A paradox of powerful AI is that it can be 'GDP-destroying.' When AI substitutes for a service you would have paid for (e.g., hiring a contractor), it creates immense personal value but removes a transaction from the economy. This makes GDP a poor metric for AI's true economic contribution, which may be understated.
Related Insights
Beyond simple productivity gains, AI will eliminate the need for entire service-based transactions, such as paying for basic legal documents or second medical opinions. This substitution of paid services with free AI output can act as a direct deflationary headwind, a counterintuitive effect to the typical AI-fueled growth narrative.
Contrary to a popular narrative, the surge in AI investment has not yet contributed measurably to US GDP growth. This is because the investment largely consists of imported goods, creating a neutral GDP effect, and accounting rules misclassify key semiconductor components as intermediate goods rather than final investment.
Traditional metrics like GDP fail to capture the value of intangibles from the digital economy. Profit margins, which reflect real-world productivity gains from technology, provide a more accurate and immediate measure of its true economic impact.
The narrative of AI destroying jobs misses a key point: AI allows companies to 'hire software for a dollar' for tasks that were never economical to assign to humans. This will unlock new services and expand the economy, creating demand in areas that previously didn't exist.
For current AI valuations to be realized, AI must deliver unprecedented efficiency, likely causing mass job displacement. This would disrupt the consumer economy that supports these companies, creating a fundamental contradiction where the condition for success undermines the system itself.
The anticipated AI productivity boom may already be happening but is invisible in statistics. Current metrics excel at measuring substitution (replacing a worker) but fail to capture quality improvements when AI acts as a complement, making professionals like doctors or bankers better at their jobs. This unmeasured quality boost is a major blind spot.
While AI-related spending adds a significant 0.4% to U.S. GDP, its net economic impact is much smaller. A large portion of this investment flows out of the country to pay for imported technology and hardware, significantly reducing the direct domestic benefit of the AI spending boom.
The US economy is currently experiencing near-zero job growth despite typical 2% productivity gains. A significant increase in productivity driven by AI, without a corresponding surge in economic output, could paradoxically lead to outright job losses. This creates a scenario where positive productivity news could have negative employment consequences.
Capitalism values scarcity. AI's core disruption is not just automating tasks, but making human-like intellectual labor so abundant that its market value approaches zero. This breaks the fundamental economic loop of trading scarce labor for wages.
The Jevons Paradox observes that technologies increasing efficiency often boost consumption rather than reduce it. Applied to AI, this means while some jobs will be automated, the increased productivity will likely expand the scope and volume of work, creating new roles, much like typewriters ultimately increased secretarial work.
