In my experience as a middle-class Briton, parental steers have traditionally split into two broad camps.<\/p>\n
Pragmatic: (Rattling ice in G&T anxiously) \u201cSweetie, I really think you should think twice before applying for circus studies. There\u2019s no money in juggling. Ask Uncle Reggie. Why not become a commercial litigator \u2014 like me?\u201d<\/p>\n
Idealistic: (Taking a steadying sip of homemade medlar wine) \u201cCircus studies? That\u2019s a wonderful plan, darling! You\u2019ll be following your dream! And we can always help out financially if you need a backup qualification.\u201d<\/p>\n
Such responses may no longer be fit for purpose as a result of AI. Should parents now apply a piquant discount factor to the prospects of the would-be actuary? Might a course entitled Slam Poetry: Theory and Practice prove more rewarding than it might first appear?<\/p>\n
When thinking about returns on career choices, I previously relied on the work of economic researchers. A 2020 UK study<\/a> by the Institute for Fiscal Studies is widely cited. It estimated, for instance, that a woman would earn a nominal median lifetime return of \u00a3820,000 after costs from a medical degree. A man qualified in the creative arts would make a negative return of some \u00a3200,000, assuming he stayed in the sector. The baseline for these figures was the expected earnings of equally promising youngsters who did not go to college. <\/p>\n Most studies predate the deployment of AI in the workplace. Careers that typically follow on from numbers-based degrees once commanded steep financial premia. This advantage may be reduced in future, if you believe \u201chit lists\u201d of professions supposedly imperilled by AI.<\/p>\n To illustrate this supposition, I selected data from two US sources. First, a recently published Microsoft ranking<\/a> of how susceptible different job categories are to substitution by AI. Second, annual pay data for those occupations from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The resulting scattergram shows a frontier where pay healthily outweighs AI exposure for lawyers and is in approximate balance for financial advisers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Naturally, pay and outlook both stink in media and communications, the category into which my activities as a journalist and author fall. I am therefore thinking of retraining as a \u201cdredge operator\u201d, a maritime profession that Microsoft deems future proof. I picture myself as one of those weather-beaten old guys who lean against harbour walls in Cornwall or Maine, telling tall tales of narwhals and tide rips.<\/p>\n Compelling UK data on AI vulnerability was harder to come by. The Department for Education has produced a limited ranking<\/a>. I have extracted a top ten and garnished it with relevant pay rates.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Remuneration levels in both charts may appear low to better-off readers. Remember that job categories such as \u201cbusiness manager\u201d may include numerous line bosses as well as a small number of highly paid executives.<\/p>\n To me, a larger issue is the assumptions underlying AI hit lists. These appear crude. It is legitimate to observe that AI can complete some workplace tasks quickly and reasonably well. It is a leap of faith to infer that this will result in the elimination of jobs, or cuts to remuneration in broad categories of employment. It would be safer to assume that professions and paybacks may change in ways we cannot predict.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n