Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “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
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…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
  • “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 offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube
  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
  • Mentions 1,460
  • Primary focus 767
Showing 767 database articles primarily about Workforce
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Workforce
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,206 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: "Workforce", "Demographics", "Education", "Family/Marriage", "Gender Pay Gap", "Immigration", "Inequality", "Minimum Wage", "Poverty/Crime", "Unemployment/Participation", "Wages/Income"):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

The Immigration Rebound

Tim Krupa Goldman Sachs
Date Posted:
January 25, 2023
Is Database:
Database

According to @GoldmanSachs, foreign-born labor force is rebounding from 2.8mm below trend in September 2020 to 1.2mm below trend in March 2022.

Starting in 2019, tighter immigration policies and pandemic disruptions led to a significant decline in the US foreign-born working-age population, with the labor force falling 2.8m below its long-term trend by April 2020. However, by March 2022, this gap had narrowed to 1.2m below trend, indicating a rebound. Over the past 18 months, the foreign-born population has grown by 137k per month, compared to 68k per month from Jan. 2010 to Jan. 2019. Similarly, the foreign-born labor force has expanded by 110k per month, up from 42k per month during the previous period. This resurgence highlights a recovery in the foreign-born labor market, which is crucial for addressing labor shortages and supporting economic growth.

“….Starting in 2019, tighter immigration policies under the Trump Administration followed by pandemic disruptions depressed the US foreign-born working-age population. The foreign-born labor force fell 2.8 million below its long-term trend level in April 2020 and remained 1.2 million below trend in March 2022. In Exhibit 1, the left panel shows the foreign-born population has grown 137k per month in the past 18 months, compared to 68k per month from Jan. 2010 to Jan. 2019. The right panel shows the foreign-born labor force has grown 110k per month in the past 18 months, compared to 42k per month during the prior period…..”

Tim Krupa, “The Immigration Rebound,” Goldman Sachs, January 19, 2023, https://idfs.gs.com/as/authorization.oauth2

  • Workforce
    • Immigration
Previous articleJanuary 25, 2023The Resentment Fueling the Republican Party Is Not Coming from the Suburbs.@Edsall argues that a “white rural red wave” is the driving force of the Republican party today and cites shifts in Wisconsin suburban and rural voting patterns between 2016 and 2022.Next articleJanuary 26, 2023Jason Furman On US GDP Report.@Jasonfurman notes GDP is “basically at CBO’s pre-pandemic forecast.” Consumer spending, which has enjoyed “huge fiscal support in 2020 and 2021,” is running well ahead of the CBO’s pre-pandemic forecast, while residential investment declined by 26.7%/yr.
Showing 766 database articles primarily about either Workforce, Demographics, Education, Family/Marriage, Gender Pay Gap, Immigration, Inequality, Minimum Wage, Poverty/Crime, Unemployment/Participation, or Wages/Income

The Jobs Apocalypse Is Postponed. An AI Jobs Boom Is Here

AI Summary. AI-driven data-center expansion and related professional hiring have added roughly 1.05m jobs above trend since 2022–2023, spanning electrical contracting, equipment manufacturing, software development, and data science. The job gains exceed what broader construction, manufacturing, and professional employment trends would predict.

Economist Staff The Economist
Date Posted:
September 9, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

The Economist estimates that so far the AI boom has created ~1mm new jobs in the US, exceeding their estimate of ~200,000 layoffs attributed to AI since mid-2023.

Is artificial intelligence creating a genuine employment boom or temporary hiring surge?

Core argument: AI-linked demand has generated roughly 730,000 above-trend jobs in engineering, software development, and data science since 2022, substantially outpacing near-term displacement effects.

[We] tracked five industries at the heart of the data-centre build-out, from electrical contracting to equipment manufacturing. Since 2023 employment in them has risen by roughly 320,000 more than broader construction and manufacturing trends would suggest. Not all of those jobs owe their existence to AI—grid upgrades and other factory building matters too. [We also] tracked employment in professional occupations closest to the AI boom—engineers, software developers, mathematicians and data scientists—and compared their growth since 2022 with professional employment overall. These roles have added roughly 730,000 jobs above trend in recent years. AI will not have created every single one of them. But it has almost certainly created quite a few.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. AI-linked demand has generated roughly 730,000 above-trend jobs in engineering, software development, and data science since 2022, substantially outpacing near-term displacement effects.
  2. Data-centre construction has added approximately 320,000 above-trend jobs across electrical contracting and equipment manufacturing since 2023, with grid upgrades and broader factory-building contributing alongside AI demand.

