“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
AI Summary.An analysis of federal aid recipients' tax-reported earnings finds the highest-earning bachelor's programs are concentrated at highly selective schools and in computer science, mathematics and electrical engineering. Nursing programs at several California schools produce graduates earning around $150,000 annually, placing them in the top 100 of nearly 25,000 programs analyzed.
Arfa Momin and Ron LieberNew York Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
A HEA Group analysis of the earnings of 2018 and 2019 college graduates four years after graduation finds earnings are widely dispersed across schools in higher-earning fields such as computer science and economics and have a narrow dispersion in lower-earning fields such as English and drama.
Which college majors and schools produce the highest-earning graduates?
Core argument: HEA Group’s analysis of nearly 25,000 bachelor’s programs found computer science, mathematics and electrical engineering majors top the earnings list, with graduates of highly rejective schools including the Ivies, M.I.T., Stanford and U.C.L.A. dominating.
HEA Group tracked students who received federal financial aid and graduated during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 periods. The top of the earnings list is dominated by graduates of highly rejective schools — the Ivies and others, like M.I.T., Stanford and U.C.L.A. The majors that top the list are computer science, mathematics and electrical engineering. The income data come from whatever people reported on their federal tax returns. That means certain stock awards and other potential deferred compensation aren’t part of the totals. Nursing programs at a handful of California schools, including California State University, East Bay; San Francisco State University; and Samuel Merritt University, produce graduates earning around $150,000 annually, putting them in the top 100 out of the nearly 25,000 bachelor’s programs the HEA Group analyzed nationwide. They stick out amid quantitative and science majors from institutions like the California Institute of Technology and Cornell.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
HEA Group’s analysis of nearly 25,000 bachelor’s programs found computer science, mathematics and electrical engineering majors top the earnings list, with graduates of highly rejective schools including the Ivies, M.I.T., Stanford and U.C.L.A. dominating.
Nursing graduates of California State University, East Bay; San Francisco State University; and Samuel Merritt University earn around $150,000 annually, placing those programs in the top 100 amid quantitative and science majors from institutions like the California Institute of Technology and Cornell.
HEA Group tracked federal financial aid recipients who graduated during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 periods, using income reported on federal tax returns, which excludes certain stock awards and other potential deferred compensation.
Related Articles:
Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?— An international assessment of adult skills describes numeracy proficiency levels ranging from counting objects and adding small whole numbers at the lowest level, to extracting information from tables and graphs and performing basic arithmetic with money and percentages at Level 1, up to analysing complex mathematical information and critically evaluating whether data support a claim at Level 5.
Have Humans Passed Peak Brain Power?— The share of Americans reporting they read a book in the past year has fallen below half, alongside declining performance in numeracy and problem-solving in most countries. The share of adults unable to use mathematical reasoning to evaluate the validity of statements averages 25% in high-income countries and 35% in the US.
Standardized Test Scores and Academic Performance at a Public University System— A study of a large public urban university system finds that high school grade point average is a far stronger predictor of student academic success than SAT scores, contrasting with analyses of highly selective colleges that found the SAT superior. Under-represented minority students were less likely to graduate within six years at every grade point average level.
AI Summary.The authors estimate roughly 57 gigawatts of operating US data center capacity against a planned development pipeline of about 509 gigawatts, which is not a completion forecast since projects may be delayed, scaled back, or abandoned. Their central scenario has 182.8 gigawatts of added capacity becoming operational through 2032, 117.2 gigawatts completed later, and 226.9 gigawatts never completed.
Stijn Van NieuwerburghBrookings Papers on Economic Activity
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh projects ~$10.3T will be spent on the AI buildout over 2025–2032, averaging 3.63% of GDP. He estimates 2/3 of that spending reflects IT equipment and one-third real estate and associated power infrastructure.
How much of the planned data center pipeline gets built?
Core argument: Using Cleanview project-level data from July 2026, the authors estimate roughly 57 GW of operating U.S. data center capacity against a planned development pipeline of roughly 509 GW, which they stress is not a completion forecast.
