🔍 Read the full analysis: Field, Factory, Office: A Simple Map Of Work on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get business pricing on monitors, keyboards and dev gear
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
TL;DR
Thorsten Meyer’s November 2, 2026, article launches a 60-episode series with a history of the three-sector model: primary work in nature, secondary work making goods, and tertiary services. The article cites estimates showing long-term employment shifts away from farming, while its prediction that automation could become a separate sector is presented as Meyer’s thesis, not an established fact.
Thorsten Meyer published the first installment of Work After Work on November 2, opening a planned 60-episode series with a history of the three-sector model of employment: primary work drawing from nature, secondary work making goods, and tertiary work providing services. The launch frames a continuing question about how technology changes where people work, while distinguishing the series’ historical data from Meyer’s own speculation about automation.
The article uses a loaf of bread to explain the model: growing wheat is primary-sector work; milling flour and baking bread in a plant are secondary; transporting and selling the bread, keeping accounts, and teaching are tertiary. Primary work includes farming, fishing and forestry, and often mining. Manufacturing, construction and energy supply are typical secondary activities. Trade, transport, health, education and government are among the services grouped in the broad tertiary sector.
Meyer traces the model’s development to economists Allan G. B. Fisher, Colin Clark and Jean Fourastié. Fisher used “tertiary” in work written in 1934 and published in 1935; Clark compared employment across countries in a 1940 book; Fourastié argued in 1949 that services could take in workers displaced as technology raised output in industry. The article presents these as historical arguments, not guarantees about the future.
The article reports several employment figures. Stanley Lebergott’s historical estimates put 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. An ILO modelled estimate puts the U.S. figure at 1.5% in 2025. Meyer also cites a fall in China’s primary-sector employment share from 83.5% in 1952 to 22.2% in 2024, and in Japan from 53.8% in 1920 to 3.2% in 2020.
What the Sector Shift Shows
The three-sector map gives readers a way to understand a large economic change without treating it as a story of work simply disappearing. The article’s figures show that farming now accounts for a much smaller share of employment in the United States, China and Japan than it did in earlier periods. Workers increasingly earn their living in industry and services, though the path and pace differ by country.
The distinction also helps separate jobs from output. Meyer challenges the claim that the United States no longer makes goods, citing factory employment about 35% below its June 1979 peak alongside real manufacturing output in 2025 at about 1.9 times its 1979 level. That comparison suggests employment and production can move in different directions as technology and productivity change. The article does not establish that every lost factory job was replaced, or identify all causes of the changes.
For readers following debates about AI and automation, the opening installment sets out a framework rather than a forecast. If machines change the amount or kind of human labor needed in existing sectors, the key question is where affected workers go and what work remains. Meyer says later episodes will examine those questions, including the tractor and chatbot.
Popular right now
Dreame H12 Pro Wet and Dry Vacuum Mop
Dyson Ball Animal 3 Upright Vacuum
KitchenAid 5.5-Qt Bowl-Lift Stand Mixer, Porcelain White (KSM55SXXX)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Economists Divided Work
The sector model predates the current debate over artificial intelligence. As Meyer recounts, “primary industry” and “secondary industry” were already used in early 20th-century statistical discussion in Australia and New Zealand. Fisher added the term “tertiary” to describe services. Clark then used cross-country data to study how employment moved from agriculture into manufacturing and services, and observed that industry’s employment share could rise and later fall.
Fourastié supplied one influential explanation: technical gains can raise industrial output quickly, while many services are harder to produce at greater scale. He argued that services would absorb workers no longer needed in other sectors. This was a theory about economic change, not proof that future technological disruption would always be offset by service-sector hiring.
The categories also have limits. The source notes that mining is classified as primary in many statistics but was placed in the secondary sector by Clark and is classified that way in Japan’s census today. A software engineer employed by a carmaker may also be counted differently across statistical systems. The model is useful for broad patterns, but sector totals depend in part on classification choices.
“a vast miscellaneous residue of activity”
— Allan G. B. Fisher, as quoted in Meyer’s article
Limits of the Three-Sector Map
The model groups unlike jobs together and can classify the same activity differently across statistical systems. That makes broad comparisons informative but not exact descriptions of every worker’s role. The figures in the article also come from different sources, periods and methods: Lebergott’s historical U.S. estimates are not the same series as the ILO’s modelled 2025 estimate.
Meyer’s proposed future “automation” sector is explicitly a thesis, not a finding. He suggests that within a decade or a few decades, automation could perform up to 90% of work without a human hand. The article does not establish a measurement method for that percentage, define precisely what counts as a separate sector, or provide evidence that the projection will occur. The effects of current and future automation on employment remain unsettled.
The Series’ Next Questions
Work After Work is presented as a daily series of 60 episodes about how economies are built, how work shifts and which tasks may remain human as machines take on more. The first installment sets out the categories and historical debate the series will use to examine those subjects.
Meyer says Episode 48 will put his automation-sector thesis “on trial.” The source does not provide a publication date for that episode or detailed plans for the installments in between. Readers can expect the series to revisit the movement of workers between sectors, but its future claims will need to be assessed against the evidence and definitions presented in each installment.
Key Questions
What are the three sectors in the article?
Primary work takes resources from nature, such as farming and fishing; secondary work makes things, including manufacturing and construction; and tertiary work provides services, such as trade, health and education.
Who developed the three-sector model?
The article credits Allan G. B. Fisher with adding the term “tertiary,” and describes Colin Clark as measuring shifts across countries and Jean Fourastié as arguing that services could employ workers displaced by technological progress.
Does the article say that the United States no longer manufactures goods?
No. Meyer disputes that claim, citing U.S. factory employment about 35% below its June 1979 peak while real manufacturing output in 2025 was about 1.9 times its 1979 level. The figures describe different measures: employment and output.
Is automation already a fourth economic sector?
No. Meyer describes automation as a personal thesis about a possible future sector, not as an established category or confirmed development. The article says an episode later in the series will examine the proposal.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
