The paper "The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis" by Melanie Arntz, Terry Gregory, and Ulrich Zierahn examines the potential impact of automation and digitalization on jobs in 21 OECD countries. The authors critique the Frey and Osborne (2013) study, which estimated that 47% of US jobs are at risk of being automated, by adopting a task-based approach that considers the heterogeneity of tasks within occupations. Using data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), they find that the average job automatability across OECD countries is only 9%, significantly lower than the occupation-based estimate. They also identify significant cross-country differences, with countries like Austria and Germany having higher shares of automatable jobs compared to Korea and Estonia. The authors argue that the estimated share of "jobs at risk" should not be equated with actual employment losses due to several factors: the slow adoption of new technologies, workers' ability to adjust tasks, and the creation of new jobs through technological advancements. The main conclusion is that automation and digitalization are unlikely to destroy large numbers of jobs, but low-skilled workers may bear the brunt of adjustment costs, leading to rising inequality. The paper emphasizes the need for sufficient retraining, especially for low-skilled workers, to address these challenges.The paper "The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis" by Melanie Arntz, Terry Gregory, and Ulrich Zierahn examines the potential impact of automation and digitalization on jobs in 21 OECD countries. The authors critique the Frey and Osborne (2013) study, which estimated that 47% of US jobs are at risk of being automated, by adopting a task-based approach that considers the heterogeneity of tasks within occupations. Using data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), they find that the average job automatability across OECD countries is only 9%, significantly lower than the occupation-based estimate. They also identify significant cross-country differences, with countries like Austria and Germany having higher shares of automatable jobs compared to Korea and Estonia. The authors argue that the estimated share of "jobs at risk" should not be equated with actual employment losses due to several factors: the slow adoption of new technologies, workers' ability to adjust tasks, and the creation of new jobs through technological advancements. The main conclusion is that automation and digitalization are unlikely to destroy large numbers of jobs, but low-skilled workers may bear the brunt of adjustment costs, leading to rising inequality. The paper emphasizes the need for sufficient retraining, especially for low-skilled workers, to address these challenges.