Comparing Business Investment per Worker In Canada and the United States, 2007–2024

Bad news! This blog post is delayed. The study was published in mid July 2026.

And now Canada's PM Carney wants a carnage with the US over bilateral trade? If you are in a glass houses don't throw stones!

"Comparing Business Investment per Worker In Canada and the United States, 2007–2024

• Economists have warned of Canada’s weak business investment, particularly compared to the United States. This should concern Canadians as strong business investment is key to higher incomes, greater economic prosperity, and improved living standards.
• Real ($2017) non-residential business investment per worker in the United States exceeded that of Canada in every year from 2007 to 2024:
  Canada’s business investment declined by $852 per worker from $17,345 to $16,493 while US investment grew by $11,203 per worker from $19,352 to $30,555.
• The gap between Canada and the United States increased significantly after 2014 as real business investment began to decline in Canada.
  In 2014, Canada invested about 87 cents per worker for every dollar invested in the United States; in 2024, investment was 54 cents for every US dollar.
• In 2014, three Canadian provinces had significantly higher real business investment per worker than the United States ($23,263):
  Alberta ($56,401),
  Newfoundland & Labrador ($53,779), and
  Saskatchewan ($48,715)
  By 2024, real US business investment per worker ($30,555) exceeded that of any Canadian province except Saskatchewan ($33,386).
  ..."

Comparing Business Investment per Worker In Canada and the United States, 2007–2024 | Fraser Institute

Staatsquote in der Schweiz ist laut IWP deutlich grösser als gedacht

Haben sich die Schweizer schön gerechnet?

IWP = Institut für Schweizer Wirtschaftspolitik an der Universität Luzern

"Der Schweizer Staat dürfte in den nächsten Jahren grösser werden. Bundesrat und Parlament wollen für die Armee und die AHV mehr Geld ausgeben – und dafür die Mehrwertsteuer erhöhen. So wird wohl bald ein grösserer Teil dessen, was jährlich in der Schweiz erwirtschaftet wird, durch die Kassen des Bundes fliessen. Und dadurch wird auch die sogenannte Staatsquote zunehmen. Sie ist definiert als der Anteil der Staatsausgaben gemessen am Bruttoinlandprodukt (BIP)."

"Die Schweiz ist stolz auf ihren schlanken Staat. Das bekannteste Mass scheint ihr recht zu geben: 2023 entsprachen die Staatsausgaben 33,4 Prozent der Wirtschaftsleistung.

Nach Irland war das der zweittiefste Wert Europas. Auch über die Zeit blieb diese Staatsquote bemerkenswert stabil.

Ein neues Policy Paper ... zeigt, dass hinter der tiefen Staatsquote mehr staatliche Dynamik steckt, als sie vermuten lässt. ...

Das BIP umfasst allerdings auch Abschreibungen, also den Wertverlust von Maschinen, Gebäuden und Software. Dieser Teil der Wirtschaftsleistung wird benötigt, um den bestehenden Kapitalstock zu erhalten, und steht daher weder dem Staat noch Privaten für zusätzliche Ausgaben zur Verfügung. Zieht man die Abschreibungen vom BIP ab, erhält man das Nettoinlandsprodukt (NIP). Der deutsche Finanzwissenschafter Prof. Dr. Alfons Weichenrieder hat jüngst gezeigt, wie stark die Wahl zwischen BIP und NIP das Bild verändern kann  ...

Für die Schweiz macht dieser Wechsel des Massstabs einen besonders grossen Unterschied: Die Abschreibungen entsprechen hier 23,4 Prozent des BIP, dem zweithöchsten Wert im EU/EFTA-Vergleich. ...

Was hinter den ausgeglichenen [öffentlichen] Haushalten steckt  

Neben der tiefen Staatsquote gelten auch die seit der Jahrtausendwende meist ausgeglichenen öffentlichen Haushalte als Beleg für die Schweizer Ausgabendisziplin. Doch die Entwicklung von Ausgaben und Einnahmen zeigt, wie dieser Ausgleich zustande kam.

