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: In the United States, flying has become both cheaper and more common over the past 25 years. Airfares have grown more affordable relative to wages, while the number of people traveling has risen sharply. Despite setbacks from crises like 9/11, the 2008 recession, and the pandemic, air travel today is far more accessible and abundant than at the start of the century.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks airfares while the Department of Transportation monitors enplanements (passenger boardings). Since 2000, the US population grew 22 percent while enplanements increased by 51 percent, and the time price of airfares for blue-collar workers decreased by 49 percent. This means that in 2025, these workers get 2.04 airfares for the same amount of time it took them to earn the money to buy one airfare in 2000, indicating an abundance increase of 104 percent. Every 1 percent increase in population corresponded with a 4.73 percent increase in personal airfare abundance (104 ÷ 22).

The historical chart clearly shows the negative impact of major disruptions – the September 11th attacks, the 2008 financial crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic policies – on flying.

You can also analyze total airfare abundance by combining airfare time price abundance with increased passenger enplanements. To visualize that, we plot airfare time price abundance on the vertical axis and enplanements on the horizontal axis, creating comparative boxes for 2000 and 2025, and then overlaying 2000 onto 2025.

Using 2000 as our baseline (setting both variables to 1.0), the initial box measures 1.0 × 1.0 = 1.0. By 2025, enplanements had grown 51 percent (to 1.51) while airfare abundance increased by 104 percent (to 2.04). The 2025 box therefore measures 1.51 × 2.04 = 3.08.

That represents a 208 percent increase in total airfare abundance over 25 years, equivalent to a compound annual growth rate of 4.6 percent. At this pace, airfare abundance doubles approximately every 16 years. Every 1 percent increase in population corresponded with a 9.45 percent increase in personal airfare abundance (208 ÷ 22).

Tip of the Hat: Maxwell Tabarrok.

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

Summary: Economist Mark Perry’s “Chart of the Century” reveals that many goods—from TVs to clothing—have become significantly more affordable since 2000, while heavily regulated sectors like healthcare and education have not done so well. Focusing on time prices rather than dollar amounts provides a clearer picture of improving living standards. Since 2000, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased by 89.9 percent, but average hourly wages have increased by 127.4 percent. On average, an hour of your time will buy 19.7 percent more goods and services now than it would have in 2000.

It’s time for our semiannual update of Professor Mark Perry’s chart showing the percentage change in nominal prices for various US consumer goods and services alongside changes in average hourly wages. Perry’s data come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Of the 14 products tracked, four have seen a drop in nominal prices—TVs, toys, computer software, and cell phone services. Another five have risen in dollar terms but are actually cheaper in time prices: clothing, household furnishings, new cars, food and beverages, and housing. What stands out most, though, is that the products becoming less abundant—medical care services, childcare, college textbooks, tuition, and hospital services—are also the ones most heavily influenced by government intervention, whether through subsidies, regulation, or restricted supply.

We’ve compared the nominal price change of each product to the change in nominal average hourly wages, from which we can show the change in the time prices—positive or negative. Next, we compare the time prices over time to measure changes in abundance. This bar chart illustrates these changes:

Also note that this chart does not include TVs. The time price of TVs decreased by over 99 percent. For the time it took to earn the money to buy one TV in 2000, you would get almost 120 TVs today. TV abundance increased by 11,868 percent. The horizontal scale on the chart would be 15.6 times wider if we included TVs; everything else would look tiny.

Over this 25-year period, overall inflation increased by 89.9 percent while average hourly income increased by 127.4 percent. Hourly income increased 19.7 percent faster than prices. This indicates a 16.5 percent decrease in overall time prices. You get 19.7 percent more today for the same amount of time 25 years ago.

That illustrates the fact that things can get simultaneously more expensive in money prices and more affordable in time prices. As long as hourly wages are increasing faster than the prices of goods and services, time prices are decreasing, which is another way of saying personal abundance is increasing.

Time prices are a better way to measure standards of living. To really understand our economy, we must think in hours and minutes, not dollars and cents. Time prices are the true prices.

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

“Many people have a memory of some ancient, avocado-green washing machine or refrigerator chugging along for decades at their grandparents’ house. But even then, decade-spanning durability was uncommon.

Although I couldn’t find a ton of hard data on appliance lifespan over the past 40 years, nearly everyone I spoke with — service technicians, designers, engineers, trade-organization representatives, salespeople — said that kind of longevity was always the outlier, not the norm.

‘Everybody talks about the Maytag washing machine that lasts 50 years,’ said Daniel Conrad, a former product engineer at Whirlpool Corporation who is now the director of design quality, reliability, and testing for a commercial-refrigeration company. ‘No one talks about the other 4.5 million that didn’t last that long.'”

From New York Times.