Recently I read a list of jobs that are most at risk of being replaced by machines. Financial planning wasn’t among the “most-at-risk” occupations, which makes me wonder about all of the hoo-ha currently surrounding robo-advice.
Deloitte and researchers at Oxford University have estimated that about 35 per cent of all current jobs in the UK are at “high risk” of being automated over the next 20 years. So they’ve produced a “handy” (by which I mean “needlessly worrying”) calculator to help you learn how
great a risk you’re potentially at. (The occupation of “compiler of worrying stats” wasn’t listed.)
“Finance and investment analysts and advisers” – the closest thing I could find to “financial planners” – were assessed as having a 41 per cent chance of being automated, making it “too close to call”, according to the analysis.
If my livelihood were at such risk I’d be actively looking at either what I could be doing to tip the odds slightly more in my favour, or looking for a new job. The analysis gives us a fair idea of where not to start looking: the most at-risk occupation of the 365 ranked is telephone salesperson, which has a 99 per cent chance of being automated, followed by “typist or related keyboard worker” (98.5 per cent chance), and legal secretary (97.6 per cent).
For the record, and for your information, the other most at-risk occupations (and the likelihood of the job being automated) are: financial accounts manager (97.6 per cent); routine inspector and tester – no idea at all what this job actually is (97.6 per cent); weigher, grader, sorter – again, no idea (97.2 per cent); sales administrator (97.2 per cent); bookkeeper, payroll manager or wages clerk (97 per cent); finance officer (97 per cent); and pensions and insurance clerk – which sounds like something out of the 19th century anyway (97 per cent).
Where’s the greatest safety?
So if we can dismiss those occupations as potential career changes, the question that then arises is, well, where’s the greatest job safety? And one of the least-at-risk occupations is publican or manager of licensed premises – not really surprising, if 35 per cent of all workers are at risk of being put out of work by machines/computers/robots: someone has to serve alcohol responsibly to these people. “Hotel and accommodation manager or owner” followed closely among the not-so-much-at-risk occupations. Both had a 0.4 per cent chance of being automated.
The other least at-risk occupations are: teaching and educational professional (other) (0.8 per cent); secondary education teaching professional, senior professional at educational establishment, health services and public health manager or director, psychologist, therapy professional (other) and social services manager or director (all 0.7 per cent); speech and language therapist (0.5 per cent); education adviser and school inspector (0.4 per cent).
They’re painting a picture here, right? I think the message is clear: get into drinking and teaching, and into services to support people from the high-risk occupations who lose their jobs. I can wholeheartedly embrace changing careers based on this guidance, except for the teaching and services bit.
Which reminds me, I must drop a note to the editor of this publication, assuring him his job is relatively safe. The automation risk calculator puts the chance of “journalists, newspaper and periodical editors” losing their jobs to machines at a measly 8 per cent – or “quite unlikely”. Not even a machine will stoop that low