The required investment is enormous. A representative 200 MW AI training campus costs roughly $8.2 billion, about two-thirds of which reflects IT equipment and one-third the real estate and associated power infrastructure. We estimate that 183 GW is completed by 2032 with a further 118 GW completed after 2032. This pipeline will trigger about $10.3 trillion dollars of investment over 2025–2032. At an average of 3.63% of GDP per year, the projected buildout would be larger relative to the economy than the major U.S. canal, railroad, electrification, highway, and telecommunications investment booms. It would double the electricity consumption of the entire U.S. residential sector.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Using Cleanview project-level data from July 2026, the authors estimate roughly 57 GW of operating U.S. data center capacity against a planned development pipeline of roughly 509 GW, which they stress is not a completion forecast.
The authors’ central scenario allocates the announced pipeline so that 182.8 GW of additional U.S. capacity becomes operational during 2025–32, including 19.0 GW tied to projects already operational in 2025 or 2026.
The authors’ scenario has 117.2 GW of planned data center capacity completed after 2032 and 226.9 GW never completed, applying lower realization rates to more distant and less fully documented projects.
Related Articles:
Rear Window— Major cloud providers posted annual revenue growth of 37% at Amazon Web Services, 43% at Microsoft Azure and 82% at Google Cloud, with rising revenue backlogs of $514bn and $496bn respectively at Google Cloud and Amazon Web Services. Earnings growth appears highly contingent on continued hyperscaler capital spending and research, which rose from $460bn to $870bn.
AI Set to be Largest CapEx Cycle Ever … and Soon Majority Externally Financed— Hyperscaler and data-center investment is tracking toward $1.5tn annually by 2030, which in real terms would exceed the 2005-06 housing boom, the 1990s fiber peak, and the 1882 railroad peak combined. External debt and equity are projected to fund close to 90% of the buildout, making it dependent on credit markets.
The Summer I Turned Pretty— A warning sign in a boom cycle is when companies closest to final demand weaken while capital spending beneficiaries keep thriving, as when telecom operators' shares rolled over while communications equipment stocks kept rising. Semiconductor stock prices and free cash flow are soaring while large cloud providers' shares stagnate and their free cash flow plummets.
AI Summary.Racial disparities in US crime, arrest, and prison admission rates have declined across offence types, driven by reductions among Black Americans. Black-White disparity in drug-offence prison admissions fell from 12x to 2.9x, attributable to a 75% drop in the Black drug admission rate, while declines for violent and property offences were smaller.
Jason Robey and Michael LightNature Human Behaviour
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
From their respective recent peaks in 2000 and 2006 to 2019, prison admissions for violent crime fell 20% for Whites and 43% for Blacks. Race-specific NIBRS estimates suggest actual violent crime fell 18% and 47%, respectively.
Why are racial gaps in US arrests and imprisonment narrowing?
Core argument: Black–White disparity in drug-offence prison admission rates fell from 12 to 1 in 2000 to 2.9 to 1 in 2019, attributed almost entirely to a 75% drop in the Black prison admission rate for drug offences.
From their respective peaks [2000 for whites, 2006 for blacks], prison admission rates for violent crime fell 20% for Whites and 43% for Blacks. [Because UCR crime totals do not identify offender race, the authors use the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which records offender race as reported by victims, witnesses or police, to allocate national violent-crime totals by race. NIBRS contains about three times as many violent offenders as arrestees. As a check on crimes not reported to police, they use National Crime Victimization Survey victim reports; results are similar.] [Recorded violent crime fell 18% for Whites and 47% for Blacks See Table 2]. For Whites, the decline in prison admissions is primarily a function of a decline in crime and arrests, with case processing dampening the decline. For Blacks, the decline in violent prison admissions is exclusively attributed to a 47% reduction in violent crime, as policing and case processing trends worked against an otherwise larger decline. [Arrests per crime and prison admissions per arrest both rose slightly; See Table 2].
