Post Labor EconomicsSAFE

🔬 A curated collection of 23,000+ agent skills for empirical research across 8 social science disciplines. | 精选 23,000+ AI Agent 技能库,覆盖8大社会科学学科的实证研究。CoPaper.AI 20分钟完成一篇可复现的规范实证论文,并支持用户上传 Skills。-- Maintained by CoPaper.AI from Stanford REAP.

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: post-labor-economics
description: "Post-labor economies with automation, UBI, and wealth distribution"
metadata:
  openclaw:
    emoji: "🤖"
    category: "domains"
    subcategory: "economics"
    keywords: ["automation", "UBI", "post-labor", "technological unemployment", "income distribution", "AI economics"]
    source: "wentor-research-plugins"
---

# Post-Labor Economics Guide

## Overview

Post-labor economics studies the economic consequences of advanced automation -- the possibility that AI and robotics will displace human labor at a scale and speed that overwhelms traditional adjustment mechanisms. While technological unemployment is an old concern (dating to the Luddites and Keynes's "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren"), the current wave of AI capabilities has made the question urgent: what happens to labor markets, income distribution, and economic growth when machines can perform most cognitive and physical tasks?

This is not science fiction. The academic literature on task displacement, skill-biased technological change, and automation risk has produced substantial empirical findings and theoretical frameworks. Researchers from economics, political science, sociology, and computer science are converging on these questions.

This guide covers the key theoretical models, empirical evidence, policy proposals (UBI, robot taxes, stakeholder funds), and methodological approaches for studying the economics of automation. It is designed for researchers entering this rapidly growing field and for those in adjacent disciplines who need to engage with the economic arguments.

## Theoretical Frameworks

### The Task-Based Model of Automation

The canonical model (Acemoglu & Restrepo, 2018, 2019) decomposes production into tasks rather than jobs:

```
Production = f(Tasks performed by Labor, Tasks performed by Capital)

Key dynamics:
1. DISPLACEMENT EFFECT
   - Machines replace humans in existing tasks
   - Reduces labor demand, depresses wages
   - Concentrated in routine cognitive and manual tasks

2. PRODUCTIVITY EFFECT
   - Automation lowers costs, increases output
   - Some gains flow to workers via cheaper goods
   - But distribution depends on market structure

3. REINSTATEMENT EFFECT
   - New tasks created that require human comparative advantage
   - Historically: ATMs → bank branch expansion → more tellers (temporarily)
   - Question: Is this time different? Will new tasks emerge fast enough?

4. NET EFFECT
   - Historical pattern: displacement < reinstatement (net job growth)
   - Current concern: AI attacks both routine AND non-routine tasks
   - Speed of displacement may exceed speed of reinstatement
```

### Skill-Biased vs. Routine-Biased Technological Change

| Model | Mechanism | Winners | Losers |
|-------|-----------|---------|--------|
| SBTC (Skill-Biased) | Technology complements high-skill labor | College-educated | Non-college workers |
| RBTC (Routine-Biased) | Automation replaces routine tasks | Creative + manual | Middle-skill routine |
| ABTC (AI-Biased) | AI replaces cognitive tasks broadly | Capital owners, AI specialists | Broad cognitive workers |

```
Job polarization (Autor, 2015):

         High-skill (growing)
           /               \
          /     Hollowing    \
         /       out of       \
        /      middle-skill    \
       /                        \
Low-skill (growing)     Middle-skill (shrinking)

Examples by category:
- High-skill (growing): AI researchers, surgeons, lawyers (judgment tasks)
- Middle-skill (shrinking): Bookkeeping, data entry, assembly, driving
- Low-skill (growing): Care work, cleaning, food service (non-routine manual)
```

## Empirical Evidence

### Automation Risk Estimates

| Study | Method | Finding |
|-------|--------|---------|
| Frey & Osborne (2013) | Expert assessment of 702 occupations | 47% of US jobs at high risk |
| Arntz et al. (2016) | Task-level analysis (PIAAC) | 9% of OECD jobs automatable |
| Nedelkoska & Quintini (2018) | Task-level, 32 countries | 14% high risk, 32% significant change |
| Acemoglu & Restrepo (2020) | Actual robot adoption (US) | 1 robot per 1000 workers = -0.2% employment, -0.37% wages |
| Webb (2020) | Patent-occupation matching | AI threatens high-skill tasks more than previous technologies |
| Eloundou et al. (2023) | GPT exposure analysis | ~80% of US workers have 10%+ tasks exposed to LLMs |

### Measuring Automation Exposure

```python
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np

def compute_automation_exposure(
    occupation_tasks: pd.DataFrame,
    ai_capability_scores: dict,
) -> pd.DataFrame:
    """
    Compute occupation-level AI exposure scores.

    Based on the methodology of Felten et al. (2021) and Eloundou et al. (2023).

    Parameters:
        occupation_tasks: DataFrame with columns [occupation, task, task_weight]
        ai_capability_scores: dict mapping task -> AI performance score (0-1)

    Returns:
        DataFrame with occupation-level exposure scores
    """
    # Map AI scores to tasks
    occupation_tasks["ai_score"] = occupation_tasks["task"].map(ai_capability_scores)

    # Weighted average exposure per occupation
    exposure = occupation_tasks.groupby("occupation").apply(
        lambda g: np.average(g["ai_score"].fillna(0), weights=g["task_weight"])
    ).reset_index(name="ai_exposure")

    # Classify risk levels
    exposure["risk_level"] = pd.cut(
        exposure["ai_exposure"],
        bins=[0, 0.3, 0.6, 1.0],
        labels=["low", "medium", "high"],
    )

    return exposure.sort_values("ai_exposure", ascending=False)
```

## Policy Proposals

### Universal Basic Income (UBI)

```
UBI design parameters:

AMOUNT:
- Subsistence: $12,000-15,000/year (US, ~poverty line)
- Moderate: $18,000-24,000/year (covers basic needs + participation)
- Generous: $30,000+/year (enables full non-employment)

FUNDING MECHANISMS:
1. Carbon tax + dividend (Alaska Permanent Fund model)
2. Value-added tax on automation (Andrew Yang proposal

SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.

What the source does

Filesystem

none-observed

Network

none-observed

Shell

none-observed

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (0)

No findings outside the package's declared scope.

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.