Tag: joe biden
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.

migrants border fence

How Trump's Immigration Cruelties May Finally Force Real Reform

It's with some discomfort that I consider the possibility that Trump's radical immigration agenda will lead to better immigration policies. The discomfort comes from the cruelty involved: the roughing up of good people who've been quietly working, the celebrations of brutal incarceration, the racially tinged rhetoric.

Hope comes in the form of changed perspective. Outside of agriculture, the existence of an illegal workforce is no longer openly tolerated. The chaos at the border is stopped. And a resulting labor shortage may force leaders to adopt a rational immigration program that legally admits the workers we need. Such changes would include legalizing the status of many otherwise law-abiding migrants now working without papers.

Politicians from both parties have for decades blocked reform. We can start with George W. Bush, who subscribed to a Republican cheap-labor agenda. (A supportive cry from The Wall Street Journal was "Let there be open borders!") In 2004, Bush called for a temporary worker program that would "match willing foreign workers with willing employers when no Americans can be found to fill the job." Little mention was made about what those willing employers were willing to pay their workers.

In 2013, serious immigration reform cleared the Senate in a bipartisan vote. It offered a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, while requiring employers to check a national database for the right of new hires to work in this country. It was known as E-Verify.

The president at the time was Barack Obama. He pursued a muscular deportation program that removed illegal-migrant criminals. Obama clearly wanted to reassure the public that the bill wouldn't be just another amnesty without beefed-up enforcement. House Republicans brushed off the new policy while members of Obama's own party condemned him as "deporter in chief."

Joe Biden seemed blind to the awful situation on the border. It was political malpractice to believe that the sight of caravans of migrants charging over the border wouldn't alarm the American public. Never mind the need for labor. Toward the end of his term, Biden recognized the political damage the chaos was doing his party and fixed the problem. Calm came over the border before Trump became president again, but it was too late for Biden to get the credit he could have claimed.

But solving that problem without serious immigration reform has created new problems. For one thing, many undocumented workers pay into a Social Security system that will not provide them benefits. These contributions boost the program's trust fund by billions of dollars a year, according to estimates, extending the fund's solvency.

Trump's aggressive deportation campaign has already resulted in a labor shortage and hurt consumer spending, according to the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Immigrants' spending power in 2023 is believed to have approached $300 billion.

Then there's inflation. The construction workforce is heavily made up of immigrants, many undocumented. Losing these workers will hit the supply of housing, already too expensive for many Americans. That could cut economic growth by 0.4 percent.

Donald Trump could continue his campaign to replace solid government statistics with phony economic numbers more to his liking. But there's no hiding the cost of things from ordinary Americans.

Who knows? Trump might force acceptance of higher immigration numbers. Recent history suggests that he still exerts mind control over many Republicans who formerly stood in the way of legally admitting more immigrants, let alone fixing the status of the undocumented.

Add the trade war to a reduced workforce and you have higher inflation flashing in neon. Trump was happy to employ undocumented workers at his various businesses, so he may be open to letting some currently illegal workers stay. After all, he's full of surprises.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on The Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Happy Fourth! Pride In America Plunges Under Trump Presidency (Again)

Happy Fourth! Pride In America Plunges Under Trump Presidency (Again)

Americans’ pride in their country has tumbled to a new low, according to a poll released on Monday. Not only is pride at its lowest point since Gallup began asking the question in 2001, but the share has fallen nine points under President Donald Trump this year alone.

Fifty-eight percent of U.S. adults say they feel extremely or very proud to be an American. A year ago, when former President Joe Biden was in office, that number was 67 percent. The highest level of American pride Gallup has measured came in 2002 and 2004, when 91% of Americans were extremely or very proud following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

While Republicans’ pride in being American has increased by seven points since last year, the decline was precipitous among Democrats (down 26 points) and independent voters (down seven points).

There was also a generational divide, with 41 percent of people in Generation Z (born between 1997 and 2012) expressing pride in being American, compared with 58 percent of millennials, 71 percent of Generation X, 75 percent of baby boomers, and 83 percent of people in the Silent and Greatest generations (people born before 1946).

The decline comes as Americans, including millions who backed Trump, are now dealing with the fallout from his second presidential term.

He has started an expensive trade war with much of the world, increasing the costs of doing business for American companies and farmers while also making many household staples more expensive. Trump has responded to these concerns with advice like telling little children to purchase fewer dolls.

Another pressing concern is Trump’s wholehearted embrace of authoritarianism. He has instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to attack American cities, abducting vulnerable people—including students—off the street in broad daylight.

Trump has even chosen to arrest and charge Democratic officeholders for attempting to provide oversight of his actions, or roughing them up for dissenting from his administration.

Trump is rolling back civil rights gains by LGBTQ+ Americans and using his administration to erase boundary-breaking achievements by Black people and women.

Everyday Americans brace to see what new way Trump and his team will use their positions of power to enrich themselves, abuse others, or make America look clownish on the international stage.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Veterans Blast Trump Over 'Politicized' Military Event At Fort Bragg

Veterans Blast Trump Over 'Politicized' Military Event At Fort Bragg

A new report has claimed that there was a calculated effort to control the optics of President Donald Trump's visit to Fort Bragg, North Carolina on Tuesday, with selective screening of soldiers for both political views and physical appearance.

In his address, Trump targeted California Gov. Gavin Newsom, former President Joe Biden, and the media, urging military personnel to boo reporters in attendance as he lashed out at what he called "fake news."

The president's action of inciting active-duty soldiers to boo those he sees as his opponents was strongly criticized as a move that could politicize the military.

A Military.com report published Wednesday has revealed some even more noteworthy details regarding the event. It claims that soldiers were handpicked for the event based on their political leanings, with one message explicitly warning, “If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don't want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out.”

The guidelines extended to physical appearance as well, with one internal communication bluntly stating: "No fat soldiers."

Adding to the controversy, a pro-Trump merchandise shop reportedly operated on the Army base, selling campaign memorabilia, including "Make America Great Again" necklaces and "White Privilege Card: Trumps Everything" faux credit cards.

Such partisan merchandise on military property raised questions about potential violations of Department of Defense regulations designed to maintain political neutrality in the armed forces.

Military veterans have strongly reacted to these actions, calling them "dangerous."

Paul Rieckhoff, a veteran of the United States Army and the Iraq War, wrote on the social platform X: "It keeps getting worse. These are dangerous and unprecedented moves. He’s broken glass that’s never been broken before. We’re all less safe for it."

Former U.S. national security official Adham Sahloul commented on a quote from the story, tweeting: "'This has been a bad week for the Army for anyone who cares about us being a neutral institution,' one commander at Fort Bragg told Military.com." Bad week for America."

John Jackson, an American veteran of the Ukrainian armed forces, wrote: "This is bad. I wonder what 'appearance' characteristics they were looking for. And where in the hell are the commanders who allowed this?"

Atlanta journalist Jay Bookman wrote: "Read the story. It's disgusting. There's just no one capable of telling these people no."

Orlando J. Pérez, a professor of political science at the University of North Texas, wrote: "To use soldiers as political backdrop undermines the institutional legitimacy of the armed forces because it erodes the political neutrality of the military. This is another dangerous step toward democratic backsliding."

"We are approximately six months away from Trump demanding US soldiers to take a « Trump Oath », Wehrmacht-style," remarked Olivier Schmitt, a professor of military operations at the Royal Danish Defense College.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World