Why The World Is Spending More On War

Ed Elson is joined by Steve Feldstein to break down why countries are pouring so much money into defense and what that says about the future stability of the world. Then, Zed Francis joins the show to break down why chip stocks are selling off despite strong earnings from Samsung. Finally, Ed is joined by Ara Kharazian to dig into his paper which showed that the biggest AI spenders are actually hiring more than non-adopters. Steve Feldstein is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Zed Francis is the CIO & Co-Founder at Convexitas. Ara Kharazian is the Lead Economist at Ramp. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets Youtube Channel Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Read the Ramp paper Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Follow Scott on Instagram Send us your questions or comments by emailing [email protected] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Exchanges on the economic impact of AI. Exchanges on gold, energy and the commodity markets. For the sharpest analysis on finance, business and the economy. Count on Exchanges, the Goldman Sachs podcast. Listen now.

• 0:15Speaker 01

  Your heart can tell you a lot about your health. Apple Watch Series 12 measures your heart rate every five seconds with the most accurate heart rate sensing in a wearable. So your vitals app now with heart rate variability can tell you when something is off. And your readiness score can let you know when to rest and when to push. Hear the story in every heartbeat with Apple Watch Series 12. The features described are for wellness purposes only and not for medical use. iPhone 11 or later required. Based on Apple conducted study of heart rate accuracy, August 2026. Visit apple.com slash Apple Watch Series 12.

• 0:46Speaker 02

  Are you a pet owner? Every six seconds, a pet owner in the U.S. gets hit with a vet bill over $1,000. Always an unwelcome surprise. That's where Fetch comes in. Fetch is the most complete pet insurance for dogs and cats. According to consumeradvocate.org, you get paid back up to 90% of vet bills at any vet in the U.S. and Canada with claims paid back in as little as two days. Go to fetchpet.com/save right now for your free quote. That's fetchpet.com/save.

• 1:29Speaker 03

  Money markets. If money is evil, then that building is hell.

• 1:40Ed Elson?

  Welcome to Prof G Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is July 8th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals.

• 1:48Ed Elson?

  The major indices declined as chip stocks tumbled once again. More on that in a minute. Oil rose after three ships were attacked in the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. rescinded its authorization of Iranian oil sales following those strikes. Microsoft stock rose on news that it is replacing OpenAI and Anthropic with its own models to bring down costs. And finally, SpaceX declined nearly 7% on its first day in the Nasdaq 100.

• 2:18Ed Elson?

  Okay. What else is happening? The NATO summit kicked off yesterday in Turkey. And the big takeaway so far is that a new global arms race is underway. Trump is pulling U.S. military assets out of Europe and shifting focus to the Middle East and Indo-Pacific. That is forcing Europe to shoulder more of its own defense. NATO allies have agreed to at least $50 billion in defense industry deals and $40 billion in counter drone capabilities. But America isn't slowing down either. Trump's 2027 budget proposes one and a half trillion dollars for defense, which is the largest request in history. And Silicon Valley wants in.

• 2:59Ed Elson?

  Defense tech companies have raised more than $19 billion so far this year, already blowing past last year's record in 2025. In short, an enormous amount of capital is flowing into defense right now. The question is, what exactly are we gearing up for? Joining us to discuss this, we are speaking with Steve Feldstein, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His new book, Bites and Bullets: Global Rivalry, Private Tech, and the New Shape of Modern Warfare, comes out in September. Steve, thank you so much for joining us on the show today. I'd love to get your initial reactions to what we saw at the NATO summit.

• 3:41Ed Elson?

  It seems like a big conclusion or a big takeaway is that we're going to spend a lot more money on weapons, a lot more money on defense. Is that the right takeaway?

• 3:49Speaker 05

  I think it is. Thanks for having me on. And I really think that there's an overall context that's worth bearing in mind. And I think there are three factors that I've been looking at over the past couple of years that are really relevant. So I think the first one is that we are just seeing far more conflict occurring around the world today than even in the last five years. Last year, something like 250,000 people were killed alone on battlefields. So it means that war is prevalent and around and countries recognize that there is growing levels of insecurity and so that matters. I think the second thing is that we're seeing a growing menace from Russia as it continues to get on a wartime footing because of the Ukraine war, as it continues to increase its drone capacity and manufacturing of other types of weapons.