Die Ausgabenquote blieb zwischen 1995 und 2024 mit 33,4 beziehungsweise 33,6 Prozent nahezu unverändert.

Die Einnahmenquote stieg im selben Zeitraum hingegen von 31,5 auf 34,2 Prozent. Der Haushaltsausgleich kam damit vor allem über höhere Einnahmen zustande. ..."

Staatsquote in der Schweiz ist laut IWP grösser als gedacht (Abo erforderlich) "Die Schweiz hat im internationalen Vergleich eine niedrige Staatsquote – zumindest laut den offiziellen Zahlen. Eine Analyse des IWP Luzern relativiert dieses Bild."

Eine Frage des Massstabs: Wie gross der Schweizer Staat wirklich ist. 

IWP policy paper

Scotland's Intellectual Triumph – The Scottish Enlightenment

Recommendable!

The year 1776 is not only famous for the US Declaration of Independence but also for the publication of Scottish author Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

Scotland's Intellectual Triumph – Samuel Gregg

British Kids Are Skipping Top Colleges for White-Collar Apprenticeships

We have seen similar headlines for other Western countries and over the past 10-20 years or so.

A recurring theme in Western news reporting! Is it different this time?

British Kids Are Skipping Top Colleges for White-Collar Apprenticeships - WSJ (behind paywall) "College no longer feels like a good deal for high-school graduates, so they are heading straight into the workforce"

Why Tarifflation in the US Never Lived Up the Panic

Food for thought! Yes, higher tariffs can be compensated in different ways other than raising output/product prices.

"... Research published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston on Wednesday [8/19/2026] finds that productivity growth accelerated in industries most heavily affected by tariffs—and that this largely offset the higher costs firms in those industries faced.

“Industries in which tariffs induced higher costs in 2025 also experienced greater labor productivity growth, which helped them mitigate those higher costs,” the researchers explain. ..."

Breitbart Business Digest

How Much Did Labor Productivity Gains Offset the Inflationary Impact of the 2025 Tariffs?

Oxford Ökonom Maximilian Kasy über KI: Das sollten wir nicht Zuckerberg und Musk überlassen. Wirklich!

Sollen wir es vielleicht den Chinesischen Kommunisten überlassen? Als ob nur zwei Männer die KI bestimmen! Was für ein Unsinn!

Der Oxford Professor hat nur einen lifetime citation count von 2511 (Google Scholar Profile). Entweder ist er noch sehr jung oder er ist bestenfalls nur mittelmäßig. Er ist wohl u.a. ein inequality und fairness Ökonom. Vielleicht ist er auch ein Karl Marx Verschnitt der mit groben Dichotomien arbeitet!

"Herr Professor Kasy, haben Sie Angst vor Künstlicher Intelligenz?

Ich habe Angst davor, was mit Künstlicher Intelligenz getan werden könnte. Es wird ja oft eine bestimmte Geschichte erzählt, gerne auch von Vertretern der Industrie selbst: Wir seien in einen Kampf von Mensch gegen Maschine hineingezogen worden, und die großen KI-Konzerne seien die heroischen Verteidiger [???] der Menschheit. Ich glaube, das ist eine gefährliche Mystifizierung. Künstliche Intelligenz ist ein Mittel zum Zweck. Man kann ihr die verschiedensten Ziele geben – und das ist immer sehr explizit. ..."

Ökonom Max Kasy über KI: Das sollten wir nicht Zuckerberg und Musk überlassen | FAZ (Abo erforderlich) "Der Ökonom Maximilian Kasy will die Künstliche Intelligenz entmystifizieren und die Debatte versachlichen. Er spricht über Mathematik, KI als Machtinstrument – und wieso er nicht glaubt, dass der Markt das regeln kann."

