As a recent graduate and a young professional, I have read many alarmist reports about how AI is impacting the labor market. The forecasts suggest a gloomy, apoplectic picture on the one hand, and an optimistic, utopian future on the other. The truth likely sits somewhere in the middle. Indeed, a recent report suggests that entry-level jobs have declined by 35 percent since January of 2023. The bigger threat is that by cutting these jobs, the pipeline for early-career professionals weakens because these are the jobs that can jumpstart careers. When you take away this pipeline, it becomes much harder to bring in new professionals in various industries, and job-seekers will look elsewhere. On the contrary, those dismissing the issue as a temporary period before an AI boom have no way of guaranteeing this success. The pain exists now, and so when former Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, spoke to graduating students about the boons of AI, he was booed because he was perceived as out of touch with reality. Even if his arguments on the innovative benefits of AI have their merits, it was made without properly acknowledging the pain that those students are facing. Arguing that the pain is “temporary”, as part of a transition, does not help. Thus, the question worth asking is not whether AI will help boost economic growth, for it surely will, but rather what kind of disruption it will bring, at what cost, and who bears the brunt of that cost? Then, we can answer what an intelligent response looks like. The Double-Edged Sword – Why More Output Can Mean Less Value AI, like with any technology that disrupts the market, can act like a double-edged sword. If used correctly, the tool should be a complement to existing tasks, allowing workers to boost productivity. If I can use AI to do a task that normally takes a week in one day, now I’ve saved 6 days to do other tasks. In this sense, AI serves to boost the speed of content, setting aside quality for a moment. The skeptic, of course, can point to how quantity cheapens quality. In a sense, this may be true, but only subjectively. Scarcity increases the value of goods. By the inverse logic, when you use technology to mass produce those same goods, their value goes down, and so does their perceived “quality”. In general, value in economic terms can be defined by the utility of a good plus scarcity. If we keep utility constant, value goes up and down depending on how rare the good is. To use a concrete example, let’s say the good you are providing is a business report for a boss. In the world before AI, let us say it took 7 hours of work to make this report and send it to the boss. Every week, you provide such a report, with data and reasoning on what the business should consider. Now consider the world with AI. That same report now takes 1 hour to make with the right prompts and AI system. You have decreased the work time by a factor of 7. Now, the boss demands a report once a day, rather than once a week. The scarcity of this product has gone down significantly. In this case, even if the quality of the data and analysis of each of the 7 reports matches the reports from before AI use, the value of each of these reports goes down. Why? The data is similar, the same process and analysis is used, and for all intents and purposes, you are generating the same product, just 7 times as frequently. Well, the issue is that when you have more of a good in a given timeframe, the marginal value – or additional value of it – goes down. The first report hits hardest for the boss, because it presents the most new data for the week. By the time the boss reads the fourth or fifth report of the week, it still feels useful, but less so, as it feels more like a variation of what was already provided in the first report. Each additional report will no longer feel original, and thus, the additional value of the good goes down. This process of eventual stagnation, despite added productivity, is what economists call the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility. Another way to understand this rule is by using chocolates. The first bite of chocolate may taste delicious, and the second one may taste good, but the added value of moving from your 19th bite to the 20th is far less than the added value of moving from 0 bites to 1 bite. This is because by the time you reach your 20th bite, you already have a sense for the taste, an expectation, so the additional bite adds little value. Eventually, we enter a stabilized state where the additional good that is produced adds little value to you. (Source: Berkman et al.) In this same vein, going back to the earlier analogy, if AI lets us generate more products, such as business reports that your boss wants, paradoxically, the very fact that he or she can get more reports in a given week means that each report has less value. This is not because the quality of the goods drops per se, but rather because of decreased scarcity and the increased pace of diminishing marginal returns. In other words, AI benefits the economy by helping us create more goods in less time, but with that comes reduced scarcity, and thus lower value for said goods. This adjustment is not new, for it’s a cycle we face with any production-enhancing technology, and the same is true for AI. Cheaper For The Consumer, But Costlier For The Worker With AI increasing the abundance of certain goods, there are economic implications that come with this situation. Driving down scarcity, as established earlier, drives down the value of each good produced. When you can create more
By Vaibhav Sinha
