Walk through a supermarket and the technology is everywhere. Self-service checkouts, electronic shelf labels, handheld barcode scanners and the video screens showing you – caught by AI facial recognition cameras – leaving the shop.
In an economy struggling for growth, the encroachment of these machines in our everyday lives could be an early sign of a new dawn – a tech-driven renaissance in activity after years of flatlining growth in productivity and stalled business investment. No bad thing.
On the other hand, it could be the glimpse of a dystopian future that is already beginning to take shape. Of retailers using tech with low running costs instead of low-paid, but relatively more expensive, humans. A productivity boom. But who for?
In the past year unemployment in Britain has risen to the highest rate in a decade, excluding the height of the Covid pandemic. Meanwhile economic output has maintained a reasonable, if pedestrian, pace of growth. Put those two things together and rising levels of productivity – output per hour of work – is the mechanical consequence.
Much of the gains are down to tumbling employment in low-paying sectors – retail in particular, where jobs are being shed and hiring frozen in the face of rising labour costs.
Bosses have blamed the government. This year’s £25bn hike in employer national insurance contributions (NICs) and living wage increases are among reasons the British Retail Consortium (BRC) gives for a 10% jump in the cost of employing people in full-time entry-level retail roles. The trade association also complains about Labour’s employment rights bill and packaging costs hitting jobs.
At this time of year, retailers typically take on hordes of staff for the festive season. However, this year has not matched the usual pattern.
Figures from the jobs website Adzuna showed retail vacancies fell by almost 6% in November, typically the key month for hiring. Openings are at the lowest point in a decade, excluding the Covid pandemic.
Much of this is down to feeble consumer demand and the boom in online retail. However, the rise of the machines is also playing a role. Industry surveys show investment in automation rank second as the most common response to Labour’s business tax changes, after raising prices.
Taken together, it is hardly surprising retail employment has collapsed by more than 350,000 in the past decade. Young people applying for lower-skilled, entry-level positions – which also happen to be easier to automate – have borne the brunt.
Within Labour circles, there is an unspoken logic to driving up the cost of employment. For too long, firms have relied on paying poverty-level wages to turn a profit. UK firms have lagged behind in the G7 investment league tables for decades. Economists reckon some of that is down to a lower relative cost of employing labour versus capital – especially in volatile economic times.
Recently, however, the balance has shifted. Employment costs are up; access to immigrant labour is down, and workforce participation has fallen amid rising levels of ill-health and early retirement. Much of this is the outcome of policy choice.
“The higher your employment costs, regulation, and risk around hiring – the more likely you are as a business to consider options to automate,” says Tera Allas, a professor at the Productivity Institute, a research organisation.
So far, the data shows the UK is still in the foothills of the turnaround.
Business investment has not exploded, but is rising – with a 1.5% increase in the third quarter. Meanwhile productivity rose 1.1% compared with a year earlier. Although still short of the 2% pre-2008 financial crisis annual average productivity growth, that is better than the flatlining of investment of recent years.
Successive governments have treated productivity as a silver bullet to Britain’s decades of economic underperformance. None, however, would have campaigned for any gains to come at the expense of workers.
There is also an irony in the prospect of a “jobs-lite boom” under Labour – a party tracing its roots, however thinly today, to the struggle of organised labour amid the galloping productivity gains of the Industrial Revolution.
In the early 19th century, factory owners investing in steam-driven power looms, knitting frames and mill engines fuelled a productivity boom. At first, the spoils went largely to the capitalists – in a period later described as “Engel’s pause”, after the philosopher Friedrich Engels, to describe the years of wage stagnation as Britain became the world’s richest economy. Many angry workers turned to rebellion.
In the long run, living standards rose as workers shifted into new occupations. The Luddites were on the wrong side of history. However, progress was not without social upheaval, nor taken for granted. There were struggles for employment rights and pay through the nascent trade union movement – culminating in political representation and the creation of the modern welfare state.
There are clear parallels today. This month, Andrew Bailey warned that job displacement similar to the Industrial Revolution was highly probable – with the Bank of England governor calling for the UK to have “training, education, [and] skills in place” to help those at risk.
