@DeanBaker13
Yes, The Fed Should Lower Interest Rates (Because Trump Is Wrong On The Economy)

Yes, The Fed Should Lower Interest Rates (Because Trump Is Wrong On The Economy)

We all have come to accept that Trump makes totally whacked out claims about the economy, which his cabinet and other top aides must mindlessly repeat and embellish. His favorite invention is the booming economy.

Trump tells us that no one has ever seen anything like it. He boasts about $20 trillion dollars of investment coming into the country. At the same time, Trump is demanding that the Fed lower interest rates. If anything like Trump’s boasts were true, the Fed would be crazy to lower interest rates.

Twenty trillion dollars is two-thirds of GDP. If even one tenth of this amount of money was being added to investment it would imply a huge surge in demand. Rather than trying to boost the economy with a rate cut, with this sort of surge in investment, the Fed would be looking to raise rates to prevent inflation.

But everyone knows that Trump is lying about the massive inflow of investment. That exists only in his head. That is why the Fed will lower interest rates this week.

A rate cut should not be a close call, precisely because the economy is weak, not strong. The jobs data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is now more than two months old due to the shutdown, but it was clear that it was weakening at the time and there is nothing in the data from private sources that change that picture.

The September jobs report showed the unemployment rate had risen to 4.4 percent. That is still low by historical standards, but it’s a full percentage point above the low hit in 2023. It’s also 0.5 percentage points above the average for the years 2018-2019, when there was no evidence of accelerating inflation.

The weakness is also more visible for the most vulnerable segments of the workforce. The unemployment rate for Black workers was 7.5 percent in September. That is 1.4 percentage points above the year ago level and 2.7 percentage points above the low hit in April 2023.

The unemployment rate for young workers between the ages of 20-24 was 9.2 percent in September. That was the highest rate since May of 2021. It is 3.7 percentage points above the low hit in April of 2023.

The job growth numbers also suggest a weakening labor market, although this is harder to read due to the curtailing of immigration. Without any substantial flow of immigrants into the labor market, the underlying rate of labor force growth is likely in the range of 30,000 to 60,000 a month.

Over the four months ending in September, the economy added an average of just under 40,000 jobs. This could be consistent with the underlying growth rate of the labor force, so the figure is not necessarily disturbing even though it is down from an average of 170,000 a month in 2024.

However, the distribution of the job growth does provide cause for concern. More than 90 percent of the jobs created over this period were in healthcare. Manufacturing has continued to lose jobs and construction employment was flat. With the DOGE attack on federal workers, the federal government is shedding jobs, while job growth at the state and local level has slowed to trickle.

The DOGE influence is also visible in the private sector. The category, “scientific research and development services” has lost almost 20k jobs this year (2.0 percent), undoubtedly in part the result of reduced grant funding. It had been growing modestly, adding 6,400 jobs in 2024.

The private labor market measures that have come out in the last two months support the view of a weakening labor market. The Indeed jobs posting index continued to decline into November, although it did have a modest uptick at the end of the month.

The ADP jobs measure has been weak since the Spring and showed a loss of 32,000 private sector jobs in November. Manufacturing was especially hard hit in the ADP data, losing 18,000 jobs.

It is pretty much impossible to look at any of these data series and have any concerns about the labor market overheating. There are clearly some inflationary pressures in the economy, but they are not coming from the labor market.

The most important source of inflation pressure is the Trump tariffs. Without these tariffs, inflation would likely be very close to the Fed’s 2.0 percent target right now, instead of hovering near 3.0 percent. The Trump administration’s mass deportation is likely also causing some upward pressure on prices by disrupting production in sectors like restaurants and construction. There also is upward pressure on electricity prices as a result of the AI boom and the resulting surge in energy prices.

Higher rates will not have any noticeable effect on these causes of inflation. If the Fed were to do a Volcker and raise rates enough to cause mass unemployment this could eventually lower wages, and thereby reduce inflation, but it doesn’t seem like anyone at the Fed has the stomach for double-digit unemployment.

Short of pulling a Volcker, it is not clear what the Fed could hope to accomplish with high rates. Perhaps that will slightly hasten the end of the AI bubble, which will reduce inflation, but that is a rather indirect way of accomplishing this goal.

In short, a rate cut at this week’s meeting should be a no-brainer with a clear signal that another cut at the next meeting is also likely. But these cuts will be because everyone at the Fed knows Donald Trump is lying about the state of the economy, not because anyone takes his claims seriously.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

$20 Trillion Investment? Searching For Trump's Imaginary Economic Boom

$20 Trillion Investment? Searching For Trump's Imaginary Economic Boom

I suppose it is not nice to make fun of a 79-year-old man suffering from mental decline. But when that person is president and threatening to throw millions of people in jail and/or deport them, and also threatening war on countries around the world, their age and mental infirmity does not shield them from criticism. Just as he claims to have settled wars that either never existed or have not been settled, Trump keeps insisting he has created an unprecedented economic boom that is not visible anywhere in the data.

Most immediately, Trump boasts about his accomplishments in improving affordability by bringing prices down. He can take credit that the price of gas is down by around two percent, or six cents a gallon, from its year ago level, but that still leaves it just under $3.00 a gallon. It is not at the $2.00 a gallon he boasts about anywhere in the country. Rather than going down, food prices are up 2.7 percent from a year ago, with items like beef and coffee scoring double-digit increases.

Trump’s big thing is the $20 trillion in investment that he imagines is coming into the country. This sum is equal to two thirds of annual GDP and almost seven times the current annual level of investment. But there is zero evidence of it anywhere in the data.

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis via FRED/St. Louis Federal Reserve

After an unprecedented boom under Biden, investment in factory construction has trended downward under Trump. It’s hard to imagine some huge explosion of investment that won’t involve building some new factories or renovating existing ones.

There also is no evidence of Trump’s investment boom in new orders for capital goods. This series fluctuates a great deal, as orders, especially of airplanes, tend to clump together. But the average for the third quarter of this year was just 12.0 percent above the average for the last quarter of the Biden administration, before adjusting for inflation. That’s not bad, but hardly a huge boom. In fact, it’s still down by 1.4 percent from the last quarter of 2023, again before adjusting for inflation.

The story doesn’t look any better from the standpoint of manufacturing employment, which Trump has put at the center of his economic agenda. Manufacturing employment is down by 49,000 from when Trump took office in January. Employment had already been falling in 2024, but manufacturing jobs are still going in the wrong direction.

Even Trump’s claims of trillions coming into the Treasury from his import taxes (tariffs) is also a delusion. In October, the most recent month for which we have data, the Treasury collected $31 billion in tariff revenue, roughly $24 billion more than it raised last year. That amounts to a massive tax increase of almost $300 billion a year, or $2,400 per household.

This does not come close to balancing the budget, and we certainly aren’t paying down the debt, as our deluded president claims. However, the tariffs are the major cause of the higher inflation households have seen since Trump took office, in addition to the higher costs imposed by deporting much of the immigrant labor force.

In fact, because of increased spending, the deficit was higher in October of 2025 than it was last October. In addition to normal increases in spending due to higher payments for programs like Social Security and Medicare, it also costs money to have thousands of ICE agents terrorizing people in major cities and to send the military to blow up small ships in the Caribbean with advanced weaponry.

In short, when it comes to Donald Trump’s boasts about the economy, it is all delusion. Psychologists or people who have read his MRI may be able to determine the extent to which Trump is telling deliberate lies, as opposed to really living in his world of make believe. But for those viewing from a distance, the important thing to know is that it is all nonsense.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.


Beyond Trump's Latest Crazy Pardon, Glimpses Of A Post-Trump America

Beyond Trump's Latest Crazy Pardon, Glimpses Of A Post-Trump America

Trump 2.0 continually impresses everyone for its craziness. The latest venture into the absurd was Trump’s preemptive pardon of Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), who had been indicted on charges for accepting bribes from foreign actors.

The pardon is not especially surprising, since Donald Trump finds a corrupt politician as irresistible as he might have found an attractive woman in his younger days. The Trumpian absurdity part of the story is that Cuellar immediately turned around and said that he wants the prosecutors investigated. In Donald Trump’s America the greatest crime is enforcing the law against a Donald Trump ally.

Who knows where Cuellar’s request will end up? Most immediately, he apparently went to Jim Jordan, the head of the House Judiciary Committee with his case. This likely means some serious hyperventilation and screaming, but not much else.

It’s not clear that anyone in the Justice Department will pick up on Cuellar’s insistence that prosecuting him should be a crime and start investigating their colleagues. The refusal of Justice Department lawyers to carry through blatantly political prosecutions has been a source of encouragement. This shows both that they have a bit of a moral compass, and also that they are thinking of a post-Trump world, where a clown show prosecution of a Trump enemy is not something good to have on your resume.

