Lack of paid sick days and large numbers of uninsured increase risks of spreading the coronavirus
COVID-19—commonly known as the coronavirus—is now a potential threat for the United States and we all “need to be preparing for significant disruption of our lives,” warned the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) this week.
Unfortunately, preparing for the “significant disruption” will be economically unimaginable for one group of Americans—the millions of people in the United States who do not have access to paid sick days or have health insurance with a regular health care provider.
The CDC released very clear instructions to help prevent the spread of respiratory diseases, including staying home when you are sick. Not everyone has that option.
Overall, just under three-quarters (73%) of private-sector workers in the United States have the ability to earn paid sick time at work. And, as shown in Figure A, below, access to paid sick days is vastly unequal. The highest-wage workers are more than three times as likely to have access to paid sick leave as the lowest-paid workers. Whereas 93% of the highest-wage workers had access to paid sick days, only 30% of the lowest-paid workers are able to earn sick days. In this way, access to paid sick days increases with wages among workers, disproportionately denying workers at the bottom this important security. And low-wage workers are more likely to be found in occupations where they have contact with the public—think early care and education workers, home health aides, restaurant workers, and food processors. When workers or their family members are sick, they shouldn’t have to decide between staying home from work to care for themselves or their dependents and paying rent or putting food on the table. But that is the situation our policymakers have put workers in.
Black-white wage gaps are worse today than in 2000
This week, my colleagues hosted a discussion on the policies that the 2020 presidential candidates should focus on in order to help black workers in the economy. One of the challenges that the presidential candidates should discuss is how to reduce the black–white wage gap—which has stubbornly persisted over the last four decades. Black-white wage gaps are large and have gotten worse in the last 20 years.
The latest findings on wage growth as documented in EPI’s State of Working America Wages 2019 report indicate wages in general are slowly improving with the growing economy, but wage inequality has grown and wage gaps have persisted, and in some cases, worsened. In this post, I will highlight the worsening black-white wage gap and look at it from multiple dimensions. Since 2000, by any way it’s measured, the wage gap between black and white workers has grown significantly.
The figure below compares wages for black and white workers over the last 19 years, highlighting the gaps in wages in 2000, the last time the economy was closest to full employment, 2007, the last business cycle peak before the Great Recession, and 2019, the latest data available. Against these benchmarks, I illustrated the growth in the average gap, the gap for low-, middle-, and high-wage workers, the gap for workers with a high school diploma, a college degree, and an advanced degree, and a regression-adjusted wage gap (controlling for age, gender, education, and region).
Black–white wage gaps widen across multiple measures: Black–white wages gaps at different points in the wage distribution, by education, and regression-based, 2000, 2007, and 2019
2000 | 2007 | 2019 | |
---|---|---|---|
Average | 21.8% | 23.5% | 26.5% |
10th percentile | 6.2% | 8.7% | 9.0% |
Median | 20.8% | 22.3% | 24.4% |
95th percentile | 28.0% | 28.3% | 34.7% |
High school | 15.3% | 17.4% | 18.3% |
College | 17.2% | 19.2% | 22.5% |
Advanced degree | 12.5% | 16.7% | 17.6% |
Regression-based | 10.2% | 12.2% | 14.9% |
Notes: Sample based on all workers ages 16 and older. The xth-percentile wage is the wage at which x% of wage earners earn less and (100-x)% earn more. Educational attainment is based on mutually exclusive categories: e.g., high school is high school only, etc. Similar results are found for those with less than high school or some college. The regression-adjusted black–white wage gap controls for education, age, gender, and region.
Source: Author’s analysis of EPI Current Population Survey Extracts, Version 1.0 (2020), https://microdata.epi.org.
The black–white wage gap is smallest at the bottom of the wage distribution, where the minimum wage serves as a wage floor. The largest black–white wage gap as well as the one with the most growth since the Great Recession, is found at the top of the wage distribution, explained in part by the pulling away of top earners generally as well as continued occupational segregation, the disproportionate likelihood for white workers to occupy positions in the highest-wage professions.
It’s clear from the figure that education is not a panacea for closing these wage gaps. Again, this should not be shocking, as increased equality of educational access—as laudable a goal as it is—has been shown to have only small effects on class-based wage inequality, and racial wealth gaps have been almost entirely unmoved by a narrowing of the black–white college attainment gap, as demonstrated by William Darity Jr. and others.
Black workers can’t simply educate their way out of the gap. Across various levels of education, a significant black–white wage gap remains. Even black workers with an advanced degree experience a significant wage gap compared with their white counterparts. And after controlling for age, gender, education, and region, black workers are paid 14.9% less than white workers.
While the wage gaps differ depending on measure, what is obvious from the trends displayed is that the gaps widened in the full business cycle 2000–2007 and continued to grow in the Great Recession and its aftermath. Even though the black unemployment rate has fallen precipitously over the last several years, wage growth has remained particularly weak for black workers.
As always, it’s important to remember the historical and social contexts for differences in black and white labor market experiences and labor market outcomes (see Razza). Workers’ ability to claim higher wages rests on a host of social, political, and institutional factors outside of their control. The systematic social deprivation and economic disadvantage is maintained and reinforced by those with economic and political power. Furthermore, occupational segregation plays a significant role in these gaps, for both black men and black women. And, black women, in particularly, can face larger wages gaps with white men than the sum of their parts, meaning the black women face a double wage penalty for their race and gender. The trends in black–white wage gaps found here are supported by other important research that shows that black-white wage gaps expanded with rising inequality from 1979 to 2015.
Given a long history of excluding black Americans from social and political institutions that boost wage growth, the stubbornness of racial wage gaps is less surprising. However, the fact that they are getting worse is troubling. The good news is that policy can make a difference.
We see in the figure that the minimum wage keeps the lowest-wage black workers from even lower wages. In states that increased in the minimum wage between 2018 and 2019, low-wage workers saw stronger wage growth than in states that had no increase in their minimum wage in that period. Raising the federal minimum wage would disproportionately benefit black workers because they are overrepresented among low-wage workers and are less likely to live in states or localities that have passed a minimum wage that is higher than the current federal minimum.
Aside from strengthening and enforcing labor standards such as the minimum wage, making it easier for workers to form unions can narrow the black–white wage gap. Black workers are more likely to be in a union than white and get a bigger wage boost to being in a union than white. Therefore, unions can help shrink the black–white wage gap. Related, research has shown that the decline of unionization led to an expansion of the black–white wage gap.
Using all fiscal and monetary policy levers to achieve and maintain high-pressure labor markets can improve relative labor market outcomes for black workers, including participation in the labor force and work hours as well as wage growth. The U.S. certainly saw this stronger across the board growth in the tight labor market of the late 1990s.
