US dataswitch to UK
Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists
keeping work stations clean and sanitize tools, training or supervising other hairstylists and massaging and treating scalp for hygienic and remedial purposes. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: keeping work stations clean and sanitize tools is work software can't reach.
What shifts is scheduling client appointments. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.
Your week, as this page understands it
Provide beauty services, such as cutting, coloring, and styling hair, and massaging and treating scalp. May shampoo hair, apply makeup, dress wigs, remove hair, and provide nail and skincare services. The job title says “hairdressers”, “hairstylists” or “cosmetologists”: officially one job, several names. The real job is the part underneath: keeping work stations clean and sanitize tools. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But hairdressers, hairstylists, and cosmetologists is not one task. It is 22 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is keeping work stations clean and sanitize tools, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 12%
- changing shape
- 0%
- staying human
- 88%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 15 out of 100 (12–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 22 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for hairdressers, hairstylists, and cosmetologists is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
2 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Scheduling client appointments
This is reading one thing and writing another: client appointments in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Schedule client appointments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 79 out of 100 (75–83 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Appointment booking software already handles this end to end, from taking the request to filling gaps in the diary.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Updating and maintaining customer information records
This is reading one thing and writing another: customer information records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Update and maintain customer information records, such as beauty services provided.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Logging which services a client had is record-keeping software does well, once someone captures what was actually done.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
0 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.
Staying human
20 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Keeping work stations clean and sanitize tools
This work happens in the physical world: work stations clean, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Keep work stations clean and sanitize tools, such as scissors and combs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Wiping down a station and sanitising scissors and combs is hands-on cleaning that has to happen in the salon.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analyzing patrons' hair and other physical features to determine and recommend beauty treatment or suggest hair styles
This work happens in the physical world: patrons' hair, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze patrons' hair and other physical features to determine and recommend beauty treatment or suggest hair styles.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Apps can suggest styles from a photo, but judging hair texture and condition usually means feeling it in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Bleaching dye or tint hair, using applicator or brush
This work happens in the physical world: dye, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Bleach, dye, or tint hair, using applicator or brush.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Colouring hair means mixing product and applying it to someone's head by hand, and licensed people do it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Shampooing rinse, condition and dry hair and scalp or hairpieces with water, liquid soap or other solutions
This work happens in the physical world: rinse, condition and dry hair and scalp, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Shampoo, rinse, condition, and dry hair and scalp or hairpieces with water, liquid soap, or other solutions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Shampooing, conditioning and drying someone's hair is physical work done at the basin.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing new styles and techniques
This work happens in the physical world: new styles, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop new styles and techniques.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: AI can suggest fresh looks from images, but working out how to cut and set a new style takes practice on hair.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Cutting, trimming and shaping hair or hairpieces
This work happens in the physical world: hair, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Cut, trim and shape hair or hairpieces, based on customers' instructions, hair type, and facial features, using clippers, scissors, trimmers and razors.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Cutting hair is hands-on work with scissors on a person's head.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Demonstrating and selling hair care products and cosmetics
This work happens in the physical world: hair care products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Demonstrate and sell hair care products and cosmetics.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Recommending products can be scripted, but showing someone how a product works on their hair happens face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Applying water or setting
This work happens in the physical world: water, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Apply water or setting, straightening or waving solutions to hair, and use curlers, rollers, hot combs and curling irons to press and curl hair.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Putting rollers, curlers and setting solutions into hair is physical work on a real head.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 12 tasks
Recommending and explaining the use of cosmetics
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles the use of cosmetics and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Recommend and explain the use of cosmetics, lotions, and creams to soften and lubricate skin and enhance and restore natural appearance.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Explaining what a cream does and who it suits is well-documented advice, though matching it to skin usually means seeing someone.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Ordering, displaying and maintaining supplies
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: supplies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Order, display, and maintain supplies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Working out what to reorder is straightforward for software; putting stock on shelves and keeping displays tidy is not.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Operating cash registers to receive payments from patrons
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: cash registers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Operate cash registers to receive payments from patrons.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Card readers already handle most payments, but someone still has to be at the till to ring the sale through.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Training or supervising other hairstylists
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: other hairstylists, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Train or supervise other hairstylists, hairdressers, and assistants.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Course material can be drafted by software, but showing a junior stylist how to hold the scissors happens at the chair.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Administering therapeutic medication and advising patron to seek medical treatment for chronic or contagious scalp conditions