The refusal to prosecute was very public when Trump’s pick for acting United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, could not get any of the career lawyers in the Justice Department to sign off on the prosecutions of former FBI director Jame Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. She had to take up the task herself even though she had never prosecuted a case before. Such refusals are likely playing a role in the Justice Department’s refusal to date to press an antisemitic prosecution of liberal billionaire George Soros or whack job conspiracy indictments of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Rats Leaving the Ship

It’s not just Justice Department lawyers who can give us some hope of a post-Trump world where democracy survives. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan, recently said that he was refusing to make a contribution to Trump’s ballroom monstrosity because he was concerned how a post-Trump Justice Department might view it.

This comment should be taken very seriously. JP Morgan is by far the largest bank in the country, which Dimon has run for two decades. Also, Mr. Dimon is an astute businessman who clearly puts business above politics. Early in 2024 he gave Trump a pseudo-endorsement when he famously said that he thought the economy would do fine regardless of whether Trump or Biden won. That he is now thinking of a world with a normal Justice Department is huge.

It’s not just Dimon who is thinking about a world beyond Trump. A near record number of Republican members of Congress have announced their retirement. Some, most notably Marjorie Taylor Greene, are not even finishing out their terms.

It’s understandable that many would be unhappy with their jobs. Most of them are not morons. They know they are being asked to repeat inane lies in support of Donald Trump and whatever whack job thing he says or does. That can’t be lots of fun.

On top of this, politicians do understand election results. They see a shift of double-digits away from Republicans in elections across the country. They also see the polls showing Trump’s popularity going through the floor. That does not sound like a good environment to seek re-election even when Trump has gerrymandered districts to favor Republicans.

Collapsing Conspiracy Theories

Trump also has the problem that many of the MAGA team’s guiding lies are coming undone. The most notable one is the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Many Trump backers really believed that Donald Trump was the white knight who was going to smash the child trafficking pedophile ring being run by Hillary Clinton and other evil Democrats.

Now that he is sitting in the White House, he is doing everything possible to keep secret the files related to the country’s most notorious child sex trafficker. Trump’s denials of his ties to Epstein are becoming ever more absurd. Only the most extreme cult members can find them credible at this point. Trump was clearly a close friend of Epstein’s and likely partner in at least some of his activities.

And it’s not just the child sex trafficking conspiracy that’s sinking under the weight of reality. Trump’s FBI team managed to finally nail down a suspect in the January 6th Capitol pipe bomb case. (Congrats to them, seriously.)

The top levels of the MAGA cult, including current deputy FBI director Dan Bongino, had been pushing whack job conspiracies about how the pipe bombs were part of an FBI inside job. Now it seems that the suspect was just another January 6th insurrectionist supporting the stolen election story. The big question now is whether he qualifies for Donald Trump’s blanket pardon of his mob.

The other Trump conspiracy at risk is the story of Jack Smith’s weaponization of the Justice Department. The Republicans are boasting about how they have subpoenaed Smith to testify in secret hearings where they can then publish selected excerpts from his testimony.

Smith has volunteered to testify in public. Republicans are scared to death to let Smith speak in public and let everyone hear about his by the book investigation of Donald Trump’s effort to overthrow the government. For the moment, Smith’s public testimony has not been a major demand from Democrats, but there is always the possibility some members of the party could wake up.

Healthcare and Affordability: Reality Still Matters

Finally, the Trump gang does have to deal with some real-world problems that are not going away. Health insurance premiums are about to rise a lot for tens of millions of people, unless Trump and the Republicans in Congress do a 180 and agree to extend the subsidies for the exchanges under Obamacare.

Wages for millions of workers, especially low-paid ones, are also not keeping pace with inflation. Trump might insist that tariffs don’t affect prices, but they do. We just got new data on import prices for September, showing again that exporters are not eating the tariffs. The labor market has also weakened substantially, with the unemployment rate for disadvantaged groups like Black workers and young people rising sharply.

And even Trump’s big issue, immigration, is not going well for him these days. While most Americans might have been happy to see the pet-eating rapists and murderers sent back to where they came from, it’s clear that violent criminals are a tiny fraction of the people being nabbed by ICE. The overwhelming majority are people who have committed no criminal offense whatsoever or a minor offense like shoplifting.

No one thinks we are safer as a country when they see ununiformed masked men grabbing gardeners and food truck operators off the streets. The hardcore racists might applaud this sort of crackdown on people guilty of not being white, but thankfully, even a majority of Trump voters don’t fall into this category.

Trump’s Caribbean war crimes are also not playing well. Using advanced weaponry to blow up small boats that are thousands of miles from the U.S. does not make sense as a drug interdiction strategy. Killing survivors from the initial strikes makes even less sense. The whole thing becomes even more absurd when Trump issues a pardon to a notorious drug trafficker who the Justice Department spent years investigating and convicting.

MAGA Is Melting Down

It’s too early for big celebrations, but it does look like the wheels are coming off the Trump juggernaut. When the AI bubble bursts, likely taking crypto with it, and Trump’s rich buddies become considerably less rich, the rats will all start fleeing.

But we can’t sit around and wait for the big crash, which could still be some time in coming and likely won’t be all at once. We need to bolster the forces of democracy every way we can. That means supporting defectors, even if they might be awful people, and doing whatever we can to resist. Look forward to seeing everyone at No Kings III.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

How Trump Is Schooling Americans On The Economics Of Punitive Tariffs

How Trump Is Schooling Americans On The Economics Of Punitive Tariffs

Trump first announced his massive tariffs on “Liberation Day,” which was April 2. This was supposed to be the beginning of the United States rebuilding its manufacturing capacity. Since Liberation Day, the economy has lost 60,000 manufacturing jobs, factory construction is down at least five percent, and inflation has risen to 3.0 percent.

It is also clear that businesses and consumers here have paid Trump’s tariffs, not foreigners as Trump seems to believe. Import prices have risen since Liberation Day. These are the price of the goods we import before Trump imposes his tariffs. If exporters are eating the tariffs, then the import price index should have fallen considerably. The data show this is not true.

That is all pretty much textbook on what to expect from a set of ill-considered tariffs designed by a president who knows next to nothing about economics. If the point was to bring back manufacturing jobs, as Trump claimed, then one obvious consideration would be to not impose tariffs on intermediate goods like steel or aluminum.

No one directly consumes these products; they are inputs into things like cars and airplanes. By raising the domestic price of these inputs, Trump is making U.S. manufacturing less competitive.

The arbitrary nature of the tariffs is also a problem. When Trump does things like impose a huge tariff on India, because it won’t nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize, or imposes a 50 percent tariff on goods from Brazil because the government prosecuted his friend for trying to stage a coup, it makes it difficult for companies to plan.

This explains the general weakness of investment and the lack of business confidence in the economy. But the recent jobs data from the payroll firm ADP give evidence of another tariff lesson Trump has given us.

The data show that small firms have lost jobs in each of the last three months, even as large firms continue to create jobs at a healthy pace. In September, firms that employ 1-50 people cut employment by 40,000. Firms that employ 50 to 499 people lost 20,000 jobs. Meanwhile, firms that employ more than 500 people added 33,000 jobs.

In October, the corresponding figures were a loss of 10,000 jobs, 21,000 jobs, and a gain of 73,000 jobs. And in November the smallest firms lost 120,000 jobs, midsized firms gained 51,000 jobs, and the largest firms added 39,000 jobs.

This paints a picture where the largest firms seem to be doing fine. Smaller firms are struggling, and the smallest firms are shedding jobs like they are in a recession. This very much fits the textbook economics story of tariffs.

The largest firms, like Apple, can have their CEOs go see Trump and give him bribes to get tariff relief. Smaller firms don’t have the money and connections to make similar deals. As a result, they struggle to survive in an economy where the prices of many of their inputs have risen sharply. They also have no idea what will come next, since Trump can raise tariffs further, or lower tariffs for competitors, any time he feels like it. That situation does not create a good environment in which to do business.

This uncertainty has slowed growth and employment in the short-term, but it is likely to have even larger long-term effects. When the path to success depends more on currying Donald Trump’s favor than innovation and efficiency, it does not provide the basis for a strong economy and solid growth.

That is a story we have seen repeated in many countries all around the world. Perhaps the only really striking part of the story is that the evidence has shown up so quickly here. Donald Trump may not be very good at running the economy, but he has proven himself to be an outstanding teacher of basic economics.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

Trump's Obsession With His 'Beautiful' Tariffs Is Getting Even Crazier

Trump's Obsession With His 'Beautiful' Tariffs Is Getting Even Crazier

Some kids will have a favorite toy or stuffed animal that they latch onto and keep with them at all times. It can be cute, and they usually grow out of it, so there’s no real harm. It’s a bit different when the kid is the president of the United States and the item he chooses to latch onto is a major policy tool that he does not understand at all.

The item of course is tariffs, which Donald Trump has pronounced as the “most beautiful word in the English language.” This alone should be 25th Amendment stuff. Tariffs are taxes on imports, nothing more, nothing less.How can a type of tax be the most beautiful word in the English language? Imagine someone getting teary eyed and sentimental over “gasoline taxes” or maybe “land transfer taxes.” This is real whack job stuff.

