← Risk register SOC 53-6021 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Parking Attendants

137,880 US workers · median $35,150/yr · Transportation

COOKED verdict contested

The modal parking attendant collects fees, issues and validates tickets, monitors lot occupancy and directs drivers to open spaces — and every one of those tasks is already handled at scale by pay-on-foot kiosks, license-plate recognition, gateless app-based parking, and occupancy sensors. What survives is the physical tier: valet drivers who actually move customer vehicles through tight garages, handle keys, and deal with the guest who blocked the ramp or scraped a bumper. There is no license, no signature requirement, and almost no ambiguous decision-making to anchor the role, so the shrinkage comes from parking-tech capex rather than from language models.

10-year outlook: Headcount keeps eroding through the 2030s as gateless plate-reading garages become standard, leaving a smaller workforce concentrated in valet, event, and hospital parking where a human physically moves the car.

US employment, 2019–2025-6.5%
147,390137,880 workers

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

Median pay $25,140 → $35,150 +11.9% in real terms (nominal +39.8%, 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

+3% 135,700 → 139,800 on the projections basis

Exposed, but growing

AI can already do a lot of these tasks, and the BLS still expects +3% 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.

~18,500 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.

HikerValetCar HopAttendantCar HikerAuto HikerCar ChaserCar HopperCar JockeyCar ParkerCar RunnerLot PorterAuto ParkerCar HostlerCar ShaggerRamp JockeyValet DriverValet ParkerValet RunnerLot AttendantService ValetTruck SpotterUtility ClerkNight Attendant

Score — 32/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (14/20). 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: 9 + 14 + 1 + 5 + 3 = 32. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 9/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier At 9 the score splits the job in two: fee collection, ticket validation, occupancy counts and space-directing are already gone wherever a garage has installed LPR and a pay-on-foot kiosk, but valet parking — reversing a stranger's manual-transmission truck down a 12% ramp into a stacked stall, then retrieving it in four minutes — has no deployed substitute, which is why this isn't a 4.

Embodiment 14/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments 14 reflects that the surviving work is entirely outdoors or in unventilated decks: standing shifts in rain and January cold, walking rows to chalk tires or check permits, and driving unfamiliar vehicles with unfamiliar clutch feel and blind spots through structures never designed for a car you didn't practice in.

Liability shield 1/20

No licence, no signature requirement 1 is near-floor because a driver's license is the only credential and it isn't parking-specific — damage claims land on the garage operator's garage-keeper's liability policy, not on you, and no statute requires an attendant's signature on anything.

Trust premium 5/20

Anonymous artifact production 5 is honest about the regulars: the downtown monthly parker who hands you keys by name and tips at Christmas is real, but the airport lot or stadium event shift is pure throughput where the customer never learns your name and would not notice a different attendant tomorrow.

Judgment & accountability 3/20

Executes defined procedures on defined inputs 3 matches a duty set governed by posted rate boards and operator procedure — validate or don't, tow or call the manager, refuse the oversized vehicle — with the genuinely ambiguous calls (accepting a car with existing damage, disputing a lost-ticket charge) escalated to a supervisor.

The verdict on this page is contested. We scored this occupation twice, independently, and the two runs disagreed: 32/100 — COOKED and 35/100 — EXPOSED. Combining them doesn't settle it — the answer changes depending on how the halfway points are rounded, which is a property of our arithmetic and not of the job. Rather than pick the side that suits us, we've left the original verdict in place and flagged it. Read the dimension scores below and the reasoning attached to each; on this page they carry the information, and the one-word label does not.

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: MIT OpenCourseWare — operations management free · Coursera — work planning and personal productivity free to audit · Coursera — negotiation, influence and persuasion courses free to audit · Coursera — communication and interpersonal skills free to audit · Coursera — quality control and inspection courses, auditable free free to audit · Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit

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.

Orderlies EXPOSED · 56/100 · you already have ~80% of the skill profile

Postal Service Mail Carriers EXPOSED · 49/100 · you already have ~79% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Operations Analysis, Time Management

Passenger Attendants EXPOSED · 47/100 · you already have ~78% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Persuasion, Social Perceptiveness, Quality Control Analysis, Active Listening

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 44/100 — EXPOSED.

4 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening embodiment +4

    Task-mix collapse into valet-only work: if fee collection and enforcement fully migrate to LPR/app systems (already standard in Chicago, LA, and most airport garages), the residual headcount is drivers moving customer cars in tight legacy garages with manual keys, curbside handoffs, EV charging cable management, and damage walk-arounds — physical work that autonomous valet parking (Mercedes/Bosch INTELLIGENT PARK PILOT, certified only in a single Stuttgart garage) cannot do in mixed unmapped facilities

  • plausible trust premium +3

    Hotel and hospital valet as a paid amenity line item: if brand standards (Marriott/Hyatt luxury tiers, hospital patient-experience scoring tied to CMS HCAHPS-style surveys) continue to specify a live attendant at the door for arrival greeting and mobility assistance, the human is what the fee buys rather than the car movement

  • plausible liability shield +3

    Garage-keeper liability and bonding: some municipal valet ordinances (e.g. Los Angeles valet permit rules, Miami Beach valet licensing) require a permitted operator, insurance certificate, and named attendants; if cities tighten these into individual attendant permits with named responsibility for vehicle custody, a thin personal-accountability layer attaches to key handling

  • plausible judgment accountability +2

    Damage and incident calls: if operator insurers require an on-site human to document pre-existing damage, decide whether a vehicle is safe to move (low clearance, modified suspension, dead EV), and manage ramp blockages during evacuation, the surviving role owns small consequential calls under ambiguity

The limit. Even with every lever, this stays low — the ceiling is a much smaller valet-only occupation, not a protected one. Headcount loss is driven by kiosk and LPR capex already deployed, and nothing here reverses that; the levers change what the remaining jobs look like, not how many there are.

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 216 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 14,220 $35,920 +2%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 11,070 $37,280 +6%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 8,550 $29,650 -16%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 5,490 $31,770 -10%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 4,450 $37,810 +8%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 3,810 $28,200 -20%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 3,470 $44,480 +27%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 3,400 $31,120 -11%

Best paid

Colorado Springs, CO 150 $47,320 +35%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 650 $45,030 +28%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 3,470 $44,480 +27%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $35,150. 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 32. 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.