In 2019, black wages exceeded their 2000 and 2007 levels across the wage distribution for the first time in this recovery. I’m hopeful that as the economy continues to move toward genuine full employment, black workers will see their wages rise. But it will take more than a couple of years of a full-employment economy to close racial wage gaps and compensate for years of lower wages, lower incomes, and lower wealth.
The U.S. federal tax and spending system is the biggest tool to combat inequality, but it could do much more
Last week, we launched the U.S. Tax & Spending Explorer on the EPI website. It’s an interactive web feature designed to shed light on how the government (mostly the federal government) raises and spends money and how changes in taxes and spending over time either increase or decrease income inequality.
There’s enough granular detail in the feature that everybody might have different takeaways from visiting it. But here’s what strikes me looking at this data:
- Together, taxes and spending significantly reduce inequality at any given point in time relative to a world with a much smaller federal footprint. That’s the good news. The bad news is that since 1979 the inequality-reducing effect of taxes and spending hasn’t grown that much—but inequality has grown, a lot. We should use the proven inequality-fighting lever of a larger tax and spending system to combat the inequality that has risen so fast in recent decades.
Medicare4All C-Span discussion sheds light on its impact
Economic Policy Institute’s Director of Research Josh Bivens and American Enterprise Institute’s Jospeh Antos addressed the issue of Medicare for All, and the larger role health care policy is playing in Campaign 2020 on C-Span’s Washington Journal Saturday.
The United States needs movement forward on healthcare that makes it accessible and affordable, said Bivens during the discussion.
“I think there’s a real hunger out there for something for health reform,” he explained. “Health care is something that Americans worry about the most, not just their health but would means for financial security and that worry is well-placed. We have a uniquely dysfunctional health care system.
“We spend on a per capita basis about $10,000 per person, we have some great health systems in the world, number one in terms of health outcomes as France and the Netherlands who spend literally half of what we spend. One of the reasons why a single-payer plan would be expensive is because we still have 27 million uninsured people and 60 million underinsured people. So, yeah, it would be more expensive to give health care to people who need it, but that’s the virtue of a fundamental reform. Keeping costs down by keeping people excluded, seems to me as not the way to go.”
Bivens is the author of a soon-to-be released paper on the impact of fundamental health care reform, including Medicare for All, on wages and job quality.
Sign up here for EPI’s newsletter so you don’t miss the report’s release, or any other essential labor research, analysis and trends from EPI’s research team.
The Trump budget doesn’t spare seniors
President Trump’s proposed 2021 budget claims to help the “most vulnerable populations,” including seniors. But vulnerable older Americans are among those who would be most hurt if this draconian budget were ever enacted.
The budget would slash Medicaid and non-defense discretionary spending, eliminating or drastically shrinking programs targeted at low-income people, including programs benefiting seniors, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. At first glance, the administration appears to spare middle-class seniors, a group with high voter turnout that tends to support the president and his party. Despite the president’s hints that Social Security and Medicare will be on the chopping block after the election, the budget would spare retirement benefits (except those for federal employees) and claims to achieve Medicare savings only by eliminating “excessive spending and distortionary payment incentives” while “preserv[ing] benefits and access to care.”
Some Medicare provisions in the president’s budget, such as site-neutral payments across different types of facilities, address genuine problems in how Medicare is administered. But the nearly half trillion in proposed savings from Medicare over 10 years includes provisions that would indirectly affect Medicare beneficiaries’ access to care, such as reducing payments to partially cover unpaid medical bills for Medicare beneficiaries. Since unlimited out-of-pocket expenses are a major cause of bankruptcy for older Americans in poor health, reducing these reimbursements would cause some providers to avoid treating Medicare patients who have expensive conditions and limited resources—and would surely lead to hospital and clinic closures in underserved areas. Middle-class seniors and providers who treat them wouldn’t be spared, since lower-middle-class seniors ineligible for Medicaid are those most likely to spend a high share of their income on health care. The problem of uncompensated care would be compounded by the administration’s attempts to roll back Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which has helped hospitals treating low-income and uninsured patients in expansion states.
Top five Valentine’s Day gifts ideas for U.S. workers: Nothing spells ‘romance’ like a fair wage and quality jobs
That’s why we decided to sum up what we think are the top five Valentine’s Day gifts ideas for working people across the country.
Power through collective action!
Our economy is out of balance. Corporations and CEOs hold too much power and wealth, and working people know it. Workers are mobilizing, organizing, protesting, and striking at a level not seen in decades, and they are winning pay raises and other real change by using their collective voices.
But, the fact is, it is still too difficult for working people to form a union at their workplace when they want to. The law gives employers too much power and puts too many roadblocks in the way of workers trying to organize a union. The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act will go a long way toward restoring workers’ right to join together to bargain for better wages and working conditions by streamlining the process when workers form a union, ensuring that they are successful in negotiating a first agreement, and holding employers accountable when they violate labor law. The U.S. Senate should join the House of Representatives and pass the PRO Act in order to restore power to working people.
Affording bread…and roses
The real (inflation-adjusted) minimum wage is now roughly 30 percent lower than it was in 1968, and it has been more than 10 years since congress raised the minimum wage—the longest stretch in history. To end this shameful streak, it is incumbent upon the Senate to take up and pass the Raise the Wage Act immediately. Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 would lift wages for 33.5 million workers across the country—more than one-fifth of the wage-earning workforce. The increase would boost total annual wages for these low-wage workers by $92.5 billion, lifting annual earnings for the average affected year-round worker by $2,800. Recent survey data have shown that 74% of U.S. workers live paycheck to paycheck. Policymakers should give working people the ability to make ends meet—but also the ability to treat themselves occasionally.
Failure to raise the federal minimum wage has taken thousands of dollars out of the pockets of minimum wage workers: The real value of the minimum wage (adjusted for inflation) is 17% less than 10 years ago and 31% less than in 1968

Note: All values are in June 2019 dollars, adjusted using the CPI-U-RS.
Source: Adapted from Figure C in David Cooper, Elise Gould, and Ben Zipperer, Low-Wage Workers Are Suffering from a Decline in the Real Value of the Federal Minimum Wage, Economic Policy Institute, August 2019).
Source: Adapted from Figure C in David Cooper, Elise Gould, and Ben Zipperer, Low-Wage Workers Are Suffering from a Decline in the Real Value of the Federal Minimum Wage, Economic Policy Institute, August 2019). The figure reflects EPI analysis of historical minimum wage data in the Fair Labor Standards Act and amendments.
Pay workers for their hours worked, or give them their time back
The U.S. Department of Labor announced in September its final overtime rule, which will set the salary threshold under which salaried workers are automatically entitled to overtime pay to $35,568 a year. The rule leaves behind millions of workers who would have received overtime protections under the much stronger rule, published in 2016, that Trump administration chose to abandon. A stronger overtime protection would pay more workers for working more than 40 hours a week, or allow them extra time with their families.
