← Risk register SOC 53-7065 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Stockers and Order Fillers

2,833,810 US workers · median $37,330/yr · Transportation

EXPOSED

The work is physical — unloading trucks, breaking down pallets, facing shelves, picking totes, scanning barcodes — so language models can't touch the core of it, but that's not where the threat comes from. The threat is warehouse automation capital: goods-to-person systems, autonomous mobile robots, and improving suction/pinch pickers already handle a growing share of order filling in high-volume distribution centers, and inventory counting is going to shelf-scanning robots and computer vision. Retail store stocking in cluttered aisles with mixed SKUs is far harder to automate economically and will persist much longer than DC picking, so this title splits sharply by setting.

10-year outlook: Warehouse order-filling headcount per unit shipped keeps falling as automated storage and retrieval spreads, while retail floor stocking shrinks more slowly; expect the surviving jobs to concentrate in equipment operation, receiving, and exception handling.

US employment, 2019–2025+32.7%
2,135,8502,833,810 workers

Headcount grew steadily across the period.

Median pay $27,380 → $37,330 +9.1% in real terms (nominal +36.3%, 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

+8.5% 2,764,800 → 2,999,800 on the projections basis

Exposed, but growing

AI can already do a lot of these tasks, and the BLS still expects +8.5% 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.

~472,300 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.

MarkerPackerPickerPricerPullerRouterSorterGearmanShipperStockerStubberToolmanReceiverStockmanTicketerCrib ClerkDie KeeperMeat ClerkTag MarkerTool ClerkWarehouserYard ClerkBay StockerCrib Tender

Score — 35/100 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: 12 + 15 + 1 + 4 + 3 = 35. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 12/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier Breaking down a mixed pallet, judging which dented cans go back, facing a shelf so labels read straight, and hunting a mis-slotted SKU in a cluttered backroom are still hard for machines — but the barcode scan, the pick path, the cycle count, and the tote handoff are already being run by AMRs and goods-to-person walls in high-volume DCs, which is why this sits at 12 and not 17.

Embodiment 15/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments You are on your feet an eight-to-ten hour shift lifting 25-50 lb cases, climbing ladders, running a pallet jack or order picker through aisles shared with forklifts and shoppers, in trailers that hit 100°F and freezers that hit -10°F — the 15 rather than 19 reflects that the floor is at least a mapped, indoor, flat space that engineers can design robots around.

Liability shield 1/20

No licence, no signature requirement No licence, no certification, no registry — a powered industrial truck authorization under 29 CFR 1910.178 is employer-issued paperwork, not a credential you carry to the next job, and when a pick is wrong or a pallet falls the company eats it, so there is nothing here to slow a substitution decision.

Trust premium 4/20

Anonymous artifact production The 4 comes from the store-side reality that a regular customer will ask you where the tahini is and a department manager will keep the stocker who knows the backroom layout by heart — but nobody chooses a retailer because of who stocked the shelf, and in a DC your picks reach the buyer anonymously in a box.

Judgment & accountability 3/20

Executes defined procedures on defined inputs Pick lists, planograms, FIFO date rotation, and RF-gun prompts define nearly every decision; the discretion left is calling a damaged case, flagging a count variance, or deciding whether to overstock or backroom the excess, which is real but small and reversible — hence 3.

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 · Coursera — communication and interpersonal 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 ~81% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Service Orientation, Social Perceptiveness

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

Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners EXPOSED · 54/100 · you already have ~78% of the skill profile

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 47/100, still EXPOSED.

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

    Task-mix shift inside the same title: if goods-to-person and AMR systems absorb routine tote picking and cycle counting in high-volume DCs, the residual job becomes exception work — jammed inductions, damaged/mislabeled cases, deformable and odd-shaped SKUs robots reject, decanting into totes, and recall/quarantine pulls. This tier genuinely exists (Amazon's 'amnesty' pickers, robot-floor exception associates) and current picking hardware fails on it. Applies mainly to automated DCs; retail store stocking has less of a two-tier split.

  • already happening embodiment +2

    If the surviving employment concentrates in retail store stocking, grocery backroom/produce, and mixed-SKU cluttered-aisle facing rather than DC picking, the measured embodiment of the title rises purely by composition — narrow aisles, customer traffic, tall ladder work, deformable and crushable goods, and cold/frozen rotation remain economically unautomated. Watch grocery chains' capex splitting between micro-fulfillment (automated) and in-store shelf labor (not).

  • plausible liability shield +3

    Certification-gated subsets of the work: DOT/PHMSA HM-232 hazmat handling certification, FDA FSMA 204 traceability recordkeeping for high-risk foods (compliance date already set), and state pharmacy-board rules on who may stock or restock Schedule II-V in retail pharmacies. If FSMA 204 lot-level traceability makes a named, trained receiver personally attest to inbound cold-chain and lot data, a documentary signature attaches to receiving work that currently has none. This shields specific stocker subsets, not the mass of the occupation.

  • plausible judgment accountability +3

    If retailers formalize the receiver/lead role as the accountable party for recall execution, damaged-load rejection at the dock, and shrink/theft escalation — a named person signing off that a pallet was refused or a lot destroyed — the call under ambiguity becomes owned rather than diffuse. Watch job-architecture changes creating 'inventory control specialist' or 'traceability lead' as a distinct accountable title carved out of stocker headcount.

  • plausible embodiment +1

    If ANSI/ITSDF B56.5 and OSHA enforcement of mixed human/AMR floors keeps requiring human presence for robot fault recovery, blocked-path clearing, and manual retrieval from automated storage, a floor of physical human tasks stays legally attached to the automation itself. Watch OSHA National Emphasis Program citations on warehouse robotics and any state rule requiring trained human recovery staffing ratios.

The limit. No plausible route to a meaningful trust premium: buyers of stocked shelves and filled totes do not know or pay for who touched the goods, and no consumer-facing signal exists to build one on. The realistic ceiling is roughly the mid-40s, and it comes almost entirely from surviving-subset composition (retail aisles, hazmat, cold chain) plus exception work — not from the 2.8M-worker title as a whole. Warehouse capital intensity keeps compressing headcount even where per-worker scores rise.

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 392 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 131,080 $38,600 +3%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 111,100 $37,590 +1%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 85,630 $38,650 +4%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 79,850 $38,450 +3%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 77,160 $43,200 +16%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 72,970 $36,890 -1%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 50,970 $36,160 -3%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 45,770 $36,800 -1%

Best paid

Cheyenne, WY 1,720 $46,900 +26%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 30,860 $46,830 +25%
Kenosha, WI 2,530 $46,030 +23%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $37,330. 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."

Amazon · Walmart

0 of 0 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.