Artificial intelligence can accelerate individual tasks without necessarily raising organizational throughput, wages, or workers’ usable time. This paper develops a conditional framework tracing a technology shock through four connected transformations: from task efficiency to quality-accepted organizational capability; from productive capability to the incidence of gains among output, prices, profits, pay, and usable time; from purchasing power and time to household welfare; and from household choices to the demand that firms subsequently face. Two feedbacks close the chain: the perceived fairness and credibility of compensation and performance assessment may change effort, quality, cooperation, and method disclosure, while household demand may alter production opportunities. A central cross-stage implication concerns bottleneck location. Accelerating a non-binding stage can leave throughput unchanged while freeing effective labor capacity, whose allocation depends on staffing, assignments, and contractual rights; accelerating a binding stage can raise accepted output and consume capacity at complementary stages. These outcomes distinguish slack production capacity from legally or practically discretionary employee time. We propose a staged empirical comparison that observes technical performance, accepted flow, labor allocation, and employee choice separately. A finite fixed-salary workload contract is one illustrative institution, not the theory’s center. The framework integrates established findings rather than claiming a new universal theorem. Its proposed contribution is an explicit, testable account of the conditions under which technical progress becomes—or fails to become—improved human life.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kai Wang (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: