← Risk register SOC 35-2014 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Cooks, Restaurant

1,409,890 US workers · median $37,390/yr · Food

EXPOSED

Almost nothing a line cook does during service is text or screen work — you are breaking down proteins, working multiple pans on a hot line, adjusting seasoning by taste, and calling timing across a ticket rail in a cramped, chaotic space that today's robotics cannot handle. The real threat is not language AI but capital: central-kitchen prepped components, sous-vide and combi programs, and single-task fry/grill robots that let a restaurant run the same menu with fewer bodies. There is no license protecting the job and, for the modal line cook, the diner never knows your name, so the count of cooks per restaurant compresses even as the craft persists.

10-year outlook: Restaurant cooks will still be cooking in 2035, but chains and mid-market operators will run leaner lines on pre-prepped components and programmed equipment, pushing wage growth and job security toward cooks who do scratch technique, butchery, and line leadership.

US employment, 2019–2025+0.6%
1,401,8901,409,890 workers

Roughly flat across the period, with year-to-year wobble.

Median pay $27,790 → $37,390 +7.6% in real terms (nominal +34.5%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+14.9% 1,460,200 → 1,677,200 on the projections basis

Growing, and only partly exposed

The BLS expects +14.9% more of these jobs by 2034, and at 57/100 the work is only partly exposed — some tasks are automatable, the core of the job is not. Nothing here is in tension.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~250,700 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

CookSaucierFry CookLine CookGrill CookLarder CookPizza MakerBanquet CookBroiler CookStation CookRailroad CookBack Line CookBreakfast CookChef De PartieSpecialty CookVegetable CookProduction CookRestaurant CookSandwich ArtistSpecialty Foods CookHotel and Restaurant CookForeign Food Specialty CookPrep Cook (Preparation Cook)Prep Person (Preparation Person)

Score — 57/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (19/20). Weakest point: liability shield (3/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 17 + 19 + 3 + 9 + 9 = 57. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 17/20

Tasks largely resist digitisation Butchering a case of chicken thighs, tasting a sauce for acid balance, and re-firing a table's entrees to land together at the pass are physical, sensory, judgment-under-time tasks with no digital analogue — the 17 rather than 20 reflects that recipe scaling, portion specs, and prep lists have already moved off the cook's head and onto printed sheets and back-office software.

Embodiment 19/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments You stand ten to twelve hours in 100°F+ line heat, moving between flat-top, fryer, and walk-in, handling knives and boiling stock in a space too tight for two people to pass — the 19 is because the kitchen is at least a fixed, mapped room, unlike roofing or field repair.

Liability shield 3/20

No licence, no signature requirement No state licenses a line cook; the food handler card is a few hours of training and the health-code citation lands on the operator's permit and the certified food protection manager, not on you, so nothing legally requires a human in your specific position.

Trust premium 9/20

Some relationship component Regulars may come back for the food, but the ticket comes through a server and an expo window — you are credited at 9 rather than 4 because a station cook who knows the chef's standards and the kitchen's timing is expensive to replace mid-season, and at 9 rather than 15 because that value accrues to the restaurant, not to a customer relationship you own.

Judgment & accountability 9/20

Meaningful discretion You decide when the pork is done by feel, whether that batch of stock gets pulled, and how to re-sequence six tickets when a table sends something back — real calls, but made inside a menu, plate spec, and cost target set by the chef, which is what keeps it at 9 instead of the 14+ of someone who owns the menu and the food cost.

Confidence: high · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment, physical-presence

How to future-proof this job

Where to go deeper on what this job runs on: Toastmasters — public speaking practice at local clubs worldwide low · Coursera — critical thinking and logic, audit free free to audit · edX — performance measurement and evaluation free to audit · Coursera — work planning and personal productivity free to audit

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

Where this experience transfers — nothing clears the bar

No occupation passed every test: close enough to cooks, restaurant on skills and subject matter, at least 10 points more resistant, no big jump in training, no new licence, no pay cut, and not shrinking on its own. That happens for 223 of the 654 occupations here that aren't SAFE, and it is worth stating plainly rather than leaving the section off.

The usual reason is that exposure travels with the skill profile. The jobs most similar to yours tend to be exposed for the same reasons yours is, so the near neighbours don't clear the gap — and the ones that do are a different kind of work, not a transfer of what you already know. Read that as a limit of this method, not a verdict that you're stuck: it only compares whole occupations, and it cannot see specialisation, industry, or anything you'd bring that isn't in a federal skill survey.

Here is that claim on your own job rather than in the abstract. These are the three occupations closest to this one by skill and subject matter — the places the work would most naturally transfer — with what the register scores them:

Food Preparation Workers EXPOSED 41/100 (-16) · 90% overlap
Dishwashers EXPOSED 38/100 (-19) · 88% overlap
Cooks, Short Order EXPOSED 47/100 (-10) · 88% overlap

That is the whole problem in three lines. The nearest work is not meaningfully safer, so there is no move here that trades a similar skill set for a better verdict. This is not us running out of ideas — it is what the neighbourhood looks like.

What would move this occupation up is the other direction, and on this page it's the more useful one.

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 68/100 — SAFE.

4 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening judgment accountability +3

    If FDA Food Code adoption cycles keep pushing the Person-in-Charge / Certified Food Protection Manager requirement deeper into the line (many states already require a CFPM on premises during all hours of operation), the senior cook who is PIC on a shift owns HACCP calls, cooling-log decisions, and allergen refusals with a name attached, and health-department citations follow that name.

  • already happening task resistance +2

    Task-mix shift: if central-kitchen components and combi/sous-vide programs absorb the routine prep and hold tier, the remaining role concentrates on butchery, à la minute cookery, seasoning-by-taste, substitution for allergies, and expediting timing under a crushed ticket rail. Fewer cooks per restaurant, but each remaining job is harder to automate. Watch headcount-per-cover falling while the job title's task inventory shifts toward station-lead work.

  • plausible trust premium +3

    Menu-labeling or 'made from scratch' disclosure norms that force restaurants to declare centrally-prepped/reheated components — analogous to the 'fresh vs. previously frozen' seafood rules and existing state 'fresh-baked' labeling actions — would let scratch kitchens charge a visible premium for on-site cooking, and with it the cooks who do it. Also open-kitchen/chef's-counter formats where the diner watches and pays for the hand.

  • plausible liability shield +3

    A narrow route only: state or municipal rules requiring a named, certified food protection manager to personally sign off on HACCP plans, reduced-oxygen packaging (ROP) variances, or sous-vide programs — already required for ROP variances in many jurisdictions — plus allergen-training mandates on the Illinois/Massachusetts model. This attaches to the certified lead, not the modal line cook, so the ceiling is low.

The limit. Embodiment is already near max and cannot rise; task_resistance at 17 has little headroom. The real risk is not scored here — it is headcount compression per restaurant from capital substitution, which the register does not measure. An occupation can hold a high resistance score while shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs. Liability and trust levers attach mostly to chefs and station leads, so they do not protect the modal anonymous line cook.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 391 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 69,250 $43,740 +17%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 54,320 $44,460 +19%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 41,690 $38,930 +4%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 37,210 $36,920 -1%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 34,430 $36,490 -2%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 32,710 $35,050 -6%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 29,670 $42,920 +15%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 29,040 $37,230 +0%

Best paid

Kahului-Wailuku, HI 1,770 $49,560 +33%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 20,850 $47,730 +28%
Napa, CA 1,270 $47,320 +27%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $37,390. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 57. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.