Key takeaways:

• Affordability is not just about prices; it’s the outcome of a race between income growth and price inflation. When income growth is slower than price inflation, affordability worsens. When income growth is faster, affordability improves.
• Focusing just on prices is bad for understanding how the economy works and how it has performed in the recent past, and it leads to an overly restrictive policy menu for improving families’ affordability.
• Policy can more reliably address income growth for typical families. This growth has been stunted for decades by the rise of inequality. Closing this gap by ensuring more equitable distribution of future growth is the strongest tool we have for improving affordability.

Affordability has been the policy buzzword of recent years. Much of the affordability discourse—both among policymakers and the public—has focused near-exclusively on prices as the big affordability problem. But affordability is not a problem of high prices, instead it’s the outcome of a race between incomes and prices. And the reason typical families have faced an affordability crunch in recent decades is not because prices have grown exceptionally fast, it’s because incomes for the vast majority have grown too slowly. This income growth has been suppressed mostly by rising inequality that has put a growing wedge between overall economic growth and the income growth of typical families.

Getting the drivers of affordability right is important—it’s not just quibbling. If you only examine price growth and try to infer what has happened to affordability over periods of economic history, you’ll usually get the story wrong. And if policymakers only look at how to change the trajectory of prices while ignoring what they can do to change the trajectory of incomes, they will be far less effective in providing useful relief to U.S. families. There are far more ways to use policy to raise incomes in a targeted and effective way than there are to suppress price growth.

Below, we provide some more background on why analyses of affordability need to include incomes, why policymakers have much more scope to raise incomes in a useful way as opposed to pushing down prices, and why focusing just on prices can obscure whether affordability has improved or worsened.

Why do prices dominate today’s affordability debates?

In modern capitalist economies, prices rise essentially every year (though at quite different rates), but so do incomes. Determining what has happened to families’ ability to afford a decent and secure life requires looking at measures that take into account both sides of the affordability equation, such as real (inflation-adjusted) income growth. Nobody really disputes this. After all, Americans could buy a new car for $600 in the 1930s, but nobody thinks society was generally richer back then.

The narrow focus on prices in assessing one’s own economic struggles likely stems from several factors.

First, inflation was very fast in the early 2020s. Americans hadn’t experienced inflation rates that high in decades, and they didn’t like them, so prices remain front of mind for many.

Second, it is true that price changes can dominate what happens to real incomes over very short time periods (say a year or less). This recognition is why we can be so sure that the oil price shock inflicted by the U.S. bombing of Iran is going to be so damaging to U.S. families. The rise in oil prices so far this year has likely baked in at least a 1.5% increase in inflation over the next 6–12 months. In 2025, real wage growth for the large majority of workers was slower than 1.5% (which was the outcome of roughly 4% nominal wage growth minus 2.5% inflation). Given this, a sharp and unexpected 1.5% jump in prices will likely erase any prospective real wage gains for workers in 2026.

Finally, it has been noted that many Americans see wage gains as something they accomplished themselves through hard work, while prices are out of their immediate control. Inflation is hence seen as damage done to them and something they need relief from. But this is mostly wrong—policy choices impact wage growth at least as much as inflation, and the most effective policy relief for living standards will come through measures that raise wages, not restrain prices.

Policy can target incomes more effectively and precisely than prices

One person’s income is another person’s cost, which means prices are a bundle of different stakeholders’ incomes. The bill you pay at the grocery store must cover payments the store makes to its shareholders, the salary of the CEO and managers, the wages of cashiers, and the cost of buying food from producers. We don’t want all these incomes to be forced down. Given extreme levels of inequality in the U.S., we would likely be fine with lower CEO pay and payments to shareholders, but we would want wages of cashiers and many in the food production supply chain to rise. Efforts to simply clamp down on this price will have uncertain effects on incomes.

In the jargon of economists, focusing on prices is sector-based policy but to genuinely improve affordability we need factor-based policies, where factors of production like capital, rank-and-file workers, and corporate management can be specifically targeted by policies that aim to raise or restrain their incomes.

Fortunately, there are many good policy options for targeted affordability policy specifically toward low- and middle-income families. Incomes for these families—and for anybody without dynastic wealth—are dominated by wages and public benefits. We talk about each of these in turn below.

Boosting public benefits is affordability policy

Public benefits are entirely under policymakers’ control. If policymakers really cared about the affordability of groceries or health care or energy, they could boost benefits for food stamps, Medicaid, and the low-income heating energy assistance program. These programs currently deliver needed assistance to tens of millions of families to make life more affordable—and they do this with vanishingly small administrative costs, meaning they are highly efficient. Yet all of these programs are slated for steep cuts in the coming decade due to the Republican tax and spending megabill passed in 2025. This bill will inflict large damage to the most vulnerable families’ ability to afford decent and secure lives.

Further, Congress and the Trump administration chose to not extend the Biden administration’s more-generous subsidies for people to buy health insurance through the marketplace exchanges of the Affordable Care Act. The failure to extend these subsidies—even after a full federal government shutdown engineered by congressional Democrats aimed at prioritizing this issue—means that average out-of-pocket costs will double for those buying insurance in the exchanges.

Besides just reversing these cuts, making the U.S. welfare state more robust could also greatly boost the affordability of a decent life. Things like making health coverage more universal with lower out-of-pocket costs, reforming unemployment insurance to make it more protective, and providing all families with children a generous universal child allowance could dramatically improve affordability.

Policy can boost affordability through higher wages as well

The link between policy changes and wage growth is slightly less direct than for public benefits, but it remains very strong. Capitalist labor markets are inherently tilted toward employers and against workers. The only periods of history that have seen strong and equal rates of wage growth across the workforce have been periods where policy supported institutions that boosted workers’ leverage with employers.

The 30 years after World War II saw the creation of policies and institutions that successfully spread the gains from rising productivity equitably among workers up and down the wage distribution, with low- and middle-wage workers seeing growth rates as fast as high-wage workers. This equitable distribution of wage growth was a crucial way that income growth more broadly was kept equitable in this period.

Since 1979, however, these institutions have been steadily attacked and weakened with no new institutions being stood up to take their place in ensuring an equitable distribution of economic growth. The result has been that wages and incomes of typical families have lagged far behind average income and wage growth (or productivity). The wedge between income growth experienced by the vast majority of families and average growth is simply income being generated in the economy that is not helping typical families’ affordability struggles. Instead, it is income being funneled reliably away to the top.

There’s no reason that the institutions that equalized wage growth cannot be built back up and modernized.

The federal minimum wage is the most obvious policy institution for raising wages at the low end of the labor market. Raising the federal minimum wage from its current shamefully low $7.25 would directly boost affordability for tens of millions of workers. In the middle of the wage distribution, unions have proven to be the institution that has historically counteracted employer power and given typical workers increased leverage. However, unions are in a far weaker position today relative to their high points because of intentional policy choices—specifically because policymakers failed to act to curb employers’ growing hostility (and often their illegal activities) toward union organizing. If stronger policy boosted union density, unions would raise wages for both members and non-members alike.

Low- and middle-wage workers also benefit enormously from a determined effort to keep unemployment low for extended periods of time. In recent decades, policymakers have tolerated excess unemployment to keep inflation in check, but this is far too costly a strategy to keep potential inflation in check. Besides locking out millions of willing workers from job opportunities, long periods of excess unemployment were periods when real (inflation-adjusted) wage growth became literally stagnant.

Policymakers often seem skeptical of the effectiveness of these wage-boosting policies, arguing that the effects are too indirect and will take too long to provide benefits to workers. It’s true that efforts to boost unionization and sustain full employment will take some time to push up wages. But they will do this reliably. Further, many policies advanced in the name of reducing prices would also take a long time to come to fruition. For example, calls to tighten antitrust restrictions against corporate mergers and to break up established monopolies often have lots of merit. However, they are not policies that happen instantly and have purely predictable effects.

