The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Paradox of Abundance
Abstract
Despite sustained increases in material standards of living, fear of the adverse employment consequences of technological advancement has recurred repeatedly. This represents a paradox of abundance: technological change threatens social welfare not because it intensifies scarcity but because it augments abundance. For most citizens of market economies, the primary income-generating asset they possess is their scarce labor. If rapid technological advances were to effectively substitute cheap and abundant capital for (previously) expensive and willful labor, society would be made wealthier, not poorer, in aggregate, but those who own labor but do not own capital might find it increasingly challenging to make a living. This chapter considers why automation anxiety has suddenly become salient in popular and academic discourse. It offers informed conjectures on the potential implications of these developments for employment and earnings.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“First, a one-sided focus on automation could cause extensive job losses and result in the deskilling of managers who relinquish tasks to machines, which could lead to the further risks of rising unemployment and social inequality (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014: 171; see also Autor, 2015).”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Autor, 2015
In the citing paper
“There is widespread fear-and initial empirical evidence-that this lack of accountability can have harmful societal consequences regarding equality (Autor, 2015), privacy (Acquisti, Brandimarte, & Loewenstein, 2015), security (Brundage et al., 2018), and transparency (Castelvecchi, 2016).”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Autor, 2015
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0072 · Cited by 2,755
Working Algorithms: Software Automation and the Future of Work
Shestakofsky, B. (2017) · Work and Occupations · doi:10.1177/0730888417726119 · Cited by 186
“6 Computers are generally expected to replace humans in ‘‘codified, repetitive information-processing tasks’’ (Autor, 2015b, p. 248).”
BackgroundInfluentialAhmad, T. (2019) · Higher Education Skills and Work-based Learning · doi:10.1108/heswbl-12-2018-0136 · Cited by 150
Danaher, J. (2016) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9770-5 · Cited by 125
“Even those who are sceptical of technological unemployment concede this example, but argue that it is merely one among many and that the ultimate impact of technology depends greatly on the particular labour market (Autor 2015a).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialGlawe, L., & Wagner, H. (2018) · Asian Economic Papers · doi:10.1162/asep_a_00783 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Autor, D. H.
- Corresponding author
- Autor, David H.
- ORCID
- Autor, David H.
- Venue
- Performance and Progress
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2015-08-01
- Pages
- 237-260
- OpenAlex
- W2482405666
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 8.12
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Employment and Welfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
- Keywords
- technological change, automation, employment, earnings, labor market, capital-labor substitution, social welfare (welfare economics)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
