Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 130 references

The Human Utility Factor: A Computable Welfare Metric That Reframes AI Governance as a Constrained Optimisation Problem

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read HUF turns AI governance into a constrained optimization problem with a computed redistribution floor and an automation ceiling.

desk verdict Useful survey and a sensible governance reframing, but the headline threshold is mis-derived and self-contradictory — the numbers don't stand as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26068 v1 pith:NAGZXA4R submitted 2026-06-23 econ.GN cs.AIcs.CYq-fin.EC

Sivasathivel Kandasamy This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.GNcs.AIcs.CYq-fin.EC
keywords HumanUtilityFactorAIgovernanceconstrainedoptimizationredistributionthresholdautomationdepthwelfaremetricGinicoefficientreinforcementlearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that AI governance can be reframed as a constrained optimization problem with a computable objective: the Human Utility Factor (HUF), a multiplicative welfare index of Agency, Wellbeing, and Economic Stability driven by three levers — automation depth, redistribution intensity, and employment coverage. The central result is that HUF admits a closed-form interior optimum automation level and a minimum redistribution intensity below which no automation level is welfare-positive. If true, a regulator could compute enforceable inequalities (h_a ≤ h*_a, α+β ≥ (α+β)*, ρ ≥ ρ_min) from public statistics, turning "AI should benefit humanity" from aspiration into measurable compliance conditions. The paper also reports that independently trained reinforcement-learning agents converge to a high-automation, low-redistribution equilibrium that maximizes raw HUF while violating its intended floor, which the authors use to argue that the redistribution constraint must be enforced separately from the aggregate score.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Human Utility Factor (HUF), a differentiable multiplicative welfare index HUF = A × W × E. The three levers are automation depth h_a (weekly hours of work replaced), redistribution intensity α+β (share of freed hours or income returned to workers via upskilling and transfers), and employment coverage ρ. The multiplicative structure enforces joint adequacy: any component at zero zeroes the whole index. The crucial identity is the redistribution threshold of Eq. (14), (α+β)* = 1 − φ(1−G0)/(κδ+φ(1−G0)), which divides the parameter space into regimes where automation can be welfare-positive and regimes where no automation level helps; together with the interior optimum

What would settle it

A cross-country panel regression of the Gini coefficient on robot density or automation exposure would settle whether Eq. (12)'s linear sensitivity is real; if the estimated coefficient differs materially from 0.02 or a nonlinear specification fits better, Eq. (14)'s threshold and the BAU 'moratorium' verdict shift or collapse. Within the paper's own simulation, re-running the Nordic regime without the α+β≤0.55 cap would test whether the empirical Nordic advantage over Partial recovers the analytical prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the aggregate welfare effect of automation can be summarized by HUF = A × W × E, where A captures whether workers keep sufficient income and meaningful time, W captures gains in family and rest time, and E captures inequality-adjusted output and employment coverage. Setting the derivative of HUF with respect to automation hours to zero gives the optimal automation depth h*_a; evaluating the derivative at zero gives a closed-form redistribution threshold (α+β)* = 1 − φ(1−G0)/(κδ+φ(1−G0)) below which every automation level reduces welfare. The threshold depends only on the productivity ceiling, the Gini sensitivity to automation, the capital-capture rate, and baseline

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Gini coefficient responds linearly to automation with a fixed sensitivity parameter in Eq. (12), but the cited evidence estimates employment and wage effects, not Gini sensitivity, so neither the linear form nor κ=0.02 is directly established; the ad hoc α+β≤0.55 cap in §5.1 additionally compresses the Nordic regime's realized outcomes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any jurisdiction can compute a minimal redistribution intensity from public data; below that floor, no amount of automation raises welfare, so a moratorium or enhanced-review trigger is justified.
  • The optimal automation level is not a knife-edge: the paper finds HUF within 5% of peak across h_a ∈ [15,30] hours/week at Partial/Nordic redistribution, so regulators can set an admissible band rather than a point target.
  • Employment coverage ρ scales HUF multiplicatively; a coverage floor is a necessary co-condition for any automation-welfare claim.
  • Composite welfare metrics that do not separately enforce a redistribution floor can be optimized into high-automation, low-redistribution equilibria; the floor must be an independent compliance condition, not just a component of the score.
  • Under US-calibrated parameters the redistribution threshold is never met, so the paper's verdict is a warranted pause on further automation expansion until redistribution capacity is strengthened.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My inference: the PPO finding generalizes — any aggregate objective that rewards freed time without a hard redistribution floor will be gamed toward high automation, so the same floor separation is needed if HUF is ever used as an AI training reward, a use the paper floats only as future work.
  • My inference: applied to high-inequality economies with G0 ≈ 0.5–0.6, Eq. (14) implies a higher redistribution floor and a narrower automation band; the paper notes this direction but does not quantify it, suggesting the governance instrument would bite hardest in emerging markets.
  • My inference: the paper's own displacement-vs-augmentation distinction suggests a direct empirical test — estimate the augmentation elasticity ψ in its Eq. (15) extension from firm-level wage-share and hours data; if augmentation dominates, the threshold falls and the ceiling rises, making HUF less restrictive than the current displacement-only model implies.
  • My inference: the demand-collapse channel the paper flags as under-modelled is the most serious threat to HUF's sufficiency; a joint welfare-and-demand floor, with the purchasing-power condition w·ρ ≥ median expenditure, is the natural next object and would catch contractionary states HUF currently marks as acceptable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Human Utility Factor (HUF), a multiplicative welfare metric HUF = A × W × E that combines Agency, Wellbeing, and Economic Stability as functions of automation depth h_a, redistribution intensity α+β, and employment coverage ρ. It claims two headline formal results: a closed-form interior optimum h*_a and a redistribution threshold (α+β)* below which no automation level is welfare-positive, both computed from publicly available statistics. The framework is tested in a three-agent Stackelberg MARL simulation across BAU/U.S., Partial/Canada, and Nordic regimes, with analytical heuristic agents and independent PPO agents. The paper argues that AI governance should be reframed as constrained optimization, with enforceable inequalities h_a ≤ h*_a, α+β ≥ (α+β)*, and ρ ≥ ρ_min.