Allas says there are reasons to be hopeful, not least because new technologies typically help to create new forms of work – enabling people to leave behind menial tasks. Businesses, too, worry about the consequences of losing their pipeline of middle managers if all the entry-level work is automated out.
“Humans are infinitely resilient. We have a capability to learn and we’ll figure out how to learn in new ways,” she says.
However, there will be serious problems if the transition is not managed well. Workers will demand to be brought along, not left behind. For Labour there are a few lessons from history.
Despite the turbulence surrounding Liberation Day in April, foreign investors ended up buying more US assets in 2025 than in 2024, see chart below.
Note: 2025 data is annualized. Sources: US Department of Treasury, Macrobond, Apollo Chief Economist
Download high-res chart
Explore the full 2026 Outlook, featuring our macro view and expert perspectives across regions and asset classes, at apollo.com/outlook.
This presentation may not be distributed, transmitted or otherwise communicated to others in whole or in part without the express consent of Apollo Global Management, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, “Apollo”).
Apollo makes no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, reasonableness, or completeness of any of the statements made during this presentation, including, but not limited to, statements obtained from third parties. Opinions, estimates and projections constitute the current judgment of the speaker as of the date indicated. They do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Apollo and are subject to change at any time without notice. Apollo does not have any responsibility to update this presentation to account for such changes. There can be no assurance that any trends discussed during this presentation will continue.
Statements made throughout this presentation are not intended to provide, and should not be relied upon for, accounting, legal or tax advice and do not constitute an investment recommendation or investment advice. Investors should make an independent investigation of the information discussed during this presentation, including consulting their tax, legal, accounting or other advisors about such information. Apollo does not act for you and is not responsible for providing you with the protections afforded to its clients. This presentation does not constitute an offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to buy, any security, product or service, including interest in any investment product or fund or account managed or advised by Apollo.
Certain statements made throughout this presentation may be “forward-looking” in nature. Due to various risks and uncertainties, actual events or results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking information. As such, undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of terminology including, but not limited to, “may”, “will”, “should”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “target”, “project”, “estimate”, “intend”, “continue” or “believe” or the negatives thereof or other variations thereon or comparable terminology.
What does responsible planning look like as San Antonio becomes a growing hub for data centers?
Councilmember Ric Galvan, whose Westside District 6 contains most of the city’s existing facilities, has calledfor a broad policy discussion on how data centers interact with neighborhood development, utilities and long-term infrastructure.
He says his request stems from questions he’s hearing from residents about energy, water and long-term economic planning.
Ric Galvan speaks at a San Antonio Report runoff election debate in May. Credit: Vincent Reyna / Texas Public Radio
Galvan has made transparency and resident engagement key parts of his approach since taking office, and he described his Council Consideration Request on data centers as a first step toward understanding what information the city receives from data center operators and what tools it has under state law.
He spoke with the San Antonio Report about the concerns residents are raising, how he’s thinking about the next phase of data center growth and what he hopes the city examines as the issue moves through committee.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
District 6 covers much of San Antonio’s inner to far West Side, some of the city’s fastest-growing areas, and it now contains the majority of San Antonio’s data centers. What does that look like on the ground?
Some of the neighborhood concerns include preserving the landscape, but also questions about workforce opportunities, right? How are these centers providing jobs for residents here in our city? One of the original ones that came through District 6 was Microsoft, one of the first, I believe, that received a significant tax abatement from the City of San Antonio.
They haven’t received any since. I’m almost sure there haven’t been any more tax abatements for data center development. There was a lot of criticism for that because of the low amount of jobs it provided and the significant request for energy that these industries require.
Day-to-day, neighborhoods have concerns about lighting and trees, but also larger concerns about the environment and the impacts on the economic development of our city. At the time when data centers were first coming around, they were a bit more secretive in terms of what they were doing.
But as the industry has grown, there’s more understanding of what’s going on here. Some residents have felt left behind because of that lack of communication about what the industry is and what it does — both around their city and for the entire country.
Is the growth of data centers a net positive for your constituents and the citizens of San Antonio — or are there tradeoffs the city hasn’t fully reckoned with yet?
There are definitely some tradeoffs that the city hasn’t reckoned with that our residents are asking about.
