I came across an interesting tool, recently developed, that predicts the risk of a particular job classification being done by robots. This only considers factors in the job duties. If your employer is determined to bring in robots, this tool has no connection to that scenario.
I’ll pull the bandaid off quickly. Physicists as the safest from automation, while meatpackers and slaughterhouse workers have the most at-risk jobs.
Years ago, when robots started to do repetitive work, I thought the list of jobs at risk was negligible.
Big-scale manufacturing was prominent. Cars are an obvious example.
Gradually, the various automated tasks to build a car moved from just shaping sheets of mental to close to 100% of the build. I was watching a fly-through via drone of a Tesla manufacturing site. There were hardly any people at the assembly functions.
I remember reading about automating the grocery store checkout years before they appeared in stores. Now it’s mainstream. It works most of the time, even knowing I put the lightest bags on the scale before it was ready.
Distribution centres such as the ones Amazon has are so automated. YouTube shows pictures of multiple football field-sized buildings with robots racing about – not a person in sight.
I’m trying to unstick myself. I now realize that anything will benefit from robot involvement, even if it is only a portion of the whole process.
Microsoft, which owns LinkedIn (think digital database of business cards), has automated some functions in its sales department. This time it isn’t robots, specifically, but Artificial Intelligence (AI).
For a layperson like myself and this blog’s purposes, they represent similar threats to the available employment pool. Microsoft’s AI figures out ahead of time which account members are likely not to renew, might be interested in upgrading, etc. All this used to be done by salespeople. Eventually, Microsoft won’t need as many. Each salesperson will be able to attend to the needs of many more account members.
On a scale of 0-100, with 0 being no risk of robotization and 100 being almost certainty, physicists were rated 43 while meatpackers scored 78. This was based on 967 jobs that were studied. Physicists came first, and meatpackers came 967th. That’s first and last place taken care of.
Here are a few more markers to help you with your bit of a think; models were 927, singers were 633, actors were 480, film directors were 257, barbers were 869, and bartenders at 722.
I tried not to jump all over those ratings but cautiously stepped back. I’ve been blindsided too many times in the past.
Please give this a bit of a think. Pick one of the jobs you held or are now employed in. Where would you rate id on the 100-point scale? Now rethink that rating and try to think of ways it could be automated. Did that change your score? If you are in the workforce, this can be a scary thing to do.
I’m curious about your thoughts. Please share your bit of a think below.
If you enjoyed The Blog, please share it with others. Thanks.
And my thanks to St. Albert Seniors Association: 780-459-0433 for making this Blog possible.