Contributing Editor Toby Gooley is a writer and editor specializing in supply chain, logistics, and material handling, and a lecturer at MIT's Center for Transportation & Logistics. She previously was Senior Editor at DC VELOCITY and Editor of DCV's sister publication, CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. Prior to joining AGiLE Business Media in 2007, she spent 20 years at Logistics Management magazine as Managing Editor and Senior Editor covering international trade and transportation. Prior to that she was an export traffic manager for 10 years. She holds a B.A. in Asian Studies from Cornell University.
The economy may be in freefall, but logistics salaries appear to be holding their own …for the most part anyway. About onethird of the 1,148 logistics professionals who responded to our fourth annual salary survey in February said their total annual compensation had stayed the same in the previous 12 months. And more than half (53 percent) said their annual compensation had actually increased—better than you might expect considering the headlines of late.
Not everyone was so fortunate, though. About 14 percent of the respondents said they were making less than they did the previous year. That's a significant jump compared to 2008's survey, when only 3 percent of respondents said their pay had fallen during the past 12 months. This group most likely includes people who are unemployed, have taken a pay cut, or have taken a lowerpaying position after losing their previous job. In fact, no matter how you looked at the data, median and average salaries were down slightly almost across the board.
Hard labor
Their paychecks may be smaller, but readers are working as hard as ever. Only 25 percent of those who took part in the salary survey said they worked 40 hours or less during the average week. Another 68 percent said they typically worked 46 to 60 hours a week (including time spent working outside the office). A harried 7 percent can't seem to tear themselves away, devoting more than 60 hours a week to their jobs. And it doesn't seem to matter much what your title, industry, or location may be—with 87 percent of respondents reporting that their work hours had increased or stayed the same, almost everyone is putting their nose to the grindstone these days.
That's partly because many people in this field have more responsibilities than they did in the past. Sixtysix percent of the survey respondents, in fact, reported that the number of functions they manage has increased over the past three years. Another 29 percent said their responsibilities had stayed the same, and 5 percent reported a decrease. The typical reader, moreover, is no longer responsible for a single function. Plenty of respondents said they carried responsibility for three or more of the six functions mentioned in the survey (see the sidebar). The greater the number of functions you oversee, of course, the more people to manage. No surprise, then, that 61 percent of the survey respondents said they had five or more direct reports.
So what kind of compensation are readers being paid for those long hours and growing lists of responsibilities? As we noted earlier, in many cases, it's less than they made before. The average salary this year was $97,776 (down from $105,834 the previous year), while the median salary was $83,000—some $6,000 less than the median in last year's survey.
That downward slide is due in part to the record number of respondents (14 percent) whose pay declined in the previous 12 months. Yet some respondents appear to be holding steady or even doing a bit better than in the past. Thirty-three percent said their pay had not changed over the previous year, and a fortunate 53 percent brought home more bacon during that same period. The latter reported an average increase of 5.5 percent over the previous year (the median was 3.6 percent). It's important to note that those numbers reflect more than just annual raises. Sixty-one percent of all respondents reported that at least part of their total compensation was based on performance.
Title bout
With respondents reporting a wide range of titles and responsibilities (see the sidebar), it's inevitable that our survey would show a significant range in salaries. For the most part, the latest results are similar to patterns we've been seeing all along. One interesting exception: The biggest paychecks this year did not go to the highest-level executives. The three highest-paid readers all identified themselves as managers; they hailed from the pharmaceutical and health care ($980,000), wholesale/retail ($950,000), and food and grocery ($900,000) industries. The three lowest earners, who came from the wholesale/retail and electronics/electrical equipment and components industries, brought home between $10,000 and $12,000—unusually low numbers that may reflect job losses or part-time work.
It's impossible to know whether that nearly million-dollar differential is an anomaly or signals some new trend. But in most cases, job title is still the biggest factor in determining the size of your paycheck.
Which titles pay the most on average? As was the case last year, vice presidents were at the top of the salary ladder. The median salary for VP-level respondents was $144,000—5 percent higher than the median salary of those next in line, corporate officers. Presidents and directors came next, with median salaries of $120,000 and $104,000, respectively.