Er hat auch ein Buch zum Thema geschrieben (Source)

Maximilian Kasy (Source)

Hinweis, der Professor gebraucht Großschreibung für black Amerikaner, aber nicht fuer white Amerikaner. Typisch linker Ideologe! (Quelle: Sein Papier Fairness, Equality, and Power in Algorithmic Decision-Making

Christopher A. Sims (1942–2026): Paradigm-shifting macroeconomist and econometrician

R.I.P.

That makes 2026 the year renown econometricians died. This is the second one! See also my blog post here.

From the abstract:

"Christopher A. Sims, who died on March 14, 2026, left behind an indelible mark on macroeconomics and econometrics. His Nobel Prize winning research reshaped the paradigm for empirical macroeconomics, creating a rigorous and flexible framework for inferring the effects of macroeconomic policies. He also made important contributions to time series forecasting, Bayesian econometrics, factor modeling, approximation theory, and models of monetary and fiscal policy.

Few academics have had as direct an impact on the work of central banks throughout the world. A frank and generous mentor with numerous students, Chris’s impact extends well beyond his published papers."

Christopher A. Sims (1942–2026): Paradigm-shifting macroeconomist and econometrician | PNAS (open access)

Sims teaching a class in 2011 right after being awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.

‘Miliwatt’ in MAGAland (or another mediocre British top politician?)

Headline of the day! Who is Ed Miliband? Another mediocre British top politician?

Was this a bad choice by the new PM Andy Burnham? We will find out!

Where are the coward European powers when the US needs them in the War against the terrorism sponsor and nuclear weapons seeking, fanatical theocracy of Iran? The US will remember next time!

Mr. Ed Miliband is almost unknown to me. What has he achieved so far in his political career? Just another lifelong career politician?

"... On 25 July 2002, it was announced that Miliband would take a 12-month unpaid sabbatical from HM Treasury to be a visiting scholar at the Center for European Studies of Harvard University for two semesters. He spent his time at Harvard teaching economics, and stayed there after September 2003 for an additional semester teaching a course titled "What's Left? The Politics of Social Justice". ..." (Wikipedia)

"... It’s an inauspicious occasion for Ed Miliband’s first visit to Washington as Britain’s 71st Foreign Secretary. Ahead of one-on-one talks with his US counterpart Marco Rubio, Miliband has duly trotted out the usual lines about the direct impact of the Strait’s closure on living standards in the US and at home.  This is amid some media excitement about how Miliband – one of many penitent Labour Trump critics – would collide with MAGAworld. 

‘Miliwatt’ is, according to the Times, the less-than-witty nickname some Trumpites are calling our eco-loving plenipotentiary...."

"Ed Miliband lands in Washington this week with a reputation to dispel. Before his appointment, senior officials in the Trump administration privately warned against the idea of Miliband as chancellor. They pointed to Miliband’s opposition to oil and gas drilling in the North Sea as “ideologically driven” — and stopping tax revenues that could fund defence spending. ..."

Spectator Daily

Ed Miliband comes to Washington. Maga has a nickname for him "Despite having called President Trump a ‘racist’, the foreign secretary seems keen to find common ground with his administration. But is it willing to engage?"

Ed Miliband meets the secretary of state Marco Rubio on Wednesday [8/5/2026]

Some of the latest research on business cycles: Recession by Tyler Goodspeed. Really!

Food for thought! Is this author offering more than trivia or well known tidbits?

Apparently, the author Tyler Goodspeed does not have an entry on Google Scholar (as of 8/4/2026, see screen shot below). Not a good sign!

That wars or post war periods or periods of great societal upheaval trigger booms or recessions (e.g. Great Depression) is a very old hat in economics!

The author claims "In fact, recessions have relatively little effect on the economy over time". Really! What is communism/socialism all about? Criticizing capitalism and its booms and busts! How many big government laws followed severe busts in industrialized countries to manage and control the economy?

That the author goes back 400 years in history is daring! What economic/statistical data do we really have going this far back in history. The author appears to prefer the unemployment rate for this argument. When were the first unemployment rate data published for industrialized countries? According to Google Search/AI for the UK first in 1888 and Germany in 1903.