Focusing too hard on prices can obscure when affordability is actually improving

Finally, one key reason to broaden the affordability debate beyond prices is simply to make sure the public and policymakers can correctly identify periods of improvement or degradation of affordability. As an example of how focusing only on prices can lead to an incorrect diagnosis of affordability trends, take the example of two five-year stretches in recent economic history, both measured from a business cycle peak and going five years forward from there: In the years between 2007 and 2012, annual inflation averaged 1.8% and peaked at 5.5%, while between 2019 and 2024, inflation averaged 4.2% and peaked at 9%. Based on price growth alone, one would expect affordability to have eroded more rapidly in that second period, and indeed the popular narrative is that the early 2020s inflation was particularly destructive for affordability.

But between 2007 and 2012, the nation’s unemployment rate averaged 8.3%, while it averaged less than 5% between 2019 and 2024. After 2007, it took 93 months to re-attain the pre-recession unemployment rate, while it took just 29 months after the 2019 business cycle peak. In short, the labor market was far stronger in the second period.

And when it comes to real (inflation-adjusted) wage growth, the second period—largely because of its lower unemployment—saw far better outcomes than the first. In the 2019–2024 period, inflation-adjusted wages for low-wage workers (those at the 10th percentile) and the median worker rose by a cumulative 15.3% and 5.8%, respectively. In short, contrary to most conventional wisdom, affordability improved in this time. Between 2007 and 2012, real wages outright fell for both low-wage and median workers. Even with very slow inflation, affordability was demonstrably worse in that earlier period.

Figure A

More recently, inflation averaged slightly lower in 2025 (2.5%) than 2024 (2.9%). Yet for many workers—and particularly low-wage workers—2025 saw weaker (or even negative) real wage growth. This is largely due to some slight cooling in the labor market as unemployment rose from 4.0% to 4.4% over the course of 2025. Hence, even as inflation decelerated, the cooling labor market led to an even faster deceleration in nominal wages, which meant that affordability worsened for many workers.

Figure B

Reducing inequality is the key to improving affordability

Because many policymakers believe that affordability concerns are a new problem caused by inflation of recent years, they are now on a frenzied search for new and creative solutions to this price problem. But because the real affordability problem for U.S. families did not emerge in the past few years (remember, affordability was improving in the five years before 2025) and because the genuine long-run problem of affordability was about the inequality of income and wage growth, not excess inflation, most of these new and creative solutions just won’t hit the mark.

It’s understandable why many policymakers seem frustrated with being reminded of the long-diagnosed problem of inequality and the proven remedies—such as sustained full employment, higher wage standards like minimum wages, protecting workers’ fundamental rights to organize unions and bargain collectively, and a more robust welfare state.

Some, of course, just don’t believe in some of these solutions, while many who do would argue that these proven remedies are politically unrealistic in the current moment. But because the real affordability problem is an inequality problem that requires those at the top of the income and wealth scales having to accept less growth going forward (less than the stratospheric gains they’ve gotten used to, it should be said), any genuine solution is going to seem impossible in today’s political system that is dominated by the wealthiest families and corporations. Any policy—whether old and well-tested or new and creative—that actually aims to redistribute income, wealth, and power away from where it sits today will face a wall of opposition that must be politically overcome one way or the other. There’s no “one weird trick” where you can develop a policy creative and neat enough that it will somehow fool the rich and powerful about what its end result will be. And if the end result of the new and creative policy does not threaten the prerogatives of the rich, it’s not a real solution.

Today’s affordability concerns are indeed rooted in objective facts about the material circumstances of middle- and working-class families in the United States. Precisely because of this, they deserve more serious analysis and policy responses than they have been getting. This means focusing more on incomes than prices, and it means being clear-eyed that it has been the upward redistribution of income to the top—abetted by policy decisions—that is the drag on typical families’ affordability. Until solutions address that, they’re mostly just noise.

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.

Related: Why the U.S. needs a $17 minimum wage • Why eliminate the tipped minimum wage

Interactive

Key takeaways

• EPI’s updated Family Budget Calculator shows how much income it takes to afford basic expenses in every metro area and county across the United States in 2025.
• The Family Budget Calculator can be used to assess a living-wage level and shows that states like Oklahoma need a higher minimum wage. The state’s minimum wage falls short by over $12 an hour in meeting a one-person budget in the state’s lowest cost county.
• Voters in Oklahoma will have the chance to raise their state’s minimum wage this summer, which will help low-wage workers better achieve a decent standard of living.
• As of 2025, there is no county or metro area in the country where a minimum-wage worker is paid enough to meet the requirements of their local family budget on their wages alone.

Now updated with 2025 data, EPI’s widely cited Family Budget Calculator (FBC) shows what it takes to make ends meet for different family types in all counties and metro areas in the United States. For more than 20 years, we have calculated family budgets for basic expenses like housing, food, health care, child care, transportation, other necessities, and taxes. In doing so, we create a more location-specific and realistic assessment of cost of living than traditional poverty thresholds.

We use government-provided data where possible and stay up to date with changes in policy and data availability. Because of this, and due to related changes in methodology, we don’t recommend comparing budgets over time. For more details on the construction of EPI’s family budgets and all of the datasets we use, see the full methodology. For a video tutorial on how to use the FBC, see here. The full dataset is downloadable here.

Example case: Most and least expensive metro areas in Oklahoma

Using family budgets in Oklahoma as an example, Figure A compares each budget component for one-parent, one-child and two-parent, two-child families in the state’s least expensive (Fort Smith) and most expensive (Tulsa) metro areas. Technically, the city of Fort Smith is located in Arkansas, but the metro area crosses into Oklahoma.

Costs for a one-parent, one-child family budget vary from $61,928 in Fort Smith to $73,678 in Tulsa, with housing and transportation being two of the largest costs. In areas with limited access to public transit, the costs of buying, maintaining, and driving a car can be a large burden.

Food, health care, and child care are considerably more expensive for larger families. For a two-parent, two-child family, the total cost of affording a basic standard of living ranges from $87,994 in Fort Smith to $103,642 in Tulsa. The largest difference between Fort Smith and Tulsa is the cost of child care, which is 50% more expensive in Tulsa.

Figure A

The Family Budget Calculator can be used to calculate living wages

The FBC has been cited by living-wage advocates, private employers, academics, and policymakers who are looking for comprehensive measures of economic security. EPI’s family budget tool is also frequently used to gauge the adequacy of labor earnings, and we are often asked how to construct a living-wage standard from our family budget numbers. Doing so requires making choices and assumptions about how a family’s needs could or should be met that will result in different “living wage” values. For instance, health care expenses could be covered primarily by families, employers, or public programs (such as Medicare or through premium subsidies in the health insurance marketplace). We provide a user’s guide to translate our FBC data into living wages.

The FBC can be used to roughly calculate the hourly wage necessary to meet a family budget through labor market income alone. For a full-time, year-round worker providing for themselves and their family, we simply divide the required budget by 2,080 (40 hours a week multiplied by 52 weeks a year) to get an hourly wage equivalent. The full dataset of living-wage options is downloadable here.

Example case: McIntosh County

McIntosh County—located in Muscogee (Creek) Tribal Jurisdiction—is the lowest cost county in Oklahoma for single adult households. Figure B shows that a full-time, year-round adult worker without children would need to be paid $19.99 per hour to meet the requirements of their $41,577 budget to attain a modest yet adequate standard of living. The current minimum wage in Oklahoma—$7.25 an hour—falls short by $12.74 per hour, or $26,500 annually. In other words, minimum wage workers are paid less than 40% of what they need to afford to live, even in the least expensive county in Oklahoma.

One common benchmark for setting living wages is that an adult working full time should be able to support themselves and one child. In McIntosh County, a worker with one child would need to be paid $30.99 per hour to afford an annual budget of $64,456. This means that Oklahoma’s current minimum wage is $23.74 per hour lower than a living wage, or almost $49,400 annually.

These basic calculations assume that all income comes from wages, but wages are not the only resource available to families. If an employer offers health insurance or the state subsidizes child care, the wage needed to meet a basic family budget would be reduced, as shown in Figure B. Conversely, if reasonable savings for retirement, college, or emergencies are considered critical budget items, then the living wage required would be even greater.

