@wentorai/research-plugins 1.0.0 → 1.2.0

package/skills/domains/economics/post-labor-economics/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,254 @@
+---
+name: post-labor-economics
+description: "Post-labor economies with automation, UBI, and wealth distribution"
+metadata:
+  openclaw:
+    emoji: "🤖"
+    category: "domains"
+    subcategory: "economics"
+    keywords: ["automation", "UBI", "post-labor", "technological unemployment", "income distribution", "AI economics"]
+    source: "https://github.com/automationeconomics/resources"
+---
+
+# Post-Labor Economics Guide
+
+## Overview
+
+Post-labor economics studies the economic consequences of advanced automation -- the possibility that AI and robotics will displace human labor at a scale and speed that overwhelms traditional adjustment mechanisms. While technological unemployment is an old concern (dating to the Luddites and Keynes's "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren"), the current wave of AI capabilities has made the question urgent: what happens to labor markets, income distribution, and economic growth when machines can perform most cognitive and physical tasks?
+
+This is not science fiction. The academic literature on task displacement, skill-biased technological change, and automation risk has produced substantial empirical findings and theoretical frameworks. Researchers from economics, political science, sociology, and computer science are converging on these questions.
+
+This guide covers the key theoretical models, empirical evidence, policy proposals (UBI, robot taxes, stakeholder funds), and methodological approaches for studying the economics of automation. It is designed for researchers entering this rapidly growing field and for those in adjacent disciplines who need to engage with the economic arguments.
+
+## Theoretical Frameworks
+
+### The Task-Based Model of Automation
+
+The canonical model (Acemoglu & Restrepo, 2018, 2019) decomposes production into tasks rather than jobs:
+
+```
+Production = f(Tasks performed by Labor, Tasks performed by Capital)
+
+Key dynamics:
+1. DISPLACEMENT EFFECT
+   - Machines replace humans in existing tasks
+   - Reduces labor demand, depresses wages
+   - Concentrated in routine cognitive and manual tasks
+
+2. PRODUCTIVITY EFFECT
+   - Automation lowers costs, increases output
+   - Some gains flow to workers via cheaper goods
+   - But distribution depends on market structure
+
+3. REINSTATEMENT EFFECT
+   - New tasks created that require human comparative advantage
+   - Historically: ATMs → bank branch expansion → more tellers (temporarily)
+   - Question: Is this time different? Will new tasks emerge fast enough?
+
+4. NET EFFECT
+   - Historical pattern: displacement < reinstatement (net job growth)
+   - Current concern: AI attacks both routine AND non-routine tasks
+   - Speed of displacement may exceed speed of reinstatement
+```
+
+### Skill-Biased vs. Routine-Biased Technological Change
+
+| Model | Mechanism | Winners | Losers |
+|-------|-----------|---------|--------|
+| SBTC (Skill-Biased) | Technology complements high-skill labor | College-educated | Non-college workers |
+| RBTC (Routine-Biased) | Automation replaces routine tasks | Creative + manual | Middle-skill routine |
+| ABTC (AI-Biased) | AI replaces cognitive tasks broadly | Capital owners, AI specialists | Broad cognitive workers |
+
+```
+Job polarization (Autor, 2015):
+
+         High-skill (growing)
+           /               \
+          /     Hollowing    \
+         /       out of       \
+        /      middle-skill    \
+       /                        \
+Low-skill (growing)     Middle-skill (shrinking)
+
+Examples by category:
+- High-skill (growing): AI researchers, surgeons, lawyers (judgment tasks)
+- Middle-skill (shrinking): Bookkeeping, data entry, assembly, driving
+- Low-skill (growing): Care work, cleaning, food service (non-routine manual)
+```
+
+## Empirical Evidence
+
+### Automation Risk Estimates
+
+| Study | Method | Finding |
+|-------|--------|---------|
+| Frey & Osborne (2013) | Expert assessment of 702 occupations | 47% of US jobs at high risk |
+| Arntz et al. (2016) | Task-level analysis (PIAAC) | 9% of OECD jobs automatable |
+| Nedelkoska & Quintini (2018) | Task-level, 32 countries | 14% high risk, 32% significant change |
+| Acemoglu & Restrepo (2020) | Actual robot adoption (US) | 1 robot per 1000 workers = -0.2% employment, -0.37% wages |
+| Webb (2020) | Patent-occupation matching | AI threatens high-skill tasks more than previous technologies |
+| Eloundou et al. (2023) | GPT exposure analysis | ~80% of US workers have 10%+ tasks exposed to LLMs |
+
+### Measuring Automation Exposure
+
+```python
+import pandas as pd
+import numpy as np
+
+def compute_automation_exposure(
+    occupation_tasks: pd.DataFrame,
+    ai_capability_scores: dict,
+) -> pd.DataFrame:
+    """
+    Compute occupation-level AI exposure scores.
