Executive Summary

“I know technology is changing our world. But people can’t be left behind.” – Legal assistant, 65

The meaning of work is profoundly personal, and deeply felt. When work changes, it is not only jobs that are disrupted. So too are the lives of the people who hold those jobs and the families they support. In recent decades, economic shifts have eroded the stability, financial security and power of many American workers. While fears of a robot apocalypse and mass unemployment are overblown, artificial intelligence and automation can exacerbate the inequality and instability many workers already experience. Technological change will disproportionately affect those who are already struggling to secure a stable foothold in the economy.¹ Without concerted effort to redesign the rules of the game, most workers will continue to be excluded from prosperity.

Narratives around the future of work often center on the risks to workers in male-dominated and machine-heavy professions like truck driving and manufacturing. But our research² and other recent publications³ suggest that substantive changes are ahead for sectors like food service, retail, and clerical work and have the potential to disproportionately impact women and African American and Hispanic workers.⁴ We went directly to a diverse group of workers who are at the forefront of change, but who are all too often absent from these discussions. We asked them about their lives, their experiences with their jobs and their dreams and fears for themselves and for a technology-altered future in general. Here are our main findings:

The present of work impacts workers’ future. Low pay and economic insecurity sharply limit workers’ ability to prepare for—and access—a better future of work. The layering of burdens on workers through low wages, debt, expensive cost of living, and lack of savings create daunting headwinds for many frontline workers in fast food, grocery, and retail. Many struggle for hours, benefits, and decent pay, and feel their job quality has worsened over time. While technological change is not the direct cause of workers’ precarity, it can add insult to injury. Automation and the adoption of new workplace technologies can exacerbate financial insecurity when jobs change, wages or hours are suppressed, or when workers are displaced altogether. Economic insecurity also limits workers’ resilience to technology changes by undermining their ability to weather a job transition, pay for training or schooling, and move into better paying—and less automatable—work. If workers cannot afford to make ends meet today, they will be ill-equipped to prepare for tomorrow. Raising income, reducing inequality and improving the economic security of workers is key to enabling a better future of work for those at greatest risk of change.

Technological change is at odds with workers’ overwhelming desire for stability. An inadequate social safety net and benefit system makes job disruption worse. More than anything else, workers expressed a desire for stability—and especially benefits—from their job. Most workers, especially older workers, did not want any change at all. This consistent desire of workers for stability is at odds with the changes and instability that technological change will unleash. Artificial intelligence and automation will alter the organization and nature of work, the demand for skills, the tasks involved in existing and new occupations, and the requirements for a good living. Some workers will need to adapt to new job activities and new technologies on the job, while others might need to develop entirely new skills—or change jobs altogether. The workers who will experience these changes will be even more vulnerable to instability because of the connection between employment and benefits and the limitations of the social safety net. The current system of employer-provided benefits and the broader safety net system requires a major overhaul to better meet the needs of low-wage and middle-skilled workers at risk of automation and technological change.

The jobs of the future need to be good jobs. A surprising number of administrative and clerical workers whom we interviewed previously worked in fast-growing care and other “pink-collar” jobs like social work and education, which failed to provide them with the stability and benefits they desired. These workers described finding satisfaction in better quality and more stable clerical and administrative jobs, which are projected to shrink by several hundred thousand positions in the next 10 years alone. In comparison, the care jobs that will grow fastest over the next decade are much lower quality with poor pay, poor working conditions, and less stability. To ensure a better future for workers, and especially for women and workers of color, it is imperative that policymakers prioritize making the fast-growing jobs of the future good jobs.

Technology is already changing jobs and workplaces. Many fast food, grocery and retail workers feel it is change for the worse. Food, retail, and grocery workers have witnessed rapid change in recent years, especially in the front end of their stores. Workers described the recent introduction of a range of technology-enabled innovations, including self-order kiosks, Uber Eats, mobile payment, store apps, curbside pickup, grocery delivery, online shopping, self-checkout lanes, and new scanning technologies. Interviewees expressed sharply negative views about technology like self-checkout, which they view as displacing jobs and contributing to their struggle to secure hours and benefits. Clerical and administrative workers described day-to-day use of software and other workplace technology that is evolving at a more measured pace, and is often accompanied by on-the-job training.