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Black–White disparity in drug-offence prison admission rates fell from 12 to 1 in 2000 to 2.9 to 1 in 2019, attributed almost entirely to a 75% drop in the Black prison admission rate for drug offences.
Racial disparities in crime, arrest, and prison admission rates have declined across all offence types since about 2000, largely attributable to reductions in crime, arrests, and imprisonment among Blacks.
Declining drug admissions accounted for 53% of the overall drop in Black prison admission rates, while for Whites 62% of the decline came from property offences, with violent (20%) and drug (19%) admissions contributing roughly equally.
Related Articles:
America’s Incarceration Rate Is About To Fall Off A Cliff— The U.S. imprisonment rate stayed below 120 per 100,000 people from the end of World War II until the mid-1970s, then doubled by 1985 and grew about 8% a year, passing 1m prisoners in 1994 and peaking in 2009 — 18 years after violent crime peaked.
Number of Young People Accused of Serious Crimes Surges in New York City— New York City Police Department figures show 4,858 major crimes with a minor accused or arrested in the most recent year, up 37% from 3,543 seven years earlier, with robberies and felony assaults continuing to rise. Police officials attribute the increase to a state law diverting most 16- and 17-year-old defendants from adult courts.
How Many Are Criminals— In the United States, between one in four and one in three Black men eventually serve prison time, compared with one in seven Hispanic men and roughly one in fifteen non-Hispanic white men. In Denmark, about 9% of men of Danish origin and 27% of men of non-Western origin have a criminal conviction by age 24.
AI Summary.Estimated sustainable government net debt limits across 25 OECD countries average 234% of GDP under historical interest-rate and growth assumptions (221% for the US) and 214% under current rates (186% for the US). If interest rates rise systematically with debt, the model yields no solution for the US, UK, France, Italy, Greece, and Japan.
Mark WarshawskyAmerican Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Warshawsky calculates the US has a sustainable net debt limit, “the lowest level of debt at which a country can no longer service its sovereign debt and must effectively default,” of 186% of GDP, which he forecasts will be reached in ~15 years under current policy and economic conditions.
How high can government debt rise before it becomes unsustainable?
Core argument: Sustainable net debt limits across the US and 24 other OECD countries average 234% of GDP under historical interest rate–growth differentials and 221% for the US, falling to 214% on average and 186% for the US under current, higher interest rates and growth.
Using historical, current, and dynamic interest rate-to-economic growth differentials, countries’ sustainable debt limits are calculated on a net of central bank holdings of government debt basis. Sustainable net debt limits average 234% of GDP for these countries assuming historical rates and economic growth (221% for the US), 214% assuming (higher) current interest rates and economic growth (186% for the US). If, however, interest rates were to rise systematically with debt according to conservative assumptions, there is no model solution for France, Greece, Japan, Italy, the UK, and the US, given their current high debt levels; the average sustainable limit is 178% for the other countries. A reasonable conclusion to draw for the US is that the fiscal path under current policy and trends with rising interest rates is not sustainable in the short to intermediate term. A major fiscal consolidation package will be needed soon, as interest rates rise, unless significantly higher inflation or capital controls will result.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Sustainable net debt limits across the US and 24 other OECD countries average 234% of GDP under historical interest rate–growth differentials and 221% for the US, falling to 214% on average and 186% for the US under current, higher interest rates and growth.
If interest rates rise systematically with debt under conservative assumptions, the model yields no solution for France, Greece, Japan, Italy, the UK, and the US given their current high debt levels, while the average limit for the remaining countries is 178%.
A reasonable conclusion is that the US fiscal path under current policy and trends with rising interest rates is not sustainable in the short to intermediate term, and a major fiscal consolidation package will be needed soon unless significantly higher inflation or capital controls result.
Related Articles:
Soaring Bond Yields, Gaping Deficits and Towering Debts: What Could Go Wrong?— An analysis of 22 rich countries estimates that if each refinanced its entire debt at current five-year bond yields, Britain would need the largest primary surplus to stabilize its debt-to-GDP ratio, about 1.5%, followed by Italy at 1.4%, France at 1.2% and America at 1%.