+
+    Based on the methodology of Felten et al. (2021) and Eloundou et al. (2023).
+
+    Parameters:
+        occupation_tasks: DataFrame with columns [occupation, task, task_weight]
+        ai_capability_scores: dict mapping task -> AI performance score (0-1)
+
+    Returns:
+        DataFrame with occupation-level exposure scores
+    """
+    # Map AI scores to tasks
+    occupation_tasks["ai_score"] = occupation_tasks["task"].map(ai_capability_scores)
+
+    # Weighted average exposure per occupation
+    exposure = occupation_tasks.groupby("occupation").apply(
+        lambda g: np.average(g["ai_score"].fillna(0), weights=g["task_weight"])
+    ).reset_index(name="ai_exposure")
+
+    # Classify risk levels
+    exposure["risk_level"] = pd.cut(
+        exposure["ai_exposure"],
+        bins=[0, 0.3, 0.6, 1.0],
+        labels=["low", "medium", "high"],
+    )
+
+    return exposure.sort_values("ai_exposure", ascending=False)
+```
+
+## Policy Proposals
+
+### Universal Basic Income (UBI)
+
+```
+UBI design parameters:
+
+AMOUNT:
+- Subsistence: $12,000-15,000/year (US, ~poverty line)
+- Moderate: $18,000-24,000/year (covers basic needs + participation)
+- Generous: $30,000+/year (enables full non-employment)
+
+FUNDING MECHANISMS:
+1. Carbon tax + dividend (Alaska Permanent Fund model)
+2. Value-added tax on automation (Andrew Yang proposal)
+3. Sovereign wealth fund (Norway model, applied to AI rents)
+4. Robot tax (Bill Gates proposal)
+5. Land value tax (Georgist approach)
+6. Consolidated existing transfers (replacing welfare bureaucracy)
+
+EVIDENCE FROM PILOTS:
+| Pilot | Location | Duration | Key Finding |
+|-------|----------|----------|-------------|
+| Finland (2017-2018) | National | 2 years | No employment effect, improved well-being |
+| Stockton SEED (2019-2021) | City | 2 years | Employment increased, stress decreased |
+| GiveDirectly (2016-) | Kenya | 12 years | Consumption up, no labor supply reduction |
+| Mincome (1974-1979) | Manitoba | 5 years | Only new mothers and students worked less |
+| Y Combinator (2024-) | US cities | 3 years | Results pending |
+```
+
+### Alternative Distribution Mechanisms
+
+| Proposal | Mechanism | Advocate |
+|----------|-----------|----------|
+| Robot tax | Tax capital that replaces labor | Gates, Korinek |
+| Data dividend | Citizens own their data, paid for use | Lanier, Posner & Weyl |
+| Stakeholder fund | National AI fund, citizen dividends | Bruenig, Stern |
+| Job guarantee | Government as employer of last resort | Tcherneva, MMT school |
+| Reduced work week | Distribute remaining work more evenly | Keynes, Skidelsky |
+| Education subsidy | Continuous retraining for displaced workers | Autor, Goldin |
+| Participation income | Conditional on social contribution | Atkinson |
+
+## Modeling Automation Impact
+
+```python
+def simulate_automation_transition(
+    initial_employment: float,
+    automation_rate: float,       # Annual % of tasks automated
+    reinstatement_rate: float,    # Annual % of new tasks created
+    years: int = 30,
+    productivity_growth: float = 0.02,
+) -> pd.DataFrame:
+    """
+    Simple simulation of automation transition dynamics.
+
+    Based on Acemoglu & Restrepo (2019) task-based framework.