Seven states have already taken steps to raise the overtime threshold, but without further action, it’s estimated that 8.2 million workers who would have benefited from the 2016 rule will be left behind by the Trump administration’s rule, including 3.2 million workers who would have gotten new overtime protections under the 2016 rule and 5.0 million who would have gotten strengthened overtime protections under the 2016 rule. States should follow suit and extend the overtime protections so workers don’t continue to lose out on their hard-earned wages.
Let your workers move on
At least 36 million workers—27.8% of the private-sector workforce—are required to enter noncompete agreements. Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from going to work for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job. Establishments with high pay or high levels of education among workers are more likely to use noncompetes, but noncompetes agreements are also common in workplaces with low pay and low levels of education. More than a quarter (29.0%) of private-sector workers with an average hourly wage below $13.00 require noncompetes for all their workers. Noncompetes are part of a disturbing trend of employers requiring workers to sign away their rights. Noncompetes may be contributing to weak wage growth, given that changing jobs is how workers often get a raise. And given that noncompetes limit the ability of individuals to start businesses or take other jobs, it also is not difficult to see that noncompetes may be contributing to the declines in dynamism in the U.S. labor market. Congress should pass the bipartisan legislation, the Workforce Mobility Act of 2019, to prohibit noncompete agreements.

Labor protections for Uber drivers shuttling around Valentine’s couples
The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board recently released a memo claiming that Uber drivers are independent contractors, not employees of Uber. The reality is that these drivers have very little entrepreneurial freedom: Drivers can’t raise revenues because they can’t control prices or expand their customer base through marketing. Unlike a typical enterprise, Uber drivers do not build earnings as they get more experience. Uber drivers are not able to choose their customers—drivers are penalized for rejecting or not accepting trips. And after accounting for Uber’s commissions and fees and vehicle expenses, and taking into account the cost of a modest package of health insurance and other benefits equivalent to those earned by W-2 workers, Uber drivers earn the equivalent of $9.21 in hourly wages—less than what is earned by 90% of all other wage and salary earners, and below the minimum wage in 13 of the 20 major urban markets where Uber operates.
Recently, AB5 went into effect in California, a set of protections aimed at combatting the misclassification of workers as independent contractors, helping ensure that California’s employees have access to basic labor and employment protections denied to independent contractors including: minimum wage and overtime protections, paid sick days and family leave, workers’ compensation benefits, and unemployment insurance benefits. Policymakers across the country should take notice and provide similar protections to workers in their states.

AAPI women face a double pay penalty for race and gender
Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) Equal Pay Day is February 11. It marks the number of days into 2020 that AAPI women have to work to make the same amount as their white male counterparts were paid in 2019. Put another way, the average AAPI woman needs to work almost an extra month and a half to make up for the shortfall in annual earnings relative to the average non-Hispanic white man.
The infographic below takes a closer look at the data to debunk commonly held myths about the AAPI women’s pay gap. Specifically, all AAPI women do not face a relatively small pay gap—Asian American women are paid 93 cents on the dollar, while Hawaiian/Pacific Islander women are paid only 68 cents.
Further, Asian American women can’t just educate their way out of the pay gap. Asian American women have higher levels of education than white men, and when comparing wages of workers with the same level of education, the disparities are much larger. Asian American women with a bachelor’s degree only are paid 22% less than their white male counterparts and those with an advanced degree are paid 14% less.

Declining trade balances disguise continued growth in the non-oil trade deficit
The overall goods and services trade deficit declined 1.7% ($10.9 billion) in 2019, while the total deficit in goods trade fell 2.4% ($21.4 billion). However, the U.S. trade deficit in non-oil goods, which is dominated by trade in manufactured products, increased 1.8% in 2019. Aside from petroleum, trade was a net drag on the economy in 2019 and on manufacturing, in particular.
The small decline in overall U.S. trade deficits follows an 18.3% increase in the goods trade deficit in the first two years of the Trump administration. Taken altogether, the U.S. goods trade deficit increased $116.2 billion (15.5%) in the first three years of the Trump Administration. It has proven neither quick nor easy to reduce the growing U.S. goods trade deficit.
The petroleum products deficit decreased 72.6% in 2019, masking the 1.8% increase in the non-oil goods trade deficit within the overall 2.4% decline in the U.S. goods trade balance. The fracking revolution has resulted in a significant reduction in oil imports (13.9%) and a small increase in petroleum exports (2.8%).
Recent changes in petroleum trade yield this shocking factoid: The United States became a net exporter of petroleum products for the last four months of 2019. This reflects a key element of Trump’s trade “strategy” to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the rest of the world, which comes at a steep cost. This will drive up U.S. prices for natural gas and oil, despite the fact that low energy prices were a key element of the mini-recovery in US manufacturing exports. Increased LNG exports will hurt U.S. consumers by increasing fuel costs, heightening risks of transport and catastrophic port explosions, and exacerbating global warming and air pollution levels in the country as a whole.
What to watch on jobs day: Large downward revisions in employment expected
On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will revise nonfarm payroll employment, hours, and earnings data to reflect the annual benchmark process in the establishment survey. Each year, the BLS benchmarks total nonfarm payroll employment to state unemployment insurance tax records. In August 2019, BLS released preliminary benchmark revisions to payroll employment for April 2018 through March 2019, but revisions don’t get officially incorporated into the historical numbers until the final revisions are released. While revisions in most years tend to be relatively small, this year’s preliminary revisions came in much higher. The preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision indicates a downward adjustment to March 2019 total nonfarm employment of -501,000. This means that between April 2018 and March of 2019, there were a half million fewer jobs created than initially reported. Over the last ten years, preliminary revisions averaged about -92,000, so -501,000 is very large in comparison. And, usually the difference between the preliminary revisions and the final revisions is plus or minus 40,000. Therefore, it’s likely tomorrow’s final revisions will also be around 500,000 fewer jobs in that period.
The revisions will also provide details on changes in the initial payroll employment estimates by sector. For instance, in the preliminary release, the revisions were located primarily in “leisure and hospitality”, “professional and business services”, and “retail trade” with downward revisions of -175,000, -163,000, and -146,400, respectively. On Friday, the historical data will reflect the final benchmarks overall and by sector.
Tracking trends in nominal wage growth
Turning to nominal wage growth, the most important economic indicator to watch in 2020, last month there was a large drop for production/nonsupervisory workers. The figure below charts year-over-year changes in private-sector nominal average hourly earnings for “all nonfarm employees” as well as “production/nonsupervisory workers.” After remaining consistently higher than “all nonfarm” for nearly a year and at or above 3.4% for much of that time, it fell to 3.0% in December, its lowest point since September 2018. This begs the question of whether this is simply a blip and production/nonsupervisory workers will continue to pull away or if the separation in growth rates between the two over the last year was mostly statistical noise.
