AI Job Loss Debate: Which Manual Trades Survive?

When AI takes white-collar jobs, who puts on the overalls?

The premise is simple and leaves little room for nuance: if artificial intelligence wipes out office work in less than a decade, what does a consultant, an administrator, or a salesperson do next? The question, asked with the dry humor of someone asking their grandfather what to study and being told "become a plumber," opens a catalog of physical trades ranging from mattress testers to goat breeders. Beneath the joke lies a serious issue: which jobs cannot be remote-worked, automated, or offshored?

Trades AI Cannot Replace (For Now)

The first answer that emerges is classic manual labor: plumbing, electrical work, locksmithing, guasonry. These are trades requiring hands, mobility, and interaction with clients who won't call a robot to fix their toilet cistern. Some add a nuance: locksmithing will remain a good option "given all the squatters and crime we'll have," an argument mixing trade viability with public insecurity that should be taken as just another opinion in the mix.

The second block covers personal services and care: burial, cleaning, caregiving, cooking, serving drinks. One participant notes that gravediggers' days are numbered because "a robo will do it," but the tacit consensus is that anything involving physical presence and human contact withstands the impact better. Agriculture and livestock farming appear and disappear from the debate: someone gets excited about farming, only to be countered by a Chinese factory of autonomous cultivation with harvesting robots. The countryside is no longer a safe haven.

The Plan B Nobody Wants to Hear: Civil Service Exams

Against the catalog of trades, the most repeated thesis arises: the only thing shielded is what is regulated or protected by the State. State Attorney, municipal administrator, any position requiring a competitive exam (oposición). The argument is that AI may be better or worse, but it won't replace a post reserved by law for a civil servant. There is also an opportunity calculation: the generation of civil servants retiring now leaves vacancies worth grabbing, even if starting salaries are modest.

The counter-argument arrives quickly. If white-collar work collapses, the competitive exam becomes the new bottleneck: millions of candidates for a handful of spots. And those without study capacity should sign up for physical work. The conversation then drifts toward something more uncomfortable: global competition. "Let's see who competes in the world of physical labor with millions of younger, stronger, hungrier people," summarizes one intervention. Manual trades cease to be a refuge and become a contested market.

From "It Will Be Worse Than Now" to System Collapse

There is an undercurrent running through the entire discussion: the suspicion that this isn't about choosing a trade, but that the whole system is going to reorder itself. Someone argues there are "four or five years of normal life left" and that afterwards the world will be "a thousand times worse." Another points out that those laughing today will be the first to fall. And the most incendiary thesis appears: let the system collapse so that surviving white-collar workers have to work from dawn to dusk and beg leftovers from those who actually own land.

Amidst that noise, someone throws out the coldest calculation: those who manage to keep working a few more years will be able to buy properties at bargain prices from those already replaced, and that difference will mark the social classes of the coming world. It is the real estate version of the apocalypse: not everyone falls at once, and the last to fall buys cheap.

AI Isn't as Smart as They Say

Facing the panic, technical correction appears. One participant argues that the amount of real data AI works with is "negligible" and that constant training is unviable due to computing capacity. This isn't bar-stool talk: it points out that the announced leap has a physical ceiling. Another adds that AI is "today's religion" and that yesterday's failures shouted that God was going to screw the rich, just as today we shout that robots are going to screw those who did things right.

And then there's the one who laughs at everything. "In this forum, given the technical knowledge we possess by our own merits, I doubt we have a problem with AI," writes someone. "No AI is capable of reasoning such magnitude of genius in such a short space of time." It is the only answer that doesn't need a Plan B: self-esteem.

---

In the end, the catalog of future trades remains in limbo: neither overalls nor ties guarantee anything. The plumber has work, but competition. The civil servant has a post, but a competitive exam. The farmer has land, but robots. And the one writing this from an office, looking over his shoulder at the one rowing, no longer knows whether to laugh or sign up for a welding course.