🔍 Read the full analysis: What Makes Field, Factory, And Office Jobs Distinct? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
A November 2, 2026, essay by Thorsten Meyer introduces a series about economic change by explaining the field, factory and office model. Historical estimates cited in the essay show farming’s share of U.S. employment fell from 73.7% in 1800 to 1.5% in the ILO’s 2025 estimate; the categories are useful but imperfect, and the essay’s automation forecast is presented as a thesis, not an established fact.
Thorsten Meyer published the first episode of a planned 60-part series on November 2, 2026, using the categories field, factory and office to explain how employment has shifted from agriculture toward manufacturing and services. The installment sets out historical employment estimates and the limits of the model, while distinguishing those records from Meyer’s own prediction about automation.
The three categories correspond to economists’ primary, secondary and tertiary sectors. Primary work takes resources from nature, including farming, fishing and forestry; mining is included in many classifications but not all. Secondary work makes or builds things, covering manufacturing, construction and energy. Tertiary work provides services, from transport and retail to health care, education and government.
The essay cites estimates showing a long decline in agriculture’s share of U.S. employment. Economic historian Stanley Lebergott’s historical series puts farming at 73.7% of the U.S. labor force in 1800, 54.8% in 1850, 40.2% in 1900 and 12.0% in 1950. The source gives the International Labour Organization’s modelled estimate for 2025 as 1.5%. The figures describe employment shares, not the amount of food produced.
The account also notes that the shift occurred in other countries. It gives China’s primary-sector employment share as falling from 83.5% in 1952 to 22.2% in 2024, and Japan’s as declining from 53.8% in 1920 to 3.2% in 2020. The essay says that, in ILO modelled estimates, services employed more people worldwide than farming from 2001. These numbers are attributed to the source’s cited historical and modelled series, which use different countries, dates and measures.
Why the sector shift matters
The categories help readers make sense of a major change in where people work: fewer workers are employed directly in agriculture, while more earn a living in industry and services. That distinction matters when discussing technology and jobs. A decline in the number of farm workers does not, by itself, mean a decline in food supply; it can reflect changes in productivity and the organization of production.
The model also gives a framework for debates about automation. The essay recounts economist Jean Fourastié’s argument that productivity gains in industry could move workers into services, where some tasks are harder to scale in the same way. That is an economic argument about a broad historical pattern, not proof that displaced workers will always find suitable jobs, or that every new technology will produce the same outcome.
For readers following changes in employment, the key point is that sector labels are a map, not a complete account of a job or a worker’s experience. The framework can show large shifts across decades, but it does not identify the quality of jobs, wages, working conditions or how easily workers move between them.
Products Worth Considering
FLEXISPOT EN1 Electric Standing Desk, 60 x 24 in, Black
Samsung 49-inch Odyssey OLED G9 (G91SD) Dual QHD Curved Gaming Monitor
FLEXISPOT 60 × 24-Inch Electric Standing Desk, White
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How economists drew the map
The three-sector framework took shape in the early 20th century. New Zealand economist Allan G. B. Fisher used the term “tertiary” in work written in 1934 and published in 1935, according to Meyer’s account. Fisher described a movement from primary work into secondary production and, to a greater extent, services.
Colin Clark compared employment patterns across countries in his 1940 book, adding evidence to the idea that workers move from agriculture to manufacturing and then to commerce and services. Clark also observed that industry’s share of employment did not necessarily rise indefinitely. In 1949, French economist Jean Fourastié argued that services could absorb workers made unnecessary in other sectors as technology raised productivity.
The categories remain blunt. A software engineer employed by a car company, for example, might be counted as part of manufacturing in one statistical system and as a service worker in another. Mining’s classification also varies. Such differences mean that cross-country comparisons need care, even when the broad pattern is clear.
““A vast miscellaneous residue of activity.””
— Allan G. B. Fisher, as quoted in Thorsten Meyer’s essay
Where the sector labels blur
The source does not provide a single classification standard for every country and industry. As a result, the figures should not be treated as perfectly comparable without checking how each series defines sectors, workers and time periods. It also does not provide the underlying tables or full methodological detail for every number included in the episode.
It remains uncertain how future automation will affect employment across sectors. Meyer’s suggestion that automation could eventually operate as a separate sector and perform up to 90% of work is his stated thesis; the installment does not establish a timeframe, method for measuring that share or evidence that the outcome will occur. The historical pattern alone cannot settle those questions.
The series turns to automation
Meyer says Work After Work is planned as a daily series of 60 episodes about how the economy is built, how work changes and which tasks remain human as machines take on more work. The opening installment establishes the sector model as a starting point for that discussion.
According to the essay, the automation thesis is scheduled to be examined in Episode 48. Until then, the distinction between documented employment trends and forecasts will matter: the historical estimates describe changes already measured, while claims about how much work machines may perform remain predictions.
Key Questions
What are the three sectors in the model?
Primary work takes resources from nature; secondary work makes or builds goods; and tertiary work provides services. The boundaries can differ across statistical systems.
How much of the U.S. labor force worked in farming in 1800?
The historical estimate cited by Meyer, from Stanley Lebergott’s series, is 73.7% in 1800. The same source gives an ILO modelled estimate of 1.5% for 2025; these figures refer to farming’s share of employment.
Does the decline in farm employment mean less food was produced?
No such conclusion follows from the employment figures alone. The essay says food did not run out as workers moved into other sectors, but employment shares by themselves do not measure food output or explain every cause of the change.
Is the claim that automation could do 90% of work a proven forecast?
No. Meyer labels it his thesis. The episode does not establish that automation will reach that level, define precisely how it would be measured or give evidence confirming the prediction.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
