Job Polarization refers to a labor market phenomenon that has appeared in many countries in recent decades. While the number of middle-income jobs is declining, employment in either high- or low-wage occupations is increasing (Wolfgang & Hale, 2023). Automation processes replaced routine tasks in middle-skill jobs and supported high-skill jobs (Autor, Levy & Murnane, 2003). Globalization raises the local demand for personal services (low-skill) and technology jobs (high-skill) and outsources middle-skill jobs (Goos, Manning & Salomons, 2009; Folbre, 2012). Lastly, while there is a higher demand for personal services, like housekeeping, caregiving, and food services, these tasks cannot be automated easily (Autor & Dorn, 2013; Razavi, 2011). Job polarization reshapes economic opportunities, job security, and social mobility with unequal effects on different groups. While some benefit from high-skill job growth, others face worsening inequality, job precarity, and stagnant wages.
Framing & Perspective
The shrinking share of employment in middle-skill, routine occupations, called job polarization, can be seen in employment structures in Western Europe, as well as the U.S. and the U.K. in the past 35 years (Goos, Manning & Salomons, 2009; Jaimovich & Siu, 2020; Folbre, 2012).
Three causes for job polarization seem crucial: automation processes, globalization, and with that a higher demand for personal services (Autor, Levy & Murnane, 2003; Goos, Manning & Salomons, 2009; Autor & Dorn, 2013; Eubanks, 2018). Automation can trigger structural change to more personal services and therefore, higher the amount of high and low-skilled occupations (Fierro, Caiani, & Russo, 2022; Noble, 2018). At the same time, automation reduces the offer of middle-skilled jobs. Similar to automation, globalization changes routine middle-skill jobs since a lot of this work is done by technology or outsourced to other countries, such as factory work or clerical jobs. Technology, on the other hand, increases the demand for both high-skill (e.g., engineers, analysts) and low-skill jobs (e.g., service workers) that are harder to automate (Goos, Manning & Salomons, 2009; Autor, Levy & Murnane, 2003; Noble, 2018).
Additionally, job polarization is linked to the distribution of wages and salaries. Unions and labor protections are supposed to stabilize middle-class wages. With the decrease in middle-skill jobs and with its unions, low-wage workers are losing bargaining power and further increasing wage inequality (Card, 2001; MCAlevey, 2016). Workers are forced into high-skill/high-wage jobs or low-skill/low-wage jobs. Instead of equal distribution, this creates a binary wage structure within society (Acemoglu & Auto, 2011; Folbre, 2012). More high-skill workers also means more competition and wage growth at the top (Auto, Katz & Kearney, 2006). At the same time, wages in low-wage sectors are stagnant since these jobs often do not require specialized skills, which further lessen potential bargaining power (Autor & Dorn, 2013).
What does this mean in practice? Job polarization contributes to unequal distribution of resources and widens economic gaps. While some benefit from high-skill job growth, others face worsening inequality, job precarity, and stagnant wages. Fewer stable or well-paid jobs, greater housing insecurity, the need to take on more debt, and fewer opportunities to save. Reducing social mobility, well-paid jobs require expensive training and qualifications that are not equally accessible to all. Additionally, many low-skill jobs, such as retail or care work, often offer low wages and weak labor protections. Gig economy jobs such as working for delivery companies increase precarity with workers lacking stable contracts, healthcare, or retirement security.
The polarization of jobs might be experienced unequally, shaped by race, gender, class, ability, and/or migration status. Usually, cis-women, especially cis-women of color and migrant women, are disproportionately employed in low-wage care, domestic and retail jobs (Razavi, 2011; Folbre, 2012). Still, care and domestic work are undervalued with their reinforcing economic dependence and gender inequality (McAlevey, 2016). High-skill industries (e.g., tech and finance) favor mainly white cis-men, hindering cis-women from being able to wage growth (Hicks, Santacrose, Takahashi & Keiser, 2019). Black, Indigenous, and immigrant workers are often pushed into the service sector rather than high-wage sectors that require access to networks and credentials or recognition of their education from other countries (Wilson, 2012; Virdee, 2014). They face systemic discrimination in hiring and promotion processes (Wison, 2012). Language barriers and xenophobic policies limit access to stable jobs (Mohanty, 2003). LGBTQ+ individuals are often overrepresented in creative industries or service jobs, having less perspective of stability and higher income (Badgett et al., 2007; Schilt & Wiswall, 2008). Trans individuals are more likely to face unemployment and workplace discrimination, heading toward precarious employment and poverty. People with disabilities are more likely to be excluded from the general labor market, as there is more discussion about what they cannot contribute instead of how workplaces can be more inclusive (Pfeiffer, 2001; Jammaers, Zanoni & Hardonk, 2016).
