The provocation was the “every president tries” part. If “trying” is defined as changing policy to consistently support employment growth in U.S. manufacturing, no president has tried in my lifetime to do this. Amazingly, doing nothing has indeed failed. Doing nothing was also the wrong choice.

The loss of manufacturing jobs

First, some data to define the problem. Furman focuses on the share of total employment that is in manufacturing. He notes that many structural non-policy forces (like technology and what people demand as countries get richer) put steady downward pressure on this in any growing country. There’s a lot of truth in that.

But the U.S. got much richer between 1965 and 2000—in fact it got richer at a far faster pace than it has since, so both technology and the different demands of a richer society should have been operating a lot less intensely since then. And yet the level of U.S. manufacturing employment was steady during that period, fluctuating roughly between 17.0 and 19.5 million depending on the state of the business cycle (see Figure A). After 35 years of stability, manufacturing jobs then cratered: 3 million manufacturing jobs were lost after the recession of 2001, and the 2003–2007 recovery saw essentially no gain at all in manufacturing jobs—the first manufacturing jobless recovery we’ve ever experienced. Then another 3 million jobs were lost during the Great Recession of 2008–09.

After falling from over 17 million to just over 11 million between 2000 and 2010, the sector has seen only very slow growth since. The new high point of manufacturing employment in the recent past was 12.9 million workers in early 2023.

Figure A

Manufacturing historically lost a disproportionate share of jobs during recessions, but what kept it from gaining jobs back quickly in the early 2000s and 2010s recoveries the way it usually had? One huge influence was the emergence of a large trade deficit in manufactured goods. In those decades, the deficit peaked at 4.4% of GDP in 2005 (see Figure B). After being forced into improvement by the Great Recession and the collapse of American spending on all goods and services (including imports), it has steadily moved back toward this peak and surpassed it in recent years.

Figure B

Policy measures can close the trade deficit and reshore manufacturing jobs

Tolerating this rise of the U.S. trade deficit was a policy choice. The deficit’s rise was driven by a dollar whose value is too high to allow balanced trade. A high dollar makes our exports expensive to foreign consumers and makes foreign imports cheap for U.S. residents. Hence, it leads directly to chronic trade deficits (see Figure C). Any serious effort at boosting manufacturing employment would require using policy levers to reduce the value of the U.S. dollar.

Figure C

What are these currency policy levers? First, policy would need to prevent other countries’ governments from actively managing the value of their currency to give their exports a competitive advantage against U.S.-produced goods. There are many ways to do this. Currency management is done through other countries’ governments (or their proxies) buying U.S. dollar-denominated assets (like Treasury bonds or mortgage-backed securities) to bid up the demand for dollars. There’s no particular reason the U.S. couldn’t undertake countervailing currency intervention and buy other countries’ assets whenever they bought ours in an effort to manage their currency’s value. Or we could tax foreign purchases of U.S. assets.

Second, we could raise taxes domestically to close fiscal deficits. In coming years unless we run into a recession (which the Iran conflict makes more likely), there is likely to be sustained upward pressure on interest rates stemming from the big increases in fiscal deficits locked in by the Republican mega tax and spending bill. Higher interest rates in the U.S. will attract foreign investors to U.S. assets, which will bid up the value of the U.S. dollar further and harm manufacturing.

Third, we could hasten the inevitable deflation of the AI-driven stock market bubble, which has attracted foreign investors looking to make high returns. All else equal, there would be less upward pressure on the U.S. dollar if foreign investors were not rushing in to buy dollars to purchase U.S. stocks.

Fourth, we could accelerate the transition to cleaner energy. The U.S. has swung from being a large net importer to a net exporter of oil and natural gas. This has greatly increased foreign demand for U.S. dollars simply to buy our energy supplies, which pushes up the value of the dollar and hurts U.S. manufacturing.

Finally, we could reform our corporate tax code to stop its bias toward offshoring both paper profits and real production. The swing toward a large trade deficit in the pharmaceuticals sector, for example, can be linked directly to the first Trump administration’s changes in the corporate tax code.

In short, taking currency seriously would mean going against some very powerful economic interests—finance, tech, pharmaceuticals, and fossil fuels—in the name of helping U.S. manufacturing. But it would be a good trade to make. And to be clear, dollar weakness that is caused not by intentional policy decisions but is simply an outcome of erratic policy decisions will not provide any sustained benefits to U.S. manufacturing. U.S. manufacturing needs a competitive value of the dollar and a healthy and stable domestic economy. Engineering dollar decline by sabotaging the stability of the domestic economy does not help.

How many jobs could be reshored if currency policy somehow closed the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit? Very roughly it would be close to 3 million. This would not change the long-run trend in the manufacturing share of employment, but it would boost manufacturing-based communities around the country.

Indifference to manufacturing was bad for economic dynamism

The long-run gains to rebuilding communities of manufacturing process knowledge in the U.S. could be large. U.S. losses and China’s growing dominance in manufacturing are in large part a story of deconstructing communities of process knowledge in the U.S. and building them in China. These communities are geographic clusters where firms and workers specialize in particular manufacturing sub-sectors. The agglomeration of knowledge and skills leads to steady innovation which further locks in the competitive advantage of the cluster and raises productivity growth.

Currency policy destroyed these clusters in the U.S. and provided ample space for them to grow in China. The large and constant pressure of an overvalued dollar in the U.S. imposes a heavy drag on the prospects of new manufacturing firms setting up shop and becoming a center for clusters like these. The currency policy of China surely acted as the reverse of this, clearing huge competitive space for new entrants and for further growth in communities of process knowledge.

Currency management was not China’s only industrial policy measure, but it is the one that allowed an across-the-board competitive advantage in all manufacturing industries. And it is the only industrial policy in the U.S. that would reclaim some of the across-the-board manufacturing disadvantage we’ve allowed to be imposed on our domestic industry. Targeted protection and subsidies for particular sub-industries in manufacturing have been important in crafting the exact patterns of trade, but it is currency policy that largely explains the manufacturing-wide trade deficit that the U.S. runs with China and other countries that manage their currency.

How big is this problem of losing expertise and process knowledge in manufacturing for the overall economy? Another sign of the indifference towards manufacturing shown by successive U.S. policymakers is that we don’t even really know—and this indifference and the ignorance it generates has grown over the past year of the Trump administration. The manufacturing sector used to be a source of productivity dynamism in the U.S. economy, but recent data indicate that as we hemorrhaged millions of jobs we also saw declining productivity growth in the sector. This productivity decline might not be entirely genuine—it might be a problem with statistical measurement. It would be nice to invest in our data-gathering infrastructure to shed more light on this issue, but instead the parts of the Bureau of Labor Statistics who have the expertise to do this have been gutted by the Trump administration and longer-run cuts. Another angle of taking manufacturing seriously would be supporting the public structures that provide needed inputs to know what’s even happening in the sector.

Doing nothing was a mistake

U.S. presidents have made the implicit judgement over the past 50 years that it’s a good trade for Americans to have a smaller domestic manufacturing sector in return for cheap imports of manufactured goods, even if that means we’re running chronic large trade deficits. It’s not so obvious to me that’s a good trade, and there’s one last angle that makes it even less obvious.

The foreign inflow of capital that is the mirror image of the trade deficit in manufactured goods is essentially investors abroad bidding against Americans who are looking to buy stocks and bonds and other assets to build their wealth. Bidding up the price of these assets means long-run returns will be lower. In short, this current system of trade imbalances lowers the returns to holding wealth for U.S. residents. One could argue that this is mostly a problem for wealthy U.S. households, who own the lion’s share of assets.

But there is also the issue of why the valuation of U.S. assets has grown in recent decades even aside from increased foreign demand. A huge part of this growth is a zero-sum transfer of income from labor earnings to corporate profits: Recent estimates have this transfer accounting for almost half of the entire nominal growth in the value of U.S. corporate equities in the last 40 years.

Absent foreign demand for U.S. assets, some of this loss to wages would have been counterbalanced for at least some subset of U.S. households by higher rates of return to their savings. To be clear, this zero-sum transfer from wages to wealth still would have been a negative development for the vast majority within the U.S. economy. But this transfer combined with the fact that most of the gains accrue to investors outside of the U.S. because of imbalances in trade and investment flows make it even more damaging. Essentially, U.S. households as workers feel all the pain of a campaign of wage suppression, but U.S. households as investors do not claim all of the benefits of this wage suppression.

Presidents have not tried to reverse manufacturing job loss

In the end, no president in my lifetime has made a serious and consistent effort to do what is necessary to make the U.S. dollar stay at values commensurate with balanced trade in manufacturing. Ronald Reagan famously negotiated the Plaza Accord, which pressured Germany and Japan (our two biggest trade-deficit partners at the time) to reflate their own economies and to stop currency intervention. But at the same time, Reagan ramped up military spending and made large tax cuts that put huge upward pressure on interest rates and led to huge trade deficits in the early 1980s. Bill Clinton oversaw smaller fiscal deficits but actively encouraged a “strong dollar policy” which saw the dollar hit some of its highest levels on record. This strong dollar policy and support for a punitive rescue package for countries slammed by the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s led to another large increase in U.S. trade deficits. The Clinton administration’s support for permanent normalized trade relations (PNTR) with China and for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) made it harder for subsequent administrations to apply pressure to China to abandon its significant currency management in the 2000s.

George W. Bush refused to address the Chinese currency management and undertook large tax cuts and increased military spending again, pushing up interest rates and leading to another round of large trade deficits. Barack Obama similarly failed to address currency management, even leaving it out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement he pushed hard in his final years in office. Donald Trump passed corporate tax changes that actively incentivized offshoring in his first term in office. His major trade policy change in the second term has been chaotic and fluctuating—though generally high and broad—tariffs across manufacturing. Manufacturing employment in 2025 averaged 157,000 lower than in 2024 even as the administration trumpeted these large tariff increases. That constitutes the worst non-recessionary year for manufacturing since 2004.

Furman is right that we have seen consistent presidential failure to support employment in manufacturing. And he’s right that most of these presidents made some rhetorical commitment to manufacturing that makes this failure jarring. But nothing serious was ever really tried, and that was a costly mistake.

Originally held Thursday, April 9, 2026.

Webinar links, notes and discussion

Timestamped themes, discussion, and resources mentioned in the webinar

If you are an academic, student, non-profit researcher or advocate, or a journalist, you may view and use the content of this webinar and its related materials without requesting any further permission.

This is permitted under a non-commercial use Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

If you are a commercial enterprise looking to this information or data in any product that will be sold or as part of services and data you provide to paying customers, request commercial use by contacting EPI.

Find out about upcoming webinars first! Subscribe to EPI newsletters.

Rising authoritarianism and the need to upend the failed Southern economic development model

For generations, Southern politicians backed by powerful business interests have promoted a Southern economic development model—characterized by low wages, regressive taxation, lax environmental regulations, a weak social safety net, and vicious opposition to unions—while claiming such policies will attract business and thereby generate regional economic gains. But data actually show a grim reality. The South lags all other regions on most indicators of economic health including job growth and wages, and Southern workers and their families experience significantly higher rates of poverty than in other parts of the country (Childers 2024a).