Related Articles:

  • The College Wage Premium in the Generative AI Era — S. 575 between 2022 and 2026, the first sustained decline in relative demand for college-educated labor in four decades. AI exposure in white-collar occupations accounts for roughly 28% of that drop, as wage growth slowed disproportionately in high-AI-exposure jobs where college graduates are concentrated.
  • Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence — Young workers in the most AI-exposed occupations face an employment shortfall ~19% below less-exposed peers, driven by reduced hiring rather than job losses, and concentrated in roles where AI replaces rather than complements human tasks.
  • Looking for the Ladder — The downtick in hiring in AI-exposed occupations started 6 months prior to the release of ChatGPT, and is “perfectly” aligned with the start of Fed rate hikes…
  • Unemployment/Participation
  • Productivity
    • Innovation/Research
    • Investment
  • Workforce

Americans Without College Degrees Are Having One of the Best Job Markets in Years

AI Summary. Non-college workers ages 22–34 are experiencing historically low unemployment relative to their own two-decade range, outperforming college-educated peers on that relative measure. College graduates still hold an absolute advantage, with a 2.7% unemployment rate versus 4.7% for high-school-only workers.

Theo Francis and Ray Smith Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:
September 8, 2026
Is Database:
Database

In 2026, the 12-month moving-average unemployment for college-educated 22–34-year-olds is above its post-2003 mean, while the rate for non-college peers is historically low. Prime-age college grads still have lower unemployment than those with no degree.

Is the job market finally tightening for workers without degrees?

Core argument: Non-college workers ages 22–34 are experiencing one of their strongest job markets in two decades, with unemployment rates near historic lows relative to their own 2003–present range, outperforming their college-educated peers on that relative measure.

The unemployment rate for workers ages 22 to 34 who never graduated from college has rarely been lower in the past two decades. To gauge how the job market has shifted for each cohort, [Gad Levanon, Burning Glass’s chief economist] compared current unemployment rates for the different groups with their own range of unemployment rates since 2003. The analysis included data through July. By that measure, the job market looks much better for blue-collar workers, including those in construction and on manufacturing lines, and manual-service workers. It is [however] still easier to find a job with a college degree. The unemployment rate for degree-holders in their prime working years—ages 25 to 54—averaged 2.7% for the 12 months ending in July - well below the 3.6% rate for workers with just some college education, and 4.7% for people with a high-school diploma only.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Non-college workers ages 22–34 are experiencing one of their strongest job markets in two decades, with unemployment rates near historic lows relative to their own 2003–present range, outperforming their college-educated peers on that relative measure.
  2. On an absolute basis, a college degree still confers a significant labor-market advantage: prime-age degree-holders averaged 2.7% unemployment versus 3.6% for some-college workers and 4.7% for high-school-only workers over the 12 months ending July.

Related Articles:

  • College Grads Struggle to Find Jobs. Non-Grads Are Giving Up — The narrowing unemployment gap between young college graduates and non-graduates reflects rising labor force dropout among non-graduates, not equal job market outcomes; the share of young non-graduates who are employed is 1.7 percentage points below pre-pandemic levels and falling, while graduates are near recovery.
  • To Fix Education, Fix The Economy First — Using OECD skills data and the Luxembourg Income Study, Burn-Murdoch finds US workers at the lowest levels of literacy and numeracy earn ~ on par with British…
  • The College Wage Premium in the Generative AI Era — S. 575 between 2022 and 2026, the first sustained decline in relative demand for college-educated labor in four decades. AI exposure in white-collar occupations accounts for roughly 28% of that drop, as wage growth slowed disproportionately in high-AI-exposure jobs where college graduates are concentrated.
  • Unemployment/Participation
  • Workforce
    • Education
      • College
      • K-12

Recent Trends in Personal Income & Wage Inequality

AI Summary. New York City's top 1% captured nearly two-thirds of real income growth between 2019 and 2024, versus under 40% nationally, driven by capital gains, dividends, and business income rather than wages.

Jonathan Siegel and Jason Bram Office of the New York City Comptroller
Date Posted:
September 8, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Btw 2019 and 2024, pre-tax, pre-transfer real median income in New York City fell 3.2%. The top .1% tax units, ~ households, (mean income ~$24mm) saw real growth of ~25%, whereas the bottom 90% (mean income ~$45,000) fell 0.8%.

Is capital income concentration widening faster in major cities than nationally?

Core argument: Nearly two-thirds of New York City’s real income growth from 2019–2024 accrued to the top 1%, versus under 40% nationally, driven by faster-rising capital gains, dividends, and business income rather than wage divergence.

