai-jobs-its-a-construction-boom-not-a-tech-boom/&#34;&gt;a million American jobs created by AI&lt;/a&gt; since 2023, and that count is solid. But look at what those jobs actually are: electricians, HVAC techs, equipment makers, data-centre technicians. People building and running the buildings, not people using the software. Only about one per cent of professional jobs are AI jobs. That matters, because a number like this tracks how much money companies are spending, not how good the technology is. If the models stopped improving tomorrow, hiring would keep going for a year because the contracts are already signed. If the models kept improving but three big spenders cut their budgets, the hiring would stop cold. So the figure is a spending indicator, not proof the technology works. And the people using it to say there&amp;rsquo;s no problem are missing that the office jobs going quiet and the construction jobs booming are two different labour markets with two different sets of people in them.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