+    """
+    results = []
+    employment = initial_employment
+    wage_index = 1.0
+    task_share_labor = 0.6  # Initial share of tasks done by humans
+
+    for year in range(years):
+        # Displacement
+        tasks_displaced = task_share_labor * automation_rate
+        task_share_labor -= tasks_displaced
+
+        # Reinstatement
+        new_tasks = reinstatement_rate
+        task_share_labor += new_tasks
+
+        # Cap at reasonable bounds
+        task_share_labor = max(0.05, min(0.95, task_share_labor))
+
+        # Employment and wages adjust
+        employment_change = (task_share_labor - 0.6) * 0.5
+        employment = initial_employment * (1 + employment_change)
+        wage_index *= (1 + productivity_growth - automation_rate * 0.3 + reinstatement_rate * 0.2)
+
+        results.append({
+            "year": year,
+            "task_share_labor": task_share_labor,
+            "employment": employment,
+            "wage_index": wage_index,
+        })
+
+    return pd.DataFrame(results)
+
+# Scenario comparison
+optimistic = simulate_automation_transition(100, 0.02, 0.025)  # Reinstatement > displacement
+pessimistic = simulate_automation_transition(100, 0.04, 0.015)  # Displacement > reinstatement
+```
+
+## Research Methods
+
+### Data Sources for Automation Research
+
+| Source | Coverage | Key Variables |
+|--------|----------|---------------|
+| O*NET | US occupations | Task descriptions, skills, abilities |
+| PIAAC | 40+ countries | Worker skills, task content |
+| IFR Robot Data | Global | Industrial robot installations by country/industry |
+| ATUS | US | Time use (task content of work) |
+| CPS/ACS | US | Employment, wages, occupation codes |
+| EU-LFS | Europe | Labor force surveys |
+| AI Patents | Global | Technology capability indicators |
+
+## Best Practices
+
+- **Distinguish task automation from job automation.** Most jobs contain a mix of automatable and non-automatable tasks.
+- **Model adjustment mechanisms.** Price effects, new task creation, and demand shifts matter as much as direct displacement.
+- **Use occupation-task crosswalks** (O*NET, ISCO) rather than crude occupation-level automation scores.
+- **Report distributional effects.** Aggregate statistics hide the uneven impact across skill, age, gender, and geography.
+- **Engage with political economy.** Automation is not just an economic phenomenon -- it is shaped by policy, institutions, and power.
+- **Avoid technological determinism.** The pace and direction of automation are choices, not inevitabilities.
+
+## References
+
+- Acemoglu, D. & Restrepo, P. (2019). Automation and New Tasks. AER Papers & Proceedings, 109, 118-123.
+- Autor, D. (2015). Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? JEP, 29(3), 3-30.
+- Frey, C. B. & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The Future of Employment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254-280.
+- Korinek, A. & Stiglitz, J. E. (2021). Artificial Intelligence, Globalization, and Strategies for Economic Development. NBER WP 28453.
+- [OECD Future of Work](https://www.oecd.org/future-of-work/) -- Cross-country analysis and policy recommendations

package/skills/domains/economics/pricing-psychology-guide/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,273 @@
+---
+name: pricing-psychology-guide
+description: "Behavioral economics in pricing strategies and consumer decisions"
+metadata:
+  openclaw:
+    emoji: "💰"
+    category: "domains"
+    subcategory: "economics"
+    keywords: ["pricing", "behavioral economics", "consumer behavior", "anchoring", "framing", "willingness to pay"]
+    source: "https://github.com/pricing-research/resources"
+---
+
+# Pricing Psychology Guide
+
+## Overview
+
+Pricing psychology sits at the intersection of behavioral economics, marketing science, and consumer research. Classical economics assumes consumers evaluate prices rationally -- comparing marginal utility to marginal cost. Decades of experimental evidence show this is wrong. Consumers use heuristics, are influenced by reference points, respond to framing, and systematically deviate from rational price evaluation.
+
+Understanding these deviations is both scientifically important (they reveal how human cognition processes economic information) and practically consequential (pricing is one of the highest-leverage decisions firms make). This guide covers the key psychological mechanisms in pricing, experimental methods for studying them, and the analytical tools researchers use to measure willingness to pay and price sensitivity.
+
+The focus is on academic rigor: well-identified causal effects, incentive-compatible elicitation methods, and results that replicate. The field has been significantly impacted by the replication crisis, and this guide emphasizes methodological best practices that meet current standards.
+
+## Core Psychological Mechanisms
+
+### Anchoring and Price Perception
+
+```
+Anchoring in pricing (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974):
+
+MECHANISM:
+- Initial price exposure creates a reference point
+- Subsequent judgments are adjusted (insufficiently) from that anchor
+- Effect persists even when the anchor is clearly irrelevant
+
+EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE:
+1. Ariely et al. (2003): Social security number → WTP for wine
+   - Students with higher SS numbers bid more for identical wine
+   - Effect size: r = 0.33-0.52 across product categories
+
+2. Northcraft & Neale (1987): Real estate anchoring
+   - Listing price influenced expert appraisers
+   - Experts denied being influenced (unaware of the effect)
+
+3. Nunes & Boatwright (2004): Incidental anchors in retail
+   - Adjacent product prices influence focal product evaluation
+   - Even when products are in different categories
+
+RESEARCH DESIGN:
+- Random anchor assignment is critical for causal identification
+- Include manipulation check: "Were you influenced by the initial number?"
