Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “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
  • “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
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “…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
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…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
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

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 Sløk Apollo
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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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. Wage gains have trailed inflation for five months, and consumer prices are 27% higher than at the start of 2021. The "misery index," the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates, stands at 7.5, up from 6.7 a year earlier.

David Uberti, Justin Lahart and Aaron Zitner Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:

Over the past five months, real wages as measured by average hourly earnings have declined. Okun’s “misery index” is now 7.5, just above its October 2024 level of 6.7.

Are wage gains falling behind rising consumer prices?

Core argument: Consumer prices are 27% higher than in January 2021, when Biden took office, and wage gains have failed to keep pace with inflation for five months.

For five months, wage gains haven’t kept pace with inflation and, especially with the sharp increase in gasoline prices over the past few weeks, they aren’t likely to keep up this month. University of Chicago Booth School of Business economist Christina Patterson said employees who achieve pay bumps often bear a burden. “You negotiate. You get an outside offer. You switch jobs. You threaten to leave,” she said. “All of those actions are costly. They disturb employer-employee relationships. You lose co-workers. You have to move.” Consumer prices are now 27% higher than they were in January 2021. One long-popular benchmark of economic conditions is the “misery index,” a simple summing up of the inflation and unemployment rate, it now stands at 7.5, higher than the 6.7 it was at in October 2024, just before Harris lost the presidency to Trump.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Consumer prices are 27% higher than in January 2021, when Biden took office, and wage gains have failed to keep pace with inflation for five months.
  2. The “misery index,” a summing of the inflation and unemployment rates devised by economist Arthur Okun, stands at 7.5, above the 6.7 recorded in October 2024 before Kamala Harris lost to Trump.
  3. University of Chicago Booth School of Business economist Christina Patterson said workers who win pay bumps often bear a burden through negotiating, obtaining outside offers, switching jobs, or threatening to leave, actions that disturb employer-employee relationships and can require moving.

Related Articles:

  • The Cost of Money is Part of the Cost of Living: New Evidence on the Consumer Sentiment Anomaly — Variation in the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index that inflation and unemployment cannot explain is strongly correlated with growth in consumer borrowing costs, such as mortgage and car loan rates. The authors estimate that including interest payments and homeownership costs in the consumer price index would raise measured inflation from 3% to 9%.
  • Sticky Wage Norms and the Real Wage Cost of Unexpected Inflation — Firms set nominal wage increases by round-number rules—about 42% of increases below 6% fell within 0.01 percentage points of a whole or half number—and these rules rose only from about 2.7% to 3.5% as inflation peaked near 7%, contributing to falling real wages for job stayers.
  • Do Voters Punish Inflation or Pay Cuts? Inflation and Real Wages in U.S. Elections — An analysis of U.S. counties estimates that where wages grew faster than prices, voters supported the incumbent party more, while counties with larger real wage losses than average shifted more toward the opposition. A one-standard-deviation larger real wage loss is associated with shifts of roughly 0.10 and 0.19 percentage points in vote share and margin.

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 Scherer U.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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

AI Summary. 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.

Abiel Reinhart J.P. Morgan
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

US corporate profit margins rose ~250bp y/y in Q2 and are approaching an all-time high. Reinhart notes that tech and communications services drove ~58% of recent S&P 500 profit growth, even as the sectors have been “steadily losing employment since late 2022.”

Are wider margins driving surging corporate profits as labor's share falls?

Core argument: Higher margins were the key driver of profit growth, as 23% y/y domestic profit growth far exceeded the 8% rise in corporate value added.

Nominal pre-tax corporate profits in the national income and product accounts (NIPA) were very robust in both 2Q (41% [annual rate]) and over the last year (23%). Excluding post-recession spikes, we haven’t seen a year this strong since the mid-2000s. Higher margins [were] the key driver [of profit growth], as 23% y/y domestic profit growth was far in excess of the 8% increase in corporate value added. Profit margins (pre-tax profits divided by value added) increased close to 250bp over the last year, and are approaching all-time highs, whereas the labor share is hitting new lows.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Higher margins were the key driver of profit growth, as 23% y/y domestic profit growth far exceeded the 8% rise in corporate value added.
  2. Profit margins, measured as pre-tax profits divided by value added, increased close to 250bp over the last year and are approaching all-time highs, while the labor share is hitting new lows.

Related Articles:

  • US Corporate Profits Surge To Record As Worker Payouts Wilt — US pre-tax corporate profits reached an annualised $4.8tn, or 18% of national income, the highest share since the aftermath of World War II, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data. Employees' share from wages and benefits fell to 60%, the lowest since the 1950s, with the decline gaining pace in recent years.
  • Are US Corporate Profit Margins Too High? — US after-tax non-financial corporate profit margins remain elevated by historical standards, estimated at 7.6% versus a post-1949 high of 8.2%, while employee pay as a share of non-financial corporate gross value added has fallen from 66% to 56%. One argument holds that subdued demographic growth leads companies to prioritize maximizing margins over expanding capacity.
  • The Record Divide Between Corporate Profits and Worker Pay — Labor's share of gross domestic income fell to 51%, the lowest since records began in 1947, while profits' share rose to 12.1%, the highest since 1950. Inflation-adjusted hourly wages are up 3% since the end of 2019, compared with a 50% rise in profits.

