Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…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
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…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
  • “…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
  • “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
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. The authors measure US labor market structure since 1880 and find 1990–2017 less disruptive than any earlier period, because past changes from general-purpose technologies like steam and electricity were so profound. They identify four recent signs of accelerating change, including a 50%+ rise in science and technology employment share since 2010.

David Deming, Christopher Ong, and Lawrence Summers National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Citing 25% growth in the STEM share of jobs and 50% drop in retail share since 2010, @ProfDavidDeming and @LHSummers suggest “AI could be a general-purpose technology on the scale of prior disruptive innovations” like steam power and electricity.

Is today's labor market less disruptive than in past technological eras?

Core argument: Measurements of US labor market structure back to 1880 show 1990–2017 as less disruptive than any prior period measured, not because today's job market is stable but because past changes were so profound.

We measure changes in the structure of the US labor market going back over a century. We find, perhaps surprisingly, that the years spanning 1990 to 2017 were less disruptive than any prior period we measure, going back to 1880. This comparative decline is not because the job market is stable today but rather because past changes were so profound. General-purpose technologies (GPTs) like steam power and electricity dramatically disrupted the twentieth-century labor market, but the changes took place over decades. We argue that AI could be a GPT on the scale of prior disruptive innovations, which means it is likely too early to assess its full impacts. Nonetheless, we present four indications that the pace of labor market change has accelerated recently, possibly due to technological change. First, the labor market is no longer polarizing. Second, employment growth has stalled in low-paid service jobs. Third, the share of employment in STEM jobs has increased by more than 50% since 2010, fueled by growth in software and computer-related occupations. Fourth, retail sales employment has declined by 25% in the last decade, likely because of technological improvements in online retail.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Measurements of US labor market structure back to 1880 show 1990–2017 as less disruptive than any prior period measured, not because today's job market is stable but because past changes were so profound.
  2. Four indications suggest labor market change has accelerated: polarization has ended, employment growth has stalled in low-paid service jobs, the STEM employment share has risen more than 50% since 2010, and retail sales employment has fallen 25% in a decade.
  3. The authors argue AI could be a general-purpose technology on the scale of steam power and electricity, whose labor market disruptions unfolded over decades, making it likely too early to assess AI's full impacts.

Related Articles:

  • Technological Disruption in the US Labor Market — The authors present four signs that US labor market change has accelerated, possibly from technology: polarization has ended as low- and middle-paid employment declined while highly paid work grew, low-paid service job growth stalled, the STEM employment share rose over 50%, and retail sales employment fell 25%. They argue artificial intelligence's effects will unfold over decades.
  • The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI — A nationally representative U.S. survey found 39% of people aged 18-64 used generative AI, with more than 24% of workers using it in the prior week and nearly one in nine using it every workday. The authors estimate 0.5-3.5% of U.S. work hours are currently assisted by generative AI.
Showing 96 database articles primarily about Unemployment/Participation