“…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
“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
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“…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
“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 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
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal

Showing 485 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 884

Only articles primarily about these topics 485

Why Is The Labor Share Declining?

Sangmin Aum and Yongseok Shin Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Date Posted:: October 29, 2020
Is Database:: Database

Decline in labor share may be driven by software substituting for workers in cognitive-intensive occupations, particularly since 2000.

The decline in labor share is significantly driven by software substituting for workers in cognitive-intensive occupations, particularly since 2000. Software intensity is the only significant factor affecting labor share in both manufacturing and services, with the latter contributing most to the sharp drop in aggregate labor share post-1990s. The inclusion of IPP [Intellectual Property Products] as capital income has mechanically reduced the labor share, as investment in IPP has grown. Evidence shows that the stagnation of cognitive-intensive occupations aligns with the trend break in labor share around 2000, while routine-intensive occupations contribute to a longer-term decline. This underscores the need to focus on service industries and cognitive occupations to fully understand labor share trends.

Sangmin Aum and Yongseok Shin, “Why Is The Labor Share Declining?” Federal Reserve Bank Of St. Louis Review, Fourth Quarter 2020, https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2020/10/22/why-is-the-labor-share-declining

Software seems to be the key driver“….For manufacturing industries, import competition, computer intensity, and software intensity show significance. However, when all variables are included in the regression…only software intensity remains significant. For services, software intensity is the only variable that shows significance (Table 2).Since the flattening of the labor share in services contributed the most to the sharp drop in the aggregate labor share after the late 1990s, this analysis suggests that software can be an important part of the explanation for the trends in the labor share….”

Core insight, “….Once IPP capital was recognized as investment, it had to be included in value added and in the income account has since been counted as capital income. From the definition of the labor share (4), with a larger denominator but the same numerator, the labor share decreases mechanically. Because investment in IPP capital has been growing in the United States, as shown in Figure 3A, the inclusion of IPP in value added results in the fall of the measured labor share over time. Figure 3B shows the labor share with and without IPP: the green line is the labor share with IPP treated as investment (the current accounting method), and the orange line is the labor share with IPP treated as expenses (the pre-1999 accounting method). Since the labor share without IPP is more or less flat at least until the 2000s, the divergence between the two lines is evidence that IPP is an important factor in the decline of the labor share….”

The theory is starting around 2000 software started substituting for workers in cognitive intensive occupations. So software innovation have and will further reduce the labor income share. Their core evidence is Figure 6. “…From the occupational contributions to the labor share, shown in Figure 6, we see thatthe trend break in the aggregate labor share around 2000 can be entirely attributed to the stagnation of cognitive-intensive occupations, although routine-intensive occupations have been responsible for the gentle, longer-run downward trend….”

Good note published by FRBSL presenting evidence that the fall in labor’s share has been driven by the rise in software investment, which had a larger impact on the service sector (versus manufacturing) and on high skill cognitive occupations, “…the literature emphasizes the gentle decline since the 1980s and has been silent about the more stark fall since 2000. Taking a detailed look at sectors, occupations, and types of capital, we provide evidence that service industries and cognitive occupations merit more attention in order to fully understand the trends in the labor share. In particular, separating software investment from other types of capital promises to be a fruitful avenue for research…”

Ed Comment:“…Good summary and explanation of important papers in this field from each of the relevant perspective. This dovetails with my argument that IT has opened a window of cognitive opportunities that exceeds the supply of talent, talent works to increase the productivity of talent, mainly by writing software. Revenue per cognitive employee increases (and labor’s share goes down). The question is, why hasn’t competition among firms with more productive employees driven down revenues proportionally. The answer I give in the chapter is that you have to be willing suffer a high risk of failure to get equity. The paper also cites a paper I have cited before that says 60% of the decline in labors share is caused by equity grants (and self-owned business income) not counted as labor income. Surely most of that is concentrated in the very cognitive segments showing a decline in labor’s share. …”

The College Wage Premium in the Generative AI Era

José Azar, Mireia Gine and Javier Sanz-Espín Social Science Research Network

Date Posted:: September 4, 2026
Is Database:: Database

The college wage premium flattened in the mid-2010s and has fallen ~8% since 2022. The authors argue that this compression reflects a broad decline in the returns to formal schooling, rather than a decline in the upper tail.

After expanding for four decades, the U.S. college wage premium [dropped] sharply from 0.626 in 2022 to 0.575 in 2026. Current Population Survey data through 2026 implies an unprecedented drop in relative demand for college labor—the first sustained negative relative demand growth. Post-2022 wage growth slowed disproportionately in high-exposure occupations, which employ a disproportionate share of college graduates. By 2026, going from zero occupational AI exposure to full exposure had a negative effect on wages of−0.086. Combined with the college–non-college exposure gap, this mechanism accounts for roughly 28% of the total drop in the college wage premium from 2022 to 2026. While non-causal, these patterns indicate that task displacement in AI-exposed white-collar occupations plays a quantitatively meaningful role in the recent compression of the aggregate skill premium.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

The U.S. college wage premium fell from 0.626 to 0.575 between 2022 and 2026—the first sustained decline in relative demand for college labor after four decades of uninterrupted expansion.
Moving from zero to full occupational AI exposure reduced wages by 0.086 log points by 2026.
the college–non-college AI-exposure gap accounts for roughly 28% of the total premium compression over that period.

Gross and Net US Investment

Timothy Taylor Conversable Economist

Date Posted:: September 4, 2026
Is Database:: Database

U.S. real net private domestic investment—which adds to the American capital stock—is now only ~25% as large as gross investment, down from ~40% in the 1970s. Taylor suggests the widening gap between gross and net investment reflects the relatively rapid depreciation of IT-related capital.

The figure divides net investment by gross investment. Back in the 1970s, net investment was often around 40% of gross investment, but the share has been slumping over time. For the last decade or so, net investment has been about 25% of the gross–that is, about three-quarters of gross investment is just making up for depreciation of the pre-existing capital stock. The likely reason for the growing gap between gross and net investment is that modern investment is more likely to be related to information technology [which] depreciates more rapidly and thus needs to be replaced and updated more often. If we want the average US worker to be using a greater amount of capital on the job–which was one of the key drivers of rising labor productivity in the past–it now takes a bigger rise in gross investment to lead to a given rise in net investment.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Net investment has fallen from ~40% of gross investment in the 1970s to ~25% today, meaning three-quarters of gross investment now merely replaces depreciating capital rather than expanding the productive stock.
The shift toward information technology — which depreciates faster than physical machinery — is the primary driver of the widening gap between gross and net investment.
Raising capital per worker, a historic engine of labor productivity growth, now requires a substantially larger increase in gross investment than it did several decades ago.

The AI Re-Acceleration That Wasn’t

Paul Kedrosky Applied Complexity

Date Posted:: September 3, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Kedrosky argues AI capabilities continue to improve, but “the full composite data shows flattening relative gains, not acceleration…rolling relative model gains have fallen from their 2024 peak, while model dispersion has narrowed sharply.”

Using all Epoch’s Capabilities Index observations, and controlling for developer and model family, there is no statistically significant breakpoint. A piecewise model—which splits the series into intervals and applies a sub-function to each segment—does not improve on a purely linear trend: p = 0.615, The estimated change in slope has a confidence interval of -8.4 to +23.4 points per year. In short, the maths shows there is no model acceleration, contrary to claims, and as expected. The result comes from selecting frontier observations only, choosing a breakpoint, ignoring variance collapse, and fitting separate lines on either side.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Epoch’s Capabilities Index shows no statistically significant AI performance acceleration when controlling for developer and model family, with a breakpoint test returning p = 0.615 and a slope-change confidence interval of -8.4 to +23.4 pts per year.
Claims of AI re-acceleration rest on a methodological artifact: selecting only frontier model observations, pre-choosing a breakpoint, ignoring variance collapse, and fitting separate trend lines on each side of that breakpoint.

Understanding AI and Productivity

Chad Syverson Economic Innovation Group

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

Syverson is skeptical that AI initiated the rise in productivity growth that began in 2023. The acceleration began while AI investment was small, and pandemic-era labor market churn and business dynamism match the acceleration’s start.

Productivity from mid-2022 on has maintained a faster-than-2010s trajectory involving annual growth of about 2.2%. Could this acceleration be due to AI? Perhaps. The timing leans against AI being the sole initial cause. Additionally, there were well-documented increases in economic dynamism (labor market churn and business formation) during the pandemic emergence whose timing matches the acceleration’s start. Regardless of AI’s current effect, the longer the aggregate productivity acceleration continues, the more plausible it is that AI is an important driver. As for the magnitude, a sustained increase from 1.5 to 2.2% annual productivity growth would be substantial (after a decade, GDP per capita would be 7% higher than otherwise), but hardly unprecedented. The 1995–2004 productivity boom saw annual productivity growth of nearly 3% per year, and other past general-purpose-technology-related productivity boosts saw labor productivity growth in excess of 2.5% for a decade or longer.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

U.S. labor productivity has grown at roughly 2.2% annually since mid-2022, a pace exceeding the 2010s trend and, if sustained, implying GDP per capita roughly 7% higher within a decade than the prior trajectory.
The 1995–2004 productivity boom averaged nearly 3.0% annual growth, establishing that a durable AI-driven acceleration to 2.2% would be meaningful but well within historical precedent for general-purpose-technology cycles.
Pandemic-era surges in labor market churn and business formation align more precisely with the productivity acceleration’s start date than AI adoption does, complicating AI-as-sole-cause narratives.

US Widens AI-Driven Investment Gap With Europe

Sam Fleming, Amy Borrett and Olaf Storbeck Financial Times

Date Posted:: August 24, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Oxford Economics projects US real business investment will rise 40% over 2021–2027, ~3x the euro area’s 12%. US investment growth since 2024 has been largely information processing and software, but high US growth in GDP/hour is not “merely digital.”

Corporate spending on new equipment and facilities in the US is projected to increase 40% in real terms between 2021 and the end of next year, according to forecasts from Oxford Economics. The US surge compared with a real-terms increase of just 12% in the euro area, while German business investment is expected to have all but stagnated over the same period. Europe also faces a large and growing productivity gap with the US. “The United States has recently pulled further ahead of Europe,” Bart van Ark, a professor at the University of Manchester, told policymakers at the ECB Forum in Sintra. GDP per hour worked increased $14 in the US between 2018 and 2025, compared with just $2 in Europe. “The gap is not only a digital sector story,” added van Ark, stressing that the US outperformance extended to other sectors, including wholesale and retail as well as professional services.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

U.S. corporate investment in equipment and facilities is projected to rise 40% in real terms between 2021 and end-2026, versus 12% in the euro area and near-zero growth in Germany, sharply widening the transatlantic capital-spending gap.
U.S. labor productivity rose $14 per hour worked between 2018 and 2025, versus $2 in Europe, with outperformance spanning wholesale, retail, and professional services—not solely the digital sector.

Why Big Tech’s AI Spending Is $3 Trillion Higher Than It Seems

Peter Rudegeair and Peter Santilli Wall Street Journal

Date Posted:: August 17, 2026
Is Database:: Database

A WSJ analysis finds 9 firms involved in the data center buildout have ~$3T in off-balance-sheet commitments largely tied to AI infrastructure. The growth in such obligations has outpaced the firms’ capex growth over the last year.

Nine top tech companies had some $3 trillion of off-balance-sheet commitments mostly related to AI, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of footnotes in their most recent securities filings. Those obligations are growing faster than traditional “capex,” which totaled about $600 billion over the past year they reported, and were about triple what the companies owe under their outstanding leases and long-term borrowings.

Decline in labor share may be driven by software substituting for workers in cognitive-intensive occupations, particularly since 2000.

The college wage premium flattened in the mid-2010s and has fallen ~8% since 2022. The authors argue that this compression reflects a broad decline in the returns to formal schooling, rather than a decline in the upper tail.

Is the college degree losing its economic value to artificial intelligence?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

U.S. real net private domestic investment—which adds to the American capital stock—is now only ~25% as large as gross investment, down from ~40% in the 1970s. Taylor suggests the widening gap between gross and net investment reflects the relatively rapid depreciation of IT-related capital.

Does faster asset depreciation explain slowing productivity growth?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Kedrosky argues AI capabilities continue to improve, but “the full composite data shows flattening relative gains, not acceleration…rolling relative model gains have fallen from their 2024 peak, while model dispersion has narrowed sharply.”

Are AI performance gains accelerating or just appearing to through selective measurement?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Syverson is skeptical that AI initiated the rise in productivity growth that began in 2023. The acceleration began while AI investment was small, and pandemic-era labor market churn and business dynamism match the acceleration’s start.

Is AI-driven productivity growth sustainable at historical technology boom levels?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Oxford Economics projects US real business investment will rise 40% over 2021–2027, ~3x the euro area’s 12%. US investment growth since 2024 has been largely information processing and software, but high US growth in GDP/hour is not “merely digital.”

Is artificial intelligence investment widening the transatlantic productivity divide?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

A WSJ analysis finds 9 firms involved in the data center buildout have ~$3T in off-balance-sheet commitments largely tied to AI infrastructure. The growth in such obligations has outpaced the firms’ capex growth over the last year.

Are technology companies hiding the true cost of artificial intelligence?

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