Figure B

Oklahoma needs a higher minimum wage

Our Family Budget Calculator highlights the need for a higher minimum wage in Oklahoma. The state still follows the dismally low federal minimum wage, which Congress has not updated since 2009 despite 44.1% cumulative inflation since then. At $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum wage is not high enough to keep workers out of poverty, much less provide a modest yet adequate standard of living.

It’s time for Oklahoma to pass a minimum wage increase that can support workers and their families across the state, and residents are ready for the change. In 2024, more than 157,000 Oklahomans signed a petition to request a statewide election to vote on whether to raise the state’s minimum wage. Although organizers collected enough signatures well before the deadline to be placed on the November 2024 ballot, a lengthy certification process delayed State Question (SQ) 832’s approval. In September 2024, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt delayed the vote by nearly two years and scheduled it for June 2026.

If voters pass the measure this summer, SQ 832 will increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2029, starting with an increase to $12 per hour in 2027. The legislation also mandates annual inflation adjustments starting in 2030 and extends the wage floor to historically excluded categories of workers such as tipped workers, farmworkers, part-time employees, domestic workers, and feed store employees.

According to EPI’s 2024 estimates, this higher minimum wage would benefit 320,000 Oklahoman workers (directly benefiting the more than 200,000 Oklahomans who are paid less than $15 per hour and indirectly boosting wages for another 119,000 workers.) Low-wage workers are not just teenagers working fast-food jobs on the weekends; nearly 82.0% of affected workers are age 20 or older and more than half (51.3%) are working full time. Women in particular are more likely to work at or near the minimum wage, making up almost two-thirds (62.9%) of affected workers.

Workers of color are also disproportionately more likely than white workers to work low-wage jobs: while they make up about one-third (34.8%) of the Oklahoma workforce, they are nearly half of the affected workforce (48.7%). This disparity is the outcome of decades of violence and discrimination. For example, the destruction of Tulsa’s Black Wall Street brought an end to a vital center for Black economic advancement. Higher wages, alongside strong nondiscrimination laws, are necessary to rectify this inequality.

Oklahoma is one of the country’s poorest states, with one in seven residents (14.9%) living in poverty and nearly one in five (18.9%) children living at or below the federal poverty line. Passing SQ 832 and raising the minimum wage would alleviate poverty, help workers and their families, and boost Oklahoma’s economy. Without it, many Oklahomans will continue to struggle to afford basic necessities as costs of living grow.

But it’s not just Oklahoma—the Family Budget Calculator shows that nowhere in the country can a minimum-wage worker meet the requirements of their local family budget on their wages alone. Raising wages is a critical, but often overlooked, component of solving the affordability crisis. EPI’s Family Budget Calculator is a vital tool for understanding the wages and resources that are needed for families to afford the true cost of living across the United States.

President Donald Trump has said some strikingly out-of-touch things about affordability: that it’s a “hoax,” he’s “solved it” and he’s “won affordability.” In his State of the Union address, he even said “prices are plummeting downward.” U.S. families know this is nonsense. But to see how much Trump’s policies will erode affordability in the coming years, you must understand that affordability isn’t just about prices. 

Affordability is the outcome of a race between incomes and prices. And for typical families, the Trump agenda is near-guaranteed to harm their incomes far more than it can possibly reduce their prices. 

Even judged by the movement of prices alone, Trump’s record on affordability is poor. Inflation fell from 8.0% to 3.0% in the final two years of the Biden administration. This rapid downward movement slowed to a crawl in the first year of Trump’s second term, with inflation falling from 3.0% to just over 2.6%.

There are clear policy reasons why progress in reducing inflation has slowed. Electricity prices have surged as the Trump administration has ended subsidies for renewable generation passed during the Biden administration. The Trump tax cuts passed in the president’s first term were part of a law that gouged loopholes in the tax code, including inviting pharmaceutical companies to offshore their production and import back into the United States. Last year the Trump administration put tariffs on these offshored pharmaceuticals, pushing up their costs. When the administration failed to extend Obamacare subsidies for people buying health insurance through the exchanges, healthier enrollees who could afford to began opting out, driving up prices for everybody left in the Affordable Care Act marketplace.  

And these are not the only ways that Trump administration policies have intensified affordability issues for ordinary Americans.

Read the full piece here. 

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.

Affordability—or the lack of it—is dominating the public discourse. “Affordability, affordability, affordability: Democrats’ new winning formula,” proclaims Politico. “Trump tries to seize ‘affordability’ message,” reports The New York Times. Election results in New Jersey, Virginia, New York and elsewhere showed that voters are responding to candidates who speak directly to the cost of living.

Today’s affordability debate, however, focuses almost entirely on prices, as if the only way to make life affordable is to make things cheaper. But that approach misses the bigger picture. Affordability depends on both prices and wages. The roots of today’s affordability crisis actually lie not in recent price spikes, but in the long-term suppression of workers’ pay. 

For more than four decades, employers have been actively suppressing the wages of working people, so that corporate managers and owners can claim an ever-larger share of the income generated by what workers produce. Government policies facilitated these efforts. 

Read the full piece here. 

This interactive chartbook provides a statistical snapshot of race and ethnicity in the United States, depicting racial/ethnic disparities observed through

• Population demographics
• Civic engagement
• Labor market outcomes
• Income, poverty, and wealth
• Health

The chartbook also highlights some notable intersections of gender with race and ethnicity, including educational attainment, labor force participation, life expectancy, and maternal mortality. The findings are bracing, as they show how much more work we need to do to address longstanding and persistent racial inequities.

Most charts include data for five racial/ethnic groups in each of the charts—white, Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI), and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN). In the charts and text, “Americans” refers to all U.S. residents, regardless of citizenship status.

Researchers seeking disaggregated data and statistics for AAPI and AIAN groups are encouraged to look at sources cited in the companion essays in the Anti-Racist Economic Research and Policy Guide: AAPI Data and the Center for Indian Country Development at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

As our efforts illustrate, collecting and maintaining data sources that are representative of the entire U.S. population is an essential first step toward overcoming the invisibility, neglect, and lack of understanding experienced by many communities of color. Future work on this project will involve identifying comparable data from alternative sources that fill in as much of the missing information in the chartbook as possible.

In this interactive chartbook, additional notes and source information can be accessed by clicking on the ellipses ( … ) in the notes and sources lines under the charts.

Population demographics

The U.S. has become more racially and ethnically diverse over the last two decades: Share of U.S. population by race and ethnicity, 2000, 2010, and 2020

1

1

Each decennial Census since 2000 has revealed a more racially and ethnically diverse U.S. population. While the share of people who identify as Black (about 12%) or American Indian and Alaskan Native (0.7%) has remained constant, the non-Hispanic white share of the population has declined from 69.1% in 2000 to 57.8% in 2020. On the other hand, a growing share of U.S. residents identify as Hispanic (increasing from 12.5% in 2000 to 18.7% in 2020) or Asian American and Pacific Islander (increasing from 3.7% in 2000 to 6.1% in 2020). These changing population demographics reflect different trends in birth, mortality, and immigration rates across groups. Since 2000, there have also been significant changes in how people identify racially. Notably, a growing share of people identify as being of two or more races (this would include people who, for example, identify as Black and AAPI, but would not include people who identify as Black and Hispanic, as they are identifying Black alone as their race and Hispanic as their ethnicity). Also, a growing but still small share of people identify as being of a race other than those explicitly defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

As Trevon Logan notes in his essay, it is the OMB that issues regulations regarding the classifications of race and ethnicity by federal agencies, including the U.S. Census Bureau, which conducts the major household and business surveys used by researchers. There are six permitted race categories and two ethnicity classifications, Hispanic and non-Hispanic. As such, everyone is a member of both a race and ethnicity. For more on the current classifications, see Logan’s essay.

