Despite the rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots and virtual assistants, finding an answer to a question that a company’s software is not programmed to address can be frustrating. Searching through countless options on price-comparison Web sites for the best insurance policy or airline ticket can be equally exhausting. Yet, we tend to view this “time tax” as the cost of doing business in today’s digitized global economy.
To be sure, we already spend much of our time online for both work and leisure. Internet users in the US spend about eight hours per day online on activities like video meetings, shopping or watching shows and movies on streaming services. However, digital technologies also consume our waking hours in subtler ways, allowing companies to offload onto users tasks that their employees previously performed.
Consider, for example, the automated checkouts that allow us to scan and bag our groceries. This reduces the need to hire cashiers, enabling supermarket chains to save on wage costs, boost revenues and enhance productivity. It might even save consumers some time by shortening queues. Still, this represents a shift from paid labor to unpaid work by customers.
Consider filing a tax return. Many Americans today use software like TurboTax to file their annual taxes. While this might save consumers time and money, enabling them to avoid paying for an accountant or tax expert, it also represents a shift away from paid professionals to self-service.
These trends might provide an early indication of the potential labor-market disruption caused by large language models and machine learning.
Nearly 20 percent of US workers, particularly high-income earners, are vulnerable to automation, a study last year showed. However, a comprehensive assessment of the AI revolution’s costs and benefits must also account for its impact on what economists call the “household account”: our personal (unpaid) time and valuable, but non-monetized domestic work.
Moreover, while AI may help companies reduce costs and boost profit margins, these gains are not necessarily shared with consumers. For example, are stores using automated checkouts charging lower prices or providing better service than their less automated counterparts?
In fact, there seems to be little evidence that these technologies have actually benefited consumers. While the digital economy has provided us with valuable free services, it has also enabled companies to extract money from users by obscuring prices and quality through overly complicated designs, “dark patterns” — interfaces meant to manipulate users into making poor decisions — and potentially collusive algorithmic pricing models.
Yet the real question is why digital innovation has not led to meaningful improvements in domestic productivity.
The washing machine was one of humanity’s greatest innovations, because it saved caregivers — the vast majority of them women — a huge amount of time and effort, the late physician and statistician Hans Rosling said. So far, the digital revolution has not produced a similar time-saving breakthrough.
One possible explanation is that it is difficult to quantify the care economy. While it is well established that demand for care workers is growing across OECD countries, economic statistics do not capture the amount of time devoted to care work. The US Bureau of Economic Analysis and the British Office for National Statistics publish household production figures occasionally, but policymakers and the media rarely pay attention to these data.
Fortunately, researchers are working to bridge this gap. University of Kansas economist Misty Lee Heggeness, for example, is developing a “dashboard” of indicators on care work in the US. Similarly, the London-based Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence is exploring ways to analyze time-use data to measure household activity.
A new “GDP-B” metric is required to capture the benefits of free digital services, such as online search and e-mail, MIT economist Erik Brynjolfsson said.
Similarly, we need a measure — let us call it “GDP-H” — that accounts for activity in the unpaid economy. The goal of such a metric would be to provide an accurate picture of economic activity. At present, we overlook much of the value that technology creates or destroys simply because it is not monetized.
While measuring the frictions created by today’s digital technologies remains challenging, they take up an increasingly large portion of our daily lives. With AI-powered automation looming on the horizon, it is crucial to ensure that technological advances simplify life rather than complicate it and that the benefits are accessible to all.
To achieve this, the AI industry must generate more value than it destroys. While major new technologies are always disruptive, their social acceptance hinges on their ability to improve people’s lives in meaningful ways.
Diane Coyle, a public policy professor at the University of Cambridge, is the author of Cogs and Monsters: What Economics Is, and What It Should Be (Princeton University Press, 2021) and the forthcoming The Measure of Progress: Counting What Really Matters (Princeton University Press, Spring 2025).
Copyright: Project Syndicate
It is almost three years since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a friendship with “no limits” — weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, they have retreated from such rhetorical enthusiasm. The “no limits” language was quickly dumped, probably at Beijing’s behest. When Putin visited China in May last year, he said that he and his counterpart were “as close as brothers.” Xi more coolly called the Russian president “a good friend and a good neighbor.” China has conspicuously not reciprocated Putin’s description of it as an ally. Yet the partnership
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) said “know yourself and know your enemy and you will win a hundred battles.” Applied in our times, Taiwanese should know themselves and know the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) so that Taiwan will win a hundred battles and hopefully, deter the CCP. Taiwanese receive information daily about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) threat from the Ministry of National Defense and news sources. One area that needs better understanding is which forces would the People’s Republic of China (PRC) use to impose martial law and what would be the consequences for living under PRC
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
Although former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo — known for being the most pro-Taiwan official to hold the post — is not in the second administration of US president-elect Donald Trump, he has maintained close ties with the former president and involved himself in think tank activities, giving him firsthand knowledge of the US’ national strategy. On Monday, Pompeo visited Taiwan for the fourth time, attending a Formosa Republican Association’s forum titled “Towards Permanent World Peace: The Shared Mission of the US and Taiwan.” At the event, he reaffirmed his belief in Taiwan’s democracy, liberty, human rights and independence, highlighting a
RSS