Machine feeders and offbearers
In brief
In May 2025, BLS counted 42,330 US machine feeders and offbearers, with median pay of $41,220 a year. The earliest figure here is an estimate of 500,000 from 1900, not measured the same way as today's count. The last full technology era for machine feeders and offbearers: Industrial robots and programmable logic controllers at machine interfaces, 1970 to 2010. Acemoglu and Restrepo (2020) estimated that the arrival of one new industrial robot in a local labor market coincided with an employment drop of several workers.
Official statistic: latest count and pay.Researched context: earliest figure.
What the sources say
Official outlook
BLS projects employment to decline 13.1% from 2025 to 2035.
BLS Employment Projections 2025-35
Official statistic
AI exposure studies
- 0.93 estimated probability that the whole occupation could be computerised, over an unspecified number of years. Not a forecast of job losses. Frey and Osborne, 2013 Official statistic
Since the 2013 prediction
In 2013, Frey and Osborne put this job's probability of computerisation at 0.93. BLS counted 106,160 of these jobs in May 2013 and 42,330 in May 2025 (-60%, a change derived by Future History).
Official statistic
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). Machine feeders and offbearers: jobs and pay since 1900 [Data set; data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35]. https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/53-7063
Future History. "Machine feeders and offbearers: jobs and pay since 1900." Data as of BLS OEWS May 2025; BLS Employment Projections 2025-35. Last modified October 11, 2026. https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/53-7063.
@misc{futurehistory_53_7063, author = {{Future History}}, title = {Machine feeders and offbearers: jobs and pay since 1900}, year = {2026}, month = oct, howpublished = {\url{https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/53-7063}}, 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.
≈ $40,163 in 2024 prices (derived by us, CPI-adjusted)
Samuel Slater opens the first successful water-powered cotton spinning mill in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, employing seven children aged seven to twelve as the core production workforce. These children tend the spinning frames: positioning raw rovings, piecing broken threads, and carrying away finished yarn. They are the first recognized machine feeders in American industrial history. Slater had memorized the design of the Arkwright water frame from his time at Jedediah Strutt's mill in Derbyshire, England. British law prohibited the export of textile machinery or detailed knowledge of its design; Slater emigrated in disguise and reconstructed the machine from memory.
The "Lowell mill girls" are at the height of their cultural moment. The Lowell system, developed in the 1820s, employed young women from New England farms to tend weaving and spinning frames at the Merrimack Manufacturing Company and related mills. By 1836, Lowell employs over 8,000 workers, the majority of them women aged 15-30 performing the repetitive machine-tending work of feeding, piecing, doffing, and carrying. The Lowell Offering, a literary magazine produced by mill workers, begins publication in 1840 and captures the cultural complexity of a workforce doing physically demanding, machine-paced labor while aspiring to education and self-improvement. The Lowell model ends as a social experiment in the late 1840s-1850s, replaced by lower-paid immigrant Irish labor, but it establishes the template for the gendered, low-wage machine-tending role that persists for over a century.
By 1900, sawmill offbearers are a recognized and named occupational class in the Pacific Northwest lumber industry, which by this date is producing 35 billion board feet annually. A "green-chain offbearer" pulls freshly sawn lumber from the moving chain conveyor coming from the headsaw, sorts each board by species and grade (using the chalk marks left by the grader), and stacks the boards for drying. The work is physically punishing: boards can weigh 50-100 pounds, the pace is set by the chain speed, and the environment is loud, wet, and full of sawdust. Pacific Northwest sawmill employment at the turn of the century exceeds 100,000, with offbearers constituting a significant share. The Brotherhood of Timber Workers, formed in 1910, will attempt to organize these workers in Louisiana and Texas from 1910 to 1912.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 establishes a federal minimum wage of $0.25 per hour and prohibits child labor in most manufacturing occupations. This legislation has a direct structural effect on the machine feeder role: the child mill hands and young teenagers who had constituted a large portion of feeder workforces since the 1790s are now legally restricted from most factory floor work. The FLSA effectively forces the machine-feeding function to become an adult occupation and raises its wage floor. The act also begins the 40-hour workweek push, reducing annual hours worked per feeder even as nominal wages rise.
General Motors installs the first Unimate industrial robot at its Ewing Township, New Jersey plant. The Unimate, developed by George Devol and Joseph Engelberger through their company Unimation, performs the exact task that defines the machine feeder role: it lifts die castings from the production machine and stacks them. The robot weighs 4,000 pounds and operates on a drummed magnetic-memory playback system. At $25,000 per unit (roughly $250,000 in 2024 dollars) it is not economical for most plants in 1961, but it demonstrates proof of concept for the automated material-handling function that will eventually collapse the machine feeder occupation.
