Are the employment trends, from agriculture to manufacturing to services, cause for worry? Far from it!
Marian L. Tupy —
The U.S. President Donald J. Trump has repeatedly lamented the supposed decline of the American manufacturing sector. During his presidential campaign, he asserted that Americans “don’t make anything anymore” and pledged “to restore manufacturing in the United States.” Yet there is no reason to think of manufacturing jobs as the gold standard in employment. The nature of work has been changing for about 250 years and it is likely to continue to evolve – thanks to declining birth rates, and the rise of robotics and artificial intelligence – in the future.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, between 80 and 90 percent of the world’s population worked in agriculture. At the start of the 19th century, people in Western Europe and North America began to move into manufacturing jobs en masse. Factory jobs were not universally welcome. Factory jobs were criticized by philosophers, like Karl Marx, lampooned by comedians, like Charlie Chaplin, and bemoaned by poets, like William Blake.
Marx felt that factory production, in which products are generated using an endless sequence of discrete and repetitive motions, did not offer the worker enough psychological satisfaction. The worker, who did not design or market the product, was thus “alienated” from the latter. Chaplin turned the soul-and-body crushing assembly line mode of production into a hilarious comedy skit in his 1936 movie, Modern Times.
And, who can forget William Blake’s 1808 poem Jerusalem, in which the artist mourns the “satanic mills” (i.e., factories) that in his view pockmarked the bucolic face of the English countryside?
And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England’s mountains green? And was the holy Lamb of God And did the Countenance Divine Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here Among these dark Satanic mills?
Today, we know that most people moved from agricultural work in the countryside to factory work in the cities willingly, for the latter provided higher wages, and greater independence and cultural stimulation. This trend continues to this day. Between 1991 and 2017, for example, agricultural employment fell from 43 to 27 percent of the global workforce. Only in very poor countries, such as Bhutan and Zimbabwe, does agriculture continue to employ over 50 percent of laborers.
In the United States, employment in the manufacturing sector continued to grow until the middle of the 20th century. In 1950, for example, manufacturing employed approximately 35 percent of all workers. Fifty years later, it employed only 15 percent of all workers. Conversely, the share of workers employed in the service sector increased from approximately 18 percent in 1960 to almost 80 percent in 2000. Similar trends can be observed in other advanced economies, such as the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan.
Meanwhile, manufacturing jobs have grown in countries that embraced industrialization in more recent decades. Between 1991 and 2017, for example, industrial employment rose from 12 to 19 percent in Bangladesh, from 19 to 24 percent in China, from 15 to 25 percent in India and from 9 to 23 percent in Vietnam. History suggests that, as these populous and rapidly industrializing countries become richer, the service sector will play an increasingly prominent part in their economic development.
Are these employment trends, from agriculture to manufacturing to services, cause for worry? Far from it! The service sector consists of jobs in the information sector, investment services, technical and scientific services, healthcare and social assistance services, as well as arts, entertainment, and recreation services. Most of these jobs are less physically arduous, more intellectually stimulating and better paid than either agricultural or manufacturing jobs.
They are, also, less dangerous. In 2014, global fatality rates per 100,000 employees in agriculture ranged from 7.8 deaths in high-income countries to 27.5 deaths in South-East Asia and Western Pacific. In manufacturing, the range was from 3.8 in high-income countries to 21.1 in Africa. The range for the service sector was from 1.5 in high-income countries to 17.7 in Africa.
The evolution of the workplace is far from finished. With fully mechanized farms on the horizon, agricultural employment in advanced countries is heading toward zero. Similarly, the rise of robots and artificial intelligence is likely to displace tens of millions of manufacturing and service sector workers in rich countries.
Collapsing fertility rates in rich countries, however, will likely prevent the emergence of mass unemployment. Moreover, high levels of human capital and the relative openness of advanced economies are likely to unleash innovation in unexpected ways, thus soaking up displaced workers.