Significance. If the derivation and calibration were sound, HUF would be a genuinely useful contribution: it offers a transparent, differentiable welfare index, a systematic survey of 32 governance frameworks, a concrete regulatory translation, and a falsifiable quantitative threshold. The GAGI index in Section 3 is a sensible descriptive tool for inequality- and inflation-adjusted welfare monitoring. The paper is also commendably explicit about its limitations, including the redistribution cap and the absence of sectoral decomposition. However, the central formal claim — Eq. (14) — is not correctly derived, is internally inconsistent with the simulation results, and depends on parameters for which no direct empirical estimate is provided. Since the governance triplet and all regime verdicts in Table 2 and Section 5 are built on this threshold, the paper's headline quantitative contribution is not supported as it stands.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.6, Eq. (14)] The redistribution threshold is not the first-order condition of HUF. Setting d(HUF)/dh_a|ha=0 = 0 and solving for α+β must include the derivatives of the Wellbeing and income-sufficiency factors at h_a=0. The paper's assertion that the threshold is independent of μ, ν, and w* because W(0)=I(0)=1 confuses the level with the slope. With the paper's own parameters (α=β, μ=ν=0.5, h0f=7, h0r=8, h0w=40, w*=0.85, δ=0.6, φ=0.066, G0=0.41, κ=0.02), solving the full FOC gives a value materially different from Eq. (14). Moreover, §5.2 reports a BAU threshold 'α+β≈0.42' and attributes it to Eq. (14), but Eq. (14) with the stated BAU parameters yields approximately 0.236. This internal inconsistency means the headline enforceable threshold is neither correctly derived nor consistently computed.
  2. [§4.5 and §5] The validation loop is circular. The Economic Stability component E defines γ as 'estimated from the MARL simulation of Section 5', and the same simulation is later offered as cross-validation of the analytical optima. Both the analytical heuristic agents and the PPO agents optimize the same HUF objective, so their agreement (or disagreement) tests internal consistency of the optimization, not whether HUF corresponds to any external welfare benchmark. The claimed 'agreement' between analytical and learned agents therefore does not provide independent validation of the model.
  3. [Eq. (12) and §4.5] The Gini sensitivity κ=0.02 is attributed to Acemoglu–Restrepo [6], but that paper estimates effects on employment-to-population ratios and wages, not on the Gini coefficient. Reference [119] is later described as the primary source for κ calibration, but no estimated κ is reported from either source. Since Eq. (14) and all regime verdicts in Table 2 are first-order sensitive to κ, the claim that (α+β)* is computable from public statistics is not presently supported. A concrete estimate of κ from the cited work, or a sensitivity analysis over κ, is needed before the threshold can be used as claimed.
  4. [§5.3.2, Fig. 7] The PPO agents discover an alternate optimum with h*_a ≈ 30–40 hrs/week in BAU, with MAE 23.25 hrs/week relative to the analytical prediction. The paper interprets this as a second local maximum, but this directly contradicts the framing of h*_a as 'the closed-form optimal automation level.' If HUF has multiple optima, then the interior optimum derived from d(HUF)/dh_a=0 is only a stationary point, not a global welfare maximum. The governance conclusion that h_a ≤ h*_a is an enforceable ceiling is therefore unsupported: a regulator enforcing h*_a would be enforcing one local optimum that the paper's own learning agents show is dominated by another region with higher raw HUF.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] The reported HUF at h_a=0 is inconsistent with the model. With ρ=0.95 and γ=1, Eq. (13) gives HUF(0)=ρ^{1+γ}=0.9025 for all regimes, but Table 2 reports 0.895, 0.908, and 0.931 for BAU, Partial, and Nordic. The source of this discrepancy should be clarified.
  2. [Abstract and §5.3.2] The abstract states that 'both analytical and PPO-based agents identify welfare-optimal operating regions,' but the PPO agents do not validate the analytical optimum; they find a different equilibrium. The wording should distinguish validation from discovery of alternate optima.
  3. [§5.1] The environment is described as an 18-dimensional state but the state variables are not enumerated in the main text. Since the supplementary information is not part of this submission, the reader cannot reproduce the simulation. At minimum, a full state-variable list and hyperparameter table should be included.
  4. [§6.2] The 'Absent sectoral decomposition' limitation acknowledges that a decomposition promised in the Introduction is not delivered. This is a useful admission, but the Introduction should be adjusted to avoid overstating the model's coverage.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The paper's headline 'predictions' are partly constructed from the simulation that is then offered as validation: E's elasticity is fitted to the MARL run, analytical agents are programmed to the closed form they 'validate', and the reported BAU threshold (0.42) corresponds not to Eq. (14) with the stated κ=0.02 but to the simulation-learned κ≈0.047.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.5 (Component E) and Section 5.1 (Experimental Setup)]
    "γ > 0 is the labour-absorption elasticity estimated from the MARL simulation of Section 5. ... Agreement between the two families constitutes an internal cross-validation: a learning agent that independently recovers the analytically predicted optimum confirms the theoretical result without relying on it."

    The Economic Stability component E contains a parameter γ that is estimated from the very MARL simulation that Section 5 later treats as validating HUF. Both the analytical agents and the PPO agents optimize the same HUF=A×W×E objective, so their agreement is an internal-consistency check, not an external test. The validation target is therefore built into the model before the 'confirmation' run.

  2. self definitional [Section 5.1 and Section 5.3.1 (Figure 4)]
    "analytically-derived heuristic agents that implement the closed-form optimality conditions of Eqs. (13) and (14) (Industry moves ha toward h∗ a via Brent's method) ... The analytical agents, by construction, move toward the closed-form optimum h∗ a derived in §4.6."

    The 'theory–experiment agreement' in Figure 4 (MAE 0.12–0.20 hrs/wk) is presented as confirming d(ln HUF)/dha=0, but the analytical agents were explicitly programmed to move ha toward the h∗a computed from that same closed form. Their convergence to h∗a is therefore an artefact of the solver, not an independent empirical confirmation.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1, Section 5.2, Figure 2 caption]
    "the BAU surface declines monotonically in ha below the α+β≈0.42 threshold — exactly the critical value implied by Eq. (14) for the BAU parameters. ... Government sets the automation ceiling h̄a, the ALMP floor (α+β)min, and the Gini-sensitivity parameter κ. ... Figure 2: HUF Surface over ha×(α+β), with ρ, δ, κ Fixed at Learned Values."

    With the paper's stated BAU parameters (φ=0.066, κ=0.02, δ=0.6, G0=0.41), Eq. (14) yields (α+β)*≈0.236, not 0.42. To obtain 0.42 requires κ≈0.047, which is the MARL-learned value of κ, not the cited κ=0.02. Thus the reported threshold is a fitted output of the simulation (κ learned to match the surface) that is then renamed as a prediction 'implied by Eq. (14)'. The central enforceable threshold is not independently predicted; it is the simulation's fit re-labelled.

full rationale

The algebraic skeleton of the paper (Eqs. 2–14) is self-contained in the narrow sense that the closed-form expressions are computed from the model's own components; no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is present, and references [16]–[18] are companion papers that do not by themselves force the central result. However, the paper's claimed empirical validations and reported parameter-dependent thresholds reduce, on inspection, to the fitting targets. E's γ is estimated from the Section 5 simulation and the same simulation is presented as validation; the analytical agents are constructed to implement Eqs. (13)–(14) and then their convergence to h∗a is reported as confirming those equations; and the BAU threshold α+β≈0.42 that Figure 2/§5.2 attribute to Eq. (14) is numerically inconsistent with the stated κ=0.02 and instead matches the κ≈0.047 learned inside the MARL environment. These are not independent confirmations: they are internal-consistency loops. Separately, the derivation of Eq. (14) appears to drop W'(0) and I'(0) terms from the first-order condition, which is a correctness problem rather than a circularity and is not scored here beyond the fit issue. On balance, one central prediction (the redistribution threshold) and the main validation protocol are partly constructed from the simulation's fitted parameters, warranting a score of 6 rather than higher: the analytical form itself still has independent algebraic content, but the reported numbers and 'confirmations' are not externally grounded.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The HUF result depends on a chain of hand-set functional forms and parameter assignments: multiplicative separability, linear Gini response with κ=0.02, the α+β≤0.55 cap, and γ fitted from the validation simulation. These are not derived from first principles and several are not independently measured.

