Technical writers
Also called Tech writer, Documentation writer, Documentation engineer, Technical documentation specialist, API documentation writer
In brief
In May 2025, BLS counted 45,500 US technical writers, with median pay of $90,390 a year. Of the BLS counts since 2003, the highest was 55,530, in May 2024. The earliest figure here is an estimate of 15,000 from 1960, not measured the same way as today's count. The last full technology era for technical writers: Docs-as-Code (Markdown, Git, static site generators), 2014 to 2023.
What the sources say
Official outlook
BLS projects employment to change +0.8% from 2025 to 2035.
AI exposure studies
- 63.3% of this job's tasks are exposed to large language models. Not a forecast of job losses. Eloundou and others, 2023
Data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35. BLS publishes these counts as yearly survey snapshots and cautions against reading them as a precise trend. In May 2021 BLS changed how it estimates these counts (a model-based method using three years of survey data) and moved fully to the 2018 occupation codes, so part of a change across 2021 can come from the method rather than the work.
Last updated .
Cite this page
Future History. (2026, October 11). Technical writers: jobs and pay since 1960 [Data set; data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35]. https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/27-3042
Future History. "Technical writers: jobs and pay since 1960." Data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35. Last modified October 11, 2026. https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/27-3042.
@misc{futurehistory_27_3042, author = {{Future History}}, title = {Technical writers: jobs and pay since 1960}, year = {2026}, month = oct, howpublished = {\url{https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/27-3042}}, note = {Last updated 2026-10-11. Data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35}, }
The access date is today's date on your device.
≈ $88,073 in 2024 prices (derived by us, CPI-adjusted)
Joseph D. Chapline, working at the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation, wrote the first known user manual for a digital computer: an instruction manual for the BINAC, one of the earliest stored-program computers. This is frequently cited as the founding document of the technical writing profession as applied to computing.
The Society of Technical Writers (STW) was founded in Boston by technical writers at MIT; the Association of Technical Writers and Editors (ATWE) was founded in New York the same year. Both traced their origins to the post-World War II explosion of defense and computing documentation. They merged in 1957, merged again with the Technical Publishing Society in 1960, and became the Society for Technical Communication (STC) in 1971. The STC's founding marked the moment technical writing transitioned from an informal role to an organized profession with shared standards and a community of practice.
The US Department of Labor formally recognized technical writing as a distinct profession in 1980. This recognition predated BLS tracking of the occupation by 30 years: the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not add Technical Writers as a separately tracked SOC code until 2010, following successful lobbying by the STC in 2009.
The Society for Technical Communication successfully lobbied the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to recognize Technical Writer as a discrete occupation tracked by the Department of Labor, resulting in the introduction of SOC code 27-3042 in the 2010 Standard Occupational Classification revision. Before 2010, technical writers were folded into broader writing or communications categories in federal labor statistics, making it impossible to track employment trends for the profession specifically.
Write the Docs, a community conference focused on software documentation practitioners, held its first annual conference in Portland, Oregon in 2013. The community formalized the Docs-as-Code movement and created a shared vocabulary for the emerging practice of applying software engineering workflows to documentation. By 2025 the conference had expanded to multiple annual events in North America and Europe and a year-round Slack community of tens of thousands of documentation professionals.
Will AI replace technical writers? What the research says
Each figure is stated by the named source; we publish no forecasts of our own. Where sources disagree, we show the disagreement rather than an average.
Each figure is stated by the named source; we publish no forecasts of our own. Where sources disagree, the spread is the honest signal.
What's changing day to day for technical writers
Three parts of your work where AI is already doing real lifting, and what stays yours.
AI is taking this onWrite and maintain consumer-facing product help centers, knowledge bases, and in-app tooltips, optimizing for self-service deflection and search discoverability while keeping content current as product features change rapidly.
