Martha Gimbel

My take is: Did we lose exactly 30k jobs in September? Almost certainly not. Did we lose some jobs in September? Plausibly! Did we add enough jobs in September to keep up with population growth? Seems quite unlikely.

AI is not killing jobs, US study finds Research shows little evidence that cutting-edge tech such as chatbots is putting people out of work

And thanks to Claire Jones and @financialtimes.com for the coverage: www.ft.com/content/c9f9...

Evaluating the Impact of AI on the Labor Market: Current State of Affairs

The full piece is here, please give it and all of its many many graphs a read budgetlab.yale.edu/research/eva...

Thanks to @mollykinder.bsky.social @brookings.edu for being such wonderful partners on this and to Josh and Maddie for objectively doing all the work

We plan to update this every month (assuming we get the CPS microdata!) and also to adjust our methodology in response to feedback/new data on usage/exposure. /end

The lack of widespread impacts at this early stage is not unlike the pace of change with previous periods of technological change. Preregistering areas where we would expect to see the impact and continuing to monitor monthly impacts will help us distinguish rumor from fact. 14/

While generative AI looks likely to join the ranks of transformative, general purpose technologies, it is too soon to tell how disruptive the technology will be to jobs. 13/

While anxiety over the effects of AI on today’s labor market is widespread, our data suggests it remains largely speculative. The picture of AI’s impact on the labor market that emerges from our data is one that largely reflects stability, not yet major disruption. 12/

We should note that data in this space is still imperfect, and usage/exposure is still evolving. Here is a comparison of OpenAI and Anthropic's measures of exposure and usage for instance 11/

And also duration of unemployment 10/

We see a similar story using Anthropic's usage data for both automation and augmentation in employment... 9/

And more exposed workers aren't accounting for a greater share of longer-term unemployed workers 8/

So far there's no sign that relatively more exposure to AI is at all impacting the share of employment in those occupations 7/

We then look at employment shares and unemployment by duration among workers who are more or less exposed to AI (according to OpenAI) and whose occupations have more or less usage (automated or augmented) according to Anthropic 6/

If we look at how similar the occupational mix of recent college graduates is to slightly older college graduates - there may be some sign that the difference is growing? But that could be due to 1) noise 2) non-AI factors (such as a slowing labor market), not just AI 5/

In fact, taking a closer look at recent years, the data suggests that this recent trend is not necessarily attributable to AI (Figure 2). Shifts in the occupational mix were well on their way during 2021. 4/

Although recent trends seemingly outpace historical shifts in the occupational mix, the potential effects of AI on the labor market so far are not out of the ordinary. 3/

First, we look at how quickly the overall occupational mix is changing. The job mix for AI appears to be changing faster than it has in the past, although not markedly so. BUT... 2/

New from me @mollykinder.bsky.social Josh Kendall and Maddie Lee: how should we be tracking the impact of AI on the labor market? Tldr: no signs of major disruptions yet, but we plan to update our trackers monthly 1/

3. "Fine, we'll just rely on private data."
(This one is @marthagimbel.bsky.social bait)
There is lots of private data out there, and we'll be leaning on it heavily during a shutdown. But hardly anyone who has looked closely at these data thinks they can come close to replacing government sources.

Upjohn Institute welcomes two new economists Chloe Gibbs and Monique Davis join the research team

We’re excited to officially welcome‪ @chloergibbs.bsky.social and @moniqueedavis-phd.bsky.social to the Upjohn Institute research team! Chloe brings deep expertise in education policy, while Monique’s research explores systemic inequality in economic outcomes. #EconSky

Fed Fight: It’s Trump vs Jerome Powell. Why an Independent Fed matters @chafkin.bsky.social and I talk with @marthagimbel.bsky.social this week on Everybody’s Business from @businessweektr.bsky.social @bloomberg.com

#jeromepowell #federalreserve #economy

cordelia is arguably the first mentally well person in the history of literature

See here: bsky.app/profile/benc...

If you’re questioning the integrity of BLS statistics “because ADP” I cannot help you

House/Senate are set to eliminate Grad PLUS, and put in place loan limits that would dramatically restrict graduate borrowing. Media coverage emphasizes impact this may have on very expensive programs like Medicine and Dentistry, but @peerresearch.bsky.social finds impact will be much(!) broader 1/

Scratching my head at the CEA estimate that their economic plan will lower debt/GDP by at least 3pp in FY 2025.

There are only 3 months left in FY 2025.

And tariff revenue < 0.5% of GDP. So would need about 12% annualized GDP growth in Q3 to hit this target.

Obviously other differences between us and CBO under the hood - but I think the main takeaway is that modelers (including the excellent civil servants at CBO) agree: dynamic scoring will not solve the debt problems with this bill 2/

CBO just released a dynamic estimate and the cost of OBBBA goes from $2.4 trillion to $2.8 trillion. But by convention they don’t include the costs of interest on new debt. If they do that - cost goes to $3.4 trillion. @budgetlab.bsky.social comparable estimate was $3.5 trillion. 1/