Key takeaways:

• Misclassification of workers as independent contractors is a pervasive and widespread problem. AAPI workers are overrepresented in three of the 11 commonly misclassified occupations: manicurists and pedicurists, home health aides, and personal care aides. Vietnamese, Bangladeshi, Filipino, Samoan, and other Pacific Islander workers are overrepresented within these occupations.
• Groups with lower median hourly wages also have larger shares of their working populations in the 11 commonly misclassified occupations.
• Federal protections against misclassification are limited and currently under attack by the Trump administration. The state and local landscape for curbing misclassification is varied, which leaves some workers less protected than others.

In March, EPI published updated research highlighting the cost to workers of being misclassified as an independent contractor for 11 commonly misclassified occupations. Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) workers were overrepresented in three of those occupations—manicurists and pedicurists, home health aides, and personal care aides—relative to their share of the overall workforce.

Most federal, state, and local labor laws apply only to employees and not to independent contractors, so misclassification strips workers of key protections such as minimum wage laws or qualifying for employer-provided health insurance and retirement benefits. Additionally, both misclassified workers and social insurance funds lose out on income: the report conservatively estimates that for the three jobs in which AAPI workers are overrepresented, misclassification costs workers at least $7,000 annually and costs social insurance programs $600 to $800 per worker each year.

With the understanding that the umbrella term “AAPI” encompasses an immensely diverse population both in ethnic origin but also in economic outcomes, this piece goes beyond the narrow view that all AAPI workers are high-wage earners. Below, we provide more detail on which groups of AAPI workers are most likely to be employed in lower-wage commonly misclassified occupations.

Disaggregated data shed light on particular AAPI communities that may be vulnerable to misclassification

Across all occupations, AAPI workers comprise approximately 8% of the total workforce. For three of the 11 occupations highlighted in the report—manicurists and pedicurists, home health aides, and personal care aides—AAPI workers make up 67%, 13%, and 10% of employment, respectively, according to Current Population Survey (CPS) data.

Table 1 provides a detailed breakdown of the composition of the AAPI workforce for the three occupations in which AAPI workers are overrepresented. Here, we use the American Community Survey (ACS) as it offers detailed race definitions which the CPS does not offer due to sample size restrictions.

Asian Indian and Chinese populations combined make up over 40% of the working-age AAPI population, thus their relatively large shares of the AAPI workforce in these occupations are not surprising. However, several groups are disproportionately represented across these occupations compared with their share of the overall AAPI workforce.

For example, Bangladeshi workers make up 5.1% of AAPI workers employed as home health aides while only constituting 1.1% of the total AAPI workforce. Chinese workers represent almost half (47.7%) of AAPI home health aides while representing just over one-fifth of the overall AAPI workforce (20.9%). AAPI employment among manicurists and pedicurists is largely held by those of Vietnamese origin (71.4%).

Finally, a majority of AAPI personal care aides are either Filipino (32.8%) or Chinese (20.8%). Filipino workers, however, are overrepresented by twice their share of the overall workforce. While Samoans and other Pacific Islanders comprised a much smaller share of personal care aide employment, they are also overrepresented in this occupation by more than twice their share of the overall workforce.

Table 1

Figure A provides a more comprehensive picture of the share of each detailed group employed across all 11 commonly misclassified occupations, revealing that smaller communities—often overlooked because of their size relative to the aggregate AAPI workforce—may be among the most vulnerable to misclassification. Workers belonging to seven of those groups are more likely than the average U.S. worker to be employed in one of those occupations. Almost 20% of Vietnamese workers are employed in one of those occupations, with over half concentrated as manicurists and pedicurists.

Samoan, Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islanders have the next highest shares working in the 11 occupations, making up 15% or more of their total working-age population. These groups also earn lower median hourly wages than the national median and the aggregate AAPI median hourly wage. Their disproportionate representation in commonly misclassified occupations further exposes these workers to wage suppression due to misclassification.

Misclassification enforcement varies by state—meaning different AAPI populations can be disproportionately impacted

Federal protections from misclassification are limited and are currently under attack by the Trump administration, which has proposed a rule to weaken standards to determine worker classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Protection Act. The proposed rule narrows the definition of who is a covered employee under these statutes, encouraging employer schemes to reclassify their employees as independent contractors to evade those obligations.

Broadly, the Trump administration has been actively dismantling long-standing federal worker protections, leaving states to bear the responsibility of ensuring workers are given rights and protections and that they can exercise them. For most states, labor and employment protections only apply to workers classified as employees, meaning workers misclassified as independent contractors are denied their legal rights and protections.

EPI’s 2026 misclassification report outlines state and federal policy recommendations that ensure proper enforcement mechanisms to curb misclassification. One of the recommendations includes implementing the ABC test. Unlike the six-part “economic reality” test or the “common law” test, the ABC test presumes that a worker is an employee unless they can demonstrate they are an independent contractor based on three criteria. Placing the onus on the employer to determine the employment status of a worker provides protections against misclassification and extends proper protections to workers. Many states have adopted the ABC test for unemployment insurance programs and, to a lesser extent, for wage and hour orders and other employment applications.

As shown in Figure B, The AAPI population is highly concentrated across a handful of states. Almost half of the prime-age working Asian population is concentrated in California, New York, and Texas, and a majority of the Pacific Islander population resides in California, Hawaii, and Washington. Overall, 21 states have significant numbers of AAPI residents, and some are home to large shares of specific AAPI communities. For example, the Hmong community in Minnesota and the Burmese community in Indiana are concentrated in states that have smaller total AAPI populations.

The current landscape for state policy protections against misclassification is quite varied. For example, among the states with the largest AAPI populations, California is the only state to adopt the ABC test for both unemployment insurance and employment law, although certain occupations are exempt from the test—including app-based drivers. California also institutes penalties for misclassifying a worker, which can include restitution payments and, if the misclassification was willful, a penalty between $5,000 to $25,000 per violation.

Texas, on the other hand, has significantly less state enforcement. Apart from using the common law test for its unemployment insurance program and providing a definition of an independent contractor for workers’ compensation, Texas mainly relies on federal law for classifying workers as employees. In the last 15 years, Texas lawmakers have introduced several bills that would create penalties for misclassifying workers in the construction industry, but all have stalled or failed.

Figure B

Comprehensive protections are needed to protect workers from misclassification

AAPI workers are facing multi-pronged attacks from the Trump administration through the degradation of federal protections for workers, immigration, and equity. Occupational segregation and other labor market disparities lead women, people of color, and immigrants to be disproportionately represented in occupations that are commonly misclassified. These factors—in addition to historical and current geopolitical relations that shape the flow of labor to the U.S., immigration and citizenship status, and English language proficiency—can contribute to the concentration of AAPI workers in these occupations. Disaggregated data further identify which specific AAPI communities are overrepresented, revealing that smaller, less economically secure groups are often most exposed to the costs of misclassification. Strong policies at the federal, state, and local levels are needed to combat misclassification and to ensure workers can exercise their rights.

Introduction

In 2025, unionization in the United States grew to its highest levels since 2009 (McNicholas, Poydock, and Shierholz 2026). This growth is a testament to the fact that Americans increasingly view unions favorably and recognize them as critical instruments for building a just economy. Yet more than 50 million nonunion workers would join a union but are unable to do so because our nation’s labor laws allow employers to derail workers’ unionization efforts (McNicholas et al. 2019).

It is well documented that employers often hire union avoidance consultants to dissuade and weaken workers’ unionization efforts. These consultants work to prevent a union election from taking place—and if that fails, to ensure that workers vote against the union and then stall negotiations over a first collective bargaining agreement. Over the past several decades, large law firms have developed substantial business specializing in union avoidance services. These firms now play a significant role in denying workers their rights to a union and collective bargaining (Kaufman and Stephan 1995).

The role of these law firms in defeating workers’ organizing campaigns and frustrating workers’ attempts to reach a first contract has largely gone unexamined. While employers are required to disclose money spent on lawyers engaged in persuading employees on their union and collective bargaining rights, there is an exemption around reporting money spent on “advice” services, which is ill-defined under the law. Union avoidance law firms have taken full advantage of this reporting loophole and have constructed an industry providing counsel on union busting. Further, many union avoidance law firms provide employers services beyond these persuader activities, including representation at the NLRB and the stalling of first contract negotiations. 

In this report, we examine the union avoidance industry and the law firms that play integral roles in this business. We calculate the revenue law firms generate from employers who try to avoid unions and undermine collective bargaining with their workers. Further, we discuss the impacts of the union avoidance industry on workers’ ability to organize and what it means for workers, our economy, and our democracy.

Employers spend millions on union avoidance consultants

When workers seek to form a union, employers often hire union avoidance consultants to dissuade and weaken workers’ unionization efforts. These consultants include both non-attorney consultants and attorney consultants. Under the Labor–Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), employers and the consultants they hire must file disclosure reports on agreements in which the consultant is engaging in union-busting activities. Table 1 lists just a few of the employers who filed mandatory reports with the Department of Labor during 2025.

Table 1

These reports represent only a fraction of the total money spent on anti-union campaign services, not to mention legal counsel, representation, and litigation aimed at union avoidance. That’s for two main reasons: 1) consultants are not required to report activity that counts as “advice,” which is ill-defined but currently interpreted to exempt nearly all activities that don’t involve direct contact with workers, even though this accounts for the vast majority of work that consultants engage in; and 2) even activities that clearly must be reported very often are not. Research from LaborLab found that 57% of employers who were known to owe a financial disclosure for having hired a union avoidance consultant in 2024 had failed to file their required disclosure by June 30, 2025, three months after the filing deadline (LaborLab 2025). In 2024, a total of 153 employers filed a financial disclosure, according to the LaborLab report. This showcases a significant amount of underreporting from employers when one considers that over 3,200 union election petitions were filed in 2024, and that 71%–87% of employers hire a union avoidance consultant when faced with a union-organizing drive (NLRB 2026; DOL n.d.). If most “advice” provided by consultants were included, EPI estimates employers spend $442 million per year on both attorney and non-attorney consultants for anti-union campaign services.1

However, that still represents only a fraction of what employers spend on union avoidance. The EPI estimate excludes spending on legal counsel, representation and litigation aimed at defeating organizing drives and stalling contract negotiations, as well as strike preparation and strike-breaking services (McNicholas et al. 2019). It further excludes spending on consultants to implement or enhance employee engagement and “positive employee relations” programs that center around “union-substitution” policies (Levine et al. 2025). These programs feature techniques that are deliberately crafted to preempt, detect, and rapidly quash union organizing, including supervisor training, manipulative communication policies, surveillance techniques, “voice” mechanisms (like suggestion boxes), and employee-involvement programs (such as employee committees and teams).

As mentioned, EPI estimates that employers spend at least an estimated $442 million on anti-union campaign services provided by consultants that are designed to persuade or intimidate workers into voting “no” in union elections. Many of these consultants are also practicing attorneys who simultaneously will provide legal counsel and representation services related to NLRB proceedings. These attorneys also will help employers bend the law to their advantage during contract negotiations, prepare for and break strikes, file unfair labor practice charges to weaken unions and defend employers against such charges, sometimes appealing them not just to the NLRB but also into federal courts. Inclusive of all of these services, the traditional labor relation practices of these law firms generate an estimated $1.48 billion on average.2 When we account for overlap (much labor practice revenue comes from providing anti-union campaign services, not just representation and counsel), these two figures suggest that total spending on attorneys (whether for representation, consulting, or both) and non-attorney consultants is roughly $1.7 billion a year.3 Table 2 shows top law firms’ share of cases at NLRB and the estimated revenue the labor relations practices of these firms generated in 2024.

Table 2

Union avoidance law firms

Prominent law firms—such as Littler Mendelson, Morgan Lewis, and Jackson Lewis—have generated substantial business in union avoidance work on behalf of U.S. employers seeking to frustrate worker organizing and collective bargaining. As shown in Table 2, these law firms do a great deal of business before the National Labor Relations Board, the independent agency charged with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA is the nation’s fundamental labor law that guarantees most private-sector workers the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining. However, decades of federal policy and court decisions have weakened the NLRA (Shierholz et al. 2024). Union avoidance consultants and law firms have long exploited the law’s significant loopholes, making it harder and harder for workers to win unions. For nearly 80 years, policymakers have failed to address the NLRA’s weaknesses and restore meaningful union and collective bargaining rights to workers.

These law firms have represented employers in fighting against some of the largest organizing efforts over the last decade, including worker organizing drives at Amazon, Starbucks, and Trader Joe’s (Logan 2025). These law firms have essentially created a specialized practice of union busting and together have generated billions of dollars in revenue, as shown in Table 2. The firms range from exclusively labor and employment firms to full-service corporate firms offering representation in a range of matters. The following are profiles of three law firms that have been at the center of the largest union avoidance campaigns in recent years.

Littler Mendelson

One of the largest union avoidance law firms is Littler Mendelson, a global management-side law firm with more than 1,800 attorneys who can make upwards of $1,700 an hour (Littler Mendelson 2026).4 In Littler Mendelson’s 80-year history, it has represented the likes of Amazon, Delta Airlines, and McDonald’s and has played a predominant role in Starbucks’s anti-union campaign (Logan 2022; Logan 2025). Beyond offering their union-busting services to employers, Littler Mendelson has expanded their services to include promoting anti-worker legislation. For example, Littler Mendelson’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI) played a predominant role in opposing California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 5, legislation aimed at protecting workers by combatting misclassification (Poydock 2020). WPI also supported the passage of Proposition 22, which exempted gig workers from AB5 (McNicholas and Poydock 2019). WPI is part of the Coalition for Workplace Innovation, which has lobbied for proposals that weaken workers’ rights, including the exclusion of gig/app-based workers from employee status (Pinto 2022).

Morgan Lewis

Morgan Lewis also has a large practice aimed at union avoidance (Morgan Lewis 2026). The firm is a global law firm with nearly 2,000 attorneys, representing the likes of Amazon, REI, and McDonald’s. In addition to being one of the largest union avoidance law firms, Morgan Lewis is also known as one of the most expensive firms, with partners making $1,100 to $1,900 an hour.5 Morgan Lewis is the lead law firm engaged in the legal challenge to have the NLRB declared unconstitutional, despite employing multiple former NLRB officials (Rhinehart and McNicholas 2024).

Jackson Lewis

Another law firm with a significant union avoidance practice is Jackson Lewis, a national labor and employment law firm with a nearly 70-year history in union avoidance (Jackson Lewis 2026). The firm has over 1,000 attorneys who can make upwards of $730 per hour.6 Jackson Lewis has an especially robust presence in the higher education and health care industries but also serves major companies in a wide range of other industries, such as ExxonMobil, Amazon, and Google. As with other union avoidance law firms, Jackson Lewis’s services go beyond legal representation—often providing employers a “full-service” campaign in which they train supervisors and design materials, including speeches, to dissuade workers from organizing a union (Correia 2019).

How union avoidance law firms frustrate worker organizing

The NLRB election process is designed to be straightforward. Workers seeking to form a union file an election petition with the NLRB with signatures of at least 30% of the proposed bargaining unit. If parties cannot agree on a bargaining unit and election logistics, the NLRB will hold a hearing on issues of disagreement and then issue a decision and direct that an election be held. Either party can file post-election objections over the conduct of the election and other issues. Once these issues are resolved, if a majority of workers casting valid ballots in the election vote for union representation, the NLRB will certify the union and direct the parties to begin bargaining. 

While the NLRB election process is supposed to be relatively simple, the strategy of union avoidance law firms follows a standard playbook—they use their overwhelming resources to exploit the NLRB’s administrative processes and sometimes create nearly endless delays. This includes challenging bargaining units and election results and filing endless appeals of adverse decisions (See Appendix Table 1 for examples). The result is to create an unnecessarily complicated and protracted legal process for workers. The NLRB’s own performance objectives aim to ensure that the median age of representation and unfair labor practice cases before the Board is 180 days or less (NLRB 2025). While the NLRB has achieved this goal for many years, the median age for cases is over 100 days and for some workers, it can take years. For example, the NLRB only recently ordered Amazon—an employer known for hiring Littler Mendelson, Morgan Lewis, and Ogletree Deakins—to bargain with workers who voted to unionize over four years ago (Bensinger 2026).