The author also makes some very strong assumptions about economies: "several empirically testable and falsifiable hypotheses", which are dubious.

Caveat: I am not familiar with Tyler Goodspeed nor his publications.

"... economic historian Goodspeed discusses what triggers recessions and why war is the most prolific “serial killer” of economic expansions over the last 400 years. ...

Contrary to popular thinking, these “busts” are not the inevitable result of flaws in the economic “booms” that immediately precede them, and they’re not cyclical, or necessary, course correctives. In fact, recessions have relatively little effect [???] on the economy over time compared to periods of growth, says the book’s author, Tyler Goodspeed  ...

In reality, when I analyzed these 132 recessions going back to 1700, all of those hypotheses are rejected by the data [???]. All of them. ..."

Are we headed toward recession? Unpredictable. — Harvard Gazette "Economic historian rebuts various beliefs about cause, concerns around downturns, explains why expansions are more important anyway"

Book cover

Econometrician Takeshi Amemiya has died

R.I.P.

Yes, I remember Takeshi Amemiya! When I studied economics, I had a hard time with econometrics, time series analysis, and statistics since applied math is not my strong suit.

"... His work defined modern econometrics, which uses statistical methods and mathematical modeling to inform economic theory.

Amemiya’s body of scholarship was shaped by curiosity, discipline, and seriousness. His 1985 book, Advanced Econometrics, became an authoritative reference text and is still required reading at universities around the world. He worked on estimation of nonlinear econometric models including those for qualitative response, censored and truncated dependent variables, and transformed regressions. These models turned into standard tools across empirical economic fields. ..."

Econometrician Takeshi Amemiya has died | Stanford Report "One of the most influential econometricians of the last century, the Stanford professor harnessed statistical models to understand economic data, transforming the field of theoretical econometrics."

Upward Mobility Is a Better Measure of Justice Than Income Equality (example France)

Agreed, concurred! What about e.g. ease of opening and doing business or government regulations affecting labor market, real and financial assets, businesses etc.?

Caveat: I did not read the entire article.

"A free society should be judged less by who becomes wealthy than by how easily people can improve their circumstances under impartial rules. Who gets wealthy matters less than how.  ..."

Upward Mobility Is a Better Measure of Justice Than Income Equality | The Daily Economy

Women more likely to marry, land jobs after taking GLP-1s | Harvard University

Is Harvard University here not stating the obvious? 😊

What about men? Gender discrimination by an elite university?

"Key takeaways

• New economics research reveals that losing weight by taking GLP-1 drugs can have big impacts on women’s relationship and employment status.
  After 1.5 years on the drugs, single women increased their likelihood of marrying or moving in with a partner by as much as 28.6 percentage points.
• For unemployed women, their chances of landing a job increased by 26.9 percentage points after 1.5 years on the drug.
• Rebecca Diamond, Martin Feldstein Professor of Economics, noted that these outcomes occur in areas where women may be subject to other people's first impressions.

..."

Women more likely to marry, land jobs after taking GLP-1s | Harvard FAS "Economist Rebecca Diamond reveals strong link between weight loss and rates of partnership and employment"

The pig in the python or how successive population cohorts influence economics and labor supply

Demography is destiny!

Like so many economic and social science theories, they explain historical data very well for a time and make reasonable predictions, but eventually they fail.

"In 1978, Richard Easterlin stood before the Population Association of America and predicted that the wages of young American men — falling since 1973 — would turn around by 1984.

He had earned the confidence. As we have discussed in the past, Easterlin’s relative cohort size hypothesis was the most successful applied demography of its era, and it had already explained the biggest population event in American history—the Baby Boom. He replaced the mysticism about returning GIs, swooning Rosie Riveters, and suburban optimism with actual social science. ...

Easterlin found the explanation for the unexpected Baby Boom in economics. The Depression produced small birth cohorts. Those cohorts came of working age in a booming postwar economy and immigration tightly restricted by the Immigration Act of 1924. The “lucky few” folks walked into a market starved for workers. They got high wages relative to what they’d grown up expecting, and so they married early and had a lot of children.

