“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“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
“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 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
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“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
“…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 fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute

Showing 490 database articles primarily about Productivity

Currently filtering by:

Remove Productivity

Remove "primary topics only" restriction

Remove 'Database'

For whatever topics you select (currently: "Productivity", "Cronyism", "Incentives/Risk-Taking", "Innovation/Research", "Institutional Capabilities", "Intangibles", "Investment", "Startups", "Workforce Reorganization"):

Include articles that mention these topics 892

Only articles primarily about these topics 490

Is Employment Polarization Informative About Wage Inequality and Is Employment Really Polarizing?

Jennifer Hunt National Bureau of Economic Research

Date Posted:: July 18, 2019
Is Database:: Database

Analysis by @JenniferHunt shows that the “hollowing out” of middle-income jobs is driven by demand for high-wage workers, not middle-wage workers becoming low-wage workers. Data suggests upward mobility, contradicting employment polarization.

Analysis reveals that the "hollowing out" of middle-income jobs is primarily driven by increased demand for high-wage workers rather than middle-wage workers transitioning to low-wage roles. Data from the CPS [Current Population Survey] shows a consistent decline in the share of middle-wage earners since 1973, with the shares of workers in high and low wage categories moving in opposite directions. This trend suggests upward mobility, as more workers move from middle to high wage brackets, contradicting the notion of employment polarization. The study also challenges the idea that computerization and automation are the main drivers of rising wage inequality, highlighting that most wage inequality occurs within occupations rather than between them. The findings indicate that while low-wage occupations have grown, the share of low-wage workers has decreased over time, emphasizing the complexity of labor market dynamics.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Current Population Survey data show the share of middle-wage earners declining consistently since 1973, with high- and low-wage shares moving in opposite directions, which the analysis attributes primarily to rising demand for high-wage workers.
The analysis argues the decline in middle-wage employment reflects upward mobility, as more workers move from middle- to high-wage brackets, rather than employment polarization.
The study challenges the view that computerization and automation are the main drivers of rising wage inequality, arguing that most wage inequality occurs within occupations rather than between them.

new NBER reinforces that the "hollowing out" of middle income jobs has been driven by demand for more high wage workers, not previous middle wage workers becoming low wage workers. paper also"....rule out the hypothesis that computerization and automation lie behind rising wage inequality...."

"...We reexamine whether U.S. workers are increasingly concentrated in both low and high wage jobs, a phenomenon known as employment polarization. We depart from most previous literature, which equates a job with an occupation, by instead considering jobs at the individual level. By assigning workers in the CPS to real hourly wage bins with time-invariant thresholds and tracking over time the shares of workers in each,we find a steady decline since 1973 in the share of workers earning middle wages, consistent with occupation based analysis. However, we find that both over the business cycle and the longer run, the shares of workers in the top and bottom bins move in opposite directions, inconsistent with employment polarization.....On the one hand, the displacement of workers from middle wage occupations to low wage occupations increases supply of low wage workers; on the other hand, demand for low wage services may rise with the rising numbers of the high wage workers.....Grouping workers into four time invariant bins defined only by workers' wages, we do find a steady decline in the share of workers in the middle two wage groups, but one that belies offsetting forces that vary over time and by gender, variously reflecting either upward mobility (workers moving faster from the middle to the top than from the bottom to the middle) or downward mobility (workers moving faster from the middle to the bottom than from the top to the middle), but not employment polarization....However, the shares of workers in the top and bottom groups generally move in opposite directions over the longer term as well, with the share in the top group rising markedly and the share in the bottom falling slightly. The patterns are very similar with ten wage bins rather than four...The slight downward trend in the share of workers with low wages could in principle coexist with the growing employment share of low wage occupations found in the literature: we show that the share of low wage occupation workers with low wages falls greatly with time. However, we also show that the share of employment in low wage occupations is trending up only from 2002-2012, and that the apparent earlier growth found in the literature is an artifact of unbridgeable changes in occupation codes. The late emergence of occupation based polarization is inconsistent with the explanation that computerization and automation have caused both employment polarization and rising wage inequality, unless underlying occupation based employment polarization in earlier periods was masked by human capital driven occupational upgrading of workers. We demonstrate that even absent breaks in occupation codes, occupation mean wages are unsuitable for the analysis of wage inequality: most of the increase in wage inequality is within and not between occupation; occupation mean wages do not capture the bottom of the individual wage distribution; and middle{wage workers are distributed widely across occupations. Computerization and automation may be increasing wage inequality, but the hypothesis cannot be studied through the lens of occupations and does not find support in our analysis...."

Jennifer Hunt and Ryan Nunn, "Is Employment Polarization Informative About Wage Inequality and Is Employment Really Polarizing?," National Bureau of Economic Research, July 2019, https://www.nber.org/papers/w26064

How Much Revenue Does The AI Buildout Need In 2030?