• 4:32Speaker 05

  Countries in Europe, in NATO in particular, are concerned and they know they need to keep up and they need to they need to retool accordingly. And then finally, I think especially coming from the Iran war, we're seeing the use of new technologies, particularly AI targeting systems and so forth in play. And I think it's also giving a recognition to countries like Germany, France and others that they also need to really think carefully about innovation and what types of weapon systems they need to incorporate so that they are able to fight wars effectively in the in the future.

• 5:03Ed Elson?

  Yeah, I mean, one of the stats that blew me away that we just learned is that defense tech has raised more than $19 billion this year. And that's in six months. So we already beat last year's record. And it seems as though Silicon Valley and technology is playing more and more of a role on the battlefield. What do you make of that dynamic and that shift? How should we feel about the fact that tech companies are participating in warfare at this point?

• 5:33Speaker 05

  It's a trend that's that's, you know, really begun to ramp up. And I see it as not necessarily a substitute to traditional arms manufacturers, but more as a compliment. So I'll give you a good case in point. You know, a lot of people have focused on the Maven targeting system from Palantir that's paired with Claude and how it was used in the Iran war. And so a lot of people look at bond systems like that and they say, okay, we need something similar. We need a better way to have more efficient targeting and to match our missiles to potential places of military targets to strike. So it doesn't mean that you don't need traditional ballistic missiles. What it does mean is that you need that plus you need a more efficient way in which to generate the coordinates for how you would target and identify, you know, different

• 6:18Speaker 05

  military assets. And so to that end, a lot of it is sort of creating other types of weaponry in addition to what's already needed in terms of munitions, based on the fact that countries see that there's more war and more insecurity all around, whether it's from China, prospectively Russia in the in the near region or other places.

• 6:38Ed Elson?

  When you look at some of the the tech companies that are participating, I mean, some of the companies you've written about, Google, Meta, Cloudflare, obviously Palantir. One thing that always strikes me is these are companies that are offering enterprise software services and solutions and then also playing a role in the Ukraine war, in the war in Iran. I mean, that's quite a striking dynamic. And I wonder if that's something that we should, I don't know, maybe be worried or investigate in some capacity, the fact that, you know, the CEO of an enterprise company is also directing the outcomes of what happens on the battlefield.

• 7:21Ed Elson?

  I'd be curious to get your views on what you make of that and if that is worth thinking about.

• 7:27Speaker 05

  I think you're right. It is a new role and I think there's a few different conflicts of interest that arise from that. I mean, I think one of the great examples is, you know, if you have a company like Microsoft and it is both providing data infrastructure that is being used by militaries like Israel's military or other militaries, but it's also selling consumer goods to a wide variety of clients. Well, how do those two things work together? And I don't think there's an easy answer to that, but so far they've been able to skirt around the issue. At some point, these issues are going to become front and center where countries will say, look, either you're providing military equipment for the security objectives of a particular country, or you're selling to consumers across the board, neutral items

• 8:11Speaker 05

  meant for civilian applications and not for military use. And so these are, I think, questions that are coming to bear for a variety of companies, whether it's OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Google, AWS or others, which are so far somewhat having it both ways.

• 8:25Ed Elson?

  You mentioned earlier that what all of this spending tells us is how unstable things have become from a geopolitical perspective. I remember last year, Jamie Dimon saying that this was sort of the most unstable or maybe he said the most uncertain time since World War II. I mean, I think that was almost a year ago. That was certainly last year. Where are we now? Like when you compare July 8th, 2026 to July 8th, 2025.

• 8:58Ed Elson?

  Is this a more unstable time? And is it going to continue to get more unstable?

• 9:02Speaker 05

  It is. I mean, certainly last year, we hadn't yet encountered the Iran war and all the spillover effects from that. So that's a really big thing that everyone is sort of grappling with. And it's not just about Iran and immediate adversaries in the Middle East. It's about a wider security architecture and questions there. We also see a continuing amount of fighting when it comes to the Ukraine war. And if anything, we're seeing even more escalation between the two sides with Ukraine striking Crimea, Russia coming back and striking Kiev and making bigger threats in terms of other, you know, potential adversaries. And so, and then that's not to mention the kind of prospective questions related to

• 9:44Speaker 05

  China, which frankly, at this point has been quieter because of these other, you know, situations that taking place. So there are a lot of different geopolitical issues that are flaring up simultaneously. And we also are seeing, I think, a bit of an ebbing of power, or at least the limitations to American power at this point, not to mention a volatile president who seems to change on a dime very quickly, the geopolitical objectives of the United States. All these ingredients coming together make for lots of unpredictability when it comes to security and where things, what things will look like in the coming months.