+- Pre-register the anchor-WTP relationship hypothesis
+```
+
+### Reference Price Theory
+
+```
+Reference price = the price consumers expect or consider "normal"
+
+TYPES OF REFERENCE PRICES:
+1. Internal reference price (memory-based)
+   - Last price paid
+   - Expected future price
+   - "Fair" or "just" price
+
+2. External reference price (context-based)
+   - Competitor prices displayed
+   - MSRP / "was" price (strikethrough pricing)
+   - Unit price comparisons
+
+PROSPECT THEORY APPLICATION (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979):
+- Price < Reference → GAIN → Purchase more likely
+- Price > Reference → LOSS → Loss aversion kicks in
+- Loss aversion coefficient lambda ≈ 2.0-2.5 for prices
+- Implication: Price increases hurt more than equivalent decreases help
+```
+
+### Key Pricing Effects
+
+| Effect | Description | Evidence Strength |
+|--------|-------------|------------------|
+| Left-digit effect | $3.99 perceived much cheaper than $4.00 | Strong (Thomas & Morwitz, 2005) |
+| Decoy effect | Asymmetrically dominated option shifts choice | Strong (Huber et al., 1982) |
+| Compromise effect | Middle option preferred in three-option sets | Strong (Simonson, 1989) |
+| Endowment effect | WTA > WTP (owners value goods more) | Moderate (post-replication) |
+| Mental accounting | Money categorized into separate mental accounts | Strong (Thaler, 1999) |
+| Price-quality heuristic | Higher price = higher quality perception | Moderate (context-dependent) |
+| Pain of paying | Neural pain response to spending money | Strong (Prelec & Loewenstein, 1998) |
+| Bundle bias | Preference for bundled pricing over itemized | Moderate |
+
+## Experimental Methods
+
+### Willingness-to-Pay Elicitation
+
+```python
+import numpy as np
+from typing import List, Dict
+
+def bdm_mechanism(stated_wtp: float, price_range: tuple = (0, 50)) -> dict:
+    """
+    Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) incentive-compatible mechanism.
+    Participants state WTP; random price drawn; buy if WTP >= price.
+    Truthful reporting is the dominant strategy.
+    """
+    random_price = np.random.uniform(*price_range)
+    purchase = stated_wtp >= random_price
+    return {
+        "stated_wtp": stated_wtp,
+        "random_price": round(random_price, 2),
+        "purchased": purchase,
+        "payment": round(random_price, 2) if purchase else 0,
+    }
+
+def multiple_price_list(prices: List[float]) -> Dict:
+    """
+    Multiple Price List (MPL) method for WTP elicitation.
+    Present a series of binary choices: buy at price X or keep money.
+    WTP = switching point from "buy" to "keep money."
+    """
+    return {
+        "instructions": (
+            "For each price below, indicate whether you would buy "
+            "the product at that price (one row will be randomly selected "
+            "for real payment)."
+        ),
+        "choices": [
+            {"price": p, "buy": None, "keep_money": None}
+            for p in sorted(prices)
+        ],
+        "wtp_estimate": "Midpoint between last 'buy' and first 'keep money'",
+    }
+
+def van_westendorp_psm(
+    too_cheap: List[float],
+    cheap: List[float],
+    expensive: List[float],
+    too_expensive: List[float],
+) -> dict:
+    """
+    Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter.
+    Four questions about price perception; intersections define optimal range.