William Gildea and Azeem Azhar Exponential View

Date Posted:: October 1, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Beginning with capex projections, Gildea/Azhar derive for their high-growth case a $1.3T annual AI-infrastructure revenue hurdle for 2030. This covers $771B of depreciation and operating costs, plus a 15% return on $3.5T of net capital in service.

We estimate AI CapEx to be $560B in 2026, 64% of the total declared by the hyperscalers. Unfinished facilities can’t generate revenue, so the investment bill and the productive asset base will grow at different speeds. [In the high investment case], by 2030 we see $3.5T of net AI capital in service. The largest component [of the revenue hurdle] is the $555B in compute depreciation. We model lifespans at the current 5-6 years. Shell depreciation and OpEx combined contribute about a further $216B to the required revenue hurdle. [Adding a 15% return on net capital brings required annual infrastructure revenue to $1.3T]. Reaching the $1.3T hurdle would represent 7.4x growth (59% CAGR) from today’s annualized revenues. For its customers to earn 30-50% gross margins, downstream revenues need to be $1.9-2.6T. [Editor’s note: Van Nieuwerburgh’s far larger figure of $3.7T covers mature revenues from projects completed through 2032, using commissioning capital and a 50% infrastructure operating cash-flow margin. This estimate instead charges depreciation and operating costs plus 15% on net capital in service in 2030. Different horizons and cost conventions prevent a direct comparison. Van Nieuwerburgh also has a much higher capex estimate.]

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

In a high investment case with $3.5tn of net AI capital in service, the authors estimate AI infrastructure must generate $1.3tn of annual revenue by 2030, requiring 7.4x growth (59% CAGR) from today’s annualized revenues.
Compute depreciation of $555bn, modeled on 5-6 year lifespans, is the largest component of the 2030 revenue hurdle, with shell depreciation and operating expenses adding about $216bn and a 15% return on net capital completing the $1.3tn total.

AI and Entrepreneurship: What is Really Happening?

Nathan Goldschlag Economic Innovation Group

Date Posted:: September 30, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Nathan Goldschlag finds that available federal data do not yet establish that AI is boosting entrepreneurship. “Across different cuts of the data, there is no clear evidence of AI affecting entrepreneurship, either for likely employers or nonemployers.”

Employer entrepreneurship is at best rising modestly, and at worst has been falling for several years already. The number of business applications likely to become an employer business was flat in 2025 and began rising in 2026. Fewer of those applications have been the kind that have the highest chance of becoming an employer. Nonemployer entrepreneurship, or “solopreneurship,” is likely rising, but not as the main job of the solopreneurs. These are probably side hustles. Likely nonemployer business applications rose significantly in 2025 and early 2026. But the share of workers claiming to be self-employed nonemployers in their main job — in other words, business owners with no employees — is flat (though noisy). AI-intensive sectors and industries are no exception. Establishment entry in AI-intensive sectors (information and professional services) has been flat or falling in recent years.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Business applications likely to become employer businesses were flat in 2025 and began rising in 2026, with fewer applications of the kind having the highest chance of becoming an employer business.
Likely nonemployer business applications rose significantly in 2025 and early 2026, going vertical in the most AI-intensive sectors of information and professional services, while other sectors kept pace until early 2026 and then flattened.
The share of workers reporting self-employment as nonemployers in their main job is flat, though noisy, including among workers in AI-exposed occupations in 2025 and early 2026.

Tech's Trillion-Dollar Internal Inconsistency

Torsten Sløk Apollo

Date Posted:: September 29, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Tech analysts expect sector operating cash flow to more than double to ~$2.4T by 2028. Analysts covering other S&P 500 sectors (tech’s customers) see far less cash growth in their sectors. Slok “raises the question of who exactly will be writing all those checks to buy AI services.”

Wall Street equity analysts work in sector silos, and when you add up their forecasts, the numbers are internally inconsistent. The analysts covering tech expect the sector's operating cash flow to more than double to roughly $2.4 trillion by 2028, an increase of over $1.2 trillion. Meanwhile, the analysts covering the other sectors in the S&P 500, which are tech's customers, expect those companies to add much less operating cash flow. In other words, the tech silo is betting on a future in which demand for AI and tech services explodes, while the silos covering the companies that would pay for those services see a much more modest outlook. Both cannot be right at the same time. The bottom line is that either tech's customers will generate a lot more cash than their analysts expect, or tech's cash flow forecasts are too optimistic, which raises the question of who exactly will be writing all those checks to buy AI services.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Analysts covering the tech sector expect its operating cash flow to more than double to roughly $2.4tn by 2028, an increase of over $1.2tn.
Analysts covering the other S&P 500 sectors, which are tech's customers, expect those companies to add much less operating cash flow, leaving the combined forecasts internally inconsistent.
Either tech's customers will generate much more cash than their analysts expect, or tech's cash flow forecasts are too optimistic, which raises the question of who will pay for AI services.