Write and maintain consumer-facing product help centers, knowledge bases, and in-app tooltips, optimizing for self-service deflection and search discoverability while keeping content current as product features change rapidly.[8],[1]
Consumer help center content is among the most heavily automated documentation categories. AI chatbots now answer a large portion of questions that help articles previously served, and generative search (Perplexity, Google AI Overviews) synthesizes help content without requiring users to visit the actual docs. Protect your position by shifting from writing individual articles to owning the knowledge architecture and quality standards that feed both human searchers and AI retrieval systems. Learn how structured content affects LLM-cited outputs.
AI is taking this onProduce step-by-step procedure guides and tutorials for software products, capturing UI workflows via Scribe or Tango AI (auto-screenshot + step capture), then editing the generated draft for completeness, accuracy, and brand voice before publishing.
Produce step-by-step procedure guides and tutorials for software products, capturing UI workflows via Scribe or Tango AI (auto-screenshot + step capture), then editing the generated draft for completeness, accuracy, and brand voice before publishing.[9],[10],[8]
Auto-capture tools like Scribe and Tango now generate first-draft procedure docs from a screen recording in minutes. This is among the most displaced segments of technical writing: entry-level "how do I click through this UI" documentation is largely automated at companies using these tools. Redirect your time toward conceptual documentation, troubleshooting guides, and the editorial review that catches where the auto-generated steps are accurate but misleading to the target user.
AI is sitting alongside you hereGenerate first-draft content for developer guides, conceptual overviews, and release notes using GitHub Copilot, Mintlify AI, or Claude, prompting against the source code and changelog diff, then editing for technical accuracy, completeness, and audience-appropriate detail level.
Generate first-draft content for developer guides, conceptual overviews, and release notes using GitHub Copilot, Mintlify AI, or Claude, prompting against the source code and changelog diff, then editing for technical accuracy, completeness, and audience-appropriate detail level.[8],[11],[6]
AI-assisted first drafts from code context are becoming the default at software companies with mature documentation practices. The professional edge shifts from drafting speed to accuracy review: can you spot where Copilot's doc draft describes what the code does rather than what it means for the user? Learn to read the source code or test suite so your accuracy review catches AI errors that a non-technical editor would miss.
Where technical writers go next
Natural next steps for someone with your foundation: not exits, evolutions.
- Software Developers
- US median pay
- $135,980 (May 2025)
- BLS outlook 2025-35
- +10.2%
- Web Developers
- US median pay
- $92,650 (May 2025)
- BLS outlook 2025-35
- +3.8%
- Public Relations Specialists
- US median pay
- $74,750 (May 2025)
- BLS outlook 2025-35
- +1.8%
What each move takes
Software Developers
Technical Writers embedded in software engineering teams (those who already read code, manage Docs-as-Code pipelines, write API reference documentation, and contribute to GitHub repositories) are the best-positioned non-engineers to pivot into Software Developer roles. The gap is primarily programming depth rather than the engineering process itself: they already understand code review, CI/CD, and system architecture from the documentation side. It requires genuine proficiency in at least one programming language (not code-reading fluency, but production-quality code authorship) which typically takes several months of deliberate practice and project portfolio building. The "Documentation Engineer" intermediate title (common at companies like Stripe, Twilio, and Cloudflare) is the natural stepping stone.
- · Proficiency in Python, TypeScript, or Go at production code quality (not just read-level fluency)
- · Software testing fundamentals: unit tests, integration tests, test-driven development
- · System design concepts: databases, APIs, microservices, distributed systems basics
- · CI/CD pipeline contribution (GitHub Actions, CircleCI) beyond doc automation
- · Portfolio of open-source contributions or projects that demonstrate code authorship, not just documentation
How has the work of technical writers changed since 1940?
The tools that defined the work, one line per era. Select an era to see how it reshaped the work.
Manual typewriter + mimeograph (wartime documentation era)
The first technical writers worked with the same tools as any office professional of the era: manual typewriters, carbon paper for copies, mimeograph machines for distribution, and paste-and-scissors layout for diagrams. Documentation was physically produced: a typist typed the text, a drafter produced the illustrations, and a mimeograph or offset press reproduced the manual. The technical writer's craft was entirely in the research, the organization, and the language. The production constraint meant manuals were printed once and rarely updated; getting the content right before it went to print was the entire professional discipline.
