Conclusion and a Human-Centered Agenda for the Future of Work

Our research shows that automation is not an abstract concept. For many workers, the future is already here. Most workers already saw technology changes all around them and often they perceived these changes at work as contributing to their struggle for hours, stability, and benefits, which were their main worries. Many expressed concern about what might lie ahead.

The following eight recommendations comprise our suggestions for a human-centered agenda for a future of work that better meets the needs of workers.

A future of work agenda must include a greater diversity of workers

A policy agenda to prepare workers for the future needs to reflect the diversity of those who will shoulder the greatest burden of the changes. Currently, the focus of most media coverage and policy discussion is on a narrow demographic of mainly white men, often in blue-collar jobs like manufacturing and truck driving. Yet technological changes will have a profound impact on women—perhaps even more than men—and will disproportionately impact African American and Hispanic workers. We set out to capture the stories and voices of workers who reflect the true diversity of the workforce that will be impacted by the shifting nature of work. We spoke with workers across a wide age spectrum, in different locations, and with varied demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. More than half of the workers we interviewed were Hispanic or African American and nearly three-quarters were women. We urge policymakers, thought leaders, and the media to incorporate the articulated needs of these groups in their thinking, storytelling, and policymaking, and to consider the ideas and recommendations that follow.

Worker power, corporate governance, and employer decision-making must be part of the agenda

In future of work discussions, experts and technocrats often discuss automation as though technology were an unstoppable force in the workplace. They depict automation as an inevitable wave of change that will seep into workplaces and, in many cases, leave workers to manage the fallout. In this narrative, it is the workers who shoulder the responsibility to adapt. Rarely do future of work discussions depict corporations as central actor in this narrative, making decisions that impact workers’ lives and bearing responsibility for their choices.

In talking with the workers who are at the forefront of these changes, we heard a different story altogether. Frontline workers in retail, fast food, and grocery repeatedly raised the issue of corporate governance and decision-making when they described technological change in their workplace. Many workers see automation as an extension of their employers’ overwhelming focus on short-term profits, at the expense of workers like them. Workers with long tenures at grocery stores and retail chains described a deterioration of their employers’ values over time, as companies have put ever-greater emphasis on shareholder value and their bottom line while eroding the benefits, opportunities, and stability these jobs provide their workers. The workers we spoke with had a nuanced view of technology: employers can adopt technology that helps them do their jobs, or makes their jobs harder, or that replaces them altogether. Ultimately, how technology impacts workers depends critically on the choices made by employers and the incentives to which they respond.

Meanwhile, workers felt that they lack a say in decisions that impact them at work. Often, they feel that the future of work is happening to them. When decisions are made about technology adoption at work, many workers feel 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, including through union representation—but also through greater respect from employers, and through non-profit, worker-serving organizations and other opportunities to coordinate energy and action. In a country where the social safety net is firmly attached to jobs and the dignity of work, employers need to provide sufficient compensation and benefits to give workers the basic stability they need to position themselves for the future and meet their needs today. Workers in our study made clear that unions matter. Several non-union fast food and retail workers expressed a desire for union membership, which they feel would help them secure better compensation, protection, and benefits like health insurance and paid time off.

The fast-growing care jobs of the future need to be good jobs, or many more workers will fall behind

For workers, job quality is a bigger priority for the foreseeable future than overall job quantity. Overwhelmingly, the workers we interviewed desire good-quality jobs with benefits, stability, decent pay, and respect. When previous jobs lacked these qualities, many workers in our study left them, even when they provided emotional fulfillment. This is especially true for those who previously worked in care and other “pink-collar” jobs, who left these (often fast-growing and less automatable, but poorly paid, unstable, and physically and emotionally demanding) positions to seek the benefits and stability they desire in administrative and clerical jobs, as well as some food and retail jobs.

Unless policymakers do more to ensure higher job quality, more workers will likely be moving in the other direction in the future—from higher job quality to lower-quality jobs, or from one low-quality job to another. Looking ahead to the next few years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts a significant reduction in the number of administrative and clerical work jobs, which many workers in our study rated favorably. By 2028, BLS projects hundreds of thousands fewer jobs like secretaries and administrative assistants; legal secretaries; and bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks. Longer-term estimates of the automation potential of these jobs suggest even more scope for job displacement in the decades ahead. As the number of middle-skilled and middle-paying jobs decline in the years ahead, other jobs like home health aides and personal care aides are projected to grow at an even faster pace.

Despite their growth in number, care jobs rank very poorly on the characteristics that the workers in our study consider most important for job quality. Care jobs offer low pay, little scheduling control, and poor working conditions. Fewer than half provide employer-provided benefits like health insurance and pension plans. Often, the work is physically and emotionally demanding, with the specter of injury and often unsafe working conditions compromising the health and security of the workers.

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. There are clear steps they can enact that will improve the quality of these jobs, such as raising wages, improving working conditions and safety, and enhancing opportunities for upward mobility and training. It is not enough to move workers out of these jobs. With an aging populace we will continue to need people to fulfill these care roles and we must make these jobs better. Much greater political will is needed for policymakers to prioritize the needs of a workforce that is disproportionately comprised of Black and Latina women, who are far less visible in future of work discussions and policymaking processes than white male workers.

