Tag: inflationary pressures
Inflation Surge

Tariffs Spike Inflation -- And A Cut In Workers' Real Wages

It no longer is deniable that we are seeing a surge in inflation due to Trump’s tariffs. Last fall the Fed was projecting that inflation would be back close to its 2.0 percent target in 2025. It now looks like we will be above 3.0 percent, and possibly considerably higher.

This realization has shifted the debate from whether we will see tariff-induced inflation to how enduring the uptick will be. Trump supporters are assuring us that the rise in inflation will be transitory, with inflation settling back down to its pre-tariff pace after a period of time. On the other hand, we have the possibility that we will see a persistently higher rate of inflation, and possibly even an inflationary spiral.

As a card-carrying member of Team Transitory a few years back, I think it is worth distinguishing what “transitory” means in the context of tariff driven inflation, as opposed to inflation driven by supply-chain bottlenecks.

The big factor in determining whether inflation is transitory or enduring is whether it leads to a faster path of nominal wage growth. If the pace of wage growth increases in response to higher inflation, the more rapid rate of inflation is likely to persist. The higher wages will then get passed on in higher prices, and this continues until something like a recession and a big jump in unemployment breaks the pattern.

When the Trump crew tells us that their tariff-induced inflation is transitory, they are saying that there will be no pick-up in wage growth. In effect workers will be forced to eat the tariffs in the form of less purchasing power for their paychecks.

If we get an uptick in the inflation rate of 1.0 percentage point for two years, they are looking at a 2.0 percent drop in their real wage. If the uptick averages 1.5 percentage points, that would mean a drop of 3.0 percent in purchasing power. For a worker making the median wage of roughly $25 an hour, this would mean a cut of between $1,000 and $1,500 a year in their real wage.

By contrast, the claim of Team Transitory during the supply chain inflation was that the bottlenecks driving up prices would be resolved and that prices of the affected goods would stop rising and possibly even fall back toward their pre-pandemic level. In that story, workers would not see an enduring cut in their real wages.

The transitory story on supply-chain inflation turned out to be largely correct. It took longer for the bottlenecks to resolve themselves than most of us expected. This was primarily because subsequent waves of Covid both disrupted shipping, and continued to steer consumption from services to goods, as people continued to be scared of going to restaurants and movies, and other forms of service consumption. In any case, we clearly didn’t see the inflationary spiral that some feared, nor did we need a big jump in unemployment to push inflation back down.

The story of Trump’s Team Transitory (TTT) is far less benign. It’s a story where workers have permanently lower real wages and living standards than they would have in the absence of the tariffs. That might be good news on the inflation front, but it is not especially good news for the people who depend on their paycheck for their livelihood.

Dean Baker is an economist, author, and co-founder of the Center for Economic Policy and Research. His writing has appeared in many major publications, including The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and The Financial Times.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Trump Tariffs

How Trump Will Make The Tariff Shock Worse

In the fall of 1979, as I was just beginning my teaching career at MIT, I went to an economics conference in Vermont. I made the trip in a state of high anxiety — not because I was worried about my presentation, but because I was driving. And it wasn’t at all clear whether I’d be able to find gas for the return trip.

For those were the days of fuel shortages and gas lines, with drivers sometimes waiting hours for the opportunity to refill their tanks.

What happened in 1979 was that the United States faced an inflationary shock: soaring oil prices in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution. That was a bad thing for American consumers. But the experience was made much worse by botched policy. Rather than simply accept higher prices at the pump, the U.S. government imposed a gasoline price ceiling. And as often happens when the government tries to control prices, the result was shortages and a lot of disruption.

Obligatory disclaimer: Price controls, or more generally government pressure on companies to keep prices down, aren’t always a bad thing. Back in 1962, when John F. Kennedy pressured the steel industry to roll back a coordinated price increase, his actions made sense: Steel companies weren’t responding to higher costs, they were collaborating to take advantage of monopoly power.

But trying to simply order businesses not to pass on a genuine cost shock is asking for trouble. Which brings us, as most things seem to these days, to Donald Trump.

Right now U.S. business is facing a large cost shock created by Trump himself. Even after the partial climbdown last weekend, the average U.S. tariff rate stands at 17.8 percent, up 15 points from its pre-Trump level. Since imports of goods are more than 11 percent of GDP, that’s a big shock to consumer prices. And no, foreigners won’t pay the tariffs.

Now, an inflationary hit this size is a bad thing. Still, it could be a one-time event, something the economy absorbs before moving on. But for that to happen we’d need an intelligent, responsible policy response.

Hehehe.

What we’re actually going to get are the three Ds: denial, dirigisme and deception.

Denial: Trump has, of course, repeatedly insisted that there is no inflation in America, pronouncing reports of rising prices “fake news.” What’s new is that Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary — who was, you may remember, supposed to be the adult in the room — has gotten into the act. On Meet the Press Sunday, Bessent dismissed inflation concerns by asserting that

Gasoline prices have collapsed under President Trump … that is a direct tax cut for consumers.