Share this chart:

While U.S. residents are overwhelmingly citizens, Asian American/Pacific Islander and Hispanic citizens are more likely to be first-generation immigrants: Share of U.S. population by race/ethnicity and nativity, 2024

2

2

Across all racial and ethnic groups, an overwhelming majority of people in the United States are U.S. citizens, according to data from the Current Population Survey. However, nativity shares vary across racial groups. White persons (95.9%), American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) persons (81.3%), and Black persons (88.6%) are most likely to have been born citizens (born in the United States or to United States citizens abroad), compared with over half of the Hispanic population (66.7%) and more than one-third (37.8%) of the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) population.

Immigration status also varies widely. AAPI residents are most likely to be immigrants: more than one-third (38.3%) were not born U.S. citizens but became U.S. citizens (i.e., are naturalized U.S. citizens), while another 23.9% are not citizens. Hispanic residents are next most likely to be immigrants: 12.6% are naturalized citizens and 20.7% are not citizens. These statistics highlight only a fraction of the diversity represented within and across different racial and ethnic groups. As several essays in the Advancing Anti-Racist Economic Research and Policy guide explain, analyses that use categories or group descriptions that are too broadly defined can lead to inaccurate conclusions.

Share this chart:

The uneven geographic distribution of racial and ethnic populations highlights the influence of state and local policy on racial inequality: Share of state population by race and ethnicity, 2020

3

3

The U.S. Census Bureau projects that Black, Hispanic, AAPI, and other people who do not identify as white will collectively account for over half of the population of the United States by 2044. In California, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and the District of Columbia, the white population is already in the minority, and in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and New York, white persons make up just over half of the population. This interactive map shows areas of population density for each race or ethnic group (click on a race or ethnic group) along with the racial and ethnic distribution of each state’s population (click on a state). It shows that Southern states and the District of Columbia have the largest shares of residents who are Black, with the highest shares in the District of Columbia (40.9%), Mississippi (36.4%), and Louisiana (31.2%). Southwestern and Western states are home to a large percentage of Latinos, with the highest shares in New Mexico (47.7%), Texas (39.3%), and California (39.4%). AAPI residents, including Native Hawaiians, predictably account for nearly half (46.8%) of the population of Hawaii but are also a significant share of the population in California (15.5%) as well as New Jersey and Washington state (10.2% each). Also, as the group’s name would indicate, American Indian and Alaska Native residents account for the highest share of the population in Alaska (14.8%), followed by New Mexico (8.9%), South Dakota (8.4%), and Oklahoma (7.9%). White Americans account for the largest majority of the population in several Northeastern states (90.2% in Maine, 89.1% in Vermont, and 87.2% in New Hampshire) and West Virginia (89.1%).

The patterns illustrated in the map trace each group’s unique history of settlement, immigration, and migration in this country. But they also help to make a point about the important role that state and local policies play in either improving or worsening racial disparities in the United States. As just one example, EPI research shows that Southern states, which have a high density of Black residents, are more likely than states in other regions to use preemption laws to stop local governments from setting strong labor standards, such as raising the minimum wage and guaranteeing paid sick leave.

For more on preemption laws in the South, see Hunter Blair et al., Preempting Progress: State Interference in Local Policymaking Prevents People of Color, Women, and Low-Income Workers from Making Ends Meet in the South, Economic Policy Institute, September 2020.

Share this chart:

Current population demographics by race/ethnicity and age support projections that people of color will become the collective majority by 2050: Share of U.S. population within given age ranges, by race and ethnicity, 2024

4

4

The changing racial and ethnic makeup of the U.S. population is foretold in the age distribution of different racial and ethnic groups. In 2024, over a quarter (28.9%) of people who identified as Hispanic were under the age of 18, as were about a quarter of those who identified as Black (24.5%), American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) (27.9%) and a fifth within those who identified as Asian American and Pacific Islander (19.9%). A smaller share of the white population (17.8%) belonged to this younger age cohort while over a third (36.9%) of white residents were near or at retirement age (age 55 or older)—a much larger share than for other racial and ethnic groups. As the current population ages, the older population will remain predominantly non-Hispanic white while Black, Hispanic, AAPI, and AIAN persons will be a growing share of the younger population. This racial and ethnic generation gap will require balancing the interests of a younger, less wealthy, more racially and ethnically diverse population with those of an older, wealthier, predominantly white population. However, these generations are linked in important ways. Older workers and retirees have a stake in worker, economic, and racial justice for those younger workers who in the years ahead will be a growing share of workers driving the national economy and providing many of the services the aging population relies on. Census population projections from 2022 (the latest available) indicate that in 2050, non-Hispanic white persons will account for less than half (48.4%) of the U.S. population (see U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 National Population Projections Tables, Table 4).

Share this chart:

Men’s educational attainment is highly stratified by race and ethnicity, with American Indian and Alaska Native, Hispanic, and Black men most likely to be “working class”: Share of men aged 25 and older within given level of educational attainment, by race and ethnicity, 2024

5

5

The term working class has been used to describe working-age adults who have less than a bachelor’s degree. Based on their high shares without a bachelor’s degree or more education, American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) (85.3%), Hispanic (80.9%), and Black (76.5%) men are more likely to be considered working class (under this definition) than are white (60.3%) or Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) (40.7%) men. Even among the groups of men most likely to be considered working class, there is still a wide range of educational attainment that includes everything from less than a high school diploma to some college. The some college category includes attendance at a four-year or two-year institution, but no degree; it also includes completion of a two-year associate or technical degree. The groups with the highest shares of people with less than a high school education are Hispanic men (27.6%) and AIAN men (23.5%) and 57.7% of Hispanic men and over half of AIAN men (58.2%) have no education beyond high school. While about half (47.0%) of Black men also have no education beyond high school, Black men are more likely than either Hispanic or AIAN men to have a bachelor’s or advanced degree, but still much less likely to have that level of education than either white or AAPI men. AAPI men lead all other racial groups in the share (59.2%) who have a bachelor’s or advanced degree. These patterns of educational attainment are shaped by multiple factors, including differences in immigration policies applied to Asian versus Latin American countries, as well as the legacy of racial discrimination and oppression that severely limited educational opportunities for generations of Black and Native Americans.

Share this chart:

Most women have more than a high school education, but Latinas and AIAN women lag behind other groups in attaining higher education: Share of women aged 25 and older within given level of educational attainment, by race and ethnicity, 2024

6

6

In 2024, across most racial and ethnic groups, at least half of women aged 25 or older had some education beyond a high school diploma. Latinas were the exception—only 49.1% had some level of education beyond high school and 24.2% had less than a high school education, a much higher percentage than any other group of women (1.2 to nearly 5 times as much). Those women least likely to have a bachelor’s or advanced degree were American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) women (19.7%) and Latinas (23.9%). Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) and white women had the highest levels of educational attainment with 56.9% of AAPI women and 41.8% of white women having at least a bachelor’s degree, followed by 29.9% of Black women. As with men, these patterns of educational attainment are shaped by multiple factors, including differences in immigration policies applied to Asian versus Latin American countries, as well as the legacy of racial discrimination and oppression that severely limited educational opportunities for generations of Black and Native Americans. But compared with male educational attainment by race and ethnicity women tend to have higher levels of educational attainment (see Chart 5).

Share this chart:

While the Black and AIAN imprisonment rate has decreased, Black and AIAN people are still five times as likely as white people to be imprisoned: Imprisonment rates per 100,000 U.S. residents by race and ethnicity, 2012–2022

7

7

In response to the demand for criminal justice reform and a shift away from the “tough on crime” politics of the 1980s and 1990s, imprisonment rates for Black, American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), Hispanic people have fallen over the last decade. But Black, AIAN, and Hispanic people are still much more likely to be incarcerated than white people, whose imprisonment rate has stagnated over the past decade. Over 1,000 out of every 100,000 U.S. residents who are Black or American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) were imprisoned in 2023, followed by 603 out of 100,000 Latino U.S. residents, 229 out of 100,000 white U.S. residents, and 88 out of 100,000 Asian American and Pacific Islander U.S. residents. Thus, the approximately 1.8 million people held in U.S. prisons at the end of 2022 —an often-forgotten segment of the U.S. population—are disproportionately Black, AIAN, Hispanic, and other people of color. 

Data on the size of the overall incarcerated population come from the “Correctional Populations in the United States, 2022—Statistical Tables” published by the U.S. Department of Justice in May 2024. 

