Economics

♻️ Recycling, reimagined. I came across Ameru’s AI Smart Bin — and it made me realize something we rarely talk about in sustainability: We don’t fail to recycle because we don’t care. We fail because the friction is too high. This bin doesn’t just collect waste. It sees what you throw, sorts it automatically, and even gives you real-time feedback. The results? ✅ 95%+ sorting accuracy ✅ Analytics that show you how to reduce waste ✅ ROI in under 2 years 👉 Here’s the hidden insight: Let’s be honest: recycling is broken. Most of us want to recycle, but the system is designed for failure — too much friction, too many rules. The real innovation isn’t in AI or edge computing. It’s in making sustainability invisible. No guilt, no extra steps — just default behavior upgraded. 💡 Actionable thought: Whether you’re building tech, a product, or even a habit, ask yourself — how can I make the right choice feel effortless? Because effort scales linearly. But effortlessness? That scales exponentially. PS: Imagine when every trash bin becomes a data point in the circular economy. 👉 Do you think this kind of “invisible innovation” could transform how we recycle at home and at work? #GreenTech #AI #Innovation #Sustainability #CircularEconomy

I was born and raised on a farm in a small town in Ohio. I've worked to get H-1B visas and green cards for my team members my entire career. There are three simple economic arguments for increasing legal immigration by highly educated workers: 1) If another country pays to raise and educate a child through college and that young person then moves to the US, we just gained a fully mature tax payer at zero cost. All the news about student loans? In this case, another country paid for that education. They bore all the costs, we get all the benefits. 2) Education in most countries that send us H-1B candidates is incredibly limited and highly competitive. The result is, only the absolute cream of the crop in those countries gets a chance to apply for an H-1B. We are literally stealing the very best from other countries. To stop that would be suicidal madness. 3) Highly educated immigrants create jobs. Yes, they also compete for jobs, and I competed against some exceptionally brilliant leaders from all over the world. But those leaders have now either created or lead some of our most impressive companies. This debate ends up being complicated for many emotional reasons: a) If you need a job and someone born outside the US gets one you wanted, it is easy to blame and hate, because while overall legal immigration may be good for the country and the economy in general, in that situation it was bad for you. b) Legal immigration gets lumped in with immigration in general and people coming in to the country illegally. Since there are far more people who come in illegally, that conversation dominates the immigration discussion, drowning out the nuance about highly educated workers. c) There are plenty of problems with our domestic education system, including runaway costs, that we need to fix so that all people, including people born in the US, can get world class education. Luckily, online education and AI tutors will create more of this access at lower costs. I no longer need to attend an exclusive university when the best education is available from anywhere. Finally, there are many moral arguments for immigration. Here is just one: Evans is a Welch name. I can trace my ancestry to John Evans, who came to Virginia in 1712. Those 300 years do not change the fact that I am still an immigrant. Even "native" Americans came to this country across a land bridge. "First Peoples" means "first people to get here," not "magically grew from the ground like grass." It is certainly reckless to attempt to have a nuanced discussion about something as explosive as immigration in a limited length format like LinkedIn. At the same time, I am absolutely going to stand up for my many brilliant colleagues who came to the US on H-1B or other visas. They are my friends and our country is better off for their presence, talents, and hard work. I welcome constructive discussion of how we can make a better world, and a better America, for all of us.

Artificial intelligence (#AI) has the potential to shape our future in ways we’re only beginning to understand. But, as a recent McKinsey & Company report shows, AI still poses a critical question: Will it widen the racial economic gap or help close it? The key to the answer lies in how we design and apply these technologies. Human-centered AI — built to address the unique needs of Black communities — can address systemic disparities by improving healthcare, supporting Black entrepreneurs and creating pathways to economic mobility. This is about more than #technology; it’s about equity. By prioritizing inclusive innovation, which means training AI models to be free of racial bias and ensuring we provide underrepresented communities with access to these tools and relevant education, we can ensure AI is used to promote progress, not exclusion. My passion for technology and equity drives me to advocate for AI that serves all communities, especially those that have been historically excluded. When we invest in AI solutions that uplift underrepresented communities, we’re building a more just and equitable future for everyone. https://bit.ly/3Al0BHJ

