<p>Last week, following his presentation at an HR conference organised by IMA, your columnist was asked what artificial intelligence would mean for jobs and talent. His response was, embarrassingly, something of a mumble. The question deserved better, as it concerned how firms should recruit and develop people and which skills might earn a decent living. This piece is an attempt to make amends. </p><p>There is undeniably substance behind the excitement. A study of over 5,000 customer support agents found that AI raised productivity by 15%, with larger gains among less experienced workers. That does not mean employment must fall by the same proportion. Cheaper services can attract more customers. Nevertheless, where business volumes grow slowly, companies will need fewer people to produce the same output. History offers a useful comparison. The Hoover, alongside washing machines and other domestic equipment, helped reduce household drudgery and made paid employment more feasible for women. Appliances, though, were only one part of that change. Education and social freedom were the other. The lesson is that technology changes how people spend their time, creating opportunities beyond the task it first automates. </p><p>This time around, routine office work is especially exposed. Accountants, lawyers and engineers will still need knowledge to recognise how a note has been drafted or when a machine has produced rubbish. Expertise should retain its value, but routine tasks may lose it all. The immediate danger may be the missing first job. Researchers at Stanford University, using American payroll records through June 2026, found weaker employment among young workers in occupations exposed to AI, largely through reduced hiring. The question for employers is therefore painful – if software does the junior analyst’s work, where will tomorrow’s experienced analyst learn the business? Over the next five to seven years, this columnist’s expectation is that more attractive opportunities will emerge around physical work and the application of technology. These include electricians, industrial maintenance technicians, cooling specialists, robotics servicing teams and people installing charging equipment. AI adoption should also create work in integrating systems and managing data. Much of this will require industry knowledge rather than a fancy job title. </p><p>Pay should eventually reflect these differences. By 2031, your columnist would expect scarce, certified technicians to gain ground relative to graduates doing standard administrative work. Some may earn considerably more. A universal reversal of salaries is unlikely, particularly in India, where abundant labour and informal employment restrain wages. The strongest gains should accrue to people who combine practical competence with diagnosis, digital tools and responsibility for expensive equipment. Consequently, the ordinary degree will need to justify its cost more convincingly. Universities will remain essential for advanced science, medicine and engineering. But vocational colleges and paid apprenticeships should become respectable first choices, with routes into further study. A qualification that demonstrates the ability to maintain a production line may offer a better return than three years spent acquiring a certificate with little useful learning attached. </p><p>The office will survive. Its claim to being the natural destination of every ambitious young person will weaken. Much depends on how quickly robotics becomes affordable, but the next five years could bring a welcome and long-overdue correction in how we value skilled work. The parent who proudly announces that a child has become an electrician may yet have excellent financial reasons for doing so. </p><p>Your columnist hopes to offer a less mumbled answer next time. </p>
<p>Last week, following his presentation at an HR conference organised by IMA, your columnist was asked what artificial intelligence would mean for jobs and talent. His response was, embarrassingly, something of a mumble. The question deserved better, as it concerned how firms should recruit and develop people and which skills might earn a decent living. This piece is an attempt to make amends. </p><p>There is undeniably substance behind the excitement. A study of over 5,000 customer support agents found that AI raised productivity by 15%, with larger gains among less experienced workers. That does not mean employment must fall by the same proportion. Cheaper services can attract more customers. Nevertheless, where business volumes grow slowly, companies will need fewer people to produce the same output. History offers a useful comparison. The Hoover, alongside washing machines and other domestic equipment, helped reduce household drudgery and made paid employment more feasible for women. Appliances, though, were only one part of that change. Education and social freedom were the other. The lesson is that technology changes how people spend their time, creating opportunities beyond the task it first automates. </p><p>This time around, routine office work is especially exposed. Accountants, lawyers and engineers will still need knowledge to recognise how a note has been drafted or when a machine has produced rubbish. Expertise should retain its value, but routine tasks may lose it all. The immediate danger may be the missing first job. Researchers at Stanford University, using American payroll records through June 2026, found weaker employment among young workers in occupations exposed to AI, largely through reduced hiring. The question for employers is therefore painful – if software does the junior analyst’s work, where will tomorrow’s experienced analyst learn the business? Over the next five to seven years, this columnist’s expectation is that more attractive opportunities will emerge around physical work and the application of technology. These include electricians, industrial maintenance technicians, cooling specialists, robotics servicing teams and people installing charging equipment. AI adoption should also create work in integrating systems and managing data. Much of this will require industry knowledge rather than a fancy job title. </p><p>Pay should eventually reflect these differences. By 2031, your columnist would expect scarce, certified technicians to gain ground relative to graduates doing standard administrative work. Some may earn considerably more. A universal reversal of salaries is unlikely, particularly in India, where abundant labour and informal employment restrain wages. The strongest gains should accrue to people who combine practical competence with diagnosis, digital tools and responsibility for expensive equipment. Consequently, the ordinary degree will need to justify its cost more convincingly. Universities will remain essential for advanced science, medicine and engineering. But vocational colleges and paid apprenticeships should become respectable first choices, with routes into further study. A qualification that demonstrates the ability to maintain a production line may offer a better return than three years spent acquiring a certificate with little useful learning attached. </p><p>The office will survive. Its claim to being the natural destination of every ambitious young person will weaken. Much depends on how quickly robotics becomes affordable, but the next five years could bring a welcome and long-overdue correction in how we value skilled work. The parent who proudly announces that a child has become an electrician may yet have excellent financial reasons for doing so. </p><p>Your columnist hopes to offer a less mumbled answer next time. </p>