Relevance
From an individual perspective, how does job polarization affect the societies we are living in? Economic inequality and its lack of equal opportunities for everyone contributes to political polarization, as disenfranchised workers are more likely to distrust institutions and are easier targets for populist movements (Autor et al., 2020; Hochschild, 2016). To tackle this issue, there is a need for intersectional solutions, such as robust labor rights, fair wages, and union protection (McAlevey, 2016). Additionally, addressing systemic discrimination in hiring and wage structures is crucial to reducing labor market inequality (Folbre, 2012; Virdee, 2014). Policies must regulate accessible education and upskilling to expand high-skill job access beyond privileged groups. Investing in social infrastructure, such as affordable childcare, healthcare, and transportation, can further mitigate economic disparities and increase social mobility (Mohanty, 2003; Jammaers et al., 2016). Job polarization is a broader social challenge that demands systemic, inclusive, and equitable responses.
Keywords: Job Polarization, Labor Market Inequality, Automation, Wage Inequality, Care Work, Precarious Employment, Globalization, Middle-Class
Connected terms: Sexism, Gendered Ageism, Internalized Sexism, Ethnocentrism, Linguistic Imperialism, Xenophobia, Zero-Sum Thinking, Stereotype Threat, Representation, White Guilt, White Silence, Housewifization
References
Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. H. (2011). Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. In D. Card & O. Ashenfelter (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (Vol. 4, pp. 1043–1171). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(11)02410-5
Autor, D. H., Dorn, D. (2013). The growth of low-skill service jobs and the polarization of the U.S. labor market. American Economic Review, 103(5), 1553–1597. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.5.1553
Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., & Kearney, M. S. (2006). The polarization of the U.S. labor market. American Economic Review, 96(2), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282806777212620
Autor, D. H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279–1333. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355303322552801
Autor, D., Dube, A., & McGrew, W. (2020). The unexpected compression: Competition at work in the low-wage labor market. American Economic Review, 110(8), 2313–2367. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191745
Badgett, M. V. L., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2007). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. The Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/bias-in-the-workplace/
Card, D. (2001). The effect of unions on wage inequality in the U.S. labor market. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54(2), 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979390105400206
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York: Picador, St Martin’s Press.
Fierro, E., Caiani, A., & Russo, A. (2022). Automation and job polarization: Evidence from European regions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 178, 121594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121594
Folbre, N. (2012). For love and money: Care provision in the United States. Russell Sage Foundation.
Goos, M., Manning, A., & Salomons, A. (2009). Job polarization in Europe. American Economic Review, 99(2), 58-63.
Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. https://transequality.org/issues/resources/national-transgender-discrimination-survey-report
Hicks, M., Santacrose, M., Takahashi, K., & Keiser, M. (2019). Gender and racial inequality in high-tech industries. Sociological Perspectives, 62(5), 682–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121419842094
Hochschild, A. R. (2016). Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American right. The New Press.
Jaimovich, N., & Siu, H. E. (2020). Job polarization and jobless recoveries. Review of Economics and Statistics, 102(1), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00854
Jammaers, E., Zanoni, P., & Hardonk, S. (2016). Constructing positive identities in ableist workplaces: Disabled employees’ discursive practices engaging with the discourse of lower productivity. Human Relations, 69(6), 1365-1386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715612901
McAlevey, J. (2016). No shortcuts: Organizing for power in the new gilded age. Oxford University Press.
Mohanty, C. T. (2003). “Under Western eyes” revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(2), 499–535. https://doi.org/10.1086/342914
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
Pfeiffer, D. (2001). The conceptualization of disability. In G. L. Albrecht, K. D. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 29–52). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452212536.n2
Razavi, S. (2011). Rethinking care in a development context: An introduction. Development and Change, 42(4), 873-903. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01722.x
Schilt, K., & Wiswall, M. (2008). Before and after: Gender transitions, human capital, and workplace experiences. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 8(1), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.1862
Virdee, S. (2014). Racism, class and the racialized outsider. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wilson, G. (2012). Race, gender, and low-wage employment: Social reproduction and inequality in the new economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145516
Wolfgang, K. & Hale, U. (2023). International trade and job polarization: Evidence at the worker level, Journal of International Economics, Volume 145, 2023, 103810, ISSN 0022-1996, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2023.103810
