SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
jobs
Study Shows How Trump's ICE Raids Cost Americans Jobs
"Not only are these arrests often cruel and unnecessary," said one economist, "but they’re also hurting the very Americans President Trump promised to help.”
Jul 29, 2026
President Donald Trump has spent years insisting that immigrant communities are "taking our jobs" and that expelling migrants via the mass deportation campaign he's imposed on cities and towns across the country would swiftly result in an employment boom—but a new study reveals how aggressive raids by federal agents are resulting in a decline in employment for US-born citizens as well as their immigrant neighbors and coworkers.
A study authored by Elizabeth Cox and Chloe East and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that while Trump's sweeping raids and arrests of hundreds of thousands of people have pushed those who have been deported out of their jobs, and "immigrants who remain in the US are working less due to chilling effects," those changes have done nothing to stimulate job growth among US citizens.
"We show no evidence of positive effects of the labor market outcomes of US-born workers," wrote the authors. "Instead, ICE activity lowers the employment rate of US-born male workers, likely driven by a combination of complementarities in production and reductions in economic activity both reducing labor demand for US-born workers."
In other words, said the Immigration Research Initiative (IRI) on Monday, "arresting and deporting immigrants results in a cascade of job loss," affecting longtime employees who have work authorization but may stay home or leave the US out of fear of being deported, and US-born workers who struggle to keep businesses afloat after people who support their essential operations are detained and deported.
The study focused on men's employment because about 90% of the people arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other related agencies have been male.
For every 1,000 immigrant men arrested by ICE, the researchers found a 2.5% decline in employment for immigrant men without a college degree—those most at risk of being detained.
In areas where ICE activity has been particularly aggressive, a 0.54% decline in employment among US-born men in the area was found for every 1,000 ICE arrests.
"On US-born males’ employment rate, we find a negative and significant effect," reads the study. "There is no evidence that employers increase wages to attract US-born workers."
In response to the study, IRI created a model showing how employment would be affected in each state, should 1% of the most at-risk immigrant men be detained by ICE.
The group projected that such a dramatic statewide surge in enforcement in California, for example, would result in the direct expulsion of 15,600 immigrant men from their jobs. Another 615,000 immigrants would lose employment due to the chilling effect of the surge, and an estimated 466,000 US-born Californian men would also ultimately lose their jobs.
"Jobs where undocumented immigrants play a particularly big role are often complementary to jobs with higher numbers of US-born workers," IRI explained. "For instance, in the construction industry, a high concentration of roofers and construction laborers are immigrants, and are often undocumented, while a high concentration of electricians and plumbers are US-born. Then when construction companies cannot find laborers, they build less, and hire fewer electricians."
Texas, another state with a large immigrant workforce, would see an estimated 9,700 immigrant men swept up in a statewide surge that targeted 1% of the most at-risk people. An additional 237,800 immigrant men would also lose work, as well as 266,100 US-born men.
More than 128,000 American men would also be projected to lose employment as the result of immigration enforcement in Florida, as well as 18,600 in North Carolina; 16,800 in Pennsylvania; and 11,700 in Arizona.
IRI examined three states in Northern New England—Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont—as a whole, determining that mass arrests would take a total of 300 immigrants out of the workforce in the states, and would force job cuts for about 700 US citizens.
Mass deportation operations like Trump's shrink both the workforce and the overall economy of an area, said IRI, because the people who are directly impacted—and those who fear ICE enforcement even if the government has no legal reason to deport them—"no longer shop at businesses, eat at restaurants, and pay taxes."
"The decline in consumer spending likely explains the study’s finding that employment reductions are concentrated in 'non-tradeable' sectors, those driven by local spending (e.g. restaurants) rather than sectors oriented toward exports (e.g. manufacturing)," said IRI.
James Myall, senior economic policy analyst at Maine Center for Economic Policy, said in a statement Tuesday that the research "just proves how self-defeating the Trump administration’s immigration policies really are."
"Not only are these arrests often cruel and unnecessary," said Myall, "but they’re also hurting the very Americans President Trump promised to help.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
The US Fails Young People by Mobilizing for War, Not Jobs
A country is not secure simply because it can strike targets, protect bases, or surge forces across oceans. It is secure when its people can see a future worth defending.
May 22, 2026
Washington usually measures American decline in external terms: China’s rise, Russia’s revisionism, strained alliances, and military crises in the Middle East. But one of the clearest warnings is coming from inside the United States. In 2025, only 43% of Americans ages 15 to 34 said it was a good time to find a job where they lived, 21 points below Americans 55 and older. In no other surveyed country was the generational gap this wide.
That finding should unsettle a country that is still speaking the language of primacy. Young Americans are not turning gloomy because they have forgotten how to be optimistic. They are reading the economy in front of them. Youth unemployment stood at 9.5% in April. Renter cost burdens hit a record 22.7 million households in 2024. The share of first-time home buyers fell to a record-low 21%, while the median first-time buyer’s age rose to 40. For a generation told that education, discipline, and work would translate into stability, the bargain looks broken.
This is not only a domestic story. It is also a foreign policy failure, because budgets reveal what a government treats as urgent. The Defense Department’s 2026 request totaled $961 billion, among the largest inflation-adjusted requests of the past half century. Additional military-related funding has pushed “national defense” spending beyond $1 trillion. The point is not that every dollar spent on the Pentagon could be mechanically converted into a job, an apartment, or a mortgage. The point is that Washington still knows how to mobilize at scale—but most reliably when the beneficiaries are weapons programs, contractors, and permanent military infrastructure.
The war with Iran has made that imbalance harder to ignore. By May, the US campaign had cost an estimated $29 billion, including operations and equipment repair or replacement. The conflict has also disrupted energy flows through one of the world’s most important corridors, raising the risk that households already squeezed by rent, debt, insurance, and food costs will face still more pressure. For young workers, “foreign policy” is not abstract when it comes back as higher prices, lower confidence, and another delay in leaving home.
If Washington continues to protect an empire more energetically than it protects the next generation’s prospects, the damage will not remain hidden in surveys.
Washington often treats these costs as unfortunate side effects of leadership. They are better understood as evidence of an outdated model of security. A country is not secure simply because it can strike targets, protect bases, or surge forces across oceans. It is secure when its people can see a future worth defending. A state that can finance escalation faster than housing, debt relief, or public investment teaches its younger citizens a bleak lesson: Their insecurity is manageable, but imperial credibility is an emergency.
A serious foreign policy would start from that recognition. It would pursue diplomacy with Iran rather than convert each crisis into a test of dominance. It would restore the congressional role in decisions of war and peace. It would subject military spending to the same moral and fiscal scrutiny imposed on social programs. And it would treat economic security at home as part of national security, not as an afterthought to be discussed after the next supplemental defense bill.
This is not a call for withdrawal from the world. It is a call to abandon the habit of confusing militarization with responsibility. The United States can cooperate, mediate, trade, provide humanitarian assistance, and support climate resilience without treating armed escalation as the default proof of seriousness. In fact, a foreign policy built around restraint would be more credible abroad precisely because it would be more defensible at home.
The warning from young Americans is not just that the job market feels weak. It is that the future feels rationed. If Washington continues to protect an empire more energetically than it protects the next generation’s prospects, the damage will not remain hidden in surveys. It will appear in politics, institutions, and the country’s declining ability to persuade anyone—including its own citizens—that American power still serves a public purpose. The real measure of decline is not only what rivals do to the United States. It is what the United States keeps choosing to do to itself.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Landmark Study Finds Trump’s Mass Deportation Agenda Is Costing Americans Jobs
"We see no evidence that employers increase wages to attract US-born workers to fill these jobs in the face of immigration enforcement."
May 19, 2026
A landmark study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that President Donald Trump's mass deportation operations are actually costing Americans jobs, contrary to the White House's frequent claims that its anti-immigration agenda is helping US workers.
The NBER study, which was published last month and reported on by The New York Times Tuesday, claims to provide "the first national, causal empirical evidence on the labor market impacts of immigration enforcement in the second Trump administration," and finds that mass deportations have not resulted in more job offers for native-born Americans.
In fact, the study identifies "a negative and significant impact on employment of US-born male workers with at most a high-school education" who are working in industries that employ the most undocumented immigrants, including construction, agriculture, and manufacturing.
The study finds that instead of hiring more US-born workers in the absence of available undocumented workers—who may have been deported, left the country to avoid deportation, or have stayed home out of fear of immigration raids—employers are more likely to simply slow down economic activity altogether, which has a cascading impact on related industries.
"We see no evidence that employers increase wages to attract US-born workers to fill these jobs in the face of immigration enforcement," the researchers explain. "Instead, our results are consistent with employers reducing labor demand overall, including for jobs more often taken by US-born workers."
The NBER researchers also say that undocumented workers are more often than not complements to US workers, as they "are more likely than US-born individuals to work in jobs that are less desirable due to lower pay, on the job hazards, and irregular schedules."
University of Colorado, Boulder economist Chloe East, who co-authored the NBER study, told the New York Times on Tuesday that construction firms "view it as easier to reduce production, reduce the construction of new homes and new buildings in general, rather than try to increase wages for US-born workers."
East said that this would likely hurt efforts to build more housing in the US, telling the Times that "I assume we're going to see... a long-term shock to the construction sector" due to Trump's mass deportations.
Anirban Basu, chief economist at the Associated Builders and Contractors national trade organization, told the Times that he wasn't surprised by the finding that aggressive immigration raids shut down projects rather than open up new work for native-born Americans.