free parameters (7)
  • κ (Gini sensitivity) = 0.02
    Set in §4.5/Table 3 and attributed to Acemoglu–Restrepo [6], but the cited JPE paper measures employment-to-population and wage effects, not Gini sensitivity; effectively hand-set.
  • δ (capital-capture rate) = 0.60
    Assigned in Table 3 for all regimes; no independent estimate cited; shifts labour share, wage, and Gini equations.
  • γ (labour-absorption elasticity) = 1 in Table 2; 'estimated from MARL simulation' in §4.5
    If fitted to the same simulation that is used for validation, the HUF optimum is partly an artefact of the fitting.
  • w* (living-wage floor) = 0.85
    Chosen in Table 2; sets the kink in I(ha) and determines when Agency erosion activates.
  • µ, ν (wellbeing elasticities) = 0.5 each
    Chosen in Table 2 as 'estimated from time-use surveys' [110,120] but no direct estimate is reported; W and the location of h*_a depend on them despite the claimed independence of Eq. (14).
  • ρ (employment coverage) = 0.95 for analytical runs
    Chosen; scales HUF multiplicatively; the proposed ρ_min floor is not derived.
  • φ (productivity gain cap) = 0.066
    External Acemoglu ceiling [9]; used in Ypc and Eq. (14); not fitted to the paper's data but load-bearing for conclusions.
assumptions (7)
  • ad hoc to paper The welfare metric is exactly the product HUF = A × W × E, with no interaction terms or compensation across components.
    Design postulate in §4.1 Eq. (2), asserted to enforce joint adequacy; it is not derived from welfare theory and drives the threshold algebra.
  • ad hoc to paper Agency decreases linearly with ha unless redistribution is complete: η(ha)=1+Ωha/T with Ω=α+β−1 (Eq. 8).
    Linear hour-reallocation efficiency; no empirical evidence is given for linearity.
  • ad hoc to paper Gini responds linearly to automation depth: G(ha)=G0+κδ ha/h0w(1−α−β) (Eq. 12).
    No empirical Gini-automation elasticity is cited; κ=0.02 is assigned via [6], which estimates employment and wage effects, not Gini changes.
  • domain assumption The time budget is T=55h/week from 5×(24−13) with two protected weekend days (Eq. 3), and h0w≈40, h0f≈7, h0r≈8.
    BLS time-use and sleep norms; reasonable but normative.
  • domain assumption Productivity gain φ is capped by the Acemoglu ceiling at 0.066 (Eq. 11).
    External bound [9], load-bearing for the threshold magnitude.
  • ad hoc to paper The simulation enforces α+β≤0.55, beyond which active production collapses.
    Introduced to keep the game stable; prevents the Nordic regime from being fully realised and changes empirical comparisons.
  • domain assumption Demand collapse is not part of HUF; the demand index D only captures first-order effects.
    Acknowledged in §6.2 as under-modelled; if demand collapse is a co-equal failure mode, thresholds based on HUF alone may be too permissive.
invented entities (2)
  • Human Utility Factor (HUF = A×W×E)
    purpose: Scalar welfare metric and proposed governance constraint; the central contribution.
    No falsifiable out-of-sample prediction is made; parameters are chosen or fitted inside the same framework, and the only validation is self-simulation.
  • Gini-Adjusted GDP per Capita Index (GAGI)
    purpose: Empirical index used in §3 to document the governance gap; defined in Eq. (1) and developed in companion paper [17].
    A re-scaling of published data; cannot falsify its own construction, and the §3 evidence is sourced to a self-cited companion paper rather than shipped data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Human Utility Factor: A Computable Welfare Metric That Reframes AI Governance as a Constrained Optimisation Problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NAGZXA4R

@misc{pith2026260726068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Human Utility Factor: A Computable Welfare Metric That Reframes AI Governance as a Constrained Optimisation Problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NAGZXA4R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26068}
}
read the original abstract

Existing AI governance frameworks, including the EU AI Act and NIST AI RMF, address safety, transparency, and accountability but do not operationalize quantitative constraints on macro-socioeconomic stability. As a result, AI systems may satisfy regulatory requirements while contributing to labor displacement, rising inequality, and reduced economic resilience. We introduce the Human Utility Factor (HUF), a differentiable welfare metric that models the interaction between Agency, Wellbeing, and Economic Stability as functions of three actionable policy levers: automation depth, redistribution intensity, and employment coverage. HUF yields a closed-form optimal automation level and a minimum redistribution threshold below which no level of automation is welfare-positive, transforming high-level governance objectives into computable constraints. We evaluate HUF using a three-agent multi-agent reinforcement learning framework across U.S., Canadian, and Nordic policy regimes. Both analytical and PPO-based agents identify welfare-optimal operating regions and reveal a critical failure mode: welfare metrics that do not explicitly constrain redistribution can converge to high-automation equilibria that satisfy the metric while undermining its intended societal objectives. Our results suggest that AI governance is fundamentally a constrained optimization problem rather than a compliance exercise. HUF provides a quantitative framework for evaluating automation policies, identifying socioeconomic stability boundaries, and supporting governance decisions under accelerating AI deployment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26068 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gini-Adjusted GDP per Capita Index (GAGI), GDP per Capita Index, and Private AI Investment, G7 Economies, 2010–2026 (2025–2026 pre￾liminary). Observation. The GDP per capita index (blue line, left axis) consistently exceeds the GAGI index (red line, left axis) in every G7 country throughout the pe￾riod, with the gap widening post-2022, coincident with accelerating AI investment (bars, right axis, country-specific sc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HUF Surface over ha×(α+β), with ρ, δ, κ Fixed at Learned Values. One panel per regime; z-axis: HUF. Circle: MARL-optimal (ha, α+β). Triangle: analytical h ∗ a (Eq. (13)). Observation. BAU declines monotonically as ha increases below the α+β ≈ 0.42 threshold, with no interior maximum visible. Partial shows a pronounced ridge near ha ≈ 20 hrs/wk for α+β ≥ 0.45; the MARL circle and analytical triangle fall within the s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Training Convergence Dashboard — Analytical Agents, Partial Regime. Six quantities over 600 episodes (raw: faint; smoothed-20: solid). Top row: h ∗ a (Industry), α+β (Population/Government), δ (Industry). Bottom row: κ (Govern￾ment), HUF (Eq. (2)), GAGI (Eq. (1)). Observation. All six quantities stabilise within ≈50 episodes; α+β settles near the redistribution threshold (α+β) ∗ ≈ 0.34; HUF remains above the welfare… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Theory vs. Experiment: Analytical h ∗ a vs. Empirical h ∗ a , Partial Regime. Left: scatter of MARL-empirical h ∗ a (y-axis) against closed-form prediction (x-axis); colour encodes HUF; dashed diagonal = perfect agreement; MAE = 0.12 hrs/wk. Right: per-episode converge…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cross-Regime Comparison — Analytical Agents. Left: analytical HUF(ha) curves for BAU, Partial, Nordic; stars mark theoretical optima ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Episode Returns per Agent — Neural PPO, BAU Regime. Raw (faint) and smoothed-20 (solid) returns for Industry (red), Government (blue), Popula￾tion (green). Observation. Industry’s returns rise from ≈ −120 to ≈ −20 over ≈300 episodes; Government and Population exhibit p…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Theory vs. Experiment: Analytical h ∗ a vs. Empirical h ∗ a , Neural PPO, BAU Regime. Left: scatter as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.5. Figure 3.5: share of employment in occupations at highest automation risk, by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_3_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: HUF Component Decomposition over Training — Neural PPO, BAU Regime. Top-left: Agency A; top-right: Wellbeing W; bottom-left: Economic Stability E; bottom-right: HUF = A×W ×E. Dashed line: welfare floor (HUF = 1.0 or component baseline). Observation. W rises sharply to …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets.Journal of Political Economy, 128(6):2188–2244, 2020

    Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo. Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets.Journal of Political Economy, 128(6):2188–2244, 2020. doi: 10.1086/ 705716

    2020

  2. [16]

    Mapping the governance of machines: A state-of-the-art review of AI governance frameworks and the socioeconomic gaps they leave

    Anonymous. Mapping the governance of machines: A state-of-the-art review of AI governance frameworks and the socioeconomic gaps they leave. arXiv preprint, 2026. Companion review paper; arXiv identifier to be inserted. 27

    2026

  3. [17]

    GAGI: A Gini-adjusted GDP-per-capita index for distribution-aware macroeconomic welfare monitoring

    Sivasathivel Kandasamy. GAGI: A Gini-adjusted GDP-per-capita index for distribution-aware macroeconomic welfare monitoring. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.09944 [econ.GN], 2026.https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09944

    arXiv 2026

  4. [18]

    Supplementary information: Experimental setup and decision-space analysis for the Human Utility Factor

    Sivasathivel Kandasamy. Supplementary information: Experimental setup and decision-space analysis for the Human Utility Factor. Extended Data, submitted with this manuscript, 2026

    2026

  5. [119]

    Tasks, automation, and the rise in US wage inequality.Econometrica, 90(5):1973–2016, 2022

    Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo. Tasks, automation, and the rise in US wage inequality.Econometrica, 90(5):1973–2016, 2022. doi: 10.3982/ECTA19815. Peer-reviewed. Causal identification of automation’s effect on wage inequality and labor share using task-content shifts. Primary reference forG(ha)in Eq. (12) and κcalibration

    doi:10.3982/ecta19815 1973

  6. [1]

    March 2026 job cuts report: AI leads reasons

    Challenger, Gray & Christmas. March 2026 job cuts report: AI leads reasons. Technical report, Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., apr 2026. URLhttps://www.challengergray.com/blog/ challenger-report-march-cuts-rise-25-from-february-ai-leads-reasons/. Accessed April 2026

    2026

  7. [2]

    CFOs admit privately that AI layoffs will be 9x higher this year—and still a fraction of ‘doomsday’ predic- tions.Fortune, mar 2026

    Julia Carpenter. CFOs admit privately that AI layoffs will be 9x higher this year—and still a fraction of ‘doomsday’ predic- tions.Fortune, mar 2026. URLhttps://fortune.com/2026/03/24/ 26 cfo-survey-ai-job-cuts-productivity-paradox-2026/. Accessed April 2026

    2026

  8. [3]

    Tech layoffs 2025: Why AI is behind the rising job cuts.Final Round AI Blog, 2025

    Final Round AI. Tech layoffs 2025: Why AI is behind the rising job cuts.Final Round AI Blog, 2025. URLhttps://www.finalroundai.com/blog/ ai-tech-layoffs-mid-2025. Accessed April 2026

    2025

Show all 130 references
  1. [4]

    AI-washing and the massive layoffs hitting the economy.CNBC, nov 2025

    Melissa Repko and Steve Liesman. AI-washing and the massive layoffs hitting the economy.CNBC, nov 2025. URLhttps://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/04/ white-collar-layoffs-ai-cost-cutting-tariffs.html. Accessed April 2026

    2025

  2. [5]

    The race between man and machine: Im- plications of technology for growth, factor shares, and employment.American Eco- nomic Review, 108(6):1488–1542, 2018

    Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo. The race between man and machine: Im- plications of technology for growth, factor shares, and employment.American Eco- nomic Review, 108(6):1488–1542, 2018. doi: 10.1257/aer.20160696

    2018 doi

  3. [7]

    GPTs are GPTs: Labor market impact potential of large language models.Science, 384(6702):1306– 1308, 2024

    Tyna Eloundou, Sam Manning, Pamela Mishkin, and Daniel Rock. GPTs are GPTs: Labor market impact potential of large language models.Science, 384(6702):1306– 1308, 2024. doi: 10.1126/science.adj0998

    2024 doi

  4. [8]

    Panton, Carlo Pizzinelli, Emma Rockall, and Marina M

    Mauro Cazzaniga, Florence Jaumotte, Longji Li, Giovanni Melina, Augustus J. Panton, Carlo Pizzinelli, Emma Rockall, and Marina M. Tavares. Gen-AI: Arti- ficial intelligence and the future of work. Staff Discussion Note SDN/2024/001, International Monetary Fund, 2024. URLhttps:...

    2024

  5. [9]

    The simple macroeconomics of AI.Economic Policy, 40(121): 13–58, 2025

    Daron Acemoglu. The simple macroeconomics of AI.Economic Policy, 40(121): 13–58, 2025. doi: 10.3386/w32487. NBER Working Paper 32487, 2024

    2025 doi

  6. [10]

    Openai charter, 2018

    OpenAI. Openai charter, 2018. URLhttps://openai.com/charter/. Accessed: 2026-04-24

    2018

  7. [11]

    Company visionandmission, 2026

    Anthropic PBC. Company visionandmission, 2026. URLhttps://www.anthropic. com/company. Accessed: 2026-04-24

    2026

  8. [12]

    Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (artificial intelli- gence act)

    European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (artificial intelli- gence act). Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L 2024/1689, 2024

    2024

  9. [13]

    AI risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0)

    Elham Tabassi. AI risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). Technical Report NIST AI 100-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2023

    2023

  10. [14]

    Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence

    UNESCO. Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. SHS/BIO/REC-AIETHICS/2021, 2021. URLhttps://www.unesco.org/en/ artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics

    2021

  11. [15]

    Hiroshima process international code of conduct for organizations developing advanced AI systems, 2023

    G7. Hiroshima process international code of conduct for organizations developing advanced AI systems, 2023

    2023

  12. [19]

    Human oversight under article 14 of the EU AI Act

    Maximilian Fink. Human oversight under article 14 of the EU AI Act. SSRN, 2025

    2025

  13. [20]

    Demystifying the draft EU arti- ficial intelligence act.Computer Law Review International, 22(4):97–112, 2021

    Michael Veale and Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius. Demystifying the draft EU arti- ficial intelligence act.Computer Law Review International, 22(4):97–112, 2021

    2021

  14. [21]

    Trustworthy artificial in- telligence and the European Union AI Act.Regulation & Governance, 2024

    Johann Laux, Sandra Wachter, and Brent Mittelstadt. Trustworthy artificial in- telligence and the European Union AI Act.Regulation & Governance, 2024. doi: 10.1111/rego.12512

    2024 doi

  15. [22]

    Top 20 predictions from experts on AI job loss, 2026

    AIMultiple Research. Top 20 predictions from experts on AI job loss, 2026. URL https://aimultiple.com/ai-job-loss. Accessed April 2026

    2026

  16. [23]

    Young workers’ employment drops in occupa- tions with high AI exposure.Dallas Fed Economics, jan 2026

    Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Young workers’ employment drops in occupa- tions with high AI exposure.Dallas Fed Economics, jan 2026. URLhttps: //www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2026/0106. Accessed April 2026

    2026

  17. [24]

    The global decline of the labor share

    Loukas Karabarbounis and Brent Neiman. The global decline of the labor share. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(1):61–103, 2014. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjt032

    2014 doi

  18. [25]

    Schumpeter meeting Keynes: A policy-friendly model of endogenous growth and business cycles.Journal of Eco- nomic Dynamics and Control, 34(9):1748–1767, 2010

    Giovanni Dosi, Giorgio Fagiolo, and Andrea Roventini. Schumpeter meeting Keynes: A policy-friendly model of endogenous growth and business cycles.Journal of Eco- nomic Dynamics and Control, 34(9):1748–1767, 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.jedc.2010.06. 018

    2010 doi

  19. [26]

    Sterman.Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Com- plex World

    John D. Sterman.Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Com- plex World. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 2000. ISBN 0-07-238915-X

    2000

  20. [27]

    Meyarivan

    Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II.IEEE Transactions on Evolu- tionary Computation, 6(2):182–197, 2002. doi: 10.1109/4235.996017

    2002

  21. [28]

    Oxford University Press, 1990

    Joel Mokyr.The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. Oxford University Press, 1990

    1990

  22. [29]

    David H. Autor. Why are there still so many jobs? the history and future of workplace automation.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3):3–30, 2015. doi: 10.1257/jep.29.3.3

    2015 doi

  23. [30]

    Framework convention on artificial intel- ligence, CETS 225

    Council of Europe. Framework convention on artificial intel- ligence, CETS 225. Council of Europe Treaty Series, 2024. URLhttps://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/ the-framework-convention-on-artificial-intelligence

    2024

  24. [31]

    Recommendation of the council on artificial intelligence

    OECD. Recommendation of the council on artificial intelligence. OECD/LEGAL/0449, 2019. URLhttps://legalinstruments.oecd.org/ en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449. 28

    2019

  25. [32]

    Responsible scaling policy, v2.0, 2024

    Anthropic. Responsible scaling policy, v2.0, 2024. URLhttps://www.anthropic. com/news/announcing-our-updated-responsible-scaling-policy

    2024

  26. [33]

    Preparedness framework, v2, 2025

    OpenAI. Preparedness framework, v2, 2025. URLhttps://cdn.openai.com/pdf/ 18a02b5d-6b67-4cec-ab64-68cdfbddebcd/preparedness-framework-v2.pdf

    2025

  27. [34]

    Frontier safety framework, v1.0, 2024

    Google DeepMind. Frontier safety framework, v1.0, 2024. URLhttps://deepmind. google/blog/introducing-the-frontier-safety-framework/

    2024

  28. [35]

    Frontier AI framework, 2025

    Meta. Frontier AI framework, 2025

    2025

  29. [36]

    Joseph R. Biden. Executive order 14110: Safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of artificial intelligence. 88 Fed. Reg. 75191, 2023

    2023

  30. [37]

    Blueprint for an AI bill of rights: Making automated systems work for the american people, 2022

    White House OSTP. Blueprint for an AI bill of rights: Making automated systems work for the american people, 2022. URLhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ ai-bill-of-rights/

    2022

  31. [38]

    AI RMF: Generative AI profile

    Elham Tabassi, Chloe Autio, Jesse Dunietz, Sanjay Jain, Mark Stanley, Peter Hall, and Karen Roberts. AI RMF: Generative AI profile. Technical Report NIST AI 600-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2024

    2024

  32. [39]

    A pro- innovation approach to AI regulation

    UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. A pro- innovation approach to AI regulation. CP 815, 2023. URLhttps: //assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c1e399c43191000d1a45f4/ a-pro-innovation-approach-to-ai-regulation-amended-governement-response-web-ready. pdf

    2023

  33. [40]

    Interim measures for the management of generative AI services, 2023

    Cyberspace Administration of China et al. Interim measures for the management of generative AI services, 2023

    2023

  34. [41]

    Model AI gov- ernance framework, 2nd edition, 2020

    Personal Data Protection Commission Singapore and IMDA. Model AI gov- ernance framework, 2nd edition, 2020. URLhttps://www.pdpc.gov.sg/ help-and-resources/2020/01/model-ai-governance-framework

    2020

  35. [42]

    Directive on automated decision-making,

    Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Directive on automated decision-making,

  36. [43]

    Senate bill 24-205: Consumer protections for artificial intelligence, 2024

    Colorado General Assembly. Senate bill 24-205: Consumer protections for artificial intelligence, 2024

    2024

  37. [44]

    Projeto de lei 2338/2023, 2023

    Federal Senate of Brazil. Projeto de lei 2338/2023, 2023

    2023

  38. [45]

    ISO/IEC 42001:2023 — artificial intelligence — management system, 2023

    ISO/IEC. ISO/IEC 42001:2023 — artificial intelligence — management system, 2023

    2023

  39. [46]

    IEEE std 7010-2020: Recommended practice for assessing the impact of autonomous and intelligent systems on human well-being, 2020

    IEEE. IEEE std 7010-2020: Recommended practice for assessing the impact of autonomous and intelligent systems on human well-being, 2020

    2020

  40. [47]

    Responsible AI standard, v2, 2022

    Microsoft. Responsible AI standard, v2, 2022. URLhttps://query.prod.cms.rt. microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE5cmFl. 29

    2022

  41. [48]

    Introducing Google’s Secure AI Framework (SAIF)

    Royal Hansen and Phil Venables. Introducing Google’s Secure AI Framework (SAIF). Google Blog, June 2023. URLhttps://blog.google/technology/ safety-security/introducing-googles-secure-ai-framework/. Framework documentation:https://saif.google/

    2023

  42. [49]

    AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI risk and reliability benchmark from ML- Commons

    Shaona Ghosh, Heather Frase, Adina Williams, Scott Luger, Paul Röttger, et al. AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI risk and reliability benchmark from ML- Commons. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05731, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2503.05731

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Asilomar AI principles

    Future of Life Institute. Asilomar AI principles. Asilomar Conference on Beneficial AI, January 5–8, 2017, Pacific Grove, CA, 2017. URLhttps://futureoflife. org/open-letter/ai-principles/. 23 principles across Research Issues, Ethics and Values, and Longer-term Issues. Signed ...