Impact of union avoidance

The roughly $1.7 billion U.S. employers spend each year on anti-union law firms and consultants has an undeniable impact on workers’ ability to organize and bargain collectively. It also contributes to the creation of an economy marked by inequality: It has been well documented that the decline in unionization has contributed to increased income inequality over the last several decades (Bivens et al. 2023). It is no coincidence that the overall decline in unionization follows decades of federal policy neglect that have weakened U.S. labor law. The loopholes in U.S. labor law, which union avoidance consultants and law firms exploit, routinely frustrate workers’ organizing and collective bargaining, enabling wealthy corporations to prosper at workers’ expense.

Why would these corporations want to frustrate workers’ organizing? Consider the benefits unions provide for workers and their communities. When workers join together in a union and engage in collective bargaining, they see higher wages and better benefits (McNicholas, Poydock, and Shierholz 2026). Further, in communities with higher union density rates, working families have higher incomes, greater access to health care, and few voter restrictions (McNicholas et al. 2025). It is clear that when unions are strong, workers have more power and their communities thrive.

Despite the erosion of U.S. labor law and the standard playbook of union avoidance, workers do win unions and union contracts. In 2025, 16.5 million workers in the United States were represented by a union—an increase of 463,000 from 2024 and the highest number of unionized workers in the U.S. in 16 years. The 2025 rise in union density coincides with a high public favorability toward unions, with nearly 70% of people in the U.S. viewing unions favorably (Brenan 2025). Further, research from the Pew Research Center finds that most people in the U.S. see the decline in union density as bad for the country (60%) and bad for working people (62%) (Van Green 2025).

To sustain the modest gains seen in union density in 2025, policymakers must act to restore workers’ rights to a union and collective bargaining. This is critical to the health of our economy and to ensuring that workers receive a fair share of the profits they help produce. Policymakers must pass the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which would help restore private-sector workers’ ability to form unions and bargain collectively.7 The PRO Act addresses many of the major shortcomings with U.S. labor law by establishing civil penalties for employers who violate workers’ rights, creating an election process that limits employer interference, and establishing a bargaining process for reaching a first contract in a timely manner. The PRO Act also would shed light on the union avoidance industry by requiring prompt disclosure of union-busting activities and closing the “advice” loophole through which employers and consultants have evaded reporting (McNicholas, Poydock, and Rhinehart 2021).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Joe Fast and Hannah Faris for their research assistance for this report.

Appendix

Methodology for labor practice revenue estimate

Estimated revenue of company-level labor practices and of U.S. labor practices as a whole was calculated in the following manner. 

First, we divided the number of attorneys listed in a company’s labor practice in 2026 by the number of attorneys that Law.com reported that the firm had in 2024, the most recent year for which Law.com data are available. We treated that figure as an initial indicator of the fraction of the firm’s total revenue that came from its labor practice. We then multiplied that fraction by the company’s total 2024 revenue, as reported by Law.com. Next, we discounted the result by 50%, on the conservative assumption that half of the revenue generated by attorneys in a company’s labor practice was earned for work performed in other areas of law than labor law. (Many labor relations attorneys belong to multiple practices, often practicing both labor law and employment law at the same company.) This calculation yielded our estimate of the revenue generated by a firm’s labor practice in 2024, inclusive of both representation and consulting services. 

We performed this calculation for the six law firms with 1.5% market share or more in 2024, where market share is defined here as a firm’s share of all NLRB cases in 2024. We then estimated the total revenue generated by all U.S. labor practices by dividing the sum of the six firms’ estimated labor practice revenue by the sum of the six firms’ market share.

Market share data were obtained through a custom query of NLRB data compiled by Labor Data (https://labordata.bunkum.us/). The number of attorneys in a company’s labor practice was obtained by tallying the number of attorneys listed on each company’s labor relations practice page in March 2026 and weeding out any attorneys practicing outside the U.S. 

Note: The share of revenue generated by attorneys in a labor practice that comes exclusively from labor relations services (rather than other areas of practice, such as employment law) may vary significantly by each law firm. For example, our labor practice revenue estimate for Littler Mendelson is lower than our estimate for Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, even though the former has greater market share than the latter does. This may be because our 50% assumption is too low in Littler Mendelson’s case. Perhaps attorneys in Littler Mendelson’s labor practice specialize in labor relations more often and more intensively than attorneys in Ogletree’s labor practice, thereby leading to higher labor practice revenue for Littler than our estimate suggests.

Appendix Table 1

Notes

1. See Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, Julia Wolfe, Ben Zipperer, Gordon Lafer, and Lola Loustaunau, Unlawful: U.S. Employers Are Charged with Violating Federal Law in 41.5% of All Union Election Campaigns, Economic Policy Institute, December 2019. To arrive at the $442 million figure, we take the $338 million dollar estimate from McNicholas et al. 2019, which covered the four-year period 2014–2017, and adjust it for inflation to 2025 dollars, according to Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) estimates using the annual average of the BLS CPI-U for 2014–2017 and BLS C-CPI-U for 2025. The estimated rates for consultants are from McNicholas et al. 2019.

2. Full methodology for this calculation can be found in the methodology section in the appendix.

3. We assume about half ($221 million) of the $442 million goes to attorney consultants for anti-union campaign services, which we also capture in the law firms’ labor practice revenue of $1.48 billion. To get to the $1.7 billion, we add the remaining of the $442 million ($221 million) on non-attorney consultants with the law firm revenue estimates ($1.48 billion).

4. Author’s analysis of public court documents and engagement letters sourced from LexisNexis and municipality websites.

5. Author’s analysis of public court documents and engagement letters sourced from LexisNexis and municipality websites.

6. Author’s analysis of public court documents and engagement letters sourced from LexisNexis and municipality websites.

7. Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2025, [H.R. 20], 119th Cong. (2025).

References

Bensinger, Greg. 2026. “Amazon Must Negotiate with Staten Island Warehouse Workers, NLRB Says.” Reuters, April 2, 2026.

Bivens, Josh, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, Jennifer Sherer, and Monica Leon. 2023. What to Know About This Summer’s Strike Activity. Economic Policy Institute, August 2023.

Brenan, Megan. 2025. “Labor Union Approval Relatively Steady at 68% in U.S.” Gallup, August 28, 2025.

Correia, David. 2019. “Union Busting on Campus: Jackson Lewis and Higher Education Anti-Unionism.” Verso Books, March 11, 2019.

Department of Labor (DOL). n.d. Persuader Agreements: Ensuring Transparency in Reporting for Employer and Labor Relations (fact sheet). n.d.

Department of Labor, Office of Labor–Management Standards (OLMS). 2026. “OPDR–LM-10 Employer” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Gregg, Forest. 2026. “Labor Data.” Accessed May 15, 2026.

Jackson Lewis. 2026. “About Us” (web page). Accessed May 8, 2026.

Kaufman, Bruce E., and Paula E. Stephan. 1995. “The Role of Management Attorneys in Union Organizing Campaigns.” Journal of Labor Research 16 (December 1995): 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02685719.

LaborLab. 2025. One-Sided Transparency: The Growing Gap Between Required Annual Union Versus Employer and Persuader Filings and OLMS Compliance Efforts Continues to Widen. July 2025.

Law.com. 2026. “Fisher Phillips” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Jackson Lewis” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Littler” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Morgan Lewis” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Ogletree Deakins (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Law.com. 2026. “Seyfarth” (web page). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Levine, Jonathan O., Tanja L. Thompson, Brooke E. Niedecken, and Brendan Fitzgerald. 2025. Littler’s 2025 Labor Survey Report. Littler Mendelson, September 30, 2025.

Littler Mendelson. 2026. “Our Firm History” (web page). Accessed May 8, 2026.

Logan, John. 2022. “Not Your Father’s Anti-Union Movement: Ten Key Facts About Starbucks’ Union Avoidance Law Firm, Littler Mendelson.” The Labor and Working-Class History Association (LAWCHA), March 7, 2022.

Logan, John. 2025. Corporate Union Busting in Plain Sight: How Amazon, Starbucks, and Trader Joe’s Crushed Dynamic Grassroots Worker Organizing Campaigns. Economic Policy Institute, January 2025.

McNicholas, Celine, and Margaret Poydock. 2019. How California’s AB5 Protects Workers from Misclassification (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, November 14, 2019.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, and Lynn Rhinehart. 2021. Why Workers Need the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, February 9, 2021.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, and Heidi Shierholz. 2026. Workers’ Resolve Drives Increase in Unionization in 2025. Economic Policy Institute, February 2026.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, Heidi Shierholz, and Hilary Wething. 2025. Unions Aren’t Just Good for Workers—They Also Benefit Communities and Democracy. Economic Policy Institute, August 2025. 

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, Julia Wolfe, Ben Zipperer, Gordon Lafer, and Lola Loustaunau. 2019. Unlawful: U.S. Employers Are Charged with Violating Federal Law in 41.5% of All Union Election Campaigns. Economic Policy Institute, December 2019.

Morgan Lewis. 2026. “Our Firm” (web page). Accessed May 8, 2026.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 2025. The National Labor Relations Board 2025 Performance and Accountability Report. Fiscal Year 2025. 

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 2026. “Case Search” (web page). Accessed May 8, 2026.

Pinto, Maya. 2022. How the ‘Coalition for Workforce Innovation’ Is Putting Workers’ Rights at Risk. Gig Workers Rising, National Employment Law Project, PowerSwitch Action, Service Employees International Union, and Temp Worker Justice, July 2022.

Poydock, Margaret. 2020. “The Passage of California’s Proposition 22 Would Give Digital Platform Companies a Free Pass to Misclassify Their Workers.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), October 22, 2020.

Rhinehart, Lynn, and Celine McNicholas. 2024. “What’s Behind the Corporate Effort to Kneecap the National Labor Relations Board?: SpaceX, Amazon, Trader Joe’s, and Starbucks Are Trying to Have the NLRB Declared Unconstitutional—After Collectively Being Charged with Hundreds of Violations of Workers’ Organizing Rights.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 7, 2024.

Shierholz, Heidi, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, and Jennifer Sherer. 2024. Workers Want Unions, but the Latest Data Point to Obstacles in Their Path: Private-Sector Unionization Rose by More Than a Quarter Million in 2023, While Unionization in State and Local Governments Fell. Economic Policy Institute, January 2024.

Van Green, Ted. 2025. “Majorities of Adults See Decline of Union Membership as Bad for the U.S. and Working People.” Pew Research Center, August 27, 2025. 

Key takeaways:

• Income inequality has skyrocketed since 1979 because of intentional policy choices that suppressed wages for typical families to accelerate income growth at the top.
• Middle-class household incomes would be roughly $30,000 higher today if their incomes had simply kept pace with average income growth since 1979.
• Recognizing that today’s affordability problems are overwhelmingly inequality problems is the key to constructing the right policy solutions.
  • As a start, protecting workers’ right to organize unions, fostering long periods of very low unemployment, and keeping minimum wages high will help typical families claim their fair share of income growth.

When most people—including policymakers—complain about a lack of affordability, they think of prices being too high. But affordability is the outcome of a race between prices and incomes. After all, goods and services were a lot cheaper 90 years ago during the Great Depression, but we all know that nearly everybody is richer today than their peers back then. Bringing incomes into the affordability picture makes for better understanding and better policy.

New Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data show that rising income inequality is the main reason that affordability feels out of reach for too many U.S. families. For more than four decades, most of the income growth in the U.S. economy has been funneled to those at the very top, leaving typical families with far less than their proportionate share of the economy’s gains. If middle-class household incomes had simply kept pace with average income growth since 1979, their pay would be roughly $30,000 higher today. If we account for taxes and government transfers, incomes would still be $19,000 higher today for these middle-class households. Think of this gap as an “inequality tax”: the amount that rising inequality has cost the typical U.S. family. Life would be much more affordable for these families today if they hadn’t been hit by this inequality tax.

This inequality is not the result of competitive markets fairly rewarding people’s skills and hard work. Instead, it resulted from an intentional policy campaign of wage suppression. Labor markets in capitalist economies are inherently tilted toward employers. Fair pay and broadly shared prosperity only materialize when policy affirmatively aims to correct this power imbalance. This can happen—policy choices that bolstered workers’ leverage and bargaining power in labor markets kept growth fast and equal for decades following World War II, for example. But lawmakers rolled back these policies at the behest of capital owners and corporate managers.  

The latest CBO inequality data make the scale of this policy shift visible. Figure A shows the distribution of market income growth for non-elderly households by income group since 1979. We use market income to look at pre-tax, pre-transfer outcomes to assess the equality of outcomes generated by markets. We isolate non-elderly incomes because older households tend to have very low market incomes and these older households have grown as a share over time—so we don’t want any poor performance of market incomes documented here to simply be the outcome of natural population aging. Among this non-elderly group, the top 1% have captured a hugely disproportionate share of market income growth. Between 1979 and 2022, market income for the top 1% grew 277% (from $784,573 to $2.958 million) compared with just 26% growth for the middle fifth of households (from $76,359 to $96,335). This lopsided growth is the root of America’s affordability problem. Even as the economy grew and average incomes rose, typical families fell further behind those at the top who captured most of income growth.

Figure B shows the inequality tax over time, plotting actual market income for the middle fifth of households against what their income would have been if it had grown at the same rate as overall average income. By 2022, the inequality tax reached $30,676 per household, meaning middle-class families are forgoing that much income each year because of rising inequality. The gap has widened steadily since 1979, a sign that the affordability problem facing typical families is not a recent development but rather the cumulative result of decades of policies that have shifted income upward.

Because market income for middle-class families is driven predominantly by labor income, the inequality tax in Figure B reflects the consequences of decades of wage suppression. Of course, the United States has a system of taxes and means-tested transfers (safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps, for example) that leads to post-tax and transfer income being more equal than market income in any given year. But the tax and transfer system did not ramp up in importance as market income inequality grew after 1979, and even after accounting for its effects, inequality increased significantly. Figure C shows that even when using post-tax and transfer income, the inequality tax remained substantial at $19,320 per middle fifth household in 2022.

Figure D shows who loses and who gains from rising inequality. While the inequality tax cost middle-income families $19,320 in 2022, families at the very top benefited enormously. The 96th to 99th percentiles gained about $88,000 from rising inequality, while the top 1% gained $1.1 million in 2022.

Perhaps surprisingly, the lowest quintile also slightly gained. For this group, lower taxes and higher levels of means-tested benefits counterbalanced a significant loss of market income due to inequality (their market income inequality tax would be around $4,000). The greater fiscal transfers to the bottom fifth are an under-recognized policy achievement of recent decades. It is also an achievement under constant threat, with the latest one being the large cuts to Medicaid and food stamps coming because of the Republican tax and spending bill that passed in 2025.

Figure D

U.S. families’ feeling that life is less affordable than it should be is grounded in objective realities about how the economy has failed them. And it’s understandable why so many of these families think about prices, which they see as the final barrier between them and being able to obtain what they need for a good life, whether the price is for a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread or a monthly health insurance premium.

But the forces causing this affordability crunch are far larger than any given set of prices. Instead, they are mostly the forces that led to rising income inequality by intentionally suppressing the power of workers in labor markets. This wage suppression meant that middle-class income growth was never going to outpace inflation consistently enough to ensure steadily improving economic security.

In short, today’s affordability problems are overwhelmingly inequality problems. Recognizing this fact is the key to constructing the right policy solutions. As a start, protecting workers’ right to organize unions, fostering long periods of very low unemployment, and keeping minimum wages high will help typical families claim their fair share of income growth.

Key takeaways:

• Recent Democratic proposals to exempt broad swaths of the middle class from federal income taxes accept a damaging frame of taxes as a pure drain on affordability.
• But taxes aren’t a drain on affordability; they fund the public services and social insurance programs that make a decent life possible for middle-class families.
• Progressive taxes on the ultrarich and corporations are essential and should be the immediate priority, but they cannot sustain the public sector alone, let alone expand it in ways needed.
• Middle-class tax rates have fallen by a third since 1979, yet economic anxiety remains high. Tax-cutting has failed because it has left the private-sector drivers of inequality untouched and starved public services.

