David Autor | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

Resolving the automation paradox: falling labor share, rising wages

A central socioeconomic concern about Artificial Intelligence is that it will lower wages by depressing the labor share - the fraction of economic output paid to labor. We show that declining labor share is more likely to raise wages. In a competitive economy with constant returns to scale, we prove that the wage-maximizing labor share depends only on the capital-to-labor ratio, implying a non-monotonic relationship between labor share and wages. When labor share exceeds this wage-maximizing level, further automation increases wages even while reducing labor's output share. Using data from the United States and eleven other industrialized countries, we estimate that labor share is too high in all twelve, implying that further automation should raise wages. Moreover, we find that falling labor share accounted for 16\% of U.S. real wage growth between 1954 and 2019. These wage gains notwithstanding, automation-driven shifts in labor share are likely to pose significant social and political challenges.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2025

Misaligned by Design: Incentive Failures in Machine Learning

The cost of error in many high-stakes settings is asymmetric: misdiagnosing pneumonia when absent is an inconvenience, but failing to detect it when present can be life-threatening. Because of this, artificial intelligence (AI) models used to assist such decisions are frequently trained with asymmetric loss functions that incorporate human decision-makers' trade-offs between false positives and false negatives. In two focal applications, we show that this standard alignment practice can backfire. In both cases, it would be better to train the machine learning model with a loss function that ignores the human's objective and then adjust predictions ex post according to that objective. We rationalize this result using an economic model of incentive design with endogenous information acquisition. The key insight from our theoretical framework is that machine classifiers perform not one but two incentivized tasks: choosing how to classify and learning how to classify. We show that while the adjustments engineers use correctly incentivize choosing, they can simultaneously reduce the incentives to learn. Our formal treatment of the problem reveals that methods embraced for their intuitive appeal can in fact misalign human and machine objectives in predictable ways.

econ.GN↗