Many workers feel they lack a voice in their employers’ decisions about technology and the quality of their jobs. Often, workers felt that the future of work is happening to them. When decisions are made about technology adoption at work, many workers felt they have little agency or voice in their own future, though workers in unions felt somewhat more empowered to push back against automation that jeopardized jobs. Several workers said they wished their employers would walk in their shoes and better understand what they experience and the unique human skills they bring to the job. Many low-wage workers employed in fast food restaurants and retail outlets lamented their lack of union membership and their weakened ability to advocate for the stability and security they desire. For a better future, workers need greater power in the workplace and more voice in the decisions that impact them.

Many workers are pessimistic about the future for humans in their workplace, fearing their employers view them as a cost they will cut through automation. Nearly every food, grocery, and retail worker predicted a significant increase in technology in the future and a decline in the number of people working in their stores. Some even imagined a future with few—or no—humans working in front-end positions like cashier and fast food server jobs. Many feel that their employers are focused only on maximizing profits and shareholder value. Several workers described feeling like a cost that their employers are trying to cut, pointing to cuts to benefits and hours. Others were skeptical that technology could replace some or all of their jobs, especially those that rely heavily on customer service skills. Clerical and administrative workers envisioned a future with more technology in their jobs, but either a modest impact or no impact on the number of workers. Some predicted that technology will make workers more efficient and quicker but not scarcer, while others imagined that technology will result in fewer administrative workers hired in the future. Several workers doubted the ability of robots and technology to perform core job duties that entail empathy, human connection, and communication.

Women face many barriers. Many women describe working a “second shift” at home, spending much of their non-work time cleaning, cooking, and looking after children and the elderly. Women workers often cited lack of support with these domestic responsibilities, stress, and lack of resources, flexibility and respect from management at work as reasons they were unable to go back to school or accept a promotion. Women were more likely to reject job changes, promotions, or management opportunities that decreased their control or increased work demands on their time, a precious commodity in their lives. Unless policymakers address the structural constraints faced by a large percentage of women in our study, women risk falling behind.

Workers struggle to acquire the skills, degrees and training they desire. College degrees remained elusive for most young workers. For nearly a dozen workers in our study, a range of obstacles and setbacks disrupted their studies. Many faced even greater hurdles going back to school while also working full time, paying off debt, and—for some—juggling care responsibilities. Most mid-career and older workers want opportunities to learn new skills quickly and on the job—rarely do they want to go back to school for a degree. Instead, they expressed an interest in learning opportunities suited to their time and resource constraints, including on-the-job training, employer-provided skill development, professional credentials, short courses, and apprenticeships. Most workers in our study did not want online education.

Career transitions are far too difficult and out of reach for most busy working adults. Far from plotting second careers as coders or nurses, most mid-career and older workers we interviewed were occupied with the present demands of work, life, and family. Often, they preferred stability or new opportunities in their existing workplace. If forced to find new work, they would mostly seek similar roles or roles that used their current (and often automatable) skills. Currently, the workforce development system is fragmented, underfunded, and ill-suited to the needs of the workers in our study and the challenges of technological change. Policymakers should take a human-centered approach to make the workforce development system and the existing infrastructure of America’s job centers more user-friendly, better quality, and more responsive to the needs and preferences of workers.

For many workers, the future is already here.

For many workers, the future is already here. Advancing technological change is not occurring in a vacuum, but rather in a time of increasing economic precarity and inequality; unequal care and domestic burdens; and the rootedness, responsibilities, and stories of workers’ lives. Workers are thinking about, and responding to the possibilities of a technologically enabled and dehumanized future in the context of their current situations. Policymakers will improve the odds of building effective programs by paying attention to the wider human context and by addressing the needs of a greater diversity of workers who will shoulder the greatest burden of the change.

Read more about our conclusions and our recommendations for a human-centered future of work agenda here.