How Might Fiscal Policy Respond to the Rise of Artificial Intelligence?— The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a permanent 0.5 percentage point increase in annual productivity growth would lower publicly held federal debt after 30 years by 39% of GDP, offsetting roughly half the projected rise from 101% of GDP to 175%. Higher revenue and slower spending growth outweigh higher interest costs.
Can AI Avert the Impending Federal Budget Crisis?— U.S. GDP per capita, about $87,000, is projected to reach $102,000 by 2035 with 1.8% annual productivity growth, or $110,000 with 2.7% growth. Because the healthcare sector has been slow to adopt AI, health spending is projected to rise from 18.3% of GDP to 21% under slower growth and 21.7% under faster growth.
AI Summary.The authors estimate that more than half of the rise in the top 1% income share since 1985 — 5.8 of 10.5 percentage points — flowed through pass-through businesses, counting roughly 3m wealthy private business owners with average net worth near $25m running law firms, dealerships, and medical practices.
Torsten SløkApollo
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
More than half the increase in the top 1% income share since 1985 flowed through pass-through businesses to ~ 3mm private business owners with a mean net worth of ~$25mm.
Did most of the top 1% income gain come from private businesses?
Core argument: Owen Zidar and Eric Zwick find that 5.8 of the 10.5 percentage-point rise in the U.S. top 1% income share since 1985 flowed through pass-through businesses, more than half of the increase.
The income that lifted America's top 1% did not come mainly from tech or Wall Street, according to Owen Zidar and Eric Zwick. More than half of the rise in the top 1% income share since 1985, 5.8 of 10.5 percentage points, flowed through pass-through businesses. Zidar and Zwick, counted roughly 3 million wealthy private business owners, with average net worth near $25 million, running law firms, car dealerships, medical practices, commercial contractors and regional restaurant chains, the kind of businesses that make their owners wealthy and well known in their own communities without ever making them nationally famous.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Owen Zidar and Eric Zwick find that 5.8 of the 10.5 percentage-point rise in the U.S. top 1% income share since 1985 flowed through pass-through businesses, more than half of the increase.
Zidar and Zwick count roughly 3 million wealthy private business owners with average net worth near $25 million, running law firms, car dealerships, medical practices, commercial contractors and regional restaurant chains.
The income that lifted America’s top 1% did not come mainly from tech or Wall Street, according to Zidar and Zwick, but from businesses whose owners are well known locally without becoming nationally famous.
Related Articles:
What’s Missing in the Fed’s Data about Ultrarich Portfolios— The Federal Reserve's Distribution of Financial Accounts defines "private business" narrowly as proprietor's equity in noncorporate, nonfinancial businesses, excluding S-corporations, other private corporations, and private equity and hedge fund partnerships, which are lumped into "corporate equities." The Survey of Consumer Finances instead shows private business is roughly 45–50% of top 0.1% wealth.
They’re Rich but Not Famous—and They’re Suddenly Everywhere— An analysis of Federal Reserve data estimates about 430,000 U.S. households are worth $30m or more, including roughly 74,000 worth at least $100m, with growth in the number of very rich households outpacing overall population growth over recent decades. Nearly 72% of the top 0.1%'s wealth consists of corporate equities, mutual fund shares, and private businesses.
Capitalists in the Twenty-First Century— Most income at the top of the US distribution is non-wage income, primarily profits from closely-held, mid-market firms in skill-intensive industries owned by working-age individuals. The authors find private business profit falls by three-quarters after an owner retires or dies prematurely, indicating most top earners are "working rich" deriving income from human capital.
AI Summary.Census data show the number of U.S. families with inflation-adjusted incomes above $150,000 grew from under 3m in 1967 to over 31m in 2025, while families earning under $75,000 fell by almost 3m in absolute terms. The share of families with multiple earners has not increased much over that period.