• 10:22Ed Elson?

  And the question for investors is, I mean, the main question is, will the spending keep going up? Clearly, it's gone up last year, coming into this year. Will defense tech companies keep on getting massive contracts? Will they get larger contracts? Will some of the larger, more traditional players get larger contracts? Will governments spend more and more? Do you think that defense spending will go even higher than it is today?

• 10:54Speaker 05

  So one issue is that we have seen a ramp up in NATO spending, as you, as you mentioned. And I think that will continue to increase. But what's interesting right now is that there's a gap between the amount of money that's there and the ability of current manufacturers to be able to produce according to the money that's been allocated. So I think the first thing we're going to need to see is greater capacity that's built up to match the money and the allocated contracts that are there for munitions. I think the second thing that we're going to see is a real ramp up when it comes to countering drones. So drones are proliferating. We're seeing that in Iran, we're seeing that in Ukraine and so forth. And we are also seeing a dire need by countries like UAE, Saudi, the United States for that

• 11:39Speaker 05

  matter, countries in Europe, when it comes to actually countering these drones and coming up with the right systems. That's a growth area. That's an area where you're just are starting to see products at scale come to the market. And I think you will see continuing demand and investments for more of these types of systems, especially as we see drone use proliferate, which I'm certain will continue to be the case.

• 12:01Ed Elson?

  Final question, Trump is now renewing his threats, thoughts about Greenland. He said the territory, quote, "should be controlled by the United States." Is the Greenland story not over? Is that something that we should be worth, that is worth us paying attention to like we did at the beginning of the year?

• 12:24Speaker 05

  Well, it's certainly not over in his head. And because he is president of the country, I don't think we can completely dismiss it. It's not something that I tend to focus on, on a day to day basis. Trump says a lot of things. He has a lot of grievances. He has a lot of different issues that are top of mind for him. They tend to move from point, place to place, depending on context and where he is. So it's not something that I think is due for an imminent action. But we can't just take it off the agenda completely either, because he's the president of the United States and he says it. And so therefore it matters.

• 12:55Ed Elson?

  Steve Felton, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Steve, we appreciate your time.

• 13:01Speaker 05

  Thanks for having me.

• 13:05Ed Elson?

  After the break, chip stocks take a tumble. And for even more markets insights, you can subscribe to my weekly newsletter, Simply Put, at simplyput.profgmedia.com.

• 13:23Speaker 06

  This is advertiser content from Comcast Business. As cyber threats become more and more machine-based and driven by AI agents, those of us in the cyber defense space, we're having to invest at the same pace. Hi, I'm Chris McFarlane, Chief Development Officer at Comcast Business. So when we think about the threat of cybersecurity attacks to businesses, they're just a lot more automated. They have the ability to think, they can scale literally anywhere from 100 to thousands of time faster than a human can. The reality is that today, you need to protect every device, every endpoint, every workload that's running on a server, whether it's your own server or in the cloud. This is an area that Comcast Business excels at.

• 14:07Speaker 06

  We're enabling intelligence-driven defense with integrated visibility, AI-powered threat detection, and automated response capabilities that prioritize, correlate, and contain risks before they escalate. And so it doesn't matter whether you're a small business or a medium-sized business or a really large enterprise. We've got this incredible portfolio of cybersecurity solutions and services to really enhance your cybersecurity posture. To learn more about how Comcast Business can help protect your business today, visit ComcastBusiness.com/cybersecurity.

• 14:46Speaker 07

  If you're looking to hire, you need Indeed. With Indeed sponsored jobs, you can spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results. And listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to help your job get the premium status it deserves at Indeed.com/podcast. Just go to Indeed.com/podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? This is a job for Indeed-sponsored jobs.