Tight labor markets and closed borders made the Baby Boom. That is the core of Easterlin’s thesis, and it is the part of his work that has aged best. ..."

From the significance and abstract:

"Significance

The large size of the baby boom cohort depressed economic opportunities for that generation as it flooded the labor force in the 1970s.

Contrary to the predictions of Richard Easterlin’s relative cohort size hypothesis, however, there was no rebound of opportunities with the advent of smaller cohorts in the mid-1980s; incomes of young adults remained depressed until the 2010s.

New measures of flows into and out of the labor force make it simple to assess the relative impact of retirement, female labor-force participation, and immigration in concert with the size of birth cohorts entering the labor force. The results suggest that the departure of baby boomers from the labor force will have profound implications for economic opportunities of new workers.

Abstract

This analysis revisits the relative cohort size hypothesis proposed by demographer Richard Easterlin in the 1960s.

Easterlin argued that the economic and social prospects of a generation are influenced by the size of the cohort relative to adjacent cohorts.

He hypothesized that relative cohort size affects wages, employment, marriage, and fertility decisions.

The theory fits the data well for the period from 1940 to 1980 but fails in later decades.

I present a more nuanced view of the impact of demographic factors on worker competition through the lens of a measure of decennial labor-force flows. This approach allows consideration of the effects of retirement, female labor-force participation, and immigration on labor-market competition.

I calculate these flows for the period from 1910 to 2040 and propose an index of employment competition. The results show that trends in labor-market competition are consistent with wage trends of young workers since 1940. Projections to 2040 show that we are on the verge of a radical reshaping of labor markets in which new workers will be in extremely short supply."

Breitbart Business Digest

The pig in the python: US decennial labor flows and economic opportunity, 1910–2040 (no public access)

U.S. National Debt Reaches $39.4 Trillion

Just a reminder! This is unsustainable! The current debt/GDP ratio is about 123%!

Will President Trump do something about it? He should!

Nominal GDP for 2026 is estimated at $31.866 trillion.

"The Joint Economic Committee (JEC) released its July 2026 Monthly Debt Update, reporting that the total gross national debt reached $39.38 trillion as of July 3, 2026.

Debt held by the public totaled $31.68 trillion, while intergovernmental debt stood at $7.71 trillion.

According to the JEC, the nation’s debt has risen by $2.81 trillion over the past year and by $10.90 trillion over the past five years.

During the previous 12 months, the debt increased at an average pace of $7.71 billion per day, $321.15 million per hour, $5.35 million per minute, or $89,208.39 per second.

The annual increase equates to $8,204.76 per person and $20,814.36 per household, while total gross national debt now amounts to $115,188 per person and $292,217 per household. ..."

U.S. National Debt Reaches $39.4 Trillion, JEC Reports - AZ FREE NEWS

President Trump announces Walmart to lower prices for thousands of products at his administration's request

Good, but ambiguous news! The president of the people or a populist?

It is however controversial at a minimum, when a government intervenes at a private business to lower product prices.

"President Donald Trump said Monday that Walmart has confirmed it will be lowering its prices for thousands of products this summer at his administration's request in celebration of the United States' 250th birthday.

Walmart said it will be lowering prices through its signature Rollbacks and Sam's Club programs, and customers can expect savings on groceries, household and everyday essentials, outdoor living, toys and apparel.

Trump noted that one grocery price that the savings include is a reduction in the cost of beef, which he said will be lowered by almost 15% per pound. Walmart said a pound of beef will now cost $5.94 instead of $6.74. ..."

Trump announces Walmart to lower prices for thousands of products at his administration's request | Just The News "Walmart said it will be lowering prices through its signature Rollbacks and Sam's Club programs, and customers can expect savings on groceries, household and everyday essentials, outdoor living, toys and apparel."

President Trump cheers as over 6 million sign up for Trump accounts

Good news, great idea! Economists have recommended such or similar accounts for several decades!

