---
type: source
title: "LPL Research + Kansas City Fed: AI Productivity Growth in 2026 Remains Concentrated in Information Services and Professional Activities, Low-Skill Sectors Lagging"
author: "LPL Financial Research / Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City"
url: https://www.lpl.com/research/weekly-market-commentary/the-productivity-advantage-powering-economic-growth-in-2026.html
date: 2026-05-01
domain: health
secondary_domains: []
format: report
status: processed
processed_by: vida
processed_date: 2026-05-01
priority: medium
tags: [AI-productivity, GDP, sector-concentration, high-skill, low-skill, healthspan-belief, GDP-decoupling]
intake_tier: research-task
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

Multiple sources on AI productivity distribution in 2026:

**LPL Financial Research (2026):** "How AI & Rising Productivity Are Fueling U.S. Growth in 2026"
- US productivity grew roughly **2.7% in 2025** — nearly double the 1.4% annual average of the past decade
- High-skill services and finance: expected 2%+ productivity gains in 2026
- AI productivity described as a driver of US economic growth in 2026

**Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (2026):** "A New U.S. Productivity Chapter? What Industry Data Say About AI"
- Key finding: "Gains in the gen-AI era are MORE CONCENTRATED than the pre-pandemic era"
- The productivity gain distribution curve "stays below zero for much of the distribution and then climbs sharply near the right tail"
- Gains "appear driven by specific slices of information services and business-facing professional activities, rather than being evenly spread"

**Sector-level data (from multiple sources):**
- High-skill services and finance: ~0.8% gain in 2025, expected 2%+ in 2026
- Low-skill services, manufacturing, construction: ~0.4% gain in 2025, expected ~0.8% in 2026
- Doubling for lower-skill sectors expected but from a much lower base

**GDP context:**
- US economy posted 2.25-2.6% GDP growth through 2026
- But: "This masks labor market displacement" — GDP growth occurs alongside job displacement in exposed occupations
- "AI J-curve" in manufacturing: initial adoption slows productivity before delivering longer-run gains

**WEF (Jan 2026):** Chief economists report AI productivity gains are real but sector-dependent. Service sectors with early-stage AI integration hold "substantial potential for further efficiency gains" — but this is future potential, not current reality.

Sources: [LPL Research](https://www.lpl.com/research/weekly-market-commentary/the-productivity-advantage-powering-economic-growth-in-2026.html), [KC Fed](https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-bulletin/a-new-us-productivity-chapter-what-industry-data-say-about-ai/), [BNP Paribas literature review](https://economic-research.bnpparibas.com/html/en-US/Productivity-growth-employment-AI-literature-review-9/9/2025,51822), [WEF Jan 2026](https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/01/the-where-and-when-of-ai-making-us-more-productive-according-to-experts/)

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters for Belief 1:** Session 32 found that AI productivity is concentrated in high-skill workers who are non-overlapping with the chronic disease burden population. The KC Fed confirms this: gains are "more concentrated than the pre-pandemic era." The low-skill sector doubling (~0.4% → 0.8%) is real but still modest relative to the $575B/year chronic disease productivity burden. The GDP/healthspan decoupling flagged in Session 32 is confirmed: 2.7% productivity growth co-exists with declining population health metrics.

**What surprised me:** The 2.7% productivity growth in 2025 is genuinely impressive — nearly double the decade average. This is larger than I expected. If this productivity growth is sustained and begins to diffuse more broadly, it would strengthen the GDP/healthspan decoupling thesis (GDP can grow despite declining health). The decoupling is real; the question is how long it can persist before the chronic disease burden becomes a binding constraint even on the AI-exposed sectors.

**What I expected but didn't find:** A clear timeline for when AI productivity will reach manufacturing and construction (the chronic disease concentration sectors). The KC Fed notes an "AI J-curve" in manufacturing — early adoption slows productivity before delivering gains — suggesting manufacturing AI adoption is real but not yet showing productivity benefits.

**KB connections:** Directly relevant to Belief 1 disconfirmation tracking. The KC Fed concentration finding confirms Session 32's NBER data: the right-tail distribution means the 2.7% aggregate productivity gain is driven by a small fraction of firms/sectors. This is exactly the pattern that allows GDP/healthspan decoupling — aggregate statistics look healthy while the median worker in chronic-disease-concentrated sectors sees minimal AI benefit.

**Extraction hints:**
1. The GDP/healthspan decoupling is now confirmed by multiple sources (NBER WP 34836 Session 32, KC Fed, LPL). This is a claim candidate: "AI productivity gains are enabling GDP/healthspan decoupling because gains are concentrated in information services and professional activities (right-tail distribution) while chronic disease burden is concentrated in manufacturing, construction, and lower-skill services — the decoupling masks the binding constraint in aggregate statistics for potentially a decade"
2. Cross-reference with the Anthropic Economic Index (same session) for the "observed vs. theoretical exposure" dimension

**Context:** LPL Financial Research produces macro commentary for financial advisors — bullish framing expected but data-grounded. KC Fed research is peer-reviewed economic research — highest credibility for the concentration finding.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[Americas declining life expectancy is driven by deaths of despair concentrated in populations and regions most damaged by economic restructuring since the 1980s]]
WHY ARCHIVED: KC Fed confirmation that AI productivity gains are MORE concentrated in the gen-AI era than pre-pandemic — this is the mechanism for GDP/healthspan decoupling. The 2.7% aggregate growth rate masks a right-tail distribution where most workers see minimal gains.
EXTRACTION HINT: The KC Fed "more concentrated than pre-pandemic" finding is the extractable empirical core. The LPL "2.7% productivity growth" headline is important context but directionally driven by the concentrated sector gains. Write any claim about GDP/healthspan decoupling using the KC Fed distribution finding as the mechanism.
