How Does Generative AI Impact Wages Across Different Occupations?
Core argument: Computer, Math, Architecture, and Engineering occupations show 30%+ high-expertise genAI assistance vs. <10% in manual roles, driving divergent wage pressure.
The RPS [Real Time Population Survey] asked genAI users whether genAI primarily assisted them with low-, moderate-, or high-expertise parts of their job (workers could select multiple options). Figure 7 displays the average responses by broad occupation. In most occupations, a plurality of workers indicate that genAI assists with work that require intermediate expertise. In most technical and professional occupations, a relatively large share of workers report that genAI assists with high-expertise work. Computer and Math, Architecture and Engineering, and Management Occupations all exhibit high-expertise shares above 30%. By contrast, many occupations involving manual work exhibit small shares of workers who report high-expertise assistance - e.g. Protective Service and Buildings and Grounds Maintenance occupations exhibit high-expertise shares below 10%. However, we also observe a few interesting counterexamples to these patterns. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations, which involve substantial manual work and average education rates, exhibit large high-expertise shares. In the other direction, Legal Occupations, which exhibit high adoption rates, high education levels, and minimal manual work, exhibit small high-expertise shares. Overall, these patterns suggest that genAI does not map cleanly into a uniform “low-expertise” or “high-expertise” case.

