I’ve actually wondered if that might happen sort of naturally.
For complex historical/cultural reasons, in the US (and to some degree other developed countries, but typically even more so in the US), we have tended to put less of a premium, particularly financially, on professions that involve a lot of direct caretaking. Doctors are sort of an exception, but even then you can see a similar effect in compensation by specialty.
Same thing, for perhaps related but not identical reasons, when it comes to even very skilled and creative hand work.
But pretty much everyone is recognizing these are relatively AI-resistant activities. Indeed, somewhat ironically, some of the sorts of “intelligence” that have sometimes been treated as most valuable seem most vulnerable to replication by machines lacking empathy, capable bodies, and so on. As some have observed, this may not be entirely coincidental.
Anyway, if AI forces major changes in what paths are even available, one might wonder if eventually some of these notions might change to follow. Of course changes like that can take generations, but it has happened before. Like, not a lot of people these days talk about the prestigious occupation of owning and managing a large agricultural estate, even though that was basically the uncontested “top” economic position for most of the history of human civilization.
All true, but service markets are funny in that consumer demand depends on how much those services are valued, and sometimes that is in part a function of social/cultural factors.
I don’t think this has anything to do with society’s attitude towards hands on caregiving.
Procedural-based specialties (orthopedic surgeons, dermatologists) get compensated by insurance companies at a higher rate and with more volume than non-procedure specialties (e.g. geriatrics). There aren’t surgeries to cure old age; there are surgeries to remove cancerous growths and repair a rotator cuff. Derms are plenty hands-on, but their hands are used to operate machines and tools which our crazy payment system means they make more money than their colleagues.
Manicures cost $10 in my area. This has nothing to do with the value that consumer put on manicures (which seems to be very high based on the people I’ve observed who get regular manicures) and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that there are close to zero barriers to entry to opening a nail salon (modest costs for a very small space with sinks and electricity) and zero barriers to entry for a person to declare themselves a “nail artist”. Fancy full service hair salons and spas which employ licensed manicurists charge $50 for a manicure (the barrier to entry being a license); the local shop in a strip mall can hire anyone.
Econ 1. The supply of labor is seemingly unlimited, tons of localized competition, keeps prices depressed, even though the “value” to the consumer appears very, very high.
The economic market for most medical care is also very distorted compared to free markets in introductory economics courses (e.g. much of it is third party (insurance) pay, patients are often not voluntarily choosing medical care and may be making decisions under urgency or duress, and patients may not know enough to make an informed decision). The exceptions may be purely optional services, like cosmetic dermatology.
I think it’s just overall median, regardless of the level of experience for people in the job. And speaking for education in a city’s school district in my state, public K-12 teachers reach the $74k mark if they have 28 years of experience with a Bachelor’s, 26 years with a Master’s, 25 years with a Master’s + 30 graduate hours, or 22 years with a doctorate. This is a HUGE increase over what it was less than 5 years when one could be at 35 years of experience and still at less than $70k/year.
The local newspaper publishes the compensation of all the public employees. For several years, a few firefighters and police officers out-earned their bosses (that overtime for the local utilities and off-duty security really adds up) AND out-earned by a huge number the Superintendent of Schools who has a doctorate and 25 years experience!
People making less than $74k are not an attractive demographic for advertisers on Forbes, so those professions were excluded from this clickbait “list of the top…” article.
In the first quarter of 2025, median weekly wages for workers in the US was $1,194, according to data collected as part of the Current Population Survey and reported by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).2 That translates to a monthly income of $5,174, or $62,088 per year.
Focusing on the top earners may be sexy, but given the fact that most people earn less, I suspect that maybe adjusting the wage criteria would be beneficial for the average American.
If the premise of the article is that AI is going to massively change the job market, why would the article go on the assumption that the relative salary ranges for various jobs are going to remain the same?
If you can replace entry level coders with AI, but you can’t replace plumbers, might it not be the case that plumbers would end up being paid more?