← Risk register SOC 51-6011 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers

198,040 US workers · median $34,890/yr · Production

EXPOSED

Almost nothing here is text or screen work, so language AI barely touches the core job: sorting soiled loads, loading washers and tumblers, spot-treating stains, operating presses, and folding and bagging finished garments. The real threat is conventional industrial automation — continuous batch washers, automated feeders and folders in high-volume institutional laundries — which has been quietly shrinking headcount per pound for decades, and AI-assisted vision sorting accelerates that. Limp-fabric handling remains genuinely hard for robots, so the small-shop and retail dry-clean tier persists longer than the hospital/hotel linen plants.

10-year outlook: Employment keeps eroding slowly as institutional laundries automate flatwork and consolidate, while specialty garment-care and restoration niches hold steady at modest pay.

US employment, 2019–2025-5.4%
209,330198,040 workers

Nearly all of this fall was the 2020 shock. It has been climbing back since.

Median pay $24,220 → $34,890 +15.2% in real terms (nominal +44.1%, 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

+5.4% 202,600 → 213,500 on the projections basis

Exposed, but growing

AI can already do a lot of these tasks, and the BLS still expects +5.4% more of these jobs by 2034. Demand for the output is growing faster than the work is being automated away — the mechanism BLS gives for software developers, and the combination people most often misread as an error.

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.

~31,900 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.

DyerDrierMaterSizerFolderHangerHatterLeggerListerMarkerMolderPufferPullerShakerSorterWasherCleanerSpotterSprayerStamperWringerAssorterButtonerDampener

Score — 39/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (15/20). Weakest point: liability shield (1/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 14 + 15 + 1 + 5 + 4 = 39. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 14/20

Tasks largely resist digitisation Feeling a lapel to judge whether a stain is protein or oil-based, pinning a torn seam before it goes through a press, and untangling a mixed load of bras, bedsheets and coveralls are physical judgement tasks no language model performs — the 14 rather than 18 reflects that institutional flatwork (sheets, towels, napkins) is already fed and folded by machine in the big plants.

Embodiment 15/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments You are standing eight hours in 90-degree air near steam presses and tumblers, lifting 40-pound wet loads, handling solvent-soaked garments and shaking out limp fabric by hand — it sits at 15 rather than 19 because the floor itself is an indoor, fixed plant, not a customer's home or an unpredictable outdoor site.

Liability shield 1/20

No licence, no signature requirement No licence, no certificate, no exam gates this work; even the perchloroethylene rules under EPA's NESHAP land on the shop owner's permit, not on the person running the machine, which is why this is a 1 and not a 5.

Trust premium 5/20

Anonymous artifact production Hotel and hospital linen leaves the plant anonymous, but the retail dry-clean counter has regulars who ask for the same person to handle a wedding dress or a favorite suit — that thin, replaceable familiarity is what keeps it at 5 instead of 0.

Judgment & accountability 4/20

Executes defined procedures on defined inputs Calls like which solvent for silk versus wool, water temperature, and when a garment is too damaged to process follow the care label and posted shop procedure, with anything expensive or disputed escalated to the manager — real but narrow discretion, hence 4.

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

Training paths for your skill gaps: Coursera — customer service and client-facing skill courses free to audit · Apprenticeship.gov — industrial maintenance and millwright programs paid to train · Apprenticeship.gov — paid, employer-sponsored trade apprenticeships, searchable by trade and ZIP paid to train

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

Where this experience transfers — occupations you could move toward

Computed from U.S. Dept. of Labor O*NET skill and knowledge profiles: high overlap with what you already do, a materially higher resistance score, no large jump in required training, and no licence you would have to start a new pipeline to get. Targets that pay meaningfully less, that are themselves COOKED, or whose own headcount is falling are excluded — a move into a shrinking trade is not an escape.

Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners EXPOSED · 52/100 · you already have ~80% of the skill profile

Shoe and Leather Workers and Repairers EXPOSED · 57/100 · you already have ~77% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Service Orientation

Refuse and Recyclable Material Collectors EXPOSED · 55/100 · you already have ~76% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Equipment Maintenance, Repairing

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 53/100, still EXPOSED.

5 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening task resistance +3

    Task-mix shift within the retail tier: as tunnel washers, automated feeders and cross-folders absorb flat institutional linen and basic wash-dry-fold, what remains in the surviving shop is unknown-fiber identification, stain chemistry choice (solvent vs. wet-clean vs. enzyme) on one-off garments, and reassembly/pressing of structured tailoring. Watch for job postings shifting from 'presser/folder' to 'spotter' and 'finisher' titles as the routine tier leaves.

  • plausible trust premium +4

    Growth of named-artisan restoration lines already visible in sneaker, handbag and vintage-garment care, plus bridal gown preservation sold with a specific technician's inspection report. Buyers of a $4,000 gown clean are demonstrably paying for a human's eye, not throughput. Recognisable if retail dry-clean marketing shifts from turnaround time to named craftsperson and pre-clean garment consultation.

  • plausible judgment accountability +3

    Restoration and insurance-claim contents cleaning (post-fire/flood textiles) routes damage decisions through a certified technician whose written assessment the carrier relies on — IICRC certification is the existing vehicle. If a larger share of shop revenue comes from insurance restoration work where the technician's salvage/total-loss call is the payout basis, ownership of consequential ambiguous calls rises.

  • plausible embodiment +2

    Deformable-object manipulation stays the bottleneck: if the shop's mix moves toward beaded/sequined gowns, leather and suede, tailored wool, drapery and upholstery — items no current feeder or folder can grip, and that require hand-blocking on a form — the physical-irreducibility share of the day rises even as pounds-per-worker falls elsewhere.

  • unlikely liability shield +2

    Healthcare linen is the only real route: HLAC accreditation and AAMI ST65 already require documented hygienically clean processing, and a state hospital-licensing or CMS condition-of-participation rule naming a trained laundry hygiene supervisor personally responsible for wash-formula validation and load release would create a signer. Nothing comparable exists for retail dry cleaning, and none is proposed.

The limit. Even with every lever, this stays a low-shield occupation: no license gates garment cleaning, and the displacement pressure is conventional mechanical automation in institutional plants rather than anything a countersignature rule would touch. Headcount can fall sharply while the surviving retail/restoration niche scores higher — the score rising is not the workforce surviving.

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 364 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 14,040 $35,910 +3%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 9,230 $37,330 +7%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 6,330 $35,740 +2%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 4,460 $33,330 -4%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 4,360 $32,420 -7%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 4,340 $29,260 -16%
Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, NV 3,710 $36,560 +5%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 3,500 $36,300 +4%

Best paid

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 810 $44,410 +27%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 2,140 $43,610 +25%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 2,040 $43,310 +24%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $34,890. 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 39. 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.