Summary: Early household robots like NEO may look unimpressive today, but they have great long-term potential. As birth rates fall and the burdens of parenting loom large, technologies that reduce everyday household labor could make family life far more manageable. Just as past innovations transformed domestic work and reshaped society, robotic housekeepers may one day help free time and ease parenthood.

The debut of the robot butler NEO has drawn widespread ridicule. Unable to perform many chores without a remote human operator, the machine has become a target of social media backlash. Videos circulating online show the robot struggling with basic tasks, such as closing a dishwasher.

But don’t underestimate the potential of robotic housekeepers just yet.

The technology is dawning at an opportune time. Consider the growing concerns about plummeting birth rates. Last year saw the lowest fertility rate ever recorded in the United States, below 1.6 children per woman.

Could robots help to reverse the trend by relieving the burden of household drudgery associated with child-rearing?

The question has broad implications because the United States’ low fertility is no anomaly. Global fertility decline is speeding up, doubling between the 2000s and 2010s and again this decade. This means the world’s population will almost certainly peak earlier than experts projected, and at a much lower level. Many countries are contemplating expensive taxpayer-funded efforts to spark a new baby boom, despite the poor track record of such policies.

There is much disagreement on what caused the 1950s baby boom, but one theory is that the rise of time-saving technologies played a key role. Between the 1920s and 1950s, domestic responsibilities were transformed as the number of households equipped with electric appliances, including refrigerators, stoves, vacuums and washing machines, rose dramatically. The new machines lessened the burden of household labor, freeing up time and making parenthood easier.

In the present era, technology is once again freeing up more time for many people, and not just by reducing commute times through remote or hybrid work. While reading about the latest breakthroughs, one might get the impression that machines are only learning to perform enjoyable and creative tasks, such as writing or drawing, rather than tending to the menial household chores that many would prefer to automate. One internet user expressed the sentiment this way: “I don’t want AI to do my art so I can do my laundry and dishes. I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so I can do my art.” Many would gladly welcome Rosey the robot maid into their homes.

The potential of technology to free humanity from the burden of household labor deserves more attention. Perhaps no group would benefit more than parents. The more children one has, the more laundry piles up and dishes fill the sink.

Various companies are racing to offer the public affordable robots to do housework. Robotic housekeepers might be here sooner than you think — even if NEO is seemingly not yet able to live up to its creator’s vision of a robot butler able to effortlessly empty the dishwasher, water house plants and do other chores. Tesla’s Optimus robot can fold laundry and take out the garbage, among other tasks. There are even robots that can wash dishes as fast as a human can.

If such technologies become widely available, everyday life will be far easier, and so will parenthood.

There are already robotic lawn mowers. In fact, a 2025 survey found that 13% of U.S. homes own a robotic lawn mower. And robot vacuums have become so common as to be unremarkable. In the United States, 15% of households now own a robotic vacuum, according to a YouGov poll. In the United Kingdom, one in 10 households owns one, while one in seven households reportedly plans to buy one within the next 12 months.

I remember when my family purchased a robot vacuum. We watched, mesmerized, as it zigzagged across the nursery carpet. Our toddler oohed and followed it around. Our awe reminded me of a touching account of a grandmother who had painstakingly scrubbed clothes by hand her whole life and then watched with wonder as her new laundry machine completed the task for her. One of the reasons I have more children than most is that I’m a techno-optimist, and I believe that my children will inherit a world with less toil and more joy. (My husband and I are expecting our fourth child.)

Of course, outsourcing all household chores to robots wouldn’t guarantee higher fertility. One lesson from the history of demographic forecasting is the need for humility.

After all, birth rates have dropped faster than demographers anticipated. But one thing is clear: Technological advancements have the potential to raise the standard of living, free up time and allow people to pursue their dreams. For many, this means having children.

This article was originally published at Deseret News on 11/29/2025.

Summary: A famous grocery run in Home Alone appears to illustrate how much nominal prices have risen since the film came out in 1990. But a look at sticker prices alone misses the bigger picture. When costs are measured against what people earn, everyday food looks far more affordable than it once did. Thanks to rising nominal wages and ongoing innovation, modern households enjoy far greater abundance, even when nominal prices appear higher at first glance.

In the 1990 movie Home Alone, eight-year-old Kevin McCallister went grocery shopping. He bought a half gallon of milk, a half gallon of orange juice, a TV dinner, bread, frozen mac and cheese, laundry detergent, cling wrap, toilet paper, a pack of army men, and dryer sheets. His bill came to $19.83.

Professor Christopher Clarke at Washington State University does an annual price analysis of Kevin McCallister’s shopping basket and estimates that today’s price for those items would be around 114.5 percent higher ($42.54) than was the case in 1990. But, as my readers know quite well, things can become more expensive and more affordable at the same time. How is that possible? It’s possible because wages typically increase faster than prices. In the past 35 years, blue-collar hourly wages have increased by 207.7 percent, from $10.32 per hour in 1990 to $31.76 today.

Kevin’s basket in 1990, in time prices, would have cost 1.92 hours compared to 1.34 hours today. The time price of Kevin’s basket has fallen by 30.2 percent. For the time it took to earn the money to buy the basket of goods in 1990, you get 1.432 baskets today. Grocery abundance has increased by 43.2 percent.