The truth is that this Southern economic development model was never designed to benefit most Southerners; rather, it is historically rooted in efforts of white plantation owners to retain their wealth following emancipation and ensure continued access to the labor of Black people for as little compensation as possible (Childers 2025). Foundational to these efforts was an authoritarian approach to state governance that suppressed popular democracy and worker organizing—an approach that also sanctioned prison labor, sharecropping, a century of Jim Crow laws, lynching, and other forms of state-sponsored terror and exploitation. Until partially challenged by federal legal and policy interventions won by post-WWII civil rights movements, many Southern states for decades held elections that served merely to provide a cover of legitimacy to one-party rule of white, wealthy elites—functionally excluding Black voters from the electorate and blocking working-class constituencies from any meaningful participation in governance (Mickey 2015; Perez 2024; Mast 2025).

Today, the Trump administration’s increasingly authoritarian actions echo this troubling Southern history. At their foundation, the administration’s approaches to bypassing constitutional checks and balances—while rolling back civil rights, worker rights, and environmental protections; terrorizing immigrant communities; deploying military troops in U.S. cities; and attempting to engineer election outcomes via gerrymandering and other forms of voter suppression—are rooted in authoritarian models developed and tested in the U.S. South, and that Black, brown, and immigrant communities across the country are no stranger to.

Recent attempts to terminate federal employee collective bargaining agreements, for example, are familiar to public employees in Southern states for whom collective bargaining has long been banned or severely restricted. The Trump administration’s use of military-style policing in communities across the country echoes Southern histories of weaponizing law enforcement (or National Guard troops) to suppress organizing and instill fear, while prioritizing the expansion of the carceral state over investments in housing, education, and public services. Trump’s efforts to override the authority of state officials mirror Southern state uses of abusive preemption laws to strip policymaking authority from local governments. And administration attempts to halt clean energy investments and environmental protections threaten to repeat harms familiar in Black and brown communities in the South, where corporations have insisted on lax environmental regulations that allow them to degrade air, water, and climate quality, while profiting from the exploitation of local natural resources and labor.

Seizing opportunities to reverse decades of anti-worker, anti-democratic policymaking in the South at a moment of rising authoritarianism in the U.S. is a daunting and unavoidably urgent challenge. It will require robust new forms of multiracial organizing and labor-community coalition building across a broad set of industries in the South. Labor-community coalitions can leverage community benefits agreements (CBAs) as a powerful tool to transform economic power relations in Southern workplaces and communities. Because CBAs are private agreements between labor-community coalitions and project owners, they do not rely on government action and can therefore shape economic outcomes of major projects even in otherwise hostile political environments. CBAs have traditionally been fought for and won by labor and community groups coming together and building necessary public pressure to hold developers, corporations, and elected leaders accountable for ensuring that public investments in major new developments truly benefit workers and communities.

In this report, we analyze the potential for labor-community coalitions to pursue strong CBAs that secure significant economic benefits for Southern manufacturing workers and communities, drawing on examples of existing agreements to model potential impacts. We examine the scale of recent public investments in Southern manufacturing and examine how strong CBAs on major publicly-subsidized private projects could improve the quality of newly created construction and production jobs; open up pathways to unionization; ensure equitable hiring and training opportunities for local residents; and address community needs such as child care, affordable housing, and natural resource protection.

We contend that upending the failed Southern economic development model and the authoritarian structures that underpin it will require building new forms of labor and community power to increase union density in the South. Well-known research shows that unions promote economic equality and help workers win improvements in pay, benefits, and working conditions (Economic Policy Institute 2021). But unions also powerfully affect people’s lives outside of work. They help foster solidarity, increase democratic participation, enable working-class communities to shape economic policies affecting their lives, and serve as a counterweight to corporate power in our economy and democracy (McNicholas et al. 2025). Historically, unions have been engines of resistance to entrenched and undemocratic power—mobilizing working people to challenge inequality, defend civil rights, and push back against authoritarianism in all its forms. For all these reasons, strengthening labor-community coalitions and pathways to unionization in growing Southern industrial sectors is not just good economic policy—it is also a democratic imperative amid national authoritarian backsliding.

Worker and community power can ensure new manufacturing investments yield good jobs and community benefits

The latest wave of manufacturing growth in the South presents both opportunities and pitfalls for workers and communities. Southern states continue to lure businesses—including large manufacturing facilities—with promises of low corporate tax rates, low wages, lax regulations, and massive public subsidies. The automotive manufacturing industry has been a key recipient of public subsidies, receiving billions of dollars from Southern states in recent decades (Childers 2024a; Todd 2021). This system of low taxation and corporate giveaways starves other essential public goods, like education and social safety net programs (Mast 2025b). Likewise, weak or nonexistent environmental regulations have contributed to toxic sites and resource degradation that disproportionately affect Black and brown families, reflecting often intentional decisions to site hazardous facilities in low-income communities of color (Bergman 2019).

Some announced manufacturing projects have been cancelled or reduced in size after the Trump administration’s slashing of federal supports for strategic industries, but many projects launched during the Biden administration continue to move forward. These manufacturing investments, both in traditional industries and nascent ones such as electric vehicle (EV) and EV battery manufacturing, are spurring significant job growth in some Southern communities. Yet past experience shows that new investments and resulting jobs are unlikely to generate economic benefits for most Southerners unless local residents are able to ensure that developers and corporations respect workers’ rights, protect local natural resources, and contribute a fair share toward addressing priority community needs.

Community benefits agreements can be powerful vehicles for communities to secure lasting local economic benefits from major industrial development, at both new and existing facilities. A CBA is a legally enforceable contract between a private developer or company and a local coalition—typically made up of labor, community, faith, environmental, and other grassroots organizations—that details how a project will benefit workers and the community, and in turn how the community will support the project (including via potential public investment). Benefits spelled out in a CBA can include commitments to strong labor standards; respect for workers’ rights to organize; equitable workforce recruitment, training, and hiring practices; affordable housing; environmental protections; or a broad range of other community-identified priorities. CBAs are a well-developed model for responsible community development—so far mostly, but not entirely, in regions outside the South—and have been used for many different types of major projects including sports stadiums, events centers, manufacturing plants, airports, transit projects, and more (WRI n.d.).

CBAs can likewise mitigate risks for project developers by ensuring local project support and addressing important concerns early on, whereas failure to engage local communities in major development decisions can otherwise lead to strong community opposition, interruption of development, obstacles to obtaining necessary siting permits or rezoning approvals, or significant legal costs. In an example from June 2024, developers shelved plans for a $1.3 billion data center in Indiana after facing significant local opposition over environmental concerns (Fazili et al. 2025).

Because a CBA is a private, legally binding agreement, it does not require government action and can be used to shape outcomes of major projects even in contexts (as in most of the South) where state legislators have preempted local governments from establishing their own job quality or environmental standards (EPI 2025a). That being said, state and local governments can still have a role in facilitating, negotiating, or enforcing community benefits. Cities like Detroit and Cleveland have ordinances requiring developers of projects using public resources to engage in a community benefits plan process (City of Detroit n.d.; City of Cleveland n.d.). In 2005, Atlanta passed an ordinance specifying worker and community benefits for the Beltline redevelopment (WRI 2025). However, government involvement in community benefits plans does not guarantee strong agreements on its own. A strong labor-community coalition remains essential for securing meaningful community benefits.

Another key strength of a CBA is that it can set standards across all stages of a project’s development to ensure long-term benefits for the community at large. Private developers or public entities sometimes negotiate Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) or Community Workforce Agreements (CWAs) with building trades unions and community partners to set wages, working conditions, and timelines for the construction phase of a complex development project. A CBA can be negotiated alongside a PLA to also ensure pathways to quality jobs for local residents during the operational phases of a project, including any future expansions of the facility or additions to its workforce. A CBA can also secure commitments to build affordable housing, strengthen environmental standards, and provide other benefits to the community such as child care, public parks, or other community spaces.

To be successful, a CBA must also include defined enforcement mechanisms that hold all parties to the agreement accountable. It must clearly establish the obligations of each party, metrics for measuring progress, and ongoing monitoring of compliance with the agreement’s provisions (Last 2025; PWF and CBLC 2016). If the company or the coalition fails to make good-faith efforts on the agreement’s commitments, an arbitration process is initiated. While monitoring of the agreement is an ongoing responsibility of all members of the coalition, providing a pathway for workers to organize in the operational phase of a project is of particular importance. A newly established union at the project site is well-positioned to monitor the commitments of the CBA and hold the company accountable over the long term.

Organizers and advocates should be clear-eyed that while strong CBAs can yield powerful economic outcomes, such agreements are by no means easy to win. There are generally no legal requirements for a particular company or developer to recognize or engage with a labor-community coalition, much less to agree to negotiate and implement a CBA. Building the broad-based, durable coalitions and leverage necessary to compel private interests to engage in CBA negotiations (and then to implement and enforce the terms of a CBA) is unavoidably a challenging, long-term, resource-intensive organizing project. And like any worthwhile organizing, the formation of strong, durable labor-community coalitions is itself a key outcome of successful CBA campaigns. Vastly expanding the capacity of broad-based coalitions and labor, faith, environmental, and other grassroots organizations to gradually build community and worker power in Southern communities is the most essential ingredient for transforming existing power imbalances and, ultimately, upending the failed Southern economic development model.

Indeed, recent initiatives to win CBAs in Southern states have proven so threatening to some corporate interests that they have sought to undermine them. In 2025, Tennessee Republicans passed legislation prohibiting any company that enters into a CBA from receiving state economic development funds—aiming to create obstacles to replication of a highly successful CBA covering Nashville’s soccer stadium, and to discourage a coalition of West Tennessee residents and allied groups calling on Ford and SK Innovation to negotiate a CBA covering its massive BlueOval electric vehicle and battery manufacturing complex (Abrams 2025). In Tennessee and elsewhere, however, labor-community coalitions are nonetheless continuing to organize to ensure that massive, publicly subsidized new facilities yield good jobs and community benefits.

A new wave of Southern manufacturing is an opportunity to transform working conditions in growing industries—and across the South

Growth in Southern manufacturing industries presents a significant opportunity for labor-community coalitions to shape labor standards and community benefits in new plants and facilities—and to shape economic outcomes for generations of Southern workers to come. In recent years, the South has seen a wave of manufacturing investments. Between 2017 and 2023, manufacturing construction doubled in the East South Central Census division (Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi) (O’Brien 2023). The West South Central division (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) has the highest amount of manufacturing construction spending of any division in the U.S. These investments are part of a long-term trend of manufacturing industries locating in the South, which in recent years was accelerated by large federal investments through the Inflation Reduction Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and CHIPS and Science Act. These federal investments included both direct public subsidies and tax credits to businesses that invested in key clean energy manufacturing industries such as the production of batteries, electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind energy products.

