← Risk register SOC 41-9099 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Sales and Related Workers, All Other

93,180 US workers · median $48,280/yr · Sales

EXPOSED

This is a residual catch-all bucket, so the modal worker is a generalist seller — prospecting lists, sending outreach, quoting prices, demoing products, logging activity in CRM — and the prospecting, follow-up sequencing, quote generation, and pipeline notes are already the strongest use case for current AI. What survives is the part where a buyer wants a person in the room: reading hesitation, negotiating terms, and being the accountable face when the deal or the delivery goes sideways. No license protects the role, and volume-based seat counts are the first thing trimmed when AI raises per-rep throughput.

10-year outlook: Headcount in this bucket shrinks as AI absorbs prospecting and quoting volume, leaving fewer sellers who each carry larger, relationship-heavy territories.

US employment, 2019–2025-21.6%
118,91093,180 workers

Most of this decline happened after 2021 — it is not the pandemic dip.

Median pay $31,820 → $48,280 +21.4% in real terms (nominal +51.7%, 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

+3.7%

Percentage only. The projection counts a different population from the 93,180 above — it includes self-employed workers, which for this occupation is most of them, so the two headcounts are not comparable.

Exposed, but growing

AI can already do a lot of these tasks, and the BLS still expects +3.7% 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.

~16,000 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.

ShorerGreeterShopperSponsorMeasurerAppraiserCollectorCounselorAuctioneerLiquidatorPawnbrokerBid AnalystFund RaiserPawn BrokerGift WrapperRug MeasurerSong PluggerStamp AnalystStore ShopperTicket BrokerCoin CollectorContact PersonPeople GreeterCirculation Man

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

The BLS uses Sales and Related 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 — 35/100 resistance

Holding it up: trust premium (10/20). Weakest point: liability shield (2/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 8 + 7 + 2 + 10 + 8 = 35. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 8/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier At 8, the split is real but lopsided: list building, cadence emails, quote-and-proposal assembly, and CRM hygiene — likely most of a rep's logged hours — are already being handed to tools, while the discovery call where a buyer talks himself out of a purchase and has to be talked back in still needs a human to hear the pause and change tack.

Embodiment 7/20

Some physical or field component A 7 reflects that most of the week is phone, email, and video, but this bucket absorbs event and trade-show sellers, in-home demo reps, and route-and-territory canvassers who carry samples, set up booths, and drive to the buyer's site — physical presence that shows up in some jobs here, not in the baseline one.

Liability shield 2/20

No licence, no signature requirement A 2 rather than 0 acknowledges that some employers require product-specific certification badges and background checks, but nothing here is a state license: no exam gates the work, no registry can be struck, and the employer or manufacturer absorbs any misrepresentation claim.

Trust premium 10/20

Some relationship component 10 puts this squarely mid-band because named accounts, repeat buyers, and referral flow do accrue to the individual rep, but the relationship attaches to the price, the product, and the territory — buyers switch reps without switching vendors, and most of the book transfers when the rep leaves.

Judgment & accountability 8/20

Meaningful discretion An 8 covers the discretion that actually exists — how far to discount inside an approved band, which objection to concede, whether an account is worth the quarter's attention — while pricing floors, contract terms, and credit approval sit with sales management and finance, so the rep rarely owns the call that can't be reversed.

Confidence: low · 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: trust, 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 49/100, still EXPOSED.

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

    Task-mix shift: once AI absorbs prospecting, sequencing, quoting and CRM hygiene, the surviving seat is the complex-deal tier — multi-stakeholder negotiation, custom terms, on-site demos, escalation recovery. This is a genuine two-tier occupation, but the shift raises per-seat resistance while cutting seat count, so the register score rises for a smaller population.

  • plausible trust premium +4

    Buyer-side procurement rules that require a named human account representative and prohibit AI-only quoting on contracts above a threshold — visible already in some enterprise and government vendor terms and in state bills restricting automated pricing/AI-set prices (e.g. California and New York algorithmic-pricing disclosure bills). If a named human of record becomes a standard contract clause, the premium hardens.

  • plausible judgment accountability +3

    Discount and concession authority formally delegated to the rep with a signed approval of record, as AI recommends but cannot authorize — the pattern in existing CPQ approval-matrix policies. Codified as a human-authorization gate in deal desk rules, the role owns the consequential call.

  • unlikely liability shield +3

    Sector-specific licensing pulling parts of this residual bucket into regulated selling: e.g. state insurance producer or securities registration extended to adjacent product sellers, or FTC/state enforcement on AI-generated sales claims requiring a named human to attest to representations made in a quote or demo. Narrow, because the bucket is unlicensed by definition.

The limit. Realistic ceiling is mid-50s. The bucket is a residual SOC code with no professional body, no license, and no unified employer, so nothing can shield it uniformly; whatever survives is headcount-thinned enterprise closers, and the register score rises for the remnant rather than for the 93,180.

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 207 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

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 12,330 $50,840 +5%
Denver-Aurora-Centennial, CO 4,270 $63,110 +31%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 3,860 $74,530 +54%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 3,070 $39,790 -18%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 3,010 $60,050 +24%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 2,510 $38,820 -20%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 2,430 $52,080 +8%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 2,370 $38,330 -21%

Best paid

Bellingham, WA 40 $81,120 +68%
Waterbury-Shelton, CT 80 $79,640 +65%
Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA 90 $76,120 +58%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $48,280. 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 35. 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.