We know Texas is a very sensitive state in terms of energy and water, … while those things are getting a bit better due to state action and activity from our own municipal utilities. Including CPS taking actions to shore up infrastructure needs and grid reliability here locally, which has an impact on the entire state since energy that flows between South Texas and North Texas, goes through San Antonio.
Some of the ramifications of increased data center growth are going to impact, and have been impacting, our energy flow here in our city — not only between our customers and residents, but across the state. Weighing that with the idea of economic development is at the crux of the issue.
Residents are asking about CPS requiring more and more funding to build infrastructure that keeps our lights on but also provides energy for businesses beyond data centers.
And now, with data centers, there has been a requirement for massive loads of energy. That’s been the biggest concern. If resident rates keep increasing to pay for subsidies or infrastructure development, is that for our own energy needs, or for an industry where there isn’t clear information — at least publicly — about the return on investment?
What jobs are we getting from it? How is it impacting the broader economy? How is it indirectly supporting other jobs? That’s the discussion we need to have so there’s better understanding of not only what the industry does, but how effective it is in terms of economic development, and what the tradeoff is in terms of water and energy use that may, and likely will, impact residents through their utility bills.
You mentioned Microsoft earlier, they’re expanding their footprint near Wiseman Boulevard and Loop 1604. When a company like Microsoft continues to scale up in our community, what question does that raise for you as a councilmember?
For me, because it’s such a significant energy and water user — and because of the infrastructure needed for it — we want to make sure we’re getting a proper return on investment. While we may not be subsidizing it directly, we want to make sure this industry is supporting a larger economy and isn’t having a significant impact on the environment.
WhenI see expansions, it’s a little bit of excitement, right? We always want to see new jobs and new opportunities. We want to see these kinds of things happen in our community. We want a robust economy that supports everyone — including our tax base and our residents overall.
But my concern, and some of the questions I’ve had with these data centers, is: What kind of data are you using here, and what is it for? Is it for Microsoft products, Teams, Outlook, so it makes a bit more sense for residents and council that this needs to be somewhere in our city and our countryto be able to provide these resources.
If it’s for data mining or something else, I think there’s a larger question about, what’s the point of this is and how does it really impact our economy?
… As long as it makes sense in terms of indirectly supporting the economy or directly, I think it will be a better tradeoff for residents to understand or wrap their heads around. But currently, I think it hasn’t been that way publicly, and so we’re kind of in this opaque space at the moment.
You filed a Council Consideration Request calling for a broader policy discussion on data centers. What gaps are you trying to close?
One of the biggest things I want to understand is what is the impact on the economy we’re talking about? We’ve identified data centers and AI and this particular technological industry to be a key component of our local economy.
… It is really important, so that when we talk about either tax incentives or we talk about infrastructure development, utilities needs — whether it’s water or energy — there’s at least a better understanding of what we’re getting out of this.
One of the key things is education about what the industry is and is doing for our city.
Another part of it is making sure that as we are investing in this industry we are doing so in a way that doesn’t impact our residents negatively, whether it’s looking at energy bills going up or water bills potentially going up, or even our environment being impacted in terms of significant noise increases around our neighborhoods or reduction in tree coverage. All those things are important to a lot of our residents, and of course, to our health and our daily lives. …
If we can, as a city, better prepare with our land use policies, with our development code, then we should be able to do that. …
AndI also think including the state is a good idea.
We know [Texas’s] Public Utilities Commission is looking at this particular industry because of the concerns statewide on water and energy. So I think we should bring that to the table too and see how San Antonio fits into that larger context, not just here locally, but in the state’s infrastructure.
Do you think San Antonio is prepared right now for the pace of data center growth?
We have a lot of opportunities in the city to be this kind of hub, if we want to be that. I think we are fortunate in having CPS and SAWS be municipally owned, so we can do that proactive planning.
It gives some clarity, not only to our residents, to our city council and to our larger planning entities, and to the industries themselves, whether they can work with somebody directly and sure they’re getting a fair deal here, versus working with other businesses that aren’t engaged in the community in that way.
That’s one positive thing here, that if we’re going to go into this industry and make sure that it’s our city prepared for it, we have the tools to do that. And I believe we do. I think it just comes down to: What is the benefit here? If it’s real economic development, and it’s providing more jobs, providing more opportunities for people to thrive, it’s making our lives easier and better in some way, why wouldn’t we have that conversation?
If it’s not going to do those things, I think we have to then address that, too.
Are we putting our eggs in a basket that’s not going to be as effective, given the fact that we’re seeing, in particular, with AI nationally and even internationally, this thought of a potential bubble? Lots of people are investing in it but aren’t seeing some returns, and so we’re seeing some investors pull back out of it.
So understanding if we are going to position our city in that direction, is that a good or bad thing? … I don’t think we as a City Council have had that conversation publicly and with the best information possible.
So to your question about, are we prepared for it: I don’t think in every way that we need to be.
I don’t think we are in terms of policy conversation. I don’t think we are in terms of urban planning. I think there’s been an interest in [data centers] coming into [San Antonio], because we just are a good location in terms of some regulations, energy reliability, proximity to the military as well as the relationship there.
I think that’s made sense for the industry, and now it’s time to make sure that it makes sense for our community overall, too.
Where do you see the biggest gaps between what residents expect the city to regulate and what law allows?
Our state generally has an attitude of having minimal regulations on businesses and large industries. It’s a very much laissez faire attitude. We’reseeing some of that come to ahead at the state level, both with the Public Utilities Commission and ERCOT trying to figure out, how do we actually plan for something that may impact our literal energy, grid and water reliability, if we don’t have the tools necessary to regulate these particular industries or even understand them?
There’s been a lot of conversation about getting data from the data centers about how much water and energy they need when they’re coming into this area. So that we can effectively plan and not see scarcity in terms of energy or water and have enough for everybody.
That’s a big component there, what authority our city does have in terms of the current state rules and what doesn’t exist at the moment. Understanding that a little bit is going to be key here.
And if we can engage a little further, a little faster, in the state, then maybe we can serve as a model for the state to look at. Again, I think we have a good opportunity with CPS and SAWS being our utilities that we oversee to maybe answer some of those questions, at least at a local level.
So all to say, it’s really just making sure that we’re moving with the state … and making sure that we’re not overstepping too far. But, I think if we are able to and without getting any kind of legal trouble, let’s take some of those steps and see if we can serve as a model for what we can do here, what a locality in Texas can do to reckon with some of the concerns that the industry presents to the larger community.
What’s your message to residents who are seeing their communities change as data centers continue to pop up?
I want to thank them for bringing this issue to my attention. It’s something that we, of course, have seen a lot of in the national and statewide news, and we knew it was kind of here in a way, but didn’t really take the full jump into it.
So I want to thank a lot of the folks who live in the Westover Hills neighborhoods, District 6, who talked to me about it during my first few months in office and said, “Do we have any information on this? Do we know what’s going to come next? Do we know what our city can do on this?”
That’s what this CCR is looking to explore, really understanding what tools we have in our toolbox, and what’s doable. What things does the public need to know more about? So whether you are a resident who lives nearby them, or you are concerned about them, or you have questions about them, or even supportive of this industry growing, I think it’s all going to be a crucial part of the conversation.
Our residents should feel empowered to talk with us about it, to learn with us at the same time, it’s going to our public council committees to have this engagement. So if you want to watch the conversations, you want to be part of the conversation. Residents can be no matter where they live in our city, it’s going to go to the Planning and Community Development Committee next and City Council.
I think folks can always be engaged and reach out to our offices as they already have been, to let us know what they think about them. Are there concerns about water? Are there no concerns about water? Are there concerns about the growth of the industry? Are there no concerns? Are there growth tools that people really want to look into? Let’s do that.
I’ll just say I think people should feel empowered to engage in this conversation and voice their thoughts on it, and if they do, it helps us shape our policy the same way they did, taking this policy forward at all.
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection recently issued a letter of warning designed to recoup wetlands protections lost in a regulatory oversight more than 20 years ago.
The lapse by state and federal regulators allowed a wetlands mitigation site in Belfast to be marketed for commercial development earlier this year.
The mitigation deal emerged from the development of credit card giant MBNA’s sprawling campus in Belfast. In exchange for impacts to about seven acres of wetlands, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agreed to let MBNA restore wetlands on a nearby 24-acre site, just west of the Renys Plaza, and protect it in perpetuity for conservation and public access.