For decades, anti-tax politicians have tried to smuggle in large tax cuts for the ultrarich and corporations by loudly offering tax cut crumbs to the middle class. Key to this effort has been framing taxes as a pure drain on typical families’ ability to afford a secure economic life. Any success in this dishonest campaign to foster anti-tax sentiment is a disaster for working people—and that’s why some recent tax policy ideas from Democrats and the rhetoric around them are so deflating.

Two things are true about taxes in the United States. First, taxes on the richest families and corporations are far too low. Second, it is broad-based taxes on the middle-class that are the foundation of a functioning public sector and a decent society.

Progressive taxes on the ultrarich and corporations are mostly needed to reduce the potential gains to the rich and powerful from rigging the rules of markets. When the powerful rig these rules and hugely disproportionate shares of income concentrate at the top—like in the United States today—progressive taxes can also raise significant revenue.

But if sharply progressive taxes succeed in reducing the incentive for rigging the rules of markets and if other policies help lead to more broadly shared income growth in the country, this means that progressive taxes will raise a lot less revenue over time.

To be clear, this would be a victory for a better society. For example, the purpose of a carbon tax is to lower greenhouse gas emissions and if it’s highly successful, it will by definition stop raising much revenue. Progressive taxes aimed at reducing inequality will see the revenue they raise start to decline when they are their most successful. Right now, we do have deep inequality in the U.S. and progressive taxes will raise a lot of money—but we shouldn’t make the public sector’s resources dependent on this remaining true forever.

But more importantly, taxing only the very rich has never been the primary foundation of public-sector resources and can’t be going forward. The revenue needed to support programs that provide social insurance and income support (Social Security and Medicaid, for example), as well as public investment and services like highways, transit, and public education requires broad-based taxation. Without Social Security providing secure retirement, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act providing access to health care, and public schools providing universal education, a decent life for the middle-class would be entirely unaffordable. And without middle-class taxes supporting all of these things, they would collapse.

If typical Americans lose faith that paying broad-based taxes to support public services and investments is a good deal, it will be a disaster for their ability to afford a decent life. Sadly, some recent Democratic proposals capitulate to this view of taxes as a “pure burden” rather than an investment in the country and its people.

Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) have both floated ideas that would draw a line below which nobody would pay any federal income tax (Van Hollen’s line is $92,000 for a married couple while Booker’s is $75,000). Both proposals pay for this with tax increases on the rich. If these tax increases on the rich were standalone pieces of legislation, they’d be excellent. But they are instead paired with tax benefits that mostly miss the bottom of the income distribution. In Booker’s proposal, the gains from the higher standard deduction that zeroes out taxes for many are actually largest for families between the 60th and 80th percentiles, and gains persist on average through the 99th percentile. Van Hollen’s bill phases out the “alternative maximum tax” that zeroes out taxes for many, and the biggest gains hit in the middle of the income distribution, but the proposal still provides gains on average for families between the 60th and 80th percentiles.

Both proposals clearly aim to address the affordability challenge that politicians have seized on, but in doing so both frame taxes as a pure drain on affordability, with Booker even calling his the “Keep Your Pay Act.” But taxes aren’t a drain on affordability. They provide the resources needed to run the public sector, and the public sector in turn does a great deal to make life more secure and more affordable over people’s lifetimes.

Social Security and Medicare, for example, both rely on payroll taxes on workers’ wages. But they also provide income for these workers in retirement. Instead of draining affordability, these programs smooth income over the lifecycle to ensure working families can afford a decent life even when they can no longer work. Food stamps and Medicaid are financed by taxes and provide benefits to people who otherwise would not be able to afford the most basic necessities: food and health care. The same people who receive Medicaid and food stamps in one era of their lives will contribute to them through taxes in other periods when they have found steady work. Again, the taxes collected are recycled back into families’ incomes in ways that minimize suffering and severe affordability crises throughout their lives.

State and local taxes—often borne quite heavily by the broad middle class—pay for public education. This education—both K–12 and higher education—is incredibly valuable and necessary for anyone operating in modern economies. Without the taxes to support education, families would have to dig into their own pockets to pay for private schooling, and it would be delivered less efficiently and much less equitably.

Other taxes finance infrastructure and other key public goods and services, without which life would be harder and more expensive for most families.

Cutting taxes even fails on the crass political grounds of buying voters’ short-term goodwill. It’s often underrecognized (mostly, again, because of conservative campaigns to hide this fact), but taxes for the middle class have been cut a lot in recent decades. Figure A below shows the percentage point change in tax rates of households at different parts of the income distribution between 1979–2019. We stop at 2019 to compare equivalent points of the business cycle. Tax rates tend to fall sharply during recessions, which can obscure the full extent of legislative changes to tax rates. Further, cutting taxes temporarily during recessions can make some sense—tax cuts are one form of fiscal stimulus that can be used to fight recessions (unless these tax cuts are quite well-targeted on low- and moderate-income families, they tend to be less efficient stimulus than spending measures).

Figure A

The largest tax cuts have gone to the bottom fifth of households—a key policy victory of recent decades. The expansion of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit—credits that are paid directly to lower-income families even if their amount is greater than the families’ tax liability—have essentially made the problem of taxing families into poverty almost nonexistent. These tax cuts should clearly be kept. But all households, not just those with very low incomes, have seen sizable tax cuts. Tax rates for households in the middle of the income distribution have been cut by a third since 1979.

And yet, does anybody feel like this tax-cutting has led to most U.S. households feeling great about their place in the economy and their prospects for affording a decent life today? Do these voters express warm feelings about the policymakers from both parties who provided these middle-class tax cuts?

The tax-cutting strategy has failed to make these households happy for two reasons. First, it leaves the private-sector drivers of inequality untouched, and as governments have collected less in taxes, employers and corporations have contributed less to middle-class families’ wages. Second, lower taxes have starved public-sector capacity and led to a degradation of public services. Strangely, the newly fashionable “abundance” movement often frames this degradation as a problem of public-sector excesses, but it’s clearly driven by disinvestment. In short, middle-class families value public services and the decades-long campaign to cut taxes has harmed the ability to provide them. The lessons for today’s tax debates should be clear.

The failure of tax-cutting to foster economic security and happiness is not all that surprising for scholars of U.S. attitudes toward taxes, who argue that Americans are not universally anti-tax. Instead, Americans view paying taxes as a patriotic good and a moral obligation. But they are angry about paying their taxes when they think others are shirking their part of the social contract, particularly when they think the richest people and corporations aren’t paying their fair share.

Because we are starting with such high levels of inequality and because of this public cynicism about the rich ever being forced to pay their fair share, the first priority—by far—for policymakers today should be to enact significant stand-alone tax increases on the ultrarich and corporations. The revenue raised solely from the ultrarich could close today’s fiscal gap, the difference between today’s budget deficits and what is needed to put them on a sustainable path going forward. And this act would convince the rest of Americans that the ultrarich are not always prioritized in policymaking and would make future debates about the costs and benefits of higher taxes for higher levels of public goods much healthier.

But we can’t run a decent society based on just taxing the rich and telling everybody else that taxes are an unfair drain. Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said that taxes are the price you pay for civilization. But if the taxes are paid only by the rich, we will get the civilization they want. That doesn’t seem good enough to me.

The Council was preparing to discuss a wage adjustment in June 2025 when the chair resigned. It is expected to take up the issue when the governor names a new chair, which has yet to happen. Given that almost two years have passed since the initial setting of the $20 wage standard—a year and a half that has seen continued inflation—the Council should prioritize this cost-of-living adjustment in 2026 to prevent rising prices from erasing the gains made by fast-food workers. One impediment to this adjustment is opposition from fast-food restaurant operators, who argue that raising workers’ pay to $20 damaged their businesses and that they cannot absorb any further increases.

This debate in California between fast-food workers and employers highlights the importance of regular and automatic adjustments to wage standards (like minimum wages) that ensure inflation-adjusted living standards for low-wage workers do not erode over time.

Indexation is often an afterthought in debates over wage standards. But it can turn out to be the most important part of any policy that sets a wage standard. This report examines salient issues related to indexing wage standards and offers recommendations for policymakers. Its key arguments are:

• Wage standards are necessary and efficient because of unbalanced power in labor markets.
• Wage standards that are fixed in nominal terms and have no automatic adjustment (like the federal minimum wage) get weaker every single year that passes without a legislated increase. The cumulative erosion of inflation-adjusted wage standards often exceeds the initial legislated increase.
  • For example, in inflation-adjusted terms, the federal minimum wage today is lower than it was in 2007, the last time a new standard was passed into law.
• Mandating higher wages for any group of workers will set off a chain of adjustments elsewhere in labor and product markets. What these adjustments eventually mean for relative incomes, prices, and employment is an empirical question.
  • Thankfully, minimum wage increases are some of the most well-studied events in economics, and the weight of empirical evidence is that they do not measurably increase overall inflation or lead to significant job loss, but they do raise the inflation-adjusted pay of targeted workers.
• Adjusting wage standards only for increases in inflation is actually a conservative policy in the sense of minimizing potential burdens on low-wage employers. More ambitious targets for adjustment—like wages or even productivity—could be preferable depending on the specific case.
  • In the case of the California Fast Food Council, providing a price-based adjustment to account for inflation since the initial adoption of the $20 minimum wage in April 2024 is an appropriate and modest step.
  • A 3.5% increase in the wage standard—the maximum adjustment the Council can recommend—is also conservative because it will only partially offset the actual 4.2% cost of living increase since April 2024 and because it does not account for ongoing productivity improvements in the sector.
• Over the past decade—and continuing since April 2024—the inflation rate faced by lower-income households has been higher than the overall inflation rate, largely because housing is a higher share of lower-income households’ budget. This means indexing based on the average inflation rate would fail to fully restore the affordability lost to fast-food workers since the enactment of the $20 wage standard, making such an adjustment even more modest (and even more necessary).

Wage standards are necessary because of unbalanced labor market power

Modern labor markets—particularly those that low-wage workers participate in—are characterized by significant employer power. Low-wage employers rarely if ever negotiate pay with workers, instead posting take-it-or-leave-it wage offers. Further, when a given employer lets its own wages lag those of potential competitors, workers’ exit from the lower-wage firm is far less common than would be predicted under truly competitive labor markets where employers robustly compete for workers.

The seminal source for modeling labor markets as situations where employers have substantial wage-setting power is Manning (2003), who describes this situation as one of “monopsony” power in labor markets.The literal definition of monopsony is a market with a single buyer. At points in history (think 19th century “company towns” in rural and isolated areas) this kind of literal monopsony may have existed. But Manning and those who have built on this work point to several features and frictions in real-world labor markets that make it hard for workers to effectively search for better jobs. These job search barriers effectively grant employers excess market power over workers even when there are numerous employers. Some of these frictions include things like lack of information about wages and other policies of alternative employers, transportation restrictions that require workers to look for jobs only in places near their home or public transit nodes, child care considerations that require a job’s location be compatible with picking up kids at a regular time, along with many other factors.

Employers use these barriers to employees finding better outside options to “mark down” wages below what would be necessary for employers to attract and retain workers in competitive labor markets. These markdowns can be large enough to push workers’ pay well below the value they produce for the employer, making pay levels inefficient.

At the level of the total economy, the excess power of employers in labor markets and their ability to markdown wages can be seen in the gap between economy-wide productivity (the amount of income generated in an average hour of work in the economy) and the hourly pay (including benefits) of typical workers.

Figure A

Wage standards—like minimum wages—can correct for this excess employer power. This leaves low-wage workers with higher pay and living standards and moves the economy to a more efficient allocation of workers across jobs. It can in theory even lead to an increase in employment. This degree of employer power in labor markets and the inefficiency of labor market outcomes without wage standards help explain the general empirical finding that minimum wage increases in the United States have not caused significant employment declines, a finding that is counter to what one would expect if labor markets were competitive.1

California’s fast-food minimum wage has had minimal employment effects

Current evidence suggests that California’s fast-food minimum wage is no different in that it has raised wages without causing large, negative employment reductions. There are four studies on the specific wage and employment effects of the California fast-food minimum wage. Three studies show both sizable earnings effects and limited-to-no employment changes. One analysis, in contrast to the other three studies, shows moderately negative employment effects, but also found the policy raised the total earnings of fast-food workers.

Schneider, Harknett, and Bruey (2024) surveyed fast-food workers in large chains and showed that relative to other states, the California policy raised wages and had no effect on the usual number of hours of fast-food workers in the quarter after the minimum wage change. With data from Equifax, Hamdi and Sovich (2025) compared fast-food establishments within large firms across different states and found that California fast-food establishments raised wages by about 12% and increased employment by a statistically insignificant 2%. Sosinskiy and Reich (2025) used data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) to study employment and earnings trends in fast-food restaurants in California relative to those in other states and to full-service restaurants in California, which are not directly bound by the fast-food minimum wage. The authors’ preferred specification estimated a wage increase of about 7% and an employment decline of just under 1% that was statistically indistinguishable from zero. Finally, Clemens, Edwards, and Meer (2025) used QCEW data and estimated a similar wage increase of about 8%, but also a statistically significant employment decline of over 3%.2

In interpreting employment changes from a minimum wage increase, it’s best to compare the size of estimated wage effects with the estimated employment effects. The ratio of these two estimates—the own-wage elasticity of employment3—helps to gauge whether any employment changes were small or large relative to how much the policy actually raised wages. When the ratio is more positive than -1, total fast-food worker earnings rose even after accounting for potential employment losses. Standardizing the estimates by dividing employment and wage effects also allows us to make consistent comparisons across these studies and with studies of other minimum wage increases.

For the three studies where it is possible to calculate them, the own-wage elasticities are 0.19 (Hamdi and Sovich 2025), −0.12 (Sosinskiy and Reich 2025), and −0.40 (Clemens, Edwards, and Meer 2025). The first two are consistent with small or no employment impacts, but the last one moves into “medium negative” territory. All three studies’ estimates imply that the policy increased the aggregate earnings of fast-food workers, but the last study implies that employment losses caused fast-food workers to receive only about 60% of the potential earnings increase spurred by the minimum wage hike.

Even though Sosinskiy and Reich (2025) and Clemens, Edwards, and Meer (2025) use similar data, one important difference is that the Sosinskiy and Reich (2025) study controls for population changes. Net immigration rapidly fell after the implementation of the policy, disproportionately affecting California’s population levels. For example, according to the latest Census estimates, California’s resident population did not grow in 2025, whereas the rest of the country’s population grew by about 0.5%. Not accounting for these different population trends between California and elsewhere could cause an analysis to overstate any employment declines stemming from the policy, particularly if fast-food employment levels are sensitive to falling labor supply or a shrinking customer base. In their appendix, Sosinskiy and Reich (2025) find that ignoring population changes causes their estimates to be more negative.

In addition, when selecting a comparison group for fast-food workers, Clemens, Edwards, and Meer (2025) use fast-food workers in other states and high-wage industries in California, but they do not directly compare the California fast-food sector with the California full-service sector, which is not covered by the policy. Comparing the two sectors would be especially useful for capturing underlying economic trends if slowing population growth is driving declines in both fast-food and full-service employment levels. Indeed, Clemens, Edwards, and Meer (2025) show that the policy did not raise wages in the California full-service sector, but full-service employment in California declined by close to 2%. Failing to account for this decline in full-service employment also causes the Clemens, Edwards, and Meer (2025) estimates to be more negative.

Regardless of the source of these differences, the average own-wage elasticity across the three studies is −0.11, suggesting that the fast-food policy was successful in raising wages without causing sizable job losses. This point estimate is very similar to the median elasticity of all published minimum wage studies on restaurants (see Dube and Zipperer 2025). However, even if the policy were associated with larger employment reductions, measured job losses may still overstate the consequences for low-wage workers. First, lower headcount employment in the fast-food sector does not automatically translate into reduced employment or lower wages for low-wage workers if they move to other low-wage jobs, like retail, where they must be paid at least the California $16.90 minimum wage. Second, a measured decline in headcounts in a high turnover sector like fast-food is more likely to manifest as more weeks in between jobs rather than being shut out of work completely; in that case, some fast-food workers would indeed be working less but earning more money over the course of the year due to higher hourly wage rates.4

Why wage standards need to be automatically adjusted

If wage standards stay fixed in nominal terms, they are reduced in real (inflation-adjusted) terms every year inflation is nonzero. When there is a burst of rapid inflation, these real wage cuts get large very quickly. In fact, steady inflation can combine with policy inaction to leave wage standards lower in real terms than they were the last time a legislated increase happened.

