Expertise
David Autor, Neil Thompson · Journal of the European Economic Association · 21 Jun 2025
Where this sits in the debate
- Will AI destroy more jobs than it creates? · its finding: it depends (why studies differ)
- Will AI widen inequality? · its finding: it depends (why studies differ)
Direction of the finding as read from the abstract by an AI model (AI-written).
Abstract
Abstract When job tasks are automated, does this augment or diminish the value of labor in the tasks that remain? We argue the answer depends on whether removing tasks raises or reduces the expertise required for remaining non-automated tasks. Since the same task may be relatively expert in one occupation and inexpert in another, automation can simultaneously replace experts in some occupations while augmenting expertise in others. We propose a conceptual model of occupational task bundling that predicts that changing occupational expertise requirements have countervailing wage and employment effects: automation that decreases expertise requirements reduces wages but permits the entry of less expert workers; automation that increases expertise requirements increases wages but reduces the set of qualified workers. We develop a novel, content-agnostic method for measuring job-task expertise, and we use it to quantify changes in occupational expertise demands over four decades attributable to job task removal and addition. We document that automation has raised wages and decreased employment in occupations where it eliminated inexpert tasks, but reduced wages and increased employment in occupations where it eliminated expert tasks. These effects are distinct from—and in the case of employment, opposite to—the effects of changing task quantities. The expertise framework resolves the puzzle of why routine task automation has decreased employment but often increased wages in routine task-intensive occupations. It provides a general tool for analyzing how task automation and new task creation reshape the scarcity value of human expertise within and across occupations.
About this publication
Leading field journal. A leading journal in economics or a neighbouring field (on the Tinbergen Institute’s A list or near the top of the RePEc ranking), or a top-rated computer-science venue.
Placed by: Tinbergen Institute A list. How sources are ranked.
- Published
- 2025 (16 months ago)
- Citations
- 19 (OpenAlex)
Citations in context
19 citations — 73rd percentile among the 33 indexed papers from 2025 in this collection. Citation counts favor older papers; this compares only same-year papers here, not the whole literature.
□ added to this collection in 2026.
David Autor, Neil Thompson signed the wemustactnow.ai letter · author affiliation matches seed institutions massachusetts institute of technology, mit — part of why this paper is in the collection.
Cited elsewhere in this guide
Related by theme, not necessarily by method or conclusion.
- The Effects of Generative AI on High Skilled Work: Evidence from Three Field Experiments with Software Developers
SSRN · 2024 - GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models
arXiv · 2023 - Extending “GPTs Are GPTs” to Firms
AEA Papers and Proceedings · 2025 - New Frontiers: The Origins and Content of New Work, 1940–2018
The Quarterly Journal of Economics · 2024
Overview assembled automatically from collected metadata. How this site is built.