Skip to sources
Time Machine

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
APA

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

Chicago

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.

BibTeX

@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.

drag to travel through time
View as table
180018251850187519001925195019752000now
2026
Known then as Mill hand / factory hand / machine tender (early textile mill era)
Known then as Machine tender / helper / operative (industrial expansion era)
Known then as Semiskilled operative / machine feeder / offbearer (mass production era)
Known then as Machine Feeder / Offbearer / Material Handler (DOT-era; Dictionary of Occupational Titles)
Known then as Machine Feeders and Offbearers (BLS SOC 53-7063)
Known today as Machine Feeders and Offbearers (BLS SOC 53-7063)
Projected to still be called Machine Feeders and Offbearers (BLS SOC 53-7063)
Data from the May 2025 survey
US Employment
42K
Est.

Stated in source: BLS OEWS

Official statistic
Report an error
Median Annual Wage
$41,220

≈ $40,163 in 2024 prices (derived by us, CPI-adjusted)

Official statistic
Report an error
Beat · 1793

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.

Beat · 1836

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.

Beat · 1900

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.

Beat · 1938

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.

Beat · 1961

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.

Beat · 1990

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.

Beat · 2013

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.

How to read this number

OEWS is a point-in-time survey snapshot, not a continuous time series; BLS advises against using it for year-over-year trend comparison.

Each dot is a cited figure over time; the dotted line only links them (values between aren't measured). Hollow dots are estimates.

Official statistic: Copied by a script from a statistics agency table or a published study's table, not retyped by hand. BLS figures, ONS ASHE figures (UK pay and jobs) and the forecast and exposure tables are also re-checked against that table on every data run. Researched context: Researched from the cited source rather than copied from it by a script, so it is not machine-checked yet. Spot a mistake? Each figure has a “Report an error” link.

Cited forecasts · present → 2035

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.

What published forecasts say
Forecast change in the number of people doing this work, as published by each named source. Bars share one scale on every role, centred on zero and reaching the end at ±30%. Grey marks a small change, 3% or less either way.
  • BLS Employment Projections 2025-35
    Target year 2035
    -13.1%
    BLS National Employment Matrix, 2025-35 cycle, line for SOC 53-7063 (Machine feeders and offbearers): 41.8 thousand jobs in 2025, projected 36.3 thousand in 2035, a change of -5.5 thousand (-13.1%). Matrix employment counts all jobs in the occupation, including self-employed workers. The average for all occupations in this cycle is +3.5%.
    Official statisticReport an error
How exposed is this work to AI (research measures)
Scores as published by each study. Each row says what it measures. These measure what AI could technically do, not forecasts of jobs lost.
  • Frey & Osborne (2013), "The Future of Employment"
    2013 study · Probability of computerisation (2013 model)
    0.93
    probability
    What this measures

    Published appendix value for SOC 2010 53-7063 Machine Feeders and Offbearers: probability of computerisation 0.93, rank 580 of 702 (rank 1 is least computerisable). Frey and Osborne estimated in 2013, with a Gaussian-process classifier on O*NET variables, how likely the whole occupation is to be technically automatable over "some unspecified number of years, perhaps a decade or two". It is a probability for the occupation, not a share of tasks and not a forecast of jobs lost.

    Official statisticReport an error
Today, in this role

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]

Where your edge is

AI is sitting alongside you here Record production and operational data…

, such as amount of materials processed.[2]

Where your edge is

AI is sitting alongside you here Push dual control buttons and move controls to start, stop…

, or adjust machinery and equipment.[2]

Where your edge is

Tools of the era

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 work

    Historians 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 work

    Belt 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 work

    The 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 work

    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. 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.

Different role?

See the same long-arc view for your own profession.

Browse the directory by industry, or search by title or SOC code.

Browse all roles

Machine Feeders and Offbearers employment and pay by year

On record since1790
Latest US employment42,330 (May 2025)Source: BLS OEWS May 2025Official statisticReport an error
Latest US median pay$41,220 (May 2025)Source: BLS OEWS May 2025Official statisticReport an error
Outlook-13.1% by 2035Source: BLS Employment Projections 2025-35Official statisticReport an error
View all 29 years of cited US data, each linked to its source
Machine Feeders and Offbearers in the US: employment and pay by year, with sources
YearUS employmentAnnual pay (median unless marked)SourceReport
1900500,000n/aEst., David Montgomery[1] Researched contextReport
1915n/a$600 (average)BLS historical bulletin 2016[6] Researched contextReport
1940900,000n/aDecennial Census 1940[2] Researched contextReport
1950n/a$2,600 (average)BLS historical bulletin 1951[7] Researched contextReport
1970650,000n/aDecennial Census 1970[3] Researched contextReport
1990280,000n/aDecennial Census 1990[4] Researched contextReport
2003159,160$21,980BLS OEWS May 2003[5] Official statisticReport
2004149,500$22,210BLS OEWS May 2004[5] Official statisticReport
2005145,740$22,330BLS OEWS May 2005[5] Official statisticReport
2006150,600$22,640BLS OEWS May 2006[5] Official statisticReport
2007143,140$23,880BLS OEWS May 2007[5] Official statisticReport
2008144,820$25,570BLS OEWS May 2008[5] Official statisticReport
2009129,180$26,290BLS OEWS May 2009[5] Official statisticReport
2010119,730$27,000BLS OEWS May 2010[5] Official statisticReport
2011110,950$27,020BLS OEWS May 2011[5] Official statisticReport
2012105,790$27,120BLS OEWS May 2012[5] Official statisticReport
2013106,160$28,310BLS OEWS May 2013[5] Official statisticReport
2014104,340$29,290BLS OEWS May 2014[5] Official statisticReport
2015100,020$29,440BLS OEWS May 2015[5] Official statisticReport
201688,070$28,410BLS OEWS May 2016[5] Official statisticReport
201774,350$28,510BLS OEWS May 2017[5] Official statisticReport
201866,380$29,560BLS OEWS May 2018[5] Official statisticReport
201963,280$31,180BLS OEWS May 2019[5] Official statisticReport
202064,240$33,000BLS OEWS May 2020[5] Official statisticReport
202160,880$37,010BLS OEWS May 2021[5] Official statisticReport
202251,010$38,040BLS OEWS May 2022[5] Official statisticReport
202344,500$39,250BLS OEWS May 2023[5] Official statisticReport
202446,690$39,700BLS OEWS May 2024[5] Official statisticReport
202542,330$41,220BLS OEWS May 2025[5] Official statisticReport
Embed this timeline on your site

Free for any site. Paste this where the timeline should appear; it stays interactive, every datapoint stays cited, and it sets no cookies on your page. How embedding works

<iframe src="https://futurehistory.earth/embed/53-7063"
  width="100%" height="430" style="border:0"
  title="Machine Feeders and Offbearers, a Future History timeline"
  loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font-size:13px;margin:4px 0 0"><a href="https://futurehistory.earth/timeline/53-7063">Machine Feeders and Offbearers: jobs and pay since 1900</a>, from Future History</p>