Jeremy HorpedahlEconomist Writing Every Day
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
In 1967, just 5.5% of American families had an inflation adjusted income of $150,000 or more. In 2025, 35.7% did. During that timeframe, the share of families with a real income less than $75,000 declined from 63.4% to 32.8%.
Are more American families reaching higher inflation-adjusted income levels?
Core argument: The number of U.S. families with incomes above $150,000 in 2025 inflation-adjusted dollars rose from fewer than 3 million in 1967 to over 31 million in 2025, according to Census data.
In 1967 there were fewer than 3 million families with incomes over $150,000 (in 2025 inflation-adjusted dollars). By 2025, that had grown to over 31 million families. If we look at the highest income threshold in this Census data — over $200,000 — the number of families has grown from just 1 million in 1967 to over 20 million in 2025. And there are fewer lower-income families too: the number of families under $75,000 shrunk, not just as a proportion of the total but even in absolute terms by almost 3 million families from 1967 to 2025. Of course, some of these families do have more earners than in 1967, though we shouldn’t overstate that too much. Using other data from Census, we can see that the share of families with multiple earners hasn’t increased much since 1967, and especially hasn’t since the mid-1990s.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
The number of U.S. families with incomes above $150,000 in 2025 inflation-adjusted dollars rose from fewer than 3 million in 1967 to over 31 million in 2025, according to Census data.
Families earning over $200,000, the highest income threshold in the Census data, grew from about 1 million in 1967 to over 20 million in 2025.
Families with incomes under $75,000 declined by almost 3 million in absolute terms from 1967 to 2025, while Census data show the share of families with multiple earners has not increased much since 1967, and especially not since the mid-1990s.
Related Articles:
Income in the United States: 2025— Median U.S. household income rose 2.6% to $87,460, the highest level on record in data going back to 1967. Median income increased 3% for White households, 2.9% for non-Hispanic White households, and 4.8% for Black households, while changes for Asian and Hispanic households were not statistically significant.
The Middle Class Is Shrinking Because of a Booming Upper-Middle Class— Analyses showing a shrinking middle class typically use relative income thresholds that rise with median income, so they can register decline even when living standards rise across the distribution. Using an absolute definition, the authors find the core middle class shrank because the upper-middle class grew from 10% of families to 31%, doubling its income share.
Who Sees Themselves as Working Class?— Survey data indicate 60% of U.S. adults say the term "working class" describes them well, including half of those with a bachelor's degree and half of upper-income Americans. Identification is highest among blue-collar workers at 77%, versus 61% in other occupations, and ranges from 52% of Asian adults to 62% of White adults.
AI Summary.The authors estimate the heritability of labor market outcomes by comparing the excess similarity of same-sex over opposite-sex twins with the corresponding difference among ordinary siblings. They caution that social interaction between twins, assortative mating, genetic dominance, population stratification, or indirect parental effects can bias such estimates upward or make them reflect non-genetic influences.
David Card, Jesse Rothstein and Moises YiNational Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Analysis of 44,500 twin pairs suggests ~one-third of the variation in log earnings is due to genetic differences – likely an upper bound, because same-sex twins may influence one another and share more similar environments than ordinary same-sex siblings.
How reliable are twin-based estimates of heritability in earnings?
Core argument: The authors identify heritability of U.S. labor market outcomes from a difference-in-differences comparing same-sex versus opposite-sex twins against the corresponding difference among ordinary siblings, adjusting for the estimated share of same-sex twins who are identical.
Our model identifies heritability from the difference-in-differences of same-sex vs. opposite-sex twins vs. siblings. [Specifically], the model attributes to genetic differences the excess similarity of same-sex over opposite-sex twins over and above the corresponding difference among ordinary siblings, adjusting for the estimated share of same-sex twins who are identical. The ordinary-sibling comparison is intended to remove family influences that differ between sons and daughters. Social interactions may lead to an over-estimate of the genetic component in earnings. The estimated heritability of outcomes may be biased in the presence of assortative mating, genetic dominance, population stratification, or violations of the assumption that the home environment is shared to the same degree for MZ as for DZ twins. Even when estimated without bias, heritability need not indicate direct genetic effects – it also may reflect indirect or cultural effects (e.g., effects of the parents’ genes on a child’s outcomes, not operating through the child’s own genes. Twins may [also] influence each other directly – for example in their choice of jobs -- inflating the correlation in their outcomes.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
The authors identify heritability of U.S. labor market outcomes from a difference-in-differences comparing same-sex versus opposite-sex twins against the corresponding difference among ordinary siblings, adjusting for the estimated share of same-sex twins who are identical.