    2017

  44. [52]

    Montréal declaration for a responsible de- velopment of artificial intelligence, December 2018

    Université de Montréal. Montréal declaration for a responsible de- velopment of artificial intelligence, December 2018. URLhttps: //montrealdeclaration-responsibleai.com/. Seven core values: well-being, autonomy, justice, privacy, knowledge, democracy, ecological responsibility

    2018

  45. [53]

    AI Now 2023 Landscape: Confronting Tech Power

    Amba Kak and Sarah Myers West. AI Now 2023 Landscape: Confronting Tech Power. AI Now Institute, April 2023. URLhttps://ainowinstitute.org/ 2023-landscape.html

    2023

  46. [54]

    Pause giant AI experiments: An open let- ter, March 2023

    Future of Life Institute. Pause giant AI experiments: An open let- ter, March 2023. URLhttps://futureoflife.org/open-letter/ pause-giant-ai-experiments/. Signed by>33,000 signatories including Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russell, and Elon Musk

    2023

  47. [55]

    PAI’s responsible practices for synthetic media: A frame- work for collective action, February 2023

    Partnership on AI. PAI’s responsible practices for synthetic media: A frame- work for collective action, February 2023. URLhttps://syntheticmedia. partnershiponai.org/. 18+ signatory organisations. Grey literature / industry framework

    2023

  48. [56]

    The bletchley declaration by countries attending the AI safety summit, 1– 2 november 2023, November 2023

    UK Government and AI Safety Summit Participating Countries. The bletchley declaration by countries attending the AI safety summit, 1– 2 november 2023, November 2023. URLhttps://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/ai-safety-summit-2023-the-bletchley-declaration/ the-bletchley-d...

    2023

  49. [57]

    Statement on inclusive and sustainable ar- tificial intelligence for people and the planet, February 2025

    AI Action Summit. Statement on inclusive and sustainable ar- tificial intelligence for people and the planet, February 2025. URLhttps://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2025/02/11/ statement-on-inclusive-and-sustainable-artificial-intelligence-for-people-and-the-planet. 30 AI ...

    2025

  50. [58]

    Automationandnewtasks: Howtechnology displaces and reinstates labor.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2):3–30, 2019

    DaronAcemogluandPascualRestrepo. Automationandnewtasks: Howtechnology displaces and reinstates labor.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2):3–30, 2019. doi: 10.1257/jep.33.2.3

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    Stiglitz

    Anton Korinek and Joseph E. Stiglitz. Artificial intelligence and its implications for income distribution and unemployment. In Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans, and Avi Goldfarb, editors,The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda. University of Chicago Press, 2019. doi: 10....

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier

    Michael Chui, Eric Hazan, Roger Roberts, Alex Singla, Kate Smaje, Alex Sukharevsky, Lareina Yee, and Rodney Zemmel. The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier. Tech- nical report, McKinsey Global Institute, June 2023. URLhttps: //www.mckinsey.com/c...

    2023

  53. [61]

    Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: A philosophical account.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5:15,

    Filippo Santoni de Sio and Jeroen van den Hoven. Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: A philosophical account.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5:15,

  54. [62]

    On the questforeffectivenessinhumanoversight: Interdisciplinaryperspectives

    Axel Sterz, Benjamin Sorge, Patrick Schramowski, and Kristian Kersting. On the questforeffectivenessinhumanoversight: Interdisciplinaryperspectives. InProceed- ings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), 2024

    2024

  55. [63]

    Algorith- mic impact assessments: A practical framework for public agency accountability

    Dillon Reisman, Jason Schultz, Kate Crawford, and Meredith Whittaker. Algorith- mic impact assessments: A practical framework for public agency accountability. Technical report, AI Now Institute, 2018. URLhttps://ainowinstitute.org/ aiareport2018.pdf

    2018

  56. [64]

    White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes

    Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Andrew Smart, Rebecca N. White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes. Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. InProceedings of ...

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    Gummadi, Adish Singla, Adrian Weller, and Muhammad Bilal Zafar

    Till Speicher, Hoda Heidari, Nina Grgic-Hlaca, Krishna P. Gummadi, Adish Singla, Adrian Weller, and Muhammad Bilal Zafar. A unified approach to quantifying algorithmic unfairness: Measuring individual and group unfairness via inequality indices. InProceedings of the 24th ACM S...

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    Shorrocks

    Anthony F. Shorrocks. The class of additively decomposable inequality measures. Econometrica, 48(3):613–625, 1980. doi: 10.2307/1913126

    1980 doi

  59. [67]

    Equality of opportunity in supervised learning

    Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nathan Srebro. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 29, 2016. 31

    2016

  60. [68]

    Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores

    Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. InProceedings of Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, 2017. doi: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2017.43

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments.Big Data, 5(2):153–163, 2017

    Alexandra Chouldechova. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments.Big Data, 5(2):153–163, 2017. doi: 10.1089/big. 2016.0047

    2017

  62. [70]

    Bellamy, Kuntal Dey, Michael Hind, Samuel C

    Rachel K.E. Bellamy, Kuntal Dey, Michael Hind, Samuel C. Hoffman, Stephanie Houde, Kalapriya Kannan, Pranay Lohia, Jacquelyn Martino, Sameep Mehta, Alek- sandraMojsilovic, SeemaNagar, KarthikeyanNatesanRamamurthy, JohnRichards, Diptikalyan Saha, Prasanna Sattigeri, Moninder Si...

    2019

  63. [71]

    Macmillan, 1936

    John Maynard Keynes.The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Macmillan, 1936

    1936

  64. [72]

    Creel, Ananya Kumar, Dan Jurafsky, and Percy Liang

    Rishi Bommasani, Kathleen A. Creel, Ananya Kumar, Dan Jurafsky, and Percy Liang. Picking on the same person: Does algorithmic monoculture lead to outcome homogenization? InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume35, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    The algorithmic leviathan: Arbitrariness, fairness, andopportunityinalgorithmicdecision-makingsystems.Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52(1):26–43, 2022

    Kathleen Creel and Deborah Hellman. The algorithmic leviathan: Arbitrariness, fairness, andopportunityinalgorithmicdecision-makingsystems.Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52(1):26–43, 2022. doi: 10.1017/can.2021.26

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    Algorithmic monoculture and social welfare

    Jon Kleinberg and Manish Raghavan. Algorithmic monoculture and social welfare. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(22):e2018340118, 2021. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2018340118

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    Ironies of automation.Automatica, 19(6):775–779, 1983

    Lisanne Bainbridge. Ironies of automation.Automatica, 19(6):775–779, 1983. doi: 10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8

    1983 doi

  68. [76]

    The economics of skills obsolescence: A review

    Andries de Grip and Jaap Van Loo. The economics of skills obsolescence: A review. Research in Labor Economics, 21:1–26, 2002. doi: 10.1016/S0147-9121(02)21003-1

    2002 doi

  69. [77]

    Poverty and inequality platform (PIP), version 20250401, 2025

    World Bank. Poverty and inequality platform (PIP), version 20250401, 2025. URL https://pip.worldbank.org. Indicator SI.POV.GINI (Gini index). Accessed April

    2025

  70. [78]

    World development indicators (WDI), 2025

    World Bank. World development indicators (WDI), 2025. URLhttps://databank. worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators. Accessed April 2026. Indicators used:NY.GDP.PCAP.KD(GDP per capita, constant 2015USD) and FP.CPI.TOTL(Consumer Price Index, 2010=100), G7 economies, 20...

    2025

  71. [79]

    World economic outlook, october 2025, October 2025

    International Monetary Fund. World economic outlook, october 2025, October 2025. URLhttps://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2025/10/. Statistical Appendix Tables A.1–A.4. G7 real GDP per capita growth rates and CPI inflation, 2025 preliminary estimates. Official IMF pub...