Bank of America acquired the wetlands parcel when it bought MBNA in 2006. It sold the 24 acres at auction this January, but the deed was unencumbered by a conservation easement, because it had never been filed. The new owner is now offering it for sale for commercial development. (Listing agent Charlie Hippler did not reply to requests for comment.)
The warning letter issued by the DEP last month was addressed to the nonprofit Penobscot Community Health Care, which now owns the property where regulators allowed MBNA to alter wetlands in exchange for setting aside the 24-acre parcel.
“It has come to the Department’s attention that the deed restriction was never placed on the mitigation parcel as intended and required by both the Department order and Corps permit,” DEP’s Robert Wood wrote in the November 10 letter. “The Department is also aware that the current owner of the mitigation parcel, which is not PCHC, recently listed the property for sale for commercial development.”
The warning letter continues, “The license requires PCHC to preserve wetland functions and values on the mitigation parcel. Because the parcel has not been protected in perpetuity by deed restriction and is now at risk of being developed for commercial purposes, PCHC has not preserved the wetland functions and values on the mitigation parcel.”
Wood said if PCHC does not comply with the terms of the license, DEP might take enforcement action.
But the health care agency says it does not feel obligated to fix the mitigation snafu. The nonprofit bought the land for its Seaport Community Health Center from Bank of America in 2021, before the missing conservation easement came to light.
“Penobscot Community Health Care is not and has never been the owner of the land which contains the wetlands in question and does not have any responsibility regarding the property,” the agency said in an emailed statement. “PCHC is investigating why the Maine Department of Environmental Protection believes PCHC has any responsibility regarding the matter.”
As the parties parry over if and how the wetlands should be conserved, as required by the 1997 permit issued to MBNA, it remains unclear who dropped the ball on the easement.
Pierce Atwood attorney Philip “Chip” Ahrens drafted the easement, and sent it to MBNA’s Blaine Buck in April 1997 for the signature of MBNA Regional Vice President Shane Flynn.
But several years later, Michael Hartman of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers noticed that the easement had not been filed. He wrote to Ahrens in December 2001, asking him to provide copies if the document had been filed. But there is no record of the easement ever having been filed.
Bub Fournier, director of planning for the City of Belfast, says the parcel is not ideal for commercial development due to the extensive wetlands. Still, the property appears to be ever more valuable.
In January 2025, Bank of America sold the lot at auction to We Buy and Resell Homes LLC, a Georgia company, for $15,750. CORE real estate listed it over the summer for $295,000. Now it is asking $500,000.
Murray Carpenter
Murray Carpenter is a contributor to The Maine Monitor with a focus on environmental topics.
He has worked as a reporter for Maine Public, Maine Times, and The Republican Journal, and filed stories for The New York Times, NPR and The Washington Post. A resident of Belfast, he has authored books on caffeine (2014) and Coca-Cola (2025).
Contact Murray with questions or concerns: moc.l1766919528iamno1766919528torp@1766919528retne1766919528pracy1766919528arrum1766919528
For a full listing of this week’s Chester County restaurant inspections, click here.
The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, 866-366-3723, uses a risk-based inspection reporting process for restaurants and other food handlers.
READ: What do restaurant inspectors look for and can they close a restaurant?
Abcd Restaurant, 477 Lancaster Ave. Malvern, Opening, December 19. Pass. Women’s restroom requires a lidded trash receptacle for sanitary napkins. Provide immediately.
Brock & Co. Food Service @ CTDI Bette’s Cafe, 1336 Enterprise Dr. West Chester, December 19. Fail. Coca-Cola drink cooler was storing drinks at 43 degrees F nearing the temperature danger zone. Repair/adjust to maintain foods at 41 degrees F or below. Foods such as yogurt and salad with boiled egg and chicken were held at 48 degrees F, in the customer area display cooler, rather than 41 degrees F or below as required. TCS foods were discarded. Repair/adjust unit to maintain foods at 41 degrees F or below as required. Unit cannot be used until it can hold foods at required temperature. Non-food contact surfaces not cleaned at a frequency to preclude accumulation of dirt and soil. Clean floors behind oven in front prep area.
