Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “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 comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…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 very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard 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
  • “…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 fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
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 450
  • Primary focus 75
Showing 75 database articles primarily about Growth
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Growth
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,315 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Growth):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

The Impact of the Chinese Exclusion Act on the Economic Development of the Western U.S.

AI Summary. The authors estimate that U.S. counties with larger Chinese population shares before the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese laborers from entry and Chinese immigrants from naturalization, saw increasingly negative effects on both Chinese and white labor supply after its passage. Declines in manufacturing output and the number of establishments followed the labor declines.

Joe Long, Carlo Medici, Nancy Qian, and Marco Tabellini National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
October 9, 2024

The Exclusion Act reduced Chinese labor supply in the U.S. by 64%, the number of manufacturing establishments by 54-69%, and total manufacturing output by 62%. It “slowed economic growth in western states until at least 1940.” @carlomedici

Did excluding Chinese immigrants reduce white labor supply and manufacturing output?

Core argument: Counties with higher Chinese population shares on the eve of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act show increasingly negative estimated effects on white and total labor supply after the Act, with coefficients at zero beforehand.

The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act barred all China-born “laborers” from entering the United States and all individuals of Chinese ethnicity from naturalization for ten years. [It] was renewed for ten more years in 1892, made indefinite in 1902 [and] repealed in 1943. We exploit two sources of variation: time variation in the introduction of the Act and cross-sectional variation ina county’s Chinese population share on the eve of the Act. The latter influences the intensity of treatment: counties with a higher Chinese population share will be more affected by the Act than counties with fewer Chinese immigrants. To understand the evolution of the effects, we estimate a dynamic specification. Figure 3a presents the estimates for the labor supply of Chinese, white and all races. For white and all labor, the coefficients are zero prior to the Act and become increasingly negative afterwards. The timing of the trend break coincides with the Act. Figure 3c plots the estimates for total manufacturing output and the number of establishments. The negative effects on manufacturing trail the negative effects on labor. We find no evidence of pre-trends.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Counties with higher Chinese population shares on the eve of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act show increasingly negative estimated effects on white and total labor supply after the Act, with coefficients at zero beforehand.
  2. Estimates show negative effects on total manufacturing output and the number of establishments that trail the negative labor supply effects, with no evidence of pre-trends.
  3. The Chinese Exclusion Act barred China-born laborers from entry and all individuals of Chinese ethnicity from naturalization for ten years, was renewed in 1892, made indefinite in 1902, and repealed in 1943.

Related Articles:

  • Creating and Connecting US and China Science: Chinese Diaspora and Returnee Researchers — The authors estimate that China-born researchers working in the US contributed to 27% of US-addressed scientific papers, while China-born researchers with US experience who returned home contributed to 38% of China-addressed papers. Papers with these authors averaged more citations and appeared more often in high-impact journals than other papers.
  • The Global AI Talent Tracker 2.0 — The United States remains the leading destination for the world's most elite AI talent and hosts 60% of top AI institutions. China's share of top AI researchers working domestically rose from 29% in 2019 to 47% in 2022, and India retained one-fifth of its top AI researchers in 2022 versus nearly none in 2019.
  • Top Talent, Elite Colleges, and Migration: Evidence from the Indian Institutes of Technology — Among top scorers on India's Joint Entrance Exam for the Indian Institutes of Technology, 62% of the top 100 and 36% of the top 1,000 migrated abroad within eight years, primarily to the U.S. for graduate school. The authors argue elite schools shape migration by signaling ability and providing access to networks.
  • Growth
  • GDP
  • Workforce
    • Immigration
Previous articleOctober 8, 2024Poll Finds Harris Rising as She Challenges Trump on ChangeNYT/Siena finds the race for the White House remains a dead heat with Harris leading Trump by 3pp nationally, within the poll’s margin of error. Trump is leading by 13pp in Florida.Next articleOctober 9, 2024Playing with Fire: The Interest Coverage of US Federal Government Revenues.@joshrauh forecasts that “if the average interest rate the federal government paid on its debt crept up to just 4.4%,” interest payments would exceed 29.7% of federal revenue in 2034. He argues the US is “playing with fire.”
Showing 74 database articles primarily about Growth

Higher Utilisation Explains The Recent Surge In Productivity Growth

AI Summary. Measured total factor productivity growth is estimated to come almost entirely from higher input utilisation rather than underlying efficiency gains, based on a method that infers unobserved capital and labour utilisation from movements in hours per worker. On this evidence, recent productivity gains reflect "working harder" rather than "working smarter.