Share this chart:

Black and AIAN men have an exceptionally high imprisonment rate: Imprisonment rates per 100,000 U.S residents, by race/ethnicity and gender, 2022

8

8

This chart makes two facts very clear: That imprisonment in the United States is not only a gendered issue—with men being much more likely to be imprisoned—but also an issue of racialized gender, with Black and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) men being far and away the most highly imprisoned group. Among women, AIAN residents had the highest imprisonment rate (173 per 100,000), followed by Black residents who had an imprisonment rate (64 per 100,000) in 2022. AIAN women were almost three times as likely to be imprisoned as Black women, around four times as likely to be imprisoned as White and Hispanic women, and 34 times as likely to be imprisoned as AAPI women. Among men, Black residents had the highest imprisonment rate (1,826 per 100,000), followed by AIAN men (1,443 per 100,000). Black men were more than twice as likely to be imprisoned as Hispanic men, more than five times as likely to be imprisoned as white men, and almost 13 times as likely to be imprisoned as AAPI men. AIAN men were almost twice as likely to be imprisoned as Hispanic men, more than four times as likely to be imprisoned as white men, and more than ten times as likely to be imprisoned as AAPI men.

Share this chart:

Civic engagement

Consistently higher turnout among white voters was challenged by historic Black voter turnout in 2012 and, to a lesser extent by historic Hispanic and Asian voter turnout in 2020: Voter turnout in presidential election years by race and ethnicity, select years 1992 to 2024

9

9

The right to vote is the most powerful right of U.S. citizenship—and widespread voter participation is essential to a functional democracy. Yet many U.S. citizens ages 18 and older do not vote. Data on voter participation during presidential election years since 1992 reveal that turnout varies significantly by race and ethnicity and changes over time. Since 1992, voter turnout has typically been highest among white voters—ranging from 60.7% to 70.9%—although Black voter turnout saw a huge increase in 2008 and 2012 during the election and reelection of the nation’s first Black president, Barack Obama. In fact, 2012 was the only election in which Black voter turnout (66.2%) exceeded white voter turnout (64.1%). Hispanic and Asian voter turnout was less than 50% in all presidential election years between 1996 and 2016, until both groups had the largest turnout in decades in 2020 (53.7% and 59.7% respectively). In the 2024 presidential election, voter participation declined among Black, Hispanic and AAPI adults. While one’s personal decision to participate in an election can be influenced by any number of factors—including enthusiasm about a particular candidate or confidence in the democratic process—rampant forms of voter suppression in some states undoubtedly contribute to these disparities as well.

For more on the impact of state laws that limit access to voter registration, revoke the right to vote for returning (formerly incarcerated) citizens, or otherwise make it more difficult for certain populations to cast a ballot, see “State Voting Laws,” Brennan Center for Justice, accessed May 5, 2022;  “State Voting Rights Tracker,” Voting Rights Lab, accessed May 5, 2022.

Share this chart:

Amid dramatic decline in union membership since the 1970s, Black workers have held onto the highest rate of union membership for decades: Union membership rates, by race and ethnicity, 1973–2024

10

10

Like the constitutional right to vote in civil society, union membership gives workers a voice—in this case, a voice at work. But as the chart shows, since 1973, union membership has declined for all racial and ethnic groups. Union membership is an important metric of the state of the American worker given the role that labor unions play in giving workers a stronger, collective voice to advocate for higher pay, better benefits, and training and promotional opportunities, as well as protections against discrimination and harassment. In a unionized workforce, for example, collective bargaining results in labor contracts that help to create greater transparency through clearly defined policies and pay structures. These contracts help reduce the potential for pay discrimination by limiting an employer’s discretion in paying different wages to comparably qualified individuals doing the same job and by providing workers with critical protections and direct recourse against other forms of exploitation or mistreatment. The benefits of union membership are a likely contributor to the higher union membership rate of Black workers, given their long history of unequal treatment relative to other groups of workers. Between 1973 and 1980, Hispanic workers also had higher rates of union membership than white workers. While the subsequent across the board decrease in union membership has brought union membership rates by race and ethnicity closer together, in 2024, Black workers were still more likely to be union members (11.7%) compared with white workers (10.0%), Asian American and Pacific Islander workers (8.9%), and Hispanic workers (8.5%).

Still, the labor movement, like any other U.S. institution, is not immune to racism. Unions must continue to become more diverse, inclusive, and dynamic as they serve the vital role of leveling the playing field for all workers.

For more on the benefits and protections conferred by union membership, see Celine McNicholas et al., Why Unions Are Good for Workers—Especially in a Crisis Like COVID-19, Economic Policy Institute, August 2020 and Valerie Wilson, “The Costs of Racial and Ethnic Labor Market Discrimination and Solutions That Can Contribute to Closing Employment and Wage Gaps,” testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth, January 20, 2022.

Share this chart:

Labor market

Black women have maintained the highest labor force participation rate amid post-1970 rise in women’s labor force participation overall: Labor force participation rate for women by race and ethnicity, 1973–2024

11

11

The labor force participation rate is an important indicator of economic well-being. It shows the number of people in the labor force—people who are employed or unemployed but looking for work—as a share of the number of civilian, noninstitutionalized people ages 16 and older. Across racial and ethnic groups, women’s labor force participation rose significantly from the 1970s through the 1990s for a number a reasons: increased access to higher education, and the introduction and widespread availability of the birth control pill, to name a few. After leveling off during most of the first decade of the 2000s, labor force participation by women declined during or after the Great Recession of 2007–2009. And it declined again during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and recession as the burden of job losses and care responsibilities disproportionately impacted women. In 2024, Black women had the highest labor force participation rate at 60.5%, followed by Hispanic (58.9%), Asian (58.6%), white (56.7%), and American Indian and Alaska Native women (55.1%). While Latinas have historically had the lowest rates of labor force participation among women, their labor force participation rate had been climbing steadily in the four years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic. Historically, Black women have had stronger labor force attachments than other groups of women. This is part of the legacy of being forced to work as enslaved people, but the necessity of work has continued for Black women who are often co-breadwinners if not sole earners for their households.

For more on the rise of women’s labor force participation from the 1970s see Elisabeth Jacobs and Kate Bahn “Women’s History Month: U.S. women’s labor force participation”, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, March 22, 2019.  

Share this chart:

Hispanic men have maintained the highest labor force participation rate even as labor force participation of all men has declined since the 1970s: Men’s labor force participation rate by race and ethnicity, 1973–2024

12

12

Across all racial and ethnic groups, men’s labor force participation rates have declined significantly since the 1970s, with the sharpest decline occurring during and since the Great Recession of 2007–2009. While this trend in part reflects an aging population with a growing share of retirees, researchers have suggested that labor force participation has fallen among prime-age men (ages 25–54) due to a rise in serious health conditions that are a barrier to work, the emerging opioid crisis, or technological changes that encourage younger men  (under age 30) to allocate less time to work and more time to leisure activities like playing video games. Unlike with Black women, who have the highest labor force participation rate among women, Black men in 2024 had the lower labor force participation rates than white and Asian men (65.9%). And unlike with Hispanic women, who have historically had the lowest labor force participation rates among women, Hispanic men have had the highest labor force participation rate, which reached 75.5% in 2024. The ranking of men’s labor force participation rates by race and ethnicity has remained constant over the last three decades.

For more on the likely reasons for declining male labor force participation see Alan Krueger, Where Have All the Workers Gone? An Inquiry into the Decline of the U.S. Labor Force Participation Rate, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, September 2017; and Mark Aguiar et al., “Leisure Luxuries and the Labor Supply of Young Men,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 23552, June 2017.

