← Risk register SOC 51-4122 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Welding, Soldering, and Brazing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders

31,600 US workers · median $47,920/yr · Production

EXPOSED

This job already sits inside the automation it tends: the machine does the weld, and the operator loads parts, sets parameters, watches the arc, and pulls bad pieces. Modern cells with vision-guided seam tracking, adaptive parameter control, and automated loaders erode the tending and monitoring share fast, while the setup, fixturing, and troubleshooting tier — physically present, hands in the cell — holds up better. Employment is already small (31,600) and concentrated in high-volume manufacturing, where capital spending on robotics is exactly what shrinks this title.

10-year outlook: Expect continued slow contraction as welding cells get more self-correcting, with the remaining jobs concentrating in setup, robot programming, and weld inspection rather than machine tending.

US employment, 2019–2025-10.0%
35,11031,600 workers

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

Median pay $38,310 → $47,920 +0.1% in real terms (nominal +25.1%, 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

-9%

Percentage only. The projection counts a different population from the 31,600 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 -9% 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.

~3,200 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.

BuilderFabricatorMig WelderRod WelderSpot WelderMill OperatorWeld OperatorBraze OperatorField OperatorFurnace BrazerLaser OperatorMachine BurnerMachine WelderRobotic WelderAluminum WelderReflow OperatorBillet AssemblerCertified WelderExplosion WelderInduction BrazerMachine OperatorWelding OperatorIndustrial WelderOxygraph Operator

Score — 37/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (15/20). Weakest point: trust premium (3/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 8 + 15 + 5 + 3 + 6 = 37. · 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 Loading fixtures, hitting cycle start, watching for burn-through and gauging weld bead against a go/no-go sample are the daily core, and all four are already handled in newer cells by part-present sensors, adaptive current control and post-weld vision inspection — the 8 rather than 4 reflects the setup tier that survives: dialing in wire feed and gas flow on a new part number, shimming a fixture that's drifted, and diagnosing why the tip keeps burning back.

Embodiment 15/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments You are inside the guarding to change contact tips, clear spatter off the nozzle, re-clamp a warped weldment and reach into a cell that runs hot, bright and full of fume — 15 not 19 because the cell floor, the fixture and the part geometry are engineered and repeatable, unlike a structural welder working off a beam in weather.

Liability shield 5/20

Certification preferred, not legally required No state licence gates machine welding; a plant may want an AWS D1.1 or D17.1 procedure qualification or a Section IX operator qualification for pressure work, and that certifies the welding procedure and your ability to run it — it doesn't make you the person a failure lands on, which is the QC inspector and the engineer who wrote the WPS.

Trust premium 3/20

Anonymous artifact production The customer receives a bracket or an exhaust assembly with a part number on it, never your name; the only relationship is with your shift lead and the guy on the next operation who notices when your welds start needing grinding.

Judgment & accountability 6/20

Executes defined procedures on defined inputs Decisions are bounded by the WPS, the travel-speed and amperage window on the setup sheet, and the reject criteria on the visual-inspection card — you decide whether a bead undercuts badly enough to scrap and when to call maintenance, real calls but ones with a written answer and a supervisor to escalate to.

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 — quality control and inspection courses, auditable free free to audit · Apprenticeship.gov — paid, employer-sponsored trade apprenticeships, searchable by trade and ZIP paid to train · MIT OpenCourseWare — circuits, systems and diagnostic method, free and ungated free · Apprenticeship.gov — industrial maintenance and millwright programs paid to train · Coursera — engineering and procurement courses, auditable without paying free to audit · Coursera — customer service and client-facing skill courses free to audit · Coursera — teaching and instructional design, audit free free to audit · Learning How to Learn — the most-taken course on Coursera, and free 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.

Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers EXPOSED · 62/100 · you already have ~85% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Quality Control Analysis

Refractory Materials Repairers, Except Brickmasons EXPOSED · 65/100 · you already have ~80% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Repairing, Troubleshooting, Equipment Maintenance, Equipment Selection

Furniture Finishers EXPOSED · 52/100 · you already have ~77% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Service Orientation, Instructing, Quality Control Analysis, Learning Strategies

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 52/100, still EXPOSED.

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

    Genuine two-tier job: if the loading/tending/visual-inspection tier is absorbed by cobot loaders and in-process vision, the surviving title is fixture design, distortion control, weld-defect root-cause on new alloys (aluminum, high-strength steel in EV battery trays), and requalifying WPS after any parameter change. Task-mix shift alone raises resistance without any regulatory move.

  • plausible liability shield +5

    Code-driven welder/operator qualification tied to a named person: ASME Section IX and AWS D1.1 already require a qualified welding operator and a signed WPS/PQR record for pressure vessels, structural steel, and nuclear work. If AWS/ASME tighten machine-welding rules so that an AWS Certified Welding Inspector or CWI-supervised operator must personally sign each production run's parameter sheet and destructive-test coupon — rather than accepting machine data logs — the sign-off attaches to a human. Watch ASME BPV Section IX ballot items on automated/adaptive-parameter welding and NRC 10 CFR 50 App. B supplier audits.

  • plausible embodiment +3

    Migration of the remaining work toward non-repeatable settings — shipyard modules, aerospace repair, field pipeline tie-ins where the cell must be rigged in place. Submerged-arc and orbital equipment set up on-site in confined or overhead positions resists fixturing automation more than a factory cell does.

  • plausible judgment accountability +3

    Authority to stop the line on a suspected weld defect, formalized in contract: USW and IAM agreements at some fabricators already carry quality-hold language. If defect-disposition authority (scrap/rework/accept) is explicitly assigned to the operator rather than a quality engineer or the machine's own accept/reject threshold, the consequential call is owned.

The limit. Trust premium has no realistic route — buyers of welded assemblies specify code compliance and NDT results, never a human hand. And any liability gain lands on the certified-inspector tier, which is a different, smaller title; the 51-4122 headcount can shrink even as the surviving role scores higher.

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 126 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

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI 1,190 $44,060 -8%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 830 $45,990 -4%
Grand Rapids-Wyoming-Kentwood, MI 730 $41,760 -13%
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN 720 $51,290 +7%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 700 $54,500 +14%
Indianapolis-Carmel-Greenwood, IN 550 $38,970 -19%
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 460 $50,740 +6%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 440 $57,900 +21%

Best paid

Tuscaloosa, AL 40 $82,250 +72%
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ 230 $75,200 +57%
New Orleans-Metairie, LA 60 $74,910 +56%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $47,920. 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 37. 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.