• 15:31Speaker 02

  Are you a pet owner? Every six seconds, a pet owner in the US gets hit with a vet bill over $1,000. Always an unwelcome surprise. That's where Fetch comes in. Fetch is the most complete pet insurance for dogs and cats, according to ConsumerAdvocate.org. You get paid back up to 90% of vet bills at any vet in the US and Canada with claims paid back in as little as two days. Go to FetchPet.com/save right now for your free quote. That's FetchPet.com/save.

• 16:14Ed Elson?

  We're back with Prof G Markets. After a meteoric rise, the semiconductor rally might finally be slowing down. Samsung, which is up nearly 400% over the past year, posted blowout earnings yesterday. The company saw revenues more than double and profits increased by 1,800%. And still, that wasn't enough to satisfy investors. The stock fell 7%, sending nearly the entire market down with it. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index closed the day down 6%. The Nasdaq closed over 1% and the S and P 500 closed over a half percent. So for more on how Samsung's beat somehow spooked the market and what's going on with

• 16:59Ed Elson?

  chip stocks, we are speaking with Zed Francis, CIO and co-founder at Convexitas. Zed, thanks for joining us. Chips have just gotten crushed over the course of the day. And if, actually, if we look at the semiconductor index over the past five days, it's down 11%. This was supposed to be the leader. It has been the leader in the market throughout the year, and it seems like it's coming to an end. Your initial reactions to what we're seeing?

• 17:27Speaker 03

  Yeah, this quarter earnings is going to be very different than Q1 earnings. It's as simple as valuations have changed dramatically. Back in Q1, so think back to, you know, April and early May, when all these names were reporting, they basically all kind of did the beat and raise, and mostly the stocks had very favorable performance on the day after those earnings. But spot P's were below three-year average back then. Today, they're about 10 handles above their three-year average. And forward P's back then were below the S and P 500. Today, they're above the S and P 500. Now, the peg ratio for the space is still reasonably attractive. What all that means is the market is pricing in much differently this time, the amount

• 18:11Speaker 03

  of growth embedded into these companies. And so the hurdle is that much higher. So I would expect this entire earnings season to, if there's anything, any small item that feels like a miss, to have these kind of nasty downward moves. And I expect it to just in general be a very volatile earnings season for the sector.

• 18:32Ed Elson?

  Is there any reason why it's happening now? I mean, it just seems strange. Samsung reports this crazy earnings report. It's a beat on pretty much all fronts, unless I'm wrong about that, I'm pretty sure it was. And yet, now's the time that investors say, we're out, this has gone, this has gone too far.

• 18:52Speaker 03

  Again, I think you're going to need Micron level of blowout to really impress the market at this point with the current kind of valuation metrics in the space.

• 19:02Ed Elson?

  Just looking at what Michael Burry has done, he's kind of made a name for himself in this semiconductor boom because he is shorting it. He's shorted the semiconductor index. He shorted Micron. He also shorted Nvidia. He's betting that Micron's going to fall 30%.

• 19:21Ed Elson?

  What do you make of Michael Burry's moves? Do you think that he's ultimately making the right choice?

• 19:27Speaker 03

  My expertise is in volatility. And when looking at volatility, he's not in a unique camp. Implied volatility, you know, the actual price embedded within the options you can actually trade is off the charts. You know, semiconductor, you know, using SMH, we can do the same thing with SOX. The spread of volatility in the semiconductor ETFs in comparison to QQQ, again, massive overlap of constituents. That spread is at its 100th percentile, you know, SMH volatility on its own is near its all time 100th percentile. This is a sector that's obviously performed very well. Yes, it's, you know, 10 ish percent off of those highs from, you know, a couple of weeks back.

• 20:09Speaker 03

  But it's a common theme that folks are using options to bet against the space. And why I can say with a little bit more conviction is when you look at the indices, again, SOX, SMH, things along, you know, that basket of style of trading instruments, daily volumes are about four to one puts to calls. Open interest is similarly about four to one puts to calls. And during Q2, implied volatility just kept on climbing during all that trading activity that was heavily put slanted, suggesting that it's mostly people buying puts as volatility is expanding well.

• 20:48Speaker 03

  That's mostly trading. And additionally, as the semiconductor space has faded, as you said, over the last, you know, five-ish trading days, volatility in those ETFs is actually fading a little bit with it. So we're seeing that stocks up, vol up, stocks down, vol down, which again suggests to me a significant amount of hedging and potentially over hedging in that space. Why, when, you know, it's profitable to be hedging the space, there's a little bit of that monetization actually pushing volatility lower. So I think it's, we'll call it not a unique view by, you know, famous short participant. And frankly, the options are pricing it in. I mean, it's really expensive to have that view.

• 21:34Ed Elson?

  Just when we look at the comparison between, I guess, the chips and so the, the companies that are making money off of the AI infrastructure build out boom right now versus the hyperscalers, i.e. the companies that are paying to build out the AI infrastructure. So, you know, Microsoft, Oracle, Meta, et cetera. It's quite interesting because the hyperscalers have gotten punished so far this year. The, the infra players, the chip stocks, the memory stocks, those have, those are crushing, which makes sense. Those, those are the companies that are really making all the money. But it seems like it's starting to reverse now, and it seems like the two are now starting to converge.

• 22:18Ed Elson?

  I'd be curious to get your views on what this all means to what we're seeing for the hyperscalers, also for a lot of the software names, which are also bouncing back this week. Are those two dynamics related, do you think?

• 22:30Speaker 03

  Meta's announcement last week, I think definitely, we'll call it spooks some folks in terms of the rotation. Now that they're going to lease out some of their excess capacity, maybe it's not excess capacity, but I think that's how the market's currently reading it. But what I think is interesting for the long term, where both might be successful is, again, it's, it's an asset heavy build out. It's a capital intensive build out. And these hyperscalers are investment grade can borrow essentially as cheaply as anybody out there. So if you're somebody like Meta borrowing at 30 year, you know, term at six, six and a half percent

• 23:10Speaker 03

  to be able to facilitate leasing out this compute to other players that cannot essentially lock in any sort of term in terms of financing, especially not at those rates, they're just kind of doing a, we'll call it grown up type of play where they're using their balance sheet to go ahead and build out capacity that other players cannot, and hopefully capturing that spread of the long term. So, you know, I view it as this is the next phase for the hyperscalers. They're building things out for themselves. Now they're coming up with additional ways to increase free cash flow from the spend on infrastructure build. But it doesn't necessarily mean the semiconductor wave is over.

• 23:50Speaker 03

  In fact, it might elongate it depending on how successful they are essentially becoming that intermediary between the end client and building out that infrastructure.

• 23:59Ed Elson?

  All right. Zed Francis, CIO and co-founder at Convexitas. Zed, thank you so much.

• 24:05Speaker 03

  Thanks for having me.

• 24:12Ed Elson?

  Over the past couple of years, we've heard many projections about what AI may do to the labor market. According to Dario Amade, AI could eliminate, quote, "half of all entry level white collar jobs." And according to Sam Altman, entire job categories would be, quote, "totally, totally gone." But lately, business leaders have been changing their tune. Sam Altman recently told CNBC, quote, "Our industry underestimated how much we're going to be able to keep people at the center of everything." And Amade said that companies, quote, "can now do more with the same amount of resources." A recent paper from economists at Ravelio Labs and Ramp seemed to back that up.

• 24:52Ed Elson?

  They found that the biggest AI spenders are hiring more than non-adopters, not less. So we wanted to speak to one of the authors of that study and ask the question, is AI coming for our jobs or not? Joining us is Ara Kharazian, Lead Economist at Ramp. Ara, thank you so much for joining us on the show. So the change of tune has been notable from these AI leaders. But you've been studying this. You wrote a paper on AI job loss. Your findings seem to be that AI is not killing jobs. What did you find?

• 25:29Speaker 08

  You know, this is a market where there's been a lot of mixed messages, both as far as what businesses are hearing about how they should be using AI and what people on the jog market are hearing as far as how AI is going to affect them. So this was the first ever study to use firm level data on what happens at firms that adopt AI. So instead of using surveys or AI exposure scores, we could look at these firms bought AI, these firms didn't. What happened to their hiring going forward? So what we found is the firms using AI heavily grew their headcount 10% over the two years following adoption. The firms that used AI lightly only grew at about the same rate as the control group. So we can talk exactly about what that means, high intensity versus low intensity.

