More stories

  • in

    Why Trump Allies Say Immigration Hurts American Workers

    JD Vance and others on the “new right” say limiting immigration will raise wages and give jobs to sidelined Americans. Many studies suggest otherwise.As President-elect Donald J. Trump’s second administration takes shape, his plans for a signature campaign promise are becoming clear: mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, including new detention centers, workplace raids and possibly the mobilization of the military to aid in expulsions.Most economists are skeptical that this project will improve opportunities for working-class Americans. Mr. Trump and his allies don’t typically argue for purging undocumented immigrants on economic grounds; the case is more often about crimes committed by migrants, or simply a need to enforce the law.But there is an intellectual movement behind immigration restriction that seeks to reshape the relationship between employers and their sources of labor. According to this rising conservative faction, most closely identified with Vice President-elect JD Vance, cutting off the supply of vulnerable foreigners will force employers to seek out U.S.-born workers.“We cannot have an entire American business community that is giving up on American workers and then importing millions of illegal laborers,” Mr. Vance said in an interview with The New York Times in October, adding, “It’s one of the biggest reasons why we have millions of people who’ve dropped out of the labor force.”Mr. Vance is correct that the share of men in their prime working years who are in the labor force — that is, either working or looking for work — has declined in recent decades, sliding during recessions and never totally recovering. (Women in that age group, 25 to 54 years old, are working at the highest levels on record.)It seems like a simple equation: When fewer workers are available, employers have to try harder to compete for them. Certainly that dynamic played a role in the swift wage growth early in the pandemic, when people willing to do in-person jobs — waiters or nurses, for example — were in especially short supply.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    How Trump’s Tax Cuts and Tariffs Could Turn Into Law

    Republicans are juggling complex political and tactical questions as they plan their congressional agenda next year.Republicans are starting to sketch out how to translate President-elect Donald J. Trump’s economic agenda into law, putting plans in place to bypass Democrats and approve multiple bills reshaping the nation’s tax and spending policies along party lines.With total control of Washington, Republicans have the rare — and often fleeting — opportunity to leave a lasting mark on federal policy. Some in the party are hoping to tee up big legislation for early next year and capitalize on Mr. Trump’s first 100 days.Much of the early planning revolves around the sweeping tax cuts the party passed and Mr. Trump signed into law in 2017, many of which will expire at the end of next year. Key Republicans are holding meetings about how to maneuver a bill extending the tax cuts through the Senate, while others are consulting economists for ideas to offset their roughly $4 trillion cost.Several questions loom over the Republican effort. They range from how fast the party should move next year to deeper political disagreements over which tax and spending policies to change. The overall cost of the legislation is a central preoccupation at a time of rising deficits. And whatever Republicans put together will most likely become a magnet for other issues the party has prioritized, including immigration.Here’s what to expect.A Difficult ProcessMost legislation needs a supermajority of 60 votes to pass the Senate. But for bills focused on taxes and spending, lawmakers can turn to a process called budget reconciliation that requires only a regular majority of 51 votes in the Senate.Reconciliation is a powerful but cumbersome tool. Its rules prevent lawmakers from passing policy changes unrelated to the budget, and lawmakers are only allowed to use reconciliation a limited number of times per year. Republicans could also raise the debt limit through the process.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    How Trump’s Immigration Plans Could Affect the Economy

    Expelling noncitizens on a mass scale is likely to raise prices on goods and services and lower employment rates for U.S. workers, many economists say.The wave of migrants who arrived during the Biden administration fueled some of the anger that propelled Donald J. Trump back to power. They also offset a labor shortage, putting a damper on inflation.With the next administration vowing to seal the border and carry out the largest deportation program in American history, those economic forces could reverse — depending on the degree to which Mr. Trump can fulfill those promises.Mr. Trump’s newly appointed “border czar,” Tom Homan, has said that the administration would start with the immigrants who have committed crimes. There are not nearly enough of those to amount to removals on a mass scale, however, and Vice President-elect JD Vance has also said that all 11 million undocumented immigrants should prepare to leave. “If you are in this country illegally in six months, pack your bags, because you’re going home,” Mr. Vance said in September.The numbers could rise by another 2.7 million if the new administration revokes several types of temporary humanitarian protection, as the Trump adviser Stephen Miller previewed last year. On top of that, millions of undocumented residents live with U.S.-born children or green card holders who could end up leaving the country as well.There are logistical, legal, diplomatic and — even though Mr. Trump has said there is “no price tag” he wouldn’t direct the government to pay — fiscal obstacles to expelling millions of people who would rather stay. (According to the American Immigration Council, an advocacy group for immigrants, it would cost $315 billion to arrest, detain, and deport all 13.3 million living in the United States illegally or under a revocable temporary status.)That’s why forecasting a precise impact is impossible at this point. But if Mr. Trump accomplishes anything close to what he has pledged, many economists expect higher prices on goods and services and possibly lower employment rates for American workers.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Republicans and Democrats Highly Divided in Economic Outlook Under Trump