Shane Boyle, John Fernald and Huiyu Li Center For Economic and Policy Research
Date Posted:
August 5, 2026
Is Database:
Database

US labor productivity has accelerated, with output per hour growing at a mean annual rate of 2.5% btw 2023–2026Q1, ~1pp above its 2005–2019 pace. The gains have largely been driven by higher input utilisation, which is ‘inherently temporary.”

Does higher input utilisation explain recent measured productivity growth?

Core argument: Since the beginning of 2024, utilisation growth accounts for essentially all measured total factor productivity growth, suggesting the measured productivity gains derive from "working harder" rather than "smarter".

Input utilisation is not observed directly for the entire economy;  it must be inferred. Consider a firm that wants to meet strong demand but has a given capital stock, workforce, and technology. It can ask its existing workers to work longer (which we observe). It can also run its capital longer. Each margin is costly, for example, overtime pay, so firms typically use all of them at once. The observed margin serves as a proxy for the unobserved ones. The method infers changes in industry utilisation from observed movements in hours per worker, scaled by an estimated pass-through of those movements into labour productivity. Industry estimates are aggregated using Domar weights, which reflect each industry’s importance. The stacked bars in Figure 2 show measured TFP growth split into [Fernald's] measure of utilisation growth in light grey and utilisation-adjusted TFP growth in dark grey. In 2023, utilisation growth was a drag on measured TFP growth, and utilisation-adjusted TFP growth soared. Since the beginning of 2024, however, utilisation accounts for essentially all TFP growth. For now, the measured productivity gains appear to derive from “working harder” rather than “smarter.”

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Since the beginning of 2024, utilisation growth accounts for essentially all measured total factor productivity growth, suggesting the measured productivity gains derive from "working harder" rather than "smarter".
  2. In 2023, utilisation growth was a drag on measured TFP growth while utilisation-adjusted TFP growth soared, according to Fernald's decomposition of measured TFP.
  3. Economy-wide input utilisation is not observed directly and is inferred from movements in hours per worker, scaled by an estimated pass-through into labour productivity, with industry estimates aggregated using Domar weights.

Related Articles:

  • Productivity During and Since the Pandemic — Total factor productivity growth since early 2021 has run only slightly above its 2010–19 average, suggesting the 2020 productivity surge reflected cyclical dynamics layered on a continuation of the slow pre-pandemic trend. Productivity has since grown somewhat faster than the authors' analysis predicted, but remains well below the 1995–2004 pace.
  • The Impact of AI on the U.S. Labor Market — 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.
  • Why Wages And Productivity Look Set To Diverge Further — In the US, Europe and Japan, pay growth has decoupled from productivity growth, with productivity pulling ahead. US labor productivity, measured as real GDP per hour worked, is more than 5x its 1947 level while real hourly compensation is only about 3x, and median wage growth lags even further behind.
  • Growth
  • GDP
  • Productivity

Why Wages And Productivity Look Set To Diverge Further

AI Summary. In the US, Europe and Japan, pay growth has decoupled from productivity growth, with productivity pulling ahead. US labor productivity, measured as real GDP per hour worked, is more than 5x its 1947 level while real hourly compensation is only about 3x, and median wage growth lags even further behind.

Joel Suss Financial Times
Date Posted:
July 27, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

In advanced economies, increases in labor productivity growth have decoupled from real wage growth, especially post-1980.

Are wages falling further behind productivity growth in advanced economies?

Core argument: US labour productivity, measured as real GDP per hour worked, is more than five times its 1947 level, while real hourly compensation is only about three times greater.

In the US, Europe and Japan, pay growth has decoupled from productivity growth, with the latter having pulled ahead. US Labour productivity — measured as real GDP per hour worked — is now more than five times greater than in 1947, whereas real hourly compensation is only about three times greater. Median wage growth has lagged even further behind productivity growth, with inequality pushing the average wage higher than the median. (The figures above show average rather than median wages; plotting median wages would show an even greater divergence.)

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. US labour productivity, measured as real GDP per hour worked, is more than five times its 1947 level, while real hourly compensation is only about three times greater.
  2. Pay growth has decoupled from productivity growth in the US, Europe and Japan, with productivity pulling ahead in all three.
  3. Median wage growth has lagged productivity growth by even more than average wage growth, as inequality pushes the average wage above the median.