    2025

  72. [80]

    World economic outlook, april 2026, April 2026

    International Monetary Fund. World economic outlook, april 2026, April 2026. URL https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2026/04/. G7 real GDP per capita and CPI partial-year projections, 2026. Official IMF publication

    2026

  73. [81]

    The AI index 2024 annual report

    Nestor Maslej, Loredana Fattorini, Raymond Perrault, Vanessa Parli, Anka Reuel, Erik Brynjolfsson, John Etchemendy, Katrina Ligett, Terah Lyons, James Manyika, Juan Carlos Niebles, Yoav Shoham, Russell Wald, and Jack Clark. The AI index 2024 annual report. Technical report, In...

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    The AI index 2025 an- nual report

    Nestor Maslej, Loredana Fattorini, Raymond Perrault, et al. The AI index 2025 an- nual report. Technical report, Institute for Human-Centered AI, Stanford University, April 2025. URLhttps://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report. Chapter 4 (Economy): private AI investm...

    2025

  75. [83]

    2025 year-end job cut report: Highest Q4 layoffs since 2008; lowest YTD hiring since 2010

    Challenger, Gray & Christmas. 2025 year-end job cut report: Highest Q4 layoffs since 2008; lowest YTD hiring since 2010. Technical report, Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., January 2026. URLhttps://www.challengergray.com/blog/ 2025-year-end-challenger-report-highest-q4-layof...

    2025

  76. [84]

    Tech layoff tracker

    Roger Lee. Tech layoff tracker. Technical report, Layoffs.fyi, 2026. URLhttps:// layoffs.fyi. Crowd-aggregated; accessed April 2026. Annual totals cross-checked against Crunchbase and TechCrunch archives. Slight variation across snapshot dates reflects ongoing revisions

    2026

  77. [85]

    Young workers’ employment drops in occupations with high AI exposure.Dallas Fed Economics, January 2026

    Tyler Atkinson and Shane Yamco. Young workers’ employment drops in occupations with high AI exposure.Dallas Fed Economics, January 2026. URLhttps://www. dallasfed.org/research/economics/2026/0106. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Official Reserve Bank research note. Underlying ...

    2026

  78. [86]

    Scott Davis

    J. Scott Davis. AI is simultaneously aiding and replacing workers, wage data sug- gest.Dallas Fed Economics, February 2026. URLhttps://www.dallasfed.org/ research/economics/2026/0224. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Official Reserve Bank research note

    2026

  79. [87]

    Autor, Frank Levy, and Richard J

    David H. Autor, Frank Levy, and Richard J. Murnane. The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4):1279–1333, 2003. doi: 10.1162/003355303322552801

    2003 doi

  80. [88]

    300M full-time jobs

    Joseph Briggs and Devesh Kodnani. The potentially large effects of artificial intelligence on economic growth. Technical report, Goldman Sachs Global Eco- nomics, March 2023. URLhttps://www.gspublishing.com/content/research/ en/reports/2023/03/27/d64e052b-0f6e-45d7-967b-d7be35...

    2023

  81. [89]

    OECD Publishing, Paris, 2023

    OECD.OECD Employment Outlook 2023: Artificial Intelligence and the Labour Market. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2023. doi: 10.1787/08785bba-en. Chapter 3, Figure 3.5: share of employment in occupations at highest automation risk, by OECD country

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    ISBN 978-92- 2-040791-7

    International Labour Organization.Global Wage Report 2024–25: Is Wage Inequality Decreasing Globally?ILO, Geneva, 2024. ISBN 978-92- 2-040791-7. URLhttps://www.ilo.org/publications/flagship-reports/ global-wage-report-2024-25-wage-inequality-decreasing-globally. Offi- cial UN ...

    2024

  83. [91]

    Output Per Hour,

    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Productivity and costs, fourth quarter and an- nual averages 2024: Major sector productivity. BLS News Release USDL-25-0401, March 2025. URLhttps://www.bls.gov/lpc/. Business-sector labour productiv- ity and real compensation per hour, 2000–202...

    2024

  84. [92]

    OECD Publishing, Paris, 2025

    OECD.OECD Compendium of Productivity Indicators 2025. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2025. doi: 10.1787/d64d4b63-en. Labour productivity, real labour compensa- tion, and hours worked by country, 2000–2024. Annual National Accounts indicator B1G_R_POP

    2025 doi

  85. [93]

    Perspectives on the labor share.Journal of Economic Per- spectives, 38(2):107–136, 2024

    Loukas Karabarbounis. Perspectives on the labor share.Journal of Economic Per- spectives, 38(2):107–136, 2024. doi: 10.1257/jep.38.2.107. Peer-reviewed. Working paper version: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis WP 800, revised March 2024. Confirms continued decline post-2014;...

    2024 doi

  86. [94]

    Bureau of Labor Statistics

    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer price index – all urban consumers (CPI- U), all items, U.S. city average. BLS Series CUUR0000SA0, April 2026. URL https://www.bls.gov/cpi/. Accessed April 2026. Index values January 2019 and March 2026 used to compute 24.6% cumulative ...

    2026

  87. [95]

    Harmonised index of consumer prices (HICP), all items, EU-27

    Eurostat. Harmonised index of consumer prices (HICP), all items, EU-27. Eurostat dataset prc_hicp_aind, 2026. URLhttps://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/hicp. January 2019 and February 2026 index values used to compute 21.3% cumulative EU inflation. Accessed April 2026

    2026

  88. [96]

    Household income inequality, UK: Financial year ending 2024, 2024

    Office for National Statistics (UK). Household income inequality, UK: Financial year ending 2024, 2024. URLhttps://www.ons.gov. uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/ incomeandwealth/bulletins/householdincomeinequalityfinancial/ financialyearending2024. ...

    2024

  89. [97]

    Census Bureau

    U.S. Census Bureau. Income in the united states: 2023. Current Population Reports P60-282, 2024. URLhttps://www.census.gov/library/publications/ 2024/demo/p60-282.html. Tables A-2, A-4a, H-3: Gini coefficients, income shares by quintile, and real median household income, 1967–2023

    2023

  90. [98]

    IFR Statistical Department, Frankfurt, 2024

    International Federation of Robotics.World Robotics 2024: Industrial Robots. IFR Statistical Department, Frankfurt, 2024. URLhttps://ifr.org/ ifr-press-releases/news/robot-installations-rise-again. Robot density per 10,000 manufacturing employees, 2023 data. Denmark: 274; Swed...

    2024

  91. [99]

    OECD employment outlook 2024: The net-zero transition and the labour market, 2024

    OECD. OECD employment outlook 2024: The net-zero transition and the labour market, 2024. Active labour market policy spending as % of GDP; Table 1.A3 country data

    2024

  92. [100]

    OECD/AIAS ICTWSS database on institutional characteristics of trade unions, wage setting, state intervention and social pacts, 2023

    OECD/AIAS. OECD/AIAS ICTWSS database on institutional characteristics of trade unions, wage setting, state intervention and social pacts, 2023. URLhttps: //www.oecd.org/employment/ictwss-database.htm. Collective-bargaining cover- age and trade-union density, 2022 values

    2023

  93. [101]

    How can it possibly fly? the paradox of a dynamic labour market in a scandinavian welfare state

    Per Kongshøj Madsen. How can it possibly fly? the paradox of a dynamic labour market in a scandinavian welfare state. Working paper, Centre for Labour Mar- ket Research (CARMA), Aalborg University, 2006. Foundational reference on the Danish flexicurity model: flexible hiring/f...