"Given high interest rates, given rising material prices and fewer people available to provide roofing, tiling, carpeting, and other flooring services," Basu said, "it renders fewer projects financially viable."
NPER's study echoes an analysis released last month by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which found that unemployment for US-born workers has increased since the start of Trump's second term, as the federal government has carried out its draconian deportation operations.
"Claims that mass deportations have helped US-born workers are simply inconsistent with the data," EPI wrote. "This is no surprise, given that economic research has repeatedly shown that increased immigration enforcement harms everyone in the labor market, including US-born workers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
California's Tom Steyer Proposes Jobs Guarantee for Workers Displaced by AI
"Most politicians still fail to recognize or downplay the threat of AI to workers, at the behest of Silicon Valley," said one veteran labor organizer.
May 08, 2026
In a first for a statewide candidate, California gubernatorial contender Tom Steyer on Friday proposed the creation of a wealth fund that would be paid into by artificial intelligence companies, with the money being used to fund jobs in key sectors of the economy.
The billionaire hedge fund founder-turned-environmental advocate, who has come out in support of a proposed tax on billioionaires' wealth and a single-payer healthcare system for the state and has described himself as a "class traitor," told Wired about his proposal to use a "token tax" to fund what he called the Golden State Sovereign Wealth Fund.
Big Tech companies would be taxed “a fraction of a cent for every unit of data processed” for AI uses, and some of the money directed to the fund through the taxation plan would be earmarked for jobs for people who lost employment due to the expansion of AI.
Jobs in healthcare, housing construction, and modernizing the state's energy infrastructure would be prioritized in the fund.
Steyer told Wired the plan would make California "the first major economy in the world" to guarantee jobs to people who have been displaced by AI.
“People all over this state are terrified that AI is going to hollow out this whole economy and they’re going to lose their jobs. Young people are worried they’ll never get a job,” Steyer told Wired. “We believe this can be an amazing transformational technology in many ways, but we’re not in the business of leaving people in California behind.”
The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray, and Christmas released a report Thursday showing that for the second straight month, AI was the leading reason companies cited for laying off workers. AI-related job cuts accounted for 26% of the 88,387 layoffs the firm recorded, with 21,490 people losing their jobs due to AI.
“Technology companies continue to announce large-scale cuts and are leading all industries in layoff announcements. They are also often citing AI spend and innovation. Regardless of whether individual jobs are being replaced by AI, the money for those roles is,” said Andy Challenger, chief revenue officer for Challenger, Gray, and Christmas.
Last October, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) released an analysis showing that AI and automation could eliminate nearly 100 million jobs in a decade—yet President Donald Trump and the Republican Party are aggressively pushing to stop states from regulating the industry.
Trump signed an executive order late last year calling on the Department of Justice to create an AI Litigation Task Force, which would target laws and proposals to require studies on the impact of AI on jobs, protect people from AI companion chatbots, and regulate the technology in other ways.
“Not regulating AI doesn’t seem remotely reasonable,” Steyer said Friday.
At a debate earlier this week, Steyer said AI cannot be allowed to "create 12 trillionaires and millions of people who lose their jobs."
"The number-one thing that we have to do is make sure AI is a tool for workers and not a replacement of workers," he said. "And we absolutely need to own part of it."
We can't let AI create 12 trillionaires and millions of people who lose their jobs. The people of California need to share in the wealth AI creates. pic.twitter.com/ts2Ru1J5IX
— Tom Steyer (@TomSteyer) May 6, 2026
Charles Idelson, former communications director for National Nurses United, applauded Steyer for "addressing a growing danger for California's working class."
"Most politicians still fail to recognize or downplay the threat of AI to workers, at the behest of Silicon Valley," said Idelson.
Steyer said in a memo that in addition to protecting Californians from job loss, the fund created by the token tax would "strengthen the foundation of the state’s economy, invest in our communities, and create beautiful, vibrant public spaces."
“To support these efforts," said the campaign, "Tom will also invest heavily in training and apprenticeship programs across the state.”
Steyer's plan for AI also includes an expansion of unemployment insurance and the creation of the AI Worker Protection Administration that would adopt new rules to protect workers' rights as AI continues to develop.
Devin Murphy, director for digital mobilization for Steyer's campaign, said the state faces a "defining question" after its tech industry helped build the AI economy: "Who benefits from it?"
"Tom Steyer is putting forward one of the first serious plans to ensure AI strengthens the middle class," said Murphy, "instead of hollowing it out."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fewer Jobs, Higher Inflation, and $300 Billion in Lost Output: Analysis Details Woeful Trump Economy
"This economy could be delivering lower inflation, more jobs, and stronger growth, but instead, it’s being dragged in the wrong direction by this president’s policy choices."
