Kathryn Anne Edwards

It was an interesting note that kind of reflects what we all see, even if we can't describe, that men and women don't hold the same jobs.

I think I tend to prioritize growth that is both reflecting underlying economic activity as well as growth that is keeping the gears of the labor market moving.

As much as I would have my preferences over the labor market, you know, the ultimate goal

The ultimate policy is not to mess with it too much, right?

It does so much on its own.

170 million people have a job in this country across—you've got people who are basically 14 to 95 years old.

They have every level of education possible in every state, in every locality, and they've all got jobs.

Mostly, it's all working really well.

I think what I don't like to see is—

Maybe the better answer to the question is I think the sickness we have in the labor market is not sector specific.

The sickness that we're seeing growing and mounting evidence of long term is that we have employer concentration that's freezing mobility and dampening wages.

Think of it a monopoly amongst employers.

There's mounting evidence that this has been slowly occurring for decades.

So my preference would be whichever sector has the most businesses, the less agglomeration, the most competition for workers, because that's what will be associated with lots of wage growth and mobility.

To a certain degree, yes.

It's convenient and it's financially remunerative to corporations to say that they're laying off because of AI.

It would be one thing if there was no penalty, but it appears to me there might be a reward for saying that you're utilizing AI.

You know, it's not the first time this has happened.

The economy, we'd like to think that it's just numbers, but it's really so much narrative as much as it is hard data.

And the narrative around...