Share this chart:

Black and AIAN unemployment is consistently higher than unemployment of all other racial and ethnic groups: Annual unemployment rate by race and ethnicity, 1979–2024

13

13

Relative rates of unemployment by race and ethnicity have been remarkably consistent over time. Typically, the annual unemployment rates of American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), Black, and Hispanic workers are significantly higher than those of white workers. The difference between Asian and white unemployment rates is smaller, and the size of the gap fluctuates, as does which group has the lower unemployment rate. In 2024, this pattern held, with an unemployment rate of 6.5% for AIAN workers, 6.0% for Black workers, followed by 5.1% for Hispanic workers, 3.6% for white workers, and 3.5% for Asian workers. While 2023 saw historical low rates for Black unemployment, one of the most enduring features of the U.S. labor market is the roughly 2-to-1 ratio of the Black and white unemployment rates.

Share this chart:

Higher education typically lowers a worker’s chances of being unemployed but does not eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in unemployment rates: Unemployment rate by race/ethnicity and educational attainment, 2024

14

14

A breakdown of unemployment rates by race, ethnicity, and education level shows the limits of educational attainment as a factor in addressing inequitable economic outcomes. As the chart shows, racial and ethnic disparities in unemployment rates exist at every level of educational attainment. And Black workers have the highest rates of unemployment among all groups without a college degree. In fact, even at historically low rates of unemployment in 2024, only the most highly educated Black workers approached anything near unemployment rate parity with their white counterparts. The figure also shows that while education can contribute to better outcomes—unemployment rates are lower for all groups at higher levels of education—education alone does not necessarily create equal outcomes. Reading this chart alongside Chart 13 suggests that differences in the average unemployment rates of racial and ethnic groups can only be partially explained by relative differences in education, skill, experience or local labor market conditions—discrimination remains an undeniable factor.

Share this chart:

Black, Hispanic, and AIAN workers earn lower wages and have smaller gender wage disparities than their white and AAPI counterparts: Median wages by race/ethnicity and gender, 2024

15

15

There are sharp differences in the wages earned by typical workers of different racial groups in the United States. Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) and white workers are paid the highest wages at the median, while Black, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) workers are paid significantly less. The gender differences are also greater among AAPI and white workers than among Black, Hispanic and AIAN workers. While AAPI and white men far out-earn AAPI and white women, Black and Hispanic men and women have much more similar median wages.

Share this chart:

Even after controlling for education and other factors known to affect earnings, women—particularly Black and Hispanic women—are paid far less than white men: Regression-adjusted hourly wage gaps for women relative to non-Hispanic white men, by race and ethnicity, 2024

16

16

Women of all racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. have a significant pay penalty by virtue of their gender, even when we account for several factors that could reasonably influence a worker’s productivity or wage rate, including education, marital status, age (a measure of potential experience) and geographic area (a measure of local labor market conditions). Black and Hispanic women face an additional pay penalty by virtue of their race or ethnicity. The chart depicts these wage gaps, presented as how much less women make than non-Hispanic white men. The fact that Black and Hispanic women earn about a quarter less than white men on average when calculating regression-adjusted wage gaps mean, then, that the pay penalty is not a result of differences in formal education between those groups of women and white men. One partial explanation for these wage disparities is occupational segregation, by which women of color are more highly concentrated in occupations with low pay, even relative to their education level. However, women of all races and ethnicities also often earn less than men in the same occupation (not shown in the chart), an indication of potential pay discrimination.

For more on occupational segregation and on gender pay gaps by occupation, see Jessica Schieder and Elise Gould, Women’s Work” and the Gender Pay Gap: How Discrimination, Societal Norms, and Other Forces Affect Women’s Occupational Choices—and Their Pay, Economic Policy Institute, July 2016; Emily Carew and Valerie Wilson, “Latina Equal Pay Day: Latina Workers Remain Greatly Underpaid, Including in Front-Line Occupations,” Working Economics Blog, Economic Policy Institute, October 20, 2021; Valerie Wilson, “Black Women Face a Persistent Pay Gap, Including in Essential Occupations During the Pandemic,” Working Economics Blog, Economic Policy Institute, August 2, 2021.

Share this chart:

Income, poverty, and wealth

Racial and ethnic disparities in median household income have been largely persistent across time: Inflation-adjusted median household income (2024 dollars), by race and ethnicity, 1972–2024

17

17

In the United States, households of different racial and ethnic backgrounds bring in significantly different amounts of income and have done so for decades. At the median, Black, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) households earn the least on an annual basis, while Asian and white households earn the most. It is notable, though, that in 2023, Black households had the highest household income on record and experienced the largest increase in income between 2020 and 2023. Significant gaps in employment opportunities (shown in Chart 13) and lower wage levels (shown in Chart 15) translate into lower incomes among Black, Latino, and AIAN households. Household income is also a function of the number of earners in a household. Though not shown here, past EPI research found that in the pre-pandemic economy, about a third of Black nonelderly households (where the head of household is age 18–64) had two or more earners, compared with nearly half of white and Hispanic nonelderly households. This racial disparity in the number of household earners is not just a function of how many working-age adults live in the household, or family structure, but is another measurable consequence of the persistent 2-to-1 ratio between the Black and white unemployment rates (shown in Chart 13). As income inequality in the United States has increased in general over the past 50 years, disparities between the least and most well-off groups have continued to persist and, in some cases, have grown.  

For more on earners per household by race, see Elise Gould and Valerie Wilson, Black Workers Face Two of the Most Lethal Preexisting Conditions for Coronavirus—Racism and Economic Inequality, Economic Policy Institute, June 2020. For more on increasing income inequality, see Elise Gould, “Decades of Rising Economic Inequality in the U.S.,” testimony before the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D.C., March 27, 2019.

Share this chart:

Black and AIAN households are more likely to have the lowest annual incomes—under $25,000 per year in 2024: Share of households within given income range by race and ethnicity, 2024

18

18

This chart extends beyond the data on median or midpoint of household income shown in Chart 17 to provide a more detailed look at where different groups fall across the entire household income distribution. In 2024, 22.9% of Black households, 23.3% of American Indian and Alaska Native households, 15.1% of Hispanic households had annual incomes under $25,000, compared with just 11.4% of white households and 9.3% of Asian households. This $25,000 figure is well below the 2024 official poverty threshold for a family of two adults and two children ($31,812). Conversely, 29.3% of Asian households and 17.8% of white households had annual incomes at or above $200,000—the highest income category—compared with only about 6%-10% of Black, AIAN, and Hispanic households.  

Poverty threshold data can be found in the U.S. Census Bureau’s Poverty in the United States: 2024 data tables, published September 09, 2025 

Share this chart:

Persistently elevated AIAN, Black, and Hispanic child poverty rates have thwarted progress reducing overall child poverty in the U.S.: Child poverty rates, by race and ethnicity, 1974–2024

19

19

A cruel and unfortunate reality of structural racism in the U.S. economy is that even in the “best” of economic times, Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native (AIAN), and Hispanic children experience much higher rates of poverty than white children. In 2024, 30.5% of AIAN children, 25.4% of Black children and 20.2% of Hispanic children lived below the official poverty threshold, compared with just 8.2% of non-Hispanic white children 6.4% of Asian children. While child poverty has fallen significantly for Black, Hispanic, and Asian American children over the past 40 years, Black and Hispanic child poverty rates remained over 20% in 2024. Additionally, in 2024, AIAN children had the highest rates of child poverty at over 30 percent (30.5%). This large and persistent disparity in child poverty combined with the fact that Black and Hispanic children have become an increasing share of the underage 18 population over time (see Chart 1 and Chart 4) has resulted in very little change in the overall child poverty rate since 1974. Given the long-term effects of exposure to poverty in childhood, addressing these persistent disparities must play a role in our approach toward building equity and moving the needle on child poverty.

For more on the long-term effects of exposure to poverty in childhood, see Kerris Cooper and Kitty Stewart, “Does Money Affect Children’s Outcomes? An Update,” CASEpapers (203), The London School of Economics and Political Science, July 2017; Randall Akee et al., “Parents’ Incomes and Children’s Outcomes: A Quasi-Experiment,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, January 2010.