At this point in the recovery—with unemployment at or below 4.0% for 22 months—wage growth remains lower than expected. As employment growth consistently remains higher than working-age population growth, more and more workers are pulled into the labor force and finding jobs. As this slack gets absorbed, workers should be getting scarcer and scarcer. Therefore, employers would typically have to pay more to attract and retain the workers they want. After increasing in 2018, wage growth for all nonfarm employees has slowed for much of 2019 and remains below target levels.
Nominal wage growth has been far below target in the recovery: Year-over-year change in private-sector nominal average hourly earnings, 2007–2019
Date | All nonfarm employees | Production/nonsupervisory workers |
---|---|---|
Mar-2007 | 3.44% | 4.11% |
Apr-2007 | 3.08% | 3.79% |
May-2007 | 3.48% | 4.14% |
Jun-2007 | 3.56% | 4.19% |
Jul-2007 | 3.25% | 4.05% |
Aug-2007 | 3.35% | 3.98% |
Sep-2007 | 3.14% | 4.09% |
Oct-2007 | 3.08% | 3.78% |
Nov-2007 | 3.07% | 3.83% |
Dec-2007 | 2.97% | 3.81% |
Jan-2008 | 2.91% | 3.80% |
Feb-2008 | 2.80% | 3.79% |
Mar-2008 | 3.04% | 3.83% |
Apr-2008 | 2.84% | 3.76% |
May-2008 | 3.07% | 3.69% |
Jun-2008 | 2.77% | 3.56% |
Jul-2008 | 3.05% | 3.67% |
Aug-2008 | 3.33% | 3.89% |
Sep-2008 | 3.23% | 3.64% |
Oct-2008 | 3.27% | 3.81% |
Nov-2008 | 3.60% | 3.91% |
Dec-2008 | 3.59% | 3.90% |
Jan-2009 | 3.63% | 3.72% |
Feb-2009 | 3.43% | 3.65% |
Mar-2009 | 3.28% | 3.47% |
Apr-2009 | 3.42% | 3.35% |
May-2009 | 2.93% | 3.06% |
Jun-2009 | 2.83% | 2.88% |
Jul-2009 | 2.69% | 2.71% |
Aug-2009 | 2.44% | 2.70% |
Sep-2009 | 2.44% | 2.75% |
Oct-2009 | 2.53% | 2.68% |
Nov-2009 | 2.19% | 2.67% |
Dec-2009 | 1.91% | 2.50% |
Jan-2010 | 2.05% | 2.66% |
Feb-2010 | 2.09% | 2.55% |
Mar-2010 | 1.81% | 2.27% |
Apr-2010 | 1.76% | 2.38% |
May-2010 | 1.90% | 2.59% |
Jun-2010 | 1.76% | 2.53% |
Jul-2010 | 1.85% | 2.42% |
Aug-2010 | 1.75% | 2.36% |
Sep-2010 | 1.84% | 2.19% |
Oct-2010 | 1.93% | 2.45% |
Nov-2010 | 1.65% | 2.13% |
Dec-2010 | 1.79% | 2.02% |
Jan-2011 | 1.92% | 2.28% |
Feb-2011 | 1.87% | 2.06% |
Mar-2011 | 1.87% | 2.06% |
Apr-2011 | 1.91% | 2.16% |
May-2011 | 2.04% | 2.10% |
Jun-2011 | 2.13% | 2.05% |
Jul-2011 | 2.30% | 2.26% |
Aug-2011 | 1.99% | 1.94% |
Sep-2011 | 1.94% | 1.99% |
Oct-2011 | 2.07% | 1.88% |
Nov-2011 | 2.02% | 1.82% |
Dec-2011 | 1.98% | 1.77% |
Jan-2012 | 1.71% | 1.35% |
Feb-2012 | 1.79% | 1.45% |
Mar-2012 | 2.10% | 1.76% |
Apr-2012 | 2.09% | 1.65% |
May-2012 | 1.78% | 1.39% |
Jun-2012 | 2.00% | 1.54% |
Jul-2012 | 1.77% | 1.44% |
Aug-2012 | 1.86% | 1.33% |
Sep-2012 | 2.03% | 1.54% |
Oct-2012 | 1.51% | 1.18% |
Nov-2012 | 1.90% | 1.43% |
Dec-2012 | 2.24% | 1.69% |
Jan-2013 | 2.24% | 1.84% |
Feb-2013 | 2.15% | 2.04% |
Mar-2013 | 1.93% | 1.88% |
Apr-2013 | 2.05% | 1.83% |
May-2013 | 2.14% | 1.93% |
Jun-2013 | 2.13% | 2.03% |
Jul-2013 | 2.00% | 1.97% |
Aug-2013 | 2.26% | 2.23% |
Sep-2013 | 2.04% | 2.22% |
Oct-2013 | 2.25% | 2.32% |
Nov-2013 | 2.24% | 2.37% |
Dec-2013 | 1.85% | 2.21% |
Jan-2014 | 1.89% | 2.31% |
Feb-2014 | 2.27% | 2.55% |
Mar-2014 | 2.10% | 2.30% |
Apr-2014 | 1.93% | 2.29% |
May-2014 | 2.09% | 2.44% |
Jun-2014 | 1.96% | 2.24% |
Jul-2014 | 2.04% | 2.33% |
Aug-2014 | 2.16% | 2.43% |
Sep-2014 | 2.08% | 2.22% |
Oct-2014 | 2.03% | 2.27% |
Nov-2014 | 2.03% | 2.22% |
Dec-2014 | 1.99% | 1.92% |
Jan-2015 | 2.19% | 2.01% |
Feb-2015 | 1.93% | 1.66% |
Mar-2015 | 2.22% | 1.95% |
Apr-2015 | 2.26% | 2.00% |
May-2015 | 2.34% | 2.14% |
Jun-2015 | 2.25% | 2.14% |
Jul-2015 | 2.17% | 2.04% |
Aug-2015 | 2.20% | 1.98% |
Sep-2015 | 2.28% | 2.08% |
Oct-2015 | 2.52% | 2.37% |
Nov-2015 | 2.43% | 2.12% |
Dec-2015 | 2.47% | 2.51% |
Jan-2016 | 2.55% | 2.40% |
Feb-2016 | 2.42% | 2.50% |
Mar-2016 | 2.45% | 2.49% |
Apr-2016 | 2.61% | 2.58% |
May-2016 | 2.40% | 2.33% |
Jun-2016 | 2.60% | 2.48% |
Jul-2016 | 2.76% | 2.62% |
Aug-2016 | 2.55% | 2.51% |
Sep-2016 | 2.63% | 2.46% |
Oct-2016 | 2.66% | 2.41% |
Nov-2016 | 2.61% | 2.50% |
Dec-2016 | 2.65% | 2.50% |
Jan-2017 | 2.40% | 2.39% |
Feb-2017 | 2.72% | 2.34% |
Mar-2017 | 2.55% | 2.29% |
Apr-2017 | 2.47% | 2.24% |
May-2017 | 2.54% | 2.33% |
Jun-2017 | 2.50% | 2.32% |
Jul-2017 | 2.57% | 2.32% |
Aug-2017 | 2.57% | 2.31% |
Sep-2017 | 2.83% | 2.59% |
Oct-2017 | 2.32% | 2.16% |