US industrial robot installations reach approximately 37,000 units in service by the early 1990s. Acemoglu and Restrepo's landmark 2020 study of robot adoption from 1990-2007 finds that one additional robot per thousand workers reduces the employment-to-population ratio in a local labor market by 0.18-0.34 percentage points. The study finds effects concentrated in manual, repetitive production tasks, with machine-adjacent roles (tending, loading, unloading) most affected. Total manufacturing employment in the US is approximately 17 million in 1990, down from 19 million in 1979; machine feeders and offbearers represent a declining share of that workforce as robots absorb the loading function on high-volume production lines.
Oxford economists Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne publish "The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?" in September 2013. Machine Feeders and Offbearers (SOC 53-7063) receive a computerisation probability of 0.93, placing them in the top tier of at-risk occupations. Frey and Osborne's bottleneck analysis finds no significant barriers in the perception-and-manipulation, creative intelligence, or social intelligence categories for this occupation: the task of picking up a material, positioning it, and removing the output has no meaningful creative or social dimension, and the manipulation involved is within the engineering state of the art by 2013. A decade later, the BLS 2024-2034 projection of -13% employment decline broadly validates the directional prediction, though the realized displacement has been slower than the 0.93 probability implied.
Will AI replace machine feeders and offbearers? 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.
- BLS Employment Projections 2025-35Target year 2035
- Frey & Osborne (2013), "The Future of Employment"2013 study · Probability of computerisation (2013 model)0.93probability
What's changing day to day for machine feeders and offbearers
Three parts of your work where AI is already doing real lifting, and what stays yours.
AI is sitting alongside you here Inspect materials and products for defects…
, and to ensure conformance to specifications.[2]
AI is sitting alongside you here Record production and operational data…
, such as amount of materials processed.[2]
AI is sitting alongside you here Push dual control buttons and move controls to start, stop…
, or adjust machinery and equipment.[2]
How has the work of machine feeders and offbearers changed since 1790?
The tools that defined the work, one line per era. Select an era to see how it reshaped the work.
Hand-fed water-powered machinery (early mill era)
The first generation of water-powered textile machinery, from Samuel Slater's Pawtucket mill (1793) through the Lowell system mills of the 1820s-1850s, required workers to hand-feed raw material onto spindles and frames and to carry away the processed output. These were the original machine feeders: young women and children who managed the interface between the continuous mechanical process and the world of discrete, variable raw materials the machine could not itself pick up and position. The work required constant attention, good hand coordination, and physical stamina, but no formal training. The pace of work was set by the machine, not the worker.
Effect on the workHistorians of the Lowell system (e.g., Thomas Dublin, "Women at Work," 1979) estimate that a single mill in the 1840s employed dozens of workers whose primary function was feeding frames and carrying bobbins. The cotton textile mills of New England collectively employed tens of thousands of such workers by 1850.
Industrial belt conveyor (first commercial use circa 1868-1892)
The industrial belt conveyor arrived in the late 1860s (first patented applications for belt conveyors in industrial settings date to the 1860s and 1870s; Thomas Robins developed a series of conveyors for coal and ore handling in the 1890s). Conveyors eliminated the need for workers to carry materials between process stages, but they did not eliminate the machine feeder: someone still had to load the conveyor at one end and unload the machine at the other. The conveyor redistributed human effort rather than eliminating it, concentrating feeders at the input and output points of each processing station. In sawmills, the "green chain" conveyor moved freshly cut lumber away from the saw, but the offbearer who pulled boards from the chain and sorted them by grade remained a human role for another century.
Effect on the workBelt conveyors substantially increased the productivity of material flow in mines, grain elevators, and sawmills without proportionally reducing the number of workers at machine interfaces. They accelerated the pace of work (a conveyor running at a fixed speed set the tempo for the feeder) and tended to increase the physical demands of the remaining manual roles.
Vibratory bowl feeder and automatic parts-feeding systems (1930s-1950s)
The vibratory bowl feeder, developed in its modern form through the 1930s-1950s, was the first technology specifically designed to replace the human machine feeder in high-volume production. A vibrating bowl sorts small parts by orientation and feeds them at a controlled rate to an assembly or processing machine. By the 1950s, vibratory feeders were standard equipment in automotive, electronics, and hardware manufacturing. For feeders working on standard parts in high-volume runs, this technology effectively automated their role; the remaining human feeders concentrated in settings where parts were too large, too varied, or too fragile for vibratory systems. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (1939 first edition, revised 1949 and 1965) formalized "machine feeder" and "offbearer" as distinct occupational categories during precisely the era when these workers were beginning to be displaced by the technology the categories described.
Effect on the workThe spread of automatic parts feeders in the 1940s-1960s contributed to a gradual contraction in the number of workers classified as machine feeders and material handlers, even as total manufacturing employment grew. Employment in this specific function likely declined as a share of manufacturing employment from the late 1940s onward, even before the overall manufacturing downturn.
