🔍 Read the full analysis: Field, Factory, Office: Three Settings For Work on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the little things that make your day delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
ThorstenMeyerAI.com launched “Work After Work,” a 60-episode series about how work and employment have changed. Its opening installment explains the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors and cites estimates showing long-term shifts from farming toward services. It also presents automation as a thesis to be examined later, not an established outcome.
ThorstenMeyerAI.com published the first episode of its planned 60-part series, “Work After Work,” on November 2. The installment sets out a three-sector framework for describing shifts in employment from farming to manufacturing and services, using historical and modelled employment estimates. It also introduces the author’s thesis that automation could eventually form a sector of its own.
The episode divides economic activity into three broad groups: the primary sector, which takes resources from nature, including farming, fishing and forestry; the secondary sector, which makes or builds things, including manufacturing and construction; and the tertiary sector, which provides services such as trade, transport, education, health care and government. Mining’s classification varies across statistical systems, the article says.
For the United States, the installment cites historian Stanley Lebergott’s estimates that farming accounted for 73.7% of the labor force in 1800, 54.8% in 1850, 40.2% in 1900 and 12.0% in 1950. It also cites an International Labour Organization modelled estimate that farming represented 1.5% of US employment in 2025. These figures refer to different historical series and estimates, rather than a single contemporary count.
The article says the ILO’s modelled estimates show that services have employed more people worldwide than farming since 2001. It also points to shifts in China and Japan. These examples support the installment’s account of a broad move in employment between sectors, while the author notes that the categories are blunt: the same kind of job may be classified differently depending on the statistical system.
Why Sector Shifts Matter
The framework describes where people earn their living, rather than simply what products an economy makes. A country can continue producing food and manufactured goods while employing a smaller share of its workforce in those activities, as changes in productivity allow fewer workers to produce more. The installment uses this distinction to address the claim that the United States “doesn’t make things anymore.”
Citing figures in the article, US factory employment is about 35% below its June 1979 peak, while real manufacturing output in 2025 was about 1.9 times its 1979 level. The measures describe different things: the number of jobs and the inflation-adjusted volume of production. Their contrast shows that declining employment in a sector does not by itself establish that the sector has disappeared.
The series also connects the historical shift to questions about machines and jobs. Whether automation removes work, changes tasks or moves workers into new activities has implications for workers, employers and policymakers. The opening episode presents this as a subject for examination across the series, rather than a settled prediction.
Products Worth Considering
Withings BPM Connect Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Blood Pressure Monitor
Oral-B iO Series 5 Rechargeable Electric Toothbrush with Travel Case, White
Hyperice Normatec Elite Wireless Compression Boots, Standard Size
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Three-Sector Map Emerged
The episode traces the framework to economic writing in the first half of the 20th century. New Zealand economist Allan G. B. Fisher used “tertiary” for the service sector in a book written in 1934 and published in 1935, according to the installment. In later writing, Fisher argued that employment in developing economies moved from primary activities toward manufacturing and, to a greater extent, services.
Economist Colin Clark compared sectoral employment across countries in his 1940 book, helping quantify the pattern. The article says Clark also observed that industry’s share of employment could rise and later decline. In 1949, French economist Jean Fourastié argued that services could absorb workers displaced as technology raised productivity in other sectors. The episode presents this as an argument from the period, not proof that displaced workers will always find equivalent work.
The three categories simplify a complicated economy. For example, the installment says a software engineer working for a carmaker may be counted as manufacturing in one statistical system and services in another. The categories remain useful for examining broad employment patterns, but comparisons depend on how industries and workers are classified.
“The number to remember: 2001.”
— Thorsten Meyer, author of the episode
What the Sector Figures Cannot Show
The cited figures do not establish that a particular worker displaced from farming or manufacturing moved directly into services, or that the new work offered comparable pay, security or conditions. They describe employment shares over time, not individual career paths or the full effects of economic change.
The article presents its automation forecast as the author’s thesis, not a confirmed fact: it suggests automation could become a separate sector within a decade or a few decades and perform up to 90% of work without a human hand. The installment provides no detailed method or evidence in the supplied material for that projection. The proposed scale, timeline and definition of “work” remain unclear.
Sector boundaries also differ across statistical systems, particularly for mining and work that combines manufacturing with services. That makes some cross-country comparisons less direct. The article does not provide enough detail here to assess the underlying ILO model or how its employment estimates may change.
The Series Turns to Automation
“Work After Work” is scheduled as a daily series of 60 episodes examining how economies are built, how work has moved between sectors and which tasks may remain human as machines take on more. The opening installment says a later episode, number 48, will assess the author’s automation thesis.
The first episode establishes the historical framework. Subsequent installments are expected to apply it to newer technologies. Points to examine include the evidence and definitions used to assess the automation forecast and whether later episodes distinguish jobs eliminated from tasks changed or new work created.
Key Questions
What is “Work After Work”?
It is a 60-episode daily series from ThorstenMeyerAI.com about how economies are built, how employment changes and how machines may affect work. The first episode was published November 2, 2026.
What are the three sectors?
The primary sector takes resources from nature, the secondary sector makes or builds things, and the tertiary sector provides services. Statistical systems do not classify every activity identically.
What does the article say changed in global employment in 2001?
It says ILO modelled estimates show that services have employed more people worldwide than farming since 2001. The episode does not describe this as a direct count of workers moving between those sectors.
Does the episode establish that automation will do 90% of work?
No. The possibility that automation could perform up to 90% of work is presented as Meyer’s thesis, not a verified projection or confirmed outcome. The supplied episode material does not specify the method behind the figure.
Does fewer factory employment mean the United States stopped manufacturing?
No. The episode says US factory employment is about 35% below its June 1979 peak, while real manufacturing output in 2025 was about 1.9 times its 1979 level. Employment and output measure different things.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