Share this chart:

Poverty rates are higher among AIAN, Black and Hispanic working-age adults: Poverty rates for age 18–64, by race and ethnicity, 1974–2024

20

20

While poverty across the working-age population (ages 18 to 64) is lower than that for children (see Chart 19), disparities by race and ethnicity follow a similar trend, with American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), Black, and Hispanic adults more likely to be impoverished than white and Asian adults. Poverty is a measure of economic deprivation, and among working-age adults in particular, reflects disparities in unemployment, wages, and income. Life circumstances, such as severe disability and major illness—which can also limit earned income or quickly deplete any available savings—also contribute to poverty for this age group. The racially coded misrepresentation of poverty as some kind of moral or cultural pathology has hindered the political will needed to sustain and strengthen vital income supports that have proven effective in fighting poverty.  

For more on the misrepresentation of poverty as a cultural pathology see William “Sandy” Darity Jr., “Revisiting the Debate on Race and Culture: The New (Incorrect) Harvard/Washington Consensus.” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 8, no. 2, 467–476. For more on the vital income supports that would lessen poverty see Asha Banerjee and Ben Zipperer, “Social Insurance Programs Cushioned the Blow of the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020,” Working Economics Blog, Economic Policy Institute, September 14, 2021.

Share this chart:

There are large racial disparities in poverty at older ages (65 and older)—likely reflecting differences in retirement preparedness and/or lifetime income disparities: Poverty rates for people ages 65 and older, by race and ethnicity, 1974–2024

21

21

The poverty seen among older Americans in the chart is most likely the result of a lifetime of low earnings and a lack of retirement preparedness. While research shows that Social Security plays a critical role in keeping poverty rates among older Americans lower than they otherwise would have been (not depicted in the chart), older Black, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) adults still have relatively high poverty rates. Older Asian Americans are also more likely to live in poverty than older white Americans. Additionally, older Asian Americans have higher poverty rates than younger Asian Americans (see Chart 19 and Chart 20). This is likely due to a larger share of older Asian Americans having worked comparatively few years in the United States, or in jobs where they were unable to accumulate the necessary years for Social Security eligibility, leaving them less able to take advantage of work-based social safety net programs like Social Security.

For more on the causes of poverty among older Americans and the capacity of Social Security to lift older Americans—particularly women and people of color—out of poverty, see Kathleen Romig, Social Security Lifts More People Above the Poverty Line Than Any Other Program, Center on Budget and Policy priorities, April 2022. For more on the economic condition of the older Asian American population, see Victoria Tran, “Asian American Seniors Are Often Left Out of the National Conversation on Poverty,” Urban Wire (Urban Institute blog), May 31, 2017.

Share this chart:

Racial wealth disparities are stark and persistent, reflecting a history of exploitation and exclusion: Median family net worth by race and ethnicity, selected years from 1989 to 2022

22

22

The chart shows sharp racial and ethnic disparities in net worth observed across time in the United States. Though not shown in the chart, these disparities reflect the differences in lived economic experiences between white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian families. Wealth can be accumulated both within and across generations, such that a high net worth can result from the benefit of prime earning years with 1) relatively few employment disruptions, 2) access to wealth-building savings and investment vehicles, 3) relatively few serious negative health shocks, and 4) well-timed wealth transfers from parents and grandparents.  The typical white household has many times the wealth of the typical Black or Hispanic household due to 1) their privileged position in the American labor market, which grants them access to more consistent and higher-quality employment opportunities, 2) their more limited exposure to the health risks brought on by poorer living conditions and discrimination, and 3) their history of access to wealth-building opportunities from which other groups have been excluded. 

In 2022, the Survey of Consumer Finances reported household wealth data for the Asian American population for the first time. Asian household wealth far outstrips that of other households in 2022, though this statistic should be couched with appropriate context: Asian Americans are an incredibly diverse group with varying economic circumstances related to, among other things, immigration history and country of origin; moreover, the SCF oversamples households that are likely to be wealthy. Further disaggregation of wealth data by immigration history could be useful in illuminating wealth disparities within the Asian American population.  

For more on the systemic barriers to Black wealth building see Natasha Hicks, Fenaba Addo, Anne Price, and William Darity Jr., Still Running Up the Down Escalator: How Narratives Shape Our Understanding of Racial Wealth Inequality, The Samuel Dubois Cook Center on Social Equity, 2021. For more on the barriers to Hispanic wealth building see Dedrick Asante-Muhammad, Alexandra Perez, and Jamie Buell, “Racial Wealth Snapshot: Latino Americans.” National Community Reinvestment Coalition, September 17, 2021.

Share this chart:

Health

Racial disparities in life expectancy reflect the cumulative disadvantage of living as a minority in the United States: Women’s and men’s life expectancy at birth, by race and ethnicity, 2022

23

23

Racial disparities in life expectancy have been documented as far back as statistics on life expectancy have been recorded in the U.S, with clear and persistent distinctions between privileged groups and disadvantaged groups. That is, rather than groups shifting in their ranking of life expectancy randomly across time, there are distinct patterns in which groups live longer lives than others. In general, Black and AIAN women and men live much shorter lives than white and Asian women and men. 

In 2022, Asian American women and men had the longest life expectancies, at 86.3 years and 82.3 years respectively. AIAN women and men had the lowest life expectancies, at 64.5 years and 71.3 years respectively. This massive gap in life expectancy approaching two decades can be attributed to several factors, many of which are structural and rooted in economic disparity. In recent years, life expectancy gains have disproportionately gone to those in the highest income categories, who are disproportionately white and Asian (see Chart 18). Alongside the history of white supremacy and anti-Black racism in the United States, these economic roots of also help to explain persistent the persistent Black-white gap in life expectancy. That Black-white gap has fluctuated somewhat over the past decade, shrinking due to the impact of opioid-related “deaths of despair” on lowering white life expectancy, and reopening as COVID-19 related mortality disproportionately impacted Black and brown communities. 

Hispanic women and men tend to live longer than white women and men, though that life expectancy advantage has been shown to diminish with subsequent generations of U.S.-born Latinos. This suggests that there may be something uniquely deleterious about living as a minority in the United States.

For more on gaps in life expectancy, effects of the opioid crisis, and Hispanic life expectancy see Congressional Research Service, The Growing Gap in Life Expectancy by Income: Recent Evidence and Implications for the Social Security Retirement Age, CRS Report R44846, July 6, 2021; Helena Hansen and Julie Netherland, “Is the Prescription Opioid Epidemic a White Problem?” American Journal of Public Health 106, no. 12 (December 2016), 2127–2129 (doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303483); Osea Giuntella, “The Hispanic Health Paradox: New Evidence from Longitudinal Data on Second and Third-Generation Birth Outcomes,” SSM – Population Health, vol. 2 (December 2016), 84–89 (doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.02.013).

Share this chart:

The Affordable Care Act significantly reduced uninsured rates across racial and ethnic groups, but disparities remain: Uninsured rates by race and ethnicity, 2008–2024

24

24

The Affordable Care Act (the ACA or “Obamacare”) expanded health insurance coverage to middle- and low-income Americans, which disproportionately benefited those groups with the least access—Hispanic Americans and American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIAN), and to a lesser extent Black Americans. Despite the marked improvement in health insurance coverage rates since the implementation of ACA, disparities between groups remain stark, with Hispanic and AIAN uninsured rates double Black rates, and approaching four times as high as the uninsured rates of white and Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI). Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to minimizing the severity of chronic illnesses, and regular health care is important for promoting better overall health. The lack of health insurance often results in a choice to delay receiving health care until one’s condition is critical, contributing to racial disparities in health outcomes and life expectancy.

For more on how the ACA expanded health coverage, particularly to certain groups, see Samantha Artiga, Latoya Hill, Kendal Orgera, and Anthony Damico. “Health Coverage by Race and Ethnicity, 2010–2019,” Kaiser Family Foundation, July 16, 2021; Jesse Cross-Call, Medicaid Expansion Has Helped Narrow Racial Disparities in Health Coverage and Access to Care, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 2020.