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: therapeutic medication, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Administer therapeutic medication and advise patron to seek medical treatment for chronic or contagious scalp conditions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Spotting a scalp problem needs a close look in person, and treating it or referring someone on is a regulated judgement.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Combing brush and spraying hair or wigs to set style
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: brush, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Comb, brush, and spray hair or wigs to set style.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Combing, brushing and spraying hair into place is handwork done at the chair.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Shaping eyebrows and removing facial hair
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: eyebrows, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Shape eyebrows and remove facial hair, using depilatory cream, tweezers, electrolysis or wax.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Shaping brows and removing facial hair is close physical work on a client, done by licensed people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Massaging and treating scalp for hygienic and remedial purposes
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: scalp, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Massage and treat scalp for hygienic and remedial purposes, using hands, fingers, or vibrating equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Massaging and treating a scalp is done with the hands, on a person who is in front of you.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Shaving, trimming and shaping beards and moustaches
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: beards, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Shave, trim, and shape beards and moustaches.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Shaving and shaping a beard is hands-on work with a razor on someone's face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Giving facials to patrons, using special compounds, such as lotions and creams
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: facials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Give facials to patrons, using special compounds, such as lotions and creams.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Giving a facial means applying products to someone's face with your hands.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Cleaning, shaping and polish fingernails and toenails, using files and nail polish
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: polish fingernails, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Clean, shape, and polish fingernails and toenails, using files and nail polish.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Filing, shaping and polishing nails is careful handwork on a client's fingers and toes.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Attaching wigs or hairpieces to model heads and dress wigs and hairpieces
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: wigs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Attach wigs or hairpieces to model heads and dress wigs and hairpieces according to instructions, samples, sketches or photographs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Fitting and dressing a wig on a block is physical work with the hair in your hands.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $35,790a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 305,710in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: client appointments in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: scheduling client appointments and updating and maintaining customer information records. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where work stations clean gets done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Start with what does not change: keeping work stations clean and sanitize tools is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 12% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 0% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 88% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 22 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Scheduling client appointments is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to client appointments, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether work stations clean is in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near keeping work stations clean and sanitize tools. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to hairdressers, hairstylists, and cosmetologists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was barbers: only about 23% of its durable work is work you already do and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 15/100 here, with only 12% of the task list in the top band, and “keep work stations clean and sanitize tools” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Barbers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already shave, trim, and shape beards and moustaches, and their equivalent is to shape and trim beards and moustaches, using scissors. Across both published task lists that is about 23% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 23% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. And it is a narrow door: about 15,000 of those jobs against 305,710 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 5% as many seats.
Shampooers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already shampoo, rinse, condition, and dry hair and scalp or hairpieces with water, liquid…, and their equivalent is to massage, shampoo, and condition patron's hair and scalp to clean them and remove…. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 8,070 of those jobs against 305,710 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 3% as many seats.
Manicurists and Pedicurists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already keep work stations clean and sanitize tools, and their equivalent is to clean and sanitize tools and work environment. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 12% of its task weight, across 22 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like keeping work stations clean and sanitize tools arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Hairdressers and barbers is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Hairdressers and barbers and Beauticians and related occupations. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for hairdressers / hairstylists / cosmetologists, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 12% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for hairdressers / hairstylists / cosmetologists. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for hairdressers / hairstylists / cosmetologists launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 22 official task statements scored for Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists (United States, SOC 39-5012), 12% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 15 out of 100 (range 12–21, band: minimal). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Schedule client appointments” (79/100, high); “Update and maintain customer information records, such as beauty services provided” (75/100, high); “Recommend and explain the use of cosmetics, lotions, and creams to soften and lubricate skin and enhance and restore natural appearance” (34/100, low). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists” stay human?
- About 88% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Attach wigs or hairpieces to model heads and dress wigs and hairpieces according to instructions, samples, sketches or photographs” (0/100, minimal); “Clean, shape, and polish fingernails and toenails, using files and nail polish” (0/100, minimal); “Give facials to patrons, using special compounds, such as lotions and creams” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 12% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 88% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 22 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.