Apr 15, 2026
With US consumer sentiment hitting an all-time low, the Center for American Progress on Wednesday released a report pinning the blame for Americans' economic gloom on President Donald Trump.
In total, the CAP analysis projects that by the fourth quarter of 2026, Trump's policies will lower real GDP by 1.3% while adding 1.39% to personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation.
The report also estimates that the economy would have created an additional 2 million jobs 2026 were it not for the Trump's tariffs, mass deportations, and war of choice with Iran.
Although the unemployment rate at the moment is low, the report explains, US employers are also hiring far fewer people, as "both labor demand and labor supply have fallen, leaving a job market with fewer opportunities and less resilience against downturns."
Trump's policies have also made borrowing more expensive, and CAP says that interest rates are now 60 basis points higher than they otherwise would have been without the president's policies.
Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at CAP and former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden, said the analysis shows "this economy could be delivering lower inflation, more jobs, and stronger growth, but instead, it’s being dragged in the wrong direction by this president’s policy choices."
Bernstein said Trump's tariffs were the primary culprit for higher-than-expected inflation in 2025, while the oil supply shock that came after Trump launched a war with Iran is expected to add even more inflation throughout 2026.
The end result, said Bernstein, is a kind of "stagflation," with low economic growth and higher-than-average inflation. He also warned that "longer-term costs from reduced investment in both people and public goods will also take a toll on future growth."
Job growth in the US has largely stalled ever since Trump announced his "liberation day" tariffs more than a year ago, and a CAP analysis published earlier this month found that the economy has created an average of fewer than 22,000 jobs per month over the last year.
The latest Consumer Price Index report released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics found that prices in March rose by 3.3% from the previous year—the highest annual inflation rate since April 2024.
Despite this, Trump has continued to insist that he has created the "greatest" economy in the history of the world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Need a Theory of Change That Recognizes the Democratic Establishment Has Been Doing It Wrong
Effective change begins with believing in what seems impossible now: that workers should have significant power in our government and in our economy.
Apr 10, 2026
Recently the political director of a major labor union reminded me that we need a theory of change to build a fairer and more just society. That challenge struck me as worth exploring. What theory of change do we need?
Let’s start with the No Kings mobilizations. The theory of change behind No Kings is to rally as many people as possible against President Donald Trump and inspire a huge turnout in November to take the House and Senate away from the Republicans. Control of Congress would at least slow down Trump’s attacks against immigrants and his assault on democratic norms. The No Kings theory of change is simple: Mass mobilization in the streets and at the polls = curtailing the Trump assault.
If successful, these efforts would provide critical relief to hard-working immigrants and put up some guard rails to protect democracy. But No Kings doesn’t directly deal with the broader problems that impact working people, especially job instability and the high costs of housing, healthcare, and education.
What Theory of Change Would Build a Better Economy for Working People?
Every theory of change has two major components: one is the substance of the change and the other is the political vehicle needed to achieve it.
A call for secure jobs at living wages also could lead to a reattachment of working people to politics—to a belief that building a better, more secure society is possible.
For me the the key substantive issue today is job instability. You’re nothing in our society if you can’t hold a job. Yet, over the last several decades we have allowed, as a society, tens of millions of workers to be tossed out of work due to no fault of their own. Stock buybacks, private equity, hedge funds, globalization, and new technologies have been destroying jobs at profitable and unprofitable companies alike. AI is likely to make it all worse.
Breaking Away From Corporate America’s Framework
To find solutions worthy of promotion we need to distinguish between people-centered and capital-centered frameworks. Right now, nearly all the discussion about the problems facing working people flow from a capital-centered perspective. That has led to reliance on financial incentives to encourage corporate job creation, as in the Inflation Reduction Act.
It also has led to thousands of subsidies costing billions of dollars provided by state and local governments to attract and maintain corporate investments to create more job opportunities.
Encouraging job creation in the private sector by subsidies and tax breaks leaves employment decisions to the corporation (unless constrained by strong collective bargaining agreements.) Hiring and firing are seen as sacrosanct corporate rights essential to a free society.
What About a Right to a Job?
A people-centered perspective, is very different. Consider:
Everyone who is willing and able to work should have the right to a job at a living wage. And if the private sector is unable to provide it, the public sector should.
This idea is so far outside of today’s corporate-centered framework, that it is dismissed out of hand. Won’t job guarantees lead to a bloated public sector causing taxes to rise through the roof? And what would these workers do?
To follow this path we have to change how we value public goods. Right now public infrastructure is starved for investment. Our roads, our bridges, our schools need repair. Our public transit systems are hobbled, the internet in many parts of the country is slow or nonexistent. We need more childcare workers, more teachers, more healthcare providers, and more workers to remediate our deteriorating environment. Sit down with any group of workers and they could make a list of all the work that needs doing. Clearly, the richest society in the history of the world can afford it.
But these public needs have been undermined by a pervasive corporate dogma that government is incapable of good works and that the private sector (which has been churning jobs) is the epitome of efficiency and productivity. Yet Social Security runs well and Medicare is far more efficient than private insurance. Charter schools have yet to prove to be more effective than public schools, and many public universities are every bit as good as private ones. Our libraries work efficiently and so do our emergency services.
Government can work well if we shift our framework from capital first, which abhors public funding, to people first.
A call for secure jobs at living wages also could lead to a reattachment of working people to politics—to a belief that building a better, more secure society is possible. Add in Medicare for All, affordable housing, help with childcare costs, and free higher and vocational education, and we have the makings of a compelling people-first political platform.
How Do We Get There?
For most progressives, the Democratic Party is the one and only vehicle. The goal is to reform it (realignment) by running more candidates like Bernie, AOC, the Squad, and Mandami, as well as a new crop of working-class oriented candidates like Graham Platner in Maine, and James Talerico in Texas.
It’s heartening to see so many working-class candidates take up the reins and run this year. Realignment through working-class candidates has been badly needed. These efforts, we hope, will prove to the party apparatus that waitresses, union leaders, electricians, flight attendants, and even oystermen can run and win. The goal would be to have these worker-oriented candidates become the future leaders of the Democratic Party, forming a bloc that is powerful enough to return the Democrats to their working-class roots.
Going Independent?
But in this difficult moment, realignment is not enough—we also need an outside, independent strategy to credibly compete in places the Democratic Party has abandoned, and where working people have abandoned the Party.
As we found in our survey of 3,000 Midwestern voters, 70% had negative views of the Democrats, and from the get-go a Democratic candidate faces an 8% deficit in voter support when running against an independent while saying exactly the same things.
To reach these working people, we need independent working-class candidates running on a people-first platform like Dan Osborn is doing in Nebraska. The only way he can win against a wealthy Republican incumbent is to distance himself from both parties—escaping what he calls “the two-party doom loop.”
If independent working-class candidates can win, there should be a knock-on effect for reforming the Democratic Party. The outside competition, free from party labels and corporate money, could pressure Democrats to field more working-class candidates.
But say the word “independent” to many union members and they often say something like, “We have to back those who back us—the Dems.” Or as another labor leader told me, “They’re the only friends we have.”
Some also equate “independent” with “spoiler”—a fringe counterproductive effort that takes votes away from the Democrats and elects Republicans.
But, the union political director who prompted this article hit the nail on the head:
This strategy, whether they like it or not, is oriented on realigning the Democratic Party, not acting entirely outside of it. This is a needed one, but not wholly sufficient for the scale of the political crisis in front of us. And the reality is that an increasing number of working-class people do not feel at home in either version of two-party duopoly. But the losses Dems have faced in the industrial Midwest, the South, etc. require both realignment AND independent brute force in order to reclaim our values. It has to be both/and!
A closer look at the country’s political landscape shows 130 US House districts in which the Democrats consistently lose by 25% or more. In those districts there is no Democratic Party to spoil. Instead, these areas could become the proving ground for developing independent working-class candidates under the banner of “Not Red, Not Blue: I’m a Working-Class Independent!”
The Baked-In Ideological Resistance
Why does the Democratic Party need so much pushing and cajoling? Why isn’t it already recruiting hundreds of working-class candidates?
It’s their mindset. The Democrats, from the high officials to the funders, from the consultants to the pollsters, from the candidates to their PR firms—all are stuck in the capital-first framework. Yes, they want to raise taxes on the billionaires and stop the Immigration and Customs Enforcement attacks on immigrants. And yes, they would like to add resources to Obamacare, protect women’s rights, promote better climate policies. All that’s to the good.
But when it comes to challenging the job-destructive behavior of corporate America, their knees knock. Some, but not all the corporate-friendly attitudes come from the need for campaign funds and from having an eye out for future lucrative jobs for themselves, their families, and friends once out of office.
Real change that empowers working people requires an independent electoral strategy that challenges the Democratic Party establishment.
But corporate Democrats also believe that private capital is the engine of prosperity and employment. They see no inherent conflict between labor and capital. Grow the pie and all can prosper. Make sure that everyone has the opportunity to succeed, without discrimination, and that’s fair enough—the procedural essence of equality.
If we dig down deeper, I think most Democratic officials believe that the super rich deserve what they have earned, reaping the rewards of their hard work and talents. In their eyes it is simply insane to suggest that every worker should have a right to a job at a living wage—provided by government if necessary. Make that argument and they will look at you with pity, thinking you are a lost soul living in a fantasy world.
The Populists of the 19th Century
That fantasy world looked very real during the 1880s and 1890s when the Populist movement—the progressive kind—developed a vision that captured the imagination of millions of workers and farmers. Robber barons had control of the shipping, finance, farm machinery, and crop storage, at the time, driving farmers and industrial workers deeper and deeper into peonage.
The Populists responded with a new vision of a cooperative commonwealth with public ownership of railroads, banks, and grain elevators. And they didn’t just dream about it; they formed hundreds of cooperatives that bound these working people together in common enterprises to improve their lives. They also took their crusade into politics, changing the country for decades to come. Depending on their location they ran as Democrats, as Republicans, and as third-party independents, winning thousands of elections.
Although the movement was eventually defeated as a national party, its state and local victories paved the way for the regulation of corporate America during the Progressive era, the establishment of the progressive income tax, and for the economic enhancement of farmers and workers during the New Deal.
We have a long way to go to catch up with the theory of change that gave the Populists so much influence.
But that theory of change is still alive. It starts with believing in what seems impossible now: that workers should have significant power in our government and in our economy.
There’s no way around it. Real change that empowers working people requires an independent electoral strategy that challenges the Democratic Party establishment, even if doing so makes people uncomfortable.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is a Hiring Recession': Economists Raise Red Flags at Latest Gloomy Data in Trump Economy
"Hiring was ice cold in February," said one economist.
Mar 31, 2026
New data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics released on Tuesday continued to show weakness in the American jobs market.
The latest Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) shows that the number of new hires in February decreased to 4.8 million, which was roughly 400,000 fewer hires than were recorded in February 2025.
The report also shows that the US hiring rate in February fell to just 3.1%, which is the lowest rate since April 2020, when the economy was shut down due to the global Covid-19 pandemic.
The good news in the report is that the number of quits and layoffs remained relatively steady, meaning that people who already have jobs are retaining them at a healthy clip.
But Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, noted that these bad hiring numbers came before President Donald Trump launched an illegal war with Iran, which has since destabilized global energy markets and raised prices for oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel.
"This is a hiring recession," Long wrote in a social media post. "And Americans are feeling it. There were notable hiring pullbacks in February in hospitality and construction. Bottom line: The job market was already frozen before the war in Iran began. It's worrying that a 'no hire, no fire' situation could turn into a 'no hire, start to fire' job market quickly if there isn't a resolution soon."
Long's analysis was echoed by Laura Ullrich, director of economic research at hiring site Indeed, who wrote in a research note flagged by Axios that hiring in the US "was stuck in neutral going into this [Iran] conflict," and "getting it into gear just got harder" thanks to the war.
Guy Berger, director of economic research at the Burning Glass Institute, noted that hiring rates in the US hit 3.1% or lower the last two times the country was in a severe recession.
"3.1% is not only comparable to the Covid low point—it's also comparable to late 2009 and early 2010, when the unemployment rate was around 10%," Berger explained. "Hiring was ice cold in February."
Scott Lincicome, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who has been a harsh critic of Trump's tariffs, found that the February JOLTS report wiped out an unexpected January increase in manufacturing job openings that the president's allies attributed to his trade policies.
"Alas, the perils of cherry-picking," Lincicome commented.
The new data on hiring in the US job market comes weeks after a BLS report estimated that the economy lost 92,000 jobs in February. On the whole, the American economy has posted a net loss of jobs since Trump announced his “liberation day” global tariffs in April 2025.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the Democrats Are Not Radical Enough
Until left Democrats are willing and able to support meaningful job guarantees, they have little chance of reaching the working people they have lost over the past 40 years of wholesale job destruction.
Mar 11, 2026
Centrist Democrats argue that the party should not “go so far left in a primary that they can’t win against MAGA in the general.” As the Center for Working Class Politics observes, these “Third Way” Democrats stress “affordability” and “abundance” without taking on the billionaire class. Progressive Democrats, including groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and Working Families Party, are seen as just too radical to attract working-class voters.
I disagree. I think the problem is that Democrats, even progressive Democrats, are not radical enough.
We have only to look at former President Franklin D.. Roosevelt’s 1941 “Four Freedoms” State of the Union address to be reminded of what our politics could be and should be. The “Four Freedoms” (of speech and religion, from want and fear) are properly the best remembered parts of the address. But just before these “four essential human freedoms,” Roosevelt listed “the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and complexity of our modern world.” They are:
- Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
- Jobs for those who can work.
- Security for those who need it.
- The ending of special privilege for the few.
- The preservation of civil liberties for all.
- The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.
What did he want? He thought we “should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance,” which (thankfully!) has been done, although the support should be increased.
He believed we should “widen the opportunities for adequate medical care,” which has been done in part, with much more to do.
And he called for the nation to “plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it,” which we have pretty much stopped talking about altogether, except to mouth empty phrases about economic growth and job creation.
And this is where, in particular, progressive Democrats are not radical enough, at least not for the thousands of workers I have talked to, worked with, and taught. The economic plans offered by the Democratic Party, even those from left Democrats, fail to offer “a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.” And until they do, Democrats will continue to lose traction with working people, who live with job fear each and every day.
Why Are Democrats Not Talking About Guaranteeing a Job at a Living Wage for Everyone Who Wants to Work?
The government guarantees everyone with money to spare a safe place to put it to earn a fair market rate of return. It is called a US Treasury bond. Why doesn’t the government also guarantee everyone with labor to spare—everyone who wants to work but can’t find a job—with a place to work at a fair market rate?
There are no voices, except for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who proclaim loudly and clearly that all working people should be guaranteed a job at a living wage. Why not? Members of the moneyed class are able to protect themselves from financial risk by easily diversifying their investments. But the working class’ most critical investment—their job—is always at risk.
The jobs of working people are increasingly precarious as corporations lay off workers whenever they please, whether for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons at all. Today we see millions of layoffs taking place to finance mergers (watch out Hollywood!), leveraged buyouts, and stock buybacks to enrich the richest of the rich. And who knows what AI holds in store?
The millions of workers in rural America who have suffered one mass layoff after another need the power that comes from employment security—jobs that don’t just depend on the profit-maximization strategies of corporate America.
A government-backed guarantee of a job at a living wage would end the wholesale immiseration of families and communities hit by mass layoffs. It would end the kind of job blackmail that makes it difficult for workers to form unions to seek higher wages and better working conditions. This is what counterbalancing corporate power really looks like!
How would it work? Corporations would remain free to reduce their workforces. But every laid-off worker who wants to keep working would be able immediately to find equally remunerative work nearby in the public sector if private sector jobs are not available.
Also, just as employers are able to lay off anyone for business reasons, workers would be free to quit any job they no longer want and easily find another. This kind of “employment assurance” is the worker equivalent of the portfolio diversification and hedging that the wealthy use to protect and enhance their wealth. (And as we all know, when this financial system crashes, the federal government always protects the assets of the wealthy, but not the jobs of working people.)
Is there sufficient public sector work to support such a program? Of course there is, especially if the country commits to rebuilding its physical and human infrastructure. Surely every municipality and state agency needs more workers right now to meet their current goals, let alone new ones to enhance the public’s interests. There’s no shortage of public goods that need to be produced.
Could we afford it? Yes, it would be costly. But the money would be well spent to build better communities. Just ask any group of workers what their communities need, and they will quickly rattle off how to improve them.
And if we all share the costs in proportion to our wealth, we can certainly afford it. Warren Buffett’s tax rate should not be lower than his secretary’s! A small tax on the trade of stocks, bonds, and derivatives might even cover it.
Working-Class Empowerment
Funding and practicality are not the only things holding progressive Democrats back. I worry that power of capital has, if just unconsciously, narrowed their vision. Too many Democrats of all stripes seem to believe that corporate control over employment is an unalterable fact of economic life. Therefore, they don’t go for the jugular—employment guarantees.
The millions of workers in rural America who have suffered one mass layoff after another need the power that comes from employment security—jobs that don’t just depend on the profit-maximization strategies of corporate America.
Until left Democrats are willing and able to support meaningful job guarantees, they have little chance of reaching the working people they have lost over the past 40 years of wholesale job destruction. Massaging the messages is no match for saying loudly and clearly that if you want to work, there is an acceptable job waiting for you.
Many left Democrats believe that we need to shift from a profit-first to a people-first economy. All to the good. But that has little meaning unless working people are assured of a decent paying job if they are looking for work. And also, able to leave a bad job without suffering economic annihilation!
It’s time for the left to become economic radicals again!
(Many thanks to labor historian Mike Merrill for his assistance on this piece.)
Keep ReadingShow Less
Data Reveals Trump Economy Added Hundreds of Thousands Fewer Jobs in 2025 Than Previously Reported
"Today’s numbers show that the economy spent 2025 treading water while costs surged and families fell further behind."
Feb 11, 2026
Revised federal data released Wednesday shows that the US economy under the stewardship of President Donald Trump added hundreds of thousands fewer jobs in 2025 than previously reported, further undercutting the president's claim to have ushered in the "greatest" economy in history.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics said Wednesday that US employers added just 181,000 jobs last year, an average of roughly 15,000 per month. That's roughly 69% fewer than the previous estimate of 584,000 jobs created in 2025.
Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive advocacy group, said the updated figures paint "a grim picture" of the job market under Trump, who has repeatedly promised—and taken credit for bringing about—an economic boom.
“Today’s numbers show that the economy spent 2025 treading water while costs surged and families fell further behind," said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork. "Job growth was dramatically weaker than advertised and concentrated nearly entirely in healthcare, leaving the rest of the labor market to stall. Opportunities are drying up outside a handful of sectors, and more and more workers are settling for part-time hours or have stopped looking for work entirely. 2025 was a lost year for American workers."
Daniel Zhao, chief economist at the employment site Glassdoor, told the New York Times in response to the revised numbers that "we’ve been hearing from workers that the job market is not working for them for some time."
“The anecdotes are starting to align with the data," Zhao added.
A separate analysis released Wednesday by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) found that the US lost 108,000 manufacturing jobs during the first year of Trump's second term in the White House, despite the president's pledge to revive American industry through his tariff regime.
“While President Trump promised us a manufacturing boom, the reality of his first year has been a bust,” said Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), the JEC's ranking member. “It is critical for both our national security and our economic future that we grow our manufacturing sector. The president has instead spent his first year burdening manufacturers with reckless tariffs, and this loss of jobs is the result."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Tariffs Haven't Helped': 72,000 Manufacturing Jobs—and Counting—Obliterated Since Trump's Liberation Day
“There’s very little in our product portfolio that has benefited from tariffs,” said the CEO of one North Carolina-based steel product company.
Feb 03, 2026
US President Donald Trump pledged that the manufacturing industry would come "roaring back into our country" after what he called "Liberation Day" last April, which was marked by the announcement of sweeping tariffs on imported goods—a policy that has shifted constantly in the past 10 months as Trump has changed rates, canceled tariffs, and threatened new ones.
But after promising to turn around economic trends that have developed over decades—the shipping of jobs overseas, automation, and the obliteration of towns and cities that had once been manufacturing centers—Trump's trade policy appears to have put any progress achieved in the sector in recent years "in reverse," as the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
Federal data shows that in each of the eight months that followed Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, manufacturing companies reduced their workforce, with a total of 72,000 jobs in the industry lost since April 2025.
The Census Bureau also estimates that construction spending in the manufacturing industry contracted in the first nine months of Trump's second term, after surging during the Biden administration due to investments in renewable energy and semiconductor chips.
"But the tariffs haven’t helped," said Hanson.
Trump has insisted that his tariff policy would force companies to manufacture goods domestically to avoid paying more for foreign materials—just as he has claimed consumers would see lower prices.
But numerous analyses have shown American families are paying more, not less, for essentials like groceries as companies have passed on their higher operating costs to consumers, and federal data has made clear that companies are also avoiding investing in labor since Trump introduced the tariffs—while the trade war the president has kicked off hasn't changed the realities faced by many manufacturing sectors.
"While tariffs do reduce import competition, they can also increase the cost of key components for domestic manufacturers," wrote Emma Ockerman at Yahoo Finance. "Take US electric vehicle plants that rely on batteries made with rare earth elements imported from overseas, for instance. Some parts simply aren’t made in the United States."
At the National Interest, Ryan Mulholland of the Center for American Progress wrote that Trump's tariffs have created "three overlapping challenges" for US businesses.
"The imported components and materials needed to produce goods domestically now cost more—in some cases, a lot more," wrote Mulholland. "Foreign buyers are now looking elsewhere, often to protest Trump’s global belligerence, costing US firms market share abroad that will be difficult to win back. And if bad policy wasn’t enough, US manufacturers must also contend with the Trump administration’s unpredictability, which has made long-term investment decisions nearly impossible. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that small business bankruptcies have surged to their highest level in years."
Trump's unpredictable threats of new tariffs and his retreats on the policy, as with European countries in recent weeks when he said he would impose new levies on countries that didn't support his push to take control of Greenland, have also led to "a lost year for investment" for many firms, along with the possibility that the US Supreme Court could soon rule against the president's tariffs.
“If Trump just picked a number—whatever it was, 10% or 15% to 20%—we might all say it’s bad, I’d say it’s bad, I think most economists would say it’s bad,” Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told Yahoo Finance. “But the worst thing is there’s no certainty about it.”
Constantly changing tariff rates make it "very difficult for businesses... to plan," said Baker. “I think you’ve had a lot of businesses curtail investment plans because they just don’t know whether the plans will make sense.”
While US manufacturers have struggled to compete globally, China and other countries have continued exporting their goods.
“There’s very little in our product portfolio that has benefited from tariffs,” H.O. Woltz III, chief executive of North Carolina-based Insteel Industries, told the Wall Street Journal.
US Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) noted Monday that the data on manufacturing job losses comes a week after Vice President JD Vance visited his home state to tout "record job growth."
"Here’s the reality: Families face higher costs, tariffs are costing manufacturing jobs, and over $200 million in approved federal infrastructure and manufacturing investments here were cut by this administration," said Kaptur. "Ohio deserves better."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy