THE FUTURE OF EMPLOYMENT: HOW
SUSCEPTIBLE ARE JOBS TO
COMPUTERISATION?∗
Carl Benedikt Frey† and Michael A. Osborne‡
September 17, 2013
.
Abstract
We examine how susceptible jobs are to computerisation. To assess this, we begin by implementing a novel methodology to estimate
the probability of computerisation for 702 detailed occupations, using a
Gaussian process classifier. Based on these estimates, we examine expected impacts of future computerisation on US labour market outcomes,
with the primary objective of analysing the number of jobs at risk and
the relationship between an occupation’s probability of computerisation,
wages and educational attainment. According to our estimates, about 47
percent of total

US

employment is at risk. We further provide evidence

that wages and educational attainment exhibit a strong negative relationship with an occupation’s probability of computerisation.
Keywords: Occupational Choice, Technological Change, Wage Inequality, Employment, Skill Demand
JEL

Classification: E24, J24, J31, J62, O33.

∗

We thank the Oxford University Engineering Sciences Department and the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology for hosting the “Machines and Employment” Workshop. We are indebted to Stuart Armstrong, Nick Bostrom, Eris Chinellato, Mark
Cummins, Daniel Dewey, David Dorn, Alex Flint, Claudia Goldin, John Muellbauer, Vincent
Mueller, Paul Newman, Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh, Anders Sandberg, Murray Shanahan, and Keith
Woolcock for their excellent suggestions.
†
Oxford Martin School, Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology, University of
Oxford, Oxford, OX1 1PT, United Kingdom, carl.frey@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.
‡
Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PJ, United Kingdom, mosb@robots.ox.ac.uk.

1

I.

I NTRODUCTION

In this paper, we address the question: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Doing so, we build on the existing literature in two ways. First, drawing
upon recent advances in Machine Learning (ML) and Mobile Robotics (MR),
we develop a novel methodology to categorise occupations according to their
susceptibility to computerisation.1 Second, we implement this methodology to
estimate the probability of computerisation for 702 detailed occupations, and
examine expected impacts of future computerisation on US labour market outcomes.
Our paper is motivated by John Maynard Keynes’s frequently cited prediction of widespread technological unemployment “due to our discovery of means
of economising the use of labour outrunning the pace at which we can find new
uses for labour” (Keynes, 1933, p. 3). Indeed, over the past decades, computers
have substituted for a number of jobs, including the functions of bookkeepers,
cashiers and telephone operators (Bresnahan, 1999; MGI, 2013). More recently,
the poor performance of labour markets across advanced economies has intensified the debate about technological unemployment among economists. While
there is ongoing disagreement about the driving forces behind the persistently
high unemployment rates, a number of scholars have pointed at computercontrolled equipment as a possible explanation for recent jobless growth (see,
for example, Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2011).2
The impact of computerisation on labour market outcomes is well-established
in the literature, documenting the decline of employment in routine intensive
occupations – i.e. occupations mainly consisting of tasks following well-defined
procedures that can easily be performed by sophisticated algorithms. For example, studies by Charles, et al. (2013) and Jaimovich and Siu (2012) emphasise
that the ongoing decline in manufacturing employment and the disappearance
of other routine jobs is causing the current low rates of employment.3 In ad1

We refer to computerisation as job automation by means of computer-controlled equipment.
2
This view finds support in a recent survey by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), showing
that 44 percent of firms which reduced their headcount since the financial crisis of 2008 had
done so by means of automation (MGI, 2011).
3
Because the core job tasks of manufacturing occupations follow well-defined repetitive
procedures, they can easily be codified in computer software and thus performed by computers
(Acemoglu and Autor, 2011).

2

dition to the computerisation of routine manufacturing tasks, Autor and Dorn
(2013) document a structural shift in the labour market, with workers reallocating their labour supply from middle-income manufacturing to low-income
service occupations. Arguably, this is because the manual tasks of service occupations are less susceptible to computerisation, as they require a higher degree
of flexibility and physical adaptability (Autor, et al., 2003; Goos and Manning,
2007; Autor and Dorn, 2013).
At the same time, with falling prices of computing, problem-solving skills
are becoming relatively productive, explaining the substantial employment growth
in occupations involving cognitive tasks where skilled labour has a comparative
advantage, as well as the persistent increase in returns to education (Katz and
Murphy, 1992; Acemoglu, 2002; Autor and Dorn, 2013). The title “Lousy and
Lovely Jobs”, of recent work by Goos and Manning (2007), thus captures the
essence of the current trend towards labour market polarization, with growing
employment in high-income cognitive jobs and low-income manual occupations, accompanied by a hollowing-out of middle-income routine jobs.
According to Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2011), the pace of technological innovation is still increasing, with more sophisticated software technologies disrupting labour markets by making workers redundant. What is striking
about the examples in their book is that computerisation is no longer confined
to routine manufacturing tasks. The autonomous driverless cars, developed by
Google, provide one example of how manual tasks in transport and logistics
may soon be automated. In the section “In Domain After Domain, Computers Race Ahead”, they emphasise how fast moving these developments have
been. Less than ten years ago, in the chapter “Why People Still Matter”, Levy
and Murnane (2004) pointed at the difficulties of replicating human perception,
asserting that driving in traffic is insusceptible to automation: “But executing a left turn against oncoming traffic involves so many factors that it is hard
to imagine discovering the set of rules that can replicate a driver’s behaviour
[. . . ]”. Six years later, in October 2010, Google announced that it had modified several Toyota Priuses to be fully autonomous (Brynjolfsson and McAfee,
2011).
To our knowledge, no study has yet quantified what recent technological
progress is likely to mean for the future of employment. The present study
intends to bridge this gap in the literature. Although there are indeed existing
3

useful frameworks for examining the impact of computers on the occupational
employment composition, they seem inadequate in explaining the impact of
technological trends going beyond the computerisation of routine tasks. Seminal work by Autor, et al. (2003), for example, distinguishes between cognitive
and manual tasks on the one hand, and routine and non-routine tasks on the
other. While the computer substitution for both cognitive and manual routine
tasks is evident, non-routine tasks involve everything from legal writing, truck
driving and medical diagnoses, to persuading and selling. In the present study,
we will argue that legal writing and truck driving will soon be automated, while
persuading, for instance, will not. Drawing upon recent developments in Engineering Sciences, and in particular advances in the fields of ML, including
Data Mining, Machine Vision, Computational Statistics and other sub-fields of
Artificial Intelligence, as well as MR, we derive additional dimensions required
to understand the susceptibility of jobs to computerisation. Needless to say,
a number of factors are driving decisions to automate and we cannot capture
these in full. Rather we aim, from a technological capabilities point of view,
to determine which problems engineers need to solve for specific occupations
to be automated. By highlighting these problems, their difficulty and to which
occupations they relate, we categorise jobs according to their susceptibility to
computerisation. The characteristics of these problems were matched to different occupational characteristics, using O∗NET data, allowing us to examine
the future direction of technological change in terms of its impact on the occupational composition of the labour market, but also the number of jobs at risk
should these technologies materialise.
The present study relates to two literatures. First, our analysis builds on the
labour economics literature on the task content of employment (Autor, et al.,
2003; Goos and Manning, 2007; Autor and Dorn, 2013). Based on defined
premises about what computers do, this literature examines the historical impact of computerisation on the occupational composition of the labour market. However, the scope of what computers do has recently expanded, and
will inevitably continue to do so (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2011; MGI, 2013).
Drawing upon recent progress in ML, we expand the premises about the tasks
computers are and will be suited to accomplish. Doing so, we build on the task
content literature in a forward-looking manner. Furthermore, whereas this literature has largely focused on task measures from the Dictionary of Occupational
4

Titles (DOT), last revised in 1991, we rely on the 2010 version of the DOT successor O∗NET – an online service developed for the US Department of Labor.4
Accordingly, O∗NET has the advantage of providing more recent information
on occupational work activities.
Second, our study relates to the literature examining the offshoring of information-based tasks to foreign worksites (Jensen and Kletzer, 2005; Blinder,
2009; Jensen and Kletzer, 2010; Oldenski, 2012; Blinder and Krueger, 2013).
This literature consists of different methodologies to rank and categorise occupations according to their susceptibility to offshoring. For example, using
O ∗ NET data on the nature of work done in different occupations, Blinder (2009)
estimates that 22 to 29 percent of US jobs are or will be offshorable in the next
decade or two. These estimates are based on two defining characteristics of jobs
that cannot be offshored: (a) the job must be performed at a specific work location; and (b) the job requires face-to-face personal communication. Naturally,
the characteristics of occupations that can be offshored are different from the
characteristics of occupations that can be automated. For example, the work of
cashiers, which has largely been substituted by self- service technology, must
be performed at specific work location and requires face-to-face contact. The
extent of computerisation is therefore likely to go beyond that of offshoring.
Hence, while the implementation of our methodology is similar to that of Blinder (2009), we rely on different occupational characteristics.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Section II, we review
the literature on the historical relationship between technological progress and
employment. Section III describes recent and expected future technological
developments. In Section IV, we describe our methodology, and in Section V,
we examine the expected impact of these technological developments on labour
market outcomes. Finally, in Section VI, we derive some conclusions.
II.

A HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTIONS AND EMPLOYMENT

The concern over technological unemployment is hardly a recent phenomenon.
Throughout history, the process of creative destruction, following technological inventions, has created enormous wealth, but also undesired disruptions.
As stressed by Schumpeter (1962), it was not the lack of inventive ideas that
4

An exception is Goos, et al. (2009).

5

set the boundaries for economic development, but rather powerful social and
economic interests promoting the technological status quo. This is nicely illustrated by the example of William Lee, inventing the stocking frame knitting
machine in 1589, hoping that it would relieve workers of hand-knitting. Seeking patent protection for his invention, he travelled to London where he had
rented a building for his machine to be viewed by Queen Elizabeth I. To his
disappointment, the Queen was more concerned with the employment impact
of his invention and refused to grant him a patent, claiming that: “Thou aimest
high, Master Lee. Consider thou what the invention could do to my poor subjects. It would assuredly bring to them ruin by depriving them of employment,
thus making them beggars” (cited in Acemoglu and Robinson, 2012, p. 182f).
Most likely the Queen’s concern was a manifestation of the hosiers’ guilds fear
that the invention would make the skills of its artisan members obsolete.5 The
guilds’ opposition was indeed so intense that William Lee had to leave Britain.
That guilds systematically tried to weaken market forces as aggregators to
maintain the technological status quo is persuasively argued by Kellenbenz
(1974, p. 243), stating that “guilds defended the interests of their members
against outsiders, and these included the inventors who, with their new equipment and techniques, threatened to disturb their members’ economic status.”6
As pointed out by Mokyr (1998, p. 11): “Unless all individuals accept the
“verdict” of the market outcome, the decision whether to adopt an innovation
is likely to be resisted by losers through non-market mechanism and political
activism.” Workers can thus be expected to resist new technologies, insofar that
they make their skills obsolete and irreversibly reduce their expected earnings.
The balance between job conservation and technological progress therefore, to
a large extent, reflects the balance of power in society, and how gains from
technological progress are being distributed.
The British Industrial Revolution illustrates this point vividly. While still
widely present on the Continent, the craft guild in Britain had, by the time of
5

The term artisan refers to a craftsman who engages in the entire production process of a
good, containing almost no division of labour. By guild we mean an association of artisans that
control the practice of their craft in a particular town.
6
There is an ongoing debate about the technological role of the guilds. Epstein (1998), for
example, has argued that they fulfilled an important role in the intergenerational transmission of
knowledge. Yet there is no immediate contradiction between such a role and their conservative
stand on technological progress: there are clear examples of guilds restraining the diffusion of
inventions (see, for example, Ogilvie, 2004).

6

the Glorious Revolution of 1688, declined and lost most of its political clout
(Nef, 1957, pp. 26 and 32). With Parliamentary supremacy established over
the Crown, legislation was passed in 1769 making the destruction of machinery
punishable by death (Mokyr, 1990, p. 257). To be sure, there was still resistance
to mechanisation. The “Luddite” riots between 1811 and 1816 were partly a
manifestation of the fear of technological change among workers as Parliament
revoked a 1551 law prohibiting the use of gig mills in the wool-finishing trade.
The British government however took an increasingly stern view on groups
attempting to halt technological progress and deployed 12,000 men against the
rioters (Mantoux, 2006, p. 403-8). The sentiment of the government towards
the destruction of machinery was explained by a resolution passed after the
Lancashire riots of 1779, stating that: “The sole cause of great riots was the
new machines employed in cotton manufacture; the country notwithstanding
has greatly benefited from their erection [and] destroying them in this country
would only be the means of transferring them to another [. . . ] to the detriment
of the trade of Britain” (cited in Mantoux, 2006, p. 403).
There are at least two possible explanations for the shift in attitudes towards
technological progress. First, after Parliamentary supremacy was established
over the Crown, the property owning classes became politically dominant in
Britain (North and Weingast, 1989). Because the diffusion of various manufacturing technologies did not impose a risk to the value of their assets, and some
property owners stood to benefit from the export of manufactured goods, the
artisans simply did not have the political power to repress them. Second, inventors, consumers and unskilled factory workers largely benefited from mechanisation (Mokyr, 1990, p. 256 and 258). It has even been argued that, despite
the employment concerns over mechanisation, unskilled workers have been the
greatest beneficiaries of the Industrial Revolution (Clark, 2008).7 While there
7

Various estimations of the living standards of workers in Britain during the industrialisation
exist in the literature. For example, Clark (2008) finds that real wages over the period 1760 to
1860 rose faster than GDP per capita. Further evidence provided by Lindert and Williamson
(1983) even suggests that real wages nearly doubled between 1820 and 1850. Feinstein (1998),
on the other hand, finds a much more moderate increase, with average working-class living
standards improving by less than 15 percent between 1770 and 1870. Finally, Allen (2009a)
finds that over the first half of the nineteenth century, the real wage stagnated while output per
worker expanded. After the mid nineteenth century, however, real wages began to grow in line
with productivity. While this implies that capital owners were the greatest beneficiaries of the
Industrial Revolution, there is at the same time consensus that average living standards largely
improved.

7

is contradictory evidence suggesting that capital owners initially accumulated
a growing share of national income (Allen, 2009a), there is equally evidence
of growing real wages (Lindert and Williamson, 1983; Feinstein, 1998). This
implies that although manufacturing technologies made the skills of artisans
obsolete, gains from technological progress were distributed in a manner that
gradually benefited a growing share of the labour force.8
An important feature of nineteenth century manufacturing technologies is
that they were largely “deskilling” – i.e. they substituted for skills through the
simplification of tasks (Braverman, 1974; Hounshell, 1985; James and Skinner,
1985; Goldin and Katz, 1998). The deskilling process occurred as the factory
system began to displace the artisan shop, and it picked up pace as production increasingly mechanized with the adoption of steam power (Goldin and
Sokoloff, 1982; Atack, et al., 2008a). Work that had previously been performed
by artisans was now decomposed into smaller, highly specialised, sequences,
requiring less skill, but more workers, to perform.9 Some innovations were
even designed to be deskilling. For example, Eli Whitney, a pioneer of interchangeable parts, described the objective of this technology as “to substitute
correct and effective operations of machinery for the skill of the artist which is
acquired only by long practice and experience; a species of skill which is not
possessed in this country to any considerable extent” (Habakkuk, 1962, p. 22).
Together with developments in continuous-flow production, enabling workers to be stationary while different tasks were moved to them, it was identical interchangeable parts that allowed complex products to be assembled from mass
produced individual components by using highly specialised machine tools to
8

The term skill is associated with higher levels of education, ability, or job training. Following Goldin and Katz (1998), we refer to technology-skill or capital-skill complementarity when
a new technology or physical capital complements skilled labour relative to unskilled workers.
9
The production of plows nicely illustrates the differences between the artisan shop and the
factory. In one artisan shop, two men spent 118 man-hours using hammers, anvils, chisels,
hatchets, axes, mallets, shaves and augers in 11 distinct operations to produce a plow. By
contrast, a mechanized plow factory employed 52 workers performing 97 distinct tasks, of
which 72 were assisted by steam power, to produce a plow in just 3.75 man-hours. The degree
of specialization was even greater in the production of men’s white muslin shirts. In the artisan
shop, one worker spent 1439 hours performing 25 different tasks to produce 144 shirts. In the
factory, it took 188 man-hours to produce the same quantity, engaging 230 different workers
performing 39 different tasks, of which more than half required steam power. The workers
involved included cutters, turners and trimmers, as well as foremen and forewomen, inspectors,
errand boys, an engineer, a fireman, and a watchman (US Department of Labor, 1899).

8

a sequence of operations.10 Yet while the first assembly-line was documented
in 1804, it was not until the late nineteenth century that continuous-flow processes started to be adopted on a larger scale, which enabled corporations such
as the Ford Motor Company to manufacture the T-Ford at a sufficiently low
price for it to become the people’s vehicle (Mokyr, 1990, p. 137). Crucially,
the new assembly line introduced by Ford in 1913 was specifically designed for
machinery to be operated by unskilled workers (Hounshell, 1985, p. 239). Furthermore, what had previously been a one-man job was turned into a 29-man
worker operation, reducing the overall work time by 34 percent (Bright, 1958).
The example of the Ford Motor Company thus underlines the general pattern
observed in the nineteenth century, with physical capital providing a relative
complement to unskilled labour, while substituting for relatively skilled artisans (James and Skinner, 1985; Louis and Paterson, 1986; Brown and Philips,
1986; Atack, et al., 2004).11 Hence, as pointed out by Acemoglu (2002, p. 7):
“the idea that technological advances favor more skilled workers is a twentieth
century phenomenon.” The conventional wisdom among economic historians,
in other words, suggests a discontinuity between the nineteenth and twentieth
century in the impact of capital deepening on the relative demand for skilled
labour.
The modern pattern of capital-skill complementarity gradually emerged in
the late nineteenth century, as manufacturing production shifted to increasingly
mechanised assembly lines. This shift can be traced to the switch to electricity
from steam and water-power which, in combination with continuous-process
10

These machines were sequentially implemented until the production process was completed. Over time, such machines became much cheaper relative to skilled labor. As a result,
production became much more capital intensive (Hounshell, 1985).
11
Williamson and Lindert (1980), on the other hand, find a relative rise in wage premium of
skilled labour over the period 1820 to 1860, which they partly attribute to capital deepening.
Their claim of growing wage inequality over this period has, however, been challenged (Margo,
2000). Yet seen over the long-run, a more refined explanation is that the manufacturing share
of the labour force in the nineteenth century hollowed out. This is suggested by recent findings,
revealing a decline of middle-skill artisan jobs in favour of both high-skill white collar workers
and low-skill operatives (Gray, 2013; Katz and Margo, 2013). Furthermore, even if the share
of operatives was increasing due to organizational change within manufacturing and overall
manufacturing growth, it does not follow that the share of unskilled labor was rising in the
aggregate economy, because some of the growth in the share of operatives may have come
at the expense of a decrease in the share of workers employed as low-skilled farm workers in
agriculture (Katz and Margo, 2013). Nevertheless, this evidence is consistent with the literature
showing that relatively skilled artisans were replaced by unskilled factory workers, suggesting
that technological change in manufacturing was deskilling.

9

and batch production methods, reduced the demand for unskilled manual workers in many hauling, conveying, and assembly tasks, but increased the demand
for skills (Goldin and Katz, 1998). In short, while factory assembly lines, with
their extreme division of labour, had required vast quantities of human operatives, electrification allowed many stages of the production process to be automated, which in turn increased the demand for relatively skilled blue-collar
production workers to operate the machinery. In addition, electrification contributed to a growing share of white-collar nonproduction workers (Goldin and
Katz, 1998). Over the course of the nineteenth century, establishments became
larger in size as steam and water power technologies improved, allowing them
to adopt powered machinery to realize productivity gains through the combination of enhanced division of labour and higher capital intensity (Atack, et al.,
2008a). Furthermore, the transport revolution lowered costs of shipping goods
domestically and internationally as infrastructure spread and improved (Atack,
et al., 2008b). The market for artisan goods early on had largely been confined
to the immediate surrounding area because transport costs were high relative to
the value of the goods produced. With the transport revolution, however, market
size expanded, thereby eroding local monopoly power, which in turn increased
competition and compelled firms to raise productivity through mechanisation.
As establishments became larger and served geographically expended markets,
managerial tasks increased in number and complexity, requiring more managerial and clerking employees (Chandler, 1977). This pattern was, by the turn of
the twentieth century, reinforced by electrification, which not only contributed
to a growing share of relatively skilled blue-collar labour, but also increased the
demand for white-collar workers (Goldin and Katz, 1998), who tended to have
higher educational attainment (Allen, 2001).12
Since electrification, the story of the twentieth century has been the race between education and technology (Goldin and Katz, 2009). The US high school
movement coincided with the first industrial revolution of the office (Goldin
and Katz, 1995). While the typewriter was invented in the 1860s, it was not introduced in the office until the early twentieth century, when it entered a wave
12

Most likely, the growing share of white-collar workers increased the element of human
interaction in employment. Notably, Michaels, et al. (2013) find that the increase in the employment share of interactive occupations, going hand in hand with an increase in their relative
wage bill share, was particularly strong between 1880 and 1930, which is a period of rapid
change in communication and transport technology.

10

of mechanisation, with dictaphones, calculators, mimeo machines, address machines, and the predecessor of the computer – the keypunch (Beniger, 1986;
Cortada, 2000). Importantly, these office machines reduced the cost of information processing tasks and increased the demand for the complementary factor –
i.e. educated office workers. Yet the increased supply of educated office workers, following the high school movement, was associated with a sharp decline
in the wage premium of clerking occupations relative to production workers
(Goldin and Katz, 1995). This was, however, not the result of deskilling technological change. Clerking workers were indeed relatively educated. Rather, it
was the result of the supply of educated workers outpacing the demand for their
skills, leading educational wage differentials to compress.
While educational wage differentials in the US narrowed from 1915 to 1980
(Goldin and Katz, 2009), both educational wage differentials and overall wage
inequality have increased sharply since the 1980s in a number of countries
(Krueger, 1993; Murphy, et al., 1998; Atkinson, 2008; Goldin and Katz, 2009).
Although there are clearly several variables at work, consensus is broad that
this can be ascribed to an acceleration in capital-skill complementarity, driven
by the adoption of computers and information technology (Krueger, 1993; Autor, et al., 1998; Bresnahan, et al., 2002). What is commonly referred to as the
Computer Revolution began with the first commercial uses of computers around
1960 and continued through the development of the Internet and e-commerce
in the 1990s. As the cost per computation declined at an annual average of 37
percent between 1945 and 1980 (Nordhaus, 2007), telephone operators were
made redundant, the first industrial robot was introduced by General Motors
in the 1960s, and in the 1970s airline reservations systems led the way in selfservice technology (Gordon, 2012). During the 1980s and 1990s, computing
costs declined even more rapidly, on average by 64 percent per year, accompanied by a surge in computational power (Nordhaus, 2007).13 At the same time,
bar-code scanners and cash machines were spreading across the retail and financial industries, and the first personal computers were introduced in the early
1980s, with their word processing and spreadsheet functions eliminating copy
typist occupations and allowing repetitive calculations to be automated (Gordon, 2012). This substitution for labour marks a further important reversal.
13

Computer power even increased 18 percent faster on annual basis than predicted by
Moore’s Law, implying a doubling every two years (Nordhaus, 2007).

11

The early twentieth century office machines increased the demand for clerking
workers (Chandler, 1977; Goldin and Katz, 1995). In a similar manner, computerisation augments demand for such tasks, but it also permits them to be
automated (Autor, et al., 2003).
The Computer Revolution can go some way in explaining the growing wage
inequality of the past decades. For example, Krueger (1993) finds that workers using a computer earn roughly earn 10 to 15 percent more than others, but
also that computer use accounts for a substantial share of the increase in the
rate of return to education. In addition, more recent studies find that computers
have caused a shift in the occupational structure of the labour market. Autor
and Dorn (2013), for example, show that as computerisation erodes wages for
labour performing routine tasks, workers will reallocate their labour supply to
relatively low-skill service occupations. More specifically, between 1980 and
2005, the share of US labour hours in service occupations grew by 30 percent
after having been flat or declining in the three prior decades. Furthermore, net
changes in US employment were U-shaped in skill level, meaning that the lowest and highest job-skill quartile expanded sharply with relative employment
declines in the middle of the distribution.
The expansion in high-skill employment can be explained by the falling
price of carrying out routine tasks by means of computers, which complements
more abstract and creative services. Seen from a production function perspective, an outward shift in the supply of routine informational inputs increases the
marginal productivity of workers they are demanded by. For example, text and
data mining has improved the quality of legal research as constant access to
market information has improved the efficiency of managerial decision-making
– i.e. tasks performed by skilled workers at the higher end of the income distribution. The result has been an increasingly polarised labour market, with
growing employment in high-income cognitive jobs and low-income manual
occupations, accompanied by a hollowing-out of middle-income routine jobs.
This is a pattern that is not unique to the US and equally applies to a number of
developed economies (Goos, et al., 2009).14
14

While there is broad consensus that computers substituting for workers in routine-intensive
tasks has driven labour market polarisation over the past decades, there are, indeed, alternative
explanations. For example, technological advances in computing have dramatically lowered the
cost of leaving information-based tasks to foreign worksites (Jensen and Kletzer, 2005; Blinder,
2009; Jensen and Kletzer, 2010; Oldenski, 2012; Blinder and Krueger, 2013). The decline in

12

How technological progress in the twenty-first century will impact on labour
market outcomes remains to be seen. Throughout history, technological progress
has vastly shifted the composition of employment, from agriculture and the
artisan shop, to manufacturing and clerking, to service and management occupations. Yet the concern over technological unemployment has proven to
be exaggerated. The obvious reason why this concern has not materialised
relates to Ricardo’s famous chapter on machinery, which suggests that laboursaving technology reduces the demand for undifferentiated labour, thus leading
to technological unemployment (Ricardo, 1819). As economists have long understood, however, an invention that replaces workers by machines will have
effects on all product and factor markets. An increase in the efficiency of production which reduces the price of one good, will increase real income and
thus increase demand for other goods. Hence, in short, technological progress
has two competing effects on employment (Aghion and Howitt, 1994). First, as
technology substitutes for labour, there is a destruction effect, requiring workers
to reallocate their labour supply; and second, there is the capitalisation effect, as
more companies enter industries where productivity is relatively high, leading
employment in those industries to expand.
Although the capitalisation effect has been predominant historically, our
discovery of means of economising the use of labour can outrun the pace at
which we can find new uses for labour, as Keynes (1933) pointed out. The reason why human labour has prevailed relates to its ability to adopt and acquire
new skills by means of education (Goldin and Katz, 2009). Yet as computerisation enters more cognitive domains this will become increasingly challenging
(Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2011). Recent empirical findings are therefore particularly concerning. For example, Beaudry, et al. (2013) document a decline
in the demand for skill over the past decade, even as the supply of workers with
higher education has continued to grow. They show that high-skilled workers have moved down the occupational ladder, taking on jobs traditionally performed by low-skilled workers, pushing low-skilled workers even further down
the occupational ladder and, to some extent, even out of the labour force. This
the routine-intensity of employment is thus likely to result from a combination of offshoring
and automation. Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that improvements in transport and
communication technology have augmented occupations involving human interaction, spanning across both cognitive and manual tasks (Michaels, et al., 2013). These explanations are
nevertheless equally related to advance in computing and communications technology.

13

raises questions about: (a) the ability of human labour to win the race against
technology by means of education; and (b) the potential extent of technological unemployment, as an increasing pace of technological progress will cause
higher job turnover, resulting in a higher natural rate of unemployment (Lucas
and Prescott, 1974; Davis and Haltiwanger, 1992; Pissarides, 2000). While the
present study is limited to examining the destruction effect of technology, it
nevertheless provides a useful indication of the job growth required to counterbalance the jobs at risk over the next decades.
III.

T HE TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTIONS OF THE TWENTY- FIRST CENTURY

The secular price decline in the real cost of computing has created vast economic incentives for employers to substitute labour for computer capital.15 Yet
the tasks computers are able to perform ultimately depend upon the ability of
a programmer to write a set of procedures or rules that appropriately direct the
technology in each possible contingency. Computers will therefore be relatively
productive to human labour when a problem can be specified – in the sense that
the criteria for success are quantifiable and can readily be evaluated (Acemoglu
and Autor, 2011). The extent of job computerisation will thus be determined
by technological advances that allow engineering problems to be sufficiently
specified, which sets the boundaries for the scope of computerisation. In this
section, we examine the extent of tasks computer-controlled equipment can be
expected to perform over the next decades. Doing so, we focus on advances
in fields related to Machine Learning (ML), including Data Mining, Machine
Vision, Computational Statistics and other sub-fields of Artificial Intelligence
(AI), in which efforts are explicitly dedicated to the development of algorithms
that allow cognitive tasks to be automated. In addition, we examine the application of ML technologies in Mobile Robotics (MR), and thus the extent of
computerisation in manual tasks.
Our analysis builds on the task categorisation of Autor, et al. (2003), which
distinguishes between workplace tasks using a two-by-two matrix, with routine
versus non-routine tasks on one axis, and manual versus cognitive tasks on the
other. In short, routine tasks are defined as tasks that follow explicit rules that
15

We refer to computer capital as accumulated computers and computer-controlled equipment by means of capital deepening.

14

can be accomplished by machines, while non-routine tasks are not sufficiently
well understood to be specified in computer code. Each of these task categories can, in turn, be of either manual or cognitive nature – i.e. they relate to
physical labour or knowledge work. Historically, computerisation has largely
been confined to manual and cognitive routine tasks involving explicit rulebased activities (Autor and Dorn, 2013; Goos, et al., 2009). Following recent
technological advances, however, computerisation is now spreading to domains
commonly defined as non-routine. The rapid pace at which tasks that were defined as non-routine only a decade ago have now become computerisable is
illustrated by Autor, et al. (2003), asserting that: “Navigating a car through city
traffic or deciphering the scrawled handwriting on a personal check – minor
undertakings for most adults – are not routine tasks by our definition.” Today,
the problems of navigating a car and deciphering handwriting are sufficiently
well understood that many related tasks can be specified in computer code and
automated (Veres, et al., 2011; Plötz and Fink, 2009).
Recent technological breakthroughs are, in large part, due to efforts to turn
non-routine tasks into well-defined problems. Defining such problems is helped
by the provision of relevant data: this is highlighted in the case of handwriting
recognition by Plötz and Fink (2009). The success of an algorithm for handwriting recognition is difficult to quantify without data to test on – in particular,
determining whether an algorithm performs well for different styles of writing requires data containing a variety of such styles. That is, data is required
to specify the many contingencies a technology must manage in order to form
an adequate substitute for human labour. With data, objective and quantifiable
measures of the success of an algorithm can be produced, which aid the continual improvement of its performance relative to humans.
As such, technological progress has been aided by the recent production
of increasingly large and complex datasets, known as big data.16 For instance,
with a growing corpus of human-translated digitalised text, the success of a
machine translator can now be judged by its accuracy in reproducing observed
translations. Data from United Nations documents, which are translated by hu16

Predictions by Cisco Systems suggest that the Internet traffic in 2016 will be around 1
zettabyte (1 × 1021 bytes) (Cisco, 2012). In comparison, the information contained in all books
worldwide is about 480 terabytes (5 × 1014 bytes), and a text transcript of all the words ever
spoken by humans would represent about 5 exabytes (5 × 1018 bytes) (UC Berkeley School of
Information, 2003).

15

man experts into six languages, allow Google Translate to monitor and improve
the performance of different machine translation algorithms (Tanner, 2007).
Further, ML algorithms can discover unexpected similarities between old
and new data, aiding the computerisation of tasks for which big data has newly
become available. As a result, computerisation is no longer confined to routine tasks that can be written as rule-based software queries, but is spreading
to every non-routine task where big data becomes available (Brynjolfsson and
McAfee, 2011). In this section, we examine the extent of future computerisation beyond routine tasks.
III.A. Computerisation in non-routine cognitive tasks
With the availability of big data, a wide range of non-routine cognitive tasks
are becoming computerisable. That is, further to the general improvement in
technological progress due to big data, algorithms for big data are rapidly entering domains reliant upon storing or accessing information. The use of big data
is afforded by one of the chief comparative advantages of computers relative
to human labor: scalability. Little evidence is required to demonstrate that, in
performing the task of laborious computation, networks of machines scale better than human labour (Campbell-Kelly, 2009). As such, computers can better
manage the large calculations required in using large datasets. ML algorithms
running on computers are now, in many cases, better able to detect patterns in
big data than humans.
Computerisation of cognitive tasks is also aided by another core comparative advantage of algorithms: their absence of some human biases. An algorithm can be designed to ruthlessly satisfy the small range of tasks it is given.
Humans, in contrast, must fulfill a range of tasks unrelated to their occupation,
such as sleeping, necessitating occasional sacrifices in their occupational performance (Kahneman, et al., 1982). The additional constraints under which
humans must operate manifest themselves as biases. Consider an example of
human bias: Danziger, et al. (2011) demonstrate that experienced Israeli judges
are substantially more generous in their rulings following a lunch break. It can
thus be argued that many roles involving decision-making will benefit from
impartial algorithmic solutions.
Fraud detection is a task that requires both impartial decision making and
the ability to detect trends in big data. As such, this task is now almost com16

pletely automated (Phua, et al., 2010). In a similar manner, the comparative
advantages of computers are likely to change the nature of work across a wide
range of industries and occupations.
In health care, diagnostics tasks are already being computerised. Oncologists at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center are, for example, using IBM’s
Watson computer to provide chronic care and cancer treatment diagnostics.
Knowledge from 600,000 medical evidence reports, 1.5 million patient records
and clinical trials, and two million pages of text from medical journals, are used
for benchmarking and pattern recognition purposes. This allows the computer
to compare each patient’s individual symptoms, genetics, family and medication history, etc., to diagnose and develop a treatment plan with the highest
probability of success (Cohn, 2013).
In addition, computerisation is entering the domains of legal and financial
services. Sophisticated algorithms are gradually taking on a number of tasks
performed by paralegals, contract and patent lawyers (Markoff, 2011). More
specifically, law firms now rely on computers that can scan thousands of legal
briefs and precedents to assist in pre-trial research. A frequently cited example is Symantec’s Clearwell system, which uses language analysis to identify
general concepts in documents, can present the results graphically, and proved
capable of analysing and sorting more than 570,000 documents in two days
(Markoff, 2011).
Furthermore, the improvement of sensing technology has made sensor data
one of the most prominent sources of big data (Ackerman and Guizzo, 2011).
Sensor data is often coupled with new ML fault- and anomaly-detection algorithms to render many tasks computerisable. A broad class of examples can be
found in condition monitoring and novelty detection, with technology substituting for closed-circuit TV (CCTV) operators, workers examining equipment
defects, and clinical staff responsible for monitoring the state of patients in intensive care. Here, the fact that computers lack human biases is of great value:
algorithms are free of irrational bias, and their vigilance need not be interrupted
by rest breaks or lapses of concentration. Following the declining costs of digital sensing and actuation, ML approaches have successfully addressed condition
monitoring applications ranging from batteries (Saha, et al., 2007), to aircraft
engines (King, et al., 2009), water quality (Osborne, et al., 2012) and intensive
care units (ICUs) (Clifford and Clifton, 2012; Clifton, et al., 2012). Sensors can
17

equally be placed on trucks and pallets to improve companies’ supply chain
management, and used to measure the moisture in a field of crops to track the
flow of water through utility pipes. This allows for automatic meter reading,
eliminating the need for personnel to gather such information. For example,
the cities of Doha, São Paulo, and Beijing use sensors on pipes, pumps, and
other water infrastructure to monitor conditions and manage water loss, reducing leaks by 40 to 50 percent. In the near future, it will be possible to place inexpensive sensors on light poles, sidewalks, and other public property to capture
sound and images, likely reducing the number of workers in law enforcement
(MGI, 2013).
Advances in user interfaces also enable computers to respond directly to
a wider range of human requests, thus augmenting the work of highly skilled
labour, while allowing some types of jobs to become fully automated. For example, Apple’s Siri and Google Now rely on natural user interfaces to recognise
spoken words, interpret their meanings, and act on them accordingly. Moreover, a company called SmartAction now provides call computerisation solutions that use ML technology and advanced speech recognition to improve upon
conventional interactive voice response systems, realising cost savings of 60 to
80 percent over an outsourced call center consisting of human labour (CAA,
2012). Even education, one of the most labour intensive sectors, will most
likely be significantly impacted by improved user interfaces and algorithms
building upon big data. The recent growth in MOOCs (Massive Open Online
Courses) has begun to generate large datasets detailing how students interact
on forums, their diligence in completing assignments and viewing lectures, and
their ultimate grades (Simonite, 2013; Breslow, et al., 2013). Such information,
together with improved user interfaces, will allow for ML algorithms that serve
as interactive tutors, with teaching and assessment strategies statistically calibrated to match individual student needs (Woolf, 2010). Big data analysis will
also allow for more effective predictions of student performance, and for their
suitability for post-graduation occupations. These technologies can equally be
implemented in recruitment, most likely resulting in the streamlining of human
resource (HR) departments.
Occupations that require subtle judgement are also increasingly susceptible
to computerisation. To many such tasks, the unbiased decision making of an algorithm represents a comparative advantage over human operators. In the most
18

challenging or critical applications, as in ICUs, algorithmic recommendations
may serve as inputs to human operators; in other circumstances, algorithms
will themselves be responsible for appropriate decision-making. In the financial sector, such automated decision-making has played a role for quite some
time. AI algorithms are able to process a greater number of financial announcements, press releases, and other information than any human trader, and then
act faster upon them (Mims, 2010). Services like Future Advisor similarly use
AI to offer personalised financial advice at larger scale and lower cost. Even
the work of software engineers may soon largely be computerisable. For example, advances in ML allow a programmer to leave complex parameter and
design choices to be appropriately optimised by an algorithm (Hoos, 2012). Algorithms can further automatically detect bugs in software (Hangal and Lam,
2002; Livshits and Zimmermann, 2005; Kim, et al., 2008), with a reliability
that humans are unlikely to match. Big databases of code also offer the eventual
prospect of algorithms that learn how to write programs to satisfy specifications
provided by a human. Such an approach is likely to eventually improve upon
human programmers, in the same way that human-written compilers eventually
proved inferior to automatically optimised compilers. An algorithm can better keep the whole of a program in working memory, and is not constrained to
human-intelligible code, allowing for holistic solutions that might never occur
to a human. Such algorithmic improvements over human judgement are likely
to become increasingly common.
Although the extent of these developments remains to be seen, estimates by
MGI (2013) suggests that sophisticated algorithms could substitute for approximately 140 million full-time knowledge workers worldwide. Hence, while
technological progress throughout economic history has largely been confined
to the mechanisation of manual tasks, requiring physical labour, technological
progress in the twenty-first century can be expected to contribute to a wide
range of cognitive tasks, which, until now, have largely remained a human
domain. Of course, many occupations being affected by these developments
are still far from fully computerisable, meaning that the computerisation of
some tasks will simply free-up time for human labour to perform other tasks.
Nonetheless, the trend is clear: computers increasingly challenge human labour
in a wide range of cognitive tasks (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2011).

19

III.B.

Computerisation in non-routine manual tasks

Mobile robotics provides a means of directly leveraging ML technologies to
aid the computerisation of a growing scope of manual tasks. The continued
technological development of robotic hardware is having notable impact upon
employment: over the past decades, industrial robots have taken on the routine tasks of most operatives in manufacturing. Now, however, more advanced
robots are gaining enhanced sensors and manipulators, allowing them to perform non-routine manual tasks. For example, General Electric has recently developed robots to climb and maintain wind turbines, and more flexible surgical
robots with a greater range of motion will soon perform more types of operations (Robotics-VO, 2013). In a similar manner, the computerisation of logistics
is being aided by the increasing cost-effectiveness of highly instrumented and
computerised cars. Mass-production vehicles, such as the Nissan LEAF, contain
on-board computers and advanced telecommunication equipment that render
the car a potentially fly-by-wire robot.17 Advances in sensor technology mean
that vehicles are likely to soon be augmented with even more advanced suites
of sensors. These will permit an algorithmic vehicle controller to monitor its
environment to a degree that exceeds the capabilities of any human driver: they
have the ability to simultaneously look both forwards and backwards, can natively integrate camera, GPS and LIDAR data, and are not subject to distraction.
Algorithms are thus potentially safer and more effective drivers than humans.
The big data provided by these improved sensors are offering solutions to
many of the engineering problems that had hindered robotic development in
the past. In particular, the creation of detailed three dimensional maps of road
networks has enabled autonomous vehicle navigation; most notably illustrated
by Google’s use of large, specialised datasets collected by its driverless cars
(Guizzo, 2011). It is now completely feasible to store representations of the
entire road network on-board a car, dramatically simplifying the navigation
problem. Algorithms that could perform navigation throughout the changing
seasons, particularly after snowfall, have been viewed as a substantial challenge. However, the big data approach can answer this by storing records from
the last time snow fell, against which the vehicle’s current environment can
be compared (Churchill and Newman, 2012). ML approaches have also been
17

A fly-by-wire robot is a robot that is controllable by a remote computer.

20

developed to identify unprecedented changes to a particular piece of the road
network, such as roadworks (Mathibela, et al., 2012). This emerging technology will affect a variety of logistics jobs. Agricultural vehicles, forklifts
and cargo-handling vehicles are imminently automatable, and hospitals are already employing autonomous robots to transport food, prescriptions and samples (Bloss, 2011). The computerisation of mining vehicles is further being
pursued by companies such as Rio Tinto, seeking to replace labour in Australian mine-sites.18
With improved sensors, robots are capable of producing goods with higher
quality and reliability than human labour. For example, El Dulze, a Spanish
food processor, now uses robotics to pick up heads of lettuce from a conveyor belt, rejecting heads that do not comply with company standards. This
is achieved by measuring their density and replacing them on the belt (IFR,
2012a). Advanced sensors further allow robots to recognise patterns. Baxter, a
22,000 USD general-purpose robot, provides a well-known example. The robot
features an LCD display screen displaying a pair of eyes that take on different expressions depending on the situation. When the robot is first installed or
needs to learn a new pattern, no programming is required. A human worker
simply guides the robot arms through the motions that will be needed for the
task. Baxter then memorises these patterns and can communicate that it has understood its new instructions. While the physical flexibility of Baxter is limited
to performing simple operations such as picking up objects and moving them,
different standard attachments can be installed on its arms, allowing Baxter to
perform a relatively broad scope of manual tasks at low cost (MGI, 2013).
Technological advances are contributing to declining costs in robotics. Over
the past decades, robot prices have fallen about 10 percent annually and are expected to decline at an even faster pace in the near future (MGI, 2013). Industrial
robots, with features enabled by machine vision and high-precision dexterity,
which typically cost 100,000 to 150,000 USD, will be available for 50,000 to
75,000 USD in the next decade, with higher levels of intelligence and additional
capabilities (IFR, 2012b). Declining robot prices will inevitably place them
within reach of more users. For example, in China, employers are increasingly incentivised to substitute robots for labour, as wages and living standards
18

Rio Tinto’s computerisation efforts are advertised at http://www.mineofthefuture.com.au.

21

are rising – Foxconn, a Chinese contract manufacturer that employs 1.2 million workers, is now investing in robots to assemble products such as the Apple
iPhone (Markoff, 2012). According to the International Federation of Robotics,
robot sales in China grew by more than 50 percent in 2011 and are expected to
increase further. Globally, industrial robot sales reached a record 166,000 units
in 2011, a 40 percent year-on-year increase (IFR, 2012b). Most likely, there
will be even faster growth ahead as low-priced general-purpose models, such
as Baxter, are adopted in simple manufacturing and service work.
Expanding technological capabilities and declining costs will make entirely
new uses for robots possible. Robots will likely continue to take on an increasing set of manual tasks in manufacturing, packing, construction, maintenance,
and agriculture. In addition, robots are already performing many simple service tasks such as vacuuming, mopping, lawn mowing, and gutter cleaning –
the market for personal and household service robots is growing by about 20
percent annually (MGI, 2013). Meanwhile, commercial service robots are now
able to perform more complex tasks in food preparation, health care, commercial cleaning, and elderly care (Robotics-VO, 2013). As robot costs decline and
technological capabilities expand, robots can thus be expected to gradually substitute for labour in a wide range of low-wage service occupations, where most
US job growth has occurred over the past decades (Autor and Dorn, 2013). This
means that many low-wage manual jobs that have been previously protected
from computerisation could diminish over time.
III.C.

The task model revisited

The task model of Autor, et al. (2003) has delivered intuitive and accurate
predictions in that: (a) computers are more substitutable for human labour in
routine relative to non-routine tasks; and (b) a greater intensity of routine inputs increases the marginal productivity of non-routine inputs. Accordingly,
computers have served as a substitute for labour for many routine tasks, while
exhibiting strong complementarities with labour performing cognitive non-routine tasks.19 Yet the premises about what computers do have recently expanded.
Computer capital can now equally substitute for a wide range of tasks commonly defined as non-routine (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2011), meaning that
19

The model does not predict any substantial substitution or complementarity with nonroutine manual tasks.

22

the task model will not hold in predicting the impact of computerisation on
the task content of employment in the twenty-first century. While focusing on
the substitution effects of recent technological progress, we build on the task
model by deriving several factors that we expect will determine the extent of
computerisation in non-routine tasks.
The task model assumes for tractability an aggregate, constant-returns-toscale Cobb-Douglas production function of the form,

(1)

Q = (LS + C)1−β LβNS ,

β ∈ [0, 1],

where LS and LNS are susceptible and non-susceptible labor inputs and C is
computer capital. Computer capital is supplied perfectly elastically at market
price per efficiency unit, where the market price is falling exogenously with
time due to technological progress. It further assumes income-maximizing
workers, with heterogeneous productivity endowments in both susceptible and
non-susceptible tasks. Their task supply will respond elastically to relative
wage levels, meaning that workers will reallocate their labour supply according
to their comparative advantage as in Roy (1951). With expanding computational capabilities, resulting from technological advances, and a falling market
price of computing, workers in susceptible tasks will thus reallocate to nonsusceptible tasks.
The above described simple model differs from the task model of Autor,
et al. (2003), in that LNS is not confined to routine labour inputs. This is because recent developments in ML and MR, building upon big data, allow for
pattern recognition, and thus enable computer capital to rapidly substitute for
labour across a wide range of non-routine tasks. Yet some inhibiting engineering bottlenecks to computerisation persist. Beyond these bottlenecks, however,
we argue that it is largely already technologically possible to automate almost
any task, provided that sufficient amounts of data are gathered for pattern recognition. Our model thus predicts that the pace at which these bottlenecks can be
overcome will determine the extent of computerisation in the twenty-first century.
Hence, in short, while the task model predicts that computers for labour
substitution will be confined to routine tasks, our model predicts that comput23

erisation can be extended to any non-routine task that is not subject to any engineering bottlenecks to computerisation. These bottlenecks thus set the boundaries for the computerisation of non-routine tasks. Drawing upon the ML and
MR literature, and a workshop held at the Oxford University Engineering Sciences Department, we identify several engineering bottlenecks, corresponding
to three task categories. According to these findings, non-susceptible labor inputs can be described as,

(2)

LNS =

n
X

LPM,i + LC,i + LSI,i




i=1

where LPM , LC and LSI are labour inputs into perception and manipulation
tasks, creative intelligence tasks, and and social intelligence tasks.
We note that some related engineering bottlenecks can be partially alleviated by the simplification of tasks. One generic way of achieving this is to reduce the variation between task iterations. As a prototypical example, consider
the factory assembly line, turning the non-routine tasks of the artisan shop into
repetitive routine tasks performed by unskilled factory workers. A more recent
example is the computerisation of non-routine manual tasks in construction.
On-site construction tasks typically demand a high degree of adaptability, so
as to accommodate work environments that are typically irregularly laid out,
and vary according to weather. Prefabrication, in which the construction object
is partially assembled in a factory before being transported to the construction
site, provides a way of largely removing the requirement for adaptability. It allows many construction tasks to be performed by robots under controlled conditions that eliminate task variability – a method that is becoming increasingly
widespread, particularly in Japan (Barlow and Ozaki, 2005; Linner and Bock,
2012). The extent of computerisation in the twenty-first century will thus partly
depend on innovative approaches to task restructuring. In the remainder of this
section we examine the engineering bottlenecks related to the above mentioned
task categories, each in turn.
Perception and manipulation tasks. Robots are still unable to match the
depth and breadth of human perception. While basic geometric identification is
reasonably mature, enabled by the rapid development of sophisticated sensors
24

and lasers, significant challenges remain for more complex perception tasks,
such as identifying objects and their properties in a cluttered field of view. As
such, tasks that relate to an unstructured work environment can make jobs less
susceptible to computerisation. For example, most homes are unstructured, requiring the identification of a plurality of irregular objects and containing many
cluttered spaces which inhibit the mobility of wheeled objects. Conversely, supermarkets, factories, warehouses, airports and hospitals have been designed
for large wheeled objects, making it easier for robots to navigate in performing non-routine manual tasks. Perception problems can, however, sometimes
be sidestepped by clever task design. For example, Kiva Systems, acquired by
Amazon.com in 2012, solved the problem of warehouse navigation by simply
placing bar-code stickers on the floor, informing robots of their precise location
(Guizzo, 2008).
The difficulty of perception has ramifications for manipulation tasks, and,
in particular, the handling of irregular objects, for which robots are yet to reach
human levels of aptitude. This has been evidenced in the development of robots
that interact with human objects and environments. While advances have been
made, solutions tend to be unreliable over the myriad small variations on a single task, repeated thousands of times a day, that many applications require. A
related challenge is failure recovery – i.e. identifying and rectifying the mistakes of the robot when it has, for example, dropped an object. Manipulation is also limited by the difficulties of planning out the sequence of actions
required to move an object from one place to another. There are yet further
problems in designing manipulators that, like human limbs, are soft, have compliant dynamics and provide useful tactile feedback. Most industrial manipulation makes uses of workarounds to these challenges (Brown, et al., 2010),
but these approaches are nonetheless limited to a narrow range of tasks. The
main challenges to robotic computerisation, perception and manipulation, thus
largely remain and are unlikely to be fully resolved in the next decade or two
(Robotics-VO, 2013).
Creative intelligence tasks. The psychological processes underlying human
creativity are difficult to specify. According to Boden (2003), creativity is the
ability to come up with ideas or artifacts that are novel and valuable. Ideas, in a
broader sense, include concepts, poems, musical compositions, scientific theo25

ries, cooking recipes and jokes, whereas artifacts are objects such as paintings,
sculptures, machinery, and pottery. One process of creating ideas (and similarly for artifacts) involves making unfamiliar combinations of familiar ideas,
requiring a rich store of knowledge. The challenge here is to find some reliable
means of arriving at combinations that “make sense.” For a computer to make a
subtle joke, for example, would require a database with a richness of knowledge
comparable to that of humans, and methods of benchmarking the algorithm’s
subtlety.
In principle, such creativity is possible and some approaches to creativity
already exist in the literature. Duvenaud, et al. (2013) provide an example of
automating the core creative task required in order to perform statistics, that
of designing models for data. As to artistic creativity, AARON, a drawingprogram, has generated thousands of stylistically-similar line-drawings, which
have been exhibited in galleries worldwide. Furthermore, David Cope’s EMI
software composes music in many different styles, reminiscent of specific human composers.
In these and many other applications, generating novelty is not particularly
difficult. Instead, the principal obstacle to computerising creativity is stating
our creative values sufficiently clearly that they can be encoded in an program
(Boden, 2003). Moreover, human values change over time and vary across
cultures. Because creativity, by definition, involves not only novelty but value,
and because values are highly variable, it follows that many arguments about
creativity are rooted in disagreements about value. Thus, even if we could
identify and encode our creative values, to enable the computer to inform and
monitor its own activities accordingly, there would still be disagreement about
whether the computer appeared to be creative. In the absence of engineering
solutions to overcome this problem, it seems unlikely that occupations requiring
a high degree of creative intelligence will be automated in the next decades.
Social intelligence tasks. Human social intelligence is important in a wide
range of work tasks, such as those involving negotiation, persuasion and care.
To aid the computerisation of such tasks, active research is being undertaken
within the fields of Affective Computing (Scherer, et al., 2010; Picard, 2010),
and Social Robotics (Ge, 2007; Broekens, et al., 2009). While algorithms and
robots can now reproduce some aspects of human social interaction, the real26

time recognition of natural human emotion remains a challenging problem, and
the ability to respond intelligently to such inputs is even more difficult. Even
simplified versions of typical social tasks prove difficult for computers, as is
the case in which social interaction is reduced to pure text. The social intelligence of algorithms is partly captured by the Turing test, examining the ability
of a machine to communicate indistinguishably from an actual human. Since
1990, the Loebner Prize, an annual Turing test competition, awards prizes to
textual chat programmes that are considered to be the most human-like. In
each competition, a human judge simultaneously holds computer-based textual
interactions with both an algorithm and a human. Based on the responses, the
judge is to distinguish between the two. Sophisticated algorithms have so far
failed to convince judges about their human resemblance. This is largely because there is much ‘common sense’ information possessed by humans, which
is difficult to articulate, that would need to be provided to algorithms if they are
to function in human social settings.
Whole brain emulation, the scanning, mapping and digitalising of a human brain, is one possible approach to achieving this, but is currently only a
theoretical technology. For brain emulation to become operational, additional
functional understanding is required to recognise what data is relevant, as well
as a roadmap of technologies needed to implement it. While such roadmaps exist, present implementation estimates, under certain assumptions, suggest that
whole brain emulation is unlikely to become operational within the next decade
or two (Sandberg and Bostrom, 2008). When or if they do, however, the employment impact is likely to be vast (Hanson, 2001).
Hence, in short, while sophisticated algorithms and developments in MR,
building upon with big data, now allow many non-routine tasks to be automated, occupations that involve complex perception and manipulation tasks,
creative intelligence tasks, and social intelligence tasks are unlikely to be substituted by computer capital over the next decade or two. The probability of an
occupation being automated can thus be described as a function of these task
characteristics. As suggested by Figure I, the low degree of social intelligence
required by a dishwasher makes this occupation more susceptible to computerisation than a public relation specialist, for example. We proceed to examining
the susceptibility of jobs to computerisation as a function of the above described
non-susceptible task characteristics.
27

Public
Event
Relations
Planner
0
0
100
Social Intelligence

1 Court Clerk

0 Biologist
0

1

Fashion
Designer

Creativity

100

Probability of
Computerisation

Dishwasher

Probability of
Computerisation

Probability of
Computerisation

1

Telemarketer
Boilermaker

0
0

Surgeon
100

Perception and manipulation

F IGURE I. A sketch of how the probability of computerisation might vary as a function of
bottleneck variables.

IV.

M EASURING THE EMPLOYMENT IMPACT OF COMPUTERISATION
IV.A. Data sources and implementation strategy

To implement the above described methodology, we rely on O∗NET, an online
service developed for the US Department of Labor. The 2010 version of O∗NET
contains information on 903 detailed occupations, most of which correspond
closely to the Labor Department’s Standard Occupational Classification (SOC).
The O∗NET data was initially collected from labour market analysts, and has
since been regularly updated by surveys of each occupation’s worker population
and related experts, to provide up-to-date information on occupations as they
evolve over time. For our purposes, an important feature of O∗NET is that it
defines the key features of an occupation as a standardised and measurable set
of variables, but also provides open-ended descriptions of specific tasks to each
occupation. This allows us to: (a) objectively rank occupations according to
the mix of knowledge, skills, and abilities they require; and (b) subjectively
categorise them based on the variety of tasks they involve.
The close SOC correspondence of O∗NET allows us to link occupational
characteristics to 2010 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) employment and wage
data. While the O∗NET occupational classification is somewhat more detailed,
distinguishing between Auditors and Accountants, for example, we aggregate
these occupations to correspond to the six-digit 2010 SOC system, for which
employment and wage figures are reported. To obtain unique O∗NET variables corresponding to the six-digit SOC classification, we used the mean of
the O∗NET aggregate. In addition, we exclude any six-digit SOC occupations

28

for which O∗NET data was missing.20 Doing so, we end up with a final dataset
consisting of 702 occupations.
To assess the employment impact of the described technological developments in ML, the ideal experiment would provide two identical autarkic
economies, one facing the expanding technological capabilities we observe,
and a secular decline in the price of computerisation, and the other not. By
comparison, it would be straightforward to examine how computerisation reshapes the occupational composition of the labour market. In the absence of
this experiment, the second preferred option would be to build on the implementation strategy of Autor, et al. (2003), and test a simple economic model
to predict how demand for workplace tasks responds to developments in ML
and MR technology. However, because our paper is forward-looking, in the
sense that most of the described technological developments are yet to be implemented across industries on a broader scale, this option was not available for
our purposes.
Instead, our implementation strategy builds on the literature examining the
offshoring of information-based tasks to foreign worksites, consisting of different methodologies to rank and categorise occupations according to their susceptibility to offshoring (Blinder, 2009; Jensen and Kletzer, 2005, 2010). The
common denominator for these studies is that they rely on O∗NET data in different ways. While Blinder (2009) eyeballed the O∗NET data on each occupation,
paying particular attention to the job description, tasks, and work activities, to
assign an admittedly subjective two-digit index number of offshorability to each
occupation, Jensen and Kletzer (2005) created a purely objective ranking based
on standardised and measurable O∗NET variables. Both approaches have obvious drawbacks. Subjective judgments are often not replicable and may result in
the researcher subconsciously rigging the data to conform to a certain set of beliefs. Objective rankings, on the other hand, are not subject to such drawbacks,
but are constrained by the reliability of the variables that are being used. At this
stage, it shall be noted that O∗NET data was not gathered to specifically measure the offshorability or automatability of jobs. Accordingly, Blinder (2009)
20

The missing occupations consist of “All Other” titles, representing occupations with a
wide range of characteristics which do not fit into one of the detailed O∗NET-SOC occupations.
O ∗ NET data is not available for this type of title. We note that US employment for the 702
occupations we considered is 138.44 million. Hence our analysis excluded 4.628 million jobs,
equivalent to 3 percent of total employment.

29

finds that past attempts to create objective offshorability rankings using O∗NET
data have yielded some questionable results, ranking lawyers and judges among
the most tradable occupations, while classifying occupations such as data entry
keyers, telephone operators, and billing clerks as virtually impossible to move
offshore.
To work around some of these drawbacks, we combine and build upon the
two described approaches. First, together with a group of ML researchers, we
subjectively hand-labelled 70 occupations, assigning 1 if automatable, and 0
if not. For our subjective assessments, we draw upon a workshop held at the
Oxford University Engineering Sciences Department, examining the automatability of a wide range of tasks. Our label assignments were based on eyeballing
the O∗NET tasks and job description of each occupation. This information is
particular to each occupation, as opposed to standardised across different jobs.
The hand-labelling of the occupations was made by answering the question
“Can the tasks of this job be sufficiently specified, conditional on the availability of big data, to be performed by state of the art computer-controlled equipment”. Thus, we only assigned a 1 to fully automatable occupations, where
we considered all tasks to be automatable. To the best of our knowledge, we
considered the possibility of task simplification, possibly allowing some currently non-automatable tasks to be automated. Labels were assigned only to
the occupations about which we were most confident.
Second, we use objective O∗NET variables corresponding to the defined
bottlenecks to computerisation. More specifically, we are interested in variables describing the level of perception and manipulation, creativity, and social
intelligence required to perform it. As reported in Table I, we identified nine
variables that describe these attributes. These variables were derived from the
O ∗ NET survey, where the respondents are given multiple scales, with “importance” and “level” as the predominant pair. We rely on the “level” rating which
corresponds to specific examples about the capabilities required of computercontrolled equipment to perform the tasks of an occupation. For instance, in
relation to the attribute “Manual Dexterity”, low (level) corresponds to “Screw
a light bulb into a light socket”; medium (level) is exemplified by “Pack oranges in crates as quickly as possible”; high (level) is described as “Perform
open-heart surgery with surgical instruments”. This gives us an indication of
the level of “Manual Dexterity” computer-controlled equipment would require
30

TABLE I. O∗NET variables that serve as indicators of bottlenecks to computerisation.
Computerisation
bottleneck

O ∗ NET

Perception
and
Manipulation

Finger
Dexterity

The ability to make precisely coordinated movements of
the fingers of one or both hands to grasp, manipulate, or
assemble very small objects.

Manual
Dexterity

The ability to quickly move your hand, your hand together
with your arm, or your two hands to grasp, manipulate, or
assemble objects.

Cramped Work Space,
Awkward Positions

How often does this job require working in cramped work
spaces that requires getting into awkward positions?

Originality

The ability to come up with unusual or clever ideas about
a given topic or situation, or to develop creative ways to
solve a problem.

Fine Arts

Knowledge of theory and techniques required to compose,
produce, and perform works of music, dance, visual arts,
drama, and sculpture.

Social
Perceptiveness

Being aware of others’ reactions and understanding why
they react as they do.

Negotiation

Bringing others together and trying to reconcile
differences.

Persuasion

Persuading others to change their minds or behavior.

Assisting and Caring for
Others

Providing personal assistance, medical attention, emotional support, or other personal care to others such as
coworkers, customers, or patients.

Creative
Intelligence

Social
Intelligence

Variable

O ∗ NET

Description

to perform a specific occupation. An exception is the “Cramped work space”
variable, which measures the frequency of unstructured work.
Hence, in short, by hand-labelling occupations, we work around the issue
that O∗NET data was not gathered to specifically measure the automatability of
jobs in a similar manner to Blinder (2009). In addition, we mitigate some of the
subjective biases held by the researchers by using objective O∗NET variables to
correct potential hand-labelling errors. The fact that we label only 70 of the full
702 occupations, selecting those occupations whose computerisation label we
are highly confident about, further reduces the risk of subjective bias affecting
our analysis. To develop an algorithm appropriate for this task, we turn to
probabilistic classification.

31

IV.B. Classification method
We begin by examining the accuracy of our subjective assessments of the automatability of 702 occupations. For classification, we develop an algorithm
to provide the label probability given a previously unseen vector of variables.
In the terminology of classification, the O∗NET variables form a feature vector, denoted x ∈ R9 . O∗NET hence supplies a complete dataset of 702 such
feature vectors. A computerisable label is termed a class, denoted y ∈ {0, 1}.
For our problem, y = 1 (true) implies that we hand-labelled as computerisable
the occupation described by the associated nine O∗NET variables contained in
x ∈ R9 . Our training data is D = (X, y), where X ∈ R70×9 is a matrix of
variables and y ∈ {0, 1}70 gives the associated labels. This dataset contains
information about how y varies as a function of x: as a hypothetical example,
it may be the case that, for all occupations for which x1 > 50, y = 1. A
probabilistic classification algorithm exploits patterns existent in training data
to return the probability P (y∗ = 1 | x∗ , X, y) of a new, unlabelled, test datum
with features x∗ having class label y∗ = 1.
We achieve probabilistic classification by introducing a latent function
f : x 7→ R, known as a discriminant function. Given the value of the discriminant f∗ at a test point x∗ , we assume that the probability for the class label
is given by the logistic
(3)

P (y∗ = 1 | f∗ ) =

1
,
1 + exp(−f∗ )

and P (y∗ = 0 | f∗ ) = 1 − P (y∗ = 1 | f∗ ). For f∗ > 0, y∗ = 1 is more
probable than y∗ = 0. For our application, f can be thought of as a continuousvalued ‘automatability’ variable: the higher its value, the higher the probability
of computerisation.
We test three different models for the discriminant function, f , using the
best performing for our further analysis. Firstly, logistic (or logit) regression,
which adopts a linear model for f , f (x) = w⊺ x, where the un-known weights
w are often inferred by maximising their probability in light of the training
data. This simple model necessarily implies a simple monotonic relationship
between features and the probability of the class taking a particular value.
Richer models are provided by Gaussian process classifiers (Rasmussen and

32

Williams, 2006). Such classifiers model the latent function f with a Gaussian
process (GP): a non-parametric probability distribution over functions.
A GP is defined as a distribution over the functions f : X → R such that the
distribution over the possible function values on any finite subset of X (such as
X) is multivariate Gaussian. For a function f (x), the prior distribution over its
values f on a subset x ⊂ X are completely specified by a covariance matrix K
(4)

p(f | K) = N (f ; 0, K) = √



1
1
exp − f ⊺ K −1 f .
2
det 2πK

The covariance matrix is generated by a covariance function κ : X × X 7→ R;
that is, K = κ(X, X). The GP model is expressed by the choice of κ; we consider the exponentiated quadratic (squared exponential) and rational quadratic.
Note that we have chosen a zero mean function, encoding the assumption that
P (y∗ = 1) = 12 sufficiently far from training data.
Given training data D, we use the GP to make predictions about the function
values f∗ at input x∗ . With this information, we have the predictive equations
(5)



p(f∗ | x∗ , D) = N f∗ ; m(f∗ | x∗ , D), V (f∗ | x∗ , D) ,

where
(6)

m(f∗ | x∗ , D) = K(x∗ , X)K(X, X)−1 y

(7)

V (f∗ | x∗ , D) = K(x∗ , x∗ ) − K(x∗ , X)K(X, X)−1 K(X, x∗ ) .

Inferring the label posterior p(y∗ | x∗ , D) is complicated by the non-Gaussian
form of the logistic (3). In order to effect inference, we use the approximate
Expectation Propagation algorithm (Minka, 2001).
We tested three Gaussian process classifiers using the GPML toolbox (Rasmussen and Nickisch, 2010) on our data, built around exponentiated quadratic,
rational quadratic and linear covariances. Note that the latter is equivalent to
logistic regression with a Gaussian prior taken on the weights w. To validate
these classifiers, we randomly selected a reduced training set of half the available data D; the remaining data formed a test set. On this test set, we evaluated
how closely the algorithm’s classifications matched the hand labels according
to two metrics (see e.g. Murphy (2012)): the area under the receiver operat-

33

TABLE II. Performance of various classifiers; best performances in bold.

classifier model
exponentiated quadratic
rational quadratic
linear (logit regression)

AUC

log-likelihood

0.894
0.893
0.827

−163.3
−163.7
−205.0

ing characteristic curve (AUC), which is equal to one for a perfect classifier,
and one half for a completely random classifier, and the log-likelihood, which
should ideally be high. This experiment was repeated for one hundred random
selections of training set, and the average results tabulated in Table II. The
exponentiated quadratic model returns (narrowly) the best performance of the
three (clearly outperforming the linear model corresponding to logistic regression), and was hence selected for the remainder of our testing. Note that its
AUC score of nearly 0.9 represents accurate classification: our algorithm successfully managed to reproduce our hand-labels specifying whether an occupation was computerisable. This means that our algorithm verified that our subjective judgements were systematically and consistently related to the O∗NET
variables.
Having validated our approach, we proceed to use classification to predict
the probability of computerisation for all 702 occupations. For this purpose,
we introduce a new label variable, z, denoting whether an occupation is truly
computerisable or not: note that this can be judged only once an occupation
is computerised, at some indeterminate point in the future. We take, again, a
logistic likelihood,
(8)

P (z∗ = 1 | f∗ ) =

1
.
1 + exp(−f∗ )

We implicitly assumed that our hand label, y, is a noise-corrupted version of
the unknown true label, z. Our motivation is that our hand-labels of computerisability must necessarily be treated as such noisy measurements. We thus
acknowledge that it is by no means certain that a job is computerisable given
our labelling. We define X∗ ∈ R702×9 as the matrix of O∗NET variables for all
702 occupations; this matrix represents our test features.
We perform a final experiment in which, given training data D, consisting
34

50

0

60

60

40
20

0.5
1
Probability of
Computerisation
100

50

0

50

0.5
1
Probability of
Computerisation

20
0

Cramped work space

Finger dexterity

40

60
40
20
0

0

1
0.5
Probability of
Computerisation

0

0.5
1
Probability of
Computerisation

0

0.5
1
Probability of
Computerisation

60
40
20

0.5
1
Probability of
Computerisation

80

60

0.5
1
Probability of
Computerisation

0
0

80

0

80

0
0

20

0.5
1
Probability of
Computerisation

Originality

100

40

0
0

Fine arts

Social perceptiveness

80

0
0

Manual dexterity

80
Negotiation

Persuasion

Assisting and
caring for others

100

0

0.5
1
Probability of
Computerisation

100

50

0

F IGURE II. The distribution of occupational variables as a function of probability of
computerisation; each occupation is a unique point.

35

of our 70 hand-labelled occupations, we aim to predict z ∗ for our test features
X∗ . This approach firstly allows us to use the features of the 70 occupations
about which we are most certain to predict for the remaining 632. Further, our
algorithm uses the trends and patterns it has learned from bulk data to correct
for what are likely to be mistaken labels. More precisely, the algorithm provides
a smoothly varying probabilistic assessment of automatability as a function of
the variables. For our Gaussian process classifier, this function is non-linear,
meaning that it flexibly adapts to the patterns inherent in the training data. Our
approach thus allows for more complex, non-linear, interactions between variables: for example, perhaps one variable is not of importance unless the value
of another variable is sufficiently large. We report P (z ∗ | X∗ , D) as the probability of computerisation henceforth (for a detailed probability ranking, see
Appendix). Figure II illustrates that this probability is non-linearly related to
the nine O∗NET variables selected.
V.

E MPLOYMENT IN THE TWENTY- FIRST CENTURY

In this section, we examine the possible future extent of at-risk job computerisation, and related labour market outcomes. The task model predicts that recent
developments in ML will reduce aggregate demand for labour input in tasks
that can be routinised by means of pattern recognition, while increasing the demand for labour performing tasks that are not susceptible to computerisation.
However, we make no attempt to forecast future changes in the occupational
composition of the labour market. While the 2010-2020 BLS occupational employment projections predict US net employment growth across major occupations, based on historical staffing patterns, we speculate about technology that
is in only the early stages of development. This means that historical data on
the impact of the technological developments we observe is unavailable.21 We
therefore focus on the impact of computerisation on the mix of jobs that existed in 2010. Our analysis is thus limited to the substitution effect of future
computerisation.
Turning first to the expected employment impact, reported in Figure III, we
distinguish between high, medium and low risk occupations, depending on their
21

It shall be noted that the BLS projections are based on what can be referred to as changes
in normal technological progress, and not on any breakthrough technologies that may be seen
as conjectural.

36

Management, Business, and Financial
Computer, Engineering, and Science
Education, Legal, Community Service, Arts, and Media
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
Service
Sales and Related
Office and Administrative Support
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry
Construction and Extraction
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Production
Transportation and Material Moving
400M
←−−− Low −−−→
33% Employment

←−−− Medium −−−→
19% Employment

←−−− High −−−→
47% Employment

Employment

300M

200M

100M

0M
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Probability of Computerisation

0.8

1

F IGURE III. The distribution of BLS 2010 occupational employment over the probability of
computerisation, along with the share in low, medium and high probability categories. Note
that the total area under all curves is equal to total US employment.

37

probability of computerisation (thresholding at probabilities of 0.7 and 0.3).
According to our estimate, 47 percent of total US employment is in the high risk
category, meaning that associated occupations are potentially automatable over
some unspecified number of years, perhaps a decade or two. It shall be noted
that the probability axis can be seen as a rough timeline, where high probability occupations are likely to be substituted by computer capital relatively soon.
Over the next decades, the extent of computerisation will be determined by
the pace at which the above described engineering bottlenecks to automation
can be overcome. Seen from this perspective, our findings could be interpreted
as two waves of computerisation, separated by a “technological plateau”. In
the first wave, we find that most workers in transportation and logistics occupations, together with the bulk of office and administrative support workers,
and labour in production occupations, are likely to be substituted by computer
capital. As computerised cars are already being developed and the declining
cost of sensors makes augmenting vehicles with advanced sensors increasingly
cost-effective, the automation of transportation and logistics occupations is in
line with the technological developments documented in the literature. Furthermore, algorithms for big data are already rapidly entering domains reliant
upon storing or accessing information, making it equally intuitive that office
and administrative support occupations will be subject to computerisation. The
computerisation of production occupations simply suggests a continuation of a
trend that has been observed over the past decades, with industrial robots taking
on the routine tasks of most operatives in manufacturing. As industrial robots
are becoming more advanced, with enhanced senses and dexterity, they will be
able to perform a wider scope of non-routine manual tasks. From a technological capabilities point of view, the vast remainder of employment in production
occupations is thus likely to diminish over the next decades.
More surprising, at first sight, is that a substantial share of employment in
services, sales and construction occupations exhibit high probabilities of computerisation. Yet these findings are largely in line with recent documented technological developments. First, the market for personal and household service
robots is already growing by about 20 percent annually (MGI, 2013). As the
comparative advantage of human labour in tasks involving mobility and dexterity will diminish over time, the pace of labour substitution in service occupations is likely to increase even further. Second, while it seems counterintuitive
38

that sales occupations, which are likely to require a high degree of social intelligence, will be subject to a wave of computerisation in the near future, high
risk sales occupations include, for example, cashiers, counter and rental clerks,
and telemarketers. Although these occupations involve interactive tasks, they
do not necessarily require a high degree of social intelligence. Our model thus
seems to do well in distinguishing between individual occupations within occupational categories. Third, prefabrication will allow a growing share of construction work to be performed under controlled conditions in factories, which
partly eliminates task variability. This trend is likely to drive the computerisation of construction work.
In short, our findings suggest that recent developments in ML will put a substantial share of employment, across a wide range of occupations, at risk in the
near future. According to our estimates, however, this wave of automation will
be followed by a subsequent slowdown in computers for labour substitution,
due to persisting inhibiting engineering bottlenecks to computerisation. The
relatively slow pace of computerisation across the medium risk category of employment can thus partly be interpreted as a technological plateau, with incremental technological improvements successively enabling further labour substitution. More specifically, the computerisation of occupations in the medium
risk category will mainly depend on perception and manipulation challenges.
This is evident from Table III, showing that the “manual dexterity”, “finger
dexterity” and “cramped work space” variables exhibit relatively high values
in the medium risk category. Indeed, even with recent technological developments, allowing for more sophisticated pattern recognition, human labour will
still have a comparative advantage in tasks requiring more complex perception and manipulation. Yet with incremental technological improvements, the
comparative advantage of human labour in perception and manipulation tasks
could eventually diminish. This will require innovative task restructuring, improvements in ML approaches to perception challenges, and progress in robotic
dexterity to overcome manipulation problems related to variation between task
iterations and the handling of irregular objects. The gradual computerisation of
installation, maintenance, and repair occupations, which are largely confined to
the medium risk category, and require a high degree of perception and manipulation capabilities, is a manifestation of this observation.
Our model predicts that the second wave of computerisation will mainly
39

TABLE III. Distribution (mean and standard deviation) of values for each variable.

Variable

Assisting and caring for others
Persuasion
Negotiation
Social perceptiveness
Fine arts
Originality
Manual dexterity
Finger dexterity
Cramped work space

Probability of Computerisation
Low

Medium

High

48±20
48±7.1
44±7.6
51±7.9
12±20
51±6.5
22±18
36±10
19±15

41±17
35±9.8
33±9.3
41±7.4
3.5±12
35±12
34±15
39±10
37±26

34±10
32±7.8
30±8.9
37±5.5
1.3±5.5
32±5.6
36±14
40±10
31±20

depend on overcoming the engineering bottlenecks related to creative and social intelligence. As reported in Table III, the “fine arts”, “originality”, “negotiation”, “persuasion”, “social perceptiveness”, and “assisting and caring for
others”, variables, all exhibit relatively high values in the low risk category. By
contrast, we note that the “manual dexterity”, “finger dexterity” and “cramped
work space” variables take relatively low values. Hence, in short, generalist occupations requiring knowledge of human heuristics, and specialist occupations
involving the development of novel ideas and artifacts, are the least susceptible to computerisation. As a prototypical example of generalist work requiring a high degree of social intelligence, consider the O∗NET tasks reported for
chief executives, involving “conferring with board members, organization officials, or staff members to discuss issues, coordinate activities, or resolve problems”, and “negotiating or approving contracts or agreements.” Our predictions
are thus intuitive in that most management, business, and finance occupations,
which are intensive in generalist tasks requiring social intelligence, are largely
confined to the low risk category. The same is true of most occupations in
education, healthcare, as well as arts and media jobs. The O∗NET tasks of actors, for example, involve “performing humorous and serious interpretations of
emotions, actions, and situations, using body movements, facial expressions,
and gestures”, and “learning about characters in scripts and their relationships
to each other in order to develop role interpretations.” While these tasks are
40

Bachelor’s degree or better

Average median wage (USD)

80k
60k
40k
20k
0

0.5

1

60%

average
weighted by
employment

40%

unweighted

20%
0%
0

Probability of Computerisation

0.5

1

Probability of Computerisation

F IGURE IV. Wage and education level as a function of the probability of computerisation;
note that both plots share a legend.

very different from those of a chief executive, they equally require profound
knowledge of human heuristics, implying that a wide range of tasks, involving social intelligence, are unlikely to become subject to computerisation in the
near future.
The low susceptibility of engineering and science occupations to computerisation, on the other hand, is largely due to the high degree of creative intelligence they require. The O∗NET tasks of mathematicians, for example, involve
“developing new principles and new relationships between existing mathematical principles to advance mathematical science” and “conducting research to
extend mathematical knowledge in traditional areas, such as algebra, geometry,
probability, and logic.” Hence, while it is evident that computers are entering the domains of science and engineering, our predictions implicitly suggest
strong complementarities between computers and labour in creative science and
engineering occupations; although it is possible that computers will fully substitute for workers in these occupations over the long-run. We note that the
predictions of our model are strikingly in line with the technological trends we
observe in the automation of knowledge work, even within occupational categories. For example, we find that paralegals and legal assistants – for which
computers already substitute – in the high risk category. At the same time,
lawyers, which rely on labour input from legal assistants, are in the low risk
category. Thus, for the work of lawyers to be fully automated, engineering bottlenecks to creative and social intelligence will need to be overcome, implying
that the computerisation of legal research will complement the work of lawyers
in the medium term.
41

To complete the picture of what recent technological progress is likely to
mean for the future of employment, we plot the average median wage of occupations by their probability of computerisation. We do the same for skill
level, measured by the fraction of workers having obtained a bachelor’s degree,
or higher educational attainment, within each occupation. Figure IV reveals
that both wages and educational attainment exhibit a strong negative relationship with the probability of computerisation. We note that this prediction implies a truncation in the current trend towards labour market polarization, with
growing employment in high and low-wage occupations, accompanied by a
hollowing-out of middle-income jobs. Rather than reducing the demand for
middle-income occupations, which has been the pattern over the past decades,
our model predicts that computerisation will mainly substitute for low-skill and
low-wage jobs in the near future. By contrast, high-skill and high-wage occupations are the least susceptible to computer capital.
Our findings were robust to the choice of the 70 occupations that formed
our training data. This was confirmed by the experimental results tabulated in
Table II: a GP classifier trained on half of the training data was demonstrably
able to accurately predict the labels of the other half, over one hundred different
partitions. That these predictions are accurate for many possible partitions of
the training set suggests that slight modifications to this set are unlikely to lead
to substantially different results on the entire dataset.
V.A. Limitations
It shall be noted that our predictions are based on expanding the premises
about the tasks that computer-controlled equipment can be expected to perform.
Hence, we focus on estimating the share of employment that can potentially be
substituted by computer capital, from a technological capabilities point of view,
over some unspecified number of years. We make no attempt to estimate how
many jobs will actually be automated. The actual extent and pace of computerisation will depend on several additional factors which were left unaccounted
for.
First, labour saving inventions may only be adopted if the access to cheap
labour is scarce or prices of capital are relatively high (Habakkuk, 1962).22 We
22

For example, case study evidence suggests that mechanisation in eighteenth century cotton
production initially only occurred in Britain because wage levels were much higher relative to

42

do not account for future wage levels, capital prices or labour shortages. While
these factors will impact on the timeline of our predictions, labour is the scarce
factor, implying that in the long-run wage levels will increase relative to capital prices, making computerisation increasingly profitable (see, for example,
Acemoglu, 2003).
Second, regulatory concerns and political activism may slow down the process of computerisation. The states of California and Nevada are, for example,
currently in the process of making legislatory changes to allow for driverless
cars. Similar steps will be needed in other states, and in relation to various
technologies. The extent and pace of legislatory implementation can furthermore be related to the public acceptance of technological progress.23 Although
resistance to technological progress has become seemingly less common since
the Industrial Revolution, there are recent examples of resistance to technological change.24 We avoid making predictions about the legislatory process and
the public acceptance of technological progress, and thus the pace of computerisation.
Third, making predictions about technological progress is notoriously difficult (Armstrong and Sotala, 2012).25 For this reason, we focus on near-term
technological breakthroughs in ML and MR, and avoid making any predictions
about the number of years it may take to overcome various engineering bottlenecks to computerisation. Finally, we emphasise that since our probability
estimates describe the likelihood of an occupation being fully automated, we
do not capture any within-occupation variation resulting from the computerisaprices of capital than in other countries (Allen, 2009b). In addition, recent empirical research
reveals a causal relationship between the access to cheap labour and mechanisation in agricultural production, in terms of sustained economic transition towards increased mechanisation in
areas characterised by low-wage worker out-migration (Hornbeck and Naidu, 2013).
23
For instance, William Huskisson, former cabinet minister and Member of Parliament for
Liverpool, was killed by a steam locomotive during the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Nonetheless, this well-publicised incident did anything but dissuade the public
from railway transportation technology. By contrast, airship technology is widely recognised as
having been popularly abandoned as a consequence of the reporting of the Hindenburg disaster.
24
Uber, a start-up company connecting passengers with drivers of luxury vehicles, has recently faced pressure from from local regulators, arising from tensions with taxicab services.
Furthermore, in 2011 the UK Government scrapped a 12.7 billion GBP project to introduce
electronic patient records after resistance from doctors.
25
Marvin Minsky famously claimed in 1970 that “in from three to eight years we will have
a machine with the general intelligence of an average human being”. This prediction is yet to
materialise.

43

tion of tasks that simply free-up time for human labour to perform other tasks.
Although it is clear that the impact of productivity gains on employment will
vary across occupations and industries, we make no attempt to examine such
effects.
VI.

C ONCLUSIONS

While computerisation has been historically confined to routine tasks involving
explicit rule-based activities (Autor, et al., 2003; Goos, et al., 2009; Autor and
Dorn, 2013), algorithms for big data are now rapidly entering domains reliant
upon pattern recognition and can readily substitute for labour in a wide range of
non-routine cognitive tasks (Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2011; MGI, 2013). In
addition, advanced robots are gaining enhanced senses and dexterity, allowing
them to perform a broader scope of manual tasks (IFR, 2012b; Robotics-VO,
2013; MGI, 2013). This is likely to change the nature of work across industries
and occupations.
In this paper, we ask the question: how susceptible are current jobs to these
technological developments? To assess this, we implement a novel methodology to estimate the probability of computerisation for 702 detailed occupations.
Based on these estimates, we examine expected impacts of future computerisation on labour market outcomes, with the primary objective of analysing the
number of jobs at risk and the relationship between an occupation’s probability
of computerisation, wages and educational attainment.
We distinguish between high, medium and low risk occupations, depending on their probability of computerisation. We make no attempt to estimate
the number of jobs that will actually be automated, and focus on potential job
automatability over some unspecified number of years. According to our estimates around 47 percent of total US employment is in the high risk category. We
refer to these as jobs at risk – i.e. jobs we expect could be automated relatively
soon, perhaps over the next decade or two.
Our model predicts that most workers in transportation and logistics occupations, together with the bulk of office and administrative support workers, and
labour in production occupations, are at risk. These findings are consistent with
recent technological developments documented in the literature. More surprisingly, we find that a substantial share of employment in service occupations,

44

where most US job growth has occurred over the past decades (Autor and Dorn,
2013), are highly susceptible to computerisation. Additional support for this
finding is provided by the recent growth in the market for service robots (MGI,
2013) and the gradually diminishment of the comparative advantage of human
labour in tasks involving mobility and dexterity (Robotics-VO, 2013).
Finally, we provide evidence that wages and educational attainment exhibit
a strong negative relationship with the probability of computerisation. We note
that this finding implies a discontinuity between the nineteenth, twentieth and
the twenty-first century, in the impact of capital deepening on the relative demand for skilled labour. While nineteenth century manufacturing technologies
largely substituted for skilled labour through the simplification of tasks (Braverman, 1974; Hounshell, 1985; James and Skinner, 1985; Goldin and Katz, 1998),
the Computer Revolution of the twentieth century caused a hollowing-out of
middle-income jobs (Goos, et al., 2009; Autor and Dorn, 2013). Our model
predicts a truncation in the current trend towards labour market polarisation,
with computerisation being principally confined to low-skill and low-wage occupations. Our findings thus imply that as technology races ahead, low-skill
workers will reallocate to tasks that are non-susceptible to computerisation –
i.e., tasks requiring creative and social intelligence. For workers to win the
race, however, they will have to acquire creative and social skills.
R EFERENCES
Acemoglu, D. (2002). Technical change, inequality, and the labor market. Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 7–72.
Acemoglu, D. (2003). Labor- and capital-augmenting technical change. Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–37.
Acemoglu, D. and Autor, D. (2011). Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. Handbook of labor economics, vol. 4,
pp. 1043–1171.
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail: the origins of power,
prosperity, and poverty. Random House Digital, Inc.

45

Ackerman, E. and Guizzo, E. (2011). 5 technologies that will shape the web.
Spectrum, IEEE, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 40–45.
Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1994). Growth and unemployment. The Review of
Economic Studies, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 477–494.
Allen, R.C. (2009a). Engels’ pause: Technical change, capital accumulation,
and inequality in the british industrial revolution. Explorations in Economic
History, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 418–435.
Allen, R.C. (2009b). The industrial revolution in miniature: The spinning jenny
in Britain, France, and India. The Journal of Economic History, vol. 69,
no. 04, pp. 901–927.
Allen, S.G. (2001). Technology and the wage structure. Journal of Labor
Economics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 440–483.
Armstrong, S. and Sotala, K. (2012). How we’re predicting AI – or failing to.
Tech. Rep., Oxford: Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University.
Atack, J., Bateman, F. and Margo, R.A. (2004). Skill intensity and rising wage
dispersion in nineteenth-century American manufacturing. The Journal of
Economic History, vol. 64, no. 01, pp. 172–192.
Atack, J., Bateman, F. and Margo, R.A. (2008a). Steam power, establishment
size, and labor productivity growth in nineteenth century American manufacturing. Explorations in Economic History, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 185–198.
Atack, J., Haines, M.R. and Margo, R.A. (2008b). Railroads and the rise of the
factory: Evidence for the united states, 1850-70. Tech. Rep., NBER Working
Paper No. 14410, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Atkinson, A.B. (2008). The changing distribution of earnings in OECD countries. Oxford University Press.
Autor, D. and Dorn, D. (2013). The growth of low skill service jobs and the
polarization of the US labor market. American Economic Review, vol. forthcoming.

46

Autor, D., Katz, L.F. and Krueger, A.B. (1998). Computing inequality: have
computers changed the labor market? The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 1169–1213.
Autor, D., Levy, F. and Murnane, R.J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 118, no. 4, pp. 1279–1333.
Barlow, J. and Ozaki, R. (2005). Building mass customised housing through
innovation in the production system: lessons from Japan. Environment and
Planning A, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 9–20.
Beaudry, P., Green, D.A. and Sand, B.M. (2013). The great reversal in the
demand for skill and cognitive tasks. Tech. Rep., NBER Working Paper No.
18901, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Beniger, J.R. (1986). The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information society. Harvard University Press.
Blinder, A.S. (2009). How many US jobs might be offshorable? World Economics, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 41.
Blinder, A.S. and Krueger, A.B. (2013). Alternative measures of offshorability:
a survey approach. Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. S97–
S128.
Bloss, R. (2011). Mobile hospital robots cure numerous logistic needs. Industrial Robot: An International Journal, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 567–571.
Boden, M.A. (2003). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Routledge.
Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work
in the twentieth century. NYU Press.
Breslow, L., Pritchard, D.E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G.S., Ho, A.D. and Seaton, D.
(2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edx’s
first mooc. Research & Practice in Assessment, vol. 8, pp. 13–25.
Bresnahan, T.F. (1999). Computerisation and wage dispersion: an analytical
reinterpretation. The Economic Journal, vol. 109, no. 456, pp. 390–415.
47

Bresnahan, T.F., Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L.M. (2002). Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level
evidence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 339–376.
Bright, J.R. (1958). Automation and management. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University Boston.
Broekens, J., Heerink, M. and Rosendal, H. (2009). Assistive social robots in
elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 94–103.
Brown, E., Rodenberg, N., Amend, J., Mozeika, A., Steltz, E., Zakin, M.R.,
Lipson, H. and Jaeger, H.M. (2010). Universal robotic gripper based on
the jamming of granular material. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, vol. 107, no. 44, pp. 18809–18814.
Brown, M. and Philips, P. (1986). Craft labor and mechanization in nineteenthcentury American canning. The Journal of Economic History, vol. 46, no. 3,
pp. 743–56.
Brynjolfsson, E. and McAfee, A. (2011). Race against the machine: How the
digital revolution is accelerating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming employment and the economy. Digital Frontier Press
Lexington, MA.
Campbell-Kelly, M. (2009). Origin of computing. Scientific American Magazine, vol. 301, no. 3, pp. 62–69.
Chandler, A.D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Harvard University Press.
Charles, K.K., Hurst, E. and Notowidigdo, M.J. (2013). Manufacturing decline,
housing booms, and non-employment. Tech. Rep., NBER Working Paper No.
18949, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Churchill, W. and Newman, P. (2012). Practice makes perfect? managing and
leveraging visual experiences for lifelong navigation. In: Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2012 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 4525–4532.
IEEE .

48

Cisco (2012). Cisco visual networking index. http://www.cisco.com/en/\us/
netsol/ns827/networking_solutions_sub_solution.html.
Clark, G. (2008). A farewell to alms: a brief economic history of the world.
Princeton University Press.
Clifford, G.D. and Clifton, D. (2012). Wireless technology in disease management and medicine. Annual Review of Medicine, vol. 63, pp. 479–492.
Clifton, L., Clifton, D., Pimentel, M., Watkinson, P. and Tarassenko, L. (2012).
Gaussian processes for personalised e-health monitoring with wearable sensors. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 60, pp. 193–197.
Cohn, J. (2013). The robot will see you now. The Atlantic, February 20.
Cortada, J.W. (2000). Before the Computer: IBM, NCR, Burroughs, and Remington Rand and the Industry They Created, 1865-1956. Princeton University
Press.
Danziger, S., Levav, J. and Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in
judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol.
108, no. 17, pp. 6889–6892.
Davis, S.J. and Haltiwanger, J. (1992). Gross job creation, gross job destruction,
and employment reallocation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 107,
no. 3, pp. 819–863.
Duvenaud, D., Lloyd, J.R., Grosse, R., Tenenbaum, J.B. and Ghahramani, Z.
(2013 June). Structure discovery in nonparametric regression through compositional kernel search. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, arXiv:1206.1846 [stat.ML]. Cambridge, UK.
Epstein, S.R. (1998). Craft guilds, apprenticeship, and technological change in
preindustrial europe. Journal of Economic History, vol. 58, pp. 684–713.
Feinstein, C.H. (1998). Pessimism perpetuated: real wages and the standard
of living in Britain during and after the industrial revolution. The Journal of
Economic History, vol. 58, pp. 625–658.

49

Ge, S.S. (2007). Social robotics: Integrating advances in engineering and computer science. In: The 4th annual international conference organized by
Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunication and Information Technology (ECTI) Association, Chiang Rai, Thailand, May 9â,
vol. 12, p. 2007.
Goldin, C. and Katz, L.F. (1995). The decline of non-competing groups:
Changes in the premium to education, 1890 to 1940. Tech. Rep., NBER
Working Paper No. 5202, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Goldin, C. and Katz, L.F. (1998). The origins of technology-skill complementarity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 693–732.
Goldin, C. and Katz, L.F. (2009). The race between education and technology.
Harvard University Press.
Goldin, C. and Sokoloff, K. (1982). Women, children, and industrialization in
the early republic: Evidence from the manufacturing censuses. The Journal
of Economic History, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 741–774.
Goos, M. and Manning, A. (2007). Lousy and lovely jobs: The rising polarization of work in Britain. The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 89,
no. 1, pp. 118–133.
Goos, M., Manning, A. and Salomons, A. (2009). Job polarization in europe.
The American Economic Review, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 58–63.
Gordon, R.J. (2012). Is US economic growth over? faltering innovation confronts the six headwinds. Tech. Rep., NBER Working Paper No. 18315, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Gray, R. (2013). Taking technology to task: The skill content of technological
change in early twentieth century united states. Explorations in Economic
History.
Guizzo, E. (2008 July). Three engineers, hundreds of robots, one warehouse. IEEE Spectrum. http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/robotics-software/
three-engineers-hundreds-of-robots-one-warehouse.

50

Guizzo, E. (2011). How google’s self-driving car works. IEEE Spectrum Online,
October, vol. 18.
Habakkuk, H.J. (1962). American and British technology in the nineteenth
century: The search for labour-saving inventions. University Press.
Hangal, S. and Lam, M.S. (2002). Tracking down software bugs using automatic anomaly detection. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Software engineering, pp. 291–301. ACM.
Hanson, R. (2001). Economic growth given machine intelligence. Technical
Report, University of California, Berkeley.
Hoos, H.H. (2012). Programming by optimization. Communications of the
ACM , vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 70–80.
Hornbeck, R. and Naidu, S. (2013). When the levee breaks: Labor mobility
and economic development in the American south. The American Economic
Review, vol. forthcoming.
Hounshell, D. (1985). From the American system to mass production, 18001932: The development of manufacturing technology in the United States,
vol. 4. JHU Press.
Jaimovich, N. and Siu, H.E. (2012). The trend is the cycle: Job polarization and
jobless recoveries. Tech. Rep., NBER Working Paper No. 18334, National
Bureau of Economic Research.
James, J.A. and Skinner, J.S. (1985). The resolution of the labor-scarcity paradox. The Journal of Economic History, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 513–540.
Jensen, J.B. and Kletzer, L.G. (2005). Tradable services: Understanding the
scope and impact of services offshoring [with comments and discussion]. In:
Brookings trade forum, pp. 75–133. JSTOR.
Jensen, J.B. and Kletzer, L.G. (2010). Measuring tradable services and the
task content of offshorable services jobs. In: Labor in the new economy, pp.
309–335. University of Chicago Press.

51

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty.
Cambridge University Press.
Katz, L.F. and Margo, R.A. (2013). Technical change and the relative demand
for skilled labor: The united states in historical perspective. Tech. Rep.,
NBER Working Paper No. 18752, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Katz, L.F. and Murphy, K.M. (1992). Changes in relative wages, 1963–1987:
supply and demand factors. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 107,
no. 1, pp. 35–78.
Kellenbenz, H. (1974). Technology in the age of the scientific revolution, 15001700. The Fontana Economic History of Europe, vol. 2, pp. 177–272.
Keynes, J.M. (1933). Economic possibilities for our grandchildren (1930). Essays in persuasion, pp. 358–73.
Kim, S., Whitehead, E.J. and Zhang, Y. (2008). Classifying software changes:
Clean or buggy? Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 34, no. 2,
pp. 181–196.
King, S., Bannister, P., Clifton, D. and Tarassenko, L. (2009). Probabilistic
approach to the condition monitoring of aerospace engines. Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace
Engineering, vol. 223, no. 5, pp. 533–541.
Krueger, A.B. (1993). How computers have changed the wage structure: evidence from microdata, 1984–1989. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 33–60.
Levy, F. and Murnane, R.J. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers
are creating the next job market. Princeton University Press.
Lindert, P.H. and Williamson, J.G. (1983). Reinterpreting Britain’s social tables, 1688–1913. Explorations in Economic History, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 94–
109.
Linner, T. and Bock, T. (2012). Evolution of large-scale industrialisation and
service innovation in Japanese prefabrication industry. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 156–178.
52

Livshits, B. and Zimmermann, T. (2005). Dynamine: finding common error
patterns by mining software revision histories. In: ACM SIGSOFT Software
Engineering Notes, vol. 30, pp. 296–305. ACM.
Louis, P. and Paterson, G. (1986). Biased technical change, scale, and factor substitution in American industry, 1850-1919. The Journal of Economic
History, vol. 46, no. 1.
Lucas, R.E. and Prescott, E.C. (1974). Equilibrium search and unemployment.
Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 188–209.
Mantoux, P. (2006). The industrial revolution in the eighteenth century: An
outline of the beginnings of the modern factory system in England. Taylor &
Francis US.
Margo, R.A. (2000). Introduction to wages and labor markets in the United
States, 1820-1860. In: Wages and Labor Markets in the United States, 18201860, pp. 1–5. University of Chicago Press.
Markoff, J. (2011). Armies of expensive lawyers replaced by cheaper software.
Markoff, J. (2012 August). Skilled work, without the worker. The New York
Times.
Mathibela, B., Osborne, M.A., Posner, I. and Newman, P. (2012). Can priors
be trusted? learning to anticipate roadworks. In: Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITSC), 2012 15th International IEEE Conference on, pp. 927–932.
IEEE .
Michaels, G., Rauch, F. and Redding, S.J. (2013). Task specialization in US
cities from 1880-2000. Tech. Rep., NBER Working Paper No. 18715, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Mims, C. (2010 June). AI that picks stocks better than the pros. MIT Technology
Review.
Minka, T.P. (2001). Expectation propagation for approximate Bayesian inference. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence, pp. 362–369. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
53

Mokyr, J. (1990). The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic
progress. Oxford University Press.
Mokyr, J. (1998). The political economy of technological change. Technological revolutions in Europe, pp. 39–64.
Murphy, K.M., Riddell, W.C. and Romer, P.M. (1998). Wages, skills, and technology in the united states and canada. Tech. Rep., NBER Working Paper No.
6638, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Murphy, K.P. (2012). Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective. The MIT
Press.
Nef, J.U. (1957). Coal mining and utilization. A history of technology, vol. 3,
pp. 72–88.
Nordhaus, W.D. (2007). Two centuries of productivity growth in computing.
The Journal of Economic History, vol. 67, no. 1, p. 128.
North, D.C. and Weingast, B.R. (1989). Constitutions and commitment: the
evolution of institutions governing public choice in seventeenth-century england. The Journal of Economic History, vol. 49, no. 04, pp. 803–832.
Ogilvie, S. (2004). Guilds, efficiency, and social capital: evidence from German
proto-industry. The Economic History Review, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 286–333.
Oldenski, L. (2012). Offshoring and the polarization of the US labor market.
Tech. Rep., Technical report, Mimeo, Georgetown University.
Osborne, M.A., Garnett, R., Swersky, K. and de Freitas, N. (2012). Prediction
and fault detection of environmental signals with uncharacterised faults. In:
Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-12).
Phua, C., Lee, V., Smith, K. and Gayler, R. (2010). A comprehensive survey of
data mining-based fraud detection research. arXiv preprint arXiv:1009.6119.
Picard, R.W. (2010). Affective computing: from laughter to IEEE. Affective
Computing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 11–17.
Pissarides, C.A. (2000). Equilibrium unemployment theory. MIT press.
54

Plötz, T. and Fink, G.A. (2009). Markov models for offline handwriting recognition: a survey. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition (IJDAR), vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 269–298.
Rasmussen, C.E. and Nickisch, H. (2010). Gaussian processes for machine
learning (GPML) toolbox. The Journal of Machine Learning Research,
vol. 11, pp. 3011–3015.
Rasmussen, C.E. and Williams, C.K.I. (2006). Gaussian Processes for Machine
Learning. MIT Press.
Ricardo, D. (1819). The principles of political economy and taxation. World
Scientific.
Robotics-VO (2013). A Roadmap for US Robotics. From Internet to Robotics.
2013 Edition. Robotics in the United States of America.
Roy, A.D. (1951). Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 135–146.
Saha, B., Goebel, K., Poll, S. and Christophersen, J. (2007). An integrated
approach to battery health monitoring using Bayesian regression and state
estimation. In: Autotestcon, 2007 IEEE, pp. 646–653. IEEE.
Sandberg, A. and Bostrom, N. (2008). Whole brain emulation: A roadmap,
technical report 2008-3. Tech. Rep., Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford
University.
Scherer, K.R., Bänziger, T. and Roesch, E.B. (2010). Blueprint for Affective
Computing: A Sourcebook and Manual. Oxford University Press.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1962). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Row
New York.
Simonite, T. (2013 June). As data floods in, massive open online courses evolve.
MIT Technology Review. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/515396/
as-data-floods-in-massive-open-online-courses-evolve.
Tanner, A. (2007 March). Google seeks world of instant translations.
Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/28/us-google-translate-id\
usN1921881520070328.
55

(2012). Roadside assistance customers benefit from smart support during peak and after hours. Tech. Rep., SmartAction case study of Canadian
Automobile Association Saskatchewan.

CAA

(2012a). 68 robots perform farmer’s work. Tech. Rep., Case study of
Fanuc Robotics Europe S.A., International Federation of Robotics, September 2012.

IFR

(2012b). World robotics 2012. Tech. Rep., International Federation of
Robotics, August 30, 2012.

IFR

(2011). An economy that works: Job creation and America’s future. Tech.
Rep., McKinsey Global Institute.

MGI

(2013). Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy. Tech. Rep., McKinsey Global Institute.

MGI

Berkeley School of Information (2003). How much information? 2003.
http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003.

UC

US Department of Labor (1899). Thirteenth Annual Report of the Commissioner

of Labor. Two Volumes, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Veres, S.M., Molnar, L., Lincoln, N.K. and Morice, C.P. (2011). Autonomous
vehicle control systems – a review of decision making. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control
Engineering, vol. 225, no. 2, pp. 155–195.
Williamson, J.G. and Lindert, P.H. (1980). American inequality: A macroeconomic history, vol. 53. Academic Press New York.
Woolf, B.P. (2010). Building intelligent interactive tutors: Student-centered
strategies for revolutionizing e-learning. Morgan Kaufmann.

56

A PPENDIX
The table below ranks occupations according to their probability of computerisation (from least- to most-computerisable). Those occupations used as training
data are labelled as either ‘0’ (not computerisable) or ‘1’ (computerisable), respectively. There are 70 such occupations, 10 percent of the total number of
occupations.
Computerisable
Rank

Probability

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.

0.0028
0.003
0.003
0.0031
0.0033
0.0035
0.0035
0.0035
0.0036
0.0036
0.0039
0.0039
0.004
0.0041
0.0042
0.0042
0.0043
0.0044
0.0044
0.0044
0.0045
0.0046
0.0046
0.0047
0.0048
0.0049
0.0055
0.0055
0.0061
0.0063
0.0064
0.0065
0.0067
0.0068
0.0071
0.0073
0.0074
0.0075
0.0077

Label

0

0

0

0

SOC

code

29-1125
49-1011
11-9161
21-1023
29-1181
29-1122
29-2091
21-1022
29-1022
33-1021
29-1031
11-9081
27-2032
41-9031
29-1060
25-9031
19-3039
33-1012
29-1021
25-2021
19-1042
11-9032
29-1081
19-3031
21-1014
51-6092
27-1027
11-3121
39-9032
11-3131
29-1127
15-1121
11-9151
25-4012
29-9091
11-9111
25-2011
25-9021
19-3091

Occupation
Recreational Therapists
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers
Emergency Management Directors
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social Workers
Audiologists
Occupational Therapists
Orthotists and Prosthetists
Healthcare Social Workers
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
First-Line Supervisors of Fire Fighting and Prevention Workers
Dietitians and Nutritionists
Lodging Managers
Choreographers
Sales Engineers
Physicians and Surgeons
Instructional Coordinators
Psychologists, All Other
First-Line Supervisors of Police and Detectives
Dentists, General
Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education
Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists
Education Administrators, Elementary and Secondary School
Podiatrists
Clinical, Counseling, and School Psychologists
Mental Health Counselors
Fabric and Apparel Patternmakers
Set and Exhibit Designers
Human Resources Managers
Recreation Workers
Training and Development Managers
Speech-Language Pathologists
Computer Systems Analysts
Social and Community Service Managers
Curators
Athletic Trainers
Medical and Health Services Managers
Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education
Farm and Home Management Advisors
Anthropologists and Archeologists

57

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

40.
41.