See also my other, new blog post here regarding this subject!

Make every American a millionaire by the time they reach adulthood! Caution: satire!

"President Donald Trump on Monday celebrated the launch of Trump accounts, saying that more than 6 million Americans had signed up for the project.

Earlier in the day, he formally rang the bell to open the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ from the White House as part of a ceremony marking the launch.

"Already, more than 6 million Americans have signed up for Trump accounts—and we've just started—many of which are receiving a one-time seed contribution of $1,000.... the Trump Accounts could grow to hundreds of thousands of dollars by the time they reach 18," he said. ..."

Trump cheers as 6M+ sign up for Trump accounts | Just The News "Earlier in the day, he formally rang the bell to open the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ from the White House as part of a ceremony marking the launch."

When a Productivity Boom Meets a Tight Labor Market

Recommendable! Economics and the AI technology revolution.

Caveat: I did not read the entire, long article!

"Edmund Phelps, who died last week at 92, won the Nobel Prize in Economics back in 2006 for his work on the deep structure of unemployment, inflation, and expectations. But one of his most provocative ideas—the productivity business cycle—has still not received the attention it deserves. ...

The U.S. economy has come to an unusual crossroads. Productivity is accelerating, the labor market remains historically tight, and workforce growth has stalled.

Conventional wisdom treats the tight labor market and stalled workforce growth as warning signs that growth could be hampered. This has become one of the leading arguments for easing back on immigration restrictions and expanding foreign worker visa programs. We need more workers, the business lobby is constantly telling President Trump.

Phelps’s theory suggests something different: if productivity is arriving without a prior hiring boom, this may be the rare cycle that delivers gains in output without first producing an employment boom that has to be painfully unwound.

The heart of Phelps’s innovation theory, developed in the 1980s and 1990s, was deceptively simple and deeply counterintuitive. Productivity booms don’t necessarily begin when productivity gains show up in the data. They begin earlier, when entrepreneurs and investors come to expect future productivity gains.

When businesses see new technological opportunities, the shadow value they place on business assets rises—especially trained employees, installed capital, customer relationships, and organizational capacity. Companies rush to hire, train, invest, and expand in anticipation of future productivity improvements. This boom is real. Employment expands, wages rise, asset prices climb, and the economy accelerates.

But when the productivity gains finally arrive, they don’t necessarily produce a second boom. The hiring and investment that the gains would justify may already have taken place. The future has been capitalized in advance. The realized productivity gain then marks the end of the boom rather than the beginning of a new one.

The Great Depression as a Productivity Hangover ..."

Breitbart Business Digest

Edmund Phelps

The Simple Macroeconomics of AI. Really!

It appears this economist Daron Acemoglu and winner of the John Bates Clark Medal 2005 and Economics Nobel Prize 2024 has little clue regarding machine learning & AI! He has an impressive lifetime citation count of over 297,000!

Apparently, this economist is a total factor productivity fetishist! Or a one trick pony!

This fool does not even recognize that AI will dramatically and highly affect high skilled labor (e.g. economists, physicians, engineers, scientists) in the near future. Unfortunately, productivity for high skilled labor is, if I am not mistaken, more difficult to measure than for low skilled labor, a serious challenge for the total factor productivity fetishist!

This economist totally underestimates the fast pace of the AI revolution! What Ivory Tower is he living in? What a dismal economist!

This economist is even a professor at MIT since 1993! Apparently, he has little contact or understanding of what his ML & AI colleagues do at MIT!

"A few months before he was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 2024, Daron Acemoglu published a paper that earned him few fans in Silicon Valley. Contrary to what Big Tech CEOs had been promising—an overhaul of all white-collar work [???] —Acemoglu estimated that AI would give only a small boost to US productivity and would not obviate the need for human work. It’s okay at automating certain tasks, he wrote, but some jobs will be perfectly fine. ..."