Brock & Co. Food Service @ CTDI Don’s Cafe, 1373 Enterprise Dr. West Chester, December 19. Pass. Food facility operator failed to post an original, valid Chester County Health Department Certified Food Manager in a location conspicuous to the consumer. Post CCHD CFM. Two ham and cheese sliders stored outside of refrigeration by soup/salad bar. Sliders were held at 65 degrees F rather than 41 degrees F or below as required. Sliders were discarded. Commercially processed, ready-to-eat food, located in the two-door cooler, and held more than 24 hours, is not being marked with the date it was opened. Begin practice immediately.
Coatesville Loyal Order of Moose #297, 1200 Airport Rd. Coatesville, December 19. Fail. Clean shelves in walk-in refrigerator. Correct within 3 days. The first compartment of the three-compartment sink in the bar area was observed leaking and not used. Sink was set up to wash and sanitize but was not rinsing. Facility must discontinue use of this sink until first compartment is repaired. Repair sink within 7 days. Shelves near dishwasher are rusty. Replace shelves within 14 days. Food prep sink was not in working order. Repair sink within 7 days and remove wood from floor under leg of sink. Soda gun holster is old and in poor condition. Replace within 7 days. Dishwasher was observed not dispensing chlorine properly. All equipment must be manually sanitized. Repair dishwasher immediately. Ice machine is due for cleaning. Clean within 48 hours. Chlorine is used for dishwasher and quaternary is used at three-compartment sinks. Provide test kits for both sanitizers. Correct within 7 days. Floor below ice bin behind bar was observed in need of cleaning. Correct within 5 days. Floor throughout kitchen and prep areas must be thoroughly cleaned. Correct within 5 days. Outside area behind facility is cluttered with old equipment. Clean and remove equipment within 5 days. Facility does not have a certified food manager. A full-time employee must enroll in an approved certified food manager’s course within 30 days.
Creme, 227 Birch St. Kennett Square, December 19. Pass. No violations.
Creme Mobile Tent & Table, 227 Birch St. Kennett Square, December 19. Pass. No violations.
For a full listing of this week’s Chester County restaurant inspections, click here.
A collection of interviews, photos, and music videos, featuring local musicians who have stopped by the WITF performance studio to share a little discussion and sound. Produced by WITF’s Joe Ulrich.
This story is part of the WHYY News Climate Desk, bringing you news and solutions for our changing region.
From the Poconos to the Jersey Shore to the mouth of the Delaware Bay, what do you want to know about climate change? What would you like us to cover? Get in touch.
South Philadelphia resident Edoardo Vignani started tracking his utility bills when he lost his job in 2022.
Since then, he’s noticed many of his bills climbing higher each year. He worries most about electricity, which he uses for heating and cooling his house. One month this past summer, his PECO bill topped $400, he said.
Vignani is now working again, and he said he can afford his utility bills. But he worries the continuing increases could become unsustainable for him.
“That’s just kind of hard to budget for,” Vignani said.
Philadelphians were squeezed by multiple utility rate hikes in 2025. With water, electric and gas bills combined, the typical household is paying a little over $30 more per month. Another increase is around the corner in 2026 for PECO customers.
Here’s what to know.
Electricity bills shot up this year and will rise again in 2026
Over the past six years, average electricity prices have risen faster than inflation in roughly half of U.S. states — including Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
State regulators approved a plan for investor-owned electric utility PECO to raise distribution rates last year, mostly to pay for infrastructure investments. The typical residential bill rose 10%, from $135.85 to $149.43 in January 2025.
Demand for electricity is growing while a lot of the grid infrastructure is coming to the end of its useful life, said Abe Silverman, an energy consultant and research scholar at Johns Hopkins University.
“The cost of maintaining the system, the expansion of the system, these are all driving [prices up,]” Silverman said. “And inflation is just making it all very expensive at the moment.”
It’s not just the cost of transformers, wires and poles. Silverman said the cost of the electricity itself has also increased alongside the price of natural gas, which is used to generate most electricity in the region.
Separately, a supply-and-demand crunch on the regional electric grid has driven up capacity prices, which reflect the cost of paying power generators to commit to producing a certain amount of electricity in the future. An independent market monitor found that the expected growth of data center construction drove this price spike.
“The capacity prices have been going up just astronomically,” said Seth Blumsack, a professor of energy policy and economics at Penn State University.