Effect on the workThe production constraint kept documentation workforces small relative to the equipment they served. A single technical writer might be responsible for the full documentation set of a complex military system. Accuracy and completeness were the professional standard because errors could not be cheaply corrected post-print.
IBM Selectric typewriter + phototypesetting (production-quality documentation era)
The IBM Selectric typewriter, introduced in 1961 and ubiquitous in offices by the mid-1960s, gave technical writers their first significant productivity tool: the ball-element design allowed rapid font changes, and the Magnetic Tape Selectric Typewriter (MT/ST, 1964) let writers record keystrokes for revision and reprint. Phototypesetting equipment gave large documentation departments the ability to produce camera-ready copy without a commercial print shop. The improvement in production quality raised professional standards: by 1970, a well-resourced technical documentation department could produce manuals indistinguishable from commercially typeset publications. The Society for Technical Communication, renamed in 1971, began hosting annual conferences where production standards and language conventions were professionalized across the field.
Effect on the workThe Selectric era modestly increased productivity but did not fundamentally change the labor structure of documentation: each writer was still responsible for a single document stream. The major labor shift was the separation of "writer" from "typist" that the Selectric enabled -- technical writers could now type their own drafts rather than dictating to a separate typing pool, which collapsed a two-person workflow into one.
Desktop publishing: PageMaker (1985) and FrameMaker (late 1980s)
Aldus PageMaker, introduced in July 1985 by Paul Brainerd for the Apple Macintosh, was the first widely-used WYSIWYG page layout program for personal computers. Brainerd coined the term "desktop publishing" to market it. For technical writers, PageMaker and its successor FrameMaker (developed by Frame Technology Corporation, designed specifically for large-format technical reference manuals) collapsed the production workflow that had previously required a typist, a layout artist, and a print-shop relationship into a single workstation. FrameMaker's strength was handling extremely long, structured documents: tables of contents, indexes, cross-references, and conditional publishing for multiple product variants. Adobe acquired FrameMaker in 1995 and explicitly repositioned it as a tool for technical writers, where it remained the dominant professional platform through the 2000s. Desktop publishing transformed what the profession was: technical writers now controlled the entire document from first keystroke to print-ready output.
Effect on the workDesktop publishing reduced the number of specialists required to produce a documentation set. Layout artists and production coordinators who had been part of large documentation departments became redundant. Simultaneously, the personal computer industry's explosion in the mid-to-late 1980s created enormous demand for user documentation: every software product and peripheral device shipped with a manual. The net employment effect was strongly positive through the late 1980s despite the productivity gain from desktop publishing.
Web and online help (HTML help, RoboHelp, WinHelp -- internet era documentation)
When Mosaic (1993) and then Netscape (1994) made the web accessible to non-technical users, the documentation industry faced its first existential rethinking. Printed manuals became obsolete almost overnight for software products: by the mid-to-late 1990s, online help systems accessed through a product's Help menu replaced the printed manual as the primary documentation format. Microsoft WinHelp, Robohelp, and HTML-based help systems required technical writers to learn new tools, to think about documentation as a navigable hyperlinked system rather than a linear document, and to write for a different reading pattern (scanning and searching rather than reading cover-to-cover). The internet boom of 1995-2000 also created an enormous new market for documentation: every new website, SaaS product, and e-commerce platform needed user documentation. The demand surge of this period is why the profession's estimated headcount roughly tripled between 1980 and 2000.
Effect on the workThe transition to online documentation compressed print-production roles further (no more print-ready output, no more mailing room) while simultaneously expanding demand for writers who could produce hyperlinked, search-optimized content. The dot-com bust of 2001-2002 hit the documentation profession hard: hundreds of contract technical writing positions at startups and software companies were eliminated. Headcount contracted noticeably from the 1999-2000 peak before recovering through the mid-2000s.
