← Risk register SOC 51-7031 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Model Makers, Wood

280 US workers · median $56,550/yr · Production

EXPOSED

The core of this job — laying out, cutting, shaping, and hand-fitting wood patterns, mockups, and prototypes from drawings — is manual craft that language models cannot touch, and shop work with bandsaws, lathes, chisels, and glue-ups resists robotics. The real pressure is not chat AI but the upstream shift: CAD/CAM, CNC routing, and 3D printing already absorb the drawing interpretation, layout math, and roughing that used to be billable skilled hours, and this occupation is already down to roughly 280 workers nationally. No license protects the trade, and clients buy an accurate physical object rather than a relationship with its maker.

10-year outlook: The trade persists in foundry, architectural, and prototype niches, but employment stays tiny and keeps eroding as CNC and additive manufacturing swallow the roughing work — the survivors are the ones who run the machines and still finish by hand.

US employment, 2019–2025-65.4%
810280 workers

This fall is concentrated in 2020 and has not recovered since.

Median pay $59,260 → $56,550 -23.7% in real terms (nominal -4.6%, 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

-4.5%

Percentage only. The projection counts a different population from the 280 above — it includes self-employed workers, which for this occupation is most of them, so the two headcounts are not comparable.

Shrinking, but not obviously because of AI

The BLS projects -4.5% by 2034, but at 48/100 this work is only moderately exposed — not the profile of a job current AI can simply do. Occupations shrink for many reasons, and the score does not point at automation as this one's cause.

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.

~100 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.

LofterBuilderCraftsmanJig MakerJig BuilderLoft WorkerModel MakerWood CarverSample MakerModel BuilderSample WorkerSample BuilderWood CraftsmanWood Last MakerLast Model MakerWood Model MakerProduct CraftsmanSpecial CraftsmanBuilding CraftsmanWood Model BuilderTechnical CraftsmanAircraft Model MakerProduction CraftsmanWoodworking Craftsman

Score — 48/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (16/20). 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 + 16 + 1 + 8 + 9 = 48. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 14/20

Tasks largely resist digitisation Reading a designer's drawing and then hand-fitting a curved hull mockup or furniture prototype — planing to a fair line, scarfing joints, sanding to a feel rather than a dimension — is work no model can do, but the 14 rather than 18 reflects that CNC routing and 3D printing already take the roughing, nesting, and layout arithmetic that used to fill the first days of a job.

Embodiment 16/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments You spend the shift standing at a bandsaw, lathe, and bench, wrestling stock that moves with humidity, chasing grain direction and tearout, working around clamps and dust — a 16 rather than 19 only because it's your own shop with fixed machines, not a bridge deck or a crawlspace.

Liability shield 1/20

No licence, no signature requirement There is no state license, no journeyman card, no stamp required to make a wooden pattern or mockup; a buyer can hand the same drawing to any shop with a router and no statute stops them, which is what puts this at 1.

Trust premium 8/20

Some relationship component Repeat clients — a foundry, a boatbuilder, an industrial design studio — come back to a maker who has learned their tolerances and drawing conventions, but the deliverable is a physical part that either checks out on the surface plate or doesn't, so the relationship earns you the callback, not the price.

Judgment & accountability 9/20

Meaningful discretion You decide shrink allowance, draft angles, parting lines, and where to build up versus carve away when the drawing is ambiguous, and a bad call scraps expensive stock or a casting downstream — but the designer owns the design intent and signs off, keeping this in the discretion band rather than the high-stakes one.

Confidence: medium · 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, judgment

How to future-proof this job

Training paths for your skill gaps: Coursera — engineering and procurement courses, auditable without paying free to audit · MIT OpenCourseWare — finance and accounting free · Khan Academy — mathematics, arithmetic through calculus free · Coursera — negotiation courses, audit free free to audit · Apprenticeship.gov — electrical, HVAC, plumbing and fitting programs that pay while you learn 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.

Brickmasons and Blockmasons SAFE · 68/100 · you already have ~81% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Equipment Selection, Management of Financial Resources, Mathematics, Negotiation

Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers EXPOSED · 62/100 · you already have ~81% of the skill profile

Glaziers EXPOSED · 65/100 · you already have ~78% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Installation, Management of Financial Resources

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 60/100, still EXPOSED.

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

    Task-mix shift as CNC/3D printing absorbs roughing and layout: the residual job becomes final hand-fitting, grain matching, finish work, and reverse-engineering objects that exist with no drawings (historic architectural millwork patterns, museum/conservation replicas, foundry patterns for legacy castings where no model file exists). Watchable marker: shops advertising 'digitize + hand-finish' rather than build-from-drawing.

  • plausible trust premium +4

    Provenance-based demand: Secretary of the Interior Standards / NPS Preservation Brief compliance work on historic restoration, and museum conservation contracts that specify hand-worked reproduction rather than additive-manufactured substitutes. Also luxury/marine and instrument prototyping where 'hand-built pattern' is a marketed attribute. Watchable marker: RFPs specifying hand-carved or traditional-method reproduction.

  • plausible judgment accountability +3

    Pattern-of-record responsibility in foundry and tooling work: if the maker is the one who sets draft, shrinkage allowance, and parting lines for a casting that goes into a certified assembly (AS9100 / ASME first-article), the call and its cost of failure sit with them. Watchable marker: first-article inspection documentation naming the patternmaker.

  • plausible embodiment +2

    Concentration of remaining work into one-off, non-repeating pieces in cluttered general-purpose shops — species-specific hand judgment on movement, grain runout, and glue-up clamping that fixtured robotics cannot amortize over a single unit.

The limit. With 280 workers nationally and no licensure body, there is no realistic route to a liability shield — no state board is going to license wood patternmaking. Trust premium gains are real but apply to a niche (preservation, museum, luxury prototyping) too small to lift the trade as a whole; the dominant risk here is the occupation shrinking further rather than being scored differently.

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.

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 48. 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.