From there, it's a big jump down to the lower levels. Managers made $28,000 less than directors, and supervisors earned $19,000 less than managers. Exhibit 1 shows the median salary and average salary for each title (we've used the median numbers, rather than the averages, as the basis for comparison because they are less likely to be skewed by statistical extremes).
Experience and education count
Job title may carry the most weight, but many other factors influence how much an individual logistics or supply chain professional makes. The region where you work, your level of education, and how long you've been in the business will typically play a big role in determining your salary.
Let's start with geographic region. As Exhibit 2 shows, this year, the highest median salary was found in the Western states, where the median pay was $87,500. The Middle Atlantic region paid second best, with a median salary of $85,700. Managers working in the Lower 48 did considerably better than their counterparts in Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the median salary was just $63,000.
Did your parents push you to get an advanced degree so you would make more money? Well, they knew what they were doing. Exhibit 3 illustrates the strong correlation between earnings and education. The median salary for respondents with only a highschool diploma was $67,000. With a median salary of $145,000, those who have earned a doctorate take home more than twice as much.
Experience in the field also influences earnings (see Exhibit 4). The median salary of newcomers to the profession (those with five or fewer years of experience in logistics) was $66,650. Those at the other end of the scale (respondents with more than 25 years' experience) command a hefty premium for their expertise. With a median salary of $100,000, the veterans outearned the newcomers by about 50 percent.
Grab bag
A grab bag of other factors can have an influence on salaries. Our survey found that a respondent's age and gender, the size of the company he or she works for, and the length of his or her tenure with the current employer can make a difference.
Take age, for example. It seems logical that median salaries should increase with age; as Exhibit 5 shows, that is true, although the differences start to taper off once respondents reach their mid50s. The median salaries for respondents aged 56 to 60 ($89,000) and for those over 60 were separated by just a few hundred dollars.
For as long as salary surveys have been around, women have lagged behind men in terms of their compensation. As Exhibit 6 shows, the difference in median salaries this year was $20,000, or 31 percent. The persistent gender gap appears to be based to some degree on experience. Sixtyfive percent of the women who responded to this year's survey had 15 years' experience or less, compared to 40 percent of the men.
The size of the company you work for makes a difference in your salary (see Exhibit 7). As you might expect, small businesses—those with fewer than 100 employees—pay the least, a median salary of $75,000. Working for a slightly larger company will get you a slightly larger salary—$2,500 more, to be precise. From there, it's a steady step upward to the large corporations that pay a median salary of $95,000.
When it comes to pay, the length of respondents' tenure with their current employers seems to be less important than you might expect. As Exhibit 8 shows, our survey found only a weak correlation between them. As has been true in past years, salaries do not necessarily increase with the number of years with a particular employer. This year, median salaries for those with 11 to 20 years of service with their current employer dipped below those of more recent arrivals. The most senior people, however, outpaced the rest of their colleagues by several thousand dollars.
Glimmer of hope
As anyone who's ever undergone a salary review well knows, there are countless other variables that might influence a person's salary—job performance, departmental budget, and perks and benefits, to name a few. But generally speaking, the primary factors in determining salary are title, geographic region, education, experience, age, company size, and gender.
What does that mean for those eager to boost their earnings? Well, there's not much you can do about your age or gender. But if you suspect your location or a lack of schooling might be holding you back, you can think about moving to a different part of the country or going back to school. But be realistic: In the current economy, even tactics that were once considered tried and true may not pay off.
It's clear that the salaries reflect what's happening in the economy at large. As orders and shipping volumes decline, companies are discontinuing bonuses and cutting compensation. Don't give up hope, though. More than half of the survey respondents saw their pay increase, albeit by a pretty slim percentage. And when times get tough, smart companies take a fresh look at their operations to find efficiencies and cost savings. Who better to take on that mission and prove their worth than logistics and distribution pros?
who are you?
The results of DC VELOCITY's fourth annual salary survey once again offer a comprehensive portrait of our readers. The study was based on the responses of 1,148 subscribers who completed a 20-question survey in February. The survey respondents came from a broad swath of industries—everything from wholesale/retail (27 percent), third-party logistics services (10 percent), and food and grocery (8 percent) to pharmaceuticals and health care (5 percent), consumer packaged goods (6 percent), and apparel and footwear (4 percent).