+    """
+    # In practice, compute cumulative distributions and find intersection points
+    return {
+        "point_of_marginal_cheapness": "Intersection: too_cheap & expensive",
+        "point_of_marginal_expensiveness": "Intersection: cheap & too_expensive",
+        "optimal_price_point": "Intersection: too_cheap & too_expensive",
+        "indifference_price_point": "Intersection: cheap & expensive",
+    }
+```
+
+### Conjoint Analysis for Price Research
+
+```python
+# Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) for price research
+# Standard method for decomposing preferences across attributes including price
+
+design_example = {
+    "attributes": {
+        "brand": ["Brand A", "Brand B", "Brand C"],
+        "features": ["Basic", "Standard", "Premium"],
+        "price": ["$9.99", "$14.99", "$19.99", "$24.99"],
+        "warranty": ["1 year", "3 years"],
+    },
+    "design": "D-optimal fractional factorial",
+    "choice_sets": 12,       # Number of choice tasks per respondent
+    "alternatives": 3,       # Options per choice set (+ no-purchase)
+    "sample_size": 300,      # Respondents
+
+    "analysis": "Mixed logit (random coefficients) for heterogeneity",
+    "output": {
+        "part_worths": "Utility contribution of each attribute level",
+        "price_sensitivity": "Distribution of price coefficients",
+        "wtp_for_features": "WTP = -beta_feature / beta_price",
+        "optimal_price": "Price that maximizes share or revenue",
+    },
+}
+```
+
+## Price Elasticity Estimation
+
+```python
+import numpy as np
+from scipy import stats
+
+def estimate_price_elasticity(
+    prices: np.ndarray,
+    quantities: np.ndarray,
+    method: str = "log-log",
+) -> dict:
+    """
+    Estimate price elasticity of demand.
+
+    Methods:
+    - "log-log": ln(Q) = a + e*ln(P) + error (constant elasticity)
+    - "arc": Midpoint elasticity between two points
+    """
+    if method == "log-log":
+        log_p = np.log(prices)
+        log_q = np.log(quantities)
+        slope, intercept, r_value, p_value, std_err = stats.linregress(log_p, log_q)
+        return {
+            "elasticity": slope,
+            "std_error": std_err,
+            "r_squared": r_value ** 2,
+            "p_value": p_value,
+            "interpretation": (
+                "elastic" if abs(slope) > 1
+                else "unit elastic" if abs(slope) == 1
+                else "inelastic"
+            ),
+        }
+    elif method == "arc":
+        # Midpoint method for discrete price changes
+        elasticities = []
+        for i in range(len(prices) - 1):
+            pct_q = (quantities[i+1] - quantities[i]) / ((quantities[i+1] + quantities[i]) / 2)
+            pct_p = (prices[i+1] - prices[i]) / ((prices[i+1] + prices[i]) / 2)
+            if pct_p != 0:
+                elasticities.append(pct_q / pct_p)
+        return {
+            "arc_elasticities": elasticities,
+            "mean_elasticity": np.mean(elasticities),
+        }
+```
+
+## Experimental Design Checklist
+
+```
+Pricing experiment design checklist:
+
+1. INCENTIVE COMPATIBILITY
+   [ ] Use BDM, Vickrey auction, or real purchase
+   [ ] Never use hypothetical WTP without validation
+   [ ] Endow participants with money to make purchases real
+
+2. REFERENCE PRICE CONTROL
+   [ ] Measure or manipulate reference prices
+   [ ] Control for prior brand/product experience
+   [ ] Randomize presentation order
+
+3. DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS
+   [ ] Blind participants to the pricing manipulation
+   [ ] Include filler products to mask the focal comparison
+   [ ] Use between-subjects design for price comparisons
+
+4. ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY
+   [ ] Use realistic product descriptions and images
+   [ ] Set price ranges within the market range
+   [ ] Include a "no purchase" option
+
+5. ANALYSIS
+   [ ] Pre-register hypotheses and analysis plan
+   [ ] Report effect sizes and confidence intervals
+   [ ] Test for heterogeneity across consumer segments
+   [ ] Check for order effects and carryover
+```
+
+## Best Practices
+
+- **Use incentive-compatible methods.** Hypothetical WTP overstates actual WTP by 2-3x on average.
+- **Control for reference prices.** Uncontrolled reference prices are the biggest confound in pricing experiments.
+- **Report effect sizes, not just p-values.** A statistically significant 2-cent WTP difference is not managerially meaningful.
+- **Test external validity.** Lab results do not automatically generalize to market settings.
+- **Account for heterogeneity.** Price sensitivity varies enormously across consumer segments.
+- **Pre-register.** Pricing studies have many researcher degrees of freedom (outlier exclusion, model specification, subsample selection).
+
+## References
+
+- Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
+- Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent Arbitrariness. QJE, 118(1), 73-106.
+- Rao, V. R. (2009). Handbook of Pricing Research in Marketing. Edward Elgar.
+- Thomas, M. & Morwitz, V. (2005). Penny Wise and Pound Foolish. JCR, 32(1), 54-64.
+- [oTree documentation](https://otree.readthedocs.io/) -- Experimental economics platform