Industrial robots and programmable logic controllers (PLC) at machine interfaces
The first programmable industrial robots entered US manufacturing in the 1960s (Unimate, developed by George Devol and Joseph Engelberger, was installed at a General Motors plant in New Jersey in 1961). By the 1970s-1980s, robotic arms were performing loading and unloading tasks at stamping presses, injection molding machines, and CNC machining centers. The PLC (programmable logic controller), commercialized after Modicon's 1968 design for GM, gave production engineers a standard platform for coordinating automated feeding sequences without writing custom code for each machine. Acemoglu and Restrepo's 2020 study found that each additional robot per thousand workers reduced employment-to-population ratios over the 1990-2007 period, with the effects concentrated in exactly the kind of manual production roles machine feeders occupied. US industrial robot installations grew from a few thousand in the 1970s to more than a hundred thousand units in service by 2007.
Effect on the workAcemoglu and Restrepo (2020) estimated that the arrival of one new industrial robot in a local labor market coincided with an employment drop of several workers. Machine feeders and offbearers, whose tasks are the precise repetitive physical actions robots are best designed to automate, were disproportionately affected.
Vision-guided robotics, collaborative robots (cobots), and AI-assisted material handling
The decade from 2010 onward brought three technologies that pushed into the remaining territory where human feeders had survived. Vision-guided robotic arms (using 2D and 3D cameras combined with pick-and-place algorithms) could now handle irregular or varied parts that classic bowl feeders and fixed-program robots could not. Collaborative robots (cobots, pioneered commercially by Universal Robots from 2008) could share workspace with a human worker, making them practical for lower-volume, higher-variety production where a fully automated cell was not economical. And AI-assisted motion planning reduced the programming burden for each new product variant. These three advances compressed the remaining foothold of human machine feeders: the product-variability argument, the fragility argument, and the low-volume argument each became weaker. The main remaining human feeder functions in 2026 are in settings where materials are uniquely unpredictable (irregular bulk solids, food products with natural variation), where capital costs of automation outweigh labor savings at current production volumes, or where liability or safety considerations restrict robotic deployment near people.
See the same long-arc view for your own profession.
Browse the directory by industry, or search by title or SOC code.
Browse all rolesMachine Feeders and Offbearers employment and pay by year
View all 29 years of cited US data, each linked to its source
| Year | US employment | Annual pay (median unless marked) | Source | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1900 | 500,000 | n/a | Est., David Montgomery[1] Researched context | Report |
| 1915 | n/a | $600 (average) | BLS historical bulletin 2016[6] Researched context | Report |
| 1940 | 900,000 | n/a | Decennial Census 1940[2] Researched context | Report |
| 1950 | n/a | $2,600 (average) | BLS historical bulletin 1951[7] Researched context | Report |
| 1970 | 650,000 | n/a | Decennial Census 1970[3] Researched context | Report |
| 1990 | 280,000 | n/a | Decennial Census 1990[4] Researched context | Report |
| 2003 | 159,160 | $21,980 | BLS OEWS May 2003[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2004 | 149,500 | $22,210 | BLS OEWS May 2004[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2005 | 145,740 | $22,330 | BLS OEWS May 2005[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2006 | 150,600 | $22,640 | BLS OEWS May 2006[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2007 | 143,140 | $23,880 | BLS OEWS May 2007[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2008 | 144,820 | $25,570 | BLS OEWS May 2008[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2009 | 129,180 | $26,290 | BLS OEWS May 2009[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2010 | 119,730 | $27,000 | BLS OEWS May 2010[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2011 | 110,950 | $27,020 | BLS OEWS May 2011[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2012 | 105,790 | $27,120 | BLS OEWS May 2012[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2013 | 106,160 | $28,310 | BLS OEWS May 2013[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2014 | 104,340 | $29,290 | BLS OEWS May 2014[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2015 | 100,020 | $29,440 | BLS OEWS May 2015[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2016 | 88,070 | $28,410 | BLS OEWS May 2016[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2017 | 74,350 | $28,510 | BLS OEWS May 2017[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2018 | 66,380 | $29,560 | BLS OEWS May 2018[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2019 | 63,280 | $31,180 | BLS OEWS May 2019[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2020 | 64,240 | $33,000 | BLS OEWS May 2020[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2021 | 60,880 | $37,010 | BLS OEWS May 2021[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2022 | 51,010 | $38,040 | BLS OEWS May 2022[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2023 | 44,500 | $39,250 | BLS OEWS May 2023[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2024 | 46,690 | $39,700 | BLS OEWS May 2024[5] Official statistic | Report |
| 2025 | 42,330 | $41,220 | BLS OEWS May 2025[5] Official statistic | Report |