    Consumer sentiment among Republicans has soared to its highest point since Donald J. Trump left the White House, while declining among Democrats.Donald J. Trump won last week’s election in part by promising to fix an economy many voters believed was broken.Republicans, at least, seem to believe him.Consumer sentiment among Republicans has soared nearly 30 percent in the week since Election Day, according to data from Morning Consult, an online survey firm. Republicans, according to the survey, now feel better about the economy than at any time since Mr. Trump lost his bid for re-election four years ago.Democrats, unsurprisingly, have had a very different reaction. Sentiment in that group has dropped 13 percent since Election Day, its lowest level since early 2023. For political independents, relatively little has changed in their attitudes toward the economy in recent days.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Consumer sentiment by party identification
    Note: Data shown as five-day moving average. Political independents not shown.Source: Morning ConsultBy The New York TimesThe big partisan shifts in Americans’ economic views are not a surprise. There have been similar swings after past presidential elections, although the trend has become more pronounced in recent decades. And voters have said for months that their economic expectations would depend partly on whether their preferred candidate won the White House.“Consumers have been telling us all year long their expectation for the economy is contingent on the outcome of the election,” said Joanne Hsu, director of the University of Michigan’s long-running survey of consumer sentiment. She expects to see large partisan swings in that survey as well, she said, when data from after the election becomes available this month.Measures of consumer sentiment have been depressed for much of President Biden’s time in office, though indicators such as the unemployment rate and wage growth have indicated a strong economy. In polls and interviews, Americans have cited inflation as one of the main sources of their dissatisfaction with Mr. Biden, even as inflation has cooled.Economic sentiment has begun to improve in recent months, however, perhaps suggesting that more Americans are starting to see improvements in inflation in their daily lives — albeit too late to help Democrats in this month’s elections.“Consumers probably are seeing and to some extent digesting some of the good economic news,” said Deni Koenhemsi, head of economic analysis for Morning Consult.Ms. Koenhemsi noted that consumers’ expectations had improved more rapidly than their assessment of the economy’s current state. That suggests that many are still struggling with high prices but becoming more optimistic about the months ahead.That gradual process isn’t surprising, said Neale Mahoney, a Stanford University economist who worked in Mr. Biden’s administration. In research published last year, Mr. Mahoney and a colleague found that it takes time for sentiment to adjust as inflation cools and people become used to the new, higher price of many goods and services.“Even if measured inflation has decreased, the way people experience inflation, they may still be acclimatizing to the price increases that were most acute in summer of 2022 into 2023,” Mr. Mahoney said.The election, he added, could accelerate that process, at least for Republicans, who might be more inclined to reset their expectations once their preferred candidate is in office. More

  • in

    Why Trump’s Victory Is Fueling a Market Frenzy

    Investors have been comforted by a clear election result and are anticipating tax cuts and deregulation from a second Trump administration.Donald J. Trump’s election victory reverberated through financial markets. And one week later, bets on the economy’s path and on corporate winners or losers — known as the “Trump trade” on Wall Street — are in full swing.Stock prices for perceived winners have snapped higher: Bank valuations have soared, as investors anticipate more lenient regulations. The same is true for many large companies seeking to consolidate through mergers and acquisitions, which have frequently been blocked or discouraged under President Biden.The share price of Tesla, run by Mr. Trump’s adviser and campaign benefactor Elon Musk, has surged by more than 40 percent since the election last week. Cryptocurrencies, which Mr. Trump has pledged to lend more support, popped as well, with Bitcoin hitting record highs.Based on the president-elect’s promises of drastic immigration enforcement, which might increase demand for detention services, the shares of private prison operators also rose sharply.Presumed losers slumped in price, including smaller green energy firms benefiting from Biden-era tax credits. A range of retailers and manufacturers reliant on imported goods have also suffered, because they may be negatively exposed to tariffs that Mr. Trump has floated.The stock market overall, though, has ripped to new highs, surpassing the records it set earlier in the year.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Countries Weigh How to Raise Trillions for Climate Crisis at COP29