Now, in general presidents deserve neither credit nor blame for fluctuations in gasoline prices, which mainly reflect the global price of crude oil. But that aside, what the heck is Bessent talking about? Here’s what has been happening to gas prices:

Source: Gasbuddy.com

I do not think that word “collapsed” means what he thinks it means.

So is Bessent just lying? Or has he joined Trump in his epistemic bubble, where reality is what he wants it to be? I’m not sure which is worse.

Dirigisme: Originally a term from postwar France, it refers to an economy that remains mostly in private hands but in which the government sometimes tries to tell companies what to do. It remains unclear to this day how well dirigisme actually worked or even how much it was real as opposed to officials getting in front of an economic parade that was happening anyway and pretending that they were leading it. What’s true is that dirigisme may not do too much harm when practiced by sophisticated, well-informed technocrats.

What won’t be harmless is when dirigisme is practiced by a president who takes time off from declaring that Taylor Swift is “no longer hot” to issue demands like this: Now, Walmart, while profitable, can’t actually afford to EAT THE TARIFFS. (Weren’t the Chinese supposed to do that?) So what will Walmart and other companies do if Trump’s tariffs are way up but they’re afraid to risk Trump’s ire by increasing prices?

Hello, empty shelves.

Finally, deception: What will happen when the tariffs start showing up in official measures of inflation, which will happen soon? Erica Groshen, former head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is worried. In a recent briefing paper she warned that changes in personnel policy

could lead to the politicization of the federal statistical workforce … for example, Bureau of Labor Statistics’ leaders could be fired for releasing or planning to release jobs or inflation statistics unfavorable to the President’s policy agenda.

So when inflation rises, the Trump administration could simply bully the statistical agencies into claiming that it never happened. You may say that they couldn’t or wouldn’t do such a thing. But so far people downplaying what Trump and co might do have been wrong every time, while the often-mocked alarmists have been consistently right.

The bottom line is that the direct economic consequences of Trump’s tariffs will surely be bad, but his unwillingness to accept the reality of those consequences will probably make them considerably worse.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack, where he now posts almost every day.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Exclusive: Rating Agencies Say Biden Spending Plans Won't Spur Inflation

Exclusive: Rating Agencies Say Biden Spending Plans Won't Spur Inflation

By Kanishka Singh

(Reuters) - President Joe Biden's infrastructure and social spending legislation will not add to inflationary pressures in the U.S. economy, economists and analysts in leading rating agencies told Reuters on Tuesday.

Biden has spent the past few months promoting the merits of both pieces of legislation -- the $1.75 trillion "Build Back Better" plan and a separate $1 trillion infrastructure plan.

The two pieces of legislation "should not have any real material impact on inflation", William Foster, vice president and senior credit officer (Sovereign Risk) at Moody's Investors Service, told Reuters.

The impact of the spending packages on the fiscal deficit will be rather small because they will be spread over a relatively long time horizon, Foster added.

Senator Joe Manchin, a centrist Democrat, has previously raised inflationary concerns in relation to Biden's social spending plan, with a report earlier this month suggesting he may delay the passage of the Build Back Better legislation.

"The bills do not add to inflation pressures, as the policies help to lift long-term economic growth via stronger productivity and labor force growth, and thus take the edge off of inflation," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, which operates independently from the parent company's ratings business.

Zandi said the costs of both the infrastructure and social spending legislation were sustainable.

"The bills are largely paid for through higher taxes on multinational corporations and well-to-do households, and more than paid for if the benefit of the added growth and the resulting impact on the government's fiscal situation are considered", he said in an interview.

Charles Seville, senior director and Americas sovereigns co-head at Fitch Ratings, said the two pieces of legislation "will neither boost nor quell inflation much in the short-run."

Government spending will still add less to demand in 2022 than in 2021 and over the longer-run, the social spending legislation could increase labor supply through provisions such as childcare, and aid productivity, Seville told Reuters.

The House of Representatives passed the $1 trillion infrastructure package earlier this month after the Senate approved it in August. Biden signed the bill into law on Monday.

The Build Back Better package includes provisions on childcare and preschool, eldercare, healthcare, prescription drug pricing and immigration.

"The deficit will still narrow in FY 2022 as pandemic relief spending drops out and the economic recovery boosts tax revenues", Seville said. "But the legislation [Build Back Better] does not sustainably fund all the initiatives, particularly if these are extended and don't sunset, meaning that they will be funded by greater borrowing."

The Congressional Budget Office anticipates publishing a complete cost estimate for the Build Back Better plan by Friday, November 19. Biden said on Tuesday he expected the Build Back Better legislation to be passed within a week's time.

(Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Bengaluru; editing by Dan Burns and Lincoln Feast.)

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World