As first reported by Bloomberg, China’s Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission issued a document Saturday that outlines proposed rules for anthropomorphic AI systems. The proposal includes a solicitation of comments from the public by January 25, 2026.
The rules are written in general terms, not legalese. They’re clearly meant to encompass chatbots, though that’s not a term the document uses, and the document also seems more expansive in its scope than just rules for chatbots. It covers behaviors and overall values for AI products that engage with people emotionally using simulations of human personalities delivered via “text, image, audio, or video.”
The products in question should be aligned with “core socialist values,” the document says.
Gizmodo translated the document to English with Google Gemini. Gemini and Bloomberg both translated the phrase “社会主义核心价值观” as “core socialist values.”
Under these rules, such systems would have to clearly identify themselves as AI, and users must be able to delete their history. People’s data would not be used to train models without consent.
The document proposes prohibiting AI personalities from:
Endangering national security, spreading rumors, and inciting what it calls “illegal religious activities.”
Spreading obscenity, violence, or crime
Producing libel and insults
False promises or material that damages relationships
Encouraging self harm and suicide
Emotional manipulation that convinces people to make bad decisions
And Soliciting sensitive information
Providers would not be allowed to make intentionally addictive chatbots, or systems intended to replace human relationships. Elsewhere, the proposed rules say there must be a pop-up at the two hour mark reminding users to take a break in the event of marathon usage.
These products also have to be designed to pick up on intense emotional states and hand the conversation over to a human if the user threatens self-harm or suicide.
On a crisp Friday morning in early December, Abington Street in Northampton is starting to stir. Despite having lost high street stalwarts like Marks & Spencer, Moss Bros and H&M in recent years, it is drawing in locals for one end-of-week errand: banking.
Along the pedestrianised road, customers are streaming in and out of HSBC, Barclays, Metro Bank and the building society Nationwide. But it is a rare scene that defies a wider trend: more than 6,000 bank branches in the UK have closed since 2015 as bosses try to cut costs and push millions of customers towards online services.
Relief for customers may be at hand, however, with banks now pausing closures and opening new sites, in what appears to be a mini renaissance for bricks-and-mortar branches.
HSBC UK pledged to keep all of its remaining 327 branches open until at least 2027, while Barclays – which has been one of the most aggressive in shutting sites – has extended opening hours at 87 of its 200 or so branches.
Challenger banks are bucking the closure trend, too. Among smaller lenders, Metro Bank has launched three new locations in Gateshead, Chester and Salford, while Newcastle Building Society poured millions of pounds into a Grade II listed building to open a new branch in Newcastle city centre.
“It’s interesting how the commercial decisions are starting to change,” Nikhil Rathi, the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority told MPs this month. “You’re starting to see more of the major financial institutions actually seek to make a virtue of the fact that they’re going to keep branches open for a certain period, and that is a shift.”
Nationwide has made one of the biggest commitments, promising to keep 696 branches open until at least 2030. That news was a relief for Jatish and Sudha Shah, a couple in their 70s, who were worried that their local Virgin Money branch in Northampton would be under threat following Nationwide’s £2.9bn takeover of the rival bank in 2024.
Jatish, who is hard of hearing, often needs a private space to discuss his accounts. He visits the Virgin branch, which is just 300 metres from a Nationwide site, every few months to check on the couple’s ISAs.
“I know we could do it online and I’m quite capable, but I prefer face to face,” he said. Had the branch closed, he added, the couple would have considered jumping ship to another bank.
Jatish and Sudha Shah rely on being able to visit the Virgin Money branch in Northampton. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian
By and large, however, decisions to keep branches open do not reflect a reversal in customer behaviour. The move to digital banking has led to an overall decline in the number of branch visits, according to KPMG research, which found that a fifth of UK customers had not visited a branch in the last two years.
But banks are seeing the benefit of connecting with customers in person, albeit through a much smaller and cheaper network. “There is a sweet spot where you try and push as many customers on to digital channels as possible, but it is still constructive to have physical locations,” said John Cronin, the head of research and analysis firm SeaPoint Insights.
Some of the shift is about serving older, and less technologically capable account holders, but it is also helping banks compete for small and medium business customers who need advice or help with paperwork.