AI Summary. In a guaranteed income experiment, the gap between participant income and total household income fell by roughly $1,700 per year, which the authors attribute to lower earnings among other household members. Net transfers to extended family rose by about $135 per year, while measures of household stability, decision-making, and division of labor clustered near zero.

Elizabeth Rhodes, David Broockman, Eva Vivalt, Patrick Krause, et al. National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

In a randomized guaranteed-income experiment, giving one adult a transfer of $1,000/month for two years cut the other household members’ income by ~$1,700/year. Partners worked less and advanced less at work, while schooling and training among others rose.

How does guaranteed income affect other household members' earnings?

Core argument: In the guaranteed income experiment, the gap between participant income and total household income fell by about $1,700 per year (s.e. $800), a decline that appears to reflect lower earnings among other household members.

Figure 4 summarizes treatment effects on the standardized family-level indices. The transfers’ effects reshaped the income and employment of other household members. The gap between participant income and total household income fell by about $1,700 per year (s.e. $800). The decline appears to reflect lower earnings among other household members. Effects on employment outcomes are consistent with this interpretation. Partner promotions and transitions to better jobs decrease significantly, but these effects are very small in magnitude. Partner hours and employment show more meaningful declines but are not significant in the unconditional analysis. Several other measures provide supporting evidence of negative effects on labor supply. Net transfers—the value given [to extended family] minus the value received—increased by roughly $135 per year. Estimates for household stability, decision-making, and the division of labor cluster near zero.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. In the guaranteed income experiment, the gap between participant income and total household income fell by about $1,700 per year (s.e. $800), a decline that appears to reflect lower earnings among other household members.
  2. Partner promotions and transitions to better jobs decreased significantly but were very small in magnitude, while partner hours and employment showed more meaningful declines that were not significant in the unconditional analysis.
  3. Net transfers to extended family—value given minus value received—rose by roughly $135 per year, while estimates for household stability, decision-making, and the division of labor cluster near zero.

Related Articles:

  • The Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers on Parenting and Children — In a randomized trial, parents receiving $1,000 per month in unconditional cash for three years spent more on their children monthly and reported better parenting behaviors, such as closer supervision, than parents receiving $50 per month. The transfer had no meaningful effect on most educational outcomes, the home environment, child food security, homelessness, or parental satisfaction.
  • The Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers on Consumption and Household Balance Sheets: Experimental Evidence from Two US States — In a randomized experiment giving 1,000 individuals $1,000 per month, the authors estimate spending rose in most categories, most for housing, food, and car expenses, along with increased housing moves. Debt rose steadily to $1,600 higher by the study's end, and estimated net worth effects turned to roughly -$2,800.
  • The Employment Effects of a Guaranteed Income: Experimental Evidence from Two U.S. States — In a randomized experiment, 1,000 low-income individuals received $1,000/month unconditionally for three years while a control group of 2,000 received $50/month, and the transfers reduced individual income excluding transfers by about $1,500/year. The authors find no significant effects on human capital investment and conclude the transfers produced a moderate labor supply reduction not offset by other productive activities.

AI Summary. Using observed AI usage data across 321 U.S. occupations, the authors estimate that highly exposed occupations saw a 6.7% decline in real wage growth with no detectable employment effects. The estimated declines are concentrated among the lowest earners, with service workers down 24.3% and the bottom wage quartile down 10.7%, while top earners show no significant effect.

Sania Edlich and Torsten Sløk Apollo
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

A difference-in-differences design finds 6.7% slower real-wage growth in AI-exposed occupations since 2023 than in low-exposure ones, with no detectable job loss. The largest effects were for the lowest quartile (-10.7%) and service occupations (-24.3%).

How does AI exposure affect wages across occupational earnings levels?

Core argument: Using observed AI usage data from the Anthropic Economic Index across 321 matched occupations from 2015–2025, the authors estimate that high-exposure occupations saw a 6.7% decline in real wage growth after 2023, with no detectable employment effects.

We examine the wage and employment effects of AI adoption across U.S. occupations using observed usage data from the Anthropic Economic Index rather than the theoretical exposure measures that dominate prior work. Using a difference-in-differences design with occupation and year fixed effects across 321 matched occupations from 2015 to 2025, we find that high-exposure occupations experience a 6.7% decline in real wage growth post-2023 with no detectable employment effects. The effect is concentrated among the lowest earners: service workers face a 24.3% decline and the bottom wage quartile a 10.7% decline, while top earners show no significant effect.Today, 5.8 million workers are affected, but as AI adoption deepens across corporate America, this figure is likely to grow substantially, with significant implications for income inequality and labor market policy in the years ahead. Only 321 of roughly 800 BLS occupations were matched, and the post-2023 period may be partially confounded by post-pandemic labor market dynamics. [Editor’s note: Figure 3 shows both wage and employment growth and decline among high-exposure workers, but the exposure measure combines automated and augmentative use, and thus cannot distinguish substitution from complementarity.]

