We've been there for years warned that technological advances and artificial intelligence (AI) will cause people to lose their jobs. But once we take into consideration whose jobs are really in danger, the reply isn't quite so easy.
Predictions vary and the speed of technological change makes it difficult to predict exactly which roles will disappear. However, one thing is evident: some groups are way more than that vulnerable than others. In particular, low-skilled, expert trades – jobs that many young working-class men often pursue – are particularly in danger.
My latest book examines how young working-class men within the valleys of South Wales view work, masculinity and the longer term. What I even have found is a worrying mismatch between the sorts of careers being automated, the policy solutions being proposed, and the identities and aspirations of those most reliant on manual employment.
If such problems usually are not addressed, there’s a risk of rising youth unemployment and widening social inequality.
The most vulnerable to automation are staff who perform routine manual tasks. These include, for instance, jobs comparable to factory work. These roles, often filled by men with lower qualifications, are more easily imitated by machines attributable to their repetitive nature.
In contrast, jobs that depend on social and emotional skills, comparable to nursing and counseling, are harder to automate. These roles are sometimes related to femininity or gentler expressions of masculinity.
Governments usually are not blind to those risks. The British government has promoted Lifelong learning and digital upskilling as strategies to assist staff adapt to technological change since 2021. The aim is to enhance access to training and education so that folks can work alongside machines slightly than being replaced by them.
But sociological evidence raises doubts concerning the effectiveness of this approach for marginalized men.
Masculinity and manual labor
Many sociological studies have found that young working-class men are sometimes drawn to manual labor. This attraction is rooted in social bonds and an innate sense of masculine identity wherein physical labor is viewed as appropriately “masculine.”
At the identical time, formal education and customer-focused service roles are sometimes rejected, viewed as feminized, and at odds with traditional notions of masculinity.
In my work with young men within the valleys of South Wales, I even have found each continuity and alter of their attitudes to work and masculinity. The continuity is evident. Handcraft stays attractive, with fathers, uncles and grandfathers serving as role models. These careers are visible in communities and reinforce the concept that that is “what men do.”
In comparison, other types of employment – ​​particularly those coded as caring or service-oriented – are less visible and fewer valued.
“fracture process”
But there are also signs of change. Some of the young men I spoke to expressed interest in careers beyond traditional manual labor. This included becoming a paramedic, becoming a chef or working within the media.
These changes often got here about through what I call a “rupture process,” when an individual or experience disrupts long-held ideas about masculinity and work. For example, a young man's decision to coach as a chef was inspired by learning to cook from his grandmother. This experience led him to pursue a path that goes beyond the standard gender expectations and takes on a softer, more expressive form masculinity.
I also discovered that these young men usually are not entirely “anti-education.” Rather, they take a realistic approach. They engage with topics they find useful to their ambitions and reject those they consider irrelevant. This nuance is usually missed in policy debates, where they’re portrayed as simply immune to learning.
IM Images/Shutterstock
My research gives cause for optimism. Despite the stereotypes, not all young working-class men are sure to regressive ideas of masculinity or limited to artisanal ambitions. Some expand their goals, triggered by different influences that change their views on work and masculinity.
But optimism alone shouldn’t be enough. Current policies that deal with digital upskilling and lifelong learning will fail in the event that they ignore the cultural and structural barriers that shape profession selections. Among some young men, there stays a powerful preference for manual labor, which is linked to community traditions and masculine identity. Simply offering latest capabilities doesn't address the issue.
If we would like the work of the longer term to be inclusive of everyone, we’d like targeted interventions that directly address this case. This means community-based programs, mentorship from relatable role models, and academic pathways which can be flexible and practical.
Equally vital is telling a brand new story about what work – and masculinity – could be. The robots may come, but the longer term doesn’t have to depart working-class young men behind.