In contrast to the typical economic development approach of many Southern states, some recent federal investments have included incentives meant to encourage strong labor standards on projects receiving public funds. While the future of many of these investments (and accompanying incentives) is now uncertain, the U.S. has in the past two years experienced its largest investment in clean energy manufacturing ever, and much of that has occurred in Southern states.1 Since the third quarter of 2023, more than $125 billion worth of clean energy manufacturing investments were announced across Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Texas (CET 2025). Advancing even a portion of these projects would result in thousands of jobs for Southern workers.

Independent of the future of federal support for clean energy manufacturing, the South will likely continue to be the largest manufacturing employer of all U.S. regions. Figure A shows manufacturing employment by region in the United States since 1990. While manufacturing employment overall has fallen during the last three decades, the South has retained the largest share of manufacturing employment of any region. In 2024, 35% of U.S. manufacturing employment was in the South. Furthermore, since 2010, manufacturing employment in the South has grown by 17%, the quickest growth of any region.

Figure A

Manufacturing jobs are often considered to be well-paid, benefit-providing “middle-class” jobs, but there is nothing inherent to the sector that determines their quality. Manufacturing jobs in some industries became “good jobs” thanks to relatively high levels of unionization during the mid-20th century, which improved wages, benefits, and working conditions (Bayard et al. 2024; Rhinehart and McNicholas 2020). As Figure B shows, unionization in manufacturing has fallen in all regions since 1983, but the South has almost without exception had the lowest unionization rate of any region.

Conservative Southern policymakers have long been hostile to union organizing. For example, every Southern state except Maryland and Delaware has passed anti-union so-called right-to-work (RTW) laws, which make it harder for workers to form, join, and sustain unions. Southern states like Florida and Arkansas were among the first to pass such laws in the 1940s, amid a wave of big business backlash against new federal labor laws and white supremacist campaigns to maintain racial hierarchies and suppress multiracial worker organizing. RTW laws suppress unionization rates and, as a result, have driven down wages for both union and nonunion workers alike across the South (Sherer and Gould 2025; Childers 2023).

Figure B

In 2025, Southern manufacturing had a 6.7% unionization rate—slightly below the national unionization rate for private-sector workers (6.8%). Unionization in Southern manufacturing grew by more than a percentage point between 2024 and 2025, a notable one-year reversal of the industry’s long-standing unionization decline, consistent with overall union gains in the South (McNicholas, Poydock, and Shierholz 2026). Nevertheless, Southern manufacturing’s unionization rate remains well below the Midwest’s (11.2%), the region where manufacturing is the most heavily unionized. Unions have a strong impact on job quality because they leverage worker power collectively to raise wages, win benefits like health care and retirement, and enact other meaningful workplace improvements, such as improved health and safety standards. These benefits can extend beyond unionized workers themselves, helping set standards across a workplace, and with enough density, across an industry.

As unionization declines in an industry or region, so does job quality. For instance, as unionization rates have fallen in auto manufacturing, the pay advantage for auto workers compared with the median worker has declined significantly (Barrett and Bivens 2021). Figure C demonstrates how this relationship holds across regions in 2025. Manufacturing jobs in the South have a pay advantage of 7%, the lowest of any region. Southern manufacturing workers also experience the lowest median hourly pay of any region ($24.41).2

Figure C

The Southern economic development model clearly hurts the region’s workers by denying them their right to organize and suppressing their wages, but there are harmful spillover effects for their communities as well. Corporate tax breaks with no strings attached provide billions of dollars to corporations that could otherwise be used to invest in schools and other essential government services. These types of tax breaks might be worthy of consideration if manufacturing employers were required to create high-quality jobs for local workers and make long-term investments in local community development needs (i.e., housing, infrastructure, education, etc.). Without such protections, they are simply taxpayer-funded giveaways that often drain the very resources needed to develop the local workforce recruited by large new facilities.

Southern states enact little to no regulation of workplace safety or environmental pollution. This results in unsafe workplaces with greater levels of injury and death (Childers 2024a). Environmental pollution from manufacturing sites can negatively affect public health by contaminating water, air, and soil. New manufacturing investments also can mean significant changes to the demand for housing in a community. A new plant or factory can drive up the cost of living for nearby residents without yielding any economic benefits to a local community. Labor, community, and environmental groups need to collaborate on shared solutions to effectively address these intertwined challenges.

Labor-community coalitions can obtain commitments that ensure “economic development” means shared prosperity for all

Labor-community coalitions organizing around manufacturing projects can secure commitments that offer direct economic benefits to workers and communities, while also establishing groundwork for the growth of worker and community power in the area. While a campaign to win a CBA can be the impetus for forming a local labor-community coalition, the alignment and relationships built through this shared work can lead to longer-term, sustainable coalitions capable of transforming local and state power relationships.

The following section analyzes a set of commitments that can be included in a CBA for a manufacturing project. The CBA framework is flexible and allows for the inclusion of many different types of commitments prioritized by particular groups of workers, community members, and environmental groups. This report focuses on key types of commitments including union neutrality agreements, living wage floors, equitable workforce development practices (such as local or targeted hire policies and programs to expand pathways to apprenticeship training), affordable housing provisions, child care benefits, and environmental protections. Each type of commitment is analyzed in terms of its economic impacts and effectiveness in reshaping local economic development to ensure that public investments generate broadly shared community benefits.

The construction phase and Project Labor Agreements (PLA)

This report mostly focuses on community benefits for workers during the operational phase of a manufacturing plant. Nevertheless, it is just as vital to set high labor standards during the construction phase. Strong community benefits agreements are ideally developed in tandem with strong project construction labor standards set via project labor agreements (PLAs). A PLA is a multiparty agreement between a project owner and a coalition of labor unions that sets out labor standards and dispute resolution procedures to promote stability and efficiency on complex infrastructure projects while also ensuring the project will generate good jobs. PLAs ensure that construction projects run smoothly, are safer, and pay workers fairly (Mangundayao, McNicholas, and Poydock 2022). By setting negotiated wage and benefit levels for each type of work on a project, PLAs level the playing field in highly competitive construction bidding processes; they ensure that contractors base bids on their ability to deliver on quality and efficiency, rather than low-ball cost estimates that reflect intent to pay substandard wages or cut corners on safety. By standardizing wage and benefit levels and taking them out of the competition in the bidding process, PLAs incentivize the use of skilled union labor, which is 14% more productive than nonunionized construction work (McFadden, Santosh, and Shetty 2022). PLAs typically set wages, fringe benefits, and working conditions but can also include requirements to utilize certain numbers of apprentices, hire locally or from certain target worker populations, and/or provide child care or other benefits that open up pathways to good union construction jobs for members of underrepresented groups.

Several of the types of standards for construction workers typically included in a PLA have analogous labor standards in the operational phase. For instance, a CBA can secure commitments for local or targeted hiring and the development of registered apprenticeship programs in a manufacturing facility, extending equitable recruitment and high-quality training requirements that a PLA typically sets for construction into the operational phase of a project.

Removing obstacles to unionization: Neutrality and labor peace agreements

Protecting workers’ freedom to unionize has historically been key to turning manufacturing jobs into good jobs. This remains just as true today. However, like workers across the country, Southern manufacturing workers continue to face formidable obstacles—including weak labor laws, powerful anti-union corporations, and hostile politicians—to exercising their legally protected rights to form or join a union. Employers are charged with violating federal labor law in more than 40% of union elections and spend more than $400 million a year on “union avoidance” consultants (McNicholas et al. 2019; McNicholas et al. 2023). Because existing weak labor laws do not effectively deter employers from union busting, these tactics are treated by many employers as a normal cost of doing business—stacking the deck unfairly against workers seeking to exercise their rights to organize and collectively bargain.

Union neutrality agreements can help safeguard workers’ right to form unions free of the types of interference employers often deploy. Under a neutrality agreement, an employer agrees to remain “neutral” and not interfere with workers’ decisions on whether to unionize. Such agreements typically include joint commitments to a “card check” process for verifying whether a majority of employees have indicated interest in forming a union. Unions and employers sometimes also enter into a labor peace agreement, where unions agree not to engage in certain types of picketing, work stoppages, or other economic disruptions during the organizing process in exchange for employer neutrality.

Employers can also choose to commit to union neutrality as a matter of principle or company policy. Union neutrality—providing workers a more free and fair choice to decide whether to unionize—has been a key component of successful unionization drives in Southern manufacturing. To take two recent examples:

• In 2024, workers at the Volkswagen (VW) Chattanooga plant voted to join the United Auto Workers. Like many European corporations, the German-based VW has an established policy of maintaining neutrality in union election processes, although workers still voiced concerns that in its U.S. facilities, VW management tried to intimidate and dissuade workers from forming a union (Bomey 2024).
• In tandem with community benefits agreement negotiations with New Flyer in Anniston, Alabama, the United Steel Workers and Communications Workers of America negotiated three neutrality agreements with New Flyer and its subsidiaries in 2022. Over the two years that followed, these union neutrality agreements enabled workers to pursue five successful union drives, including at the New Flyer facility in Alabama (Last 2025; Sasha 2024).

Successful recent instances of union organizing in Southern manufacturing facilities have been powerful enough to generate their own backlash. Because of the threat that union neutrality agreements represent to the reigning Southern economic development model, several conservative state legislatures in the South have used model legislation developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council to pass laws intended to interfere with these agreements (Sachs 2024). While the legality of such measures remains in question and has not yet been tested, Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia now all have legislation in place stating that employers who agree to a union neutrality agreement will be barred from receiving state economic development funds, disincentivizing companies from participating in these agreements (Stephenson 2024).

Importance of unionization to improve manufacturing jobs and wages

Securing unionization in Southern manufacturing can have significant wage benefits for workers. Unionized manufacturing jobs are more likely to provide family-sustaining wages. Unionization in manufacturing is associated with a 17.9% wage premium for workers (Scott et al. 2022). This means that compared with similar workers in terms of education, occupation, experience, race, and ethnicity, unionized manufacturing workers are paid almost a fifth more per hour than their nonunionized counterparts.

Table 1 translates this union premium into how much more unionized workers in the South could make on an hourly, annual, and plant-wide basis. The average nonunionized manufacturing worker in the South earns $34.50 an hour, so with the typical union premium, that worker would be earning an additional $6.18 an hour. If that worker works full time, year-round, the hourly premium translates to $12,846 more a year. To illustrate the potential impact of unionization in an entire plant, we take the example of the BlueOval auto manufacturing investment in Tennessee, which is projected to create 6,000 jobs (TN Office of Governor 2023). For a plant of that size, unionization could mean more than $77 million in additional wages for workers.

Table 1

Wage gains from successful unionization are not hypothetical for manufacturing workers in the South. For example, in 2024, workers at New Flyer in Anniston, Alabama, ratified a union contract with significant pay raises, with some workers gaining raises of up to 38% through 2026 (CWA 2024). Establishing a union contract with transparent pay ladders will also help New Flyer workers combat persistent pay gaps between white and Black workers in Anniston’s manufacturing industry (Erickson 2021).