Share this chart:

Black mothers are far more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than are white and Hispanic mothers: Pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births by race and ethnicity, 2023

25

25

Maternal mortality rates are a stark indicator of racial disparities in public health in the United States. Black women are over twice as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as white women, almost three times as likely as Hispanic women, and almost four times as likely as Asian women. Although not shown in the chart, these racial disparities persist regardless of a woman’s social or economic status. Health status and differential access to quality prenatal care play a major role in maintaining these disparities, as does structural racism more generally. To adequately address these disparities in maternal health outcomes, we must confront racism and bias in the U.S. health care system and the implications for how health care providers and personnel communicate with and treat patients.

For more on the causes and solutions to Black maternal mortality, see “Working Together to Reduce Black Maternal Mortality,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, April 6, 2022.

Share this chart:

AIAN population 1-year estimates and 3-year rolling averages, select charts

Appendix

Appendix

Share this chart:

Today, the Census Bureau released 2024 state-level income and poverty data from the American Community Survey (ACS). Although these data come from a different survey than the national income and poverty data, the overall trends are similar, with a range of outcomes across states.

Importantly, these data describe trends for 2024 and tell us nothing about economic conditions this year, in which Trump administration actions—chaotic tariffs, mass deportations, attacks on federal employees—have weakened the labor market, put upward pressure on prices, and threatened to undo recent progress of historically high wage growth and declining inequality.

State-level changes in household income

Between 2023 and 2024, U.S. median household income rose 2.0% to $81,604.1 Median household income varied significantly by state, from a low of $59,127 in Mississippi to $109,707 in the District of Columbia in 2024. Compared with 2023, median household incomes saw the largest decline in Rhode Island (–4.5%) and the largest increase in Alaska (7.3%). Twenty-nine states had a statistically significant increase in median income while the remaining 21 states and D.C. had no measurable year-over-year change in household income, positive or negative.

Because single-year changes can be volatile, it’s useful to look over a longer timeframe to identify trends. Specifically, we compare 2024 data with 2019—the year before the COVID-19 pandemic began—to understand the change in median household income between two recent years in which the economy was relatively strong. Between 2019 and 2024, ACS-measured median household income nationally increased only 1.1% after adjusting for inflation. Idaho (8.3%) and Montana (7.3%) experienced the largest increases in median household income since 2019, while Wyoming (–5.4%) and Minnesota (–4.9%) saw the largest declines. Overall, 30 states experienced an increase in median incomes from 2019 to 2024 and 20 states plus D.C. experienced a decline (see Figure A).

Figure A

State-level changes in poverty

The Census reported that poverty rates measurably fell in 13 states from 2023 to 2024. The share of people with incomes below the poverty line ranged from a low of 7.2% in New Hampshire to a high of 18.7% in Louisiana in 2024, compared with the U.S. average of 12.1% as measured by the ACS. Regionally, poverty rates were higher in the South and lower in the Northeast and West. Since 2023, poverty declined nationwide by 0.4% but declined much faster in Montana (–1.5%), New Mexico (–1.4%), and South Dakota (–1.4%). Poverty increased by more than one percentage point in DC (3.3%) and North Dakota (1.3%).

Poverty rates declined slightly less over the past year compared with 2019, but most states made progress nonetheless. Twenty-nine states had lower poverty rates in 2024 than in 2019, while 18 states and D.C. had poverty rates above their 2019 rates, and there was no change in California, New Jersey, and Wyoming (see Figure A). Since 2019, the poverty rate increased the most in D.C. (3.8%)—from 13.5% to 17.3%.

Trump administration actions will harm working families and deepen inequality

The Biden administration’s fiscal response to the COVID-19 pandemic prevented prolonged economic pain, particularly in comparison to the Great Recession. Though inflation was pronounced in 2022, inflationary pressures declined in 2023 and 2024 while wages continued to rise, outpacing inflation and bolstering household income.

Unfortunately, Trump administration policies will undermine recent progress and exacerbate economic precarity for low-income households. In the years ahead, the Republican “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” will decimate access to health care and nutrition assistance for the poorest households while providing a massive tax cut for the wealthy—a giveaway that will cause pain for millions of U.S. households. And Trump’s chaotic trade policies and mass deportation agenda will harm U.S.-born and immigrant workers alike. In fact, some of these harms are already being felt. This month’s jobs report showed slowed growth and rising unemployment.

The Trump administration has also taken actions to undermine the work of civil servants who collect and analyze the data summarized here. The Bureau of Labor Statistic and U.S. Census Bureau provide high-quality, nonpartisan economic data that allow policymakers at all levels of government—as well as business leaders—to plan and make decisions that keep our economy functioning. But the Trump administration has implemented deep staffing cuts at federal agencies and politicized the work of economists and statisticians, eroding trust in government and threatening the credibility of future data collection and analysis efforts.

Amid federal attacks on working families, state lawmakers can advance economic justice

While recently released household income and poverty data showed some improvement in 2024, much more progress is needed to address income inequality and disparities by race and gender in every state. For example, policymakers need to raise the minimum wage, increase workers’ access to a union, implement pro-family policies like affordable child care and paid leave, and make our tax system fairer. In the face of anti-worker policies at the federal level, state lawmakers have an opportunity and responsibility to champion policies that enable workers and families to thrive.

Note

1. According to the data released on Tuesday from the Current Population Survey (CPS), U.S. median household income in 2024 was $83,730—a small (1.3%) but not statistically significant change from 2023. The 2024 value was also essentially the same as that from 2019 ($83,260). The ACS data released Thursday show that median household income rose 2.0% nationally from 2023 to 2024. The differences between these values reflect differences in the methodologies of the two surveys that make them not directly comparable; however, the fact that the ACS change was a statistically measurable increase validates the direction of the change reported by the CPS.

From EPI senior economist Elise Gould:

The latest data out from #Census today show median earnings and median household incomes kept pace with inflation in 2024. Men’s earnings rose 3.7% increasing the gender wage gap back to 2019 levels. Income grew at the top, but not the middle or bottom, reversing recent trends.
#EconSky #NumbersDay

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 9, 2025 at 9:43 AM

While median earnings and incomes held strong in 2024, it’s important to remember that these data do not say anything about 2025. Trump policies—chaotic and high tariffs, mass deportations, attacks on the federal workforce—have already led to a softening labor market and more inflationary pressures.

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 9, 2025 at 10:01 AM

While changes at the median or 10th percentile were not statistically significant between 2023 and 2024, income grew 1.3% and 2.2% in real terms at the middle and bottom, respectively. However, inequality did rise because the top grew even faster (4.2% at the 90th percentile).
#EconSky #NumbersDay

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 9, 2025 at 10:33 AM

From EPI senior economist Ben Zipperer:

About 8% of people lacked any form of health insurance in 2024. Unfortunately that rate will dramatically increase in the coming years, from 27 million to more than 40 million thanks to Republicans who cut Medicaid and ACA marketplace subsidies

[image or embed]

— Ben Zipperer (@benzipperer.org) Sep 9, 2025 at 9:33 AM

From EPI economist Ismael Cid-Martinez: 

New Census 2024 income data show a mixed picture for families of color. Asian & Hispanic families saw their median income rise. But Black families experienced a fall. Typical Black & Hispanic households continue to earn just a fraction of their white peers’ income. #EconSky #NumbersDay

[image or embed]

— Ismael Cid Martínez (@icidmartinez.bsky.social) Sep 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM

Disparities in income continue to leave families of color with children disproportionately vulnerable to poverty. Black & Hispanic children remain 3 times as likely as their white peers to suffer poverty. #EconSky #NumbersDay

[image or embed]

— Ismael Cid Martínez (@icidmartinez.bsky.social) Sep 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM

As we point out in a new report, Trump and Congressional Republicans’ attacks on basic needs programs that keep millions of children out of poverty will continue to expand these inequities – forcing children of color to inherit poverty for generations.
www.epi.org/publication/…

[image or embed]

— Ismael Cid Martínez (@icidmartinez.bsky.social) Sep 9, 2025 at 10:19 AM

From EPI economist Hilary Wething: 

Some big #NumbersDay releases today—Just a reminder that the Census data are incredibly valuable. We get transparent and non-politicized data to make informed decisions about what policies are delivering economic security for working people.

— Hilary Wething (@hilwething.bsky.social) Sep 9, 2025 at 9:25 AM