Stephanie Roth

Good round number, 5%.

No, I don't think so either.

Yeah, it structurally shifted down over time, in which case...

Because the labor market dynamics have changed materially.

What keeps us in full employment today is not the same as what we were.

So therefore, if we're sitting at,

5%, that's a much riskier environment than what it would have been.

Yeah, I think that's fair.

And I guess that is the risk in the future, that we end up with a structural shift higher.

Because before it was a backdrop where globalization and manufacturing helped to sort of bring the economy into today.

We're a much more developed economy than we were, of course.

that's the risk that we see into the future, that we end up with a structurally slightly higher unemployment rate.

But I'm not convinced that it will end up being quite that.

I think there's an environment where you end up with job gains as a result.

So I think what's driving markets is, of course, AI, and that kind of is required to continue moving ahead in order for the U.S.

economy to be okay.

If tech cap-backs started to slow down materially as a result of AI, there was a, for whatever reason, they decided the return on that investment wasn't quite as high, the U.S.

economy would still be okay.

We're not at a place where AI is so ingrained and important to the economy that if those dynamics were to change, the economy would be in big trouble.

We estimate that the domestic share of AI-related CapEx is at 1.5% of GDP.