Nov-2017 | 2.47% | 2.35% |
Dec-2017 | 2.74% | 2.48% |
Jan-2018 | 2.81% | 2.47% |
Feb-2018 | 2.57% | 2.47% |
Mar-2018 | 2.80% | 2.74% |
Apr-2018 | 2.79% | 2.78% |
May-2018 | 2.94% | 2.91% |
Jun-2018 | 2.93% | 2.91% |
Jul-2018 | 2.85% | 2.85% |
Aug-2018 | 3.18% | 3.12% |
Sep-2018 | 2.98% | 3.02% |
Oct-2018 | 3.32% | 3.25% |
Nov-2018 | 3.31% | 3.37% |
Dec-2018 | 3.34% | 3.50% |
Jan-2019 | 3.18% | 3.35% |
Feb-2019 | 3.40% | 3.44% |
Mar-2019 | 3.24% | 3.38% |
Apr-2019 | 3.16% | 3.33% |
May-2019 | 3.08% | 3.36% |
Jun-2019 | 3.18% | 3.35% |
Jul-2019 | 3.25% | 3.52% |
Aug-2019 | 3.23% | 3.51% |
Sep-2019 | 3.00% | 3.54% |
Oct-2019 | 3.11% | 3.62% |
Nov-2019 | 3.14% | 3.39% |
Dec-2019 | 2.87% | 3.03% |
* Nominal wage growth consistent with the Federal Reserve Board’s 2 percent inflation target, 1.5 percent productivity growth, and a stable labor share of income
Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics public data series
On Friday, the BLS will also be employing new population controls in the Current Population Survey (CPS) starting in January 2020. Unlike the establishment survey, these changes to the CPS are not updated historically so caution should be exercised when making comparisons with data for December 2019 or earlier periods. The BLS is also making some changes to their methodology in terms of providing new seasonally adjusted series for measures of labor market underutilization as well as beginning to include both those in opposite-sex and same-sex marriages in estimates of married persons.
The new benchmarks to the establishment survey as well as revisions to the household survey will provide much fodder for thought on Friday morning. And, wage growth continues to be the most important indicator to watch as it lags behind overall improvements in the labor market.
Trump’s ‘blue-collar boom’ is likely a dud
In his State of the Union address tonight, President Trump plans to extol the “blue-collar boom” in the economy along with his purported “great American comeback.” He’ll claim this based on two recent signature trade deals—the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and a “phase one” deal with China. Unfortunately, both agreements will likely to lead to more outsourcing and job loss for U.S. workers, and the facts just don’t support Trump’s claims about the broader economy.
Trump comes from a world that has ardently championed globalization, like many of his predecessors. However, that approach has decimated U.S. manufacturing over the past 20 years, eliminating nearly 5 million good factory jobs as shown in Figure A, below. Nearly 90,000 U.S. factories have been lost as well.
U.S. manufacturing employment, January 1970–December 2019 (millions of jobs)
Date | Manufacturing employment (millions of jobs) |
---|---|
1970-01-01 | 18.424 |
1970-02-01 | 18.361 |
1970-03-01 | 18.36 |
1970-04-01 | 18.207 |
1970-05-01 | 18.029 |
1970-06-01 | 17.93 |
1970-07-01 | 17.877 |
1970-08-01 | 17.779 |
1970-09-01 | 17.692 |
1970-10-01 | 17.173 |
1970-11-01 | 17.024 |
1970-12-01 | 17.309 |
1971-01-01 | 17.28 |
1971-02-01 | 17.216 |
1971-03-01 | 17.154 |
1971-04-01 | 17.149 |
1971-05-01 | 17.225 |
1971-06-01 | 17.139 |
1971-07-01 | 17.126 |
1971-08-01 | 17.115 |
1971-09-01 | 17.154 |
1971-10-01 | 17.126 |
1971-11-01 | 17.166 |
1971-12-01 | 17.202 |
1972-01-01 | 17.283 |
1972-02-01 | 17.361 |
1972-03-01 | 17.447 |
1972-04-01 | 17.508 |
1972-05-01 | 17.602 |
1972-06-01 | 17.641 |
1972-07-01 | 17.556 |
1972-08-01 | 17.741 |
1972-09-01 | 17.774 |
1972-10-01 | 17.893 |
1972-11-01 | 18.005 |
1972-12-01 | 18.158 |
1973-01-01 | 18.276 |
1973-02-01 | 18.41 |
1973-03-01 | 18.493 |
1973-04-01 | 18.53 |
1973-05-01 | 18.564 |
1973-06-01 | 18.606 |
1973-07-01 | 18.598 |
1973-08-01 | 18.629 |
1973-09-01 | 18.609 |
1973-10-01 | 18.702 |
1973-11-01 | 18.773 |
1973-12-01 | 18.82 |
1974-01-01 | 18.788 |
1974-02-01 | 18.727 |
1974-03-01 | 18.7 |
1974-04-01 | 18.702 |
1974-05-01 | 18.688 |
1974-06-01 | 18.69 |
1974-07-01 | 18.656 |
1974-08-01 | 18.57 |
1974-09-01 | 18.492 |
1974-10-01 | 18.364 |
1974-11-01 | 18.077 |
1974-12-01 | 17.693 |
1975-01-01 | 17.344 |
1975-02-01 | 17.004 |
1975-03-01 | 16.853 |
1975-04-01 | 16.759 |
1975-05-01 | 16.746 |
1975-06-01 | 16.69 |
1975-07-01 | 16.678 |
