Last year, I published Choosing
a Lasting Career, a book designed to fill the gap between those with
occupational personality assessments, such as What Color Is Your Parachute?, and sources on the tactics of
getting hired, such as Sweaty Palms. My thesis was that in order to determine the
best careers, we needed to consider not only personal factors such as how much
time they would leave for our outside activities, but objective ones such as
how resilient they would be in the face of such growing factors as replacement
by robots and foreigners.
The conclusions, at times, were stunning. While published lists of the most desirable
jobs emphasized those with strong current demand, I took a longer view. In 2033, most recent graduates of college,
not to mention high school, will have over 20 years remaining before they turn
65, so the long-term viability of the fields they choose will be critical. Some careers, such as pharmacy, are doing
well now, but, considering the trends toward globalization, automation, and
efficiency, along with likely technological improvements and social
developments, are almost certain to have vastly smaller demand. On the other hand, health care aides, while generally
low paid, promise to be around for a long time, and also have high rankings on
other factors I considered.
In Choosing a Lasting Career, I rated 506 different jobs on
seven different factors. They were local
boundness (the chance of a job needing to be done from the same immediate area
in 2033), resistance to robotics improvements, resistance to computing and
connectivity improvements, the prospects for it paying a good living wage,
median pay level, overall quality of working conditions, and compatibility with
family life and outside projects.
Assessments on the last four of these I documented and compared but left
mostly at that, as they are personal matters.
One man may welcome working with his hands outdoors, while another would
prefer to be in an air-conditioned office, and neither is objectively
correct. The first three factors, which
are good or bad for everyone regardless of what they want from a job, were incorporated
into ratings for each position of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and
Poor.
Using these evaluations, I assembled average scores for each
of what the United States Department of Labor terms “occupation groups.” On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning all
jobs in the occupation group were scored at Poor, and 5 indicating all were
Excellent, the 25 groups came out as follows:
Those in the process of determining what career they want to
have, or soon to get there, should be aware of several things in particular.
First, the categories of Community and Social Service and
Healthcare, though far from consistently excellent, are the standouts for
lasting through 2033. Both benefit from
needing to be done in person, with little prospect for replacement by robots or
computer systems, along with aging and disadvantaged populations guaranteed to
continue needing their efforts. In
Community and Social Service, one of ten specific jobs came out as Excellent
(mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists), and ten of 48 in
Healthcare achieved the same (audiologists; cardiovascular technologists and
technicians and vascular technologists; EMTs and paramedics; home health and
personal care aides; massage therapists; nursing aides, orderlies, and
attendants; occupational therapists; occupational therapy assistants and
aides; physical therapist assistants and
aides; and physician assistants). By
comparison, only eight of the 448 jobs in the other 23 groups achieved that
ranking.
Second, some generally humble fields will be around long
after current ones are devastated.
People working in Building and Grounds Cleaning, Personal Care and
Service, and Food Preparation and Serving may not be paid well (though, if they
become managers or business owners, may well be), but they will be in solid
demand for the next 19 years. Those who
think money less of a factor should consider something here.
Third, Computer and Information Technology, regardless of
its current flourishing, is in big long-term trouble. The main problem that will savage this field
for Americans is that few people in this area need to be that. Indians and Russians, especially, already
often have the background and skills to succeed at these positions at far lower
pay, and it only remains for companies to realize that before putting together
entire teams of technicians, most paid less than average corporate secretaries,
elsewhere.
Fourth, while construction, extraction, and production are
often considered together, and indeed two of them still are by the Department
of Labor, they have completely different long-term prospects. Jobs in production and extraction look poor
long-term, especially because of the threat from robotics and other technology,
but construction will flourish, especially in relatively good economic times. There is a vast difference between the enduring
employability of dry-wall specialists, who can count on many things being built
that require their skills, and good, experienced manufacturers of almost
anything.
Fifth, the same goes for jobs in the sciences, which are
generally promising especially in private industry, and positions in
mathematics, which suffer from the same problem as those in computer
technology. Math is the same all over
the world, and Americans have no monopoly on education in it.
Sixth, notice the low rankings for Office and Administrative
Support, Production, and Military.
During the postwar years, these fields had close to half of American
jobs. Now, all three are in terrible
shape. Keep that in mind when wondering
if demand for people in careers can actually go away.
Watch this blog for more posts about the prospects for
future careers. In the meantime, Choosing a Lasting Career is available,
among other places, on Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
How many in your list are jobs related to real wealth creation and not just the transfer of it?
ReplyDeleteA fine consideration! You can look over the list of jobs and judge for yourself.
Delete