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Using observed AI usage data from the Anthropic Economic Index across 321 matched occupations from 2015–2025, the authors estimate that high-exposure occupations saw a 6.7% decline in real wage growth after 2023, with no detectable employment effects.
  2. The estimated wage effects are concentrated among the lowest earners, with service workers facing a 24.3% decline and the bottom wage quartile a 10.7% decline, while top earners show no significant effect.
  3. The authors estimate that 5.8 million workers are affected and expect that figure to grow as AI adoption deepens, while noting that only 321 of roughly 800 BLS occupations were matched and post-2023 results may be partly confounded by post-pandemic labor dynamics.

Related Articles:

  • AI and the Fable of the ATMs — Bank tellers per branch fell steadily as automated teller machines spread, and total teller employment held up only because banking deregulation drove a rise in branch numbers; teller jobs are down nearly 40% from their peak. The author argues invoking this case for AI requires identifying an equivalent offsetting source of labor demand.
  • Looking for the Ladder — The article argues that the hiring downturn in occupations most exposed to generative AI reflects interest-rate sensitivity rather than AI itself, since roughly 38% of workers in the most AI-exposed quintile work in information, finance and insurance, and professional and technical services, versus under 2% in the least-exposed quintile.
  • Technology and the Baby Bust Paradox — Aging populations create structural incentives to automate, and the argument is that demographic change could become one of the strongest long-run drivers of artificial intelligence deployment. Technology-producing economies may benefit twice, offsetting their own labor shortages while exporting automation, robotics, and AI to other aging societies.

AI Summary. The authors find cognitive ability test scores predict capital income, with the gradient in log capital income about 3x steeper than for labor income, and only partly explained by labor earnings. Higher-ability individuals are associated with higher saving rates and higher risk-adjusted returns while holding portfolios with lower systematic risk.

Spencer Bastani, Kristina Karlsson, Jonas Kolsrud and Daniel Waldenström Uppsala University
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Cognitive ability positively predicts capital as well as labor income, with the capital-income gradient ~3x as large in % terms. This reflects both higher saving rates and higher risk-adjusted returns, neither fully explicable by earnings.

Does cognitive ability predict capital income more strongly than labor income?

Core argument: Cognitive ability, measured on a 1–9 test-score scale, predicts capital income, with a log-income gradient roughly three times steeper than the labor income gradient; in rank terms the labor gradient is steeper, because capital income's heavy right tail compresses rank differences.

We document three results. First, cognitive ability predicts capital income. Figure 2 plots mean log income and mean income rank against the nine cognitive ability scores reporting test performance on a 1–9 scale, with both series normalized to zero at the lowest score. In the log specification (Panel a), the capital income gradient is roughly three times steeper than the labor income gradient. In the rank specification (Panel b), the ordering reverses: the labor income gradient is steeper, because the heavy right tail of capital income compresses rank differences. Figure 3 provides a complementary perspective, plotting average cognitive ability across percentiles of the labor and capital income distributions. [The relationship between ability and rank flattens at the top of the labor distribution but strengthens at the top of the capital distribution.] Second, the capital-income gradient is only partially explained by labor income: a decomposition shows that ability is associated with higher saving rates and investment returns through channels beyond labor income. Third, the investment return channel is consistent with skill rather than risk compensation, as high-ability individuals earn higher risk-adjusted excess returns while holding portfolios with lower systematic risk.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Cognitive ability, measured on a 1–9 test-score scale, predicts capital income, with a log-income gradient roughly three times steeper than the labor income gradient; in rank terms the labor gradient is steeper, because capital income's heavy right tail compresses rank differences.
  2. The capital-income gradient is only partially explained by labor income: a decomposition shows cognitive ability is associated with higher saving rates and higher investment returns through channels beyond labor income.
  3. High-ability individuals earn higher risk-adjusted excess returns while holding portfolios with lower systematic risk, a pattern consistent with skill rather than risk compensation.

Related Articles:

  • Cognitive Skills Beyond Childhood — Wages at age 50 rise more steeply with cognitive skills measured at age 16 than with cognitive skills measured at age 50; for women, moving from average to two standard deviations above average raises expected hourly wages from £11 to £22 using age-16 skills, versus £12 to £15 using age-50 skills.
  • Steeper At The Top: Cognitive Ability and Earnings in Finland and Norway — Administrative data on over 350,000 men each in Finland and Norway show a convex relationship between earnings rank and cognitive ability measured by military conscription tests: top-percentile earners score about 1 standard deviation above median earners, who score about 0.5 above bottom-percentile earners. The lowest scores are almost absent among top earners.
  • Toward An Understanding Of The Returns To Cognitive Skills Across Cohorts — The authors find that the estimated decline in labor market returns to pre-labor-market cognitive skills for white men across two U.S. youth cohorts depends critically on the widening and increased left-skewness of the test-score distribution, with declines appearing only at the lower end of that distribution.