All of the respondents classified themselves as having some sort of managerial responsibility. At the higher levels, 3 percent said they were corporate officers (CEOs, COOs, CFOs), another 3 percent identified themselves as presidents, 9 percent were vice presidents, and 20 percent were directors. The largest group, 53 percent, described themselves simply as managers, followed by the 12 percent who said they were supervisors.
Respondents represented companies of all sizes, from the 21 percent who were employed by businesses with fewer than 100 employees, all the way up to the 29 percent who worked for companies with more than 5,000 employees. Thirty-three percent worked for midsized companies that employ anywhere from 100 to 1,000 people, and 17 percent worked for organizations employing 1,001 to 5,000 people. The respondents' companies were located throughout the United States, as well as in Canada and Mexico.
Our survey asked respondents to identify the functions they managed. The overwhelming majority of the survey-takers indicated that they had multiple areas of responsibility. Warehouse and/or distribution center management was the most frequent answer, cited by nearly three-fourths (73 percent) of the respondents. Logistics management (60 percent) was close behind, followed by supply chain management (50 percent), transportation management (52 percent), import/export operations (26 percent), and fleet operations (22 percent).
As for the respondents themselves, the vast majority (88 percent) were male; just 12 percent were female. Some were relative newcomers to the workforce—13 percent were 35 years of age or younger. Others could boast years of experience. The largest group of respondents (68 percent) fell into the 36-to-55 age range. Nineteen percent were over the age of 56 (including the 2 percent who said they were over 65). The majority (69 percent) had gone to college, earning a bachelor's degree or higher. But 31 percent— including a few of the most highly paid respondents—had ended their formal education with a high school diploma.
Most respondents were seasoned professionals. Only 12 percent said they'd been working in logistics for five years or less. Another 17 percent have worked in the field for six to 10 years, 19 percent for 11 to 15 years, 18 percent for 16 to 20 years, 12 percent for 21 to 25 years, and 22 percent for more than 25 years. And they're not the type to bounce around from one job to the next: Two-thirds (67 percent) said they had been working at the same company for six years or more.
A move by federal regulators to reinforce requirements for broker transparency in freight transactions is stirring debate among transportation groups, after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a “notice of proposed rulemaking” this week.
According to FMCSA, its draft rule would strive to make broker transparency more common, requiring greater sharing of the material information necessary for transportation industry parties to make informed business decisions and to support the efficient resolution of disputes.
The proposed rule titled “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions” would address what FMCSA calls the lack of access to information among shippers and motor carriers that can impact the fairness and efficiency of the transportation system, and would reframe broker transparency as a regulatory duty imposed on brokers, with the goal of deterring non-compliance. Specifically, the move would require brokers to keep electronic records, and require brokers to provide transaction records to motor carriers and shippers upon request and within 48 hours of that request.
Under federal regulatory processes, public comments on the move are due by January 21, 2025. However, transportation groups are not waiting on the sidelines to voice their opinions.
According to the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), an industry group representing the third-party logistics (3PL) industry, the potential rule is “misguided overreach” that fails to address the more pressing issue of freight fraud. In TIA’s view, broker transparency regulation is “obsolete and un-American,” and has no place in today’s “highly transparent” marketplace. “This proposal represents a misguided focus on outdated and unnecessary regulations rather than tackling issues that genuinely threaten the safety and efficiency of our nation’s supply chains,” TIA said.
But trucker trade group the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) welcomed the proposed rule, which it said would ensure that brokers finally play by the rules. “We appreciate that FMCSA incorporated input from our petition, including a requirement to make records available electronically and emphasizing that brokers have a duty to comply with regulations. As FMCSA noted, broker transparency is necessary for a fair, efficient transportation system, and is especially important to help carriers defend themselves against alleged claims on a shipment,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in a statement.
Additional pushback came from the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), a network of transportation professionals in small business, which said the potential rule didn’t go far enough. “This is too little too late and is disappointing. It preserves the status quo, which caters to Big Broker & TIA. There is no question now that FMCSA has been captured by Big Broker. Truckers and carriers must now come out in droves and file comments in full force against this starting tomorrow,” SBTC executive director James Lamb said in a LinkedIn post.