Structured authoring: DITA XML (IBM 2001, OASIS standard 2005) and component content management
Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA), developed inside IBM starting in 2001 to replace its unwieldy IBMDoc format, was donated to OASIS and published as an open standard in 2005. DITA formalized what experienced technical writers had been doing informally: treating documentation as modular, reusable components (topics) that could be assembled into different publications for different audiences, locales, and product variants. For regulated industries, aerospace, and medical devices, DITA became the professional standard. The tool ecosystem around DITA -- Heretto (formerly easyDITA), Oxygen XML Editor, Arbortext -- created a new specialization: the structured author who understood both the writing craft and the XML schema. The CCMS (component content management system) era coincided with globalization: multinational companies could manage a single English master and route it through translation management systems, compressing localization cost dramatically.
Effect on the workDITA and structured authoring increased per-writer throughput significantly for large documentation programs, reducing the labor required per page of output for routine update cycles. However, the specialized skill required to work in DITA systems created a premium segment of the profession: DITA-proficient writers in regulated industries commanded materially higher salaries and were more insulated from the employment volatility affecting consumer-software documentation writers.
Docs-as-Code: Markdown, Git, static site generators (Sphinx, MkDocs, Docusaurus)
The Docs-as-Code movement -- treating documentation with the same version-control, peer-review, and continuous-integration practices used for software code -- emerged organically at large software companies (Google, Stripe, Twilio, Cloudflare) in the early 2010s and became widely practiced by the mid-2010s. Write the Docs, a community conference first held in 2013, formalized the practice and vocabulary. Technical writers working in the Docs-as-Code model authored in Markdown or reStructuredText, committed changes via Git pull requests, ran automated tests (link checking, prose linting via Vale) in CI pipelines, and published to static site generators like Sphinx, MkDocs, or Docusaurus. The "Documentation Engineer" title emerged at companies where the writer was embedded in an engineering team and contributed to the codebase itself. Salaries in this tier of the profession reflected the cross-domain skill premium. Docs-as-Code was also the technical foundation that made AI-assisted documentation possible: when documentation lives in Git, an AI model trained on the codebase can produce plausible first drafts.
Effect on the workDocs-as-Code created a strong bifurcation in the profession: writers who mastered the toolchain commanded premium salaries and stable employment, while writers who remained in legacy tools (Word, older CMS platforms) faced increasing competition from AI automation of their specific workflow. The overall employment count remained roughly flat through this period, reflecting the two trends offsetting each other.
AI-assisted documentation: Mintlify, GitHub Copilot Docs, Scribe, ChatGPT/Claude for first drafts
ChatGPT's public launch in November 2022 put AI-assisted writing tools in the hands of every technical writer overnight. Within months, documentation-specific AI products proliferated: Mintlify (which generates and maintains developer documentation from code context), GitHub Copilot's documentation generation from code annotations, Scribe (auto-generates step-by-step procedure docs from screen recordings in seconds), and Tango (auto-captures UI workflows as annotated walkthroughs). The effect on the profession was bifurcated from the start. Routine documentation -- software procedure guides, FAQ articles, basic API reference content, in-app microcopy -- became largely automatable, and companies with mature Docs-as-Code pipelines found they could maintain documentation sets with significantly fewer writers. The work that remained robustly human was the work AI tools cannot safely do without institutional knowledge: SME interviews, information architecture decisions, regulatory accuracy validation, and the craft judgment that distinguishes documentation that actually helps users from documentation that merely describes a product. The BLS projection of approximately +1% employment growth through 2034 (from 56,400 to an estimated 56,900) reflects the view that AI productivity gains will offset expansion demand -- net flat.
Effect on the workThe profession is expected to see thousands of annual openings driven primarily by replacement need (retirements, career transitions) rather than net new positions. The sector-level distribution is shifting: information and professional services are projected to grow (developers need more documentation as software proliferates) while manufacturing declines.
See the same long-arc view for your own profession.
Browse the directory by industry, or search by title or SOC code.
Browse all rolesTechnical Writers employment and pay by year
In other countries
The latest figure each country's statistics agency publishes for this job. Each uses its own occupation definition, survey basis and currency, so the numbers are not directly comparable with each other or with the US figures.
Canada (NOC 51112)
- Employment, 2020
- 8,325, Statistics Canada Census 2021 Official statistic Report an errorStatistics Canada Census of Population 2021: number of persons with employment income in NOC 51112 Technical writers, Canada, reference year 2020. A recipients basis (anyone with employment income during the year), slightly broader than a point-in-time employed count. Statistics Canada Open Licence.
- Median pay, 2020
- C$78,000, Statistics Canada Census 2021 Official statistic Report an errorStatistics Canada Census of Population 2021 (Table 98-10-0586): median employment income for NOC 51112 Technical writers, Canada, reference year 2020, full-year full-time workers (the basis comparable to the US OEWS full-time median). Statistics Canada Open Licence.
View all 27 years of cited US data, each linked to its source
| Year | US employment | Annual pay (median unless marked) | Source | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1960 | 15,000 | n/a | Est., Wikipedia Researched context | Report |
| 1970 | n/a | $9,500 | Est., American Professional Guide Researched context | Report |
| 1980 | 30,000 | n/a | Est., ClickHelp Researched context | Report |
| 2000 | 52,000 | $46,000 | Est., Wikipedia (employment) Researched contextEst., Society for Technical Communication (pay) Researched context | Report |
| 2003 | 44,690 | $51,590 | BLS OEWS May 2003 Official statistic | Report |
| 2004 | 45,100 | $53,490 | BLS OEWS May 2004 Official statistic | Report |
| 2005 | 46,250 | $55,160 | BLS OEWS May 2005 Official statistic | Report |
| 2006 | 45,330 | $58,050 | BLS OEWS May 2006 Official statistic | Report |
| 2007 | 46,740 | $60,390 | BLS OEWS May 2007 Official statistic | Report |
| 2008 | 47,460 | $61,620 | BLS OEWS May 2008 Official statistic | Report |
| 2009 | 46,270 | $62,730 | BLS OEWS May 2009 Official statistic | Report |
| 2010 | 43,990 | $63,280 | BLS OEWS May 2010 (employment) Official statisticBLS OEWS 2010 (pay) Official statistic | Report |
| 2011 | 45,120 | $64,610 | BLS OEWS May 2011 Official statistic | Report |
| 2012 | 46,160 | $65,500 | BLS OEWS May 2012 Official statistic | Report |
| 2013 | 47,300 | $67,900 | BLS OEWS May 2013 Official statistic | Report |
| 2014 | 48,210 | $69,030 | BLS OEWS May 2014 Official statistic | Report |
| 2015 | 49,770 | $70,240 | BLS OEWS May 2015 Official statistic | Report |
| 2016 | 49,780 | $69,850 | BLS OEWS May 2016 Official statistic | Report |
| 2017 | 49,960 | $70,930 | BLS OEWS May 2017 Official statistic | Report |
| 2018 | 50,350 | $71,850 | BLS OEWS May 2018 Official statistic | Report |
| 2019 | 50,760 | $72,850 | BLS OEWS May 2019 Official statistic | Report |
| 2020 | 48,880 | $74,650 | BLS OEWS May 2020 Official statistic | Report |
| 2021 | 47,620 | $78,060 | BLS OEWS May 2021 Official statistic | Report |
| 2022 | 48,620 | $79,960 | BLS OEWS May 2022 Official statistic | Report |
| 2023 | 47,970 | $80,050 | BLS OEWS May 2023 (employment) Official statisticBLS OEWS May 2023 (pay) Official statistic | Report |
| 2024 | 55,530 | $91,670 | BLS OEWS May 2024 Official statistic | Report |
| 2025 | 45,500 | $90,390 | BLS OEWS May 2025 Official statistic | Report |