The trend is even drawing in digital natives, the younger generations that have long had access to online-only services such as Monzo, Starling and JP Morgan’s Chase brand. More 18– to 24-year-olds visited a bank branch last year than those aged over 65, with younger customers representing 72% of customers visits.
“It’s a misconception that younger customers only care about digital banking,” said Peter Rothwell, a partner and head of banking at KPMG UK. “While they appreciate seamless apps, many still value having a local branch, whether it’s to deposit cash from a side job or a birthday gift.
“At the same time, older customers remain some of the most loyal and financially significant clients, expecting not just convenience but also competitive rates and attentive service from their traditional banks.
“To succeed, banks must deliver on both fronts, offering digital innovation without losing sight of the personal touch that matters to every generation.”
Back on Abington Street, most of the customers streaming into Nationwide on a Friday morning were simply looking to make withdrawals at indoor cash machines. But some, like Diana Yates, 73, had bigger fish to fry, having made the trip to cash in her bond investments.
“I have got internet banking. But because of my age and because I live on my own, I’m not confident doing things with large amounts of money on my own. I haven’t got anyone to sit with me and say, ‘Is this OK?’ They’ll do it all in the branch with me.”
Gary Greenwood, a banks analyst at Shore Capital, said most banks were trying to morph into “hubs for advice rather than day-to-day processing”. That has meant providing more advice and support around investments and life events such as getting a mortgage or securing power of attorney when a loved one can no longer manage their own finances.
That is where banking hubs – where lenders share a single location to make up for local branch closures – have been falling short. Many hubs offer only simple transactions and lack the personal touch, leaving many underused. KPMG said 72% of UK individuals have never visited a banking hub.
Threats such as online scams and digital service outages are also making branches seem more attractive. While they are usually tied in to the same systems as the online service, it can provide a sense of security to know problems can be discussed in a physical branch with its own dedicated staff.
Over time, Greenwood predicts, branches will become even more focused on narrow support functions, especially as older generations pass on. “Day to day transactions will be processed via self-service terminals while staff will be focused on providing value-added advice and resolving more complicated issues,” he said.
Cronin believes artificial intelligence may also turn out to be a boon for branches, despite fears about the technology. Bank bosses hope it can replace many manual operations in back offices, potentially increasing scope for face-to-face contact.
“That’s where the efficiency focus is,” Cronin said. “It was branches 10 years ago, and that has now largely played out. Maybe there is another wave of branch closures [coming] in a few years’ time [though]. I suspect that’s how it will play out: this is a pause rather than an end state.”
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.
A mild spring, dry summer and comfortable fall helped contribute to a banner year for tourism operators in Cape Breton.
Destination Cape Breton CEO Terry Smith says an increase in domestic travellers and free museum admission were also factors that made 2025 one of the most profitable years on record for the island’s tourism industry.
That success was reflected in the numbers at Highland Village Museum in Iona, N.S., which saw an increase in visitors of about 10 per cent compared to 2024, representing its best season since pandemic restrictions halted the industry.
“We welcomed over 30,000 visitors through our doors, which is a fairly decent increase from last year,” said Melissa Blunden, executive director of the outdoor living history museum that celebrates Scottish Gaelic culture in Nova Scotia.
Blunden said the museum saw a large uptick in visitors from the Atlantic provinces and from across Canada, with the hot summer weather providing tourists with more opportunity to experience Highland Village.
Americans visiting despite tensions
Roughly 1,500 people visited the museum during the 64th annual Highland Village day concert on Aug. 2, which Blunden said was also the busiest day across the province for museums in Nova Scotia.
With ongoing diplomatic tensions between Canada and the United States, many Canadians decided to stay close to home this year, but Smith said island tourism operators reported that Americans were still eager to visit the Maritimes, and specifically Cape Breton.
Highland Village had a healthy number of visitors from the U.S., Blunden said, and also saw large numbers from across Europe, especially during the fall.
Statistics Canada indicated that U.S. visitors to Canada slid by 10 per cent in June. While region-wide data won’t be released to the public until early next year, Smith said early signs from Cape Breton operators point to strong numbers.
“What we’re hearing from operators is that we wouldn’t say there was an increase in American visitors, but it seems that it was holding its own,” he said. “So Americans were definitely still considering Cape Breton Island as a destination to visit.”