Related Articles:

  • 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 and Productivity — The recent pickup in US labor productivity appears driven by higher utilization of existing capital—running factories, server racks, and hotel rooms harder—rather than by firm-level efficiency gains from AI. Adoption remains too thin and the cross-sectional evidence too weak to conclude that AI-driven productivity gains are already widespread.
  • Understanding Trends in Worker Pay over the Past 50 Years — Productivity growth has been unequal across industries, across firms within industries, and across workers within firms, slowing growth in both the productivity and the pay of the median worker. The authors argue that working- and middle-class men earlier received "breadwinner rents"—pay above their marginal value to employers—and then endured slow wage growth as women's workforce participation rose.
  • Growth
  • Productivity
  • Workforce
    • Inequality
    • Wages/Income

What the World Cup Revealed About America

AI Summary. About 73m US households hold retirement accounts, mostly defined-contribution plans whose balances have risen $6.7tn, and 45m households account for nearly $15tn in annual outlays, close to 3x Germany's economy and 70% of China's GDP. This group's spending has sustained faster growth than comparably wealthy economies.

Jason Thomas Carlyle
Date Posted:
July 21, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Citing the spending of the top 45mm US households, Jason Thomas argues that US economic growth could be characterized less as ‘k-shaped’ than “travelling at two speeds, one roughly the same rate as Europe’s and another that’s racing far ahead.”

Does retirement wealth explain why US spending outpaces peer economies?

Core argument: Balances in US defined-contribution retirement plans have risen by $6.7tn since the start of 2019, a 12.7% annually compounded gain, with roughly 73 million US households holding retirement accounts.

Roughly 73 million US households have retirement accounts (primarily defined-contribution plans like 401ks) that consist primarily of claims on businesses whose revenue growth and market values provide another hedge against inflation. Balances in defined contribution plans have increased by $6.7 trillion (+12.7%, annually compounded) since the start of 2019. US personal savings rates have fallen sharply over the past year (from 5.5% in April 2025 to 3% in May 2026) but that seems entirely rational. If your retirement balance is far above where you expected it to be, why not spend a bit more of your current income than previously intended? If we net across these overlapping cohorts and exclude recent first-time home purchases, we’re left with 45 million households that combine to account for nearly $15 trillion in annual outlays. That’s an extraordinary sum, equal to nearly 3x the size of the entire German economy and 70% of the GDP of China. And this third of the population has not only been insulated from the inflation shock but also exhibits the propensity to spend out of wealth and income to an extent that’s sustained a far higher rate of GDP growth than observed in economies with comparable living standards.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Balances in US defined-contribution retirement plans have risen by $6.7tn since the start of 2019, a 12.7% annually compounded gain, with roughly 73 million US households holding retirement accounts.
  2. Netting overlapping cohorts and excluding recent first-time home purchases leaves 45 million US households accounting for nearly $15tn in annual outlays, equal to nearly 3x the German economy and 70% of China's GDP.
  3. The US personal savings rate fell from 5.5% in April 2025 to 3% in May 2026, a decline the article argues is rational when retirement balances sit far above expectations.

Related Articles:

  • K-Shaped Economy? — Available spending data does not support the narrative of a bifurcated "K-shaped" consumer economy: surveys show households earning under $50,000 reported spending growth of 5%, versus 4.6% for those earning over $100,000. Government data show the top income decile's share of aggregate spending at 22.8%, down from 23.4% a year earlier.
  • The K-Shaped Economy’s Defining Statistic Has Some Problems — The widely cited estimate that the top 10% of US earners account for 45% of consumer spending comes from a method combining Federal Reserve survey and financial-accounts data. Its author says he is more confident in the trajectory—a significant, consistent rise in the top 10% and 20% shares over 30–35 years—than the level.
  • The Two Europes — The International Monetary Fund projects Eastern European economies will close much of the gap with US per capita GDP — Poland from 34% to 67%, Romania 27% to 60%, Lithuania 29% to 69% — while Western Europe slips, with France falling from 86% to 71% and Italy from 93% to 68%.
  • Growth
  • GDP
  • Politics
  • Workforce
    • Inequality

Cataloging Growth: A Re-Evaluation of 1900–1990

AI Summary. Using 5.1m product listings from Sears catalogs, the authors construct a quality-adjusted price index implying much lower goods inflation for 1900–1990 than standard deflators, with real goods consumption growing 39x rather than 10.3x. They estimate faster growth before World War II (5.4% a year, 1900–1939) than after (4.2%, 1946–1980).

Verónica Bäcker-Peral and Benjamin Wittenbrink Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date Posted:
July 20, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Using 5.1mm Sears catalog listings and LLM-based hedonic estimation, this study finds real goods consumption grew 39-fold from 1900 to 1990, not 10.3-fold as official data imply, with the largest mismeasurement concentrated before WWII.

Does quality-adjusted pricing show faster goods consumption growth before the war?

Core argument: Using a quality-adjusted price index built from 5.1 million Sears catalog listings, the authors estimate real goods consumption grew by a factor of 39 between 1900 and 1990, compared with a factor of 10.3 using standard goods deflators.

Measuring real GDP growth requires distinguishing changes in prices from changes in product quality... systematic quality adjustment. price indexes are unavailable for much of the twentieth century. We construct a new quality-adjusted price index using 5.1 million product listings from Sears catalogs, 1900–1990. The resulting cost-of-living index implies substantially lower goods inflation than conventional deflators between 1900 and 1990, real goods consumption grew by a factor of 39 using our index,compared with a factor of 10.3 using standard goods deflators. Figure 5 shows our estimates of the cost-of-living index for consumer goods in the solid red line. The dashed black line shows average cumulated price changes for the same sample of consumer goods. The gap.is largest before World War II, reversing the conventional view that goods consumption growth was slower before 1945 than in the post-war decades.As Gordon puts it, 'the history of price changes from 1914 to 1947 [is] the black hole where little is known.' This paper sheds light on that black hole. We estimate average annual real goods consumption growth of 5.4% for 1900-1939 and 4.2% for 1946-1980... the era of fastest growth was in the prewar, not postwar, contrary to conventional estimates.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Using a quality-adjusted price index built from 5.1 million Sears catalog listings, the authors estimate real goods consumption grew by a factor of 39 between 1900 and 1990, compared with a factor of 10.3 using standard goods deflators.
  2. The authors estimate average annual real goods consumption growth of 5.4% for 1900–1939 and 4.2% for 1946–1980, implying the fastest growth came in the prewar rather than postwar era, contrary to conventional estimates.
  3. The new cost-of-living index implies substantially lower goods inflation than conventional deflators, with the gap largest before World War II, a period Gordon describes as "the black hole where little is known.".

Related Articles:

  • European vs. U.S. Economic Performance: An Update — Productivity growth from 2000-2019 was higher in the US than in western Europe, but almost half the gap disappears when information and communications technology is excluded, even though tech was 9.2% of US output versus 5.4% in the EU. The author estimates this difference in industrial mix accounts for roughly 40% of the overall productivity growth gap.
  • Is The Great Stagnation Actually Just a ‘So-So’ Stagnation? — Long-running U.S. tests show population average reading scores moved from 255 to 256 out of 500 and math from 266 to 271, despite educational attainment rising more than three years. The author argues that if added schooling has not raised productivity, measured total factor productivity growth has been understated, shrinking the apparent "Great Stagnation" by about a third.
  • Growth
  • GDP
    • Inflation

Can Africa Take The Asian Path To Growth?

AI Summary. Sub-Saharan Africa's cereal output is nearly 5x its 1960s level, but most gains came from cultivating more land rather than higher yields, and arable land per person has been falling for decades. Food and Agriculture Organisation data show cereal yields flat in recent years, with most African countries recording lower agricultural total factor productivity than a decade earlier.

Economist Staff The Economist
Date Posted:
July 15, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Most Sub-Saharan African countries had lower agricultural TFP in 2023 than they had a decade earlier. Btw 2008 and 2019, in the face of a rapidly rising population, small farms’ yields were falling by 3 to 4% per year.

Is Africa's crop growth coming from more land, not higher yields?

Core argument: Sub-Saharan Africa's farmers grow nearly five times as much cereal, such as maize and rice, as in the 1960s, but most of those gains came from cultivating more land rather than raising output per hectare.

In aggregate [sub-Saharan Africa's] farmers are growing more cereals, such as maize (corn) and rice, than ever: nearly five times as much as in the 1960s. But most of those gains came from cultivating more land, which cannot go on for ever. The amount of arable land per person has been falling for decades, and now sits at roughly the global average. That might not matter if farmers were also growing more crops per hectare. But recently gentle growth in agricultural productivity has given way to stagnation, perhaps even decline. Consider figures drawn from national statistics in Africa by the Food and Agriculture Organisation. Cereal yields did not grow between 2020 and 2024, the latest data point. Nor did total factor productivity (TFP), a measure of how efficiently inputs of all kinds (such as labour and machinery) are turned into produce. Most African countries had lower agricultural TFP in 2023 than a decade before.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Sub-Saharan Africa's farmers grow nearly five times as much cereal, such as maize and rice, as in the 1960s, but most of those gains came from cultivating more land rather than raising output per hectare.
  2. Cereal yields in Africa did not grow between 2020 and 2024, and neither did total factor productivity, a measure of how efficiently inputs such as labour and machinery are turned into produce, according to Food and Agriculture Organisation figures drawn from national statistics.
  3. Arable land per person in sub-Saharan Africa has been falling for decades and now sits at roughly the global average, while most African countries had lower agricultural total factor productivity in 2023 than a decade before.

Related Articles:

  • 21st-Century Africa Governance and Growth — Sub-Saharan Africa's GDP per capita has fallen relative to the world average over three decades, from 30% to 22%, reflecting the region's inability to sustain growth. Had it grown at the global pace since 1990, income per capita would be over 40% higher; at emerging East Asia's pace, nearly 3x higher.
  • Africa Needs 1 Billion Jobs by the End of the Century. Where Will It Find Them? — Africa's population, now about 1.5bn, is projected to reach 4bn by 2100, with sub-Saharan Africa approaching 3.5bn and Nigeria's working-age population forecast to exceed 320m. Between 2005 and 2020, Congo, Nigeria, Ethiopia and other large states averaged only one job created for every two entrants to the working-age population.
  • Changing Sub-Saharan Africa’s Growth Trajectory — Sub-Saharan Africa's working-age population is growing nearly 3% a year, versus close to zero in much of the world, and is projected to exceed China's within about a decade and reach a quarter of the global total. With modest productivity growth near 2%, the region is likely among the world's fastest-growing.
  • Growth
  • GDP
  • Productivity
  • Workforce
    • Demographics

AI, Immigration, and Collapsing Labor Force Participation

AI Summary. As labor force participation falls, a shrinking group of workers generates the income, taxes, and innovation supporting a growing number of non-workers, leaving the economy more fragile because labor shocks are concentrated among fewer participants. Labor scarcity raises the return on automation, robotics, and software, making growth depend on productivity rather than participation.

Paul Kedrosky Applied Complexity
Date Posted:
July 8, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Overall LFP is at a 50-year low. Kedrosky warns, “As fewer adults work or seek work, a larger fraction of voters experience the economy mostly as consumers, retirees, or rentiers, not as workers…[which] changes incentives around….taxation and redistribution.”

How does falling labor force participation reshape growth and fragility?

Core argument: Falling labor force participation leaves a shrinking core of workers generating the income, taxes, and innovation that support a growing number of non-workers, and makes the economy more fragile because labor shocks are concentrated among fewer participants.

As fewer adults work or seek work, a larger fraction of voters experience the economy mostly as consumers, retirees, or rentiers, not as workers. That changes political incentives around wages, immigration, AI, taxation, and redistribution. The economy becomes increasingly dependent on a shrinking core. A shrinking group of workers generates the income, taxes, and innovation that support a growing number of non-workers. The economy becomes more fragile because labor shocks are concentrated among fewer participants. Capital must increasingly substitute for labor. Labor scarcity raises the return on automation, AI, robotics, and software. The AI bet becomes as much about compensating for workers' absence as simple replacement. Growth increasingly depends on productivity, on not participation. Any [productivity] miss will be much more consequential than in the past, given that labor no longer picks up the slack.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Falling labor force participation leaves a shrinking core of workers generating the income, taxes, and innovation that support a growing number of non-workers, and makes the economy more fragile because labor shocks are concentrated among fewer participants.
  2. As more voters experience the economy as consumers, retirees, or rentiers rather than workers, political incentives shift around wages, immigration, AI, taxation, and redistribution.
  3. Labor scarcity raises the return on automation, AI, robotics, and software, making the AI bet as much about compensating for workers' absence as replacing them, with growth depending on productivity rather than participation and any productivity miss more consequential than in the past.

Related Articles:

  • Baby Busts and Growth Booms: Demographic Change and the Macroeconomy — A 1pp lower birth rate 20 years earlier is associated with 22 log points higher output per worker 20 years later and 29 log points higher after 40 years, about 0.73pp faster annual growth. The authors find lower birth rates are also associated with more labor-saving patents, larger high-tech shares, and higher productivity growth.
  • Have We Entered an Era of High Productivity Growth? — Labor productivity has grown solidly while the San Francisco Federal Reserve's total factor productivity index, which adjusts for the equipment and technology workers use, has grown modestly, suggesting gains so far reflect better tools rather than broader advances. A regime-switching model puts the probability of a high-productivity regime at 57% using labor productivity and 21% using total factor productivity.
  • The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036 — The Congressional Budget Office projects the federal deficit will grow from $1.9tn (5.8% of GDP) to $3.1tn (6.7%) over a decade, above the 3.8% averaged over the past 50 years, with rising net interest costs driving much of the increase. Federal debt held by the public is projected to rise from 101% to 120% of GDP.
  • Growth
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
    • Government Spending
    • Taxation
  • GDP
  • Productivity
  • Workforce
    • Demographics
    • Unemployment/Participation
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms