
Small businesses say they're pulling back on hiring amid tariff uncertainty
Some small business owners say they are pulling back on hiring as tariff-driven cost increases make bringing on new employees an untenable proposition.
As they bear added expenses on imported inputs and goods, companies are looking to trim costs wherever else they can — including on labor. That can mean pressing pause on hiring, cutting workers' hours, and even laying off staff, business owners say. Smaller enterprises lead bigger corporations in reducing head counts, as they typically have less financial cushion to tide them over during periods of economic uncertainty.
Mike Roach, owner of Paloma Clothing, a men's and women's boutique in Portland, Oregon, told CBS MoneyWatch that while he has not yet laid off any salespeople, he is cutting down on labor-related spending.
"We are not hiring and [are] trying to shave anyone's hours who is willing and able," he told CBS MoneyWatch.
Roach says he is looking for ways to save in order to make up for a 22% decrease in profit for the month of May, compared with the same period one year earlier. He attributes the drop in earnings to weaker consumer demand amid rising prices and general economic uncertainty.
Difficult spot to be in
Shayai Lucero is the owner of Earth & Sky Floral Designs, a one-woman floral shop in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She said she had hoped to bring on another worker this summer to help alleviate her heavy workload, but tariffs have caused her to rethink her hiring agenda.
"I was looking at hiring somebody to handle the more minor tasks of the business, so I could streamline my own goals better," she told CBS MoneyWatch. "But I am in a place where I can't even afford to hire one person."
Lucero said tariffs have driven up wholesale flower prices so drastically that she has been forced to charge her customers more and can't fathom increasing prices any further. "My clientele can't afford for me to keep increasing prices, and I am tired of breaking even," she said.
Drop in hiring in May
The share of small business owners planning to create new jobs over the next three months fell to 12% in May, from 13% in April, data from the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) May jobs report shows.
"Amid uncertainty, small business owners' hiring plans remain subdued in May," Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist at NFIB, said in a statement. "Compensation pressures have also eased, offering some much needed relief for many owners."
Labor costs, the top concern of business owners according to the NFIB report, rose one point in May, to 9%.
Experts say the moderation in hiring makes sense given the current economic environment.
"Bottom line, should we really be surprised by the slowing hiring pace in light of all the macro challenges we keep hearing about and not helped by the tariff costs, confusion and volatility with its uses?" Peter Boockvar chief investment officer of Bleakley Financial Group, wrote in a blog post. "Just put yourself in the shoes of an employer and we can understand the hesitancy that so many business people have, especially small businesses that just don't have the flexibility that larger companies have to adjust, nor the finances."
NFIB Executive Director Holly Wade said a number of small business owners are foregoing filling open positions given their heightened sensitivity to labor costs.
"Keeping them on payroll is a significant part of expenses, and their margins are a lot more sensitive to that than their larger counterparts," she told CBS MoneyWatch. "They are certainly looking to try to absorb those higher costs any way they can, and one way is on the labor front."
Not only are many of the nation's small enterprises scrapping plans to grow their labor forces, they're also shedding jobs, data released this week from payroll processor ADP shows.
Establishments with fewer than 50 employees lost 13,000 jobs in May, according to a report released Thursday by ADP's National Employment, an independent measure of employment changes at private companies.
No certainty, no hires
Ken Giddon, owner of Rothman's, a men's clothing store with three locations across New York, said a lot of company plans and initiatives have "been put on hold," as tariffs wipe away optimism among business owners like himself.
At Rothman's, that means foregoing adding two workers to the company's staff of roughly 30 people. "We probably would have added a person or two this year, and now we are not. Tariffs threw a whole wrench in the thing. They took away the optimism, they took away the certainty," he told CBS MoneyWatch.
Nikki Bravo, owner of Momentum Coffee, a small chain of coffee shops in Chicago said she's also hesitating to bring on new workers. Bravo employs 12 people across five locations, a number that usually swells to more than 20 in the summertime, she said. In addition to hiring seasoned workers, Bravo typically likes to give opportunities to people who have trouble finding employment, either because they're inexperienced, or for other reasons. She's had to pull back on that initiative too, though.
"When you have economic uncertainty, we need to have more certainty in our hires," she told CBS MoneyWatch. "So I have to select people with more experience. I can't take risks on unproven folks and that's unfortunate, because part of our mission is to give back and work with the community."
This year, Bravo plans to hire about eight additional workers to accommodate summer crowds, whereas in years past, she would've brought on up to 13. But that is simply unaffordable right now, she said, given how high her other costs, including on coffee and packaging materials, have risen.
"It's coffee, so we can't keep putting that off to the customer, because they're only going to spend so much," Bravo told CBS MoneyWatch. "So we have to look at other ways to reduce our costs and keep them steady."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What we know so far: Trump and Musk's spectacular public blowup rocks Washington
President Trump's signature 'Big Beautiful Bill' has precipitated an epic fallout between the US president and one of his closest allies, billionaire Elon Musk. The blowup played out publicly on social media, with both men using their respective platforms, X and Truth Social, to exchange criticisms. Related: Eyes on Senate Republicans as Trump and Musk feud over tax and spend bill Here is a summary of how the rift unfolded, and what we know so far: Donald Trump kicked off the fight during an Oval Office meeting with German chancellor Friedrich Merz. Asked about Elon Musk's criticism of his 'Big, Beautiful Bill', the US president told reporters: 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will any more.' Trump told reporters he was 'very disappointed in Elon', telling them: 'He knew every aspect of this bill. He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left. … He said the most beautiful things about me, and he hasn't said bad about me personally, but I'm sure that'll be next, but I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.' Soon after Musk posted on X denying Trump's statement, beginning a flurry of posts that stepped up his feud with the president. Musk wrote: 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' He went on to claim that without him Trump would have 'lost the election' before bemoaning what he called 'such ingratitude'. The president followed up by , prompting a return threat from the SpaceX boss to decommission the Dragon spacecraft (which brought home astronauts stuck on the ISS for months), potentially throwing US space programmes into turmoil. Hours later Musk rescinded the threat. Musk also suggested Trump should be impeached and that JD Vance should replace Trump, warning that Trump's global tariffs would 'cause a recession in the second half of this year'. Musk went on to say on X the reason the had not released the files into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was because they implicated the president. The White House called the assertions an 'unfortunate episode'. Meanwhile, Steve Bannon, a longtime ally and Elon Musk critic, suggested there were grounds to deport the tech billionaire, who has US citizenship. Bannon told the New York Times: 'They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately.' The spectacular blowout between Trump and Musk sent Tesla shares into free fall. They The decline in Tesla's share price on Thursday knocked about $8.73bn off Musk's total net worth, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. The reported $152bn drop also decreased the value of the company to roughly $900bn.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk backs down on threat to retire SpaceX Dragon spacecraft amid Trump dispute
Elon Musk, the world's richest person, on Thursday said his company SpaceX would begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft after he engaged in an extraordinary public fallout with Donald Trump who had threatened to cancel government contracts with Musk's businesses. He later appeared to back down. 'In light of the President's statement about cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately,' Musk posted on the social media platform X, which he owns. A few minutes earlier Trump had posted on Truth Social – the media platform that he owns – that he might cancel huge lucrative contracts with Musk's businesses, which include the SpaceX company that is building a fleet of rockets. Related: Trump and Musk's very public feud is like Alien v Predator for political nerds 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Trump said. Nasa relies on SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS). Hours after issuing his threat, Musk appeared to take pleas from users on his social media platform X to 'cool down' and he posted: 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' Since 2008, SpaceX has received more than $20bn in government contracts, largely from Nasa and the Department of Defense. In March, two Nasa astronauts returned to Earth in a Dragon capsule after being stranded on the ISS for nearly nine months, after their Boeing Starliner capsule faced technical issues and returned to Earth without them. The next SpaceX Dragon launch is scheduled to take place on 10 June. The Dragon is expected to carry four people to and from the ISS on Axiom Mission 4. Nasa's press secretary, Bethany Stevens, in a statement on X after Musk's announcement, said the agency 'will continue to execute upon the president's vision for the future of space'. Related: Trump v Musk: 10 ways they can further hurt each other 'We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the president's objectives in space are met,' she added. Musk's announcement came amid an escalating dispute with Trump that began after he denounced the president's tax and spending bill as a 'disgusting abomination'. Musk later accused Trump of 'ingratitude' for the millions he spent to get him elected. Trump, in turn, said he was 'very disappointed' in Musk. The president wrote earlier on Thursday that Musk was 'wearing thin' and that the tech billionaire 'went crazy' after he was asked to depart the White House last week as head of Trump's 'department of government efficiency' .