Take the example of the federal minimum wage. Its current value of $7.25 came into effect in 2009. Today’s inflation-adjusted value of the federal minimum wage is almost 40% lower than its historic peak. It reached this peak in 1968, in an economy where productivity (the income generated in an average hour of work in the economy) was just 46% as high as it is in 2025. 5

Figure B

Adjusted for inflation, the 2025 value of the federal minimum wage is in fact lower than it was in 2007 when the U.S. Congress and president last signed a legislated increase into law. Put simply, without effective and automatic indexation, higher wage standards can be eroded almost entirely over time.

Today’s debate over the cost-of-living adjustment to the California Fast Food Council’s minimum wage often frames such adjustments as imposing new burdens on low-wage employers. But inflation since April 2024 means that the real minimum wage paid to California’s fast-food workers has been steadily cut since then. From April 2024 to January 2026, as measured by the consumer price index for all urban wage earners (CPI-W), this cut amounts to 4.2%. Without indexation, any burden on employers from this wage standard has fallen considerably since its adoption, providing a windfall to low-wage employers at the expense of their frontline employees. A failure to regularly index for inflation is essentially a backdoor method for unraveling the wage standard that policymakers passed into law.

Price indexing wage standards is a necessary and conservative policy

Raising wage standards each year by an amount equal to inflation holds low-wage workers’ living standards steady at the level that prevailed when the wage standards were set. For example, the $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers in large chains in California came into effect in April 2024. If these wages are indexed regularly to account for inflation since then, this will keep California fast-food workers’ living standards frozen at April 2024 levels going forward.

This is a clear improvement compared with outright erosion of living standards. But it remains the case that price indexing wage standards is a conservative policy in the sense that it minimizes any potential burdens on low-wage employers. It is a conservative policy for two reasons: (1) indexed wage changes are very small relative to the initial phase-in of wage standards, and (2) indexing for prices allows productivity growth in the wider economy to steadily reduce any potential burden or need for adjustment imposed by wage standards.

Price indexations are very small increases to wage standards

The increases to wage standards that result from price indexation are significantly smaller than the increases that result when the standards are initially phased in. For example, say that the last federal minimum wage increase in 2009 also indexed for subsequent price changes. The initial phase-in of the higher federal minimum wage saw it rise from $5.15 to $7.25 between 2007 and 2009. This constituted an average annual change of 19% for these two years. The average annual inflation rate (measured by the consumer price index for all items) between 2007 and 2024 was just 2.5%.

If the initial introduction of higher wage standards does not cause problematic outcomes, then it is very hard to see how the much smaller changes spurred by indexation for price changes would cause any.

The research on minimum wages provides very little reason to worry that changes in the United States in recent decades have caused any such problematic outcomes. The most commonly expressed worries about minimum wage increases are employment losses and upward price pressure.

We noted earlier that studies looking specifically at the California wage standard continue a common pattern in research on the employment effects of phased-in minimum wages: Employment declines caused by these minimum wage changes tend to be extremely modest or even zero on average. If one applied the modest measured employment losses stemming from the large initial increase in fast-food wages to the much smaller indexed adjustments, these already small employment losses become totally trivial.

The same logic holds regarding potential upward price pressures stemming from indexation: Compared with the initial setting of wage standards, indexed changes are very small and therefore unlikely to push up prices.

It is a fact that one person’s income is another person’s cost, so as low-wage workers’ pay rises, this raises costs for their employers. These employers could pass on these costs (in part or in full) to their customers by raising prices. But even if the entirety of the wage increases driven by price indexing wage standards was passed on in the form of price increases, overall price pressures would be extremely modest and low-wage workers would still unambiguously come out ahead.

Say that low-wage workers’ pay constitutes a third of labor costs in the fast-food sector, and that labor costs in turn constitute a third of total costs of fast food.6 If low-wage workers’ pay rises by 3.5% due to price indexing, this would increase prices the employer charges customers by less than 0.4% even if the full amount was passed on as price increases. Because fast food accounts for less than 3% of the overall inflation consumption basket, even a 0.4% increase in fast-food prices would raise overall prices by only 0.01%.

Price indexing still sees reductions in low-wage workers’ relative pay and allows productivity growth to steadily erode any potential burden on low-wage employers

We noted earlier that price indexing a minimum wage essentially holds low-wage workers’ pay frozen thereafter at the level that prevailed when the wage was introduced. Again, this is better than allowing inflation to erode the real value of pay, but average incomes throughout the overall economy are not frozen over time in real terms. Instead, they rise faster than prices over any reasonable period. Inequality often keeps this growth in average living standards from reaching many (or even most) workers and families in the economy, but the potential for living standards to rise is generated every year of positive economic growth.

This means that even when wage standards are indexed to prices, low-wage workers’ relative standing in the economy still falls over time. Further, because low-wage workers’ earnings are a cost to their employers, this means that even with price indexing, any potential burden of wage standards on low-wage employers slightly declines any year that productivity rises. In this sense, price indexing of wage standards—providing regular cost-of-living adjustments based on price growth—is a conservative policy that allows the costs and benefits of wage standards to slowly erode over time relative to developments in the larger economy.

A quick example can help make this point. Say that pay for low-wage workers at a particular employer amounts to 20% of the final price of the firm’s output. Say that productivity (how much output is generated with each hour of work) rises by 2% per year. If low-wage workers’ pay rises only with inflation (and not with productivity) and all other firm costs rise with inflation and productivity, this implies that over 10 years the share of low-wage workers’ pay in total costs would fall to just 16.4% of total costs. Employers could use this decline in real costs to either lower their prices to consumers or raise their profit margins. Either way, so long as there is any growth in productivity, the burden of low-wage workers’ pay to employers falls even when this pay is indexed to inflation.

Price indexing is not the only option for adjusting wage standards. One could, for example, index growth in minimum wages to growth in wages at other parts of the wage distribution—growth in the median wage for example.7 An even more ambitious indexing choice would be to match wage changes to changes in average wages or even economy-wide productivity.8

The obvious benefit of using these alternative wage indexations would be faster wage growth and higher living standards for low-wage workers. The potential downside is that they do not allow any potential burden from higher wages for employers to relent over time—meaning that if the initial setting of wage standards is high enough to cause problematic outcomes (job losses or rapid price increases), then this would not smooth over time with wage indexation. Price indexation, conversely, would actually allow any higher than optimal initial wage standard to become less binding over time. In this sense, it is a conservative choice that is highly responsive to the pressures faced by low-wage employers.

In the case of the California Fast Food Council, the $20 minimum wage enacted in 2024 was an admirably ambitious standard. There is little persuasive evidence that it is too high in that it has caused any problematic outcomes on either the employment loss or price increase fronts. Yet it was high enough to provide a significant wage boost for affected workers. For these types of ambitious standards, indexing to prices seems necessary to protect workers’ gains yet conservative in that it puts declining pressure on low-wage employers over time. Further, since 2019, the limited-service restaurant sector has seen significant productivity growth—roughly 2% per year—which should allow any price indexation to be easily absorbed with no wrenching adjustments for employers.9

Different groups face different inflation rates: The case for discretion in indexing

The benefit of indexing wage standards for inflation is the protection it provides for the living standards of low-wage workers. The costs are the various adjustments or burdens forced onto employers. Because the group of low-wage workers and employers are heterogenous, and because inflation is measured by the aggregation of price changes across the entire economy, there remains room for judgement and discretion in balancing these costs and benefits.

The California Fast Food Council has some discretion, as they can either index wages up to 3.5% for inflation or they can decline to index these wages and let them be eroded.

We noted before that indexing only for prices (as opposed to indexing for wages or productivity growth) results in a steady reduction in any economic burden wage standards might place on employers. So long as these employers see any growth in productivity (the efficiency with which each hour of labor generates output), then having some portion of their wage costs fixed in real terms will see these costs become a progressively smaller share of total output over time. In this sense, simply choosing to index by prices means the cost of wage standards to employers is set to shrink consistently over time.

In terms of the benefits to low-wage workers, recent years have seen a large jump in the overall price level. Any given episode of inflation is likely to have uneven effects across groups in the economy. For example, the inflation of the 1970s was actually accompanied by an increase in real wages, even for low-wage workers.10 The inflationary spike in 2021 and 2022, conversely, was largely driven by large increases in profit margins, which meant that real wages for most workers fell in those years.

More systematically, inflation faced by various groups in the economy can diverge if they have different consumption baskets that skew average price growth in a predictable way. For example, housing makes up a larger share of consumption spending for lower-income households than higher-income households, and in recent decades the price of housing as measured by the consumer price index has slightly outpaced overall price growth. This implies that inflation faced by lower-income households has likely been systematically higher than that faced by higher-income households. This makes the overall CPI that informs discussions of wage indexation inadequate for fully protecting lower-wage workers from inflation in recent years.

Concretely, the CPI-W, which is the price index the Council can target, has risen by 4.2% since April 2024. This means that a 3.5% cost of living adjustment—the largest that can be granted by the Fast Food Council—would not quite neutralize the affordability losses experienced by workers since the $20 minimum wage was enacted. Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (2025) indicates that households in the bottom 40% of the income distribution saw inflation between April 2024 and August 2025 (the most recent data point available) that averaged 0.2% higher than overall inflation. This means actual inflation faced by many fast-food workers in California exceeded 4% since the introduction of the $20 wage standard.

The bias in actually experienced inflation stemming from housing runs even deeper. The housing component of the CPI essentially assumes everybody is paying market rent for their housing. There are good reasons for this decision, but it means that discretion and judgement must enter into using the CPI for different purposes. Well over half of the U.S. population owns their homes, and these people have significantly higher incomes on average than renters. Homeowners either have no monthly housing payment or pay a mortgage that is fixed over time and therefore experiences no inflation. By assuming these homeowning households experience the average amount of rental inflation each month the CPI overstates actually experienced inflation for homeowners.

This means when weighing the interests of low-wage workers against other economic actors—including consumers facing potential price increases stemming from wage standards—the real gap in living standards growth is likely larger than what would be implied by assuming all households face the same CPI inflation. Given this, there is a strong case for policymakers to use their discretion to put a countervailing thumb on the scale by boosting low-wage workers’ pay.

Notes

1. For a review of the estimates of employment loss caused by minimum wage increases, see Dube and Zipperer 2025.

2. There is an additional study by Pandit (2026) that estimates the fast-food minimum wage caused an 8% decline in staffing intensity based on long-duration visits from mobile phone location data. However, the study finds almost all of the estimated effect occurred before the actual policy went into effect, with little-to-no change in the proxy for employment activity after the effective date of the minimum wage increase on April 1, 2024. It is hard to believe that in a very high turnover industry like fast food—where employers can adjust employment levels rapidly by reducing hiring—that businesses would reduce staffing levels several months before being compelled to pay higher wages, but then not change employment levels at all after actually being required to increase wages. The study also provides no evidence on wage changes, cannot distinguish between headcounts and hours reductions, and excludes new businesses that may have started during the policy period.

3. For an explanation of the importance of the own-wage elasticity in interpreting studies of the minimum wage’s effect on employment, see Dube and Zipperer 2024.

4. See Cooper, Mishel, and Zipperer 2018 for the importance of accounting for turnover rates when assessing the likely implications of any measured employment decline.

5. See Economic Policy Institute 2025a for data on productivity levels over time.

6. Both of these assumptions are likely close to true or overstate the actual price pressure that would be experienced from price indexing wage standards in fast food. For the leisure and hospitality sector—the larger sector in which fast-food (or limited-service) restaurants are embedded—aggregate weekly payrolls are roughly $10 billion. To estimate low-wage workers’ aggregate pay, we took the number of leisure and hospitality sector workers making less than $17 per hour in 2024 (5.7 million) and multiplied this by $17 and by 35 hours per week. All of these (the high $17 threshold for defining “low-wage”, the assumption that all making under $17 were making exactly $17, and the 35 hours per week) likely increase the estimate of low-wage workers’ wage bill in the sector. Making these generous assumptions yields a weekly wage bill of roughly $3.4 billion, or just over a third of the total wage bill in the sector. For total labor costs as a share of total output in the sector, we used the Composition of Gross Output by Industry table from the GDP by Industry accounts of the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

7. Growth in wages has been used to index some labor standards. Under the overtime rule enacted by the Obama administration the salary threshold for being granted automatic rights to overtime protections was set at the 40th percentile of annual earnings in the lowest-wage region of the country.

8. Social Security uses an “average wage index” to deflate workers’ past earnings to calculate their initial Social Security benefit amount. This implicitly credits recipients for overall economic growth (overwhelmingly determined by productivity) over the course of their working life.

9. This figure calculated from data provided by the Detailed Industry Productivity database from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

10. See Economic Policy Institute 2025b, specifically the wages for workers at the 10th percentile.

References

Bivens, Josh. 2022. “Corporate Profits Have Contributed Disproportionately to Inflation: How Should Policymakers Respond?” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 21, 2022.

Clemens, Jeffrey, Olivia Edwards, and Jonathan Meer. 2025. “Did California’s Fast Food Minimum Wage Reduce Employment?” NBER Working Paper no. 34033, July 2025.

Cooper, David, Larry Mishel, and Ben Zipperer. 2018. Bold Increases in the Minimum Wage Should Be Evaluated for the Benefits of Raising Low-Wage Workers’ Total Earnings. Economic Policy Institute, April 18, 2018.

Dube, Arindrajit, and Ben Zipperer. 2024. “Own-Wage Elasticity: Quantifying the Impact of Minimum Wages on Employment.” NBER Working Paper no. 32925, September 2024.

Dube, Arindrajit, and Ben Zipperer. 2025. Minimum wage own-wage elasticity repository, Version 2025.9.1., https://economic.github.io/owe.

Economic Policy Institute. 2026. “The Productivity-Pay Gap” (web page). Last updated January 16, 2026.

Economic Policy Institute. 2025a. State of Working America Data Library, “Productivity and pay levels – Productivity and pay, real dollars per hour (2024$).”

Economic Policy Institute. 2025b. State of Working America Data Library, “Minimum wage – Real minimum wage (2024$).”

Economic Policy Institute. 2025c. State of Working America Data Library, “Hourly wage percentiles – Real hourly wage (2024$).”

Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 2025. “Economic Heterogeneity Indicators.” Accessed January 2026.

Hamdi, Naser, and David Sovich. 2025. “The Wage and Employment Effects of California’s Fast-Food Minimum Wage.” SSRN, March 28, 2025.

KFF. 2025. “Population Distribution by Citizenship Status.” Accessed January 23, 2026.

MacDonald, Daniel, and Eric Nilsson. 2016. “The Effect of Increasing the Minimum Wage on Prices: Analyzing the Incidence of Policy Design and Context.” Upjohn Institute Working Paper no. 16-260, June 2016.

Manning, Alan. 2003. Monopsony in Motion: Imperfect Competition in Labor Markets. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press.

Pandit, Hitanshu. 2026. “Simply Can’t Wait: Evaluating the Effect of California’s Fast-Food Minimum Wage Increase.” SSRN, February 23, 2026. 

Schmitt, John. 2013. Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment? Center for Economic Policy and Research.

Schneider, Daniel, Kristen Harknett, and Kevin Bruey. 2024. Early Effects of California’s $20 Fast Food Minimum Wage: Large Wage Increases with No Effects on Hours, Scheduling, or Benefits. The Shift Project, October 2024.

Sosinskiy, Denis, and Michael Reich. 2025. “A $20 Minimum Wage: Effects on Wages, Employment and Prices.” Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Working Paper, September 2025.

United States Census Bureau (Census). 2026. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2025. NST-EST2025-POP. Accessed January 27, 2026.

Zipperer, Ben. 2024. “Most Minimum Wage Studies Have Found Little or No Job Loss.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), September 9, 2024.

Throughout this second term we’ve also seen a steady increase in white supremacist rhetoric and images coming from government officials: Agency-run social media accounts make appeals to the homeland, remigration, and other white nationalist dog-whistle phrases, while the president himself continues to demonize nonwhite immigrants and cities with large minority populations, and to mischaracterize the Civil Rights Movement as harmful to white people.