I’m pleased that President Trump has announced a pause on implementing some of the “reciprocal tariffs” that he announced last week.   In the short-term, tariffs can hurt economic activity. They cause costs to rise, and companies will either absorb those costs, decreasing margins, or pass them on, which will affect pricing and demand. So delaying the tariffs will avoid these short-term impacts.   But we remain in a period of high uncertainty, including the near-term rising risk of an escalating trade war with China. This uncertainty will likely dampen global investment and growth. Every investment decision is based on both risk and return. The large uncertainties in the global trading system have substantially increased risks for most companies.   BCG’s trade and geopolitics experts, put it this way: “Every company, regardless of sector or location, needs to build tariffs and the related uncertainty into its planning and operating model.” In other words, core decision making just got a lot more complicated for business leaders. You can read more from our Global Advantage team on navigating the impact of tariffs: https://lnkd.in/ert8gazK Some companies have already built geopolitical muscle, developing capabilities to anticipate and respond to policy shifts. They’ve set up teams to map out tariff impacts, consider pricing strategies, and work with suppliers to share cost burdens. They should be better positioned to confront the current turbulence and headwinds. But even the leaders of those companies are now asking harder, longer-term questions. All businesses need to understand how sustained high tariffs could affect their supply chains and manufacturing networks—and prepare in advance as much as possible.   Trade battles and higher uncertainty are not what most of us would have wished for, but that’s the world we’re in. Leaders must embed a mindset of resilience grounded in adaptiveness and agility and seek advantage and opportunity amid uncertainty.

Trump’s TARIFFS EXPLAINED 📈 Wait...did you feel that jolt in the markets?  The US has returned to tariff levels we haven't seen in over a CENTURY! If you work in finance or accounting, you need to understand how these trade barriers will impact your company's bottom line... ➡️ WHAT ARE TARIFFS? Tariffs are quite simply taxes on goods imported from other countries. They're charged at the port of entry, not overseas. Despite some claims, these costs are paid by the companies bringing goods into the country, not by foreign governments. Tariffs have historically been used to encourage consumers to buy domestically manufactured goods. ➡️ HOW WERE THE TARIFFS CALCULATED? The calculation method caught my attention immediately. Instead of mirroring what other countries charge us, the administration used a formula based on trade deficits. They took the US trade deficit with each country, divided by total imports from that country, then halved it. This approach doesn't accurately reflect other countries' actual tariff rates. For example, while Trump claimed China charges a 67% tariff, the average is actually closer to 3-10%. ➡️ WHO IS AFFECTED BY TARIFFS? These tariffs will have a wide-ranging impact: 1️⃣ American Consumers: They'll face higher prices as tariff costs get passed on. The average American family could potentially pay thousands more annually. 2️⃣ American Businesses: Companies relying on imported components will see increased costs. Firms that design in the US but manufacture abroad (Apple, Nike) could be significantly affected. 3️⃣ The Stock Market: Markets reacted immediately with significant declines. We saw an estimated $3.5 trillion vaporized from markets overnight. 4️⃣ Global Trade: These tariffs are already triggering retaliation. China announced retaliatory measures within days. ➡️ PROPONENTS OF TARIFFS: Figures like JD Vance argue that American manufacturing jobs outweigh cheaper imported goods. They call this a "National Emergency" in trade relations. Their primary goal is manufacturing revival in the USA. They aim to protect national security and rebuild American industries. They want to counter unfair competition from countries with subsidized manufacturing. Some believe it could force the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, helping US refinance debt. ➡️ CRITICS OF TARIFFS: Critics point to the immediate market reaction with significant declines. They warn about higher inflation, with preliminary estimates suggesting a significant CPI jump. They fear large-scale trade wars from retaliation by China and the EU. Many economists see potential for stagflation if the economy slows while prices rise. The scenario of "trade wars and global economic fallout" keeps finance professionals up at night. === How is your company preparing your financial forecasts for these changes? Have you calculated the potential impact to your bottom line? Join the discussion in the comments below 👇