Reimagine safety nets and improve benefits for workers

As healthcare costs continue to increase and access to employer-provided benefits remains uneven, health insurance is top of mind for most workers. Most workers built their safety net for their families around employer-provided benefits, and especially health insurance—making them even more vulnerable to instability if their job changes. Our interviewees described how health insurance is a major factor in their career mobility and decisions, their job satisfaction and in their ability to pursue studies because it insulates them from the financial shocks of major medical bills and helps them maintain a baseline level of health. Many workers felt locked into jobs due to their reliance on the health insurance provided by their employers, even when more rewarding opportunities existed. Several young workers nurtured dreams of other careers but could not afford to lose their health insurance if they left their jobs to study. Meanwhile, workers in more precarious positions without health insurance lacked the stability they needed to be able to invest in and plan for the future and suffered economic hardships and job loss when they became ill. In the near term, employers should enhance the stabiliity of workers by expanding access to health insurance. Policymakers need to rethink and improve the safety net system overall and the connection between benefits and jobs.

Help women address unique obstacles in adapting to the future of work

In this study, we found that women are not only at high risk of automation, but they also face barriers to adjusting. Yet too often, future of work discussions remain overwhelmingly focused on the needs and concerns of male workers. Our interviews highlighted why it is important for policymakers to ensure that the needs and preferences of women are central to policy development. The themes that emerged in our interviews with women in retail, fast food, grocery and clerical jobs suggest that they experience challenges that impact their career mobility and resilience to changes. Many women described domestic responsibilities and care burdens that created what is essentially a second shift at home. These responsibilities leave many women with limited time and ability to invest in skill development or education outside of their job. They also constrain their availability for work and ability to accept promotions and new roles that offer greater earnings and reduce their exposure to automation risk. Unless policymakers address the constraints faced by a large percentage of women in our study, women risk falling behind. Policies that help families find and afford high-quality child care—more costly than average in-state university tuition—at times and locations that support those with 9 to 5 jobs and those with non-traditional hours or unstable schedules, would be a good start.

Higher education must better serve young workers

Most young workers in our study have big dreams of rewarding careers in jobs that provide a decent, stable living. Many of these sought-after jobs are also relatively safe from the risk of automation. They aspire to careers in fast-growing sectors like healthcare, or jobs like graphic designer and mortician. More often than not, however, their efforts to earn the degrees or certifications required for these dream careers are met with disappointment. During their stints at two- and four-year colleges, many encountered a range of obstacles that ultimately put an early end to their studies. The challenges they met included for-profit college and financial aid failures, economic struggles, difficulty juggling full-time work and study, lack of structure and human contact in online classes, unclear academic direction, and mental health struggles. The debt accumulated along the way further contributes to their economic insecurity and makes it even harder for them to invest in further education.

The career dreams of young workers become the collateral damage of a higher education system that is failing too many people. These failures matter immensely to the future of work. It is well known that educational attainment is positively correlated to long-term earning potential and upward mobility, but it is also inversely correlated to automation risk. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, workers with a high school degree or less face an automation risk four times as high as workers with a bachelor’s degree. The higher education system needs to better meet the needs of younger workers with few financial resources, limited support, and jobs to balance with study.

Rethink reliance on online classes, training, and credentials for reskilling and worker growth

Often online courses or classes are held out as a solution for busy workers in need of opportunities to retrain and sharpen their skills or move on to better jobs. Workers in our study had mixed experiences with online offerings. Those who took classes online struggled with isolation, a lack of structure, and uncertainty about their career path or a sense that they were engaged in study that would lead to appealing or meaningful work. All of the workers we spoke to who work for employers who offer online courses did not take advantage of this benefit, citing lack of time or interest, a sense that they did not know what they would study, or a lack of the computer infrastructure necessary to take the courses. Providing better on-ramps to help workers know what to study, more support for those pursuing degrees long term, and more short-duration credential opportunities could better meet the needs and preferences of low-wage and clerical workers.

The education, workforce development, and training ecosystems must make career transitions easier for workers

While younger workers struggle to achieve their career dreams through postsecondary education, most mid-career and older workers have different learning and training needs. Few workers above the age of 30 expressed a desire to return to formal schooling in an academic setting. Their busy lives, tiring jobs, family commitments, and limited financial resources leave working adults with little time and money to dedicate to a formal degree. Instead, many older workers share an interest in acquiring professionally relevant skills and credentials quickly, cheaply, and, ideally, on the job or through the financial support of an employer. Yet few workers in our study have access to the type of learning opportunities that match their interests and constraints. Much more needs to be done to make the ecosystem of higher education, workforce development, training, and on-the-job learning worker-friendly to adequately prepare the workers at the forefront of change for a better future.

And beyond workers we spoke with who have an idea for a future credential or career path, a subset of workers lack a clear idea of what they wanted to do in the future and lack models of friends, family, or community members engaged in work that seems appealing. They consequently struggle to see the value in pursuing further education. Investing in programs that engage workers to help them identify appealing paths and ways to start out upon them, could help those who struggle to identify a goal or imagine a different future for themselves.