1975-08-01 | 16.824 |
1975-09-01 | 16.904 |
1975-10-01 | 16.984 |
1975-11-01 | 17.025 |
1975-12-01 | 17.14 |
1976-01-01 | 17.287 |
1976-02-01 | 17.384 |
1976-03-01 | 17.47 |
1976-04-01 | 17.541 |
1976-05-01 | 17.513 |
1976-06-01 | 17.521 |
1976-07-01 | 17.524 |
1976-08-01 | 17.596 |
1976-09-01 | 17.665 |
1976-10-01 | 17.548 |
1976-11-01 | 17.682 |
1976-12-01 | 17.719 |
1977-01-01 | 17.803 |
1977-02-01 | 17.843 |
1977-03-01 | 17.941 |
1977-04-01 | 18.024 |
1977-05-01 | 18.107 |
1977-06-01 | 18.192 |
1977-07-01 | 18.259 |
1977-08-01 | 18.276 |
1977-09-01 | 18.334 |
1977-10-01 | 18.356 |
1977-11-01 | 18.419 |
1977-12-01 | 18.531 |
1978-01-01 | 18.593 |
1978-02-01 | 18.639 |
1978-03-01 | 18.699 |
1978-04-01 | 18.772 |
1978-05-01 | 18.848 |
1978-06-01 | 18.919 |
1978-07-01 | 18.951 |
1978-08-01 | 19.006 |
1978-09-01 | 19.068 |
1978-10-01 | 19.142 |
1978-11-01 | 19.257 |
1978-12-01 | 19.334 |
1979-01-01 | 19.388 |
1979-02-01 | 19.409 |
1979-03-01 | 19.453 |
1979-04-01 | 19.45 |
1979-05-01 | 19.509 |
1979-06-01 | 19.553 |
1979-07-01 | 19.531 |
1979-08-01 | 19.406 |
1979-09-01 | 19.442 |
1979-10-01 | 19.39 |
1979-11-01 | 19.299 |
1979-12-01 | 19.301 |
1980-01-01 | 19.282 |
1980-02-01 | 19.219 |
1980-03-01 | 19.217 |
1980-04-01 | 18.973 |
1980-05-01 | 18.726 |
1980-06-01 | 18.49 |
1980-07-01 | 18.276 |
1980-08-01 | 18.414 |
1980-09-01 | 18.445 |
1980-10-01 | 18.506 |
1980-11-01 | 18.601 |
1980-12-01 | 18.64 |
1981-01-01 | 18.639 |
1981-02-01 | 18.613 |
1981-03-01 | 18.647 |
1981-04-01 | 18.711 |
1981-05-01 | 18.766 |
1981-06-01 | 18.789 |
1981-07-01 | 18.785 |
1981-08-01 | 18.748 |
1981-09-01 | 18.712 |
1981-10-01 | 18.566 |
1981-11-01 | 18.409 |
1981-12-01 | 18.223 |
1982-01-01 | 18.047 |
1982-02-01 | 17.981 |
1982-03-01 | 17.857 |
1982-04-01 | 17.683 |
1982-05-01 | 17.588 |
1982-06-01 | 17.43 |
1982-07-01 | 17.278 |
1982-08-01 | 17.16 |
1982-09-01 | 17.074 |
1982-10-01 | 16.853 |
1982-11-01 | 16.722 |
1982-12-01 | 16.69 |
1983-01-01 | 16.705 |
1983-02-01 | 16.706 |
1983-03-01 | 16.711 |
1983-04-01 | 16.794 |
1983-05-01 | 16.885 |
1983-06-01 | 16.96 |
1983-07-01 | 17.059 |
1983-08-01 | 17.118 |
1983-09-01 | 17.255 |
1983-10-01 | 17.367 |
1983-11-01 | 17.479 |
1983-12-01 | 17.551 |
1984-01-01 | 17.63 |
1984-02-01 | 17.728 |
1984-03-01 | 17.806 |
1984-04-01 | 17.872 |
1984-05-01 | 17.916 |
1984-06-01 | 17.967 |
1984-07-01 | 18.013 |
1984-08-01 | 18.034 |
1984-09-01 | 18.019 |
1984-10-01 | 18.024 |
1984-11-01 | 18.016 |
1984-12-01 | 18.023 |
1985-01-01 | 18.009 |
1985-02-01 | 17.966 |
1985-03-01 | 17.939 |
1985-04-01 | 17.886 |
1985-05-01 | 17.855 |
1985-06-01 | 17.819 |
1985-07-01 | 17.776 |
1985-08-01 | 17.756 |
1985-09-01 | 17.718 |
1985-10-01 | 17.708 |
1985-11-01 | 17.697 |
1985-12-01 | 17.693 |
1986-01-01 | 17.686 |
1986-02-01 | 17.663 |
1986-03-01 | 17.624 |
1986-04-01 | 17.616 |
1986-05-01 | 17.593 |
1986-06-01 | 17.53 |
1986-07-01 | 17.497 |
1986-08-01 | 17.489 |
1986-09-01 | 17.498 |
1986-10-01 | 17.477 |
1986-11-01 | 17.472 |
1986-12-01 | 17.478 |
1987-01-01 | 17.465 |
1987-02-01 | 17.499 |
1987-03-01 | 17.507 |
1987-04-01 | 17.525 |
1987-05-01 | 17.542 |
1987-06-01 | 17.537 |
1987-07-01 | 17.593 |
1987-08-01 | 17.63 |
1987-09-01 | 17.691 |
1987-10-01 | 17.729 |
1987-11-01 | 17.775 |
1987-12-01 | 17.809 |
1988-01-01 | 17.79 |
1988-02-01 | 17.823 |
1988-03-01 | 17.844 |
1988-04-01 | 17.874 |
1988-05-01 | 17.892 |
1988-06-01 | 17.916 |
1988-07-01 | 17.926 |
1988-08-01 | 17.891 |
1988-09-01 | 17.914 |
1988-10-01 | 17.966 |
1988-11-01 | 18.003 |
1988-12-01 | 18.025 |
1989-01-01 | 18.057 |
1989-02-01 | 18.055 |
1989-03-01 | 18.06 |
1989-04-01 | 18.055 |
1989-05-01 | 18.04 |
1989-06-01 | 18.013 |
1989-07-01 | 17.98 |
1989-08-01 | 17.964 |
1989-09-01 | 17.922 |
1989-10-01 | 17.895 |
1989-11-01 | 17.886 |
1989-12-01 | 17.881 |
1990-01-01 | 17.797 |
1990-02-01 | 17.893 |
1990-03-01 | 17.868 |
1990-04-01 | 17.845 |
1990-05-01 | 17.797 |
1990-06-01 | 17.776 |
1990-07-01 | 17.704 |
1990-08-01 | 17.649 |
1990-09-01 | 17.609 |
1990-10-01 | 17.577 |
1990-11-01 | 17.428 |
1990-12-01 | 17.395 |
1991-01-01 | 17.33 |
1991-02-01 | 17.211 |
1991-03-01 | 17.14 |
1991-04-01 | 17.093 |
1991-05-01 | 17.07 |
1991-06-01 | 17.044 |
1991-07-01 | 17.015 |
1991-08-01 | 17.025 |
1991-09-01 | 17.01 |
1991-10-01 | 16.999 |