These actions and rhetoric are not simply poor governance; they follow a historical script that white supremacists in the United States have used for centuries to undermine progress toward equity. Each time, that script sets the stage for policy changes that lead to a massive increase in economic inequality. Here’s the pattern:

1. Establish distrust in progressive goals by raising the specter of racial minorities corrupting and taking advantage of a government that has “overstepped its authority.”
2. Severely curtail government functions by dismantling existing programs directed toward progressive policy goals (e.g., equity, poverty prevention) and allowing others to expire, halting forward progress.
3. Institute methods of targeting and controlling nonwhite populations, increasing economic insecurity, stoking fear, and lowering their political and economic power relative to white peers.

Consider what took place in the half-century following the Civil War, as the United States tried and failed to rebuild itself into a multiracial democracy for the first time:

1. Establish distrust: Disaffected ex-Confederates led campaigns of misinformation alleging that newly elected Black government officials were corrupt and undeserving, that the government itself had overreached by sending federal troops to ensure that Southern states followed the law with respect to racial inclusion, and that allowing Black men the vote presented an existential threat to white men, women, and children. In the West, white supremacists spread similar misinformation about Chinese immigrant workers.
2. Halt forward progress: Federal troops were removed from Southern states, exposing Black families to horrific acts of economic, social, and spiritual violence from white vigilantes; institutions like the Freedmen’s Bureau and Freedman’s Bank were dismantled and allowed to collapse, curtailing progress toward integrating Black families into the U.S economy with dignity.
3. Target and control nonwhite populations: White supremacists in government passed legislation limiting the economic, social, and political rights available to nonwhite Americans, most notably Jim Crow laws and the Chinese Exclusion Act. These policies led to significant economic precarity for nonwhite workers, allowing exploitative systems like sharecropping to thrive and ensuring railroad workers and miners had little recourse to protest poor working conditions.

This reassertion of white supremacy saw the government take a big step back from progressive goals and ushered in one of the most unequal and unstable ages of U.S. economic history: The Gilded Age.

For a more recent example, consider the 40-year-long backlash to racial progress made in the mid-20th century through the efforts of the Civil Rights Movement (beginning with the first Reagan administration in 1980):

1. Establish distrust: Disaffected conservatives employed an intellectual strategy (neoliberalism) designed to cast government as the source of America’s economic woes, rather than a tool that could be used to alleviate them. Neoliberalism recast the social safety net that had been designed to keep poor and working-class families, children, and the elderly out of poverty as a hammock in which lazy, undeserving Black people (especially single Black mothers) could comfortably take advantage of taxpayer dollars.
2. Halt forward progress: Citing the myth of an undeserving, perpetually dependent “underclass,” Republican and Democratic administrations alike took action. They made major cuts to programs designed to alleviate economic hardship, halting progress toward closing racial gaps in poverty because Black families are more likely to be impoverished. The federal government added strict work and income requirements to social programs like food stamps (SNAP) and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC, eventually replaced by the much less adequate TANF) that decreased their efficacy. The government stripped institutions devoted to enforcing and advancing civil rights like the EEOC and the Commission on Civil Rights of funds and reduced their scope.
3. Target and control nonwhite populations: Beginning in the 1970s the United States embarked on an unprecedented expansion of policing and the carceral state; the development of this mass incarceration led to an explosion of arrests, convictions, and crucially, imprisonment. Nonwhite men were and still are overwhelmingly the targets of this system, with Black incarceration rates six times higher than those of white people. Incarceration serves as a tool of economic stratification that renders Black and brown workers noncompetitive with white workers and severely limits the capacity of Black and brown families to accumulate wealth, alongside a host of other imposed disadvantages.

The wealthiest owners of capital used white supremacy to shape policy decisions such that they could capture a greater share of economic power and resources, influencing government to withdraw resources previously used to support and protect workers and families of all shades. This also set the stage for weakening labor standards, chipping away at workers’ rights to organize, allowing globalization to displace blue-collar workers, and influencing the Fed’s tolerance of excessive unemployment.

Further, as more of our national spending shifted toward law enforcement rather than social welfare, racial targeting increased, poverty was criminalized, and so too did a greater share of income go to the top percentile earners. Significant progress toward racial economic equity—little that there was—has all but ceased since the 1980s.

Figure A shows the raw deal that both Black and white workers have been given since the 1980s. While the workforce became around 84% more productive between 1979 and 2024, workers’ wages grew much more slowly. Typical white workers’ wages only grew 37% over the same period, while Black workers’ wages grew even more slowly at 28.5%.

Figure A

Figure B shows how racial wage inequality increased along with rising corporate power. The lighter line here represents the extent to which workers’ productivity increased faster than their pay (the ratio of net productivity—or output per hour—to total compensation per hour); in other words, the extent to which employers were able to capture a greater share of economic output than workers. As the wage gap between typical Black and white workers increased (from 16.6% in 1979 to 21.6% in 2024, a growth rate of 30%), so too did the ratio between productivity and pay (from 1.6 in 1979 to 2.27 in 2024, a growth rate of 42%). In this view, white supremacy works as a wedge by which the working class is separated, weakening worker power and allowing the productivity-pay ratio to increase.

It took the labor market shock and reset of a global pandemic, and the rapid, expansionary policy response toward it, to finally break the decades-long trend of increasing Black-white wage inequality; the resulting tight labor market saw faster wage growth between 2019–2024 for low-wage workers (who are disproportionately Black and brown) than for any period since 1979, and a drop in the Black-white wage gap from its peak in 2018 at 26.4% to 21.6% in 2024. This relatively rapid reduction in Black-white income inequality provides important context for our current wave of white supremacist backlash.

Figure B

White supremacy has always been employed in the United States as a political economic strategy for maintaining social hierarchy. That hierarchy is consistent both with the assertion of white privilege and with corporate interests. The value in maintaining white supremacy for the interests of wealthy elites is that it complicates class solidarity across racial lines, while also pre-establishing a population of workers who exist along a spectrum of exploitation.

The most exploitable of these workers (e.g. Black, brown, women, and/or poor workers) have little to no recourse for protection nor serious prospects of changing their class position without explicit outside intervention, even across generations. Workers with more proximity to power (e.g. white, male, and/or high-income workers) have access to real social and material benefits that come from their relative position, and so are incentivized to maintain the status quo. Even still, these workers face exploitation and economic precarity as the truly wealthy continue to build capital, and their share of the nation’s income and wealth continues to rise.

The Trump administration’s motivations are clear when viewed through the lens of white supremacist political economy. This framing puts Project 2025 into its proper historical context as a recycled agenda designed to reassert the social and economic privileges of white Americans relative to their Black and brown neighbors, pacifying potential white opposition toward policies that will most enrich the few at their absolute expense. If this historical script is allowed to run its course—that is, if the administration is successful at establishing distrust in the efficacy of government, halting what forward progress we’ve made toward equity and progressive goals, and targeting and controlling nonwhite populations—the final act will be another massive increase in economic inequality and instability, a period in which most American families will suffer.

There is a path forward, however. Progress toward racial equity has always threatened consolidated class power, particularly in the United States. A working-class coalition across racial lines has historically been a dangerous prospect for those invested in maintaining inequality because it creates the possibility of a serious inversion of power, a realization that solidarity could genuinely result in a more equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of production. Building a genuine multiracial democracy in which people from all groups can expect to be treated with dignity and have access to the same economic security and opportunity is a real path toward breaking down inequality run rampant.

Here’s the bottom line. When we see:

• A concerted effort to discredit and defund the important work done by Black and brown women government employees to move us toward equity (Establish distrust)
• The tearing down of historic laws and institutions devoted to providing equal access to opportunity and security to all Americans (Halt forward progress)
• The terrorizing of nonwhite workers and their families in places of work and worship alike (Target and control nonwhite populations)

We must recognize these efforts as intentional ones that lead us all—white workers and their families included—down a path to greater economic inequality, instability, and injustice.

Key takeaways

The Trump administration’s unwise policy agenda has the potential to do great damage to U.S. families—and this is true even if it does not lead to recession or spiking inflation in the near term. While this agenda has heightened the risk of recession in coming years, the greatest future damage will come from slowing growth in the economy’s supply side and raising inequality. Trump’s economic policies will cause incomes and wages for typical families to grow more slowly, and this will lead to a less affordable life for many.  

How will Trump administration policies harm income growth for typical families? 

• The Trump administration inherited a fundamentally strong economy from the Biden administration. Yet the Trump administration’s policy agenda has raised the risk of a near-term recession by slowing growth in spending by households, businesses, and governments (aggregate demand).  

• • Federal workforce cuts, deportations and a slowdown in immigration, and chaos in trade policy and the administration’s approach to the Federal Reserve have all weighed on demand growth. 

• • The deportation agenda and cutbacks to the federal workforce will deeply damage the economy’s supply side as well. Further, deficit-financed tax cuts will also put headwinds in front of growth in the economy’s supply side in coming years. These growth reductions will be small in any given year but will accumulate quickly and lead to future incomes being significantly lower than they would have been under a different policy regime.  

• Finally, the 2025 Republican-led tax cuts favor the rich, while the spending cuts included in the same Republican megabill will sharply lower incomes for the bottom half of U.S. households (ranked by income) in coming years. This combination will lead to a very large spike in inequality.  

• • The Trump administration’s assaults on typical workers’ bargaining power and leverage, and its support for corporations with significant market power, will increase pre-tax inequality.  

Policy choices that fostered excess unemployment, slow growth of the economy’s supply side, and rising inequality have all contributed to making recent decades extremely difficult for typical families. The policies of the Trump administration double down on the worst policy decisions of this period and will make typical families reliably poorer in the future, even if an outright recession or spiking inflation does not happen.  

In the first months of the second Trump administration, the question that popped up frequently about its economic policy agenda was, “Will it cause a recession?” After a year and no clear signs of a recession (at least not yet), many looking to formulate an organized critique of the Trump agenda argue that it is making affordability for American families worse.

Both the concerns of heightened recession risks and deteriorating affordability are valid. Trump policies really are making a recession more likely and even if a recession does not occur, these policies will harm typical families’ ability to afford what they need. This affordability crunch will happen for two reasons: Trump policies will hamstring the economy’s ability to supply goods and services, and these policies aim to increase inequality by transferring income from the bottom and middle toward the top. Sometimes this affordability crunch will manifest as higher prices or faster inflation, but it is more likely to appear as slower wage growth and the rollback of public supports for households. But its root is always and everywhere poor economic choices, including prioritizing the interests of the rich and corporations over the concerns of typical American families.

This report provides an explanation and overview of how Trump policies will impact overall U.S. economic performance and the living standards and economic security of typical families.

• In the short run, Trump policies raise the risk of recession.
  • The U.S. economy might avoid a recession over the next year, but the Trump agenda has made a recession far more likely than it would have been without these policy choices.
    • The short-run danger from Trump policies stems from the chaotic implementation of tariff policies, the administration’s cuts to social spending in the 2025 Republican budget megabill, their rapid and random downsizing of the federal workforce, and the chilling effects their mass deportation aspirations have on spending.
• In the long run, the Trump policy agenda will significantly reduce the U.S. economy’s ability to supply goods and services without high and rising inflation.
  • The administration’s deportation agenda is slowing the size of the future U.S. labor force and has maybe even shrunk it.
  • Trump has backed mostly deficit-financed tax cuts for the rich, which will slow the size of the future U.S. capital stock.
  • His administration is attacking key federal agencies and has shown a lack of strategy in tariff policies, which are slowing the size of the future U.S. technology stock.
• In both the short and the long run, the Trump policy agenda is guaranteed to cause greater inequality.
  • In the short run, the huge tax cuts tilted mostly toward the rich and the spending cuts falling mostly on the bottom 40% will lead to an enormous rise in inequality.
  • A possible recession will damage the labor market and likely lead to rising inequality over any subsequent recovery as unemployment remains elevated.
  • Further, the Trump administration’s attacks on the leverage and bargaining power of typical workers and the administration’s toleration of monopolization and abusive financial practices will see income in the business sector reliably funneled away from typical workers and toward the already-rich owners and managers of large companies.
  • The Trump administration has hamstrung or downsized the key functions of the federal civilian workforce that work to level playing fields between the rich and corporations on one hand and typical workers and consumers on the other.
• Finally, many of the Trump administration’s policy choices will inflict significant damage on U.S. families that is not reflected in contemporaneous measures of GDP or income. Just because this damage is not reflected in real-time GDP or income data does not mean it is unimportant or cannot be measured well.
  • For example, regulations enforced by the federal government lead to greater air and water quality, and voluminous research indicates these save lives and many Americans highly value them. If the attack on the federal workforce and the Trump administration’s generally anti-regulatory stance lead to rollbacks in air and water quality, people will suffer, even as most of this suffering is not well captured in GDP.

In what follows, we provide the economic basis for these conclusions, focusing on Trump policy effects on aggregate demand, potential output (supply), and income distribution and how these drive real-world outcomes for typical families. Families will feel the bad outcomes from all three dimensions of macroeconomic performance as a deterioration in affordability.

Three key dimensions of macroeconomic performance: Demand, supply, and distribution

A quick overview of some important macroeconomic concepts can help organize thoughts about how the Trump policy agenda will tangibly affect U.S. families. The most important tasks policymakers must get right to offer typical families’ economic security are as follows: managing aggregate demand, fostering potential output (supply) growth, and ensuring equitable distribution of income.

Managing aggregate demand just means making sure unemployment and inflation stay low most of the time and are quickly returned to low levels when shocks push them higher for some stretch of time. The key to successful aggregate demand management is ensuring that spending by households, governments, and businesses is high enough to fully employ all resources in the economy—especially labor, but not so high as to generate ongoing inflation. This means ensuring that aggregate demand matches potential output.

Fostering growth in potential output (supply) involves making sure the economy’s productive capacity grows rapidly over the long run. Key elements include fostering growth in the labor force and productivity (a measure of how much output and income is generated in an average hour of work in the economy). Growth in productivity depends on the educational attainment and quality of the labor force, the size of the capital stock that workers can use to aid production, and the state of technology in the economy.

Ensuring an equitable distribution of growth means making sure the overall income growth generated in the economy is shared at least proportionally throughout the income distribution. Even better would be growth biased more toward households in the bottom half of the income distribution. This would help reverse some of the large increases in inequality that occurred over the past few generations of economic life in the U.S. Fostering an equitable distribution of growth matters for typical families for an obvious reason: If average living standards rise rapidly, but living standards for the large majority lag far behind as households at the very top see extreme above-average gains, it is hard to declare this an economic success for broad-based economic security. Without an equitable distribution of growth, too many people would be unable to afford daily life.

Trump policies will drag on aggregate demand and raise recession risks

Recessions happen and unemployment rises when spending by households, businesses, and governments (demand) lags behind potential output (supply). Because supply tends to change slowly and predictably, it is sharp cutbacks in demand that lead to recessions and rising unemployment.[1]

When demand falls short of supply, this means that there is more capacity in the economy to produce goods and services than demand to buy them. To illustrate, let’s take the example of a restaurant. It will not hire staff to cover every table and cook meals for a full house, unless there are paying customers at each table. If demand (or the number of customers) falls, then the restaurant will cut back staff and food purchases by roughly the same amount.

Figure A shows estimates of potential output and actual gross domestic product (GDP) over time. When actual GDP falls short of potential output, it can be inferred that GDP is demand-constrained (more could be produced if economic actors simply spent more). The shortfalls of actual GDP relative to potential may look small on the graph, but they correspond to significant economic distress. The growing gap between 2007 to 2009 was associated with the unemployment rate rising from 4.4% to just under 10%—meaning that roughly 9 million people lost their jobs during this time period. Others dropped out of the labor force, and wage growth even for those workers who kept their jobs was significantly damaged as well, as their main source of leverage to gain wage increases (the threat of—or ability to—leave their current job to find a higher-paying one) lost power in a labor market with huge pools of unemployed workers. Over the 2007–2017 period, excess unemployment translated into roughly 47 million years of avoidable unemployment for U.S. workers, and this period of soft labor markets kept wage growth firmly suppressed.[2]

Figure A

Throughout 2025, many have raised concerns that Trump administration policies could lead to a recession. It should be noted how surprising this development would be, considering the context. The economy handed over by the outgoing Biden administration in January 2025 was extremely strong, and there were no obvious macroeconomic threats moving forward that would have led one to forecast a recession in the next few years.[3]

For a recession to happen in the next year or two, there would need to be some short-run shock or drag on aggregate demand that forces it below the economy’s potential output. Despite the strength of the economy the Trump administration inherited, their subsequent policy agenda since his inauguration in 2025 contains plenty of reasons to worry about such drags.

