← Risk register SOC 43-9199 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Office and Administrative Support Workers, All Other

192,260 US workers · median $45,670/yr · Office

COOKED

This is the BLS catch-all bucket for clerical roles that don't fit elsewhere — form processing, data lookup and entry, correspondence drafting, scheduling, records maintenance, routing requests through internal systems. Nearly all of that is text-and-screen work that current AI plus workflow automation already handles at usable quality, and none of it requires a license or personal accountability. What holds on is the physical and interpersonal residue: walking documents around, handling badge access and visitors, chasing people who ignore the system, and fixing the cases where the workflow breaks.

10-year outlook: Headcount in this bucket shrinks steadily through the decade as intake, drafting, and routing get absorbed by software; the jobs that remain are the on-site, exception-handling, and system-administration slices.

US employment, 2019–2025+2.1%
188,360192,260 workers

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

Median pay $35,470 → $45,670 +3.0% in real terms (nominal +28.8%, 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

-7.8%

Percentage only. The projection counts a different population from the 192,260 above — it includes self-employed workers, which for this occupation is most of them, so the two headcounts are not comparable.

Exposed, and shrinking

Both signals point the same way: the tasks are largely automatable and the BLS projects -7.8% by 2034. This is the case where the score and the forecast agree, and it is the one worth taking seriously.

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.

~21,300 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.

GoferPenmanReaderSealerTabberTracerCashierCharterClipperStufferWatcherBoardmanInserterTube ManAddresserAttendantBank ClerkCar SealerCataloguerCrew ClerkNews ClerkTag WriterTub PullerFilm Reader

This is a catch-all code, not a single job

The BLS uses Office and Administrative Support Workers, All Other for work that doesn't fit any named occupation, so it covers roles that have little in common with each other. Two consequences worth knowing before you read anything below:

If a more specific occupation on the register describes what you actually do, that page is the one to trust.

Score — 22/100 resistance

Holding it up: task resistance (6/20). 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: 6 + 6 + 1 + 5 + 4 = 22. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 6/20

Core tasks are already automatable The daily loop — keying intake forms, looking up account or record status, drafting routine correspondence from templates, updating trackers, routing tickets to the right department — is exactly what document-understanding and workflow tools ship today, and a 6 rather than a 2 only reflects the exception cases: the form that arrives half-legible, the request that fits no category in the system, the internal process nobody documented that lives in your head.

Embodiment 6/20

Some physical or field component You are on your feet some of the day — carrying signature packets between floors, pulling and refiling physical records, stocking supply cabinets, escorting visitors, jamming the copier and unjamming it — but that movement happens on a known floorplan with predictable objects, which puts it at 6 rather than the 13+ of field work where the environment itself is unpredictable.

Liability shield 1/20

No licence, no signature requirement There is no license, no registration, no continuing-education requirement standing between your job and someone else doing it; if a form you processed was wrong, the manager or the licensed professional who relied on it answers for it, and the 1 rather than 0 is only because some postings ask for a certificate or notary commission that anyone can obtain in weeks.

Trust premium 5/20

Anonymous artifact production Coworkers know your name and route hard requests to you because you know which supervisor actually approves things — that internal reputation is real — but the external customer or client rarely knows who processed their paperwork and would not notice a different name on the reply, which caps this at 5.

Judgment & accountability 4/20

Executes defined procedures on defined inputs Your discretion is bounded: choosing which queue a request belongs in, deciding whether an incomplete submission gets bounced back or fixed in-house, flagging something odd upward — the consequential calls on approval, spending, and policy exceptions go to a supervisor, and a 4 rather than 8 reflects how narrow that band of independent decision is.

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: physical-presence

How to future-proof this job

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

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 36/100 — EXPOSED.

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

    Task-mix shift toward exception handling: as document-processing and correspondence tiers are automated, the residual job becomes chasing non-responders, reconciling records that disagree across systems, and unblocking cases the workflow rejects. This is a genuine two-tier occupation, but the judgment tier is thin and typically gets folded into one supervisor rather than sustaining headcount.

  • plausible embodiment +4

    Consolidation of the role into on-site facilities/front-desk duties — badge issuance and visitor escorting under building security policy, wet-signature and notarized document handling, secure physical records custody (HIPAA/CJIS-style paper controls, court clerk paper filings). Where an employer merges the clerical residue into a physical-presence post, the embodiment share of the day rises.

  • plausible judgment accountability +4

    Formal designation as the named human in the loop for automated decisions — e.g. Colorado SB 24-205 and EU AI Act Art. 14 style requirements that a person review and be able to override adverse automated determinations affecting individuals (benefits eligibility, scheduling denials, records corrections). If a clerical post is the designated reviewer of record, the role starts owning consequential calls it currently only routes.

  • plausible liability shield +3

    Narrow routes exist only for specific sub-roles: state notary commissions (and the state-by-state remote online notarization rules that keep a commissioned human in the loop), and court-clerk or election-clerk statutory duties where a named human must certify a filing or chain of custody. If an employer requires the clerk to hold a notary commission or a CJIS/HIPAA-designated records-custodian designation, a small personal-accountability floor appears.

The limit. No realistic route to a higher trust premium: buyers do not choose a vendor or agency because a human did the form processing, and the work is invisible to the end customer. The liability and human-in-the-loop levers also tend to concentrate accountability in one designated person per office rather than preserving the current headcount, so scores can rise for the surviving role while the occupation still shrinks sharply. Realistic ceiling is low 40s and only for the sub-slice that becomes notary/custodian/reviewer-of-record.

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 279 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

Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 11,050 $48,010 +5%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 7,130 $52,780 +16%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 6,730 $45,420 -1%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 6,210 $46,690 +2%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 5,910 $57,160 +25%
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 5,100 $37,660 -18%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 4,820 $42,970 -6%
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 3,770 $37,100 -19%

Best paid

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 150 $72,830 +59%
Buffalo-Cheektowaga, NY 60 $67,490 +48%
Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 1,340 $66,710 +46%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $45,670. 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

The score above is about what the work exposes. This is reporting about real deployments in this occupation — the difference between "could be automated" and "somebody automated it."

Standard Chartered · HSBC

3 of 3 reported cases, with sources

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.