The “series B” funding round was financed by an unnamed “strategic customer” as well as Teradyne Robotics Ventures, Toyota Ventures, Ranpak, Third Kind Venture Capital, One Madison Group, Hyperplane, Catapult Ventures, and others.
The fresh backing comes as Massachusetts-based Pickle reported a spate of third quarter orders, saying that six customers placed orders for over 30 production robots to deploy in the first half of 2025. The new orders include pilot conversions, existing customer expansions, and new customer adoption.
“Pickle is hitting its strides delivering innovation, development, commercial traction, and customer satisfaction. The company is building groundbreaking technology while executing on essential recurring parts of a successful business like field service and manufacturing management,” Omar Asali, Pickle board member and CEO of investor Ranpak, said in a release.
According to Pickle, its truck-unloading robot applies “Physical AI” technology to one of the most labor-intensive, physically demanding, and highest turnover work areas in logistics operations. The platform combines a powerful vision system with generative AI foundation models trained on millions of data points from real logistics and warehouse operations that enable Pickle’s robotic hardware platform to perform physical work at human-scale or better, the company says.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR said its Trucking Conditions Index declined in September to -2.47 from -1.39 in August as weakness in the principal freight dynamics – freight rates, utilization, and volume – offset lower fuel costs and slightly less unfavorable financing costs.
Those negative numbers are nothing new—the TCI has been positive only twice – in May and June of this year – since April 2022, but the group’s current forecast still envisions consistently positive readings through at least a two-year forecast horizon.
“Aside from a near-term boost mostly related to falling diesel prices, we have not changed our Trucking Conditions Index forecast significantly in the wake of the election,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release. “The outlook continues to be more favorable for carriers than what they have experienced for well over two years. Our analysis indicates gradual but steadily rising capacity utilization leading to stronger freight rates in 2025.”
But FTR said its forecast remains unchanged. “Just like everyone else, we’ll be watching closely to see exactly what trade and other economic policies are implemented and over what time frame. Some freight disruptions are likely due to tariffs and other factors, but it is not yet clear that those actions will do more than shift the timing of activity,” Vise said.
The TCI tracks the changes representing five major conditions in the U.S. truck market: freight volumes, freight rates, fleet capacity, fuel prices, and financing costs. Combined into a single index indicating the industry’s overall health, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions while a negative score shows the inverse.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.
Progress in generative AI (GenAI) is poised to impact business procurement processes through advancements in three areas—agentic reasoning, multimodality, and AI agents—according to Gartner Inc.
Those functions will redefine how procurement operates and significantly impact the agendas of chief procurement officers (CPOs). And 72% of procurement leaders are already prioritizing the integration of GenAI into their strategies, thus highlighting the recognition of its potential to drive significant improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, Gartner found in a survey conducted in July, 2024, with 258 global respondents.
Gartner defined the new functions as follows:
Agentic reasoning in GenAI allows for advanced decision-making processes that mimic human-like cognition. This capability will enable procurement functions to leverage GenAI to analyze complex scenarios and make informed decisions with greater accuracy and speed.
Multimodality refers to the ability of GenAI to process and integrate multiple forms of data, such as text, images, and audio. This will make GenAI more intuitively consumable to users and enhance procurement's ability to gather and analyze diverse information sources, leading to more comprehensive insights and better-informed strategies.
AI agents are autonomous systems that can perform tasks and make decisions on behalf of human operators. In procurement, these agents will automate procurement tasks and activities, freeing up human resources to focus on strategic initiatives, complex problem-solving and edge cases.
As CPOs look to maximize the value of GenAI in procurement, the study recommended three starting points: double down on data governance, develop and incorporate privacy standards into contracts, and increase procurement thresholds.
“These advancements will usher procurement into an era where the distance between ideas, insights, and actions will shorten rapidly,” Ryan Polk, senior director analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a release. "Procurement leaders who build their foundation now through a focus on data quality, privacy and risk management have the potential to reap new levels of productivity and strategic value from the technology."