IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2404.06472.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

High-skilled Human Workers in Non-Routine Jobs are Susceptible to AI Automation but Wage Benefits Differ between Occupations

Author

Listed:
  • Pelin Ozgul
  • Marie-Christine Fregin
  • Michael Stops
  • Simon Janssen
  • Mark Levels

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) will change human work by taking over specific job tasks, but there is a debate which tasks are susceptible to automation, and whether AI will augment or replace workers and affect wages. By combining data on job tasks with a measure of AI susceptibility, we show that more highly skilled workers are more susceptible to AI automation, and that analytical non-routine tasks are at risk to be impacted by AI. Moreover, we observe that wage growth premiums for the lowest and the highest required skill level appear unrelated to AI susceptibility and that workers in occupations with many routine tasks saw higher wage growth if their work was more strongly susceptible to AI. Our findings imply that AI has the potential to affect human workers differently than canonical economic theories about the impact of technology on work these theories predict.

Suggested Citation

  • Pelin Ozgul & Marie-Christine Fregin & Michael Stops & Simon Janssen & Mark Levels, 2024. "High-skilled Human Workers in Non-Routine Jobs are Susceptible to AI Automation but Wage Benefits Differ between Occupations," Papers 2404.06472, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2404.06472
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.06472
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2018. "The Race between Man and Machine: Implications of Technology for Growth, Factor Shares, and Employment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(6), pages 1488-1542, June.
    2. Daron Acemoglu & David Autor & Jonathon Hazell & Pascual Restrepo, 2022. "Artificial Intelligence and Jobs: Evidence from Online Vacancies," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(S1), pages 293-340.
    3. Maarten Goos & Alan Manning, 2007. "Lousy and Lovely Jobs: The Rising Polarization of Work in Britain," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(1), pages 118-133, February.
    4. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2020. "Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(6), pages 2188-2244.
    5. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2020. "Unpacking Skill Bias: Automation and New Tasks," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 110, pages 356-361, May.
    6. David Card & John E. DiNardo, 2002. "Skill-Biased Technological Change and Rising Wage Inequality: Some Problems and Puzzles," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(4), pages 733-783, October.
    7. Erik Brynjolfsson & Tom Mitchell & Daniel Rock, 2018. "What Can Machines Learn, and What Does It Mean for Occupations and the Economy?," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 108, pages 43-47, May.
    8. David H. Autor, 2015. "Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 3-30, Summer.
    9. Jeff Borland & Michael Coelli, 2017. "Are Robots Taking Our Jobs?," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 50(4), pages 377-397, December.
    10. Alexandre Georgieff & Raphaela Hyee, 2021. "Artificial intelligence and employment: New cross-country evidence," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 265, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Albanesi, Stefania & Dias da Silva, Antonio & Jimeno, Juan Francisco & Lamo, Ana & Wabitsch, Alena, 2023. "New Technologies and Jobs in Europe," CEPR Discussion Papers 18220, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Naude, Wim, 2019. "The race against the robots and the fallacy of the giant cheesecake: Immediate and imagined impacts of artificial intelligence," MERIT Working Papers 2019-005, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    3. Jasmine Mondolo, 2022. "The composite link between technological change and employment: A survey of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 1027-1068, September.
    4. Zhang, Xinchun & Sun, Murong & Liu, Jianxu & Xu, Aijia, 2024. "The nexus between industrial robot and employment in China: The effects of technology substitution and technology creation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    5. repec:hal:journl:hal-04837769 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Goos, Maarten & Rademakers, Emilie & Röttger, Ronja, 2021. "Routine-Biased technical change: Individual-Level evidence from a plant closure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    7. Hensvik, Lena & Skans, Oskar Nordström, 2023. "The skill-specific impact of past and projected occupational decline," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    8. Ana Abeliansky & Klaus Prettner & Ernesto Rodríguez Crespo, 2024. "Climate change and automation: the emission effects of robot adoption," Department of Economics Working Papers wuwp370, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Department of Economics.
    9. Wang, Heting & Wang, Huijuan & Guan, Rong, 2024. "Digitalization of industries and labor mobility in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    10. Gregory, Terry & Salomons, Anna & Zierahn, Ulrich, 2016. "Racing With or Against the Machine? Evidence from Europe," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145843, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. Lee, Chien-Chiang & Yan, Jingyang & Wang, Fuhao, 2024. "Impact of population aging on food security in the context of artificial intelligence: Evidence from China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    12. Fossen, Frank M. & McLemore, Trevor & Sorgner, Alina, 2024. "Artificial Intelligence and Entrepreneurship," IZA Discussion Papers 17055, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Fierro, Luca Eduardo & Caiani, Alessandro & Russo, Alberto, 2022. "Automation, Job Polarisation, and Structural Change," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 499-535.
    14. Davide Dottori, 2021. "Robots and employment: evidence from Italy," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(2), pages 739-795, July.
    15. Falck, Oliver & Heimisch-Roecker, Alexandra & Wiederhold, Simon, 2021. "Returns to ICT skills," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    16. Mabel Sánchez Barrioluengo, 2019. "Job Composition and Its Effect on UK Firms in the Digital Era," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-24, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    17. Ryosuke Shimizu & Shohei Momoda, 2021. "Does Automation Technology increase Wage?," Discussion papers ron343, Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Finance Japan.
    18. Borsato, Andrea & Lorentz, André, 2023. "The Kaldor–Verdoorn law at the age of robots and AI," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    19. Daniel Susskind, 2019. "Re-thinking the capabilities of technology in economics," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(1), pages 280-288.
    20. Shimizu, Ryosuke & Momoda, Shohei, 2023. "Does automation technology increase wage?," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    21. Stefania Albanesi & Wabitsch Alena & António Dias da Silva & Juan F. Jimeno & Ana Lamo, 2024. "New Technologies and Jobs in Europe," Opportunity and Inclusive Growth Institute Working Papers 105, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2404.06472. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.