• 26:10Speaker 08

  Beyond that, we also found outsized growth for entry level hires, so 12% over two years.

• 26:15Ed Elson?

  Yeah. Could you explain, break down those, the difference in those control groups that, what it means to sort of be adopting it heavily versus lightly?

• 26:22Speaker 08

  Well, what we found in our research is that the vast majority of firms that are using AI are using it in a fairly simple and basic way. You might have a chat GPT subscription across your entire employee base. But I think if you've used that technology, you will notice very quickly, it's nice to have, but it's not particularly productivity enhancing. It's certainly not the technology that's going to vault the United States into the, you know, next generation of economic growth and development. However, the top third of firms in our data set are using AI a little bit differently. They're more likely to use multiple models. They're more likely to use the coding agents. They're more likely to use dedicated software for specific tasks like customer service operations. So those businesses tend to be assigned to our high intensity group, and it's there that we see these concentrated gains.

• 27:07Speaker 08

  Now, there are caveats with that, too. Those firms tend to be in high growth sectors already. Now their growth accelerates after AI adoption. And while we have not seen any declines in hiring outside of these high growth firms, we're also not necessarily seeing a lot of gains from AI adoption. So that's, I think, the open question for research going forward, whether or not the gains to AI adoption will be experienced by firms outside of tech.

• 27:31Ed Elson?

  That seemed to be one of the interesting points is that we're seeing this specifically in the tech sector. We don't quite know how it works for the rest of these sectors and how generalizable it is. One critique that I'd be interested to get your views on is that, I mean, it doesn't seem that this is proving causality here, meaning it could be that if you're a company that is heavily adopting AI, maybe your headcount is growing for other reasons, such as maybe you're a venture backed company and you're, you know, forced to continue to grow. I know a lot of AI startups that are growing significantly. And in that sense, I'm not sure it necessarily surprises me or disproves the long-term thesis,

• 28:16Ed Elson?

  which is that AI could ultimately reduce jobs, at least in the short to maybe medium term. How do you respond to those critiques? And do you think that they are valid?

• 28:27Speaker 08

  It's valid in that we do actually control for it. So we run the analysis on two different control groups. One, we had run it against, you know, firms that use AI versus firms that never use AI at all. And there we see a very similar dynamic to what you're describing. Firms that use AI are notably different than firms that don't even try it. They're already faster growing. They're more likely to be VC backed or in tech.

• 28:49Speaker 08

  So instead, we run this analysis against a different control group, firms that have not adopted AI yet in that period, but eventually do. And there we're able to compare firms that are on otherwise similar growth paths. So in that version of the analysis, which is how we primarily report our results, we do see that firms that adopt AI are already faster growing, but that growth accelerates after adoption. Now, to the extent that we can or cannot prove causality, I do think the step for further research is to now identify what are the mechanisms by which firms see this growth. And one of the very complicated facts about measuring AI adoption is that the firms that are using it well have no incentive to publish their playbook.

• 29:33Speaker 08

  They have no incentive to tell us what they're doing that is different and allows them to grow faster than their competitors. Now, we do have some signs of that starting to emerge in our data, specifically that they're using some of the more advanced tools and that they're using multiple models and they're experimenting heavily. But that's the question for future research.

• 29:51Ed Elson?

  From my own understanding too, that the control group that, as you explain, adopted AI later compared to the earlier AI adopters who are presumably VC backed and they're probably their whole thing is to, they're probably AI startups really that are growing really significantly. And you're saying, well, we found a batch of companies that adopted it later. To what extent does that still control for the problem, I guess would be my question because?

• 30:22Ed Elson?

  Could it not also be possible that many of those companies are also VC backed? And they simply started adopting AI later? Or is the assumption that companies that adopt it later are late-stage companies? Companies more similar to like, you know, a large enterprise like a Microsoft or an Oracle or whatever?