The benefits of unionization go far beyond hourly wage increases. The workers at New Flyer also achieved significant gains in terms of vacation time and retirement contributions. Unionized workers secure critical benefits like health care and sick days at greater rates than their nonunion peers. Adjusting for differences in industry, sector, and region, union workers are 18.3% more likely to have employer-covered health insurance than their nonunion counterparts (EPI 2021). Almost 9 in 10 private-sector union workers have paid sick days, compared with less than three-fourths of nonunion private-sector workers (EPI 2021).

Unions also contribute to safer and healthier working conditions across a wide range of industries (Dean, McCallum, and Venkataramani 2022). By strengthening workers’ voice on the job, unions empower workers to report safety issues and demand better protocols. One example of this is that unionized construction sites experience significantly lower rates of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations than nonunionized sites (Manzo IV, Jekot, and Bruno 2021). This is despite the fact that unionized workplaces actually experience greater rates of OSHA inspections than other workplaces, likely because many unions maintain active health and safety committees and because unionized workers have greater access to education on how to recognize safety hazards and are less afraid of reprisals from their employer for reporting them (Leigh and Chakalov 2021).

As the New Flyer agreement demonstrates, a strong CBA includes (or is negotiated in tandem with) union neutrality commitments ensuring that workers have a free and fair choice to unionize, without employer interference or retaliation. Securing a pathway to unionization can provide direct benefits to workers at a particular facility, while also increasing local organizing capacity and coalition strength for future negotiations over new projects and local development decisions. Not only is a new union a legally recognized institution that can monitor and hold the company accountable for commitments in the CBA, but it can also play a critical role in amplifying demands of workers and communities outside of the workplace and building power for working people more broadly.

Living wage floor

CBAs can also include commitments to minimum wage floors for the workers who will operate a new facility. For example, the 2018 Nashville Soccer CBA in Tennessee included a commitment to an hourly wage of at least $15.50 for stadium workers (SUN 2018). This provision set the stadium’s wage floor well above the minimum wage in Nashville, where workers—like all Tennessee workers and many across the South—are otherwise subject to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

If a wage floor set by a CBA is high enough, it can help workers achieve a living wage in the place that they live. What constitutes a living wage must be determined by labor and community partners (Gould, Mokhiber, and DeCourcy 2024). For example, a living wage could be defined narrowly as covering the necessities for a single adult, or more broadly as including the needs of a working parent and their children. A living wage target must also make assumptions about nonwage income such as health care benefits and government transfers. Manufacturing workers in the South can also rightfully seek wages that not only cover bare necessities but provide the family-sustaining resources needed to be healthy and thrive.

Figure D shows the share of manufacturing workers in the South earning less than $30 an hour, or $62,400 a year in wages for a full-time worker. More than 3 in 5 (60.8%) manufacturing workers in the region earn less than $30 an hour. Around 80% of Southern Black and Hispanic manufacturing workers earn below the $30 threshold. Women in manufacturing are also more likely to earn below $30 an hour (71.8%) than men (59.1%).

Figure D

A $30 wage floor exceeds the minimum costs for a single adult in most jurisdictions in the U.S., but still barely covers needs for many families with children in manufacturing-dense counties nationwide. EPI’s Family Budget Calculator estimates living wage standards by county that cover modest but necessary costs families face like food, rent, and transportation in the United States. Table 2 shows three Southern counties with significant clean energy manufacturing investments in recent years (CET 2025). Each county has significant manufacturing employment, exceeding the U.S. average for manufacturing employment density. For each county, living wage standards from the Family Budget Calculator are listed for different family types. In Morgan County, Georgia, and Maury County, Tennessee, a single adult with a child must earn at least $30 an hour to cover basic needs. For a single economic provider to cover the costs of a four-person family, they must earn over $35 an hour in all the counties listed. These living wage standards indicate that a $30 wage floor would provide significant economic security for workers with smaller families or multiple wage-earners.

Table 2

A CBA that secures a strong living wage standard in a manufacturing facility can create a virtuous cycle that brings about greater prosperity in the area. Higher wages for low- and middle-income workers boost spending in the local economy because these workers spend a greater share of their paycheck than high-income workers (Anderson 2014). Other employers in the area might have to raise their wages to compete for workers with the CBA-bound employer. The establishment of a living wage also demonstrates to other workers in the area that higher wages are a feasible goal through collective action.

Local and/or targeted hire policies

Local and targeted hiring refers to policies that prioritize recruitment of individuals from the local community, or workers from specific groups who are otherwise underrepresented in a given workforce relative to local population demographics, such as women, people of color, veterans, low-income workers, formerly incarcerated workers, or workers with disabilities (Lawliss, Finfer, and Sherer 2022). A local hire policy can require that a certain percentage of hours worked on a project be completed by local workers. These policies can also require giving local workers the first option to apply for jobs on a project. For the prosperity created through manufacturing investments in the South to be shared equitably, it is important that local community members have access to the jobs that are created during both the construction and operation phases of a development. Workforce policies also should be designed to remove barriers to employment for groups of workers—especially workers of color and women—who have historically been excluded from many construction and manufacturing career opportunities. Increasing access to these well-paying jobs can increase economic mobility for workers with more limited opportunities.

Despite these benefits, some state policymakers have been hostile to local hire as a public policy. In 2015, Nashville voters passed a ballot initiative that required city-funded construction projects to dedicate 40% of construction hours to Nashville residents, with 25% of those hours going to low-income Nashville residents (Blair et al. 2020). The Tennessee state legislature then quickly passed a bill that preempted the city from creating its own local hire policy.

As Figure E shows, the harm of Tennessee’s preemption of local hire falls disproportionately on workers of color. The construction workforce in the Nashville metro area has a higher share of workers of color and immigrant workers compared with the state construction workforce overall. Black workers are 8.2% of the construction workforce in Davidson County, but 5.5% of the overall state workforce. More than half (51.5%) of construction workers in Davidson County are Hispanic, compared with less than a quarter (20.1%) of the state overall. Davidson County construction workers are also more than twice as likely to be immigrants (40.2%) than in all of Tennessee (14.8%). State preemption of local hire prevented Nashville from ensuring that public spending would benefit local workers. However, private agreements like CBAs offer an opportunity to incorporate local hire and/or targeted hire requirements into publicly subsidized developments, even in heavily preempted jurisdictions.

Figure E

In 2018, three years after the preemption of Nashville’s local hire policy, the labor-community coalition Stand Up Nashville was able to leverage $275 million in public subsidies for a new professional soccer stadium into a successful CBA (SUN 2018). The Nashville Soccer CBA included commitments to local hire for stadium workers, particularly workers from “Promise Zones,” i.e., high-poverty areas with fewer economic opportunities (SUN 2020). Through the CBA, Nashville Soccer Holding, LLC agreed to consider qualified Promise Zone resident referrals for jobs at the stadium. So far, the program has succeeded in hiring Promise Zone residents. In 2023, Nashville Soccer Club had hired 180 employees, 80 of whom were residents of Promise Zones (SUN 2023).

CBAs in the South and throughout the country are securing similar commitments to local and targeted hiring in clean energy and manufacturing investments. In Alabama, the New Flyer CBA commits the company to ensuring that at least 45% of new hires and 20% of promotions are members of “Historically Disadvantaged Groups” (Sabin 2022).4 In Massachusetts, a new offshore wind terminal entered into a CBA with the City of Salem—setting targets for hiring of local workers, workers of color, and women workers (Sabin 2024). The CBA for Maine Aqua Ventis, an offshore wind facility, includes local hiring opportunities for residents of Monhegan, Maine (Sabin 2017). 

These types of agreements help ensure that local residents benefit from large investments in their communities, particularly when policymakers have invested public dollars in the form of tax breaks or corporate subsidies to support a new facility. Ensuring local workers are prioritized in training programs and hiring processes for newly created jobs also helps community members stay in the area when housing costs are driven up by a large new manufacturing investment. And in the longer term, providing pathways for local workers to benefit directly from these investments strengthens the labor and community alliances needed to hold developers and corporations accountable over time.

Equitable workforce development through apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships

In addition to local hire policies, which help create equitable pathways for local workers to secure good jobs at a manufacturing site, construction and manufacturing projects require a skilled workforce to operate safely and productively. A robust ecosystem of registered apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs can help ensure both that employers find the skilled workers they need in a large new manufacturing facility, and that local workers can access pathways to newly created jobs.

Registered apprenticeship programs are training programs vetted by federal or state agencies to ensure use of high-quality, best-practice training standards and approved curriculum aligned with skills needed to succeed in a particular occupation. Registered apprenticeships combine paid on-the-job and classroom training and result in a recognized, portable credential certifying that a worker has the skills and experience necessary for a specific occupation. Pre-apprenticeship programs (also known as apprenticeship readiness programs) recruit and prepare participants for registered apprenticeships—often partnering with community organizations—to open pathways to apprenticeship for women, Black and brown youth, immigrants, workers with disabilities, or others historically excluded from skilled trades occupations. The best practice is for these apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships to be joint programs between unions and employers, providing high-quality instruction tailored to industry needs and training that leads to placement in a high-quality job with wages, conditions, and benefits negotiated into a union contract. Often, a vital building block for successful manufacturing apprenticeship programs is the establishment of a unionized workforce at a facility.

Unlike lower-quality workforce development programs, registered apprenticeships pay workers fairly for their labor during their training—and in joint apprenticeship programs, the wages and benefits of apprentices are negotiated into a union contract and typically include scheduled increases as apprentices progress through the training program. Registered apprentices (across joint and non-joint programs) typically see their earnings increase 49% between the year before they enter the program and the year after completing it (Walton, Gardiner, and Barnow 2022). These increases in earnings are greater than for similar workers who do not enter the apprenticeship during the same time period (Katz et al. 2022). Apprenticeships can also be particularly attractive to workers because they are debt-free. Most apprentices (60%) consider debt avoidance the most important reason for choosing to enroll in an apprenticeship (Walton, Gardiner, and Barnow 2022).

Apprenticeships can be a powerful tool for increasing the diversity of construction and other industry workforces. While participation of women and workers of color in apprenticeships has grown in recent years, this growth has been painfully slow for decades (CEA 2024). Research finds that union-based (joint) apprenticeship programs have been more successful than other types of apprenticeships at increasing diversity in the construction industry (Ormiston and Bilginsoy 2024). Joint apprenticeships enroll a higher share of women, Black workers, and Hispanic workers than non-joint programs, and have higher program completion rates for all workers, including for women and workers of color. Community benefits agreements can secure commitments and partnerships that equitably grow this pipeline of workers and set enforceable local and targeted hiring goals which in turn spur diversification of construction and manufacturing apprenticeship programs.

For instance, the New Flyer CBA creates a partnership between the company and coalition partners to develop pre-apprenticeship and technical training programs that expand access to manufacturing jobs for workers with low incomes and from disadvantaged groups (Sabin 2022). For these programs to succeed, community groups and educational institutions must have an active role in shaping the programs and connecting workers to these opportunities. The development of a growing skilled workforce and a robust, high-quality workforce development ecosystem can in turn be a strong incentive for bringing more facilities to an area over time. In 2015, Polaris stated that a significant factor in its decision to choose Huntsville, Alabama, for a new production facility was the area’s skilled workforce (Polaris 2015). As more workers participate in high-quality training programs that lead to union jobs, the organized workforce of the region will grow, strengthening labor-community coalitions the next time there is an opportunity to shape new development in the region.

