AI Takes Junior Work First, Then Stops Firms Forming Seniors: Model

If AI takes the junior work first, who becomes a senior in 2040? A working paper posted to arXiv on October 27, 2026 puts numbers on that question. [Fact] Its model says junior hiring bottoms out in 2027, then juniors become a larger share of headcount, while firms quietly stop forming experts of their own. [Fact]

The author is Ina Catrinescu of Future Positive, an Amsterdam organisation. [Fact] The paper extends a single-worker model by Caosun and Aral (April 2026) to a firm with two cohorts, seniors at full skill and juniors who learn by practice. [Fact] Tasks are ordered from codified, the kind written down in documents and code, to tacit, the kind learned only by doing. [Fact]

Phase one: juniors lose first

The model is calibrated so that juniors gain 49% on codified tasks at full adoption and seniors gain 19% on tacit tasks, figures set between published field experiments. [Fact] Because codified work was the junior's job, required junior headcount falls first. [Fact] In the baseline it is 15% below its November 2022 level by mid-2026, and the trough arrives in the second quarter of 2027. [Fact]

The paper sets this against payroll data: employment of 22 to 25 year olds in the most AI-exposed occupations is 19% below the path of less-exposed occupations as of June 2026, with no comparable gap for experienced workers. [Fact] The model reproduces the direction of that gap, not its size; the baseline relative gap is 8%. [Fact] It also predicts required senior headcount 17 to 31% lower by mid-2026, while payroll data show senior employment flat or rising. [Fact]

Phase two: the mix reverses

Once adoption saturates around 2028 to 2029, the AI vendor's models keep absorbing tacit work learned from experts everywhere. [Fact] Tasks that leave the tacit set are then served by juniors with AI at about a third of a senior's cost. [Fact] The junior share of headcount rises from 58% to 66% by 2035 in the baseline. [Fact] In a firm that also trains its tools on its own seniors' corrections, it reaches 75%, and the senior stock halves by 2037. [Fact] Absolute junior headcount does not return to its 2022 level in the baseline within the model's horizon. [Fact]

The ladder flips

Senior skill forms only on work the tool does not cover, and that set shrinks as the tool improves. [Fact] A career that started on routine work now has to start on the hardest work, or it does not start. [Claim] A firm that does not give juniors that uncovered work, and the responsibility for its results, stops producing seniors. [Claim]

The fix in the model, which the author calls frontier apprenticeship, costs about 4% of task mass a year in lower current output. [Fact] The baseline output loss it prevents is 1.5% of task mass in 2035 and 9.1% in 2050. [Fact] On those figures the remedy costs roughly 2.7 times the 2035 loss every year, which is why a manager judged on this year's output skips it. [Estimate]

The paper also prices one expert's build cost at €433,000 in 2026 euros, of which €401,000 (93%) was paid by the worker through tuition, forgone pay and unpaid study hours. [Fact]

What to prepare

For software developers and computer programmers early in their careers, the model points away from routine tickets and toward work the tool gets wrong: unfamiliar systems, incidents, migrations. [Claim] Ask for ownership of one such area, with your name on the outcome. [Claim] The paper notes that software has an unusually rich public record of postmortems and incident reviews, and that almost nobody is taught to read them as training. [Fact]

For team leads, the test the paper proposes is simple: does any junior on the team regularly work without the tool on tasks it cannot do? [Claim] If none does, the team is not forming its next seniors. [Claim]

Limits

This is a single-author working paper without peer review, and its dates depend on the vendor's codification rate and the firm-specific share of tacit work, neither of which has been measured; the author states that if the vendor rate is near zero the reversal does not happen at all. The 2027 trough is set by an imposed adoption curve rather than derived, and the model holds wages and demand fixed.

Sources

• Catrinescu, I., "The Capability Transfer: Cohort Reversal, Codified Expertise, and the Adaptability Tax of AI Transformation," arXiv:2610.33102, working paper, September 2026, revised October 2026: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.33102

About this analysis

This article was written with AI assistance from the full text of the arXiv paper. The 2.7-times comparison marked [Estimate] is our arithmetic on the paper's figures; occupation links point to our job pages.