Social interactions between twins, such as influencing each other’s job choices, may inflate the correlation in their outcomes and lead to an over-estimate of the genetic component in earnings.
Estimated heritability may be biased by assortative mating, genetic dominance, population stratification, or unequal sharing of the home environment between identical and fraternal twins, and even unbiased estimates may reflect indirect or cultural effects such as parents’ genes.
The Inheritance Of Social Status: England, 1600 to 2022— Using a genealogical database of 422,374 English people with rarer surnames, the authors find social status persists strongly even among distant relatives, with status correlations declining by a constant factor of 0.79 per step in the lineage across all status measures and eras studied. The authors argue this constancy suggests social interventions have modest effects.
A Chip Off the Old Block? Genetics and the Intergenerational Transmission of Socioeconomic Status— Linking Dutch genetic data to tax records, the authors estimate that moving a person 10 percentiles higher in a genetic index raises their own income by 0.9 percentiles and their child's by 0.7 percentiles. They attribute about 50% of this to transmitted genes and the rest to environmental pathways.
AI Summary.Median U.S. household income rose 2.6% to $87,460, the highest level on record in data going back to 1967. Median income increased 3% for White households, 2.9% for non-Hispanic White households, and 4.8% for Black households, while changes for Asian and Hispanic households were not statistically significant.
Melissa Kollar and Zach SchererU.S. Census Bureau
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Real US median household income increased 2.6% year over year in 2025 to a record high of $87,460.
Has median U.S. household income reached its highest level on record?
Core argument: Median U.S. household income reached $87,460 in 2025, up 2.6% from $85,210 in 2024 and the highest on record in data dating back to 1967.
In 2025, median household income was $87,460, an increase of 2.6% from the 2024 estimate of $85,210. Household income in 2025 was the highest on record dating back to 1967. For all demographic characteristics of the householder the median household income estimates in 2025 were either higher than the 2024 estimates or were not statistically different from 2024. Median household income increased by 3% for White households, 2.9% for non-Hispanic White households, and 4.8% for Black households. Median income did not change significantly for Asian or Hispanic households.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Median U.S. household income reached $87,460 in 2025, up 2.6% from $85,210 in 2024 and the highest on record in data dating back to 1967.
Median household income rose 4.8% for Black households, 3% for White households, and 2.9% for non-Hispanic White households in 2025, while Asian and Hispanic households saw no statistically significant change.
Across all demographic characteristics of the householder, 2025 median household income estimates were either higher than or not statistically different from 2024 estimates.
Related Articles:
Income in the United States: 2024— U.S. median household income was $83,730, not statistically different from the prior year's $82,690, according to Census Bureau estimates. Across most demographic subgroups, median household income was higher or not statistically different from the prior year, with the exception of Black households, which saw a decline.
US Focus: The Effect Of Soaring Profits— US nominal pre-tax corporate profits in the national accounts grew 23% over the past year, a pace not seen outside post-recession spikes since the mid-2000s. Wider margins were the key driver, as domestic profit growth far exceeded the 8% rise in corporate value added, pushing margins near all-time highs while the labor share hit new lows.
The College Wage Premium in the Generative AI Era— The U.S. college wage premium fell from 0.626 to 0.575 after four decades of expansion, implying the first sustained negative growth in relative demand for college-educated labor. The authors estimate that weaker wage growth in occupations highly exposed to artificial intelligence accounts for roughly 28% of that decline, though the patterns are not causal.