For one, the Trump administration’s assault on the federal workforce directly destroys employment and incomes. Between January and December 2025, 290,000 federal workers have lost their jobs. While this is not enough by itself to drag an otherwise healthy national economy into recession (as it constitutes less than 0.2% of total employment), it certainly puts downward pressure on aggregate demand.

On top of this, the spending cuts in the 2025 Republican budget megabill (which the White House has referred to as the OBBB) will reduce aggregate demand in coming years. [4] For example, the Republican megabill will cut SNAP and Medicaid benefits by a combined $100 billion per year on average over the next decade. Households receiving Medicaid and SNAP benefits will cut back spending sharply when these benefits are reduced. Further, the megabill rolled back a set of Biden administration policies that sharply reduced student loan payments. In coming years, households will have to pay substantially higher student loan payments to the federal government.

Finally, another fiscal change that was not an explicit part of the megabill but was notable in its absence is the expiration of enhanced subsidies to buy health insurance in the marketplace exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The rollback of these enhanced subsidies—also passed during the Biden administration—will double out-of-pocket payments for the premiums of the 20 million Americans enrolled in these exchanges, increasing costs by more than $30 billion annually in coming years.[5]

The tax cuts in the Republican megabill are unlikely to do much to spur demand for two reasons. First, they are tilted toward high-income households whose spending is not constrained by their current incomes. Second, the tax cuts are small relative to a “current policy” baseline, meaning that they leave tax burdens unchanged, not appreciably lower, relative to 2025.[6]

The mass deportation agenda of the Trump administration will have its most predictably negative effects on the economy’s supply side, as millions of immigrant workers are forced out of the country.[7] But immigrants are not just workers; they are consumers as well. Further, immigrant workers are key complements to U.S.-born workers in many industries. Deporting these consumers and complementary workers and making it harder and more dangerous for those who remain to conduct the normal business of their lives will clearly have depressing effects on aggregate demand as well.

Most importantly, the radical uncertainty and chaotic implementation of Trump policies—particularly the trade policies—seem almost designed to freeze new business investment. Who would set up a new manufacturing facility if they had no idea what the competitive landscape of the sector was going to look like in coming years? Will tariffs protect domestic production? Will tariffs make imported inputs into the factory more expensive? Will protective tariffs vanish overnight when a foreign government meets the president’s demands of the day? Will future profits be reduced because the Trump administration arbitrarily demands ownership stakes in companies? Business investment is by far the most volatile component of aggregate demand, and it is the one that generally leads to recessions. It seems highly plausible that the Trump administration’s policies could cause business investment to seize up and slow growth.

Early in Trump’s second term, the administration’s “Liberation Day” tariffs led to most forecasters sharply raising the risk of a recession happening over the next year.[8] The sharp reversal of these historically high and broad tariffs to levels “only” half as high on average led to this risk receding a bit, yet still remaining sharply higher than it was in January 2025. So far, most of the “hard” economic data (that measure actual economic transactions like wages, employment, incomes, or gross domestic product) have yet to signal that a recession is coming.

Part of the relative robustness of macroeconomic measures likely owes to the fortuitous timing of a boom in AI-related spending, which largely began in mid-2023.[9] The valuation of stock markets has reached the second-highest levels in history—trailing only the stock market bubble of 2000–2001 (also driven by a boom in tech stocks). Much of these stock market gains have been driven by AI-related firms. A significant amount of consumption spending out of these wealth gains has likely contributed nontrivially to growth over the past year.

Further, capital expenditures related to the AI-boom have also been contributing to growth. Starting in 2023, year-over-year real growth (adjusted for inflation) in data centers, for example, has consistently exceeded 35%, peaking at just under 77% in late 2024 and remaining above 30% throughout most of 2025. While this AI-related spending has helped keep the U.S. economy well clear from recession through the third quarter of 2025, it is the kind of spending that would likely evaporate relatively quickly if business sentiment about the future use and profitability of AI investments dims.

If this happened, the depressing effect on wider business investment stemming from the uncertainty mentioned above might well dominate and lead to quick decelerations in growth. Evidence of this depressing effect seems already clear, as investment in components not related to the AI boom looks notably weak over the past year.

Figure B

The danger of a slowdown in aggregate demand highlights how much discussions about affordability need to go beyond prices.[10] Much of the discourse about affordability recently was driven by the outbreak of very high inflation in the early 2020s, following the COVID-19 pandemic. But absent very rare and sharp increases in inflation like that (and which tend to be driven by external events like pandemics and wars, not policy missteps), the main damage to affordability over time does not stem from fast inflation, but from slow growth in wages and incomes. A recession would return inflation in the U.S. to very low levels. The recession of 2008–2009, for example, led to inflation averaging below 2% for the following decade. And yet this low inflation provided next to no relief for affordability because the high unemployment of that period—which was the source of disinflation—sapped workers’ leverage and bargaining power in labor markets and led to slow wage growth.[11]

A recession in the next year would solve the price side of affordability in that it would lead to a sharp slowdown in inflation, but it would force wage growth down even faster, and hence, would exacerbate, not help, the ongoing problem of affordability properly defined.

All in all, it seems safe to say that the Trump administration’s policies have significantly elevated the risk of a recession over the next year. Their trade policy retreat has been sharp enough that a recession might well be avoided. But this hinges largely on the administration’s being able to resist whipsawing trade policy chaotically again—and this seems far from certain. But we may well navigate the next year without a recession—largely stemming from the momentum of the strong economy the current administration inherited and the lucky timing of much AI-related spending remaining strong through 2025.

Trump polices will quickly erode the economy’s ability to supply goods and services without inflation—this damages affordability for typical families

However, the avoidance of a recession would not mean the economic policy decisions of this administration were wise. If the only question on the table regarding the impact of Trump policies was “Will there be a recession?” the future of the U.S. economy would be much less bleak. Instead, the more predictable and larger amount of damage that the Trump administration’s policies will inflict will not come through downward pressure on aggregate demand but through the rapid erosion of the economy’s potential output and the upward redistribution of income instead. These influences will be experienced by typical families as wages, incomes, and public supports failing to outpace prices by sufficient margins over time, thereby damaging affordability.

In the previous section, we noted the sharp economic damage done by the aggregate demand shortfall of the early 2010s. The most obvious and acute damage stemming from this shortfall was the elevated unemployment rate of that time, along with the attendant damage to wage growth.

However, the worst lingering damage from that long period of deficient aggregate demand likely came from its spillover effect in destroying potential output. When employers see that customers are scarce and workers are cheap and plentiful, their imperative to invest in worker training or newer capital or innovative technological processes to economize on labor costs and boost productivity is blunted. And when jobless workers see elevated unemployment rates and the low probability of being hired, job seekers can get discouraged, and labor force participation can falter.[12]

Over time these dynamics lead to a lower-quality workforce and smaller capital stock, which reduce productivity growth and potential output. Figure A showed actual GDP and successive estimates of potential output over time. Between 2007 and 2019, these potential output estimates continually fall as the demand shortfall bends down potential output, as productive investment is blunted. By 2019, potential output was $2.2 trillion below where its 2007 trend would have left it in that year. This translates into $6,500 less income for every adult and child in the United States in 2019 (or $26,000 less income for a family of four). In short, over a 5–10-year period, even small bends in the growth of potential output have huge real-world consequences.

Supply destruction leads directly to unaffordability

This discussion of potential output growth likely sounds abstract to noneconomists. But it has profound effects on typical families’ economic security, and the way this slowing down of potential output translates into observable real-world effects is by making affordability worse for these families. For example, in the paragraph above, we said that the slowdown of potential output growth after 2007 translated by 2019 to $6,500 less in inflation-adjusted income for every person in the United States (or $26,000 less income for a family of four). The way this happens is by wages and incomes failing to outpace growth prices by satisfactory amounts—even during times (like the 2010s) when inflation was extremely low.

And, of course, the gap in the race between wages and prices differs depending on the specific goods and services examined. In the 2010s, the output that was produced less and less, relative to historic norms, was housing.[13] This reduced output of housing translated directly into higher relative prices for rents.

While there is a lot about this collapse in housing production and rise in rental prices that is housing-specific, the root of all of this pressure on affordability stems from macroeconomic choices. If potential output growth slows for the overall economy, then the production of something will lag, and its price is likely to rise. If we had somehow kept housing construction constant in the face of a fall in overall potential output, the biggest affordability problem would have shown up someplace else, but one surely would have emerged.

How Trump policies will slow potential output and exacerbate affordability concerns

In the current moment with unemployment that is still relatively low by historical standards and so-far adequate aggregate demand, the imminent threat to the economy’s supply side today is not an extended recession, but simply the direct effect of many Trump policies. When (not if, but when) potential output growth falters in coming years, it will again represent a sharp break from the economy the Trump administration inherited, an economy that saw rapid productivity growth in the years following the pandemic.

Figure C

The potential supply destruction stemming from Trump administration policies comes along many margins.

Loosening immigration restrictions and unleashing mass deportations

The most obvious blow to the economy’s potential output would be Trump’s mass deportation policy. If the U.S. relied solely on growth in U.S.-born workers, labor force growth would shrink rapidly over the next decade (see Bivens 2025c). Successful mass deportations—besides causing great and unnecessary human misery—would actually push labor force growth in the U.S. economy into negative territory in coming years.

Further, immigrant and U.S.-born labor supply are often complementary (Zipperer 2025). One obvious example is that child care centers are disproportionately staffed with foreign-born workers. If mass deportations cause significant closures of these centers, U.S.-born parents will often be forced into stopping work in order to care for children.

Cutting back federal spending and the workforce

We noted the cutbacks to federal workforce and spending previously as short-run threats to aggregate demand. But the federal government is not just a source of short-run demand; it also provides absolutely crucial inputs needed for robust private-sector growth.[14] Recent decades have seen sharp cuts in the size of the federal workforce and the investments in the functions it provides. By January 2025, the size of the federal workforce and the spending to support it were at historically low levels relative to the broader economy. In short, it seems clear that this workforce and the state capacity of the federal government were already significantly degraded even before the Trump administration took power. Since then, the administration has unleashed an unrelenting attack on this state capacity.

Perhaps the clearest way reduced federal spending will translate into slower potential output growth in coming years comes from cutbacks to science and research. Fieldhouse and Mertens (2025), for example, have estimated that nearly a third of total factor productivity (TFP) growth stems from federally financed research and development spending.

Further, the Trump administration has significantly cut back federal spending on universities. A key driver of productivity growth over time is a more educated and skilled workforce. Today’s higher education cuts are guaranteed to slow the growth of labor quality in the U.S. workforce in coming decades.

Other federal agencies collect, analyze, clean, and provide access to free, publicly available, high-quality data on the nation’s economy and demographics. These services provide enormous monetary value to private-sector actors (see Hughes-Cromwick and Coronado 2019).

Other agencies provide crucial monitoring services that help the nation avoid financial, epidemiological, or weather disasters. These investments provide a huge rate of return relative to the (likely too small) federal spending done on them. Even monitoring and surveillance that directly aim to constrain and manage private-sector decision-making can often actually lead to better private-sector outcomes. Hirtle, Kovner, and Plosser (2019), for example, examine the outcome of banks when they receive more or less regulatory scrutiny from federal banking supervisors. The authors find that “…banks that receive more supervisory attention hold less risky loan portfolios, are less volatile, and are less sensitive to industry downturns, but do not have slower growth or profitability.”

By far the biggest long-run threat to the U.S. and global economies’ ability to produce goods and services without inflation is the effect of climate change. Climate change can be thought of as an ongoing erosion of the economy’s productive capacity. For example, key swathes of land will become less valuable as flooding and disaster exposure rise, buildings and factories will be threatened by extreme weather, and the productivity of work that must be performed outside will suffer due to either extreme weather or needed spending to mitigate the effects of it on workers. Investments that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and reduce the effects of climate change are incredibly valuable in the long run for maintaining the economy’s supply side. By far the biggest and most effective investments in this type of mitigation ever made by the United States were the subsidies for clean energy and its adoption in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022. The Republican budget megabill, however, rolled back the majority of these IRA subsidies and will hence lead to far fewer reductions in GHG emissions in coming years. Essentially these rollbacks will accelerate the destruction to the economy’s supply side that is ongoing due to climate change.

Many federal agencies are responsible for providing and enforcing transparent rules for markets that channel economic competition into productivity improvements, instead of zero-sum opportunism. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau provide protection to investors by enforcing rules against fraud or misappropriation of their funds from companies they invest in. This promotes trust and allows more liquid capital markets that are able to provide finance for more prospective and ongoing businesses. The Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice aim to keep firms’ monopoly power from distorting markets. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the Wage and Hour Division at the Department of Labor protect employees from abusive workplaces, allowing them to choose among prospective employers without having to factor in whether there will be unsafe or exploitative working conditions with these employers.

Another key federal agency priority that has had profoundly beneficial effects on the U.S. economy’s supply side in recent decades is enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for example, was established in 1965. Hsieh et al. (2019) have noted that since then, there has been an enormous increase in the share of high-wage, high-skill occupational employment that is accounted for by women and Black men. In turn, the authors estimate that this more efficient allocation of workers to occupations based on talent and merit accounted for up to 40% of all growth in the U.S. economy since 1960. Much of this better allocation of talent has stemmed directly from enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. Going forward from today, there is ample scope for ongoing and/or improved enforcement of anti-discrimination laws to support future growth. If instead, the enforcement of these laws withers, and there is a reduction in the efficient allocation of talent to occupation, this could be an outright headwind to growth going forward.

Haphazardly implementing poorly designed and chaotic tariff policy

The chaotic implementation of the administration’s tariff policy is surely a short-run drag on aggregate demand. But, if the end result of the policy is to leave the United States with historically high and broad tariff rates (which is where the tariff policy has landed as of December 2025, even with the sharp reversal of many of the highest tariffs), without any obvious corresponding benefit from well-designed industrial policy considerations, then this will also slow potential output growth.[15]

Tariffs are essentially a way to block the lowest-cost method of delivering goods to U.S. households and businesses, if this lowest-cost method involves imports. Sometimes this kind of blockage is fully justified by other policy concerns besides what is the cheapest production at the moment. For example, if foreign governments subsidize their producers in a specific sector, and if the U.S. deems it imperative to have productive capacity in that sector, then tariffs can help keep domestic producers from being forced out of business by the decisions of foreign governments.

Further, if the sectors that domestic producers are being forced out of looked poised to drive productivity gains in coming decades, there might be a strategic benefit to using tariffs to protect domestic production. The case of electric vehicles (EVs) is one potential example. There is clearly going to be a large global shift toward EVs in the coming decades. EV manufacturing will scale rapidly, and often this kind of scale produces huge leaps in productivity. If today’s constellation of EV production facilities and foreign countries’ subsidies of their own EV makers threaten to shove U.S. producers entirely out of the race for EV market share, it seems like industrial policy efforts to support domestic production of EVs would make a lot of sense—and this was indeed a priority of the Biden administration.

Similarly, if some or all of the cost advantage of imports in a sector stems from objectionable practices of producers in other countries—say, blatant disregard of fundamental labor rights—tariffs can protect U.S. producers from being forced out of business by these objectionable practices.

But the historically broad and high tariffs of the Trump administration are not being calibrated in any kind of strategic or careful way. Instead, they are blocking the lowest-cost means of delivering goods to U.S. households and businesses randomly. This essentially is the equivalent of a negative technology shock. Businesses (both foreign and domestic in the U.S.) that supply goods have been forced out of the most efficient way to produce goods, and without any countervailing benefit from smartly designed industrial policy considerations.

Finally, the chaotic implementation does not only affect aggregate demand. If ever-shifting tariff levels change the patterns of production that lead to the lowest-cost ways of producing goods in random ways, this makes it impossible to set up efficient supply chains, hence stunting potential output growth.

Financing tax cuts for the rich and corporations with higher debt

In 2000, the ratio of U.S. public debt to gross domestic product (GDP) stood at less than 35%. In 2024, the debt ratio nearly tripled, rising to almost 96%.[16] A large part of this increase was due to the two historically large economic crises experienced in those years: the financial crisis and Great Recession of 2008–2009, and the COVID-19 recession.

More worryingly, even in 2024—a year in which the unemployment rate averaged 4%, the Fed’s short-term interest rates stood at over 5%, and inflation was above the Federal Reserve’s target—the federal budget deficit was 6.2% of GDP. This is too large a deficit for an economy that is at roughly full employment and not in need of fiscal support.[17]

The 2024 deficit can essentially be entirely explained by the successive rounds of tax cuts engineered by Republican administrations since 2000. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected what federal revenue as a share of GDP would be if the tax cuts signed into law by George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003 were allowed to lapse (see CBO 2009). They projected that revenue would be 20.2% of GDP by 2019. However, in 2019—after the vast majority of the Bush-era tax cuts were maintained and President Trump signed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)—federal revenue came in at just 16.1% of GDP.  If revenue had remained at 2000 levels going forward, even with the extra debt incurred by economic crises, budget deficits by 2024 would’ve been effectively zero.

In the decade after the onset of the Great Recession in 2008 and during the early stages of the 2020–2021 pandemic, large deficits were not harming the economy. In fact, they were usefully propping up aggregate demand even as private sources of demand were plummeting. This chronic shortfall of aggregate demand (sometimes labelled “secular stagnation”) kept spending weak and interest rates and inflation historically low (short-term interest rates stood at essentially zero in all these years).[18] And so long as interest rates were low, no damage was being done by higher deficits.

But in the post-pandemic recovery, aggregate demand (aided by a robust fiscal response to the crisis) has been stronger, and interest rates and inflation have moved decisively off their historic lows. In this environment—when the economy is no longer demand-constrained—further increases in federal debt now compete with private-sector borrowers to find available savings. This, in turn, pushes up interest rates and threatens to crowd out private sector investments in new factories, plants, and equipment. This slowdown in the growth of the nation’s capital stock, in turn, leaves U.S. workers with less capital to aid them in doing their jobs and hence slows the pace of productivity growth.

This potted history of fiscal policy debates in recent decades tells us that after a decade and a half of warnings about the crowding-out effect of higher deficits on investment not ever coming to pass, there is now strong evidence to suggest this might be an important influence on growth going forward. Figure D shows the “real debt service ratio,” a measure of how sharply the government’s borrowing costs are rising. After a long stretch of being under 1%, this measure has recently surpassed its historic high.

Figure D

This historic high was surpassed even before the passage of the 2025 Republican budget megabill—a bill that will add nearly $4 trillion to the federal debt over the next 10 years. Borrowing costs are guaranteed to spike further going forward from now in any time period when the economy sits near full employment.

If the worried-about recession comes to pass in the next year or so, the collapse in private spending will reduce competition for available savings and interest rates will fall and the supply destruction effect of higher interest rates will be muted. But so long as the underlying fiscal structure of the U.S. sees large budget deficits even when the economy is at full employment, this means that interest rates will be high during these full employment periods and investment will be suppressed, leading to slower future productivity growth.

A key aggravating factor of the supply-destroying effects of higher deficits in coming years is what they were used for: simply to give much higher disposable incomes to rich households in the United States.          

One could imagine a counterfactual in which instead of using debt to finance higher disposable incomes for the rich, the federal government used this debt to make significant investments to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases. This would leave the country with a higher stock of “green” capital (capital used to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions) and a smaller stock of conventional capital. This would be an affirmatively good thing. It would effectively be leaving future generations with slightly lower productivity in producing conventional goods and services, but a more livable and viable climate. Consistent economic growth essentially guarantees that future generations will be significantly richer than the current one in their ability to buy conventional goods and services. Trading off a bit of this advantage for a livable planet would be welcomed by this future generation—and it’s a trade-off they won’t be able to make. Only their ancestors can make it for them.

Alternatively, one could imagine a world in which the federal government took on additional deficits of the size generated by the 2025 Republican megabill to radically increase investments in children: providing federal financing of universal, high-quality pre-kindergarten; boosting aid to K–12 public school systems; and providing a universal Child Allowance to end child poverty. This would not only raise human welfare much more than tax cuts to rich people would; it would also see some of the deficit costs defrayed in coming decades as today’s children grew up healthier and better educated and worked more and earned higher wages in the decades to come. Some of these offsets could be considerable.[19]

There are no such happy offsets that stem from running larger deficits simply to give tax cuts that are radically tilted toward households that don’t need them—the ones at the very top of the income distribution. These deficits are supply destruction for the sake of intentionally increasing inequality.

Threatening a political takeover of Federal Reserve policy decisions

The Trump administration has been far more forceful than previous ones in pressuring the Federal Reserve to fall in line with the administration’s economic goals. They have demanded that the Federal Reserve set interest rate policy to meet the administration’s short-term economic goals and have constantly demanded lower interest rates, even as conditions do not warrant cuts in interest rates (inflation remains above the Fed’s long-run target, and unemployment remains generally low).

If decision-makers throughout the economy—households, businesses, and state and local governments—begin to think that the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decisions will be managed entirely by the executive branch, they might well raise their expectations of inflation in the future. This, in turn, would likely require any future Federal Reserve that committed to reducing inflation (and inflation expectations) to raise interest rates higher than they would otherwise have to be. These higher long-run interest rates would, in turn, reduce investment and slow productivity growth (much like too-large deficits run during times of full employment).

How much will supply destruction slow growth in coming years?

It is very hard to provide any convincingly precise estimates as to how much supply destruction will result from this portfolio of Trump administration policies. What determines the ebb and flow of productivity growth in advanced economies is one of the most debated topics in economics, and one in which no consensus exists. Yet we can give some very rough bounds for how important each element of this potential supply destruction might be over the next decade. The sum of these negative effects would be highly significant for future living standards growth—or affordability.

We start with the Congressional Budget Office’s (2025b) forecasts of potential output growth for the next decade. Currently they forecast that annual growth will average 2.0% between 2025 and 2034.

About 30% of the 2.0% that CBO forecasts (or 0.6% of this growth) stems from their estimate of how much the labor force will grow in those years. However, if one accounts for the Trump administration’s meeting their mass deportation goal of removing 1 million immigrants each year from the United States, this would imply that the labor force will barely grow at all in those years, translating into a 0.4% slowdown of growth in potential output.[20]

More than half of the projected growth in potential output comes from CBO’s forecast of growth in total factor productivity—a measure of how much extra output can be obtained holding inputs constant. TFP growth is often interpreted as a measure of pure technological advance—using new processes and production techniques to get more output out of a given stock of inputs. However, as we noted before, Fieldhouse and Mertens (2025) have estimated that fully one-third of TFP growth in recent decades can be accounted for by direct federal spending on research and development. The Fieldhouse and Mertens (2025) results would imply that a 20% cut in federal research and development spending would reduce projected productivity growth in the U.S. over the next decade by 0.2% annually.[21] This, in turn, would reduce potential output enough by roughly $2,500 for every adult and child in the United States by 2035.[22]

Importantly, their estimates do not include the effect of federal support for institutions of higher education, and this support has been large and critical for these centers of scientific research—likely as important as the direct federal research and development spending. This could easily double the effects from direct federal research and development spending, especially if one accounts for the long-run loss in the labor supply of trained scientists and researchers capable of undertaking research and development that will occur as higher education funding erodes.

CBO (2025b) has estimated that the 2025 Republican megabill will add roughly 7.1 percentage points to the ratio of public debt to GDP by 2034. Using earlier estimates from CBO (2025e) to translate the effect of a higher debt ratio on economic growth, this level of debt increase (assuming no recession intervenes) would slow growth by 0.1%–0.2% by 2034 through its effect on interest rates and investment. Given that Figure D previously showed that higher interest rates really have emerged in recent years, this effect seems possible.[23]

Estimates of the growth effects of the Trump administration’s trade policy are more uncertain. The Yale Budget Lab indicates a long-run effect on the level of GDP of 0.4%. However, it is hard not to make a comparison between the strategy-free actions of the Trump administration and a similar lack of planning that went into the United Kingdom’s exit from the European free trade area (Brexit). Estimates of the effect of Brexit are substantially larger than 0.4%—on the order of 2%–3% of GDP over 10 years (Bloom et al. 2025). If we think that Brexit is a suitable potential model for the fallout from the Trump trade policy—similarly chaotic and unplanned—this would imply a reduction in productivity growth of around 0.25% over the next year.

The long-run growth effect of eroding the federal government’s state capacity through budget cuts and downsizing is harder to estimate. One suggestive paper on this is Klein Martins (2025), who looks at episodes of sharp permanent spending cutbacks in advanced countries over the past 30 years. He estimates highly persistent negative effects on GDP growth of these cutbacks, over timespans well longer (15 years) than could be explained simply by the effect of these spending reductions adding to demand shortfalls. Klein Martins finds that each 1% of GDP in public spending reductions leads to GDP that is 2% smaller 15 years later. Say that half of these effects were driven by the erosion to state capacity stemming from these cuts. The cuts to the federal workforce in 2025 will result in a reduction of federal government spending of roughly 0.1% of U.S. GDP, which would imply (using half of Klein Martins’ estimates) a reduction in GDP of about 0.1%.

Tedeschi (2024) estimates how much higher interest rates driven by political events (like the capture of Fed policymaking by the executive branch) could reduce growth in coming years.[24] He finds that if the political events just moved the “country risk premium” of the United States to look more like the United Kingdom, this could reduce growth by 0.1% annually. If instead, this country risk premium deteriorated enough to look more like other rich, stable economies like Spain, the damage could be closer to 0.3% annually.

Adding up supply destruction from Trump policies

The Trump deportation goals could reduce labor supply growth by 0.4% over the next decade. The cuts to direct public research and development spending and this spending supported by institutions of higher education could each slow productivity growth by 0.2% over this period. Financing the Trump administration’s tax cuts for the rich with debt could reduce capital investment and hence productivity by 0.2%. If Brexit is the best model for the administration’s strategy-free trade policy, this could also reduce productivity growth by 0.2%. If the Trump-led attacks on the Fed led to steep concerns in international financial markets that raise the U.S. country risk premium and other interest rates significantly, this could slow growth by up to 0.3% in coming years. The administration’s attacks on the state capacity of the federal government could reduce growth by 0.1%. Their capture of Federal Reserve policy—leading to rising interest rates—could slow growth by between 0.1%–-0.3%. Adding these up, this means growth could slow by just under 2% on average over the next decade, with productivity growth slowing by well over 1%.

Somewhat ironically, the optimistic projections of how much advances in AI could boost U.S. productivity growth over the next decade tend to cluster around 1% annually.[25] The damage being done by the Trump administration to the economy’s supply side over the next decade is hence potentially as large as the most optimistic projections for how much a new burst of technology could boost it. If this came to pass, it would constitute just the latest episode of poor policy decisions squandering the potential benefits of economic growth and technological advance. The typical U.S. household today is not poorer in absolute terms compared with decades ago. But they are shockingly poorer relative to the potential growth they could have enjoyed with smarter policy that prioritized their economic security over showering the rich with even more perks.

Trump policies will raise inequality—the worst blow to families’ affordability

As we noted before, affordability is determined simply by the race between families’ economic resources (wages, incomes, and publicly provided subsidies and benefits) and prices. When affordability is strained, it is overwhelmingly because something—a recession or slowing of potential output growth, for example—has dragged on growth in families’ economic resources. Moreover, even when the aggregate economy seems strong—free of recession or inflation and with adequate growth in potential output—affordability for the vast majority of families can be squeezed if growth in these families’ resources lags far behind average growth. This mismatch between growth in typical families’ resources and average growth is driven by strongly above-average growth at the top of the income scale—the precise problem that has afflicted the U.S. economy in recent decades and the true root of nearly all U.S. families’ concerns about affordability.

Figure E

The Trump policy agenda will push income away from low- and moderate-income families and toward the top along many different margins. Even if (as expected) inflation rates return to normal during the second Trump term, this will be unlikely to boost the inflation-adjusted resources available to most families because the policies of the administration will actively claw resources—or the market power to claim these resources—away from typical families.

In the short run, the Trump budget megabill will cause an enormous jump in inequality

The signature legislative achievement of the second Trump administration is the 2025 Republican megabill, a budget reconciliation package that continues the individual provisions (and some business provisions) of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The megabill also enacts steep cuts to health care and nutrition programs (Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, abbreviated as SNAP). On top of this, the megabill also failed to either roll back or otherwise modify the corporate income tax cuts of the 2017 TCJA, but also fails to extend the supplements to subsidies for purchasing health insurance in the marketplace exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act that were passed as part of the Biden-era American Rescue Plan.

To give a sense of scale of the bill’s impact, we compare the one-year change that will result directly from the 2025 megabill policy with the entire upward redistribution of income that happened between 1979–2019, a period widely recognized as one during which U.S. inequality exploded. The share of total income claimed by the top 10% of households over that period rose by roughly 10 percentage points over a period of 40 years (or about 0.25 percentage points per year). But the Republican megabill alone will in one year raise the share of income claimed by these top 10% of households by 1 full percentage point. The 40 years between 1979 and 2019 saw the top 10% gain an average of 0.25 percentage points in the share of income they claim. This means the Republican megabill will see the rate of inequality growth quadruple in its first year, and it will essentially accomplish 10% of the entire post-1979 rise in inequality in a single year.

In the longer run, Trump policies empower the rich and disempower everybody else

Besides these large fiscal changes, other policy priorities of the second Trump administration include stripping workers of the effective right to organize unions and bargain collectively, deregulating some of the most abusive parts of the financial sector, and shrinking the federal workforce. All of these will lead to rising inequality.[26]

Trump policies continue the conservative assault on labor and workers’ rights

The Trump administration has continued to move forward with parts of its first-term priorities like the assault on labor and the bargaining power of typical workers. Two obvious high-profile indications of this were the stripping of collective bargaining rights of more than a million federal workers (including terminating the collective bargaining agreement of the Transportation Security Administration and firing National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member Gwynne Wilcox for “unduly disfavoring the interests of employers.” Further, the Trump administration nominated a partner at the very law firm that is currently challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB to be the NLRB’s general counsel. [27]

The assaults on labor and the bargaining leverage of typical workers continue a long-term conservative effort that has been highly successful in suppressing wage growth for low- and middle-wage workers and which has been a primary contributor to the long-run rise of inequality in the U.S. economy. [28]

Normalizing the most abusive parts of the financial system

The rise of the financial sector’s power has played a large role in the upward redistribution of income in the U.S. economy in recent decades. Finance is possibly the economic sector that has most benefitted from the federal government’s intentional industrial policy support. Between deposit insurance, the day-to-day liquidity provisions of the Federal Reserve (like the discount window that provides overnight reserves at the Fed), and the regular occurrences of extraordinary support provided in financial crises, the financial sector is obviously far larger in capitalist economies than it would be without this public support.

Significant public support of the financial sector is warranted—finance provides needed services to the rest of the economy, and without public backing, market failures would prevent these necessary services from being continually available. But this public support also justifies a robust regulatory and supervisory framework surrounding the financial sector.

The history of finance in the United States is one of accepting public support (especially during bad times for finance) while constantly trying to escape regulation and supervision that constrain profits during good times. The period from the late 1970s to 2007 saw regulation and supervision atrophy. This resulted in exploding profits and incomes in the financial sector with very little obvious benefit to the rest of the economy and the spectacular crash of 2008 that demanded even more public support for the sector. In short, the industrial policy support that the financial sector has received is a case study for how complementary policies (regulation and supervision in this case) are needed to ensure public support for a specific sector is not siphoned off into the incomes of economic players with substantial market power.[29]

In the financial regulation space, the Trump administration has continued conservative efforts to keep public supports for finance strong while expanding the scope of what the sector can do to seek profits.[30] The administration has directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to shrink its scope and cede regulatory oversight to state agencies and has supported congressional efforts to slash funding for the bureau. The administration has also stopped U.S. movements toward harmonizing regulations with the Basel III recommendations—essentially meaning that large banks are no longer required to hold as large a set of capital buffers to protect against financial market stress. These capital buffers are there to prevent the public sector from having to bail out large parts of the financial sector during these periods.