In the past few years, creators such as Nara Smith have created aesthetic appeal behind the lifestyle termed “slow living”. These creators typically are depicted in a cottage-like or family styled home, often in a kitchen, and wearing feminine clothing – sometimes even changing the pitch of their voice to be softened. The slow living trend has now offshooted into various forms of slow living, whether it be romantical, conservative, or anti-government/anti-federalist. What is true amongst all of these creators and groups however, is that they create digestible propaganda for many teen and adult followers. Alongside the rise of slow living creators, it is apparent that there is a group of creators attempting to fit the niche but not quite adjusting to it. Housewives to blue collar workers are increasingly posting “cook with me for my husband” videos, but their videos often have less potential to achieve virality. The reason for this is because the more “aesthetic” lifestyle in fact just reflects an unattainable class difference and privilege. Most people cannot simply quit their job and be provided for by their husband and still live a romanticized lifestyle. Ultimately, these housewife creators get lumped into “struggle content”. The polarity between the two creator groups shows us something significant, however. Slow living creators who present their lifestyle as an escape from modern life are still integrated within the system. When women who are not wealthy or married to wealthy men attempt this, they lose all integration, and their lives become unpalatable. Hence, the content made by wealthy creators serves on two fronts: to propagandize women into making choices without understanding their circumstances for the simple sake of gender role preservation, and to make money off communities who uplift these creators onto a pedestal in order to later attempt the same lifestyle. While a vast amount of slow living creators may simply be scrapbooking their lifestyle, they fail to use their platform in a way that distinguishes themself from patriarchal ideals such as the promotion of cultural rigidity surrounding women’s lifestyles. We find ourselves again at the forefront of the cultural argument – why one or the other? One end of the political spectrum glorifies professionalism and demolishes the virtue of family formation, while the other end either claims choice but glorifies housewifery or promotes sexist hierarchy of women’s lifestyle. Unfortunately, the slow living lifestyle is not exempt from politicization, and it has been a mode of the latter. Even if the women viewing these videos truly believe that housewifery is their calling, these creators are running an unrealistic version of the “American Dream” – one that many will seek but be met with economically and societally painful experiences instead. Consequently, they may not have a way out, unlike the instagrammers who can return to their media careers.
By Megan Fincher
On May 8th, 2026, a Sudanese migrant in Belfast, Northern Ireland, attacked a local middle-aged white man with a knife on the street. The migrant attempted to behead the man, causing significant injuries to his eyes, back, and head, which has left the victim hospitalized and in critical condition. The attempted beheading took place outside an apartment complex off Kinnaird Avenue, North Belfast, where the 30-year-old blood-soaked knifeman had pinned his victim down to the ground in a manner that local politicians and citizens have labeled “medieval.” During the brutal attack, several citizens intervened, attempting to stop the violence, but the damage was already quite severe. The police have arrested the attacker and reportedly recovered what appears to be a kitchen knife at the scene. Meanwhile, the Home Office has confirmed that the attacker had entered the UK via Dublin in 2023, being granted refugee status, and was to remain in the country until 2028. North Belfast MP John Finucane said, “I am shocked following a horrific attack in north Belfast last night.” Viral videos of the attempted murder have circulated across social media and the internet, sparking massive outrage, as hundreds of patriots took to the streets in a fury on Tuesday evening. Masked demonstrators clashed with police, hijacking and torching commercial bins, multiple vehicles, and, reportedly, the homes and properties housing many other migrants. The demonstrators have also blocked roads while demanding mass deportations, as this attack is yet another in a growing trend of anti-white violence from migrants in Europe. Protests have continued to spread across Northern Ireland and to London’s Parliament Square, Glasgow, Southampton, and beyond, as local people have grown tired and fearful of the dangerous people being funneled into their countries, with their own government’s support. Sir Keir Starmer described the incident as “sickening,” and demands “calm,” yet it was his very policies that have caused the very situation, allowing unvetted third-world migrants to flood the streets and cause chaos. The situation has escalated to the point where anonymous groups, such as the “Irish Citizen Army,” are calling to dismantle systemic injustices to Irish citizens. This backlash is the direct result of open-border policies, which have led to an increase in grooming gangs, rapes, and knife-crime epidemics that have terrorized white Western nations. Frustrated locals are fed up with years of their governments neglecting the needs and desires of the people they govern, as it was not long ago that Henry Nowak was killed due to a similar altercation with a migrant. Currently, the people of the UK, and the West as a whole, see the elites as being indifferent to the struggles of the working-class, who are the ones who must endure the consequences of mass third-world immigration and the terror that it brings to their communities. Meanwhile, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) Assistant Chief Constable Ryan Henderson stated that “at this stage we have no information to suggest this was a terrorist-related incident.” However, it is difficult to fathom how this attack is anything but terroristic in nature when a crazed man attempted to saw a person’s head off. Moreover, many people at the scene were deeply traumatized by the incident, with some even being hospitalized. Ultimately, this kind of brutality is the direct result of importing savages from the third world and expecting them to act according to civilized society. These mass-migration experiments, which prioritize newcomers over native cohesion, must stop. The Irish people, just like every other nation, deserve secure borders, proper vetting, and deportation of criminal elements. The anti-white attacks across the West must come to an end, as communities will not tolerate endless violence and cultural replacement without pushback. And the UK government passively allowing these dangerous criminals to flood their nation and ravage their own people is not only ignorant, but it is pure evil.
By Alexandra Miskewitz
Follow Us