The AI Dilemma: More Work, Less Life—How Technology Is Changing Job Expectations

A study from Emory, Auburn, and Fordham universities reveals that AI, instead of reducing workloads, is extending work hours and intensifying job demands, with firms and consumers capturing most productivity gains. While AI-exposed workers earn higher wages, they experience lower job satisfaction, increased surveillance, and diminished work-life balance.

Artificial intelligence (AI) was expected to transform the workplace by making human labor more efficient, reducing workloads, and enhancing work-life balance. However, a new study from Emory University, Auburn University, and Fordham University, published as an NBER working paper, challenges this assumption. The research, titled AI and the Extended Workday: Productivity, Contracting Efficiency, and Distribution of Rents, reveals that rather than reducing the burden of work, AI exposure is actually leading to longer workdays, less leisure time, and greater intensity in job demands. Drawing on American Time Use Survey (ATUS) data from 2004-2023, the study finds that AI is not primarily displacing workers but instead complementing human labor, which paradoxically results in extended work hours. While AI-driven productivity improvements increase efficiency, they also heighten employer expectations, intensify workloads, and, in many cases, shift the financial benefits to firms and consumers rather than employees.

ChatGPT and the Work-Life Balance Disruption

The study examines the 2022 launch of ChatGPT as a natural experiment, analyzing its impact on workers in AI-exposed occupations. The findings indicate that employees in roles highly affected by generative AI worked an additional 3.15 hours per week following ChatGPT’s introduction, while their leisure time decreased proportionally. Rather than making work easier or allowing employees to complete tasks more quickly, AI-enhanced productivity led to increased expectations and additional responsibilities. This effect was even more pronounced in occupations where AI provided strong task support, such as content creation, data analysis, and knowledge-based professions. Furthermore, regions with higher awareness of AI, as measured by Google search trends, exhibited a stronger correlation between AI exposure and increased work hours.

Rather than offering a break from tedious work, generative AI has deepened workplace engagement, making it harder for employees to disconnect. Workers in AI-heavy jobs found themselves more involved in their tasks, expected to produce more, and pressured to maintain a faster pace. This contradicts the long-standing assumption that technological advancements lead to fewer working hours and more personal time.

AI Surveillance: The Invisible Productivity Enforcer

Beyond productivity enhancement, AI’s role in employee surveillance has emerged as a key driver of extended work hours. The study highlights how AI-powered monitoring systems—widely adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic—have tightened oversight on employees, leading to longer hours and increased accountability. Remote workers in occupations with high AI surveillance exposure worked significantly longer hours post-pandemic, confirming that real-time monitoring fosters an “always-on” work culture.

Interestingly, this effect was not observed among self-employed individuals, reinforcing the idea that AI surveillance impacts those in structured employment where performance tracking and employer oversight play a crucial role. The introduction of AI-powered tracking tools has not only increased productivity but also blurred the boundaries between work and personal life, making it harder for employees to disengage. AI-driven performance monitoring ensures that workers remain under constant scrutiny, discouraging breaks and reinforcing a culture of continuous output.

Higher Wages, Lower Job Satisfaction

One of the study’s most striking findings is the disconnect between wages and job satisfaction in AI-exposed occupations. While workers in AI-driven roles earn higher wages, they also report lower job satisfaction and work-life balance. Analyzing data from Glassdoor, the study finds that jobs with high AI exposure tend to have lower overall employee ratings, despite increased salaries.

This trend suggests that while AI enhances worker productivity and financial compensation, it simultaneously erodes workplace satisfaction. Employees in these roles are working longer, facing greater pressure, and struggling to maintain a healthy work-life balance, which diminishes the perceived benefits of higher earnings. The findings challenge the traditional notion that increased wages naturally lead to improved worker well-being, emphasizing the importance of job quality, flexibility, and autonomy in overall employee satisfaction.

Who Really Benefits from AI?

The study highlights that AI-driven productivity gains are not evenly distributed. Instead of benefiting workers through shorter workdays and greater leisure time, these gains are captured by firms and consumers. In highly competitive labor markets, workers have limited bargaining power, making it difficult for them to negotiate for a fair share of AI-driven productivity gains. As a result, firms retain most of the financial benefits, while workers experience longer hours and increased expectations without corresponding improvements in job quality.

Similarly, in competitive product markets, companies use AI-driven efficiencies to lower prices, improve product offerings, and increase output rather than sharing the benefits with their employees. This means that while consumers enjoy better and cheaper products, workers bear the brunt of heightened demands. The study reveals that workers in less competitive industries, where firms have more pricing power, are better positioned to negotiate shorter hours and improved conditions.

The AI Workday Paradox: Where Do We Go from Here?

This research adds to the growing debate about AI’s role in shaping the future of work. Unlike past technological revolutions that gradually reduced work hours and improved job quality, AI is intensifying workloads rather than alleviating them. The study suggests that without proactive interventions, AI could exacerbate workplace stress and erode work-life balance further, rather than delivering the long-promised benefits of automation.

For policymakers and business leaders, this raises critical questions about how to ensure a fair distribution of AI-driven productivity gains. Potential solutions include stronger labor protections, improved work-life balance policies, and greater worker representation in AI-related decision-making. Additionally, organizations should consider rethinking productivity metrics, moving away from total output-focused performance measures and towards metrics that prioritize worker well-being.

Ultimately, the study challenges the widespread optimism about AI’s role in reducing workloads and enhancing quality of life. Instead, it presents a stark warning: without deliberate efforts to balance productivity gains with worker welfare, AI could lead to a future where employees are more efficient but also more overworked and dissatisfied. The paradox of AI is that, while it promises to make work easier, it is making work more demanding, intensive, and unrelenting.