The administration has also endeavored to bring cryptocurrency into the realm of traditional financial institutions, but under a loose regulatory regime. This approach would essentially allow some parts of the crypto ecosystem to put the public sector on the hook for bailouts needed due to instability in the sector, but would also allow many of the worst abuses of the crypto ecosystem—its use in illegal transactions and its speculative excesses—to continue unregulated. The approach to crypto represents the worst of all possible worlds. It gives the public sector heavier responsibilities to ensure that crypto crashes are managed but robs them of the tools needed to supervise the sector.

Attacks on the federal workforce

Between January and December 2025, federal payroll employment fell by roughly 290,000 due to the cuts started by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. We noted previously that these cuts would sharply hurt growth in potential output in coming years. They will also lead to a less equal economy.[31]

Besides providing key inputs to public-sector production that markets generally fail to provide, the activities of federal workers often involve providing a countervailing force against unchecked corporate power. The Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice ensure that markets remain competitive and block firms from exercising monopoly power. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services must set reimbursement rates for the health care delivered by private-sector providers but paid for by the federal government. Private-sector health providers have seen a wave of consolidation in recent years and often can exercise pricing power against patients and other payers—the price-setting decisions of the federal government are a key bulwark against this pricing power. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Food and Drug Administration have workplace inspectors to ensure that firms do not try to maximize profits by underinvesting in basic protections for worker or consumer safety.

Further, in a country where the federal tax system remains at least moderately progressive (with richer households facing higher tax rates than low- and moderate-income households), effective administration of the nation’s tax laws is equality enhancing. The vast majority of unpaid taxes are owed by the very rich. As such, attacks on the capacity of the Internal Revenue Service to administer this tax law are intentionally designed to lighten the tax burden of the privileged without passing new legislation.

Measures of GDP and income understate harms of Trump policies

Most of the discussion above concerns economic forces that affect measured GDP and incomes. But the economic security and happiness of U.S. families cannot be captured entirely based on these measures. For example, many Americans report feeling overworked and wish they had more leisure time. Increases in leisure time do not show up as greater GDP or incomes, yet clearly are valuable to families.

A number of policy choices made by the Trump administration will have profoundly damaging effects on families’ welfare that are not captured by GDP or data on incomes. For example, much of the damage done by climate change will not be well captured in these statistics. At the starkest level, climate change is forecast to lead to worse health outcomes and more premature deaths. The famous Stern review of climate change (2021) noted that accounting for these non-GDP influences likely at least doubles the true economic cost of climate change.

Similarly, the cutbacks to health insurance coverage signed into law by the Trump administration will cause poorer health and excess deaths in the coming decade if they stand. These deaths will not directly affect GDP, but obviously they need to be accounted for when assessing the impact of these policy changes.

Some of the outcomes of public policy raise GDP but actually reduce welfare. As climate change makes people spend more money on air conditioning, for example, this shows up as an increase in GDP yet makes peoples’ lives worse. Similarly, an increase in health spending driven by maladies related to climate change will raise GDP yet reduce welfare.

Further, some government spending provides outputs that GDP does not measure well at all. The value of less air and water pollution, for example, is immense but not captured in contemporaneous GDP. Much of its value will implicitly show up in future GDP numbers, as less pollution will lead to a healthier and more productive workforce in the future, but in real time, the benefits are not precisely measured. A similar finding concerns investments in children generally. Some of the benefits might occur in the moment (say, child care subsidies that allow parents to work more and earn higher incomes), but most accrue over time as children grow up healthier and become more productive and higher-earning adults.

Just because the benefits of much public spending do not mechanically show up in contemporaneous GDP measures do not mean they cannot be measured. When they are measured, there is ample evidence that families value this spending and the output it produces immensely. Often the estimated value of such spending is on the order of $1.50 for each $1.00 spent, with most of the benefit coming from welfare gains not captured in GDP. Welfare gains this large from public spending are strong suggestive evidence that public spending is already extremely under-provided, and further cuts will make it far worse.

Conclusion

It is essentially a guarantee that the policy path charted by the second Trump administration will leave the U.S. economy poorer and less equal. But much of this damage will be subtle and hard to see in month-to-month or even year-to-year changes in economic statistics. The Trump administration’s inability to implement a policy agenda without rank chaos might lead to a short-run recession that will temporarily expose much of the damage being done. But even if the recession does not come and even when it passes, there will be a steady hollowing out of the U.S. economy’s simple ability to produce the goods and services families need, and the inadequate growth that does get generated will flow disproportionately to the richest households.

In short, the macroeconomic consequences of the second Trump administration are profound. They will leave the vast majority of American families poorer over the next decade, and if Trump’s successors continue in this vein, they will leave the current generation’s children far poorer.

Notes

[1] The obvious historical counterexample to the rule that supply tends to grow slowly and predictably occurred during and immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic and Russian invasion of Ukraine, when these shocks broke global supply chains and led to sharp supply disruptions that restored themselves only with lots of volatility. This was, however, an unprecedented behavior of supply in advanced economies over the past century and is highly unlikely to repeat in the future.

[2] For this calculation, assume a counterfactual in which the unemployment rate stood at 4.0% over the 2007–2017 period and multiply by the size of the labor force in each year. Then, subtract this level of unemployment from the actual rate and sum over the years. For evidence of the damage this excess unemployment did to wage growth, particularly for lower-wage workers, see Gould et al. 2025.

[3] For details on the strength of the economy the Trump administration inherited, see Bivens 2025a.

[4] Numbers in this paragraph about cuts in the 2025 Republican budget megabill are taken from CBO 2025b, c.

[5] See Lo et al. 2025.

[6] This current policy baseline is a wrong and dishonest one to use when grading a law’s fiscal impact in coming years, but it’s the right one to use when figuring out whether growth will accelerate or decelerate in coming years due to policy changes.

[7] See Zipperer 2025 for estimates of the employment impact of the Trump administration’s mass deportation goals.

[8] For a wide range of views on the “Liberation Day” tariffs, resulting pullback and recession risks, see Nathan, Grimberg, and Rhodes 2025.

[9] Numbers in this paragraph can largely be found in Bivens (forthcoming).

[10] See Shierholz 2025 for this broader argument.

[11] Stark evidence that it is the race between wages and prices (and not just prices) that determines affordability can be found in Gould et al. 2025. They show that inflation-adjusted wage growth for low- and middle-wage workers was extremely strong from 2019 to 2024 but was actually negative over the five years following the previous business peak (from 2007 to 2012), even as this 2007–2012 period saw much lower rates of inflation. The strength of the labor market dwarfed changes in inflation in these periods, for good and bad.

[12] See Bivens 2017 for evidence that healthy labor markets support faster productivity growth.

[13] For example, according to the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) Table 1.1.10, between 1979 and 2007 residential investment was about 4.7% of overall GDP, whereas between 2007 and 2019 it was just 3.3%.

[14] See Bivens 2025b for an overview of the short- and long-run effects of steep cutbacks in the federal workforce.

[15] See the Yale Budget Lab’s State of U.S. Tariffs feature for a real-time assessment of trade policy under the second Trump administration.

[16] Numbers in this section are taken from CBO 2025b.

[17] Bivens 2019 estimates that a budget deficit of 2.5% or lower is likely consistent with a roughly stable debt ratio when the economy is near full employment.

[18] See Banerjee and Bivens 2022 for an overview of secular stagnation and how it intersects with fiscal policy debates.

[19] See Lynch and Vaygul 2015 for an accounting of the costs and benefits of investments in early childhood education.

[20] Bivens 2025c looks at a scenario in which net immigration between 2025–2034 was halved relative to CBO projections made in January 2025. The goal of deporting 1 million immigrants would yield reductions in immigrant labor supply very close to that “halving net immigration scenario” in that report.

[21] Marr and Cureton 2025 note that the administration’s proposed budget calls for cuts larger than 20% in federal research and development spending.

[22] For this calculation, we compare a scenario in which the $204 billion spent on government research and development in 2024 is cut by 20% going forward and compare it with a scenario in which (as has been largely the norm) this spending was instead held constant as a share of GDP. By 2035 this implies a funding shortfall of nearly $80 billion. We multiply this funding shortfall by the high end of estimated returns to this kind of spending from Fieldhouse and Mertens to ascertain the total cumulative reduction in GDP by 2035, which is 2% of projected GDP in that year. We then divide this by 10 to get the average effect on productivity growth over that time.

[23] In CBO 2025e, they present the effect of GDP on two different scenarios regarding growth in the debt ratio over time. Using this, one could back out the implicit effect on GDP of a given increment of increase in the debt ratio. If this incremental effect holds for the increase in the debt ratio caused by the 2025 Republican budget megabill, one can hence get an estimate of its growth effects.

[24] While Tedeschi 2024 is not just writing about the takeover of the Fed, he absolutely mentions this as one thing that could threaten the very low current “country risk premium” enjoyed by the U.S. The country risk premium is essentially how much lower a return that international investors are willing to take on investments in the U.S. due to the perceived safety and stability of U.S. investments from political manipulation.

[25] See Bivens (forthcoming) for a quick discussion of these estimates.

[26] For a comprehensive assessment of policies undertaken by the Trump administration and their likely effect on typical working families, see Economic Policy Institute 2025–2026.

[27] For a comprehensive overview of actions taken by the Trump administration (including those mentioned in this paragraph) that harm workers’ leverage in labor markets, see McNicholas, Poydock, and Bivens 2026.

[28] See Farber et al. 2021 for the link between unionization and inequality throughout U.S. history.

[29] See Epstein 2018 for a good overview on how powerful economic actors in finance are able to claim a larger share of society’s incomes and resources than their economic contribution justifies.

[30] Much of this section relies on Gensler et al. 2025.

[31] Much of this discussion relies on Bivens 2025b.

References

Banerjee, Asha, and Josh Bivens. 2022. Will Secular Stagnation Return? The Stakes for Current Economic Debates and Fiscal Policy. Economic Policy Institute Report. August 4, 2022.

Bivens, Josh. 2017. A ‘High-Pressure’ Economy Can Help Boost Productivity and Provide Even More ‘Room to Run’ for the Recovery. Economic Policy Institute, March 2017.

Bivens, Josh. 2019. Thinking Seriously About What ‘Fiscal Responsibility’ Should Mean: Full Employment and Reduced Inequality Are the Most Important Targets of Fiscal Policy. Economic Policy Institute, September 2019.

Bivens, Josh. 2025a. “President-Elect Trump Is Inheriting a Historically Strong Economy.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), January 17, 2025.

Bivens, Josh. 2025b. “The Economic Effects of Rapid Federal Downsizing” in Gensler, Gary, Simon Johnson, Ugo Panizza, and Beatrice Weder di Mauro (eds), The Economic Consequences of the Second Trump Administration: A Preliminary Assessment. Centre for Economic Policy Research Press, December 2025.

Bivens, Josh. 2025c. The U.S.-Born Labor Force Will Shrink over the Next Decade: Achieving Historically ‘Normal’ GDP Growth Rates Will Be Impossible, Unless Immigration Flows Are Sustained. Economic Policy Institute, October 2025.

Bivens, Josh. Forthcoming. “How Are AI Investments Affecting the U.S. Economy?” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute).

Bloom, Nicholas, Philip Bunn, Paul Mizen, Pawel Smietanka, and Gregory Thwaites. 2025. “The Economic Impact of Brexit.” National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper no. 34459, November 2025.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2025. “National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA)” (web page). Accessed December 2025.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2025. “Major Sector Productivity and Costs Database” (web page). Accessed December 2025.

Congressional Budget Office. 2009. The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2009 to 2019. January 7, 2009.

Congressional Budget Office. 2024. The Distribution of Household Income in 2021. September 11, 2024.

Congressional Budget Office. 2025a. “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21 to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline” [Excel files]. Published July 21, 2025.

Congressional Budget Office. 2025b. Key Budget and Economic Data.

Congressional Budget Office. 2025c. The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2025 to 2035. January 17, 2025.

Congressional Budget Office. 2025d. The Estimated Effects of Enacting Selected Health Coverage Policies on the Federal Budget and on the Number of People with Health Insurance. September 18, 2025.

Congressional Budget Office. 2025e. The Long-Term Budget Outlook Under Alternative Scenarios for the Economy and the Budget. May 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025–2026. Federal Policy Watch (Blog post series).

Epstein, Gerald. 2018. “On the Social Efficiency of Finance.” Development and Change 49, no. 2: 330–352. March 2018.

Farber, Henry S., Daniel Herbst, Ilyana Kuziemko, and Suresh Naidu. “Unions and Inequality over the Twentieth Century: New Evidence from Survey Data.” Quarterly Journal of Economics  136, no. 3: 1325–1385. August 2021.

Fieldhouse, Andrew J., and Karel Mertens. 2025. “The Returns to Government R&D: Evidence from U.S. Appropriations Shocks.” Society for Economic Dynamics Annual Meeting Working Paper, June 26, 2025.

Gensler, Gary, Simon Johnson, Ugo Panizza, and Beatrice Weder di Mauro, eds. 2025. The Economic Consequences of the Second Trump Administration: A Preliminary Assessment. Centre for Economic Policy Research, December 2025.

Gould, Elise, Katherine deCourcy, Joe Fast, and Ben Zipperer. 2025. Strong Wage Growth for Low-Wage Workers Bucks the Historic Trend. Economic Policy Institute, March 2025.

Hirtle, Beverly, Anna Kovner, and Matthew Plosser. 2019. “The Impact of Supervision on Bank Performance.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Working Paper no. 768. May 2019.

Hsieh, Chang-Tai, Erik Hurst, Charles I. Jones, and Peter J. Klenow. 2019. “The Allocation of Talent and U.S. Economic Growth.” Econometrica 87, no. 5: 1439–1474. September 2019.

Hughes-Cromwick, Ellen, and Julia Coronado. 2019. “The Value of U.S. Government Data to U.S. Business Decisions.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 33, no. 1: 131–146.

Klein Martins, Guilherme. 2025. “Long-Run Effects of Austerity: An Analysis of Size Dependence and Persistence in Fiscal Multipliers.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 87, no. 2: 330–356.

Lo, Justin, Larry Levitt, Jared Ortaliza, and Cynthia Cox. 2025. ACA Marketplace Premium Payments Would More Than Double on Average Next Year If Enhanced Premium Tax Credits Expire. KFF, September 30, 2025.

Lynch, Robert, and Kavya Vaghul. 2015. The Benefits and Costs of Investing in Early Childhood Education. Washington Center for Equitable Growth, December 2015.

Marr, Chuck, and Josephine Cureton. 2025. Administration’s Proposed Cuts to Non-Defense R&D Pose Long-Term Risk to Rising Living Standards. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 2025.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, and Josh Bivens. 2026. 47 Ways Trump Has Made Life Less Affordable in the Last Year. Economic Policy Institute, January 2026.

Nathan, Allison, Jenny Grimberg, and Ashley Rhodes. 2025. Top of Mind: Tariff-Induced Recession Risk. Issue 138. Goldman Sachs Research, April 2025.

Shierholz, Heidi. 2025. “Everyone Is Talking About Affordability—and Making the Same Mistake: Focusing on Just Prices Misses the Bigger Picture.” MS NOW, November 29, 2025.

Stern, Nicholas. 2021. “15 Years on from the Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, Innovation, and Growth” (slide presentation). London School of Economics and Political Science and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, October 26, 2021.

Tedeschi, Ernie. 2024. Political Risks to the U.S. Safe Harbor Premium. The Budget Lab at Yale, May 2024.

The Budget Lab at Yale 2025. The State of U.S. Tariffs: November 17, 2025. November 17, 2025.

Yellen, Janet. 2016. Macroeconomic Research After the Crisis. A speech at ‘‘The Elusive ‘Great’ Recovery: Causes and Implications for Future Business Cycle Dynamics.’’ 60th Annual Economic Conference sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, October 14, 2016. No. 915. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Zipperer, Ben. 2025. Trump’s Deportation Agenda Will Destroy Millions of Jobs: Both Immigrants and U.S.-Born Workers Would Suffer Job Losses, Particularly in Construction and Child Care. Economic Policy Institute, July 2025.