The Future Has Not Been Written

One article that caught our eye recently was a punchy piece in The Telegraph weighing in on artificial intelligence, with the kind of headline that sends a chill through anyone in the housing industry: AI job losses, it warned, could break the housing market, and begin the long-deferred equity apocalypse. Their logic is seductive in its simplicity. AI displaces white-collar workers; we can see some evidence of rising unemployment at the moment, so ok let’s run with that. Next, white-collar workers buy houses. No jobs, no buyers, no market. Cue the music from the picture above. We know what that music is, but for copyright reasons, let the picture above fuel one's imagination, robots, bad things happening, etc.

Now we're not dismissing the question; it's a legitimate one, and anyone in property finance would be foolish to wave it away entirely, but we deal in evidence and data, and it comes naturally to us as it’s the cornerstone of risk and lending, and the data on AI-driven job displacement, right now, is considerably weaker than the narrative surrounding it suggests. Before anyone starts pricing in a structural housing Armageddon caused by malevolent chatbots, it's worth asking: what do we actually know?

The UK Government's own assessment of AI's impact on the labour market puts it plainly: "exposure is not adoption." Most indices used to identify AI-threatened jobs measure whether an occupation's tasks are “theoretically” suitable for AI automation, not whether firms have actually deployed A.I. to reduce human labour. This is not a minor methodological footnote. It is the central weakness of almost every apocalyptic AI jobs forecast you will read. A role being "exposed" to AI is not the same as a role being replaced by it.

The government assessment goes further, noting that "AI exposure is correlated with other factors, such as sensitivity to interest rates, business cycles, or sector-specific shocks, that could also explain the observed patterns." In other words, even when job losses occur in AI-exposed sectors, we cannot confidently attribute those losses to AI rather than to the broader economic environment. That broader economic environment, of course, includes rising employer National Insurance contributions, a hiring freeze across much of the private sector, and the tail end of the highest interest rate cycle in 15 years. There is no shortage of conventional explanations for a hiring slowdown. A rigorous analysis of ONS Labour Force Survey data undertaken by convenience using A.I. (one has to hope that the A.I. isn’t already sentient, misleading us about this to further its own interests) covering 412 occupations from 2004 to 2025 found that AI-exposed occupations, if anything, experienced marginally faster cumulative employment growth since the release of ChatGPT. That is not the headline you would expect if AI were already gutting the knowledge economy.

On wages, high-exposure occupations have seen slower growth than low-exposure ones, but that divergence began around 2019, two to three years before any large language model reached the market. Whatever is compressing wages in AI-adjacent roles, it predates the supposed cause. You cannot treat a pattern that precedes the technology as evidence of that technology's impact. The hospitality sector is instructive here. Hospitality, a sector with relatively low AI exposure, accounted for 53% of UK job losses between October 2024 and August 2025. If AI were the dominant force reshaping the labour market, you would not expect the sector least affected by it to be leading job destruction. What you are seeing in the data looks more like a conventional post-pandemic economic correction than a real-time technological revolution.

The historical pattern of technological transformation is also worth keeping in mind. The introduction of ATMs cut the cost of running a bank branch. Banks responded by opening more branches. Bank teller employment grew steadily for two decades before tapering. Medical imaging AI has outperformed radiologists on diagnostic benchmarks since the mid-2010s, yet US radiology residency positions hit a record high in 2025, and average radiologist compensation rose 48% over the same period. Technology and employment are not a zero-sum game. The relationship is far more complicated and far more forgiving of displaced workers than the disruption narrative allows. This has been the way since people first came in from the farms to work in the mills at the dawn of the last significant industrial revolution. Technology increases output, but it increases the output each person can achieve rather than replacing people.

So what has caused the jitters in housing? The housing market is facing dual pressures: rising unemployment amid the broader economy underperforming, and stubbornly elevated mortgage rates as a result. The Bank of England has held rates at 3.75%, pushing average two-year fixed mortgage rates to 5.78%. That is the more plausible proximate cause of any softness in property demand, not the speculative future scenario in which agentic AI systematically eliminates mid-level professional roles that are currently keeping mortgage payments flowing. None of this is a reason for complacency. If AI-driven displacement eventually concentrates in mid-career professional roles, the core demographic that drives urban property demand, the implications for housing would be significant. The system weakens only when income loss exceeds the ability to adapt, and that threshold is higher than most forecasts assume. But we are nowhere near that threshold yet, and the evidence that we are moving decisively toward it remains thin.

At Invest&Fund, we lend against bricks and mortar, first legal charge, and carefully stress-tested GDVs. The loans we facilitate are secured against real assets, with staged drawdowns tied to build progress. That model is designed to be resilient across economic cycles, not by ignoring risk, but by measuring it properly. The Telegraph's AI housing crash thesis makes for compelling reading, but the data, for now, tells a more measured story. Claude will keep watching it ;-) ….(cue the scary music from THAT film).

Invest & Fund has returned over £385 million of capital and interest to lenders with zero losses, showing the rigour that governs our business. To take maximum advantage of this robust and exciting asset class, please visit www.investandfund.com

Don't invest unless you're prepared to lose money. This is a high-risk investment. You may not be able to access your money quickly, and you are unlikely to be protected if something goes wrong. Take 2 minutes to learn more.