From the abstract:

"This paper evaluates claims about large macroeconomic implications of new advances in AI. It starts from a task-based model of AI’s effects, working through automation and task complementarities. So long as AI’s microeconomic effects are driven by cost savings/productivity improvements at the task level, its macroeconomic consequences will be given by a version of Hulten’s theorem: GDP and aggregate productivity gains can be estimated by what fraction of tasks are impacted and average task-level cost savings.

Using existing estimates on exposure to AI and productivity improvements at the task level, these macroeconomic effects appear nontrivial but modest—no more than a 0.66% increase in total factor productivity (TFP) over 10 years. The paper then argues that even these estimates could be exaggerated, because early evidence is from easy-to-learn tasks, whereas some of the future effects will come from hard-to-learn tasks, where there are many context-dependent factors affecting decision-making and no objective outcome measures from which to learn successful performance.

Consequently, predicted TFP gains over the next 10 years are even more modest and are predicted to be less than 0.53%. 

I also explore AI’s wage and inequality effects. I show theoretically that even when AI improves the productivity of low-skill workers in certain tasks (without creating new tasks for them), this may increase rather than reduce inequality. Empirically, I find that AI advances are unlikely to increase inequality as much as previous automation technologies because their impact is more equally distributed across demographic groups, but there is also no evidence that AI will reduce labor income inequality. Instead, AI is predicted to widen the gap between capital and labor income [???].

Finally, some of the new tasks created by AI may have negative social value (such as design of algorithms for online manipulation), and I discuss how to incorporate the macroeconomic effects of new tasks that may have negative social value."

The Simple Macroeconomics of AI | NBER (open access, published May 2024)

MIT The Algorithm

Daron Acemoglu. Is the a simpleton?

19 WTO Members Agree Among Themselves Not to Impose E-Commerce Duties

Good news! President Trump is not only about raising tariffs! 😊

"“The U.S. and ‌more than a dozen other countries including Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Australia on Thursday launched their own pact to not impose duties on e-commerce after no agreement was reached to end deadlock with Brazil, a document showed. ..."

19 WTO Members Agree Among Themselves Not to Impose E-Commerce Duties - Human Progress

19 members of the WTO, including US, agree among themselves not to impose duties on e-commerce

How It Got Harder for Americans to Climb the job ladder by job hopping or job shopping

Bad news! Food for thought! Mass illegal immigration is a good guess as it takes away large numbers of entry and difficult to fill jobs.

Then there is more intense competition going on with respect to international supply chains and foreign trade. Sourcing and buying cheap products from foreign countries has never been easier.

"A new economics paper puts its finger on something that American workers have felt for years, even though economists keep describing it too abstractly: it has become much harder to use one job as a springboard to a better one.

The paper is very good at establishing the decline of upward job mobility. But it misses the major causes: deindustrialization and [illegal] mass immigration.

The economists/authors seem to be dead wrong when they blame "noncompete agreements" for the wage stagnation! These noncompete agreements play most likely a rather minor role.

Let’s start with what they get right. For most workers, the biggest raises don’t come from annual reviews, cost-of-living adjustments, or even internal promotions. They come from getting a better [job] offer somewhere else. When those offers stop coming, wages stagnate even if the economy is still cranking out jobs. ..."

From the abstract:

"We quantify how structural changes in the U.S. labor market have contributed to wage stagnation over the past four decades by weakening the job ladder. Using Current Population Survey microdata from 1982–2023 and a partial-equilibrium job-ladder model, we estimate that employed workers today are about half as likely to receive a better-paying outside offer as they were in the 1980s. This decline is unlikely to reflect less efficient matching, weaker labor demand, or changes in workers' acceptance behavior.

Instead, cross-state variation is consistent with rising employer concentration and the growing use of noncompete agreements having curtailed opportunities for job shopping. In a general equilibrium version of the model, we find that these changes have reduced annual real wage growth by 0.68 percentage points—roughly one-third of the post-1980 slowdown—with about two-thirds of the effect operating through equilibrium wage setting rather than mechanical reallocation."

Breitbart Business Digest

The Long-Term Decline of the U.S. Job Ladder (no public access)