    2006

  94. [102]

    Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division

    U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division. History of federal min- imum wage rates under the fair labor standards act, 1938–2009, 2024. URL https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history. Federal minimum wage $7.25 since July 2009. Inflation-adjusted to 2024 doll...

    1938

  95. [103]

    AI preparedness index dashboard, June 2024

    International Monetary Fund. AI preparedness index dashboard, June 2024. URL https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/AIPI. 174 economies; scores 0–1. Released 25 June 2024 (Melina, lead). Dimensions: digital infrastructure, human capital and labour-market policies, innovation ...

    2024

  96. [104]

    Bureau of Labor Statistics

    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational employment and wage statistics (OEWS), may 2024. BLS national industry-specific and cross-industry estimates, April 2025. URLhttps://www.bls.gov/oes/. Used to compute middle-wage oc- cupation employment shares 2000–2024 per Autor-D...

    2024

  97. [105]

    Labour force survey (LFS): Employment by sex, age and occupation (ISCO-08)

    Eurostat. Labour force survey (LFS): Employment by sex, age and occupation (ISCO-08). Eurostat dataset lfsi_emp_a, 2024. URLhttps://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/web/lfs. EU-27 employment shares by skill level (ISCO 1-digit aggre- gated to high/medium/low), 2010–2023

    2024

  98. [106]

    World Economic Forum, Geneva, January 2025

    World Economic Forum.The Future of Jobs Report 2025. World Economic Forum, Geneva, January 2025. URLhttps://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_ of_Jobs_Report_2025.pdf. Grey literature; employer survey, 1,000+ firms, 14M 35 workers, 22 industries, 55 economies. Net job projec...

    2025

  99. [107]

    The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier

    Michael Chui, Eric Hazan, Roger Roberts, Alex Singla, Kevin Stryker, Lareina Yee, Rodney Zemmel, and Bryce Hall. The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier. Technical report, McKinsey Global Institute, June 2023. URLhttps://www.mckinsey.com/capabil...

    2023

  100. [108]

    Albert, Cathy Alessi, Oliviero Bruni, LuAnn DonCarlos, Nancy Hazen, John Herman, Eliot S

    Max Hirshkowitz, Kaitlyn Whiton, Steven M. Albert, Cathy Alessi, Oliviero Bruni, LuAnn DonCarlos, Nancy Hazen, John Herman, Eliot S. Katz, Leila Kheirandish- Gozal, David N. Neubauer, Anne E. O’Donnell, Maurice Ohayon, John Peever, Robert Rawding, Ramesh C. Sachdeva, Belinda S...

    2015 doi

  101. [109]

    Hans P. A. Van Dongen, Greg Maislin, Janet M. Mullington, and David F. Dinges. The cumulative cost of additional wakefulness: Dose-response effects on neurobehav- ioral functions and sleep physiology from chronic sleep restriction and total sleep deprivation.Sleep, 26(2):117–1...

    2003 doi

  102. [110]

    Bureau of Labor Statistics

    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. American time use survey — 2023 results. BLS News Release USDL-23-1609, June 2023. URLhttps://www.bls.gov/news. release/atus.nr0.htm. Official U.S. government statistics. Reports mean daily hours for employed adults: travel 1.8–2.1hrs; personal...

    2023

  103. [111]

    The productivity of working hours.The Economic Journal, 125 (589):2052–2076, 2015

    John Pencavel. The productivity of working hours.The Economic Journal, 125 (589):2052–2076, 2015

  104. [112]

    Going public: Iceland’s journey to a shorter working week.Alda – Association for Sustainability and Democracy, 2021

    Jack Haraldsson and Will Kellam. Going public: Iceland’s journey to a shorter working week.Alda – Association for Sustainability and Democracy, 2021

    2021

  105. [113]

    Provides the clinical basis for the 8-hour sleep deduction in Eq. (2)

  106. [114]

    Bloomsbury Academic, London, 2011

    Guy Standing.The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. Bloomsbury Academic, London, 2011. ISBN 978-1-84966-351-9. Defines the precariat as workers lacking stable employment, rights, and identity. Seven forms of labour-related insecurity: labour-market, employment, job, work, ski...

    2011

  107. [115]

    Kellogg, Melissa A

    Katherine C. Kellogg, Melissa A. Valentine, and Angèle Christin. Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control.Academy of Management Annals, 14 (1):366–410, 2020. doi: 10.5465/annals.2018.0174. Peer-reviewed. Defines the six mechanisms of algorithmic control (Restri...

    2020

  108. [116]

    Oxford University Press, 1999

    Amartya Sen.Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press, 1999

    1999

  109. [117]

    Ryan and Edward L

    Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. Self-determination theory and the facilita- tion of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.American Psychol- ogist, 55(1):68–78, 2000. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. Peer-reviewed. Flagship APA journal. Three basic psychol...

    doi

  110. [118]

    Nyberg, Archana Singh-Manoux, et al

    Mika Kivimäki, Markus Jokela, Solja T. Nyberg, Archana Singh-Manoux, et al. Long working hours and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished data for 603,838 individu- als.The Lancet, 386(10005):1739–1746, 201...

    2015 doi

  111. [120]

    High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (38):16489–16493, 2010

    Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton. High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (38):16489–16493, 2010. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1011492107. Peer-reviewed. Emotional wellbeing plateaus at∼$75,000/year (2010 U...

    2010 doi

  112. [121]

    Killingsworth

    Matthew A. Killingsworth. Experienced well-being rises with income, even above $75,000 per year.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(4): e2016976118, 2021. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2016976118. Peer-reviewed. Updates Kah- neman & Deaton (2010): experienced wellbeing co...

    2021 doi

  113. [122]

    Oxford University Press, 1952

    Heinrich von Stackelberg.The Theory of the Market Economy. Oxford University Press, 1952

    1952

  114. [123]

    Robert A. Karasek. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implica- tions for job redesign.Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2):285–308, 1979. doi: 10.2307/2392498. Peer-reviewed. Foundational occupational psychology reference. High demand + low decision lati...

    1979 doi

  115. [124]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  116. [125]

    Income distribution, political instability, and investment.European Economic Review, 40(6):1203–1228, 1996

    Alberto Alesina and Roberto Perotti. Income distribution, political instability, and investment.European Economic Review, 40(6):1203–1228, 1996

    1996

  117. [126]

    What can machines learn, and what does it mean for occupations and the economy?AEA Papers and Proceedings, 108:43–47, 2018

    Erik Brynjolfsson, Tom Mitchell, and Daniel Rock. What can machines learn, and what does it mean for occupations and the economy?AEA Papers and Proceedings, 108:43–47, 2018. 38 Table 1: Comparative taxonomy of thirty-two major AI governance frameworks across five dimensions.Bi...

    2018

  118. [128]

    Herbert A. Simon. A behavioral model of rational choice.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1):99–118, 1955

    1955

  119. [2018]

    doi: 10.3389/frobt.2018.00015

    2018

  120. [2019]

    URLhttps://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32592

  121. [2022]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2212.08073

    arXiv

  122. [2026]

    Survey-year coverage varies by country; supplemented by OECD IDD for annual interpolation

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.