Between 2019 and 2024, the New York City’s income shares at the top of the distribution rose faster than the nation's, and nearly two-thirds of the real income growth over the period accrued to the top 1%, compared with under 40% nationally. The result also holds when volatile capital gains are excluded. Real median income fell over the period, and real average income for the bottom 90% of tax units was essentially flat. Adjusted for local prices (but not for transfer programs), the purchasing power of income for the lower 90% of New Yorkers is close to one-fifth below that of the bottom 90% nationally. The divergence at the top is predominantly a story of non-wage income. Wage and salary income shows a much milder widening, and occupational wage data that exclude bonuses show base pay growing faster in lower-wage occupations than in higher-wage ones, and within many occupational groups wages are converging rather than growing more unequal.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Nearly two-thirds of New York City’s real income growth from 2019–2024 accrued to the top 1%, versus under 40% nationally, driven by faster-rising capital gains, dividends, and business income rather than wage divergence.
  2. The bottom 90% of New York City earners hold purchasing power roughly one-fifth below their national counterparts after adjusting for local prices, even before accounting for transfer programs.

Related Articles:

  • As New Jobs In Finance Dry Up, New York City’s Fiscal Model Is Wilting — Since January 2020, private sector real hourly earnings have fallen 9% in New York City, while increasing 3% nationally, as large firms based in NYC move jobs…
  • Where is Standard of Living the Highest? Local Prices and the Geography of Consumption — For non-college Americans, high local prices mean lower living standards. “A high school drop-out household moving from the least expensive commuting zone to…
  • The Demographic Trends That Shaped Mamdani’s Win — Voters under the age of 45, 46% of registered voters in New York City, made up ~43% of voters in the mayor’s race. In neighborhoods where the nonwhite…
  • Inequality
  • Politics
  • Workforce
    • Wages/Income

The Heterogeneous Effects of Large and Small Minimum Wage Changes: Evidence Using a Partially Pre-Committed Analysis Plan

AI Summary. Large minimum wage increases reduce employment among young and low-education workers, while small increases have no measurable effect. Four years after enactment, large increases lower employment by ~5 percentage points for workers aged 16–25 without a high school diploma and ~3 percentage points for all workers aged 16–21.

Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Strain American Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
September 3, 2026
Is Database:
Database

While a state-level event study finds no employment effect from small minimum-wage hikes, imputation DiD estimates show that four years after large hikes, employment is ~5pp lower for 16–25-year-olds without a HS degree and ~3pp lower for all 16–21-year-olds.

Do large minimum wage increases harm young workers more than small ones?

Core argument: Large minimum wage increases reduce employment by approximately 5 percentage points among workers aged 16–25 without a high school diploma and 3 percentage points among all workers aged 16–21 within four years of enactment.

Figure 4 reports our imputation difference-in-differences estimates for the effects of small and large minimum wage changes on employment among individuals aged 16–21 and among individuals aged 16–25 with less than a completed high school education. The samples are from the ACS [American Community Survey]. [The data span 2011-2019]. We compare estimates for large versus small increases. The estimates to the left of the vertical dashed lines reveal no concerning evidence of divergent preexisting trends. We find null effects for the states that enacted small minimum wage increases and negative effects for states with large minimum wage increases. By 4 years after the enactment of the first increase, the estimate has approached −5pp for individuals aged 16–25 with less than a completed high school education, and −3pp for the sample of all individuals aged 16–21. [Editor's note: The authors note that Section VIII of the paper, which contains the Figure 4 imputation DiD estimates, “presents estimates from a modern difference-in-differences estimator that falls outside of our pre-analysis plan.”  The results are somewhat larger than those reported in the Abstract.]

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Large minimum wage increases reduce employment by approximately 5 percentage points among workers aged 16–25 without a high school diploma and 3 percentage points among all workers aged 16–21 within four years of enactment.
  2. small increases produce no measurable employment effect.
  3. Disemployment from minimum wage increases is concentrated among the least-educated young workers and emerges only above a magnitude threshold, identifying wage-floor size—not the policy itself—as the decisive driver of employment loss.

Related Articles:

  • The Heterogeneous Effects of Large and Small Minimum Wage Changes on Hours Worked: Evidence Using a Partially Pre-committed Analysis Plan — In CPS data from 2011–2019, relatively large statutory increases in the minimum wage reduced hours for workers, ages 16–25 with less than a high school…
  • Did California’s Fast Food Minimum Wage Reduce Employment? — The 2024 rise in CA’s minimum wage in fast food restaurants from $16 to $20 raised the sector’s wages ~8% and lowered its employment by 2 to 4% relative to the…
  • Minimum Wages and the Rise of the Robots — Across US states, a 10pp higher growth rate of the minimum wage over 1992–2021 was associated with an ~8% higher-than-expected installation of industrial…
  • Minimum Wage
  • Workforce
    • Unemployment/Participation

Falling Fertility: The Changing Value of Freedom, Fulfillment, and Family

AI Summary. Across wealthy countries, intended fertility and ideal family size fell over the past decade as children came to be seen as constraining freedom rather than conferring status or fulfillment.