1991-11-01 | 16.961 |
1991-12-01 | 16.916 |
1992-01-01 | 16.839 |
1992-02-01 | 16.829 |
1992-03-01 | 16.805 |
1992-04-01 | 16.831 |
1992-05-01 | 16.835 |
1992-06-01 | 16.826 |
1992-07-01 | 16.819 |
1992-08-01 | 16.783 |
1992-09-01 | 16.761 |
1992-10-01 | 16.751 |
1992-11-01 | 16.758 |
1992-12-01 | 16.769 |
1993-01-01 | 16.791 |
1993-02-01 | 16.805 |
1993-03-01 | 16.795 |
1993-04-01 | 16.772 |
1993-05-01 | 16.766 |
1993-06-01 | 16.742 |
1993-07-01 | 16.739 |
1993-08-01 | 16.741 |
1993-09-01 | 16.769 |
1993-10-01 | 16.778 |
1993-11-01 | 16.8 |
1993-12-01 | 16.815 |
1994-01-01 | 16.855 |
1994-02-01 | 16.862 |
1994-03-01 | 16.897 |
1994-04-01 | 16.933 |
1994-05-01 | 16.962 |
1994-06-01 | 17.01 |
1994-07-01 | 17.026 |
1994-08-01 | 17.081 |
1994-09-01 | 17.115 |
1994-10-01 | 17.144 |
1994-11-01 | 17.186 |
1994-12-01 | 17.217 |
1995-01-01 | 17.262 |
1995-02-01 | 17.265 |
1995-03-01 | 17.263 |
1995-04-01 | 17.278 |
1995-05-01 | 17.259 |
1995-06-01 | 17.247 |
1995-07-01 | 17.218 |
1995-08-01 | 17.24 |
1995-09-01 | 17.247 |
1995-10-01 | 17.216 |
1995-11-01 | 17.209 |
1995-12-01 | 17.231 |
1996-01-01 | 17.208 |
1996-02-01 | 17.229 |
1996-03-01 | 17.193 |
1996-04-01 | 17.204 |
1996-05-01 | 17.222 |
1996-06-01 | 17.226 |
1996-07-01 | 17.223 |
1996-08-01 | 17.255 |
1996-09-01 | 17.252 |
1996-10-01 | 17.268 |
1996-11-01 | 17.277 |
1996-12-01 | 17.284 |
1997-01-01 | 17.297 |
1997-02-01 | 17.316 |
1997-03-01 | 17.34 |
1997-04-01 | 17.349 |
1997-05-01 | 17.362 |
1997-06-01 | 17.387 |
1997-07-01 | 17.389 |
1997-08-01 | 17.452 |
1997-09-01 | 17.465 |
1997-10-01 | 17.513 |
1997-11-01 | 17.556 |
1997-12-01 | 17.588 |
1998-01-01 | 17.619 |
1998-02-01 | 17.627 |
1998-03-01 | 17.637 |
1998-04-01 | 17.637 |
1998-05-01 | 17.624 |
1998-06-01 | 17.608 |
1998-07-01 | 17.422 |
1998-08-01 | 17.563 |
1998-09-01 | 17.557 |
1998-10-01 | 17.512 |
1998-11-01 | 17.465 |
1998-12-01 | 17.449 |
1999-01-01 | 17.427 |
1999-02-01 | 17.395 |
1999-03-01 | 17.368 |
1999-04-01 | 17.344 |
1999-05-01 | 17.333 |
1999-06-01 | 17.295 |
1999-07-01 | 17.308 |
1999-08-01 | 17.287 |
1999-09-01 | 17.281 |
1999-10-01 | 17.272 |
1999-11-01 | 17.282 |
1999-12-01 | 17.28 |
2000-01-01 | 17.284 |
2000-02-01 | 17.285 |
2000-03-01 | 17.302 |
2000-04-01 | 17.298 |
2000-05-01 | 17.279 |
2000-06-01 | 17.296 |
2000-07-01 | 17.322 |
2000-08-01 | 17.287 |
2000-09-01 | 17.23 |
2000-10-01 | 17.217 |
2000-11-01 | 17.202 |
2000-12-01 | 17.181 |
2001-01-01 | 17.104 |
2001-02-01 | 17.028 |
2001-03-01 | 16.938 |
2001-04-01 | 16.802 |
2001-05-01 | 16.661 |
2001-06-01 | 16.515 |
2001-07-01 | 16.382 |
2001-08-01 | 16.232 |
2001-09-01 | 16.117 |
2001-10-01 | 15.972 |
2001-11-01 | 15.825 |
2001-12-01 | 15.711 |
2002-01-01 | 15.587 |
2002-02-01 | 15.515 |
2002-03-01 | 15.443 |
2002-04-01 | 15.392 |
2002-05-01 | 15.337 |
2002-06-01 | 15.298 |
2002-07-01 | 15.256 |
2002-08-01 | 15.171 |
2002-09-01 | 15.119 |
2002-10-01 | 15.06 |
2002-11-01 | 14.992 |
2002-12-01 | 14.912 |
2003-01-01 | 14.866 |
2003-02-01 | 14.781 |
2003-03-01 | 14.721 |
2003-04-01 | 14.609 |
2003-05-01 | 14.557 |
2003-06-01 | 14.493 |
2003-07-01 | 14.402 |
2003-08-01 | 14.376 |
2003-09-01 | 14.347 |
2003-10-01 | 14.334 |
2003-11-01 | 14.316 |
2003-12-01 | 14.3 |
2004-01-01 | 14.29 |
2004-02-01 | 14.279 |
2004-03-01 | 14.287 |
2004-04-01 | 14.315 |
2004-05-01 | 14.342 |
2004-06-01 | 14.332 |
2004-07-01 | 14.33 |
2004-08-01 | 14.345 |
2004-09-01 | 14.331 |
2004-10-01 | 14.332 |
2004-11-01 | 14.307 |
2004-12-01 | 14.287 |
2005-01-01 | 14.257 |
2005-02-01 | 14.273 |
2005-03-01 | 14.269 |
2005-04-01 | 14.25 |
2005-05-01 | 14.256 |
2005-06-01 | 14.227 |
2005-07-01 | 14.226 |
2005-08-01 | 14.203 |
2005-09-01 | 14.175 |
2005-10-01 | 14.192 |
2005-11-01 | 14.187 |
2005-12-01 | 14.193 |
2006-01-01 | 14.21 |
2006-02-01 | 14.209 |
2006-03-01 | 14.214 |
2006-04-01 | 14.226 |
2006-05-01 | 14.203 |
2006-06-01 | 14.213 |
2006-07-01 | 14.188 |
2006-08-01 | 14.159 |
2006-09-01 | 14.125 |
2006-10-01 | 14.075 |
2006-11-01 | 14.041 |
2006-12-01 | 14.015 |
2007-01-01 | 14.008 |
2007-02-01 | 13.997 |
2007-03-01 | 13.97 |
2007-04-01 | 13.945 |
2007-05-01 | 13.929 |
2007-06-01 | 13.911 |
2007-07-01 | 13.889 |
2007-08-01 | 13.828 |
2007-09-01 | 13.79 |
2007-10-01 | 13.764 |
2007-11-01 | 13.757 |
2007-12-01 | 13.746 |