Child care

Child care is an essential but extremely costly expense for many working families across the South. Average annual infant care costs in the South range from $6,868 in Mississippi to $14,277 in Virginia.5 The Department of Health and Human Services recommends that 7% or less of family income go toward infant child care costs, but typical Southern families spend significantly more. In Alabama, infant care costs are 9.8% of median family income, while in Oklahoma the share is 15.4% (EPI 2025b).

Increasing access to high-quality, affordable child care not only makes work more accessible to parents (and especially to women, who on average continue to assume disproportionate care responsibilities), but is a powerful investment in children’s development that can help narrow class and racial inequalities (Morrisey 2020). In addition, child care workers tend to work for very low wages and experience poverty at greater rates than the typical worker.

A large manufacturing investment in a locality might produce a significant number of jobs, and in turn increase the demand of workers and their families to live nearby. This is likely to increase the need for child care services in the region. However, data show that child care employment has not kept up with manufacturing growth in Southern counties. Table 3 compares counties with high manufacturing density, where manufacturing employment makes up more than the national average (9% in 2009), with those with lower manufacturing employment density (EPI 2025c).

Table 3

Between 2009 and 2024, manufacturing employment in high-manufacturing-density counties in the South grew 15.9%, achieving faster growth than similar counties in the U.S. overall (12.1%). However, over the same period, child care employment only grew 4.5% in Southern high-manufacturing-density counties, far below the national rate of 14.2%. Child care employment growth in the South for low-manufacturing-density counties (22.3%) is also below the national level (28.5%). The South systematically underinvests in child care, despite its importance to a healthy economy in the region.

CBAs and PLAs have been used to secure both the construction of physical child care spaces and financial support for actual services. The Nashville Soccer CBA reserved 4,000 square feet for the development of a child care center (SUN 2020). In 2001, the CBA for the North Hollywood Commons mixed-use development project in Southern California secured a commitment to an on-site child care center. Fifty child care spaces at the center were reserved for low- and moderate-income families (Sabin 2001). In the Boston area, unions have secured Project Labor Agreements that seek to address the unique child care needs of the construction industry. The PLA for the Winthrop Center in Boston established a child care access fund to research, develop, and implement alternative child care models within the construction industry, with a particular focus on assisting single mothers with child care while supporting their career (NEREJ 2019).

These types of investments are vital supports for working families, particularly mothers, seeking to balance professional and care work. Combined with union neutrality for the child care workers at these facilities, commitments to providing child care can further elevate worker power in the region and help large new facilities recruit and retain the skilled, experienced workforces they need to succeed.

Affordable housing

Without strategies to address the housing needs of a community impacted by a new manufacturing investment, local residents can experience increased economic precarity or forced displacement. The local housing impacts of a large industrial investment can be complex. A significant manufacturing investment can make a local community more attractive as workers move into the area to be close to their place of work. Manufacturing investments are also likely to be paired with prospective real estate investments in anticipation of future development around the original project. State and local governments might use eminent domain and other purchasing mechanisms to secure land for roads and other new infrastructure. These dynamics can increase housing costs for residents, particularly renters who are most vulnerable to the impacts of housing speculation and prospective rent increases. For instance, the BlueOval development in West Tennessee is already reported to have increased property prices and housing rents (TCG 2023). Homeowners, particularly those with fixed incomes, can also be more burdened with housing costs as higher demand in the area increases property tax valuations (Payne 2019).

On the other hand, extreme proximity to an industrial site can expose residents to environmental hazards and noise pollution, and may be considered unsightly, which decreases property values (Currie et al. 2016; Upton and Talpur 2024). The exact distribution of these changes in demand for housing across a community will depend on the type of industry and any other types of development included in the project.

Industrial investments like manufacturing facilities tend to take place in rural and semirural areas, in part because land is relatively inexpensive (Wiley 2015). While the counties with a higher share of manufacturing employment tend to have lower housing costs than urban areas, housing affordability remains a significant issue for workers. On average, across high-manufacturing-density counties in the South, a two-adult, two-child household must cover more than $14,000 a year in housing costs.6 A large share of renters in high-manufacturing-density counties in the South still are cost-burdened by housing, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on rent, utilities, and other housing costs. As shown in Figure F, across the Southern states, the share of cost-burdened households in high-manufacturing-density counties ranges from 28% in Arkansas to 47% in Florida. More than 2 in 5 (42%) of Texas renters in these counties are also housing cost-burdened.

Figure F

A strong CBA will secure commitments to build a certain number of affordable housing units or dedicate a share of housing at the site as affordable. The Nashville Stadium CBA created agreements that at least 12% of residential units in the development would be affordable and that 20% of those units would be three-bedroom units to accommodate families (SUN 2020). The Staples Center CBA in Los Angeles, California, was another successful example of strong affordable housing benefits. The 2001 agreement for the development of an expanded convention center, theater, and surrounding housing, hotel, and retail space secured commitments that 20% of housing units would be affordable. The developer also agreed to provide $650,000 in interest-free loans to nonprofit affordable housing developers in the local community (WRI 2001).

Even in situations where a labor-community coalition is unable to reach a final CBA with a company, coalition organizing around community demands can still deliver meaningful affordable housing victories. Between 2002 and 2006, a labor-community coalition in Denver pressured Cherokee Investment Partners to provide community benefits as part of their redevelopment of the site of the Gates Rubber Company. The coalition leveraged zoning changes necessary for the project and a potential subsidy package from the city to extract benefits including an affordable housing plan for hundreds of rental and for-sale affordable housing units (Ingram and Hong 2011; PowerSwitch Action 2025).

In 2005, the labor-community coalition organized by Georgia STAND-UP was able to attach community benefits to an Atlanta city ordinance allocating $2 billion in public funding for the Atlanta Beltline transit-oriented development project. The city resolution shaped by the coalition established an affordable housing trust fund and a goal of developing 5,600 affordable housing units (PowerSwitch Action 2025). As of 2024, more than 4,100 affordable units have been created as part of the project (Atlanta Beltline, Inc. 2024).

Labor-community coalitions can also pursue other land-use commitments beyond the development of affordable housing. The BlueOval Good Neighbors coalition in West Tennessee has demanded commitments to protect land for farmers in the area. The development of the Ford factory has pushed Tennessee’s Department of Transportation to pursue land for new roadways through purchase and eminent domain. The area targeted for new roadways is a majority Black farming community, and several farmers are engaged in lawsuits with the state over the state’s meager compensation offers for their land (Wadhwani 2023). The coalition has demanded that farmers be offered replacement land in exchange for their sold land, as well as the creation of a 10,000-acre community land trust (BlueOval Good Neighbors n.d.).

Creating or protecting affordable housing is essential for protecting the communities that are necessary for any effective labor-community coalition. Large developments can cause instability within the community as new residents arrive, and existing residents are buffeted by rising housing costs. Because of historic and ongoing racial discrimination in housing policy, labor policy, and real estate practices, the costs of these changes are most likely to impact Black and Hispanic workers. Black families and other workers of color are the most likely to be cost-burdened by housing (JCHS 2024). Creating housing for workers and families to remain in the area is vital for continued collective action to secure benefits from developers and hold those developers accountable for their promises.

Environmental standards, funding, and monitoring

Large-scale manufacturing projects often have significant environmental impacts, both during construction and once they are in operation. Air, noise, and groundwater pollution; harm to wildlife habitats; and residents’ exposure to toxic byproducts are just a few examples of common concerns, and these consequences can be severe when projects are approved without sufficient environmental consideration. The consequences of large manufacturing projects often disproportionately harm communities of color and low-wealth areas throughout the South (Brouk 2024). For decades, poor and Black residents in the region have been exposed to toxic chemicals, pollution, and other environmental dangers at alarming rates (Bergman 2019).

In 2021, the Tennessee governor approved the construction of a General Motors lithium battery supplier in the city of Spring Hill, on the banks of the Duck River. Though the project was seen as an economic success, the plant’s operation has taken a toll on the fragile river ecosystem. The lithium battery factory is not the only strain—just eight companies along the river drain tens of millions of gallons of water daily (Wadhwani 2024). This enormous water usage has lowered river water levels, threatened biodiversity, and harmed local tourism and recreation. Advocates for the river’s health blame the state’s prioritization of manufacturing expansion without regard to the long-term environmental or economic consequences for local residents or other existing local industries.

CBAs are a tool that may help community-labor coalitions address the environmental impacts of data centers in the South. Data centers are booming across the United States, but particularly in Southern states like Georgia, Texas, and Virginia (Walker and Goldsmith 2026). New centers are heavy users of water and energy, create noise and air pollution, and are driving up electricity costs nationwide both by increasing demand for energy and requiring utilities to invest in new infrastructure paid for by all ratepayers (Merchant and Guerra 2025; Bizo et al. 2021; AI NOW 2025; Reed 2025). For example, in Virginia, electric bills were on track to increase as much as 25% in 2025 because of data centers (Penn and Weise 2025).

Growing community concerns surrounding data centers could create leverage for labor-community coalitions to pursue CBAs and other community benefits strategies. In 2025, community opposition blocked or delayed $64 billion in data center projects across the nation (Data Center Watch 2025). As community resistance to data centers continues to grow, more developers may recognize the need to come to the table with local coalitions to negotiate binding commitments on environmental and economic outcomes to secure project approvals. A handful of localities have begun to create agreements with data center developers regulating water use and securing commitments to green energy use (Turner Lee and West 2026).

Past development projects provide examples of how communities have used CBAs to secure long-term commitments to clean energy transition and protection of local natural resources in a multitude of ways, from mandating that any new construction must meet specific sustainability standards to requiring companies to contribute a set dollar amount to a city’s renewable energy transition fund. In Virginia, the City of Richmond Resort Casino CBA ensured the developing and operating company would design and construct all project buildings to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standards and would use previously existing pavement where possible (WRI 2021). The agreement also required the developer to attempt to reduce the urban heat island effect by planting shade trees along sidewalks and using other landscaping methods (WRI 2021). These agreements can mitigate additional environmental harm in areas that have already been polluted. A CBA between the Town of Waterloo, New York, and Seneca Meadows, Inc. regarding a landfill expansion commits the waste management company to pay for the development of new public water lines and other potable water infrastructure if existing public water wells become contaminated (WRI 2005).

CBAs can also be used to expand the positive impact of an already climate-friendly project. In New York, a CBA with an offshore windfarm developer stipulates that the company must contribute $2 million to the town of East Hampton’s Ocean Industries Sustainability Program (WRI 2018). Additionally, Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC must spend $200,000 to establish an Energy Sustainability and Resilience Fund to support East Hampton’s transition to 100% renewable energy (WRI 2018). CBAs with environmentally focused companies provide valuable opportunities for communities looking to address climate change, especially where state governments have failed to invest in environmental programs.