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Musk's very public feud is like Alien v Predator for political nerds
'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Donald Trump observed in the Oval Office on Thursday. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' The US president was referring to the war between Russia and Ukraine but could just as easily have been talking about himself. On Thursday, to the surprise of no one, Trump's bromance with the billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk exploded in a very public feud. While the president urged his supporters to 'fight, fight, fight' last summer after he survived an assassination attempt, now that mantra is evocative of children on a school playground urging Trump and Musk to go at each other. For political nerds this is like Alien v Predator, Batman v Superman and King Kong v Godzilla rolled into one. It was always going to end this way for two megalomaniacs devoted to fame, money and the far right, neither of whom is unaccustomed to a messy divorce. Related: What we know so far: Trump and Musk's spectacular public blowup rocks Washington Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives' judiciary committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill: 'I suppose it was in the stars. Everybody was predicting it when it first began. You've got two gentlemen with gargantuan egos and both appearing to suffer from malignant narcissistic personality disorder.' Trump-Musk had begun as the ultimate political marriage of convenience. Their interests converged last year when Musk saw in Trump a hammer against wokeness who could also benefit his businesses and help him reach Mars. The Tesla and SpaceX supremo leaped on stage with Trump, flooded the zone with Maga propaganda on his X social media platform and threw a record $277m behind his election campaign. The reward came with a seat among the oligarchs at Trump's inauguration, a seemingly permanent residency at Mar-a-Lago and a chainsaw in the form of the so-called 'department of government efficiency', or Doge. 'I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man,' proclaimed Musk, who lorded it over cabinet meetings and in the Oval Office. Trump returned the compliment by turning the White House south lawn into a showroom for Teslas. The pair were as inseparable – and destructive – as Laurel and Hardy pushing a piano up a flight of stairs. Then came last Friday's amicable but peculiar parting, where Musk sported a black eye, brushed off reports of rampant drug taking, praised Trump's tacky gold decor in the Oval Office and was presented with a commemorative gold key. Comedian Jon Stewart quipped: 'Doge has finally rooted out one of America's least efficient government workers and marked him for dismissal.' On Tuesday, Musk waited until the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, was at the podium before unleashing an X barrage. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' he wrote, describing a Trump-based tax and spending bill in Congress as 'a disgusting abomination'. He followed up with three days of nonstop posts eviscerating the bill and urging Republicans to reject it. It was the point of no return. The transactional Trump-Musk relationship was on its way to turning septic, sour and rancorous. There are multiple theories as to why. The trouble began in March when it emerged that Musk arranged private Pentagon briefings on China policy without White House knowledge, a significant conflict of interest due to Musk's business ties in China. Trump was especially annoyed to learn about the briefings through the media, and about the perceived notion that Musk was using his position for personal advantage. Second, when Trump travelled to the Middle East, Musk was reportedly piqued that his arch-rival, Sam Altman of OpenAI, won a deal to build one of the world's biggest artificial intelligence data centres in Abu Dhabi. Musk worked behind the scenes to try to derail the deal if it did not include his own AI startup, according to the Wall Street Journal. Third, Musk was working at the White House as a 'special government employee', which is limited by law to 130 days; when Musk sought an extension, officials said no, perhaps because he had put so many backs up. Fourth, last Saturday Trump suddenly announced that he was cancelling the nomination of the Musk ally Jared Isaacman to be the administrator of Nasa. And fifth, there was the 'big, beautiful bill', currently navigating Republicans in the Senate. Musk said in social media posts that it would increase the already massive budget deficit to $2.5tn, undermining his work at Doge. Notably, it would also cut the electric vehicle tax credit that helps carmakers including Tesla. On Thursday, after days of uncharacteristic self-restraint, Trump struck back. He told reporters he was 'surprised' and 'very disappointed' by Musk's critiques of the bill, adding wistfully: 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will any more.' Musk returned fire on social media, writing: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51–49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude.' He also agreed with a social media post that called for Trump to be impeached and removed from office. The president replied on his own platform, Truth Social, that he in effect fired Musk. 'Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' The mad men went nuclear. Trump threatened to cancel Musk's billions of dollars in government contracts, describing it as the easiest way to save money. Musk responded by linking Trump to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein: 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' The economic burden of Musk's government contracts and the Epstein files allegations both existed before the breakup, but neither man spoke up. Now they seem to have taken a truth serum and discovered a conscience. Raskin observed: 'They basically converged around a common platform of plunder and pillage of the American people and now both of them are telling the truth about the other. It's a happy moment for America that we can finally get to the bottom of things like the Jeffrey Epstein files and all of the billions of dollars of government contracts that Elon Musk has.' Mutually assured destruction? Musk could try to use X to mobilise opinion against Trump and his 'big, beautiful bill'. He could also try to exploit the government's dependence on him. His threat, which he later retracted, to cut off Nasa's use of SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft would be a huge blow to the space programme. The Pentagon and intelligence agencies have also become reliant on SpaceX. Related: Trump news at a glance: President's union with Musk up in flames as feud publicly spirals Trump could follow through on his threat to cancel Musk's lucrative government contracts. He could reopen investigations into Musk's companies that were paused when Trump took office. The Trump ally Steve Bannon, whose extremist ideas have a habit of entering the Maga mainstream, called for the South African-born Musk to be deported and SpaceX to be nationalised. Even as Tesla shares lost $150bn in market value, Musk seems to be betting that he has gathered enough dirt on Trump to survive the information war. Trump, now making plenty of his own money from deals in the Gulf and elsewhere, seems to have decided that Musk has outlived his political usefulness. There is no threat to his command of the Republican party, where Musk is seen as something of an interloper. But what of the Democrats? For now they only have to get out of the way and gleefully watch the spectacle unfold. Some suggest an 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' approach to Musk, whose money could swing elections in their favor. Others say a man who gave a Nazi-style salute on inauguration day, and whose Doge cuts have already caused deaths in the world's poorest countries, is beyond redemption. From this perspective, a nihilistic war between the world's most powerful man and the world's wealthiest man brings to mind former secretary of state Henry Kissinger's remark about the Iran-Iraq war: 'It's a pity they can't both lose.'