    Low-income countries need at least $1 trillion a year to manage climate change. Donald Trump’s victory just made that more difficult, but options exist.Money: It’s the most contentious subject at the international climate talks this week in Baku, Azerbaijan. How much? From where? What for?Getting big cash commitments would be hard enough without wars, a pandemic and inflation having drained the reserves of rich countries that are expected to help poorer ones cope with climate hazards.It just got even harder. The election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States all but guarantees that the world’s richest country will not chip in. (Mr. Trump has said he would withdraw from the global climate accord altogether, as he did during his first term.)So now what?Several creative ideas are circulating to raise money for countries to invest in renewable energy and adapt to the dangers of climate change. They include levying taxes, tackling debt and pushing international development banks to do more, faster.The new proposals come with steep hurdles of their own, but the traditional way of raising money — passing around the hat and asking donor countries to make pledges — has failed to meet the need.The last time a climate finance goal was established, in 2009, rich countries promised to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020. They were two years late in meeting that target, and about 70 percent of the money came as loans, infuriating already heavily indebted countries.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Mortgage Rates Fell, Then Rose. What Comes Next?

    Many would-be home buyers are still hoping for mortgage rates to come down as the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates. How much they will fall is unclear.Rafael Corrales, a real estate agent in Miami, recently showed houses to a young couple hoping to move from a rental into a home. They had been lured to the market after hearing that mortgage rates had come down.But when the couple went to get approved for a home loan, they found that the borrowing costs had ticked up once again.“They were very confused,” said Mr. Corrales, 49, an agent for Redfin. It pushed them back onto the sidelines of the housing market, and they’re now staying put in the hope that rates will fall again.Mortgage rates fell steadily from this spring through September, as economic data slowed and as investors began to expect a steady string of interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve. But the rate on a 30-year mortgage has reversed course and climbed sharply over the past month to 6.79 percent nationally, from about 6.1 percent at the start of October.The move has come as a shock to some home buyers, who had waited many months for Fed officials to begin lowering borrowing costs, hoping that they would bring relief to the mortgage market.The logic was fairly simple. When the Fed lowers its benchmark interest rates, the downward shifts tend to trickle through financial markets to lower other interest rates. While the biggest impact is on short-term rates, the effect can extend to 10-year Treasury notes, which mortgages closely track. And the Fed is, in fact, adjusting policy. Officials cut interest rates for the first time in four years in September, and they followed with a quarter-point rate cut on Thursday.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    U.S. average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage
    Source: Freddie MacBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump’s Win Shows Limits of Biden’s Industrial Policy

    When President Biden addressed the nation this week after a gutting election, his reflections on his economic legacy offered a glimpse into why Democrats were resoundingly defeated.The efforts by the Biden-Harris administration to reshape American manufacturing were the most ambitious economic plans in a generation, but most voters had yet to see the fruits of those policies.“We have legislation we passed that’s only now just really kicking in,” Mr. Biden said, explaining that a “vast majority” of the benefits from federal investments that his administration made would be felt over the next decade.Legislation enacted by the Biden-Harris administration was designed to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the United States economy to develop domestic clean energy and semiconductor sectors. The investments were likened to a modern-day New Deal that would make American supply chains less reliant on foreign adversaries while creating thousands of jobs, including for workers without a college degree.But anger over more immediate and tangible economic issues — including rapid inflation and high mortgage rates — dwarfed optimism about factories that had yet to be built. That reality helped topple Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign and showed the limits of industrial policy as a winning political strategy.In the days since Mr. Trump’s victory, current and former Biden administration officials have been grappling both privately and publicly with why their economic strategy did not prove to be more popular. They have comforted themselves with the fact that inflation has led to the defeat of incumbent leaders around the world, although most of those governments were also struggling with weak economies, whereas growth in the United States remains robust.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More