A CBA can achieve a variety of climate and environmental commitments from a company but is also a strong starting point for building local capacity to monitor resource use, pollution, and other environmental priorities. A strong coalition of community, labor, and environmental groups can play essential roles in implementing and enforcing CBA commitments in contexts where understaffed government agencies have limited ability to monitor or investigate pollution and other environmental harms. Instead, workers and community members are often the first to report harmful practices and safety concerns. A strong CBA can provide opportunities for labor and environmental groups to work together to monitor and protect worker and community health, natural resources, and ecosystems.

Conclusion

For decades, Southern economic policies shaped by dominant business and corporate interests have resulted in poor working conditions and failed to ensure that profits generated by publicly subsidized development are shared with local workers and communities. Confronting the deep, long-standing imbalances of power that have entrenched this failed economic development model will require significant organizing and coalition-building to increase the collective power of workers and community members to shape different outcomes from the latest Southern manufacturing boom. Building new forms of worker and community power will be equally necessary to counter escalating authoritarian actions of the Trump administration, which closely parallel many features of the failed Southern economic development model that by design prioritizes corporations over workers and communities.

Our analysis shows that community benefits agreements could be powerful tools for Southern labor and community groups building the shared power necessary to reshape local and eventually regional economies. When strong coalitions of labor, environmental, faith-based, and other grassroots community organizations are able to build the necessary power to bring a company or developer to the table to negotiate an enforceable agreement, such coalitions can secure measurable economic benefits like higher wages, respect for workers’ rights to unionize, local or targeted hiring, protection of natural resources, or more affordable housing. Such economic gains are beneficial in themselves, but they also raise expectations, build local capacity to pursue additional gains, and demonstrate to the community at large that local residents can shape their own economic futures, and that these types of victories are achievable in the face of the Southern status quo.

While the urgent project of upending the Southern economic development model will require vigorous and persistent organizing across many sectors and geographies, community benefits agreements are one key strategy for turning manufacturing jobs into good jobs, ensuring long-term local economic gains from new industrial investments, and even renewing democracy in contexts where it has long been suppressed. Forming strong, long-lasting labor-community coalitions is essential to winning concrete gains for local workers as well as reshaping the political fabric of Southern communities and increasing working people’s influence over broader state or regional economic policy decisions. Winning and implementing any strong CBA requires the formation of an empowered labor-community coalition, which ideally endures and gains greater strength, experience, and influence over time. Just as the economic benefits of unionization extend far beyond an individual workplace, establishing a strong CBA coalition can create broader positive impacts across a community or region—delivering higher-quality jobs; more equitable tax systems; stronger public services; and healthier, more inclusive political systems.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the AFL-CIO Center for Transformational Organizing for their partnership and invaluable contributions in the production of this report. The authors are also grateful to Athena Last and Ian Elder at Jobs to Move America and Ben Beach at PowerSwitch Action for their expert feedback.

Appendix

Appendix Table 1

Notes

1. Clean energy manufacturing includes manufacturing of batteries, electric vehicles, mineral products, solar energy products, and wind energy products.

2. Workers in Southern states experience lower wages than in other regions even after adjusting for cost-of-living differences (Childers 2023).

3. The facilities covered by these agreements included plants in Alabama, California, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin.

4. This category includes workers who are Black, Indigenous, and/or people of color; women; LGBTQ+ persons; systems-impacted people (formerly incarcerated people); persons emancipated from the foster care system; residents of Anniston, Alabama, lacking GED or high school diploma; and veterans.

5. Southern states excluding D.C., Delaware, and Maryland.

6. EPI analysis of Family Budget Calculator and Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data.

References

Abrams, Cynthia. 2025. “As West Tennessee Community Pressures Ford for Promises, Lawmakers Curb ‘Community Benefits Agreements’.” WPLN News, March 25, 2025.

AI NOW. 2025. “North Star Data Center Policy Toolkit: State and Local Policy Interventions to Stop Rampant AI Data Center Expansion.” December 2025.

Anderson, Sarah. 2014. “Wall Street Bonuses and the Minimum Wage.” Institute for Policy Studies, March 12, 2014.

Aquiles-Sanchez, Pablo, and Laura Dresser. 2022. Worker Power Levels the Playing Field: Community Benefits for Public Subsidies in the Iron District. High Road Research Center, November 2022.

Aquiles-Sanchez, Pablo, and Laura Dresser. 2024. From Community Benefits, to Collective Bargaining, and Back: Building Worker Power in Milwaukee. High Road Research Center, March 2024.

Atlanta Beltline Inc. 2024. Relentless Momentum, Undeniable Results: 2024 Annual Report.

Barrett, Jim, and Josh Bivens. 2021. The Stakes for Workers in How Policymakers Manage the Coming Shift to All-Electric Vehicles. Economic Policy Institute, September 2021.

Bayard, Kimberly, Tomaz Cajner, Vivi Gregorich, and Maria Tito. 2022. Are Manufacturing Jobs Still Good Jobs? An Exploration of the Manufacturing Wage Premium. Federal Reserve Board, March 2022.

Bergman, Megan Mayhew. 2019. “‘They Chose Us Because We Were Rural and Poor’: When Environmental Racism and Climate Change Collide“. Guardian, March 8, 2019.

Bizo, Daniel, Rhonda Ascierto, Andy Lawrence, and Jacqueline Davis. 2021. Uptime Institute Global Data Center Survey 2021. Uptime Institute, September 2021.

Blair, Hunter, David Cooper, Julia Wolfe, and Jaimie Worker. 2020. 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.

BlueOval Good Neighbors. n.d. “Community Benefits Agreement Demands Summary.” Accessed September 5, 2025.

Bomey, Nathan. 2024. “Volkswagen on Factory Unionization Efforts: ‘Neutral Doesn’t Mean Silent’.” Axios, February 15, 2024.

Brouk, Allison. 2024. “Wood Pellet Manufacturing in the South Harms Communities and the Environment.” Earthjustice, October 11, 2024.

Clean Economy Tracker (CET). 2025. Clean Economy Tracker. Accessed July 15, 2025.

Childers, Chandra. 2023. Rooted in Racism and Economic Exploitation: The Failed Southern Economic Development Model. Economic Policy Institute, October 2023.

Childers, Chandra. 2024a. Southern Economic Policies Undermine Job Quality for Auto Workers. Economic Policy Institute, September 2024.

Childers, Chandra. 2024b. The Evolution of the Southern Economic Development Strategy. Economic Policy Institute, May 2024.

Childers, Chandra. 2025. The Ongoing Influence of Slavery and Jim Crow Means High Poverty Rates and Low Economic Mobility in the South. Economic Policy Institute, April 2025.

City of Cleveland. n.d. “Community Benefits Ordinance” (web page). Accessed December 4, 2025.

City of Detroit. n.d. “Community Benefits Ordinance” (web page). Accessed December 4, 2025.

Communication Workers of America (CWA). 2024. “A New Dawn: Union Victory at New Flyer in Anniston, Alabama.” May 20, 2024.

Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). 2024. “All Aboard the ApprenticeSHIP: Assessing the Changing Face of Registered Apprenticeships.” Biden White House Archives, November 20, 2024.

Currie, Janet, Lucas Davis, Michael Greenstone, and Reed Walker. 2015. “Environmental Health Risks and Housing Values: Evidence from 1,600 Toxic Plant Openings and Closings.” American Economic Review 105, no. 2 (February 2015): 678–709. doi: 10.1257/aer.20121656.

Data Center Watch. 2025. “$64 Billion of Data Center Projects Have Been Blocked or Delayed Amid Local Opposition.” Accessed February 24, 2026.

Dean, Adam, Jamie McCallum, and Atheendar Venkataramani. 2022. Unions in the United States Improve Worker Safety and Lower Health Inequality. Washington Center for Equitable Growth, December 2022.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2021. “Unions Help Reduce Disparities and Strengthen Our Democracy” (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, April 23, 2021.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025a. “Workers’ Rights Preemption in the U.S.” Accessed July 1, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025b. “Child Care Costs in the United States.” Accessed July 1, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025c. “State of Working America data.” Accessed June 25, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026. “Family Budget Calculator.” Accessed February 15, 2026.

Erickson, Emily. 2021. Are Good Jobs Possible in the Deep South? Jobs to Move America, March 2021.

Fazili, Sameera, Pronita Gupta, and Doug Bloch. 2025. “How Community Benefits Agreements Can Reduce Project Delivery Risk.” UtilityDive, October 15, 2025.

Gould, Elise, Zane Mokhiber, and Katherine DeCourcy. 2024. What Constitutes a Living Wage? Economic Policy Institute, January 2024.

Hickey, Sebastian Martinez. 2024. “Leveraging the Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub Community Benefits Plan to Empower the Texas Workforce.” Comments submitted on behalf of Economic Policy Institute to Texas Climate Jobs Project Community Commission on Truth and Transparency in Texas Hydrogen, December 5, 2024.

Ingram, Gregory K, and Yu-Hong Hong. 2012. Value Capture and Land Policies. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (JCHS). 2024. America’s Rental Housing. Harvard University, 2024.

Katz, Batia, Robert Lerman, Daniel Kuehn, Jessica Shakespeare. 2022. Did Apprentices Achieve Faster Earnings Growth Than Comparable Workers? Brief prepared for U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Rockville, MD: Abt Associates; and Washington, DC: Urban Institute, August 2022.

Last, Athena Nicole. 2025. A Case Study of the New Flyer of America Inc. Community Benefits Agreement. Jobs to Move America, July 2025.

Lawliss, Michael, Lew Finfer, and Jennifer Sherer. 2022. Using Local and Economically-Targeted Hire to Promote Good Jobs through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Jobs to Move America, September 2022.

Leigh, J. Paul, and Bozhidar Chakalov. 2021. “Labor Unions and Health: A Literature Review of Pathways and Outcomes in the Workplace.” Preventative Medicine Reports 24, no. 101502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101502

Mangundayao, Ihna, Celine McNicholas, and Margaret Poydock. 2022. “Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects Will Benefit Nearly 200,000 Workers.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 9, 2022.

Manzo IV, Frank, Michael Jekot, and Robert Bruno. 2021. The Impact of Unions on Construction Worksite Health and Safety. Illinois Economic Policy Institute, November 2021.

Mast, Nina. 2025a. Forced Prison Labor in the “Land of the Free.” Economic Policy Institute, January 2025.

Mast, Nina. 2025b. How Anti-Worker Policies, Crony Capitalism, and Privatization Keep the South Locked Out of Shared Prosperity. Economic Policy Institute, June 2025.

McFadden, Michael, Sai Santosh, and Ronit Shetty. 2022. Quantifying the Value of Union Labor in Construction Projects. Mechanical Industry Advancement Fund, December 2022.

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

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, Samantha Sanders, and Ben Zipperer. 2023. Employers Spend More Than $400 Million per Year on ‘Union-Avoidance’ Consultants To Bolster Their Union-Busting Efforts (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, March 2023.