0.0077
0.0078

42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.

0.0081
0.0081
0.0085
0.0088
0.009
0.0094
0.0095
0.0095
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.013
0.013
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.019
0.02
0.021
0.021

Label

SOC

code

25-2054
25-2031
0

0

0

0
0

0

21-2011
19-1032
21-1012
25-2032
29-1111
21-1015
25-3999
19-4092
39-5091
17-2121
11-9033
17-2141
29-1051
13-1081
19-1022
19-3032
27-2022
11-2022
19-2043
11-2021
21-1013
17-2199
13-1151
43-1011
19-1029
11-2031
27-1014
15-1111
11-1011
11-9031
27-2041
51-1011
41-3031
19-1031
25-2053
17-2041
11-9041
17-2011
11-9121
17-2081
17-1011
31-2021
17-2051
29-1199
19-1013
19-2032

Occupation
Special Education Teachers, Secondary School
Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education
Clergy
Foresters
Educational, Guidance, School, and Vocational Counselors
Career/Technical Education Teachers, Secondary School
Registered Nurses
Rehabilitation Counselors
Teachers and Instructors, All Other
Forensic Science Technicians
Makeup Artists, Theatrical and Performance
Marine Engineers and Naval Architects
Education Administrators, Postsecondary
Mechanical Engineers
Pharmacists
Logisticians
Microbiologists
Industrial-Organizational Psychologists
Coaches and Scouts
Sales Managers
Hydrologists
Marketing Managers
Marriage and Family Therapists
Engineers, All Other
Training and Development Specialists
First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers
Biological Scientists, All Other
Public Relations and Fundraising Managers
Multimedia Artists and Animators
Computer and Information Research Scientists
Chief Executives
Education Administrators, Preschool and Childcare Center/Program
Music Directors and Composers
First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers
Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services Sales Agents
Conservation Scientists
Special Education Teachers, Middle School
Chemical Engineers
Architectural and Engineering Managers
Aerospace Engineers
Natural Sciences Managers
Environmental Engineers
Architects, Except Landscape and Naval
Physical Therapist Assistants
Civil Engineers
Health Diagnosing and Treating Practitioners, All Other
Soil and Plant Scientists
Materials Scientists

58

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

Label

88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.

0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.022
0.022
0.023
0.023
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.027
0.027
0.028
0.028
0.028

104.
105.

0.029
0.029

17-2112
53-1031

106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.

0.029
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.032
0.033
0.033
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.037
0.037
0.037
0.038
0.038
0.039
0.039
0.04
0.04
0.041
0.041
0.042
0.042
0.043
0.045
0.045

29-2056
11-3051
17-3026
15-1142
15-1141
11-3061
25-1000
19-2041
21-1011
23-1011
27-1012
15-2031
11-3021
27-1021
17-2031
13-1121
29-1131
27-3043
11-2011
19-3094
13-2071
19-3099
19-2011
53-5031
15-1132
27-1013
29-2053
17-1012
21-1091

0

0
0

0

0

SOC

code

17-2131
27-1022
29-1123
27-4021
27-2012
27-1025
29-1023
27-1011
33-1011
21-2021
17-2072
19-1021
29-1011
31-2011
21-1021
17-2111

Occupation
Materials Engineers
Fashion Designers
Physical Therapists
Photographers
Producers and Directors
Interior Designers
Orthodontists
Art Directors
First-Line Supervisors of Correctional Officers
Directors, Religious Activities and Education
Electronics Engineers, Except Computer
Biochemists and Biophysicists
Chiropractors
Occupational Therapy Assistants
Child, Family, and School Social Workers
Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining Safety Engineers and Inspectors
Industrial Engineers
First-Line Supervisors of Transportation and Material-Moving Machine
and Vehicle Operators
Veterinary Technologists and Technicians
Industrial Production Managers
Industrial Engineering Technicians
Network and Computer Systems Administrators
Database Administrators
Purchasing Managers
Postsecondary Teachers
Environmental Scientists and Specialists, Including Health
Substance Abuse and Behavioral Disorder Counselors
Lawyers
Craft Artists
Operations Research Analysts
Computer and Information Systems Managers
Commercial and Industrial Designers
Biomedical Engineers
Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners
Veterinarians
Writers and Authors
Advertising and Promotions Managers
Political Scientists
Credit Counselors
Social Scientists and Related Workers, All Other
Astronomers
Ship Engineers
Software Developers, Applications
Fine Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors, and Illustrators
Psychiatric Technicians
Landscape Architects
Health Educators

59

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.

0.047
0.047
0.047
0.048
0.049
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.057
0.058
0.059
0.06
0.061
0.064
0.066
0.066
0.067
0.069
0.07
0.071
0.074
0.075
0.076
0.077
0.08
0.08
0.082
0.083
0.084
0.085
0.091
0.097
0.098
0.099
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13

Label

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

SOC

code

15-2021
27-1023
11-9013
33-2022
29-2041
27-3041
29-1024
29-9799
39-7012
29-2061
19-3041
23-1022
19-1011
39-9041
53-1011
29-1126
27-3021
11-3031
17-2161
11-9021
27-2042
41-1012
39-1021
19-1012
13-1041
33-3031
27-1024
11-9051
39-9011
39-9031
11-9071
49-9051
33-3051
41-3041
35-1011
39-2011
27-3011
17-2071
19-2031
29-2054
19-2012
39-5012
27-3022
53-2021
27-2031
29-2033
15-1133
13-1111
29-2051

Occupation
Mathematicians
Floral Designers
Farmers, Ranchers, and Other Agricultural Managers
Forest Fire Inspectors and Prevention Specialists
Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics
Editors
Prosthodontists
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Workers, All Other
Travel Guides
Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses
Sociologists
Arbitrators, Mediators, and Conciliators
Animal Scientists
Residential Advisors
Aircraft Cargo Handling Supervisors
Respiratory Therapists
Broadcast News Analysts
Financial Managers
Nuclear Engineers
Construction Managers
Musicians and Singers
First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales Workers
First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service Workers
Food Scientists and Technologists
Compliance Officers
Fish and Game Wardens
Graphic Designers
Food Service Managers
Childcare Workers
Fitness Trainers and Aerobics Instructors
Gaming Managers
Electrical Power-Line Installers and Repairers
Police and Sheriff’s Patrol Officers
Travel Agents
Chefs and Head Cooks
Animal Trainers
Radio and Television Announcers
Electrical Engineers
Chemists
Respiratory Therapy Technicians
Physicists
Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists
Reporters and Correspondents
Air Traffic Controllers
Dancers
Nuclear Medicine Technologists
Software Developers, Systems Software
Management Analysts
Dietetic Technicians

60

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

Label

184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.

0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17

19-3051
21-1093
25-3021
27-4014
29-1041
17-2151
29-1071
25-2012
47-2111
17-2171
43-9031
11-1021
29-9011
33-2011
13-2061
47-1011
25-2022

201.
202.
203.
204.
205.

0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.19

27-3031
49-9092
49-9095
53-2011
25-3011

206.
207.
208.

0.2
0.2
0.21

19-1041
39-4831
15-1179

209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.
224.
225.
226.
227.

0.21
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25

15-2011
33-9011
39-6012
15-1799
15-2041
17-2061
19-3022
13-1199
13-2051
29-2037
29-2031
13-1011
17-3029
19-3092
29-9012
21-1092
17-3025
11-9199
53-3011

228.

0.25

0

SOC

code

41-4011

Occupation
Urban and Regional Planners
Social and Human Service Assistants
Self-Enrichment Education Teachers
Sound Engineering Technicians
Optometrists
Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers
Physician Assistants
Kindergarten Teachers, Except Special Education
Electricians
Petroleum Engineers
Desktop Publishers
General and Operations Managers
Occupational Health and Safety Specialists
Firefighters
Financial Examiners
First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers
Middle School Teachers, Except Special and Career/Technical Education
Public Relations Specialists
Commercial Divers
Manufactured Building and Mobile Home Installers
Airline Pilots, Copilots, and Flight Engineers
Adult Basic and Secondary Education and Literacy Teachers and Instructors
Epidemiologists
Funeral Service Managers, Directors, Morticians, and Undertakers
Information Security Analysts, Web Developers, and Computer Network Architects
Actuaries
Animal Control Workers
Concierges
Computer Occupations, All Other
Statisticians
Computer Hardware Engineers
Survey Researchers
Business Operations Specialists, All Other
Financial Analysts
Radiologic Technologists and Technicians
Cardiovascular Technologists and Technicians
Agents and Business Managers of Artists, Performers, and Athletes
Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters, All Other
Geographers
Occupational Health and Safety Technicians
Probation Officers and Correctional Treatment Specialists
Environmental Engineering Technicians
Managers, All Other
Ambulance Drivers and Attendants, Except Emergency Medical Technicians
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Technical and
Scientific Products

61

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

Label

229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.
250.
251.
252.
253.

0.26
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.29
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.33
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.36
0.36

254.

0.36

49-2022

255.
256.
257.
258.
259.
260.
261.

0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.38

51-9051
53-7061
39-4021
47-5081
27-2011
53-7111
49-2095

262.
263.
264.
265.
266.
267.
268.
269.
270.
271.
272.
273.
274.

0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.41

0

0

0
0

1

0

SOC

code

25-2023
53-5021
31-2012
49-9062
41-1011
27-2021
39-1011
39-5094
13-1022
19-4021
31-9092
19-1023
35-2013
13-1078
33-9021
27-4032
13-2099
33-3021
29-2055
29-1124
47-2152
53-2031
29-2032
33-3011
51-4012

17-1022
17-3027
53-7064
27-3091
31-1011
51-6093
47-4021
43-3041
25-9011
23-1023
49-3042
29-2799
45-2041

Occupation
Career/Technical Education Teachers, Middle School
Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water Vessels
Occupational Therapy Aides
Medical Equipment Repairers
First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers
Athletes and Sports Competitors
Gaming Supervisors
Skincare Specialists
Wholesale and Retail Buyers, Except Farm Products
Biological Technicians
Medical Assistants
Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists
Cooks, Private Household
Human Resources, Training, and Labor Relations Specialists, All Other
Private Detectives and Investigators
Film and Video Editors
Financial Specialists, All Other
Detectives and Criminal Investigators
Surgical Technologists
Radiation Therapists
Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters
Flight Attendants
Diagnostic Medical Sonographers
Bailiffs
Computer Numerically Controlled Machine Tool Programmers, Metal
and Plastic
Telecommunications Equipment Installers and Repairers, Except Line
Installers
Furnace, Kiln, Oven, Drier, and Kettle Operators and Tenders
Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment
Funeral Attendants
Helpers–Extraction Workers
Actors
Mine Shuttle Car Operators
Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Powerhouse, Substation, and Relay
Surveyors
Mechanical Engineering Technicians
Packers and Packagers, Hand
Interpreters and Translators
Home Health Aides
Upholsterers
Elevator Installers and Repairers
Gaming Cage Workers
Audio-Visual and Multimedia Collections Specialists
Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates
Mobile Heavy Equipment Mechanics, Except Engines
Health Technologists and Technicians, All Other
Graders and Sorters, Agricultural Products

62

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

Label

SOC

275.
276.
277.

0.41
0.41
0.41

1

51-2041
23-1012
49-2094

278.
279.

0.42
0.42

19-4093
53-1021

280.
281.
282.
283.
284.
285.
286.
287.
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
293.
294.
295.
296.
297.
298.
299.
300.
301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
306.
307.
308.
309.
310.
311.
312.
313.
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
319.
320.
321.

0.43
0.43
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.46
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.51
0.51
0.52
0.52
0.53
0.53
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.56
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57

39-3093
19-2099
19-3011
19-3093
51-9082
43-4031
13-1141
31-1013
29-2012
33-2021
17-3021
27-1026
47-5031
15-1131
33-9091
17-2021
47-5061
49-9052
43-5031
53-7033
49-9799
23-2091
41-9011
31-9091
51-6041
17-3011
47-5012
47-4041
39-4011
47-5041
39-1012
31-9011
41-3011
49-3022
53-2012
43-4051
27-4011
25-9041
45-1011
19-4031
47-3015
13-1051

0

1

code

Occupation
Structural Metal Fabricators and Fitters
Judicial Law Clerks
Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Commercial and Industrial Equipment
Forest and Conservation Technicians
First-Line Supervisors of Helpers, Laborers, and Material Movers,
Hand
Locker Room, Coatroom, and Dressing Room Attendants
Physical Scientists, All Other
Economists
Historians
Medical Appliance Technicians
Court, Municipal, and License Clerks
Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialists
Psychiatric Aides
Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technicians
Fire Inspectors and Investigators
Aerospace Engineering and Operations Technicians
Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers
Explosives Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and Blasters
Computer Programmers
Crossing Guards
Agricultural Engineers
Roof Bolters, Mining
Telecommunications Line Installers and Repairers
Police, Fire, and Ambulance Dispatchers
Loading Machine Operators, Underground Mining
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers, All Other
Court Reporters
Demonstrators and Product Promoters
Dental Assistants
Shoe and Leather Workers and Repairers
Architectural and Civil Drafters
Rotary Drill Operators, Oil and Gas
Hazardous Materials Removal Workers
Embalmers
Continuous Mining Machine Operators
Slot Supervisors
Massage Therapists
Advertising Sales Agents
Automotive Glass Installers and Repairers
Commercial Pilots
Customer Service Representatives
Audio and Video Equipment Technicians
Teacher Assistants
First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers
Chemical Technicians
Helpers–Pipelayers, Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters
Cost Estimators

63

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

Label

322.
323.

0.57
0.57

33-3052
37-1012

324.
325.
326.
327.
328.
329.
330.
331.
332.
333.
334.
335.
336.
337.
338.
339.
340.
341.
342.

0.58
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61

13-2052
49-9044
25-4013
47-5042
11-3071
49-3092
49-3023
33-3012
27-4031
51-3023
49-2096
31-2022
39-3092
13-1161
43-4181
51-8031
19-4099
51-3093
51-4122

343.
344.
345.
346.
347.
348.
349.
350.
351.
352.
353.
354.
355.
356.
357.
358.
359.
360.
361.
362.
363.
364.
365.
366.
367.
368.

0.62
0.62
0.62
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66

0

1

1

SOC

code

53-5022
47-2082
47-2151
19-2042
49-9012
31-9799
35-1012
47-4011
51-9031
49-9071
23-1021
43-5081
51-8012
47-2132
19-4061
51-4041
15-1150
25-4021
49-2097
49-9021
53-7041
37-2021
51-9198
43-9111
37-2011
49-3051

Occupation
Transit and Railroad Police
First-Line Supervisors of Landscaping, Lawn Service, and
Groundskeeping Workers
Personal Financial Advisors
Millwrights
Museum Technicians and Conservators
Mine Cutting and Channeling Machine Operators
Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers
Recreational Vehicle Service Technicians
Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics
Correctional Officers and Jailers
Camera Operators, Television, Video, and Motion Picture
Slaughterers and Meat Packers
Electronic Equipment Installers and Repairers, Motor Vehicles
Physical Therapist Aides
Costume Attendants
Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists
Reservation and Transportation Ticket Agents and Travel Clerks
Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant and System Operators
Life, Physical, and Social Science Technicians, All Other
Food Cooking Machine Operators and Tenders
Welding, Soldering, and Brazing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders
Motorboat Operators
Tapers
Pipelayers
Geoscientists, Except Hydrologists and Geographers
Control and Valve Installers and Repairers, Except Mechanical Door
Healthcare Support Workers, All Other
First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and Serving Workers
Construction and Building Inspectors
Cutters and Trimmers, Hand
Maintenance and Repair Workers, General
Administrative Law Judges, Adjudicators, and Hearing Officers
Stock Clerks and Order Fillers
Power Distributors and Dispatchers
Insulation Workers, Mechanical
Social Science Research Assistants
Machinists
Computer Support Specialists
Librarians
Electronic Home Entertainment Equipment Installers and Repairers
Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers
Hoist and Winch Operators
Pest Control Workers
Helpers–Production Workers
Statistical Assistants
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
Motorboat Mechanics and Service Technicians

64

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

369.
370.
371.
372.
373.

0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67

374.
375.
376.
377.
378.
379.
380.
381.
382.
383.
384.
385.
386.
387.
388.
389.
390.
391.
392.
393.
394.
395.
396.
397.
398.
399.
400.
401.
402.
403.
404.
405.
406.
407.
408.
409.
410.
411.
412.
413.
414.
415.
416.

0.67
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.76
0.76

Label

1

1
0

1

SOC

code

51-9196
51-4071
19-2021
53-3021
33-9092
49-9041
43-5052
47-5071
47-2011
17-3013
29-2021
53-3033
37-2012
51-9122
43-4061
49-3093
51-3092
49-2091
49-3011
53-2022
51-8093
47-4799
29-2081
51-6011
39-3091
31-9095
47-3016
53-7121
49-9031
47-2031
27-3012
51-6063
11-3011
47-2121
51-2021
49-3031
49-2011
39-9021
27-4012
47-3013
11-9131
47-2044
47-2141
53-6061
17-3022
49-3041
25-4011
51-9011

Occupation
Paper Goods Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders
Foundry Mold and Coremakers
Atmospheric and Space Scientists
Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity
Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other Recreational Protective Service Workers
Industrial Machinery Mechanics
Postal Service Mail Carriers
Roustabouts, Oil and Gas
Boilermakers
Mechanical Drafters
Dental Hygienists
Light Truck or Delivery Services Drivers
Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
Painters, Transportation Equipment
Eligibility Interviewers, Government Programs
Tire Repairers and Changers
Food Batchmakers
Avionics Technicians
Aircraft Mechanics and Service Technicians
Airfield Operations Specialists
Petroleum Pump System Operators, Refinery Operators, and Gaugers
Construction and Related Workers, All Other
Opticians, Dispensing
Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers
Amusement and Recreation Attendants
Pharmacy Aides
Helpers–Roofers
Tank Car, Truck, and Ship Loaders
Home Appliance Repairers
Carpenters
Public Address System and Other Announcers
Textile Knitting and Weaving Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders
Administrative Services Managers
Glaziers
Coil Winders, Tapers, and Finishers
Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists
Computer, Automated Teller, and Office Machine Repairers
Personal Care Aides
Broadcast Technicians
Helpers–Electricians
Postmasters and Mail Superintendents
Tile and Marble Setters
Painters, Construction and Maintenance
Transportation Attendants, Except Flight Attendants
Civil Engineering Technicians
Farm Equipment Mechanics and Service Technicians
Archivists
Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders

65

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

Label

417.
418.
419.
420.
421.
422.
423.
424.
425.
426.
427.

0.76
0.76
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.78
0.78

428.
429.
430.

0.78
0.78
0.79

43-9011
51-8092
43-5053

431.
432.
433.
434.
435.
436.
437.
438.
439.
440.
441.
442.
443.
444.
445.

0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.8
0.8
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81

53-3032
39-5093
47-2081
49-9098
49-3052
51-2011
45-4022
47-2042
39-5011
47-5011
35-2011
43-9022
17-3012
17-3024
51-9192

446.
447.
448.
449.
450.
451.
452.
453.
454.
455.
456.
457.
458.
459.
460.
461.
462.

0.81
0.81
0.81
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83

1
0

1
1

1

SOC

code

49-2092
45-4021
19-4091
49-9094
37-3013
35-3011
13-1023
35-9021
45-3021
31-9093
51-4031

11-9141
43-6013
51-6021
51-2031
49-2098
49-9045
39-2021
47-2211
47-2072
47-2021
45-3011
47-2221
53-4021
53-4031
35-2012
53-5011
51-9023

Occupation
Electric Motor, Power Tool, and Related Repairers
Fallers
Environmental Science and Protection Technicians, Including Health
Locksmiths and Safe Repairers
Tree Trimmers and Pruners
Bartenders
Purchasing Agents, Except Wholesale, Retail, and Farm Products
Dishwashers
Hunters and Trappers
Medical Equipment Preparers
Cutting, Punching, and Press Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic
Computer Operators
Gas Plant Operators
Postal Service Mail Sorters, Processors, and Processing Machine Operators
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers
Shampooers
Drywall and Ceiling Tile Installers
Helpers–Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers
Motorcycle Mechanics
Aircraft Structure, Surfaces, Rigging, and Systems Assemblers
Logging Equipment Operators
Floor Layers, Except Carpet, Wood, and Hard Tiles
Barbers
Derrick Operators, Oil and Gas
Cooks, Fast Food
Word Processors and Typists
Electrical and Electronics Drafters
Electro-Mechanical Technicians
Cleaning, Washing, and Metal Pickling Equipment Operators and Tenders
Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers
Medical Secretaries
Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related Materials
Engine and Other Machine Assemblers
Security and Fire Alarm Systems Installers
Refractory Materials Repairers, Except Brickmasons
Nonfarm Animal Caretakers
Sheet Metal Workers
Pile-Driver Operators
Brickmasons and Blockmasons
Fishers and Related Fishing Workers
Structural Iron and Steel Workers
Railroad Brake, Signal, and Switch Operators
Railroad Conductors and Yardmasters
Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria
Sailors and Marine Oilers
Mixing and Blending Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders

66

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

Label

463.

0.83

47-3011

464.
465.
466.
467.
468.
469.
470.
471.
472.
473.
474.
475.
476.
477.

0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84

47-4091
47-2131
51-5112
53-6031
47-4071
39-6011
41-2012
51-4023
47-2071
51-4111
17-3023
47-2161
51-4192
51-4034

478.
479.
480.
481.
482.
483.
484.

0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.85
0.85

33-9032
51-6052
53-7073
43-9081
33-3041
53-7062
41-4012

485.
486.
487.
488.
489.
490.
491.
492.
493.
494.
495.
496.
497.
498.
499.
500.
501.
502.
503.
504.
505.
506.
507.
508.

0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87

1

1

SOC

code

43-5041
51-8013
51-8091
47-5021
19-4051
43-6011
51-8099
35-3041
51-7041
53-4041
31-9096
51-9032
41-9022
51-4011
49-9043
43-4021
45-2090
45-4011
51-4052
47-2041
47-2142
13-1021
51-7021
35-2021

Occupation
Helpers–Brickmasons, Blockmasons, Stonemasons, and Tile and Marble Setters
Segmental Pavers
Insulation Workers, Floor, Ceiling, and Wall
Printing Press Operators
Automotive and Watercraft Service Attendants
Septic Tank Servicers and Sewer Pipe Cleaners
Baggage Porters and Bellhops
Gaming Change Persons and Booth Cashiers
Rolling Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic
Paving, Surfacing, and Tamping Equipment Operators
Tool and Die Makers
Electrical and Electronics Engineering Technicians
Plasterers and Stucco Masons
Layout Workers, Metal and Plastic
Lathe and Turning Machine Tool Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal
and Plastic
Security Guards
Tailors, Dressmakers, and Custom Sewers
Wellhead Pumpers
Proofreaders and Copy Markers
Parking Enforcement Workers
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Except Technical
and Scientific Products
Meter Readers, Utilities
Power Plant Operators
Chemical Plant and System Operators
Earth Drillers, Except Oil and Gas
Nuclear Technicians
Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants
Plant and System Operators, All Other
Food Servers, Nonrestaurant
Sawing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Wood
Subway and Streetcar Operators
Veterinary Assistants and Laboratory Animal Caretakers
Cutting and Slicing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders
Real Estate Sales Agents
Computer-Controlled Machine Tool Operators, Metal and Plastic
Maintenance Workers, Machinery
Correspondence Clerks
Miscellaneous Agricultural Workers
Forest and Conservation Workers
Pourers and Casters, Metal
Carpet Installers
Paperhangers
Buyers and Purchasing Agents, Farm Products
Furniture Finishers
Food Preparation Workers

67

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

Label

509.
510.
511.
512.
513.
514.
515.
516.
517.

0.87
0.87
0.87
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88

518.

0.88

51-6091

519.
520.
521.
522.
523.
524.
525.
526.
527.
528.
529.
530.
531.
532.
533.
534.
535.
536.
537.
538.
539.
540.
541.
542.
543.
544.
545.
546.
547.
548.

0.88
0.88
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91

47-2053
51-4194
49-3043
51-3011
31-9094
47-2022
53-3022
27-3042
49-9096
47-4061
51-8021
51-6031
53-3041
43-4161
29-2011
47-2171
47-2181
53-7021
53-6041
53-6051
51-4062
51-9195
13-2021
53-7072
49-9097
39-3012
49-9063
39-7011
49-9011
51-3091

549.
550.
551.

0.91
0.91
0.91

53-7071
29-2071
51-9121

552.

0.91

51-4081

1

1

1

1
1
1

SOC

code

47-2043
53-6021
47-4051
47-2061
43-5061
51-9141
17-1021
51-4051
51-9012

Occupation
Floor Sanders and Finishers
Parking Lot Attendants
Highway Maintenance Workers
Construction Laborers
Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks
Semiconductor Processors
Cartographers and Photogrammetrists
Metal-Refining Furnace Operators and Tenders
Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, Precipitating, and Still Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders
Extruding and Forming Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Synthetic and Glass Fibers
Terrazzo Workers and Finishers
Tool Grinders, Filers, and Sharpeners
Rail Car Repairers
Bakers
Medical Transcriptionists
Stonemasons
Bus Drivers, School or Special Client
Technical Writers
Riggers
Rail-Track Laying and Maintenance Equipment Operators
Stationary Engineers and Boiler Operators
Sewing Machine Operators
Taxi Drivers and Chauffeurs
Human Resources Assistants, Except Payroll and Timekeeping
Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technologists
Reinforcing Iron and Rebar Workers
Roofers
Crane and Tower Operators
Traffic Technicians
Transportation Inspectors
Patternmakers, Metal and Plastic
Molders, Shapers, and Casters, Except Metal and Plastic
Appraisers and Assessors of Real Estate
Pump Operators, Except Wellhead Pumpers
Signal and Track Switch Repairers
Gaming and Sports Book Writers and Runners
Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners
Tour Guides and Escorts
Mechanical Door Repairers
Food and Tobacco Roasting, Baking, and Drying Machine Operators
and Tenders
Gas Compressor and Gas Pumping Station Operators
Medical Records and Health Information Technicians
Coating, Painting, and Spraying Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders
Multiple Machine Tool Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic

68

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

Label

553.
554.

0.91
0.91

53-4013
49-2093

555.
556.

0.91
0.91

35-9011
51-4191

557.
558.
559.
560.

0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91

19-4041
49-3021
51-7032
51-4021

561.
562.
563.
564.
565.
566.
567.
568.
569.

0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92

43-9071
29-2052
43-4131
53-7031
41-3021
51-7011
51-9123
47-4031
51-4193

570.
571.
572.
573.
574.
575.
576.
577.
578.
579.
580.
581.
582.
583.
584.

0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93

41-2031
35-3021
51-9399
47-3012
51-9193
51-2091
47-5013
53-7011
49-3053
53-4012
53-7063
51-4061
49-2021
51-3021
51-9041

585.
586.
587.
588.
589.
590.

0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.94

591.
592.
593.
594.
595.

0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94

1
1
1

0

SOC

code

53-7081
13-2081
51-4022
53-7051
13-2011
51-4032
43-9051
35-3031
51-3022
13-2031
47-2051

Occupation
Rail Yard Engineers, Dinkey Operators, and Hostlers
Electrical and Electronics Installers and Repairers, Transportation
Equipment
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers
Heat Treating Equipment Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and
Plastic
Geological and Petroleum Technicians
Automotive Body and Related Repairers
Patternmakers, Wood
Extruding and Drawing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal
and Plastic
Office Machine Operators, Except Computer
Pharmacy Technicians
Loan Interviewers and Clerks
Dredge Operators
Insurance Sales Agents
Cabinetmakers and Bench Carpenters
Painting, Coating, and Decorating Workers
Fence Erectors
Plating and Coating Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal
and Plastic
Retail Salespersons
Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food
Production Workers, All Other
Helpers–Carpenters
Cooling and Freezing Equipment Operators and Tenders
Fiberglass Laminators and Fabricators
Service Unit Operators, Oil, Gas, and Mining
Conveyor Operators and Tenders
Outdoor Power Equipment and Other Small Engine Mechanics
Locomotive Firers
Machine Feeders and Offbearers
Model Makers, Metal and Plastic
Radio, Cellular, and Tower Equipment Installers and Repairs
Butchers and Meat Cutters
Extruding, Forming, Pressing, and Compacting Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders
Refuse and Recyclable Material Collectors
Tax Examiners and Collectors, and Revenue Agents
Forging Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic
Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators
Accountants and Auditors
Drilling and Boring Machine Tool Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic
Mail Clerks and Mail Machine Operators, Except Postal Service
Waiters and Waitresses
Meat, Poultry, and Fish Cutters and Trimmers
Budget Analysts
Cement Masons and Concrete Finishers

69

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

596.
597.
598.
599.
600.
601.
602.
603.
604.
605.
606.

0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94

607.
608.
609.
610.
611.
612.
613.
614.
615.
616.
617.
618.
619.
620.

0.94
0.94
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95

621.
622.
623.
624.

0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95

625.
626.
627.
628.
629.
630.
631.
632.
633.
634.

0.95
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96

635.
636.
637.

0.96
0.96
0.96

638.
639.

0.96
0.96

Label

1

1

1

1

SOC

code

49-3091
49-9091
51-4121
43-5021
43-4111
35-2015
53-7032
47-3014
43-4081
51-9197
41-9091
37-1011
45-2011
23-2011
39-5092
43-5111
51-6062
43-3011
51-8011
33-9031
43-4121
47-2073
51-5113
45-2021
51-4072
51-2022
51-9191
37-3011
51-4033
43-5051
51-9071
43-5032
43-4171
43-9061
11-3111
43-2011
35-3022
47-5051
43-6014
17-3031
51-7031
51-6064

1

53-4011
39-3011

Occupation
Bicycle Repairers
Coin, Vending, and Amusement Machine Servicers and Repairers
Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers
Couriers and Messengers
Interviewers, Except Eligibility and Loan
Cooks, Short Order
Excavating and Loading Machine and Dragline Operators
Helpers–Painters, Paperhangers, Plasterers, and Stucco Masons
Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerks
Tire Builders
Door-to-Door Sales Workers, News and Street Vendors, and Related
Workers
First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers
Agricultural Inspectors
Paralegals and Legal Assistants
Manicurists and Pedicurists
Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers, Recordkeeping
Textile Cutting Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders
Bill and Account Collectors
Nuclear Power Reactor Operators
Gaming Surveillance Officers and Gaming Investigators
Library Assistants, Clerical
Operating Engineers and Other Construction Equipment Operators
Print Binding and Finishing Workers
Animal Breeders
Molding, Coremaking, and Casting Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Metal and Plastic
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Assemblers
Adhesive Bonding Machine Operators and Tenders
Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers
Grinding, Lapping, Polishing, and Buffing Machine Tool Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic
Postal Service Clerks
Jewelers and Precious Stone and Metal Workers
Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance
Receptionists and Information Clerks
Office Clerks, General
Compensation and Benefits Managers
Switchboard Operators, Including Answering Service
Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, and Coffee Shop
Rock Splitters, Quarry
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and
Executive
Surveying and Mapping Technicians
Model Makers, Wood
Textile Winding, Twisting, and Drawing Out Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders
Locomotive Engineers
Gaming Dealers

70

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

640.
641.
642.
643.
644.
645.
646.
647.
648.
649.
650.
651.
652.

0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97

653.
654.
655.
656.
657.
658.
659.
660.
661.
662.
663.
664.
665.
666.
667.
668.
669.
670.
671.
672.
673.
674.
675.
676.
677.
678.

0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98

679.
680.
681.
682.
683.
684.
685.
686.

0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98

Label

1

1

1

1

1
1

1

SOC

code

49-9093
35-2014
39-3031
43-3021
53-6011
51-7042
51-2092
51-6042
51-2023
13-1074
51-6061
51-9081
51-9021
51-9022
37-3012
45-4023
51-9083
41-2011
49-9061
39-3021
51-5111
41-2021
43-4071
41-9021
43-2021
19-4011
43-3051
43-4041
35-9031
41-9012
51-9061
43-3031
43-6012
27-4013
53-3031
13-1031
41-2022
13-2041
51-4035
43-5071
43-3061
51-9111
51-9194
43-3071
27-2023
13-1032
13-2072

Occupation
Fabric Menders, Except Garment
Cooks, Restaurant
Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers
Billing and Posting Clerks
Bridge and Lock Tenders
Woodworking Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Except Sawing
Team Assemblers
Shoe Machine Operators and Tenders
Electromechanical Equipment Assemblers
Farm Labor Contractors
Textile Bleaching and Dyeing Machine Operators and Tenders
Dental Laboratory Technicians
Crushing, Grinding, and Polishing Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders
Grinding and Polishing Workers, Hand
Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators, Vegetation
Log Graders and Scalers
Ophthalmic Laboratory Technicians
Cashiers
Camera and Photographic Equipment Repairers
Motion Picture Projectionists
Prepress Technicians and Workers
Counter and Rental Clerks
File Clerks
Real Estate Brokers
Telephone Operators
Agricultural and Food Science Technicians
Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks
Credit Authorizers, Checkers, and Clerks
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee Shop
Models
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers
Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks
Legal Secretaries
Radio Operators
Driver/Sales Workers
Claims Adjusters, Examiners, and Investigators
Parts Salespersons
Credit Analysts
Milling and Planing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal
and Plastic
Shipping, Receiving, and Traffic Clerks
Procurement Clerks
Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and Tenders
Etchers and Engravers
Tellers
Umpires, Referees, and Other Sports Officials
Insurance Appraisers, Auto Damage
Loan Officers

71

Computerisable
Rank

Probability

687.
688.
689.
690.
691.
692.
693.
694.
695.
696.
697.
698.
699.
700.
701.
702.

0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99

Label

1

1

SOC

code

43-4151
43-4011
43-9041
51-2093
43-9021
25-4031
43-4141
51-9151
13-2082
43-5011
49-9064
13-2053
15-2091
51-6051
23-2093
41-9041

Occupation
Order Clerks
Brokerage Clerks
Insurance Claims and Policy Processing Clerks
Timing Device Assemblers and Adjusters
Data Entry Keyers
Library Technicians
New Accounts Clerks
Photographic Process Workers and Processing Machine Operators
Tax Preparers
Cargo and Freight Agents
Watch Repairers
Insurance Underwriters
Mathematical Technicians
Sewers, Hand
Title Examiners, Abstractors, and Searchers
Telemarketers

72