But even worse, Trump doesn’t seem to understand the object of his love at all. He seems to believe that foreign countries are paying the tariffs. He often talks about them as though the Chinese, Korean, or Canadian governments are sending us checks to pay his tariffs.

That is absurd on its face. The tariffs are taxes paid at our ports by the company that imports the product. There is a possibility that the exporters lower their prices to offset the tariffs. To some extent this does happen, but research shows that only a small share -- five to 15 percent -- of the tariff is offset in the form of lower prices charged by exporters. This means that the overwhelming majority of Trump’s tariffs are paid by businesses and consumers in the United States.

And we already have the data on this with Trump’s tariffs. The price we pay, not including the tariffs, for our imports has been rising since Trump’s “Liberation Day,” not falling. This means there is no doubt, people here are paying the bulk of Trump’s tariffs, not anyone in foreign countries.

But Trump’s tariff craziness goes further. He is obviously very concerned that the Supreme Court will rule against him on the legality of his tariffs. They may decide that the first paragraph of section 8 of the Constitution, laying out the powers of Congress which says Congress has the power to impose taxes, means something like Congress has the power to impose taxes. That would mean that Trump would have to end most of his taxes and likely refund the money he raised.

Trump clearly seems to view this as a disaster. He constantly whines over this prospect. He has even taken to claiming that the Supreme Court was given “wrong” numbers on the revenue raised from his tariffs.

This is incredibly crazy for two reasons. First, Trump’s lawyers were the ones giving the court the numbers. Is he claiming that his own lawyers gave inaccurate numbers to the Supreme Court? If that were really the case, the President who is best known for his role in The Apprentice, should have used his signature “you’re fired” line at the point his case was argued.

The other reason Trump’s claim is totally crazy is he somehow came up with the number of $3 trillion as the amount that would have to be refunded. This number is beyond absurd. In a full year, our goods imports are roughly $3 trillion. Does Trump think he imposed 100 percent tariffs on all goods imports? And most of his tariffs have only been in place for half a year.

But the crazy gets worse. Trump insists that tariff revenues are about to skyrocket, as companies have drawn down inventories and will now have to bring in more goods on which they will be paying his tariffs.

There are several problems with this latest Trump story. First there is no evidence that inventories are unusually low right now. The most recent data we have show them to be somewhat higher than at the same point last year.

The second problem is one of simple logic. If tariff revenue is about to soar that would mean that imports and our trade deficit are about to soar. Trump had promised to bring our trade deficit down. Is he now claiming that it is about to go sharply higher?

But the third problem from Trump’s claim is that, if true, it would mean that we will soon be paying much higher taxes. This means that the problem of high prices and affordability that has gotten so many people upset will soon get much worse. That would be very bad news for the tens of millions of people struggling to make ends meet and a big hit to the economy’s growth.

The good part of the story is that the prospect of soaring tariffs is a Trumpian fantasy. If anything, tariff revenue is likely to be somewhat lower in the months ahead as Trump has reduced tariffs on bananas, coffee, and a number of other food items.

Also, as trade patterns adjust to higher prices, import volumes will inevitably fall. The process will be accelerated as foreign companies and countries increasingly recognize that the United States is no longer a reliable trading partner and instead look to other markets. For these reasons, the taxes we pay for Trump’s tariffs will be going down, not up.

But the bad news is that Trump clearly has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to his signature policy. He has no idea of the magnitudes or mechanisms involved in what he calls the most beautiful word in the English language. Maybe Trump doesn’t know English very well.

Why Ezra Klein Needs To Look More Closely At His Own Housing Chart

Why Ezra Klein Needs To Look More Closely At His Own Housing Chart

Ezra Klein had a classic column in the New York Times the other day which he advertises in its title: “America’s Housing Crisis, in One Chart.” The chart he highlights; new housing units per capita, is informative, but not quite in the way he says.

The chart shows the cyclical ups and downs in the housing market and then a massive plunge in construction following the collapse of the housing bubble in 2007-2008. Construction falls to one-third the long period average by 2010. It gradually creeped up so that it was 75 percent of the long period average by the pandemic. It rose somewhat further after the start of the pandemic, fueled by low interest rates and increased demand.Klein looks at his chart and sees massive underbuilding of housing which he attributes primarily to excessive government restrictions on building, such as zoning and outdated safety requirements. I look at his chart and see the lasting devastation to the housing market that resulted from letting a bubble grow unchecked in the first decade of this century.

Source: US Census Bureau

Asset Bubbles Are Bad News

While some of us were trying to warn of the risks of the bubble; the big names in economics (e.g. Alan Greenspan and Larry Summers) were singing the praises of innovative financing and the resulting increase in homeownership. When the bubble burst, not only did we get a financial crisis and the worst recession since the Great Depression; we also got long-lasting damage to the housing market that is still being felt today in the form of higher house sale prices and rents.

The reason for highlighting the impact of the bubble and its bursting, rather than the problems cited by Klein, is we need to have a sense of relative importance. Restrictive zoning is definitely a problem, and we should look at regulatory constraints, especially on manufactured housing, that may needlessly limit supply and push up prices.

But we had restrictive zoning and needless regulations before 2008 and still managed to build plenty of housing. That suggests that these are not the main obstacles to more construction.

The Collapsed Bubble Explains the Housing Construction Shortfall

In fact, if we look at Klein’s chart, it seems that most of the shortfall in housing, which he and others put at between 2-5 million units, was the result of the plunge in construction immediately after the collapse. Using 1.5 million units a year as a target for balancing the market (people are welcome to use a higher or lower one), we fell 6.4 million units short of needed construction levels in the decade from 2008-2017.

Construction has continued to climb upward in subsequent years so that in 2024 we were at 1.6 million completed units, somewhat above the 1.5 million target level used above. Construction will fall this year and next, as the rise in interest rates slowed starts, which will mean fewer completions in 2026.

This history doesn’t change the fact that housing costs too much and we need more construction, but it suggests that the problems may not be as deeply entrenched as Klein’s analysis implies. Rents and house sale prices were just moderately outpacing inflation until the pandemic.

When Covid hit, the pandemic relief packages put money in people’s pockets, at the same time the opportunity to work remotely expanded enormously. This both meant that people were saving money on commuting costs, which they could spend on housing, and that they needed more room at home to accommodate an office.

Those factors, together with low interest rates, led to a buying boom in 2021-22, and a surge in house sale prices. The Case-Shiller house price index rose by more than 50 percent in the five years from February 2020 to February 2025. Rents also surged, but not quite as dramatically.

Price and Rents Are Now Falling in Real Terms

But this was a one-time effect. With the number of people working remotely having stabilized, there is no longer a big surge in demand. The weakening economy also helps on this one. House sale prices have actually taken a modest downward turn since February, falling by almost 1.0 percent as of August. That translates into a 2.5 percent real decline, adjusting for inflation. It is likely this decline will continue and perhaps accelerate somewhat. (I am not anticipating the sort of collapse we saw in the 2008-2010 period, since homeowners are not heavily leveraged and in need of selling.)

There is also evidence that rents are falling, certainly in real terms and possibly also in nominal terms. The rent indexes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) have a serious lag, reflecting long-term leases, but indexes that measure rents on units that come on the market are showing flat or declining prices. This is also the case with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ New Tenant Rent Index, which uses the CPI methodology, but only on units that come on the market.

This means that the problem of high housing costs may be correcting itself, but it would be good to hasten this process. Telling people that they have to wait three or four years for an apartment or house to become affordable is not a good story and certainly not good politics.

Reviewing safety regulations are definitely a good place to start. I’m less convinced on zoning. As much as it would be desirable to have denser housing in many areas, the politics on zoning are difficult, as Klein acknowledges.

The story also is rarely unambiguous. I am sure I will never be able to afford to live in San Francisco, but I still think that when I visit the city it is really neat to walk through neighborhoods filled with houses and small apartment buildings, constructed in the early part of the last century.

This is not just a personal preference. San Francisco has a huge tourism industry, as does New York and Paris, and many other cities that have preserved a large portion of their past. It would be wrong to dismiss this preservation as simply selfish NIMBYism.

So, I would encourage efforts to reform zoning with the caution not to expect too much from them. (I will say that my friend Jared Bernstein’s proposal for a rent subsidy for high-cost cities taking steps to increase construction, which is endorsed by Klein, is almost certainly a political non-starter. It would imply transferring money from relatively poor red areas to relatively wealthy blue areas.)

Other Schemes

I would also throw in a few other ideas that could provide some modest short-term help. A progressive property tax that would, for example, have a higher marginal tax rate on homes that sell for more than twice the median in an area, would provide incentive for rich people to take up less space. It also has the advantage that assessed valuations are already on the books, so it requires no new administrative structure.