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

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

Merchant, Zach, and Adrian P. Guerra. 2025. “Data Center Boom Impacting Georgia’s Water Resources.” 11Alive, April 14, 2025.

Mickey, Robert. Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America’s Deep South, 1944-1972. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 2015.

Mishel, Lawrence. 2017. “The Increased Diversity of New York City Union Construction Employment.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), January 19, 2017.

Morrissey, Taryn. 2020. Addressing the Need for Affordable, High-Quality Early Childhood Care And Education for All in the United States. Washington Center for Economic Growth, February 2020.

New England Real Estate Journal (NEREJ). 2019. “MP Boston and Building Trades Unions sign Project Labor Agreement for Winthrop Center.” NEREJ, November 15, 2019.

O’Brien, Connor. 2023. “Factory Boom in the Mountain West and Upper Midwest Accelerated into the Spring.” Economic Innovation Group, June 13, 2023.

Ormiston, Russell, and Cihan Bilginsoy. 2024. “Measuring Diversity in Construction Apprenticeship Programs.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), November 21, 2024.

Partnership for Working Families and Community Benefits Law Center (PWF and CBLC). 2016. Common Challenges in Negotiating Community Benefits Agreements and How to Avoid Them. January 2016.

Payne, Mat. 2019. “When Nowhere Becomes Somewhere: Gentrification in Rural Communities and How Proactive Community Planning and a Progressive Property Valuation System Can Stem the Tide.” Kentucky Law Journal 207, no. 4: 727–745.

Perez, Daniel. 2015. Voter Suppression Makes the Racist and Anti-Worker Southern Model Possible. Economic Policy Institute, October 2024.

Penn, Ivan, and Karen Weise. 2025. “Big Tech’s A.I. Data Centers Are Driving Up Electricity Bills for Everyone.” New York Times, August 2025.

Polaris. 2015. “Polaris Industries Inc. Announces Expansion of Manufacturing Operations.” January 9, 2015.

PowerSwitch Action. 2025. “Community Benefits Agreements Examples.” Accessed September 1, 2025.

Reed, Rachel. 2025. “How data centers may lead to higher electricity bills.” Harvard Law Today, September 2025.

Rhinehart, Lynn, and Celine McNicholas. 2020. Collective Bargaining Beyond the Worksite: How Workers and Their Unions Build Power and Set Standards for Their Industries. Economic Policy Institute, May 2020.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Sabin). 2001. North Hollywood Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project Community Benefits Agreement.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Sabin). 2017. Monhegan Plantation et al. and Maine Aqua Ventis Community Benefits Agreement.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Sabin). 2022. New Flyer of America, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and Jobs to Move America Community Benefits Agreement.

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (Sabin). 2024. City of Salem and Salem Wind Terminal LLC Community Benefits Agreement.

Sachs, Benjamin. 2024. “Hey ALEC, Be Careful What You Wish For.” On Labor, March 8, 2024.

Saha, Devashree. 2024. Community Benefits Snapshot: New Flyer Community Benefits Agreement. World Resources Institute, December 2024.

Scott, Robert, Valerie Wilson, Jori Kandra, and Daniel Perez. 2022. Botched Policy Responses to Globalization Have Decimated Manufacturing Employment with Often Overlooked Costs for Black, Brown, and Other Workers of Color. Economic Policy Institute, January 2022.

Sherer, Jennnifer, and Elise Gould. 2025. It’s Time for Colorado to Remove Barriers to Unionization. Economic Policy Institute, February 2025.

Stand Up Nashville (SUN). 2018. “Historic Community Benefits Agreement Reached!” SUN, September 4, 2018.

Stand Up Nashville (SUN). 2020. Nashville MLS Soccer Community Benefits Agreement.

Stand Up Nashville (SUN). 2023. Community Advisory Committee Community Benefits Agreement Annual Report 2023.

Stephenson, Jemma. 2024. “Alabama Senate Bill Would Punish Companies That Voluntarily Recognize Unions.” Alabama Reflector, March 27, 2024.

Tennessee Office of Governor. 2023. “Gov. Lee, Ford Celebrate Historic BlueOval City in West TN” (press release). March 23, 2023.

The Chesapeake Group, Inc. (TCG). 2023. Haywood Market Assessment Section for Growth Strategies. September 2023.

Todd, Patricia. 2021. The Hidden Costs of Alabama’s Tax Incentives. Jobs to Move America, August 2021.

Turner Lee, Nicol, and Darrell West. 2026. Why Community Benefit Agreements Are Necessary for Data Centers. The Brookings Institution, January 2026.

Upton, Greg, and Sarang Talpur. 2024. Literature Review on the Impact of Utility-Scale Solar on Housing Prices. Louisiana State University, August 2024.

Wadwhani, Anita. 2023. “Black Farming Community Fights to Get Fair Deal as State Takes Land for Ford Plant Roadways.” Tennessee Lookout, April 3, 2023.

Wadhwani, Anita. 2024. “Water Wars: Groups Challenge ‘Unsustainable’ Withdrawals from Duck River.” Tennessee Lookout, May 6, 2024.

Walker, Carla, and Ian Goldsmith. 2026. “From Energy Use to Air Quality, the Many Ways Data Centers Affect US Communities.” World Resources Institute, February 2026.

Walton, Douglas, Karen Gardiner, and Burt Barnow. 2022. Expanding Apprenticeship to New Sectors and Populations. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Rockville, MD: Abt Associates, August 2022.

Wiley, Jonathan. 2015. The Impact of Commercial Development on Surrounding Residential Property Values. J. Mack Robinson College of Business, April 2015.

World Resource Institute (WRI). n.d. “Database of Community Benefits Frameworks Across the US.” Accessed September 5, 2025.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2001. Staples Center Community Benefits Agreement.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2005. Community Benefits Agreement between the Town of Waterloo and Seneca Meadows Inc.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2018. Community Benefits Agreement between Deepwater Wind and the Town of East Hampton.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2021. Resort Casino Host Community Agreement by and between the City of Richmond, Virginia and RVA Entertainment Holdings, LLC.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2025. Atlanta Beltline. Accessed September 29, 2025.

Zessoules, Daniella, and Olugbenga Ajilore. 2018. Wage Gaps and Outcomes in Apprenticeship Programs. Center for American Progress, December 2018.

Table 1

The benefits of raising the minimum wage

Raising the minimum wage is a research-backed policy that increases earnings for low-wage workers without causing increases in unemployment or other negative economic side effects. A strong wage floor is also a powerful tool for making a more equitable economy. Almost two-thirds of the workers who would be affected by SQ 832 are women (63.3%). The policy would also disproportionately benefit workers of color. Hispanic workers make up 18.2% of the affected workers, compared with 11.0% of the total Oklahoma workforce. Black workers would be 10.6% of affected workers, while only making up 7.1% of the workforce (see Table 3).

The policy would also provide critical support to workers experiencing significant economic insecurity. Nearly three-fifths (59.3%) of the affected workers have incomes below 200% of the poverty line. Research shows that raising the minimum wage significantly reduces poverty, even as higher wages simultaneously reduce some workers’ and families’ eligibility for, and reliance on, public assistance programs.

A higher minimum wage would help combat the affordability crisis

While dozens of states and cities have passed minimum wage increases over the past 15 years, Oklahoma is one of 20 states that still uses the dismally low federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Policymakers have not raised the federal minimum wage since July 2009, meaning that as prices throughout the economy have risen, the buying power of a paycheck at the federal minimum wage has fallen—substantially. Adjusting for inflation, the federal minimum wage is worth 30% less than it was in 2009. In fact, since 2025, the federal minimum wage has officially been a poverty-level wage under the Department of Health and Human Services’ guidelines. The stagnant federal minimum wage is one example of how economic policy in recent decades has suppressed workers’ wage growth, squeezing them as prices have continued to rise and creating the affordability crisis.

Fortunately, SQ 832 would not only raise the state minimum wage to more adequate levels, but also automatically adjust it for inflation beginning in 2030. Twenty-one states already use these automatic increases to ensure that low-wage workers don’t lose ground over time as prices rise.

SQ 832 would go a long way toward improving conditions for the lowest-paid workers in the state as they contend with rising housing, energy, and health insurance costs. However, the reality is that most Oklahoma workers face higher living costs than can be supported by a $15-per-hour wage. Figure A shows estimates of a living wage for a single adult in different Oklahoma metro areas using EPI’s Family Budget Calculator. All Oklahoma metro areas have living wages above $16 an hour. Workers in Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Lincoln County must earn at least $18 an hour to meet the Family Budget Calculator threshold. Even the lowest-cost county in the state (McIntosh County, not shown) has a living wage greater than $15 an hour.

Figure A

SQ 832’s $15 target would help hundreds of thousands of Oklahoma workers earn closer to a living wage and put Oklahoma’s wage standards more in line with many other states. As of January 2026, 17 states and the District of Columbia had at least a $15 minimum wage—including states such as Arizona, Missouri, and Nebraska.

Lawmakers and voters in many states have adopted higher state and local minimum wages both in response to federal inaction and because economic research has reached a strong consensus that raising the minimum wage, at least to levels attempted thus far, has not caused any measurable harm to employment.  

A $15 minimum wage in Oklahoma is not an outlier compared with policies in other states, even after accounting for differences in the labor markets of different jurisdictions. Economists use the minimum-to-median wage ratio (sometimes called the Kaitz index) to assess the “bite” or strength of the wage floor relative to wage levels in the area where the policy is taking place. This measure allows us to see how a $15 minimum wage compares in New York and Oklahoma, where the overall distribution of wages is substantially different. Most minimum wage research has studied policies with minimum-to-median wage ratios of .67 or less (i.e., a minimum wage raised as high as two-thirds the median wage in the same jurisdiction.) Table 2 shows the current and projected path of Oklahoma’s minimum-to-median wage ratio if SB 832 passes. The ratio would grow as the policy goes into effect, but it would likely never exceed 60%—meaning it is solidly in the range of policies that economists have studied and found no negative effect on employment.

Table 2

Oklahoma’s current minimum wage suppresses pay for workers

Establishing and periodically raising a strong wage floor is necessary to counteract employers’ excess market power over workers, which keeps wages lower than they would be in a truly competitive market. Workers face a multitude of barriers which provide wage-setting leverage for employers. Workers often have limited information about wages and work policies at alternative employers and can be constrained in their job choices by limited transportation options or the need to maintain specific schedules for child care and other family needs. Low-wage workers typically have less financial ability than higher-wage workers to overcome these obstacles, and are more likely to encounter take-it-or-leave-it wage offers that prevent them from negotiating pay. These challenges (sometimes called “frictions”) add up, providing leverage for employers to pay lower wages than workers need—and lower than what is optimal for the local economy.

Oklahoma’s weak wage floor suppresses pay for hundreds of thousands of workers. The state has the third-highest share of workers earning less than $15 an hour (21%). Although there are relatively few workers who earn exactly $7.25 an hour, one undervalued benefit of a strong wage floor is that it supplies upwards pressure on the wages of low-wage workers who earn more than the minimum wage. These “spillover effects” mean that workers above the new minimum wage threshold also see wage increases as employers adjust other workers’ pay to maintain wage ladders and preserve seniority.

Oklahomans have a consequential opportunity to strengthen the wage floor and deliver a meaningful raise to hundreds of thousands of workers. A $15 minimum wage is evidence-backed, both by rigorous economic research and the recent experience of many other states. SQ 832 would support families as they struggle with the affordability crisis and generate lasting improvements to the health and equity of the economy.

Table 3

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

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

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

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

Wage standards are necessary because of unbalanced labor market power

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

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

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

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

Figure A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why wage standards need to be automatically adjusted

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

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

Figure B

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

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

Price indexing wage standards is a necessary and conservative policy

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

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

Price indexations are very small increases to wage standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key takeaways:

• The persistent gender wage gap widened slightly in 2025; women were paid 18.6% less than men on average after controlling for race and ethnicity, education, age, marital status, and state.
• Women are paid less than men across all education levels. Women with a graduate degree earn less, on average, than men with only a college degree.

• The gender pay gap worsened following a year of Trump administration attacks on workers, including cuts to the federal workforce; attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; ordering mass deportations; and undermining child care and home care providers.
• States can narrow the gender pay gap with policies that guarantee access to paid family and medical leave, mandate pay transparency, raise the minimum wage, and make it easier for workers to form unions.

March 26 is Equal Pay Day, a reminder that there is still a significant pay gap between men and women in our country. The date represents how far into 2026 women would have to work on top of the hours they worked in 2025 simply to match what men were paid in 2025.

On an hourly basis, women were paid 18.6% less on average than men in 2025, after controlling for race and ethnicity, education, age, marital status, and state. After narrowing to a series low of 18.0% in 2024—likely driven by a strong labor market recovery from the COVID-19 recession that lifted wages more at the lower end of the overall wage distribution—the gender wage gap widened slightly in 2025. Though far from a total reversal of the last few years’ progress, the slight worsening in 2025 reflects the slowing of low-end wage growth and the economic consequences of Trump’s first year back in office.

Women are paid less than men due to discrimination associated with occupational segregation, devaluation of women’s work, and societal norms, much of which takes root well before women enter the labor market. The wage gap is smallest among lower-wage workers partly because the minimum wage creates a wage floor. At the 10th percentile, women are paid $1.39 (or 9.1%) less an hour than men, while the wage gap at the middle is $4.12 an hour (or 14.7%). Women at the 90th percentile of their wage distribution are paid $14.05 (or 19.6%) less an hour than men at the 90th percentile of the wage distribution.

Women are paid less than men at every education level

Although women have seen gains in educational attainment over the last five decades, they still face a significant wage gap. Among workers, women slightly outnumber men in the college-educated labor force and are significantly more likely to obtain a graduate degree than men. Even so, women are paid less than men at every education level, as shown in Figure A.

Figure A

Among workers who have only a high school diploma, women are paid 21.5% less than men. Among workers who have a college degree, women are paid 23.8% less than men. That gap of $12.07 per hour translates to roughly $25,100 lower annual earnings for a full-time worker. Women with an advanced degree also experience a significant hourly wage gap of $17.70 in 2025, amounting to over $36,800 annually.

What the data makes very clear is that women cannot educate themselves out of the gender wage gap. Systemic inequities are so persistent that women with advanced degrees are paid less per hour, on average, than men with only college degrees. Men with a college degree only are paid $50.61 per hour on average compared with $49.67 for women with an advanced degree.

Black and Hispanic women experience the largest wage gaps

For Black and Hispanic women, the pay gaps relative to white men are even larger due to compounded discrimination and occupational segregation based on both gender and race/ethnicity. In Figure B, we compare middle wages—or the 50th percentile of each group’s wage distribution—for Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI), Black, Hispanic, and white women with that of white men.1

White and AAPI women are paid 81.9% and 93.3%, respectively, of the amount non-Hispanic white men are paid. Black women are paid only 68.3% of white men’s wages at the middle, down from 69.6% in 2024. This is a gap of $9.87 on an hourly basis, which translates to roughly $20,500 lower annual earnings for a full-time worker. For Hispanic women, the gap is even larger: Hispanic women are paid only 64.5% of white men’s wages, an hourly wage gap of $11.06. For a full-time worker, that gap is over $23,000 a year. This disparity has also risen slightly compared with last year.

Figure B

Even when controlling for age, education, marital status, and state of residence, Black and Hispanic women are paid 25.3% and 27.4% less than their white male counterparts, respectively. In other words, very little of the observed difference in pay is explained by differences in education, experience, or regional economic conditions.

Trump administration policies exacerbate lower pay and make it harder to enforce antidiscrimination laws

Over the last year, the Trump administration has repeatedly taken actions that harm women workers, including:

• slashing the federal workforce;
• weaponizing agencies meant to defend workers and combat discrimination by turning them into defenders of discriminatory practices;
• eliminating enforcement of race- and gender-based equal employment practices for federal contractors;
• ordering mass deportations;
• undermining child care providers and vital state funds;
• limiting access to funding for higher education;
• rolling back protections for home care workers; and
• normalizing harassment and retaliation in the workplace.

Black and Hispanic women have endured and will continue to suffer the consequences of these attacks more intensely than many of their white, non-Hispanic male colleagues. Trump’s reckless decimation of the federal workforce, for instance, has disproportionately affected Black women, for whom government jobs have historically been a powerful tool for economic mobility and security. In 2025, Black women’s employment rate fell by 1.4 percentage points to 55.7%. This is one of the sharpest one-year declines in the last 25 years and is a much more dramatic drop than that of other women or Black men. College-educated Black women experienced the largest drop in employment, likely because nearly half of Black federal government workers have a bachelor’s degree or higher. This drop in well-paid, traditionally stable jobs will almost certainly lead to increased economic insecurity. Additionally, mass deportations will likely reduce jobs for both immigrant and U.S.-born women, particularly in the care sector, disproportionately impacting Hispanic women.

The Trump administration has also stifled the government’s ability to protect workers and penalize discriminatory employers. The restriction of the use of words like “gender,” “race,” “equity,” and “discrimination,” and attempts to weaponize the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against women and workers of color will harm all workers, while weakening our ability to track pay equity and enforce nondiscrimination laws. Staffing levels at the EEOC have fallen steadily over the last four decades, but recent funding cuts and shifting priorities will exacerbate its already reduced capacity for enforcement. There have also been ongoing threats to the availability and continued collection of key data throughout federal agencies. If agencies that collect data on wages and incomes by demographic characteristics pull back, it would be a disaster for anyone—policymakers, researchers, employers, or workers—who wants basic facts about how well the economy is performing for different workers and different sectors.

Despite federal threats, states can help close the gender pay gap

Closing pay gaps by gender and by race and ethnicity will require policy solutions on multiple fronts. Although attacks on gender and racial equity continue at the federal level, state lawmakers can and must take steps to address the gender wage gap. Potential solutions include enacting pay transparency laws, mandating Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML), raising the minimum wage, funding universal child care, and removing anti-worker, so-called “right-to-work” (RTW) statutes. Figure C highlights the states that have already passed some of these critical pieces of legislation, while underscoring the need for strong federal standards to cover the millions of workers who live outside of these states.

Figure C

Only 14 states have mandatory, comprehensive PFML policies, even though they provide essential benefits that help workers maintain their livelihoods while taking care of themselves and their families. Studies show that access to PFML improves outcomes for parents and children, workforce participation, and job retention, and that this a beneficial policy for both employees and employers. Access to paid leave is also shown to bridge racial gaps in care and pay.

Pay transparency laws are another useful tool that prevents employers from offering unequal pay by requiring them to include wage information in job postings. While there is some variation in laws, all include some requirement that employers provide salary information in job postings, but employers in Connecticut, Maryland, and Rhode Island only must furnish that information if requested by applicants. This wage transparency has the potential to reduce gender-based discrimination by arming jobseekers with more information and limiting employers’ ability to pay different amounts to similarly qualified candidates. A Colorado pay transparency law, for example, reduced gender wage gaps for workers who changed jobs by as much as 8.9%.

Policymakers effectively stopped protecting workers’ rights to form unions and bargain collectively starting in the 1980s, resulting in less leverage for workers and increased income inequality. Weak labor law allows employers to retaliate against union organizing and undermine workers’ right to collectively bargain. Union contracts can help narrow gender and racial wage gaps by providing clear wages for a given level of experience and education, reducing employers’ ability to discriminate in wage setting. Unfortunately, 26 states have RTW laws that make it even harder for unions to effectively organize and bargain for better contracts. States with these laws not only have lower unionization rates but also have wider gender wage gaps. By making it easier for workers to form unions, policymakers can help reduce these pay gaps.

The minimum wage keeps wages from falling below a mandated floor. While the real value of the federal minimum wage has been allowed to decline, down nearly $5 an hour since its peak in 1968, states have stepped in and increased their minimum wage. As of January 2026, 30 states and D.C. have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum, covering more than half of U.S. workers. Since women are disproportionately found in the low-wage workforce, these laws are key to increasing their economic security and narrowing wage gaps at the lower end of the wage distribution.

Although there is no single policy that will close the wage gap, each of these solutions will narrow it and improve conditions for workers across the country. In his first year back in office, Trump has rolled back critical labor standards, decimated federal unions, and laid off tens of thousands of federal workers. Now, more than ever, it is critical that states step up to protect workers under attack, prevent the gender wage gap from expanding, and build an equitable economy that works for all. 

1. Race/ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive in this analysis. Here we denote white to mean white non-Hispanic, Black is Black non-Hispanic, Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) are AAPI non-Hispanic, and Hispanic refers to Hispanic of any race.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure A

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

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

Figure B

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

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

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

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

Here’s the bottom line. When we see:

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

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

Despite the strength of the economy the Trump administration inherited, their subsequent policy agenda has weakened growth in spending by households, businesses, and governments. Federal workforce cuts, deportations and a slowdown in immigration, and chaos in trade policy have all suppressed demand growth, raising the risk of a near-term recession. Many of these weaknesses have so far been obscured by strong spending associated with AI investment. But this AI investment could be a shaky foundation for future growth, and if it contracts, the weaknesses generated by the administration’s policy choices so far could become glaring.

In the long run, these policies—as well as deficit-financed tax cuts—will also erode the economy’s ability to supply goods and services without inflation. For example, the administration’s mass deportations agenda is slowing the growth of the future U.S. labor force.

Most of all, Trump administration policies will raise inequality—the worst blow to families’ affordability. 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 in coming years. At the same time, the administration’s assaults on typical workers’ bargaining power and leverage—and its support for corporations with significant market power—will push income away from low- and moderate-income families and toward the top.

“Disastrous policy choices that led to excess unemployment, slower growth in the economy’s productive capacity, and rising inequality have made life less affordable for typical families in recent decades. The Trump administration’s policies double down on the worst policy decisions of this period and will make ordinary families reliably poorer in the future, even if an outright recession or spiking inflation does not happen,” said Josh Bivens, EPI chief economist and author of the report.

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.