One of the most effective things the U.S. or any other nation can do to ensure its competitiveness in AI is to welcome high-skilled immigration and international students who have the potential to become high-skilled. For centuries, the U.S. has welcomed immigrants, and this helped make it a worldwide leader in technology. Letting immigrants and native-born Americans collaborate makes everyone better off. Reversing this stance would have a huge negative impact on U.S. technology development. I was born in the UK and came to the U.S. on an F-1 student visa as a relatively unskilled and clueless teenager to attend college. Fortunately I gained skills and became less clueless over time. After completing my graduate studies, I started working at Stanford under the OPT (Optional Practical Training) program, and later an H-1B visa, and ended up staying here. Many other immigrants have followed similar paths to contribute to the U.S. I am very concerned that making visas harder to obtain for students and high-skilled workers, such as the pause in new visa interviews that started last month and a newly chaotic process of visa cancellations, will hurt our ability to attract great students and workers. In addition, many international students without substantial means count on being able to work under OPT to pay off the high cost of a U.S. college degree. Gutting the OPT program, as has been proposed, would both hurt many international students’ ability to study here and deprive U.S. businesses of great talent. (This won’t stop students from wealthy families. But the U.S. should try to attract the best talent without regard to wealth.) Failure to attract promising students and high-skilled workers would have a huge negative impact on American competitiveness in AI. Indeed, a recent report by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence exhorts the government to “strengthen AI talent through immigration.” If talented people do not come to the U.S., will they have an equal impact on global AI development just working somewhere else? Unfortunately, the net impact will be negative. The U.S. has a number of tech hubs including Silicon Valley, Seattle, New York, Boston/Cambridge, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and Austin, and these hubs concentrate talent and foster innovation. (This is why cities, where people can more easily find each other and collaborate, promote innovation.) Making it harder for AI talent to find each other and collaborate will slow down innovation, and it will take time for new hubs to become as advanced. [Truncated due to length limit. Full text, with links: https://lnkd.in/gGs-2RrD ]

It's hard to fathom, but we are back on recession watch. The economy was performing exceptionally well at the start of the year—it was the strongest economy on the planet. But here we are. In just a few months, the economy is struggling with the mounting trade war and haphazard DOGE cuts to government jobs and funding. And this is before the mass deportations get going and the Treasury debt limit drama heats up again. The odds of the economy unraveling into recession in the coming year are uncomfortably high, rising to 35%. In coming posts, I will present the leading indicators I rely most on to determine whether a recession is dead ahead.   Leading indicator #1 – Conference Board survey of consumer confidence. Most times, consumer confidence reflects the economy’s performance – unemployment and inflation – but in the lead-up to recessions, the causality shifts and a sharp decline in confidence causes consumers to pull back on their spending, and a recession ensues. Recession is ultimately a loss of faith – consumers lose faith they will have a job and thus stop spending, and businesses lose faith they will be able to sell what they make and begin laying off workers. Historically, when consumer confidence falls by more than 20 points in a 3-month period, consumers have lost faith, they curtail their spending, and a recession starts within 6 months. Confidence has slid since late last year, but not to the point that it says recession. Not yet.   #recession #consumerconfidence

With the US and EU appearing to have reached a tentative trade arrangement (https://lnkd.in/g7wg9ZSK), I wanted to pass along the top US imports in 2024 from the EU by mapping HTS codes to NAICS codes for easier interpretation. One table. Thoughts: •Pharmaceuticals & medicines represent a disproportionate share of EU exports to the USA (especially from Ireland and Germany). I'll be curious to see what happens with the §232 pharma tariffs: will 15% apply for the EU? •Up next are finished motor vehicles, with the EU's total exports similar in magnitude to US imports of finished vehicles from both Japan and South Korea. As Richard Baldwin has written about, a 15% tariff on finished EU vehicles could have interesting consequences for EU vehicle makers' operations in Mexico, where vehicle tariffs are higher for vehicles not meeting USMCA content rules. This could create a scenario where German automakers consider shifting production for the US market from Mexico to Germany, which would negatively affect US parts suppliers (that supply to the Mexico-assembled vehicles but would be unlikely to supply to German-assembled vehicles). •The next categories are various 'producer goods' such as different types of machinery, aerospace, measuring & control instruments, basic chemicals, medical equipment, motor vehicle parts, ag equipment, electrical equipment & components, etc. As I've written previously, EU exporters of producer goods aren't absorbing tariffs through lower prices to the same degree as EU exporters of consumer goods like beverages. This suggests that US importers will be absorbing the tariffs (whether they pass them on to buyers waits to be seen). Implication: I continue to fail to see how increasing the price of imported producer goods (whether intermediate inputs like chemicals and motor vehicle parts or capital goods like machinery) helps US manufacturers. At just 15%, you aren't going to shift production to the USA, but 15% is too high for importers and exporters to fully absorb through lower margins (meaning some share of these tariff costs will get passed on to buyers and contribute to inflation). The irony that 15% finished vehicle tariffs could ultimately hurt US auto parts producers that export to EU vehicle makers' Mexican assembly operations is somewhat Shakespearean given a stated goal of these tariffs is to strengthen US manufacturing. I don't see how taxing EU machine tools contributes to this. #supplychain #economics #markets #shipsandshipping #freight

At YouTube, one of the best parts of my job is meeting so many creators who are building businesses, creating jobs and sharing their talents with the world. It’s incredible to see their impact reflected in our latest U.S. Impact Report, backed by research from Oxford Economics. Here are some highlights: - YouTube’s creative ecosystem contributed $55 billion to the U.S. GDP in 2024, crossing $50 billion for the first time. That’s a powerful testament to the businesses built on our platform. - Our ecosystem also supported 490,000 Full-Time Equivalent jobs. Our creators are not only making content, but they’re also generating income and reinvesting it in their teams and operations. - 75% of earning creators in the U.S. agree that YouTube offers opportunities they wouldn't find in traditional media. When we launched the YouTube Partner Program in 2007, we made a commitment to empowering creators. Between 2021 and 2023 alone, we paid out over $70 billion to creators, artists and media companies. And we’re always looking for new ways to help them monetize and grow their ventures. YouTube is a platform where passions become companies and any voice can find a stage, from second-generation family businesses like Perkins Builder Brothers to educators like Javoris Hollingsworth, PhD, MBA and Arlene Gordon-Hollingsworth, PhD of Gracie's Corner. The creator economy is just getting started. Read the full report below 👇

The 8 Cognitive Biases Sabotaging Your Choices (Without You Knowing) Our brains are wired for survival, not success. We rely on mental shortcuts - useful for quick decisions,  But dangerous when they lead us astray. The good news? Once we recognize these cognitive biases,  We can override them. More importantly, we can make better choices. 1️⃣ The Echo Chamber Trap (Confirmation Bias) We seek confirming info and ignore challenges. 🔨 Fix: Write the strongest counterargument and your response. 2️⃣ The Superman Trap (Overconfidence Bias) We overestimate skills and underestimate time. 🔨 Fix: Track decisions and review patterns. 3️⃣ The Devil-You-Know Trap (Status Quo Bias) We stick to what's familiar, even if it fails. 🔨 Fix: Ask, “Would we start this today?” 4️⃣ The Boss-Is-Always-Right Trap (Authority Bias) We trust authority over our own judgment. 🔨 Fix: Decide as if your boss were absent. 5️⃣ The Money-Pit Trap (Sunk Cost Fallacy) We keep failing projects because we’ve invested. 🔨 Fix: Focus on future value, not past costs. 6️⃣ The What’s-Hot-Now Trap (Recency Bias) We overvalue recent events, ignoring history. 🔨 Fix: Check 5-year trends, not recent data. 7️⃣ The Mirror Trap (Affinity Bias) We favor people like us, limiting diversity. 🔨 Fix: Use structured interviews to reduce bias. 8️⃣ The Crowd Trap (Bandwagon Effect) We follow the group instead of thinking. 🔨 Fix: Decide before hearing others. 👉 Final Thought: Our brains are powerful, but they have blind spots. Smart decision-making isn’t about working harder, It’s about recognizing and correcting these mental traps. If this resonated with you: ♻️ Share this post to help others break free from bad decisions. 🔔 And follow Dave Kline for more insights.