The same is true for vacant property taxes. This would provide disincentive for leaving units vacant. San Francisco and some other cities have already tried this policy. Even if this tax just leads many property owners to lie, it still raises the costs for them to have a vacant unit.

Incentives for converting office space to residential are also a good policy. Some office buildings are less well-suited for conversion than others. This means we want offices to move from the places that are easy to convert to the ones that are difficult. Government can help here.

And moderate rent control can be useful, especially as a short-term solution. There is also evidence that increased concentration in the construction industry following the collapse of the housing bubble has reduced building. This suggests that anti-trust policy may have a role to play in bringing down housing costs.

But the main point here is that the major shortage of housing the country faces now is not the result of zoning or regulatory obstacles but rather an overreaction to a collapsed bubble. Just as investors can be irrationally exuberant in driving a bubble, they also can be irrationally pessimistic in the wake of a collapse. It also didn’t help that the weak labor market coming out of the Great Recession meant that tens of millions of people didn’t have the regular income they needed to secure a mortgage. Also, millions had their credit ruined by a foreclosure after the crash.

All of this should just remind us that asset bubbles are not fun, at least not after they burst. We should remember this when we hear people singing the praises of AI.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

Tardy September Employment Data Reflects Trump's Weakening Job Market

Tardy September Employment Data Reflects Trump's Weakening Job Market

The data nerds among us were happy to finally get their September jobs report fix, even though these data are somewhat stale now. However, we still learned a few things about the state of the economy.

Before saying what we learned, it’s worth a few words on what we didn’t learn but people are saying anyway. First and foremost, this was not a strong report in any real-world sense of the term.

To be clear, the 119,000 jobs reported for the month was stronger than most analysts had expected, including me. But this hardly implies robust job growth. We averaged 170,000 jobs a month in 2024, so now we’re supposed to be celebrating a report showing job growth that is 70 percent of last year’s average?

But it gets worse. The prior two months’ data were both revised down. The average growth for the four months ending in September was less than 40,000. Furthermore, almost all the growth was in healthcare. Since May, the economy has added 174,000 jobs. The healthcare sector added 157,000 jobs, accounting for more than 90 percent of job growth over this period.

The job growth number for September is also likely to be revised downward. The direction of revisions tends to be autocorrelated. If the prior month was revised downward, then it’s better than a 50 percent chance this month’s number will be revised downward. When we get revisions for September in a few weeks, we will likely be looking at a lower number than 119,000.

Sectors that Are Not Growing

While healthcare continues to add jobs at healthy pace, although down from its 56,000 monthly average in 2024, most other sectors are not. Notably, manufacturing, which has been a main focus of the Trump administration, is shedding jobs. It lost 6,000 jobs in September; employment is down 49,000 since January.

Mining is also shedding jobs. The sector lost 2,000 jobs in September, pushing employment 8,000 below its January level. One of the many things that Trump seems to not understand is that if oil prices are low, oil companies don’t want to drill baby drill. With the current price hovering near $60 a barrel, drilling is unprofitable in many areas.

Construction employment was at least moving in the right direction, adding 19,000 jobs. But this just took employment back to its May level. Since January, the sector has created 19,000 jobs, an average of 2,400 a month. That compares to an average of 16,000 a month in 2024.

Sectors Not Growing by Design

Trump made his desire to cut federal government employment explicit and set Elon Musk to the task on his first day. The sector lost 2,700 jobs in September and is down 85,100 (3.6 percent) since Trump took office. Many of the workers taking Musk’s deferred departure were still on payroll through September. This should mean there will be a sharp fall in the October data.

Employment growth in state and local governments has also slowed considerably. Budget cuts at the federal level are playing a big role in stressing state and local governments. They have created 91,000 jobs since January, an average of 11,400 a month. That is down from a rate of almost 34,000 a month in 2024.

The category, “scientific research and development services” has lost almost 20k jobs this year (2.0 percent). It had been growing modestly, adding 6,400 jobs in 2024.

One final point on job growth, as has been widely noted, the clamping down on immigration means the labor force is growing far more slowly. We likely need only 30,000-60,000 jobs a month to keep the unemployment rate stable.

Employment of Native-Born Workers Is Not Surging

One of the incredibly foolish things Republicans are saying is that the September employment report shows employment of native-born workers is soaring. Just looking at the published numbers, employment of native-born workers is up by 2,500,000 over the last year and by 680,000 in September alone.

The problem with this story is that it misunderstands how the Bureau of Labor Statistics constructs its employment survey. The survey has population controls, which impute a certain population every month based on the data from the prior year and estimates of growth due to birthrates, death rates, and immigration. The controls are locked in regardless of what actually happens in the world.

The controls fix the size of the population, but the number of people reported as foreign-born is taken from the survey. This number has fallen sharply. Part of that is due to people being deported or choosing to leave. Part of the drop is due to people not answering the survey and part of it is due to people lying and identifying as native-born, which is understandable under the circumstances.

Given the construction of the data, a drop in the number of foreign-born workers automatically leads to an increase in the reported number of native-born workers, since the total is fixed by the population controls. This means if Steven Miller took speed, stayed up all week, and deported every last foreign-born worker, the data would show an increase in native-born employment of 32,000,000. (I go into this in a bit more detail here.)

Anyhow, we surely have lost some number of foreign-born workers as a result of the Trump administration’s deportation drive. At this point, we don’t have any good basis for knowing the change in native-born employment, although the employment-to-population ratio is a good start. At 59.0 percent, it is 0.3 percentage points less than it was in September of 2024.

Unemployment is Edging Higher and Labor Market Is Weakening

As many of us had suspected, we are seeing a gradual weakening, not a collapse, of the labor market. By historical standards, 4.4 percent is relatively low, but we are a full percentage point above the recovery low in April of 2023.

For disadvantaged groups the increase has been considerably larger. The unemployment rate for Black workers stood at 7.5 percent in the September report, while the unemployment rate for young workers (ages 20-24) was 9.2 percent.

Both figures are the same as in the August data, but the unemployment rates for these groups are highly erratic. This means that the sharp deterioration in the labor market situation reported for these disadvantaged groups reported in prior months was not an aberration. The unemployment rate for Black workers had been at 4.8 percent in April of 2023 and the unemployment rate for young workers bottomed out at 5.5 percent in the same month. It is not surprising that these disadvantaged groups would rise much more than for the workforce as a whole in a weakening labor market.

We Are in a Low Quit, Low Hire Economy

Many analysts have long noted the sharp falloff in job movers reported in the JOLTS and other data. This report strengthens that view. The share of unemployment due to voluntary quits rose slightly to 11.8 percent, but that is still down from an average of 13.2 percent in 2018-2019, when the unemployment rate was comparable. Even more discouraging, the share of unemployment due to permanent layoffs rose 0.8 pp to 35.8 percent, the highest level since December 2021. That compares to an average of 33.3 in 2018-2019.

One piece of data that argues against much deterioration in the labor market is the relatively modest rise in the number of new and continuing unemployment insurance (UI) claims. Guy Berger regularly cites this statistic in his excellent Substack, High Frequency Labor Market Indicators.

While the weekly data on claims are useful, Guy also includes an index of weekly Google searches for “file for unemployment insurance.” This index had tracked the weekly claims data closely until early 2025 when the search measure rose rapidly, but the claims data remained pretty much flat.

There is not an obvious explanation for this divergence but let me throw one out. Even though most undocumented workers would not be eligible for UI, there are many people with some type of temporary status, who could end up unemployed. There are also people who might be here legally but have family members whose status is ambiguous. People in these situations may not want to risk calling attention to themselves by filing for unemployment insurance.

If there was a falloff in the willingness of foreign-born workers to file for UI, it could offset an increase in the number of people facing unemployment. A bit less than 20 percent of the workforce is foreign-born, so a substantial falloff in the probability of laid-off foreign-born workers applying for benefits would conceal a rise in layoffs. This story is obviously speculative, but the sudden divergence of searches and applications does indicate something different is happening in 2025.

A Rise in Wage Growth?

There was some good news in the September report. Wage growth picked up by my preferred measure. This takes the average hourly wage for the last three months (July-Sept) compared to the average for prior three months (April-June). That rose to a 4.0 percent annual rate. This is roughly the same as its rate in 2023 and 2024. It had shown some signs of slowing in prior months. The rate of wage growth for non-supervisory workers in the low-paid restaurant sector also picked up to 3.9 percent; it had been under 3.0 percent.

I said this is my preferred measure, but it is not widely used. If we take the year-over-year rate of wage growth, there has been little change. It stood at 3.7 percent in September, the same as the August rate.

I am not thrilled with using the year-over-year rate since it includes data that at this point is quite old. If wages grew rapidly at the end of 2024, we would show a high pace of wage growth even if the rate had slowed substantially over the last few months.

Taking a single month, whether it be for a one-month period or even a three or six-month period, suffers from the fact that the monthly data are highly erratic and subject to large revisions. For example, the average hourly wage for August was originally reported as $36.53. It was revised up this month to $36.58.

This gives a hugely different story on the pace of wage growth using August as an endpoint. Annualizing the three-month rate for the originally reported number of $36.53 gives a 3.4 percent rate of wage growth. Annualizing using the revised $36.58 number gives a rate of wage growth of 3.9 percent. These are very different pictures of the labor market.

Taking an average of three months reduces, but does not eliminate, this problem. We’ll have to see whether the measure I prefer ends up being a useful predictor of future wage growth in this case. But for September, it does show a better picture than the data had indicated in prior months. Wage growth had been falling towards the inflation rate, meaning that real wage growth was stalling. The September data imply that wages are still outpacing inflation by close to a percentage point.

What About More Recent Data?

The September jobs report is giving us historical information at this point. The household survey that gives us the unemployment rate was taken more than two months ago. The more recent data seem to support the story of further labor market weakening.

The data from the payroll company ADP, now released weekly, show the private sector losing a modest number of jobs in October. With all delayed layoffs in the federal government from DOGE ending in September, there will be some additional job loss in the public sector as these workers will no longer be on the payroll.

The Indeed data for job listings continued its downward path, although there was a modest uptick in the mid-November figure. Continuing unemployment insurance claims also show a modest uptick, which is consistent with some further deterioration in the labor market.

We will not get unemployment data for October. The survey was not conducted and asking people to look back will not give reliable data. (This may sound stupid, but it really does matter exactly how and when the questions are asked.)

My expectation is that there will be a further rise in the unemployment rate for November when we get the data in the middle of next month. (This one is delayed a couple of weeks because of the shutdown.) I will be looking closely at the wage data. I will be surprised if there really is an uptick in the pace of wage growth.

The weakening of the labor market is bad news for tens of millions of workers who are trapped in their jobs and seeing lower real wages due to inflation. But it is not full-fledged recession stuff. That will have to wait for the collapse of the tech bubble.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

The Media's Rich Owners Want Generations To Fight Each Other -- Not Classes

The Media's Rich Owners Want Generations To Fight Each Other -- Not Classes

The idea of generational warfare is pernicious tripe. It gets pushed endlessly in the media because rich people would rather see kids lashing out at their parents than at them. And since the rich own the media, we hear a lot about generational inequality. Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post gave us the latest effort at generational warmongering.

Just to give some basic facts that are not in dispute, the country is getting richer year by year. Using the projections from the Social Security Trustees, per capital income is projected to be 15.4 percent higher in 2035, 32.6 percent higher in 2045, and 54.3 percent higher in 2055, when virtually all the baby boomers will be dead.

Since the baby boomers are for the most part not going to be partaking in these higher levels of consumption, who do the generational warriors think will be getting this income? It’s worth mentioning that these could prove to be very conservative projections of income growth. If AI has anywhere near the impact its proponents are claiming, per capita income will grow by far more than the Social Security trustees are projecting.

Given the indisputable fact that the country is getting richer, how can there be a story where Gen Xers, Millennials, and Gen Zers will be poorer on average than baby boomers? There is a story where generations can do worse through time, but that would be a story of within-generation inequality, not between-generations inequality.

The problem is not greedy boomers, but rather ridiculously rich people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg hoarding the country’s wealth for their own use and the use of their heirs. People are less likely to see that story because these super-rich people are the ones who own the major media outlets and social media platforms, but that is reality.

Given these simple and undeniable facts, it is striking how often we see this generational inequality nonsense. As is the case with this Post piece, they often push outright lies to make their case. For example, this piece tells readers:

“’Baby boomers “entered the labor force during decades of strong economic growth, rising productivity and relatively high real wages,’ Mitchell said. They were in their prime earning and saving years during long bull markets, namely in the 1980s and ’90s, she said, as well as the economic recovery that followed the Great Recession.” ….

“And ‘particularly for middle-income workers, real wage gains since the 2000s have been modest, compared to the robust wage growth that boomers benefited from mid-career,’ Mitchell said.” [Prof. Olivia Mitchell, who teaches business economics and public policy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.]

“Post-World War II, ‘you had this tremendous boom that many got to ride for a very long period of time,’ Ney said.” [Jeremy Ney, a professor at Columbia University’s business school.]

This turns reality on its head. As I wrote in a piece last month:

“There was in fact a golden age, but it predated the entry of most boomers into the labor market. The economy experienced a period of low unemployment and rapid real wage growth, which was widely shared, from 1947 to 1973. At the endpoint of this boom period, the oldest boomers were 27, and the youngest were 9.

“After 1973, the economy took a sharp turn for the worst. The most immediate cause was the Arab oil embargo, which sent oil prices soaring. The economy at that time was far more dependent on oil than is the case today. Soaring oil prices sent inflation higher, which prompted the Fed to bring on severe recessions, first in 74-75 and then again in 1980-82.

“The full story is more complicated and highly contested, but what happened to the economy is not. We had a period of far higher unemployment and stagnant real wage growth that lasted until the mid-1990s. The median real wage in 1996 was actually 4.4 percent lower than it had been in 1973.

“The average unemployment rate for people between the ages of 20-24 over the years 1973 to 1988 (when the last boomer hit 24) was 11.3 percent. By comparison, it averaged 7.2 percent over the last decade, although it has been rising rapidly in 2025.”

After stagnating for two decades, the median real wage has been rising modestly for the last three decades.

Finally, the piece includes this inadvertently damning comment for the argument it is trying to push on readers.

“’In 1940 there was a 90 percent chance that you were going to earn more than your parents. To somebody born today, it is just a coin flip,’ Ney said.”

Since average income has risen consistently over the last seventy years and is universally projected to continue to rise (barring a climate disaster), the only reason why most workers won’t earn more than their parents would be a further rise in inequality. In other words, more money going to people like Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos and less money going to ordinary workers.

If there is not a further increase in inequality, then most workers in ten or twenty years will be earning considerably more than do workers today. That is irrefutable logic, which apparently has no place in the Washington Post.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.



Inherited Conditions: Biden Left Trump The Best Economy In Half A Century

Inherited Conditions: Biden Left Trump The Best Economy In Half A Century

Donald Trump may not be able to remember what things were like five years ago, when he handed the economy and the country to Joe Biden, but it is important that the rest of us do. As in so many other areas where Trump tries to turn reality on its head, he pushes the story of Biden inheriting a great economy, which he then wrecked. The reality is the opposite, Biden turned around an economy in shambles due to the pandemic, and handed off an economy that was widely touted as the envy of the world.

The most important reversal was in the labor market. More than 19 million people were laid off in the pandemic shutdowns in the spring of 2020. Many quickly came back to work in the summer and fall, but the huge bounce back had stopped by the time Biden took office.

Job growth averaged just 150,000 in the last three months of the Trump administration. In fact, the economy actually lost jobs in December of 2020, so it is clearly wrong to imagine that there was a surge of rehiring at the time Biden took office. Employment was still 9.4 million below its pre-pandemic peak in January of 2021. The unemployment rate stood at 6.4 percent.

Biden’s recovery package quickly turned the economy around. Unemployment was down to 4.0 percent by the end of 2021. Employment levels regained the lost ground by June of 2022. It would have taken more than six years to get back to pre-pandemic employment levels at the rate of job growth in the last three months of the Trump administration.

One cost of Biden’s aggressive recovery package was a surge in inflation. The year-over-year inflation rate began to rise rapidly from pandemic lows, peaking at 9.0 percent in June of 2022. Clearly the recovery package contributed to this increase, but most of the story is the world-wide supply chain crisis stemming from the pandemic. (The surge in energy prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was also a big factor pushing inflation higher.)

The story here is straightforward. As a result of the pandemic, people were not spending money on services like restaurants and travel. Instead, they spent it on goods, like appliances, television sets, and cars. The world could not meet this huge surge in demand, especially at a time when many production and shipping facilities were still crippled by the pandemic.

It is also important to recognize that this shift from services to goods was not the result of governmental restrictions. It was due to people not wanting to go into crowds and risk getting a potentially deadly disease that they could then transmit to friends and family members. Service spending did not return to its pre-pandemic share of consumption until early 2024.

However, the rate of inflation fell quickly. By the fall of 2024 the year-over-year rate was down to 2.5 percent, only slightly above the Fed’s 2.0 percent target. It’s also important to note that wages outpaced inflation over the Biden years, with the lowest paid workers seeing the largest real wage gains in more than half a century. It’s also important to note an increase of 20 million in the number of people who work from home, which is estimated as equivalent to a wage gain of 8 percent.

Finally, there is the question of overall economic growth. The economy had an unprecedented plunge in the spring of 2020 associated with pandemic shutdowns. It shot back in the summer and fall, but it had lost momentum by the end of the year. GDP in the fourth quarter was still 0.9 percent below its year ago level.

The recovery package quickly ramped up growth. The economy had some shaky times due to supply chains issues, two subsequent and unanticipated waves of covid in the summer of 2021 and winter of 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the sharp rate hikes by the Fed beginning in March of 2022. But it had settled down to a healthy pace of growth by 2024, with a year-over-year rate of 2.4 percent in the fourth quarter. That is the economy Joe Biden handed off to Donald Trump.

Source: BLS and BEA

It would be foolish to say everything was great when Biden left office. The United States has a badly undeveloped system of social supports. Tens of millions of people struggle to put food on the table, pay the rent, and cover medical bills. But by almost every measure most of the country was doing better in 2024 than they had been doing in 2020 or even before the pandemic in 2019.

Donald Trump might want people to forget this fact, but just because he has memory problems, it doesn’t mean the rest of us should.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

Is Trump Hiding Jobs Report? Workers Seek Seasonal Positions As Employment Dips

Is Trump Hiding Jobs Report? Workers Seek Seasonal Positions As Employment Dips

Trying to understand the economy is always like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. We get all sorts of pieces of disparate data which we try to put together to get a clear picture of the economy. Sometimes they all go in the same direction, so the story is easy. Sometimes they don’t and the puzzle becomes difficult.

Now is one of those times, and the story is made much more difficult by the fact that we have not been getting data from the federal government for a month and a half. We have missed two monthly jobs reports, one monthly CPI report, one quarterly GDP report, and a variety of releases of less consequence.

There were some things that were clear even before the shutdown. The labor market was definitely weakening. Job growth had slowed to a trickle. The economy created less than 30,000 jobs a month in the four months from April to August, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. That is down from a pace of 150,000 a month over the prior year.

We don’t have the September data, but we can infer that it was weak. BLS had compiled the data, and it would have been mostly ready for release at the time of the shutdown. While ordinarily the data would not be shared with the president or his political appointees until just before the official release, there is no reason to believe Donald Trump would respect this norm. He, or his aides, likely reviewed the September data and made a decision not to release it.

Even though we don’t have government data for the period after August, we do have private data sources, notably the series on jobs numbers produced by the payroll firm ADP and the job listings data compiled by the hiring firm Indeed. These both show a very weak labor market.

ADP shows average private sector job growth of just 10,000 a month for the three months from July to October. Since this excludes the government sector, which likely shed jobs over this period due to federal layoffs (even pre-shutdown), the ADP data imply essentially zero job growth over this period. Indeed shows its hiring index fell to the lowest level since February of 2021, just 1.7 percent above its February 2020 base level. (The index from the hiring firm Revelo also shows weakness, but I am less familiar with its data.)

While job growth has clearly slowed, a big part of this story is the plunge in immigration has slashed labor force growth. This means that it takes far less job growth to keep pace with labor force growth.

However, there are some indications that job growth is not keeping pace even with the slower growth in the labor force. One item supporting this view is the surge in the number of people looking for seasonal employment for the holidays. Indeed reports that the number of seasonal job seekers is up 27 percent over the 2024 level and 50 percent from 2023.

Seasonal jobs are by definition temporary and mostly low paying. The fact that so many people are seeking these jobs suggests that many workers do not feel they have very good job prospects.

This is consistent with the modest rise in unemployment we have seen in the data through August. Unemployment had inched up to 4.3 percent in August from an average of 4.1 percent in the second half of 2024.

The rise is clearer for disadvantaged groups, as I have noted in the past. For Black workers the unemployment rose from 5.7 percent last October to 7.5 percent in August. For young workers between the ages of 20-24, the unemployment rate was 9.2 percent in August, up from 7.8 percent last October and 6.9 percent in October of 2023.

To my mind, the data are consistent with a somewhat further rise in the unemployment rate, likely to 4.5 to 4.6 percent in October, with a further rise to 4.7 percent this month. These numbers are still low by historical standards, but they imply a noticeable weakening of the labor market. (The Chicago Federal Reserve Bank estimates there was a more modest rise in unemployment in October to just 4.36 percent.)

The other part of the story is that wage growth also seems to have slowed especially for workers at the bottom end of the wage distribution. The slowing of wage growth is clear in the Indeed data, which showed year-over-year wage growth of 2.5 percent for listed jobs. This is 0.8 percentage points below the year ago pace.

There is also evidence of slowing wage growth in the payroll data released before the shutdown. The average hourly wage increased 3.7 percent year-over-year as of August. This is down from a 4.0 percent rate in 2023 and 2024. It rose at just a 3.5 percent annual rate, taking the average of the last three months (June, July, August) compared with the prior three (March, April, May).

The slowing has been even sharper for low-paid workers whose wages are most sensitive to labor market conditions. The annual rate of wage growth for low-paid non-supervisory restaurant workers has been just 3.2 percent, comparing the last three months with the prior three. With inflation edging up to 3.0 percent, this implies close to zero real wage growth.

I may be overly pessimistic here, and I encourage everyone to read Guy Berger’s somewhat more optimistic take, but it looks to me like we are looking at a labor market with near zero labor force growth and near zero real wage growth. This means that real labor income in the economy is essentially flat.

That fits with the story that Mark Zandi and others are saying where all the consumption growth is coming at the top end of the income distribution. People whose income depends on their wages are not seeing any increase and therefore cannot spend more. It’s only people at the top end who have substantial holdings in stock or other assets who are seeing their income grow.

That is not a pretty picture from the standpoint of the bulk of the population, and it does not describe a very stable path of economic growth. When the AI bubble bursts, things might get really ugly really fast.

President Trump

Tariff Dividend Checks For Dummies (Who Run America's Policy Debates)

I learned basic arithmetic skills in third grade. I wasn’t exceptional, everyone in my public school third grade class learned them. Of course, we all can now use computers to have calculations done for us in a fraction of a second. But still somehow, we have major national debates that show zero understanding of even the most basic arithmetic.

The latest example is the $2,000 tariff dividend check that Trump is promising us. The arithmetic here is about as simple as it gets. We have roughly 340 million people in the country. Let’s say 10 percent don’t get the check because they meet Trump’s category of “high-income.”

That leaves over 300 million people getting Trump’s $2,000 checks. That comes to more than $600 billion. Trump’s tariffs are raising around $270 billion. That means we will be paying out $330 billion more in Trump tariff dividend checks than he is raising in tariff revenue. That is adding $330 billion to the deficit. That is from the same guy who is making an obsession of paying down our national debt.

And just to be clear, we were already looking at a budget deficit for 2026 of $1.8 trillion. If we add $330 billion, the deficit for the fiscal year will be $2.1 trillion. To put this in simple language that even a reporter for a major national news outlet can understand, Trump is proposing to add $2.1 trillion to the debt in 2026, he is not paying it down.

I acknowledge not being a deficit hawk and am not terrified by a deficit of this size, which is roughly seven percent of GDP. But I suspect most of the politicians in Washington are, and certainly anyone who thinks we need to be paying down the debt should be screaming bloody murder.

But watching the reaction in major media outlets, there seems almost no appreciation of the fact that Trump was floating what would ordinarily be considered a very large increase in the deficit. In fact, if Trump were to give this tariff dividend check every year over the next decade, it would add close to $4 trillion to the debt (counting interest payments), almost as much as the big tax cut Congress approved earlier this year.

It’s also worth comparing Trump’s tariff dividends to other items in the news. The government shutdown was in large part over the $35 billion in annual payments for enhanced subsidies for people buying insurance in Obamacare exchanges. Trump and Republicans in Congress claimed that we didn’t have the money to pay for these subsidies. Trump’s tariff dividend checks would cost more than 17 times as much as the enhanced insurance subsidies.

To make another comparison, Trump saved us around $6 billion a year by shutting down PEPFAR, the program that has saved tens of millions of lives by treating people in Africa for AIDS. This means that Trump’s tariff dividend checks will cost us 100 times as much as the AIDS program that he said we couldn’t afford.

And just to throw in one more comparison, the annual appropriation for public broadcasting was $550 million. Trump’s tariff dividend checks would cost more than 1000 times as much as the government’s payments for public broadcasting.

People can differ in their views on how important it is to save lives in Africa or provide people here with healthcare. They may also differ in their assessments of how important deficits are, but it really would be good if media outlets could make knowledge of third grade arithmetic a job requirement for reporters who deal with budget issues. It should be their job to provide meaningful information to the public on the topic. Letting someone talk about $2,000 dividend checks, and also about paying down the debt, is a sick joke.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

Trump Van Winkle, Obamacare And The 'Money-Sucking' Health Insurance Industry

Trump Van Winkle, Obamacare And The 'Money-Sucking' Health Insurance Industry

There is an old child’s tale about Rip Van Winkle. He fell asleep for 20 years and wakes up after the American Revolution and finds the world has changed in big ways. Donald Trump seems to be doing his own Rip Van Winkle routine. Yesterday, Trump suggested as an alternative to Obamacare, which he said feeds the “money sucking” insurance industry, that we just give money directly to people and let them buy their own healthcare.