• 30:41Speaker 08

  Well, not necessarily. I mean, when we're measuring the growth in the high-intensity adopters group, we are comparing them to firms that otherwise adopt with high intensity in the post-adoption period. And so we are comparing firms that are like-for-like, both in terms of their likelihood of being VC-backed and in terms of what they sell and whether or not they're tech companies already and whether or not they're startups. So I do think our analysis is robust to that. But even so, if you compare, if you take out all of the tech companies in our dataset, you know, you still find high-intensity users of AI. And while they're not necessarily adding a lot of headcount, they're also not cutting headcount. And so I think that's the finding that is informative as far as if you're someone on

• 31:23Speaker 08

  the job market and you are seeing these statements from CEOs saying that we have to do all these layoffs because of AI, let's say that you should be skeptical.

• 31:32Speaker 08

  Because our data shows that, you know, if they're not necessarily hiring more, their headcount is not necessarily changing because of AI adoption. Now, the mix of jobs may change going forward, but overall, the companies that adopt AI tend to grow faster following adoption.

• 31:47Ed Elson?

  So when you see some of these headlines that we've seen, obviously now we're seeing sort of a change in the messaging from the, from these AI leaders, presumably because it's gotten so unpopular, I think, but I mean, jury's still out on that. But we have seen a lot of headlines from companies, they say, you know, we're going to lay off 8,000, 10,000 people and we're doing it because of AI. In fact, 100,000 layoffs so far this year have been attributed to AI. Do you think that they are kind of misattributing what the layoffs are really all about and just saying something to, I don't know, please shareholders? I mean, what do you make of those, those headlines?

• 32:28Speaker 08

  Well, I can't surmise exactly why companies say it. I mean, I think the fact is that most layoffs and job losses in general are due to a number of reasons. I mean, there's a side finding in this paper as well, that the tech sector in general was shedding jobs in the post-pandemic over-hiring period and that that trend reversed following AI adoption at these firms. We didn't spend a lot of time on that in the paper, but there's a side finding there that is AI that actually allowed the tech sector to start hiring again and that powered that boom. So there's that. And not to say that there won't be people who will be affected by AI in terms of, you know, their job prospects. Let's remember, this paper only focused on white-collar work.

• 33:09Speaker 08

  So we're not looking at the impact of self-driving cars on drivers or manufacturing automation on factory workers. And then second, even within white-collar work, there are still workers that may be affected by AI in the workplace and whether or not they're able to learn it quickly enough. Now, after we found this broad growth in hiring following adoption, the next test of the research is, well, who are they hiring and what are they hiring differently? And although I think it's too soon to say on many metrics and job functions, we are seeing an outsized growth in entry-level hiring. And you can imagine that that is, first of all, that's being powered by the firms that are high-intensity adopters of AI. It's our first sign that they're looking for different types of employees, likely people who already know how to use AI and use it well.

• 33:53Speaker 08

  And what better place to look than recent grads, people in college and people who know about how to use AI and new technologies well, as has been the case for all of the other technological developments over the last 20, 30, 40, 50 years.

• 34:07Ed Elson?

  All right. Ara Karazian, Lead Economist at Ramp. Ara, we really appreciate your time. Thank you.

• 34:13Speaker 08

  Thanks for having me.

• 34:16Ed Elson?

  Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Shalan, Kristin O'Donoghue and Mia Silverio. And our social producer is Jake MacPherson. Thank you for listening to Prof G Markets from Prof G Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.

• 34:44Speaker 09

  Sponsored by Deepgram, the leader in voice AI, so you can use voices like mine.

• 34:50Speaker 01

  Your heart can tell you a lot about your health. Apple Watch Series 12 measures your heart rate every five seconds with the most accurate heart rate sensing in wearable. So your vitals app, now with heart rate variability, can tell you when something is off. And your readiness score can let you know when to rest and when to push. Hear the story in every heartbeat with Apple Watch Series 12. The features described are for wellness purposes only and not for medical use. iPhone 11 or later required. Based on Apple conducted study of heart rate accuracy, August 2026. Visit apple.com slash Apple Watch Series 12.

• 35:20Speaker 10

  Support for the show comes from Honest. Parents want the very best for life's most delicate skin. That's why Honest holds every product to their highest standard, the Honest standard. From Honest Clean Conscious Wipes to Bath & Body Essentials and Diapers, everything Honest makes is designed for the delicate details that matter most. Because when caring for a baby comes with so many little decisions, you need products you can trust. Your peace of mind starts with Honest. Shop Honest on Amazon, Walmart, and Target.