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
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
China’s partnership with Pakistan has long served as a key instrument in Beijing’s efforts to unsettle India. While official narratives frame the two nations’ alliance as one of economic cooperation and regional stability, the underlying strategy suggests a deliberate attempt to check India’s rise through military, economic and diplomatic maneuvering. China’s growing influence in Pakistan is deeply intertwined with its own global ambitions. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of the Belt and Road Initiative, offers China direct access to the Arabian Sea, bypassing potentially vulnerable trade routes. For Pakistan, these investments provide critical infrastructure, yet they also
RSS