This is a Rip Van Winkle story because Trump seems to think he has come up with a new idea. He apparently has missed the debate around healthcare reform that led up to Obamacare. He also apparently missed the debate on developing an alternative during his first term.While we don’t know exactly what Trump has in mind -- the plan will be ready in two weeks :), I hear -- there are fundamental problems with this sort of "just give people cash" idea. These problems push serious people, who have been awake, towards something like Obamacare or universal Medicare.

The basic problem of providing healthcare coverage is that some people have health conditions that are very expensive to treat, but most people are relatively healthy. If we just left things to the market, insurers will only cover healthy people. These people are very profitable for the industry, since they are basically just sending their insurer a check every month.

The problem is with the tens of millions of people who have health issues like diabetes, heart disease, cancer, or other conditions. These people are big money losers for the industry. They will avoid insuring them if they can or alternatively charge them tens of thousands a year for coverage. They may also contest making payments by claiming people had failed to disclose their health condition when they applied for insurance. I briefly went through the problems of the pre-ACA insurance market a few weeks back.

If Trump just gives people cash, it will do nothing to get around these problems. First, it is not clear which people he wants to give cash, and which cash. If he just means the enhanced subsides, he has around $35 billion a year to play with. Currently, around 22 million people get the enhanced subsidies, so that would imply checks of around $1.600 a year.

But there are another 28 million people currently without insurance, and another 2 million getting insurance in the exchanges without subsidies. Surely these people should be eligible for the Trump checks also. That would come to 52 million people sharing $35 billion, giving them each a check of less than $700.

Making the story even more complicated, people gain and lose coverage all the time, as they or a family member gets hired or leave a job with insurance. They may also gain or lose coverage for a government program like Medicaid. This means Trump has to figure out whether he will be sending out his checks once a year, giving many people a huge bonus and screwing those who lose their job after the cutoff date. Alternatively, this would have to be some sort of recurring payment, monthly or quarterly.

Perhaps Trump intends to take all the money going to Obamacare, not just the enhanced subsidies, which the Center on Policy Priorities puts at $125 billion, and roll it into his Trump checks. That would make them around $1,900 a year.

The next question is what Trump expects people to do with their money. A young healthy person may be able to cover their healthcare costs with $1,900 a year, but even these people would likely want insurance against the risk they may incur a serious illness or be in some sort of accident. Good luck finding insurance for $170 a month.

And the problem is far worse for older people and people with major health issues. In an unregulated insurance market, these people would be paying thousands of dollars a month for their insurance. Their Trump check will not go very far towards covering a premium of several thousand dollars a month.

Perhaps Trump plans to keep the Obamacare restrictions that require insurers to cover everyone, regardless of health condition, and prohibits discriminating based on health condition. That would limit the payments for people with health problems but still mean premiums that dwarf the size of the Trump checks, especially for those in the oldest pre-Medicare age bracket 55-64.

That would also put us basically where we are now except the checks would be smaller and untargeted, since all people without insurance, not just those enrolling in the exchanges, would be getting checks. Also, the current payments are adjusted by income. We don’t know whether Trump plans his checks to be income-based.

And in this story, the money would still be going to money sucking insurance companies, except presumably with less regulation so that the money sucking insurance companies could suck up more money. Under Obamacare, insurers have to pay out at least 80 percent of what they collect in premiums to providers, otherwise their customers get a rebate. Since Trump wants to get the government out of the picture, the insurers could presumably pocket even more money.

If Trump really wants to go after the money sucking insurance companies, getting them out of Medicare would be a great start. They mostly add cost to the program. He can improve the traditional program, adding dental, eyecare, and hearing coverage, and also imposing an out-of-pocket cap, and stop paying money sucking insurers in the Medicare Advantage program. Due to their higher administrative costs and profits, Medicare Advantage costs the government at least $100 billion a year compared to the traditional Medicare program.

If we’re really serious about cracking down on the money sucking insurance companies, why not go all the way and just provide universal Medicare. This would not only save the money directly paid to insurers, it would also eliminate much of the cost that hospitals, doctors’ offices and other providers have to incur dealing with complex forms from multiple insurers. This could save as much as $1 trillion a year ($8,000 per household) compared to what we pay now for administrative costs and insurance industry profits.

A universal Medicare system would also mean that everyone has access to healthcare regardless of where they work, what government program they qualify for, or if they remembered to pay their insurance premium last month. Not many would have expected Donald Trump to be the person to get us to Medicare for All, but if he really wants to crack down on money sucking insurance companies, that would be the way to go. Welcome aboard, comrade!


Will Supreme Court Nix Trump Tariffs, Boost Economy -- And Aid GOP In 2026?

Will Supreme Court Nix Trump Tariffs, Boost Economy -- And Aid GOP In 2026?

From most accounts of the justices’ reactions, it seems they were unimpressed with the argument from Donald Trump’s lawyers about his power to impose tariffs at will. They had trouble convincing the Supreme Court that the beginning of Section 8 of the Constitution, which lays out the powers of Congress -- “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" -- does not actually mean that Congress has the power to impose taxes, including tariffs.

The conservative justices, all of whom have made a cult out of their supposed adherence to the original text of the Constitution, might find they would have to bend themselves into even more knots than usual to turn the plain wording of the Constitution on its head and rule in Trump’s favor.

It’s not just integrity that would push them to rule against Trump; it’s also clearly in the interest of the business community to have a tariff regime that doesn’t shift based on the president’s feelings. Businesses making long-term investments need to know whether their inputs will be available at relatively low tariff rates or whether Trump will suddenly whack them with a 50 percent tariff, as he has done repeatedly.

This certainly is also needed in the other direction. If a steel company is making investments in the U.S. based on a 50 percent tariff on imported steel, they need some guarantee that a foreign producer won’t make a bribe to Trump and get their steel admitted tariff free.

The existing tariff regime provided this certainty. Trump’s tariff of the day policy does not.

While Trump is warning of the end of the world if his tariff power is reined in, such warnings are about as serious as his healthcare plan. We obviously would take in less revenue with lower tariffs, but so what?

The Republican Congress happily passed Trump's big tax cuts without any expectation of large amounts of tariff revenue. The loss of this revenue will just put us back to where we were in March in terms of the budget.

Trump has his imaginary $18 trillion in foreign investment which he attributes to the tariffs. He can just attribute this imaginary investment to something else, and all will be fine.

And Trump has his eight wars that he imagines he settled by his tariff threats. Again, he can use some other mechanism to get imaginary peace settlements to imaginary wars.

The real story of the Trump tariffs is very simple. They are a tax on the American people, and in fact a very large one.

The government collected just under $30 billion in import taxes in September of this year, the most recent data available. That compares to around $7 billion last year. The increase of $23 billion would imply a tax of almost $270 billion on an annual basis, or 0.9 percent of GDP. This is one of the largest tax increases in the country’s history.

If the court rules against Trump, then this tax increase likely would be reversed. In fact, the Court could even require that the money collected be returned to the companies that paid it, in effect giving a rebate of $200 billion to U.S. importers. This would be putting a large amount of money into these companies’ pockets, some of which would be spent and boost the economy.

We also don’t know the timing of any court decisions. If they wait until June of next year, when they issue most of their major decisions, then the justices may be giving the country a huge tax break just in time to rev the economy up for the election.

It’s very difficult to say what the economy will look like by next summer. Trump’s tariffs, his budget cuts and layoffs, and mass deportations have been a real hit to the labor market. Job growth has slowed to a crawl, real wage growth is near zero, and the unemployment rate had edged higher as of August. (Trump has the September jobs report but has decided not to release it.) That looks like a path of gradual slowing and rising unemployment for the foreseeable future.

However, we have a big unknown in the form of the AI bubble. Having followed closely both the tech bubble in the 90s and the housing bubble in the 00s, I know that a bubble’s end is hard to predict. Both bubbles went on far longer and grew much larger than I would have anticipated. If the bubble continues to grow, next summer we are still likely to be on the path of modest GDP growth and labor market weakening we see today. If it bursts, then a recession is virtually assured.

In that case, the big tax break the Supreme Court would give us by ending the Trump tariffs would be a major boost to the economy. It would not be large enough to reverse the effect of a collapsing bubble, but it would be an important support to the economy when it badly needs it. Congress would have to do more, but hey, the Supreme Court can only do so much when all the responsible people setting policy have left town.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

Comparing Trump Family Wealth Accumulation To The Cost Of SNAP Benefits

Comparing Trump Family Wealth Accumulation To The Cost Of SNAP Benefits

I have harangued reporters for decades over their failure to express big numbers in a context that would make them meaningful to their audiences. For example, when they report that we will spend roughly $100 billion this year on SNAP, relatively few people know that this is around 1.4 percent of total spending. They just hear a REALLY BIG NUMBER; to most of them the number would probably mean the same thing if it would $50 billion or $200 billion.

It would be a very simple matter for reporters to make a habit of including four or five words of context so that these really big numbers would be meaningful to their audience. I considered it a big victory when I worked with several groups to persuade Margaret Sullivan, who was the New York Times public editor, to write a piece arguing exactly this point. She also got a strong endorsement for this view by then Washington editor David Leonhardt.

This seemed like a huge victory, since if the New York Times made a practice of presenting big budget numbers in a context that made them meaningful, it is likely most other publications would follow. This would have led to a far better-informed electorate who would know that they did not have a high tax bill because of the 0.008 percent of the budget that went to public broadcasting.

Unfortunately, nothing changed. Even though I have never heard and literally cannot imagine an argument on the other side (it takes 10 seconds to do the calculation on a spreadsheet), it is still standard practice for reporters to write numbers in the millions, billions, or trillions that they know are meaningless to almost their entire audience.

And informing the public would make a difference. Elon Musk probably would not have been so proud to shut down PEPFAR, the AIDS program for Africa started by George W. Bush, if he knew he was sentencing millions of people to death in order to reduce federal spending by 0.09 percent (nine cents on $100).

In the interest of putting numbers in context in terms of the current budget shutdown, we can think about how much money Donald Trump and his family have gained since he was elected compared to the cost of SNAP. According to Forbes, the Trump family has increased their wealth by roughly $5 billion since the election, effectively doubling their prior fortune.

By comparison, the average monthly SNAP benefit is a bit less than $190 a month, or roughly $2,250 a year. If we compare the Trump family’s post-election windfall to the average SNAP benefit, it comes to more than 2 million SNAP-person years.

Source: Forbes magazine and USDA

This comparison is useful since we can see that even while millions of people might be suffering from the loss of SNAP benefits due to the shutdown, at least Donald Trump and his family are doing well.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

Trump Economy's Weak Job Market Is Driving Down Wages As Prices Rise

Trump Economy's Weak Job Market Is Driving Down Wages As Prices Rise

Going a month without government data makes it difficult to understand what is going on with the economy. We still have some data from private sources trickling in, and we have some state data, notable unemployment insurance claims, but without the federal data on items like unemployment, job turnover, and Gross Domestic Product it is much harder to make much sense of what is going on in the economy.

In assessing the economy, the state of the labor market should always be front and center. Most people get most of their income from working, so the labor market matters in a really big way. Also, since people spend much of their waking life at work, their working conditions matter a great deal. This means it matters a lot whether people feel they can quit a job they don’t like and easily find another. In addition, the option to work from home matters to tens of millions of workers.

The best place to start in viewing the labor market is Guy Berger’s weekly Substack, High Frequency Labor Market Indicators. Guy covers most of the available data, and like the rest of us, he is seeking out alternative sources during the shutdown.

In his most recent assessment, I’ll start with where I strongly agree with him. It is easy to exaggerate the importance of big layoff announcements at tech giants like Meta and Amazon.

As Guy points out, in a normal month, roughly 1.7 million workers lose their job. The 30,000 layoffs announced at Amazon or the 10,000 at Meta are just a tiny fraction of this number. If they are representative of what is happening at companies across the country, this is a big deal, but by themselves, they are not. We also have seen this story before. In 2022, there were announcements of big layoffs at the tech companies, even as the economy was adding jobs at a very rapid pace.

Where I differ with Guy is his more generally sanguine view of the state of the labor market. Guy points to the weekly data on unemployment insurance, where both initial and continuing claims show no major upticks. This is important evidence that there has been no big uptick in layoffs.

But I am more concerned about the other side of the story. It looks like hiring has fallen off. My main piece of evidence here is the Indeed hiring index. Guy also points to this index but says that we are just on the same downward slope we’ve been seeing for the last three and a half years.

This is true, but this is a case where we have to think about levels rather than changes. The most recent level reported for the week ending October 24 was 101.9. This is 5.5 percent lower than the 107.8 reading for the week ending April 19, six months ago. That was already a point where the labor market was notably weaker by most measures than in 2024. If we are seeing a modest rise in layoffs, and a five percent drop in hires, we would expect this to lead to a further weakening of the labor market. This is not falling off a cliff, but a gradual deterioration.

There is the complication that labor force growth has fallen through the floor, now that immigration has been largely halted. But again, it is important to remember that the net additions to the labor market each month are swamped by flows. The falloff in new entrants due to the cutoff of immigration is perhaps 100,000 a month, the number of new hires is over five million a month.

Supporting this deterioration view is the Conference Board’s Index measuring the number of people saying jobs are plentiful, minus those saying jobs are hard to get. This index has been on a steady decline since peaking in early 2022. The current level is roughly where we were at the start of 2017 when the unemployment rate was over 4.5 percent. That is not a disaster, but it is a deterioration from where we have been and notably worse than 2018-19, two strong years for the labor market prior to the pandemic.

This downturn also seems to be affecting wage growth. The Indeed measure for wage growth in advertised jobs is down to 2.5 percent, 0.8 percentage points below its year ago level. This is also close to a percentage point below its 2019 level. With inflation ticking up modestly due to tariffs and other factors, this slowing in nominal wage growth (also shown in recent data from the establishment survey) likely means that real wage growth has fallen close to zero.

To be clear, none of this suggests a disastrous picture. We are not looking at recession levels of unemployment, but to me it looks like the labor market is notably weaker than 2024 or 2018-2019. Workers no longer feel they have their choice of jobs, and real wages are barely rising for most workers, and for many they are falling. And workers in disadvantaged groups, like Black and young workers, are seeing considerably worse labor market conditions.

Is Avian Flu Making a Comeback?

There are accounts from around the country of avian flu hitting both wild bird populations and also poultry stocks on farms. Last year avian flu sent egg prices soaring. Wholesale prices have already risen sharply from lows hit in October but are nowhere near the peaks we saw last March. I have no great insights to offer here but given the politics of egg prices around the election last year, it would be worth keeping an eye on this one.

The Circular Flows of the AI Bubble

There has been considerable reporting on how the AI bubble at this point might be driven in part by circular payments, with producers giving money to customers to buy their products. For example, Nvidia is investing $100 billion in OpenAI, which is a major customer for its chips.

If the potential problem here is not clear, imagine Oscar Meyer invested $1 billion in both Jack and Jill’s premium hot dog stand. Jack and Jill then made huge purchases of Oscar Meyer hotdogs, which they then sold at a massive loss. Jack and Jill could keep doing this because Oscar Meyer kept investing more money in their hotdog stands.

On Oscar Meyer’s books all looks great because their hotdog sales, and profits, are soaring. The money invested in the hotdog stands does not count as a loss. It is an investment, which they can keep on the books as long as market conditions don’t force them to write it down. If Jack and Jill’s hot dog stands are privately traded, that could be a very long time.

I don’t know if this describes the current situation in AI, but it is a serious possibility. At the end of the day, someone may get stuck with some really bad meat.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

Why Trump's 'Donor-Financed' White House Ballroom Will Cost Taxpayers Millions

Why Trump's 'Donor-Financed' White House Ballroom Will Cost Taxpayers Millions

Trump and his Republican sycophants have been busy telling us that we shouldn’t be bothered by Trump’s demolition of the White House East Wing and his plans for a now $350 million ballroom. (The price tag keeps rising, it had been $200 million.)

While many of us were upset about Trump’s destruction of a historic landmark with zero consultation from anyone, the consolation is supposed to be that taxpayers are not footing the bill. Trump says he is raising the money from his friends and corporate sponsors.

Apparently, we are supposed to be relieved that people seeking favors from Trump are paying for the ballroom rather than taxpayer dollars. As David Dayen pointed out in a piece in The American Prospect, these contributions are likely to prove very costly to the American people.

Dayen goes through the public list of donors (some are anonymous) and found off the bat the big tech companies, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon. These companies have all sorts of occasion to seek government contracts and regulatory favors from a Trump administration that has openly said it favors its friends in such matters.

The list includes many other companies looking for favors, such as Hewlett Packard and Union Pacific, both looking for regulatory approval on major mergers. And then there are crypto folks who always want more love from Donald Trump as they expand their scams.

This naked corruption is the biggest cost to the public from Trump’s big ballroom, but it is not the only one. If we’re only concerned about the budgetary impact, it’s important to remember that taxpayers pay a price for the “generosity” of rich people. They deduct their contributions from their taxable income.

The current top tax rate is roughly 40 percent. (This includes the Medicare tax, which applies to all income of rich people.) If the full $350 million were coming from individuals, this means that we would be getting $140 million less in taxes from them because of their contributions to Trump’s mega ballroom.

From a straight budgetary perspective, the public would be better off if Trump built something more tasteful in the $100-$140 million range, using taxpayer dollars, than the mega MAGA monstrosity he is actually attaching to the White House. (What will this cost to demolish?)

In fairness, many of Trump’s contributions come from corporations who are only taxed at a 21 percent rate. Also, it’s likely that some of Trump’s contributors cheat, and don’t pay any taxes anyhow, so the deduction doesn’t mean anything to them. But none of us should think that just because the ballroom is paid for by contributions, it doesn’t cost the government anything.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.