The employment picture is less sanguine in some poor countries. That’s especially true of Africa, the population of which is projected to go on expanding well into the 22nd century. Scandalously mismanaged state education systems retard development of human capital and lack of economic freedom, especially rigid labor markets, make African countries ill-positioned to respond to the challenges of automatization.
Will the millions of young Africans without a prospect for meaningful employment force change upon their sclerotic governments or opt to migrate out of the continent? Time will tell.
AI Is Helping Workers Across Jobs, but Not Replacing Them
“Google is launching the first iteration of the AI & Economy ATLAS (Activity, Task, Landscape, and Adoption Study), an ongoing, large-scale, de-identified study of how people are using Google’s AI products and tools…
Here a few of the most interesting observations so far:
AI use at work is broad but shallow: Workplace adoption spans all industry sectors and also 68% of all occupations that collectively represent 90% of total U.S. employment. However within jobs, people are using AI selectively: in a typical job AI is used for only ~21% of tasks.
At work, most AI use is focused on collaboration and assistance with tasks, and so far task automation is uncommon: ATLAS data shows the vast majority of AI interactions at work focus on collaborative uses such as ideation, strategy, information retrieval, and learning. Tasks like creative design and hypothesis testing (categorized in ATLAS as “non-routine cognitive”) show up in AI work interactions at a much higher rate than in the economy as a whole (65% vs 35%). Less than 10% of those interactions fully automate tasks.
AI use is not limited to white collar workers, it’s also assisting workers in predominantly physical and manual occupations with adjacent tasks: AI use for work is not limited to jobs traditionally seen as knowledge work. While not as prevalent, workers in manual and technical trades (e.g., auto technicians, industrial mechanics) are using conversational AI as a live collaborator for real-time diagnostics, troubleshooting, and on-the-fly learning. When workers in these areas use our AI tools, they’re 2x more likely to use multimodal AI (i.e. using AI to create images or video). For example, automotive technicians and industrial mechanics use AI to interpret complex test results, debug electrical wiring, and inspect machinery for wear.
AI is delivering value at home that may be missed in standard economic metrics, particularly around high-friction administrative tasks: Over 86% of interactions with AI tools in ATLAS occur outside of work. People are using AI in new and interesting ways not captured in standard economic metrics including productive household activities (e.g. researching purchases, help with using appliances, and tools) and high-friction administrative tasks (e.g. navigating government services like taxes, licensing, and fines).”
Free choices—not mandates—have made flexible work a lasting reality.
Chelsea Follett —
Summary: Remote and hybrid work have become a durable feature of the modern workplace, with most remote-capable employees choosing flexible arrangements that benefit both workers and employers. Evidence suggests these models can improve productivity, job satisfaction, health, and employee retention while reflecting voluntary market decisions rather than government mandates. As with many past workplace improvements, adoption has largely preceded legal recognition, suggesting that policy should remove barriers to flexible work instead of attempting to direct it.
Back in 2020, I noted, “The dramatic rise in telework amid the pandemic is a radical experiment, but its effects will be long-lasting.” I was right. Rates of full-time, in-office work plummeted during the pandemic, and while many employers have since shifted from fully remote work to hybrid work schedules, hybrid work levels have remained stable since 2022. In 2025, 78% of full-time remote-capable U.S. employees are either hybrid or fully remote, with hybrid as the most common arrangement.
What is sustaining this transformation of the workplace? The inconvenient answer for those who see government action as the source of progress is that this transformation is thanks to freely chosen, mutually beneficial decisions by employers and employees rather than any top-down mandate.
The proof is in how durable these patterns have been. Millions of workers and employers continue to choose them because they work. Roughly half of the U.S. workforce consists of employees who are capable of working remote or hybrid jobs. The most common arrangement sees workers commute two days a week and work remotely the other three. Most workers appreciate the flexibility, with a mere 6% of remote-capable workers saying they prefer to work on-site full-time.
An analysis from the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that across industries, the rise in remote work and total factor productivity growth may be positively correlated, and many employees report higher productivity at home. Some research also suggests that hybrid and fully remote work may have positive effects on individual employee productivity, satisfaction, and physical health, as well as employee retention.
Historically, most improvements for workers have followed a similar pattern—wherein the market dictates employer-employee relationships, not government—despite a popular narrative to the contrary. The economist Benjamin Powell observed that legal labor standards, working-hour limits, and the introduction of a minimum wage in the United States and other wealthy countries after industrialization largely mirrored policies that employers had already implemented of their own accord. Legislation merely codified preexisting norms instead of prompting a change in industry practices.
Economist Price Fishback similarly noted, for example, “State laws limiting the number of working hours for women … passed after many employers had substantially reduced hours for women. Recent studies have found that the laws had relatively little effect.”
A century ago, the Ford Motor Company pioneered limiting the workweek to five days. Ford’s example soon inspired manufacturers across the country and around the world to adopt the Monday-to-Friday workweek. That occurred because employers discovered that productivity increased, while employees valued the extra leisure time. As the economist Ludwig von Mises put it, “The nineteenth century’s labor legislation by and large achieved nothing more than to provide ratification for changes which the interplay of market factors had brought about previously.”
Today, remote and hybrid work often benefits both employers and employees, and this work flexibility rise occurred in spite of many outdated government rules that hinder such arrangements. These rules are in desperate need of reform. For example, various federal tax rules discriminate against remote work arrangements, while differing state rules can subject remote workers to double taxation, and occupational licensing rules limit workers’ options to move between states. If anything, the government has stood in the way of the great workplace transformation toward remote and hybrid work.
Calls to legally mandate remote or hybrid work are a misguided attempt to give the government credit for a shift that has already happened independently of government action. Premier Jacinta Allan of Victoria, Australia, announced that her state government will enshrine a legal right for employees, in both the private and public sectors, who can perform their job from home to do so at least two days a week. The law comes into effect in September.
The legal change will benefit few employees, as 65% of Victorians are already hybrid or remote, but it will create more bureaucratic headaches by adding unnecessary red tape for employers and employees alike. “WFH [work from home] is already happening, and there is no reason to legislate a one-size-fits-all approach,” cautioned Andrew McKellar, the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
This represents perhaps the first example of a legal entitlement to work from home, coming long after the market has already made such arrangements widespread. “If you can do your job from home, we’ll make it your right—because we’re on your side,” said Allan. In reality, it is employers and employees exercising their freedom in the market, not political mandates, that have made the flexibility of remote and hybrid work widely available today.
This article was originally published at RealClearMarkets on 6/23/2026.
“Artificial intelligence has sparked fears it will become a job killer. It’s also fueling a crop of new careers.
AI created 640,000 jobs between 2023 and 2025 in the U.S., according to an analysis by LinkedIn of job posting data, including new white-collar positions such as head of AI and AI engineer. That tally doesn’t include the huge number of temporary construction jobs tied to building the mammoth data centers AI relies on…
The fast-emerging new jobs help train AI to improve its performance and take on more tasks, and help train humans to use AI in their work. The jobs run the gamut from high-level careers in AI strategy to hourly work. Many of these new employees work directly for AI companies, but other industries including finance, healthcare and manufacturing are also snapping up such workers as they seek to capitalize on the technology.”
Côte D’Ivoire’s Land Reforms Are Unlocking Jobs and Growth
“Secure land tenure transforms dormant assets into active capital—unlocking access to credit, encouraging investment, and spurring entrepreneurship. These are the building blocks of job creation and economic growth.
When landowners have secure property rights, they invest more in their land. Existing data shows that with secure property rights, agricultural output increases by 40% on average. Efficient land rental markets also significantly boost productivity, with up to 60% productivity gains and 25% welfare improvements for tenants…
Building on a long-term partnership with the World Bank, the Government of Côte d’Ivoire has dramatically accelerated delivery of formal land records to customary landholders in rural areas by implementing legal, regulatory, and institutional reforms and digitizing the customary rural land registration process, which is led by the Rural Land Agency (Agence Foncière Rurale – AFOR).
This has enabled a five-fold increase in the number of land certificates delivered in just five years compared to the previous 20 years.”