Nine Percent of GDP

Hanno Lustig The Two Cents

Date Posted:: September 28, 2026
Is Database:: Database

The US AI-buildout is projected to average ~3.6% of GDP over 2025–32. Lustig notes data-center operators will need ~$3.725T in annual compute revenue by 2032, 9.2% of projected GDP, to earn a 10% unlevered return on the buildout.

What do you have to believe about future revenue in order for all data center owners to to break even on their AI investment? Using a 10% discount rate, Stijn’s baseline number is 3.725 trillion of annual revenue by 2032, which would amount to roughly 9.2% of projected 2032 GDP. This number is the top line earned from selling compute in aggregate by whoever operates the 182.7 GW of US capacity completed by 2032.2. The assumptions behind that number: 183 GW of U.S. data-center capacity completed between 2025 and 2032. $8.54 trillion of construction cost, grossed up to a $9.61 trillion capital base to account for the return on capital tied up during construction. A 10% discount rate. A 6-year life for IT equipment (68% of cost) and a 20-year life for everything else (32%). A 50% operating cash flow margin.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Stijn’s baseline estimate holds that data center owners would need $3.725 trillion of annual revenue by 2032 — roughly 9.2% of projected 2032 GDP — to break even on AI investment at a 10% discount rate.
The break-even calculation assumes 183 GW of U.S. data-center capacity completed between 2025 and 2032 at $8.54 trillion of construction cost, grossed up to a $9.61 trillion capital base for return on capital tied up during construction.
The estimate assumes a 6-year life for IT equipment, which accounts for 68% of cost, a 20-year life for the remaining 32%, and a 50% operating cash flow margin.

Financing the AI Buildout

Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh Brookings Papers on Economic Activity

Date Posted:: September 24, 2026
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.

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.

Moonshot Capitalism: AI Rewrites The Venture Capital Playbook

Tim Bradshaw Financial Times

Date Posted:: September 10, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Since the start of 2024, more than $150B of venture capital has been invested into non-AI “deep tech” firms whose products are rooted in significant engineering advances, exceeding the $133B invested in such firms btw 2010 and 2019.

The AI boom is fuelling a resurgence in ambitious “moonshot” bets, as early SpaceX backers’ huge returns and falling valuations for traditional software companies force tech investors to embrace riskier and more capital-intensive dealmaking. Excluding the giant sums ploughed into AI start-ups, global investment in “deep tech” — companies whose products are rooted in big scientific or engineering advances — has exceeded $150bn since the start of 2024, more than the $133bn in the entire decade to the end of 2019, according to Dealroom. This year’s deep-tech investments have not yet surpassed 2021’s peak, which was propelled by battery and electric vehicle deals for the likes of Rivian and Northvolt — many of which turned sour, highlighting the risks involved in moonshot dealmaking.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Global "deep tech" investment excluding AI start-ups has exceeded $150bn since the start of 2024, more than the $133bn invested in the entire decade through 2019, according to Dealroom.
Huge returns for early SpaceX backers and falling valuations for traditional software companies are pushing tech investors toward riskier, more capital-intensive "moonshot" dealmaking.
Deep-tech investment has not yet surpassed the 2021 peak, which was propelled by battery and electric vehicle deals for companies such as Rivian and Northvolt, many of which turned sour.

Analysis by @JenniferHunt shows that the “hollowing out” of middle-income jobs is driven by demand for high-wage workers, not middle-wage workers becoming low-wage workers. Data suggests upward mobility, contradicting employment polarization.

Does shrinking middle-wage employment reflect rising demand for high-wage workers?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Beginning with capex projections, Gildea/Azhar derive for their high-growth case a $1.3T annual AI-infrastructure revenue hurdle for 2030. This covers $771B of depreciation and operating costs, plus a 15% return on $3.5T of net capital in service.

How much annual revenue must AI infrastructure generate to justify investment?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Nathan Goldschlag finds that available federal data do not yet establish that AI is boosting entrepreneurship. “Across different cuts of the data, there is no clear evidence of AI affecting entrepreneurship, either for likely employers or nonemployers.”

Is AI driving a boom in new employer businesses?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Tech analysts expect sector operating cash flow to more than double to ~$2.4T by 2028. Analysts covering other S&P 500 sectors (tech’s customers) see far less cash growth in their sectors. Slok “raises the question of who exactly will be writing all those checks to buy AI services.”

Are tech cash flow forecasts inconsistent with customers' projected growth?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

The US AI-buildout is projected to average ~3.6% of GDP over 2025–32. Lustig notes data-center operators will need ~$3.725T in annual compute revenue by 2032, 9.2% of projected GDP, to earn a 10% unlevered return on the buildout.

How much annual revenue must AI data centers generate to break even?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

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?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Since the start of 2024, more than $150B of venture capital has been invested into non-AI “deep tech” firms whose products are rooted in significant engineering advances, exceeding the $133B invested in such firms btw 2010 and 2019.

Is the AI boom pushing venture capital toward riskier moonshot bets?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI