Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…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
  • “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
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…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
  • “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 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
  • “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 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
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

Inequality

Evidence on inequality in earnings, income, wealth, opportunity, and labor-market outcomes. The archive examines technology, education, institutions, geography, taxes, transfers, firm differences, and changes across the distribution.

AI Summary. Since 1982, real growth in the median U.S. wage has trailed growth at both the top and bottom of the wage distribution, with higher and lower percentiles outperforming the middle.

Cardiff Garcia and Ben Glasner Agglomerations
Date Posted:

Garcia and Glasner document the striking observation that inequality across the wage distribution rose mainly during the long overall wage stagnations of 1982–1996 and 2001–2014. Wage growth was both faster and more broadly shared in 1996–2001 and 2014–2020.

Has median wage growth lagged both the top and bottom?

Core argument: Real growth of the median U.S. wage has trailed growth at both the higher and lower ends of the wage distribution since 1982.

Figure 4 zooms into the First Long Wage Stagnation from December 1982 to 1996: negative growth for the 10th percentile wage and hardly any growth for the three middle wage categories. Meanwhile the 90th percentile wage climbed away from all the others despite itself growing by less than 1% a year. Figure 5 shows the more recent Second Long Wage Stagnation. The median wage averaged just 0.36% growth per year. And because the growth of the 75th and 90th percentile firmly outpaced the growth of the others, wage inequality climbed sharply. From 2015 through the start of 2020, wages climbed all across the distribution, [while] the widening between the 90th percentile wage and the other wages slowed. The escape from wage stagnation once again arrived as the labor market continued tightening. In the late 1990s boom, the median wage climbed an annualized 2.6%. The eras in which the median wage climbed at the steepest angle were those in which all the other wages climbed with it. [Finally], real growth of the median wage has trailed behind the growth of the other wage categories since 1982.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Real growth of the median U.S. wage has trailed growth at both the higher and lower ends of the wage distribution since 1982.
  2. Figure 10 presents three wage ratios: the 90th percentile to the median, the 90th percentile to the 10th, and the median to the 10th.

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.
  • The Pig In The Python: US Decennial Labor Flows And Economic Opportunity, 1910–2040 — The surge of baby boomers, women, and immigrants entering the US labor force between 1960 and 1980 was difficult for the economy to absorb, and young workers' wages fell sharply after peaking in the early 1970s. The author argues those entrants kept occupying jobs and suppressing demand for new workers until retirement.
  • The Unexpected Compression: Competition at Work in the Low Wage Labor Market — Labor market tightness produced an unexpected compression in the US wage distribution, with disproportionate wage growth at the bottom reducing the college wage premium and reversing nearly 40% of the rise in 90-10 wage inequality since 1980. The authors attribute this in part to increased competition for low-wage workers.

AI Summary. An analysis of federal aid recipients' tax-reported earnings finds the highest-earning bachelor's programs are concentrated at highly selective schools and in computer science, mathematics and electrical engineering. Nursing programs at several California schools produce graduates earning around $150,000 annually, placing them in the top 100 of nearly 25,000 programs analyzed.

Arfa Momin and Ron Lieber New York Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

A HEA Group analysis of the earnings of 2018 and 2019 college graduates four years after graduation finds earnings are widely dispersed across schools in higher-earning fields such as computer science and economics and have a narrow dispersion in lower-earning fields such as English and drama.

Which college majors and schools produce the highest-earning graduates?

Core argument: HEA Group’s analysis of nearly 25,000 bachelor’s programs found computer science, mathematics and electrical engineering majors top the earnings list, with graduates of highly rejective schools including the Ivies, M.I.T., Stanford and U.C.L.A. dominating.

HEA Group tracked students who received federal financial aid and graduated during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 periods. The top of the earnings list is dominated by graduates of highly rejective schools — the Ivies and others, like M.I.T., Stanford and U.C.L.A. The majors that top the list are computer science, mathematics and electrical engineering. The income data come from whatever people reported on their federal tax returns. That means certain stock awards and other potential deferred compensation aren’t part of the totals. Nursing programs at a handful of California schools, including California State University, East Bay; San Francisco State University; and Samuel Merritt University, produce graduates earning around $150,000 annually, putting them in the top 100 out of the nearly 25,000 bachelor’s programs the HEA Group analyzed nationwide. They stick out amid quantitative and science majors from institutions like the California Institute of Technology and Cornell.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. HEA Group’s analysis of nearly 25,000 bachelor’s programs found computer science, mathematics and electrical engineering majors top the earnings list, with graduates of highly rejective schools including the Ivies, M.I.T., Stanford and U.C.L.A. dominating.
  2. Nursing graduates of California State University, East Bay; San Francisco State University; and Samuel Merritt University earn around $150,000 annually, placing those programs in the top 100 amid quantitative and science majors from institutions like the California Institute of Technology and Cornell.
  3. HEA Group tracked federal financial aid recipients who graduated during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 periods, using income reported on federal tax returns, which excludes certain stock awards and other potential deferred compensation.

Related Articles:

  • Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World? — An international assessment of adult skills describes numeracy proficiency levels ranging from counting objects and adding small whole numbers at the lowest level, to extracting information from tables and graphs and performing basic arithmetic with money and percentages at Level 1, up to analysing complex mathematical information and critically evaluating whether data support a claim at Level 5.
  • Have Humans Passed Peak Brain Power? — The share of Americans reporting they read a book in the past year has fallen below half, alongside declining performance in numeracy and problem-solving in most countries. The share of adults unable to use mathematical reasoning to evaluate the validity of statements averages 25% in high-income countries and 35% in the US.
  • Standardized Test Scores and Academic Performance at a Public University System — A study of a large public urban university system finds that high school grade point average is a far stronger predictor of student academic success than SAT scores, contrasting with analyses of highly selective colleges that found the SAT superior. Under-represented minority students were less likely to graduate within six years at every grade point average level.

AI Summary. Corporate profit margins, long regarded as one of the economy's most reliably mean-reverting series, have risen continuously so far this century. Measured through the national income accounts used in calculating GDP, profits now take a larger share of the economy than on the eve of the 1929 crash.

John Authers Bloomberg
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Since 2000, post-tax corporate profits as a share of GDP have trended upward across cyclical setbacks and are now near an all time high, above their 1929 level.

Have corporate profit margins stopped reverting to the mean?

Core argument: Corporate profits measured in the National Income and Product Accounts take a larger share of the U.S. economy than on the eve of the 1929 Great Crash.

Throughout the 20th century, profit margins were regarded as one of the purest mean-reverting series in the economy. So far this century, however, margins have done nothing but rise. Measured with the National Income and Product Accounts, part of the GDP calculation, profits are currently taking a bigger share of the economy even than on the eve of the Great Crash in 1929. The series comes with a lag, so we can assume the profit share on this basis is comfortably at a record by now.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Corporate profits measured in the National Income and Product Accounts take a larger share of the U.S. economy than on the eve of the 1929 Great Crash.
  2. Profit margins were regarded throughout the 20th century as one of the purest mean-reverting series in the economy, yet so far this century they have done nothing but rise.
  3. The National Income and Product Accounts profits series comes with a lag, so the profit share on this basis can be assumed to be comfortably at a record.

Related Articles:

  • US Focus: The Effect Of Soaring Profits — US nominal pre-tax corporate profits in the national accounts grew 23% over the past year, a pace not seen outside post-recession spikes since the mid-2000s. Wider margins were the key driver, as domestic profit growth far exceeded the 8% rise in corporate value added, pushing margins near all-time highs while the labor share hit new lows.
  • The Post‑COVID Decline in the Labor Share — The share of US national income paid to workers fell 1.6 percentage points below its pre-pandemic level, reaching a post-war low. The authors find this decline stems mainly from changes within industries rather than shifts in activity across sectors, following cyclical patterns seen in earlier recessions.
  • Are US Corporate Profit Margins Too High? — US after-tax non-financial corporate profit margins remain elevated by historical standards, estimated at 7.6% versus a post-1949 high of 8.2%, while employee pay as a share of non-financial corporate gross value added has fallen from 66% to 56%. One argument holds that subdued demographic growth leads companies to prioritize maximizing margins over expanding capacity.

AI Summary. Analysis of English genealogical records and marriage registries estimates that the underlying correlation in social status across generations is close to 0.8, with status correlation detectable even among relatives nine generations apart. The authors find this persistence unchanged over four centuries, concluding that policies aimed at raising social mobility have not altered it.

Gregory Clark Southern Denmark University
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Clark estimates that the intergenerational correlation of relative socioeconomic status in England remained ~0.8 btw 1600 and 2026. The pattern of correlations across near and distant relatives fits a model of genetic inheritance with strong assortative mating.

How persistent is social status across generations in England?

Core argument: Drawing on a genealogical database of 436,185 English people spanning 1600–2026 and records of about 1.7 million English marriages from 1837–2022, the authors estimate the underlying intergenerational correlation in social status at close to 0.8, higher than conventional measures indicate.

A large genealogical database of [436,185] English people 1600-2026, as well as detailed records of [~1.7mn marriages] in England 1837-2022, [reveals] social status is much more persistent across generations than conventionally measured. The [inferred] underlying correlation in status across generations is close to 0.8, implying that even relatives as distant as nine generations apart still show correlation in social status. [Ratios of correlations among siblings, parents, aunts/uncles and cousins cancel common measurement-error attenuation: raw parent-child correlations average .39, versus .77 for inferred underlying persistence. Independently, surnames selected as elite by 1858-87 wealth yield a per-generation status persistent coefficient of b=.82 for occupational status and .80 for house value]. The strength of status persistence remains unchanged 1600-2026.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Drawing on a genealogical database of 436,185 English people spanning 1600–2026 and records of about 1.7 million English marriages from 1837–2022, the authors estimate the underlying intergenerational correlation in social status at close to 0.8, higher than conventional measures indicate.
  2. The estimated correlation in social status implies that relatives as distant as nine generations apart still show correlated status, with the strength of persistence unchanged from 1600 to 2026.
  3. The authors argue that the Industrial Revolution, the Demographic Transition, the emancipation of women, universal voting, and the modern welfare state have not increased English social mobility rates, and that resources poured into raising mobility have achieved nothing.

Related Articles:

  • The Inheritance Of Social Status: England, 1600 to 2022 — Using a genealogical database of 422,374 English people with rarer surnames, the authors find social status persists strongly even among distant relatives, with status correlations declining by a constant factor of 0.79 per step in the lineage across all status measures and eras studied. The authors argue this constancy suggests social interventions have modest effects.
  • The Myth of Nordic Mobility: Social Mobility Rates in Modern Denmark and Sweden — Correcting for measurement error by using relative rather than absolute correlations among relatives, the authors estimate that educational intergenerational mobility in Denmark and Sweden is much lower than conventionally measured, with parent-child and sibling correlations much higher. They argue Nordic education spending and income compression have at best modestly reduced families' role in children's educational outcomes.
  • For Whom the Bell Curve Tolls: A Lineage of 400,000 English Individuals 1750-2020 Shows Genetics Determines Most Social Outcomes — A study of 402,000 English individuals across 1750–2020 estimates an intergenerational occupational status correlation of 0.88 and a genetic correlation between spouses of 0.76, which the authors interpret as a strong genetic basis for the persistence of social status. The authors argue that highly assortative mating around status genetics limits what policy can do to raise social mobility.

AI Summary. The authors estimate that more than half of the rise in the top 1% income share since 1985 — 5.8 of 10.5 percentage points — flowed through pass-through businesses, counting roughly 3m wealthy private business owners with average net worth near $25m running law firms, dealerships, and medical practices.

Torsten Sløk Apollo
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

More than half the increase in the top 1% income share since 1985 flowed through pass-through businesses to ~ 3mm private business owners with a mean net worth of ~$25mm.

Did most of the top 1% income gain come from private businesses?

Core argument: Owen Zidar and Eric Zwick find that 5.8 of the 10.5 percentage-point rise in the U.S. top 1% income share since 1985 flowed through pass-through businesses, more than half of the increase.

The income that lifted America's top 1% did not come mainly from tech or Wall Street, according to Owen Zidar and Eric Zwick. More than half of the rise in the top 1% income share since 1985, 5.8 of 10.5 percentage points, flowed through pass-through businesses. Zidar and Zwick, counted roughly 3 million wealthy private business owners, with average net worth near $25 million, running law firms, car dealerships, medical practices, commercial contractors and regional restaurant chains, the kind of businesses that make their owners wealthy and well known in their own communities without ever making them nationally famous.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Owen Zidar and Eric Zwick find that 5.8 of the 10.5 percentage-point rise in the U.S. top 1% income share since 1985 flowed through pass-through businesses, more than half of the increase.
  2. Zidar and Zwick count roughly 3 million wealthy private business owners with average net worth near $25 million, running law firms, car dealerships, medical practices, commercial contractors and regional restaurant chains.
  3. The income that lifted America’s top 1% did not come mainly from tech or Wall Street, according to Zidar and Zwick, but from businesses whose owners are well known locally without becoming nationally famous.

Related Articles:

  • What’s Missing in the Fed’s Data about Ultrarich Portfolios — The Federal Reserve's Distribution of Financial Accounts defines "private business" narrowly as proprietor's equity in noncorporate, nonfinancial businesses, excluding S-corporations, other private corporations, and private equity and hedge fund partnerships, which are lumped into "corporate equities." The Survey of Consumer Finances instead shows private business is roughly 45–50% of top 0.1% wealth.
  • They’re Rich but Not Famous—and They’re Suddenly Everywhere — An analysis of Federal Reserve data estimates about 430,000 U.S. households are worth $30m or more, including roughly 74,000 worth at least $100m, with growth in the number of very rich households outpacing overall population growth over recent decades. Nearly 72% of the top 0.1%'s wealth consists of corporate equities, mutual fund shares, and private businesses.
  • Capitalists in the Twenty-First Century — Most income at the top of the US distribution is non-wage income, primarily profits from closely-held, mid-market firms in skill-intensive industries owned by working-age individuals. The authors find private business profit falls by three-quarters after an owner retires or dies prematurely, indicating most top earners are "working rich" deriving income from human capital.

AI Summary. Census data show the number of U.S. families with inflation-adjusted incomes above $150,000 grew from under 3m in 1967 to over 31m in 2025, while families earning under $75,000 fell by almost 3m in absolute terms. The share of families with multiple earners has not increased much over that period.

Jeremy Horpedahl Economist Writing Every Day
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

In 1967, just 5.5% of American families had an inflation adjusted income of $150,000 or more. In 2025, 35.7% did. During that timeframe, the share of families with a real income less than $75,000 declined from 63.4% to 32.8%.

Are more American families reaching higher inflation-adjusted income levels?

Core argument: The number of U.S. families with incomes above $150,000 in 2025 inflation-adjusted dollars rose from fewer than 3 million in 1967 to over 31 million in 2025, according to Census data.

In 1967 there were fewer than 3 million families with incomes over $150,000 (in 2025 inflation-adjusted dollars). By 2025, that had grown to over 31 million families. If we look at the highest income threshold in this Census data — over $200,000 — the number of families has grown from just 1 million in 1967 to over 20 million in 2025. And there are fewer lower-income families too: the number of families under $75,000 shrunk, not just as a proportion of the total but even in absolute terms by almost 3 million families from 1967 to 2025. Of course, some of these families do have more earners than in 1967, though we shouldn’t overstate that too much. Using other data from Census, we can see that the share of families with multiple earners hasn’t increased much since 1967, and especially hasn’t since the mid-1990s.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The number of U.S. families with incomes above $150,000 in 2025 inflation-adjusted dollars rose from fewer than 3 million in 1967 to over 31 million in 2025, according to Census data.
  2. Families earning over $200,000, the highest income threshold in the Census data, grew from about 1 million in 1967 to over 20 million in 2025.
  3. Families with incomes under $75,000 declined by almost 3 million in absolute terms from 1967 to 2025, while Census data show the share of families with multiple earners has not increased much since 1967, and especially not since the mid-1990s.

Related Articles:

  • Income in the United States: 2025 — Median U.S. household income rose 2.6% to $87,460, the highest level on record in data going back to 1967. Median income increased 3% for White households, 2.9% for non-Hispanic White households, and 4.8% for Black households, while changes for Asian and Hispanic households were not statistically significant.
  • The Middle Class Is Shrinking Because of a Booming Upper-Middle Class — Analyses showing a shrinking middle class typically use relative income thresholds that rise with median income, so they can register decline even when living standards rise across the distribution. Using an absolute definition, the authors find the core middle class shrank because the upper-middle class grew from 10% of families to 31%, doubling its income share.
  • Who Sees Themselves as Working Class? — Survey data indicate 60% of U.S. adults say the term "working class" describes them well, including half of those with a bachelor's degree and half of upper-income Americans. Identification is highest among blue-collar workers at 77%, versus 61% in other occupations, and ranges from 52% of Asian adults to 62% of White adults.

AI Summary. The authors estimate the heritability of labor market outcomes by comparing the excess similarity of same-sex over opposite-sex twins with the corresponding difference among ordinary siblings. They caution that social interaction between twins, assortative mating, genetic dominance, population stratification, or indirect parental effects can bias such estimates upward or make them reflect non-genetic influences.

David Card, Jesse Rothstein and Moises Yi National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Analysis of 44,500 twin pairs suggests ~one-third of the variation in log earnings is due to genetic differences – likely an upper bound, because same-sex twins may influence one another and share more similar environments than ordinary same-sex siblings.

How reliable are twin-based estimates of heritability in earnings?

Core argument: The authors identify heritability of U.S. labor market outcomes from a difference-in-differences comparing same-sex versus opposite-sex twins against the corresponding difference among ordinary siblings, adjusting for the estimated share of same-sex twins who are identical.

Our model identifies heritability from the difference-in-differences of same-sex vs. opposite-sex twins vs. siblings. [Specifically], the model attributes to genetic differences the excess similarity of same-sex over opposite-sex twins over and above the corresponding difference among ordinary siblings, adjusting for the estimated share of same-sex twins who are identical. The ordinary-sibling comparison is intended to remove family influences that differ between sons and daughters. Social interactions may lead to an over-estimate of the genetic component in earnings. The estimated heritability of outcomes may be biased in the presence of assortative mating, genetic dominance, population stratification, or violations of the assumption that the home environment is shared to the same degree for MZ as for DZ twins. Even when estimated without bias, heritability need not indicate direct genetic effects – it also may reflect indirect or cultural effects (e.g., effects of the parents’ genes on a child’s outcomes, not operating through the child’s own genes. Twins may [also] influence each other directly – for example in their choice of jobs -- inflating the correlation in their outcomes.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The authors identify heritability of U.S. labor market outcomes from a difference-in-differences comparing same-sex versus opposite-sex twins against the corresponding difference among ordinary siblings, adjusting for the estimated share of same-sex twins who are identical.
  2. Social interactions between twins, such as influencing each other’s job choices, may inflate the correlation in their outcomes and lead to an over-estimate of the genetic component in earnings.
  3. Estimated heritability may be biased by assortative mating, genetic dominance, population stratification, or unequal sharing of the home environment between identical and fraternal twins, and even unbiased estimates may reflect indirect or cultural effects such as parents’ genes.

Related Articles:

AI Summary. Median U.S. household income rose 2.6% to $87,460, the highest level on record in data going back to 1967. Median income increased 3% for White households, 2.9% for non-Hispanic White households, and 4.8% for Black households, while changes for Asian and Hispanic households were not statistically significant.

Melissa Kollar and Zach Scherer U.S. Census Bureau
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Real US median household income increased 2.6% year over year in 2025 to a record high of $87,460.

Has median U.S. household income reached its highest level on record?

Core argument: Median U.S. household income reached $87,460 in 2025, up 2.6% from $85,210 in 2024 and the highest on record in data dating back to 1967.

In 2025, median household income was $87,460, an increase of 2.6% from the 2024 estimate of $85,210. Household income in 2025 was the highest on record dating back to 1967. For all demographic characteristics of the householder the median household income estimates in 2025 were either higher than the 2024 estimates or were not statistically different from 2024. Median household income increased by 3% for White households, 2.9% for non-Hispanic White households, and 4.8% for Black households. Median income did not change significantly for Asian or Hispanic households.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Median U.S. household income reached $87,460 in 2025, up 2.6% from $85,210 in 2024 and the highest on record in data dating back to 1967.
  2. Median household income rose 4.8% for Black households, 3% for White households, and 2.9% for non-Hispanic White households in 2025, while Asian and Hispanic households saw no statistically significant change.
  3. Across all demographic characteristics of the householder, 2025 median household income estimates were either higher than or not statistically different from 2024 estimates.

Related Articles:

  • Income in the United States: 2024 — U.S. median household income was $83,730, not statistically different from the prior year's $82,690, according to Census Bureau estimates. Across most demographic subgroups, median household income was higher or not statistically different from the prior year, with the exception of Black households, which saw a decline.
  • US Focus: The Effect Of Soaring Profits — US nominal pre-tax corporate profits in the national accounts grew 23% over the past year, a pace not seen outside post-recession spikes since the mid-2000s. Wider margins were the key driver, as domestic profit growth far exceeded the 8% rise in corporate value added, pushing margins near all-time highs while the labor share hit new lows.
  • The College Wage Premium in the Generative AI Era — The U.S. college wage premium fell from 0.626 to 0.575 after four decades of expansion, implying the first sustained negative growth in relative demand for college-educated labor. The authors estimate that weaker wage growth in occupations highly exposed to artificial intelligence accounts for roughly 28% of that decline, though the patterns are not causal.