What work means to working-class young men in an age of increasing automation

For years we’ve been warned^[1] that technological advances and artificial intelligence (AI) are set to sweep people out of work. But when we think about whose jobs are really under threat, the answer isn’t quite so simple.

Forecasts differ, and the speed of technological change makes it hard to predict exactly which roles will disappear. But one thing is clear – some groups are far more vulnerable^[2] than others. In particular, low-skilled, manual jobs – work that many working-class young men often find themselves in – are especially exposed.

My latest book^[3] looks at how young working-class men in the south Wales valleys view work, masculinity and the future. What I’ve found is a troubling mismatch between the kinds of careers being automated, the policy solutions being put forward and the identities and aspirations of those who rely most heavily on manual employment.

If such issues are not addressed, we risk rising youth unemployment and a widening of social inequality.

The workers most vulnerable to automation are those in routine manual roles. These include jobs like factory work, for example. These roles, often held by men with fewer qualifications, are easier for machines to replicate because of their repetitive nature.

By contrast, jobs that rely on social and emotional skills such as nursing and counselling are harder to automate. These roles are often associated with femininity or softer expressions of masculinity.

Governments are not blind to these risks. The UK government has promoted^[4] lifelong learning and digital upskilling as strategies to help workers adapt to technological change since 2021. The goal is to improve access to training and education so people can work alongside machines rather than be replaced by them.

Yet sociological evidence raises doubts about how effective this approach will be for marginalised men.

Masculinity and manual work

Many sociological studies have found that young working-class men are often drawn to manual work. This pull is rooted in social ties and an inherited sense of masculine identity, where physical jobs are seen as suitably “manly”.

At the same time, formal education and customer‑facing service roles are frequently rejected, viewed as feminised and at odds with traditional ideas of masculinity^[5].

Read more: Why 'toxic masculinity' isn't a useful term for understanding all of the ways to be a man^[6]

In my work with young men in the south Wales valleys, I’ve found both continuity and change in how they think about jobs and masculinity. The continuity is clear. Manual work remains attractive, with fathers, uncles and grandfathers serving as role models. These careers are visible in communities, reinforcing the idea that this is “what men do”.

By comparison, other forms of employment – especially those coded as caring or service-oriented – are less visible and less valued.

‘Rupturing process’

But there are also signs of change. Some of the young men I spoke with expressed interest in careers beyond traditional manual roles. These included becoming a paramedic, a chef, or working in the media.

These changes often came through what I call a “rupturing process”, when a person or experience disrupts long-held ideas of masculinity and work. One young man’s decision to train as a chef, for example, was inspired by learning to cook with his grandmother. The experience influenced him to pursue a path outside the usual gendered expectations, and to embrace a softer, more expressive form of masculinity^[7].

I also found that these young men are not entirely “anti-education”. Rather, they approach it pragmatically. They engage with subjects they see as useful for their ambitions and dismiss those they view as irrelevant. This nuance is often missed in policy debates that paint them as simply resistant to learning.

My research offers grounds for optimism. Despite the stereotypes, working-class young men are not all bound to regressive notions of manhood or limited to manual ambitions. Some are broadening their goals, sparked by different influences that alter their views on work and masculinity.

But optimism alone is not enough. Current policies centred on digital upskilling and lifelong learning will fail if they ignore the cultural and structural barriers that shape job choices. For some young men, a preference for manual labour remains strong, tied to community traditions and masculine identity. Simply offering new skills will not address that.

If we want the future of work to include everyone, we need targeted interventions that speak directly to this situation. That means community-based programmes, mentoring by relatable role models and education pathways that are flexible and practical.

Just as importantly, it means telling a new story about what work – and masculinity – can be. The robots may be coming, but the future doesn’t have to leave working-class young men behind.

References

1. ^{^} warned (www.weforum.org)
2. ^{^} vulnerable (www.sciencedirect.com)
3. ^{^} latest book (bookstore.emerald.com)
4. ^{^} promoted (www.gov.uk)
5. ^{^} ideas of masculinity (theconversation.com)
6. ^{^} Why 'toxic masculinity' isn't a useful term for understanding all of the ways to be a man (theconversation.com)
7. ^{^} masculinity (journals.sagepub.com)
8. ^{^} IM Imagery/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)