If you got your first job in 1990 as an entry-level worker and have been upskilling for the past 35 years and are now an average worker, your hourly wage rate increased 511.3 percent: from $6.03 an hour in 1990 to $36.86 an hour today. Your grocery basket time price fell by 65 percent, giving you 2.86 baskets today. Your grocery abundance has increased by 186 percent.

In the movie, the McCallister family also orders 10 pizzas, and the bill comes to $122.50 (plus tip). That would put the time price for 1990s blue-collar workers at 11.87 hours, or about one hour and 11 minutes per pizza.

Professor Clarke did a price check on how much 10 classic cheese and pepperoni pizzas cost at a Little Caesars pizzeria near the McCallister’s home today—it comes to only $98.09 (plus tip). The nominal price has actually shrunk! That would put today’s time price at 3.08 hours for the 10 pizzas, or about 18.5 minutes per pizza. The time price has fallen by 74 percent. That means that for the time it took to earn the money to buy one pizza in 1990 you get 3.85 pizzas today. Pizza abundance has increased by 285 percent. If you are an upskilled worker, your pizza time price fell by 85.9 percent, giving you 7.1 pizzas today for the time price of 1 in 1990, thus increasing your abundance by 610 percent.

Hopefully you didn’t forget to count the kids before taking off on Christmas vacation this year! And remember, life can become more abundant every day if people are free to innovate.

Find more of Gale’s work at his Substack, Gale Winds.

“Tis the season to put a ring on it — and thanks to lab-grown diamonds, those rings are bigger and cheaper than ever…

Lab diamonds continue to reshape the engagement ring market, with the prices of all diamonds dropping and more fingers dripping in multiple carats.

By the numbers: A natural 3-carat diamond could cost an average of 16 times the cost of a lab-grown version, according to data from independent diamond industry analyst Paul Zimnisky.

• The Knot’s latest study found more than half of engaged couples (52%) had rings with lab-grown stones — a first for the annual survey.
• And the stones went from an average of 1.5 carats in 2021, to 1.7 carats in 2024. According to Zimnisky, demand has particularly spiked for 2- to 3-carat natural diamonds and 3- to 5-carat lab diamonds.”

From Axios.

Summary: A century ago, Christmas gifts often required major sacrifice, as most families devoted much of their time and income to basic survival. Today, material progress has transformed gift-giving into something easily affordable. While the meaning of generosity endures, Christmastime has been changed from a season defined by scarcity into one shaped more by choice and plenty.

On a cold December day in 1905, the American writer O. Henry (William Sydney Porter) introduced the world to two poor young lovers with hearts of gold. In “The Gift of the Magi,” Della cuts her beautiful knee-length hair to buy her husband Jim a gold chain for his watch. Meanwhile, Jim sells his watch, a magnificent family heirloom, to buy his wife a set of ornate combs for her hair. Their love for each other motivated them to sacrifice their prized possessions in the spirit of Christmas giving.

We still read the story because the emotion is timeless, but the material world its characters inhabit has almost vanished. In 1905, the average American household did not have electricity or running water, let alone the opportunity to buy gifts manufactured worldwide with two-day Amazon delivery. Light came from candles or kerosene. Water was carried or pumped. Heat required daily labor and fuel. Most time and wages went towards basic survival.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, households on average spent over 42 percent of their average wages on food in 1901. In O. Henry’s story, Jim is said to have spent $8 of his $20 weekly income, or an additional 40 percent, on renting not a whole home or apartment, but a mere furnished room for him and his wife. That left $3.60, or $132 in 2025 dollars, for everything else—firewood or coal for heating and cooking; candles or kerosene for lighting; soap, lye, and cleaning supplies; replacement shoes and work clothes as they wore out; basic medical care and medicines; postage and newspapers; and the ever-present risk of emergency expenses. And, of course, Christmas gifts.

Before modern manufacturing, the most basic items required many hours of work. A comb could cost half a day’s labor—a watch chain, several days’ worth. Contrast that with today, when the very ease of gift-giving can feel almost embarrassing. The time price of a comb—once measured in hours—is now measured in minutes. A watch chain that would have taken a week of labor to afford in 1905 can now be purchased with a single hour’s wages.

Material abundance has accelerated so dramatically that some of us now worry not about whether we can give but whether we are giving too wastefully—plastic toys used once, novelty items that break by New Year’s, and holiday packaging that fills recycling bins to the brim. Where Jim and Della confronted problems of scarcity, we confront problems of prosperity.

Today, because material goods demand so little labor, the most meaningful gifts often return to the immaterial: a sentimental note, a memorable experience, or a handcrafted gift. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t wish for those noise-canceling headphones or a virtual-reality headset. The modern economy offers goods that would have been fantastical luxuries or science fiction for our ancestors. But goods as gifts become even more meaningful when their purchase involves saving, budgeting, and sacrifice. Thankfully, buying a meaningful gift rarely requires giving up one of the few prized assets a household owns.

This Christmas, during a season when gifts can be purchased in minutes and delivered in hours, it is worth remembering O. Henry’s landscape of scarcity. Our world is richer not only in goods but also in freedom and choice.