2008-01-01 | 13.725 |
2008-02-01 | 13.696 |
2008-03-01 | 13.659 |
2008-04-01 | 13.599 |
2008-05-01 | 13.564 |
2008-06-01 | 13.504 |
2008-07-01 | 13.43 |
2008-08-01 | 13.358 |
2008-09-01 | 13.275 |
2008-10-01 | 13.147 |
2008-11-01 | 13.034 |
2008-12-01 | 12.85 |
2009-01-01 | 12.561 |
2009-02-01 | 12.38 |
2009-03-01 | 12.208 |
2009-04-01 | 12.03 |
2009-05-01 | 11.862 |
2009-06-01 | 11.726 |
2009-07-01 | 11.668 |
2009-08-01 | 11.626 |
2009-09-01 | 11.591 |
2009-10-01 | 11.538 |
2009-11-01 | 11.509 |
2009-12-01 | 11.475 |
2010-01-01 | 11.46 |
2010-02-01 | 11.453 |
2010-03-01 | 11.453 |
2010-04-01 | 11.489 |
2010-05-01 | 11.525 |
2010-06-01 | 11.545 |
2010-07-01 | 11.561 |
2010-08-01 | 11.553 |
2010-09-01 | 11.563 |
2010-10-01 | 11.562 |
2010-11-01 | 11.585 |
2010-12-01 | 11.595 |
2011-01-01 | 11.618 |
2011-02-01 | 11.653 |
2011-03-01 | 11.67 |
2011-04-01 | 11.7 |
2011-05-01 | 11.712 |
2011-06-01 | 11.724 |
2011-07-01 | 11.742 |
2011-08-01 | 11.766 |
2011-09-01 | 11.771 |
2011-10-01 | 11.776 |
2011-11-01 | 11.774 |
2011-12-01 | 11.799 |
2012-01-01 | 11.834 |
2012-02-01 | 11.857 |
2012-03-01 | 11.899 |
2012-04-01 | 11.916 |
2012-05-01 | 11.93 |
2012-06-01 | 11.941 |
2012-07-01 | 11.965 |
2012-08-01 | 11.961 |
2012-09-01 | 11.948 |
2012-10-01 | 11.951 |
2012-11-01 | 11.947 |
2012-12-01 | 11.961 |
2013-01-01 | 11.98 |
2013-02-01 | 12.002 |
2013-03-01 | 12.006 |
2013-04-01 | 12.006 |
2013-05-01 | 12.007 |
2013-06-01 | 12.005 |
2013-07-01 | 11.983 |
2013-08-01 | 12.011 |
2013-09-01 | 12.022 |
2013-10-01 | 12.04 |
2013-11-01 | 12.072 |
2013-12-01 | 12.086 |
2014-01-01 | 12.102 |
2014-02-01 | 12.122 |
2014-03-01 | 12.131 |
2014-04-01 | 12.142 |
2014-05-01 | 12.154 |
2014-06-01 | 12.177 |
2014-07-01 | 12.191 |
2014-08-01 | 12.205 |
2014-09-01 | 12.214 |
2014-10-01 | 12.237 |
2014-11-01 | 12.282 |
2014-12-01 | 12.301 |
2015-01-01 | 12.295 |
2015-02-01 | 12.303 |
2015-03-01 | 12.311 |
2015-04-01 | 12.317 |
2015-05-01 | 12.334 |
2015-06-01 | 12.338 |
2015-07-01 | 12.357 |
2015-08-01 | 12.343 |
2015-09-01 | 12.35 |
2015-10-01 | 12.361 |
2015-11-01 | 12.357 |
2015-12-01 | 12.362 |
2016-01-01 | 12.384 |
2016-02-01 | 12.369 |
2016-03-01 | 12.344 |
2016-04-01 | 12.351 |
2016-05-01 | 12.333 |
2016-06-01 | 12.353 |
2016-07-01 | 12.37 |
2016-08-01 | 12.347 |
2016-09-01 | 12.344 |
2016-10-01 | 12.341 |
2016-11-01 | 12.341 |
2016-12-01 | 12.355 |
2017-01-01 | 12.368 |
2017-02-01 | 12.386 |
2017-03-01 | 12.395 |
2017-04-01 | 12.403 |
2017-05-01 | 12.405 |
2017-06-01 | 12.42 |
2017-07-01 | 12.417 |
2017-08-01 | 12.459 |
2017-09-01 | 12.467 |
2017-10-01 | 12.487 |
2017-11-01 | 12.517 |
2017-12-01 | 12.545 |
2018-01-01 | 12.561 |
2018-02-01 | 12.592 |
2018-03-01 | 12.612 |
2018-04-01 | 12.634 |
2018-05-01 | 12.655 |
2018-06-01 | 12.687 |
2018-07-01 | 12.707 |
2018-08-01 | 12.715 |
2018-09-01 | 12.733 |
2018-10-01 | 12.762 |
2018-11-01 | 12.789 |
2018-12-01 | 12.809 |
2019-01-01 | 12.826 |
2019-02-01 | 12.834 |
2019-03-01 | 12.831 |
2019-04-01 | 12.834 |
2019-05-01 | 12.836 |
2019-06-01 | 12.846 |
2019-07-01 | 12.85 |
2019-08-01 | 12.852 |
2019-09-01 | 12.854 |
2019-10-01 | 12.809 |
2019-11-01 | 12.867 |
2019-12-01 | 12.855 |
Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics 2020 Manufacturing Employment data series [CES3000000001].
Trump has not brought these jobs back, nor will his present policies change the status quo. Globalization, and China trade in particular, have also hurt countless communities throughout the country, especially in the upper Midwest, mid-Atlantic, and Northeast regions. The nation has lost a generation of skilled manufacturing workers, many of whom have dropped out of the labor force and never returned. All of this globalized trade has reduced the wages of roughly 100 million Americans, all non-college educated workers, by roughly $2,000 per year.
In addition, more than half of the U.S. manufacturing jobs lost in the past two decades were due to the growing trade deficit with China, which eliminated 3.7 million U.S. jobs, including 2.8 million manufacturing jobs, between 2001 and 2018. In fact, the United States lost 700,000 jobs to China in the first two years of the Trump administration, as shown in our recent report. The phase one trade deal will not bring those jobs back, either.