Raquel Fernández, Inés Berniell and Milagros Onofri National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
September 2, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Fernández et al. cast doubt on Goldin’s hypothesis that men’s limited willingness to share domestic responsibilities is central to fertility decline, pointing instead to the erosion of the belief that children are necessary for a fulfilling life.

Does freedom from family obligations now outweigh the fulfillment children provide?

Figure 1 documents how fertility outcomes and attitudes changed over the decade. Intended fertility fell in every GGS country, from 28 to 21% on average (Figure 1a). The ideal number of children fell in 17 of the 22 ISSP countries, from 2.42 to 2.31 on average (Figure 1b). [Children] became more likely to be seen as constraining parental freedom and less likely to be seen as conferring status (Figure 1c). Gender roles became less traditional, and the division of household work became more equal [Figures 1i]. Despite this greater sharing of chores and care, work–family conflict rose sharply. The decade saw changes that might have been expected to make the burden of children lighter, at least for women. Simultaneously, however, children became less attractive and, above all, less necessary: the belief that a fulfilled life requires children lost more ground than any attitude we measure [Table 2, Part II, Panel B].

Related Articles:

  • The Rise of Female Autonomy and the Decline of Fertility: The Role of Mismatch — In countries where women perform significantly more household and care work than men, fertility rates are substantially lower; nations with near-equal domestic labor splits average fertility rates around 1.7, while those with gaps exceeding 3 hours daily average rates below 1.4.
  • Babies and the Macroeconomy — .@PikaGold notes countries with birth rates now below 1.3 saw “rapid growth in GDP per capita after a long period of stagnation or decline” as women’s new…
  • The Demographic Future of Humanity: Facts and Consequences — The world’s 2024 total fertility rate (TFR) was likely ~2.17, below the replacement rate of 2.21, notes Jesús Fernández-Villaverde, intensifying…
  • Demographics
  • Workforce
    • Family/Marriage

How Many Big Macs Does Your Salary Buy?

AI Summary. U.S. workers earn the most Big Macs annually (10,215), but Swiss workers lead on an hourly basis at 7 Big Macs per hour versus the U.S. at 6, reflecting longer American working hours rather than higher hourly wages.

Economist Staff The Economist
Date Posted:
September 2, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

The Economist’s venerable Big Mac Index is indicative of significantly higher after-tax, PPP-adjusted wages for American workers than for their French and German counterparts.

Does working longer hours mask stagnant American wage growth?

Core argument: American workers earn the equivalent of 10,215 Big Macs annually, topping global McWage rankings, but longer working hours reduce U.S. hourly purchasing power to six Big Macs per hour, behind Switzerland’s seven.

On an annual basis, America continues to top our McWages rankings. The average American worker earns enough to buy 10,215 Big Macs a year; Switzerland and Australia are in second and third place, respectively. But American working hours are supersized, too. On an hourly basis, Switzerland comes out on top: the average worker there earns the equivalent of seven Big Macs an hour, compared with America’s six. Australia ranks third, at five burgers for every hour worked.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. American workers earn the equivalent of 10,215 Big Macs annually, topping global McWage rankings, but longer working hours reduce U.S. hourly purchasing power to six Big Macs per hour, behind Switzerland’s seven.
  2. Switzerland leads all nations in hourly McWage purchasing power at seven Big Macs per hour, with Australia third at five, demonstrating that top annual earnings and top hourly compensation do not always coincide.

Related Articles:

  • The Big Mac Index At 40 — Global currency misalignments are at their widest since the mid-1990s, driven by post-2021 U.S. inflation, an undervalued Chinese currency, and a weakening Japanese yen that has made consumer goods cheaper in Japan than in China.
  • Why Do Americans No Longer Work So Much More Than Non-Americans? — The gap in hours worked between Americans and non-Americans has narrowed by half since the 1990s, driven by declining U.S. work hours as expanded government health benefits reduced the need to work, while rising wages and lower barriers to employment increased hours worked in other advanced economies.
  • Ed Conard Debates Furman On “The Expected Value of Risk Taking” — I debate @JasonFurman—Pres. Obama’s Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors—at Harvard over the effect of tax increases on the expected value of innovative…
  • Wages/Income
  • Workforce
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms