
Tariffs will cost families $2,500 this year — but wages won't rise to help
Tariffs cause an increase in the price of goods, both imported and their domestic competitors. But that price increase is not technically inflation — it's worse. Here is what is actually happening.
Inflation is a decline in the value of currency over time. It happens because there is too much currency in circulation. That extra money can enter the economy through a growing deficit, as happened after the 2020 CARES Act, the 2021 American Rescue Plan and — the most inflationary of these — President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill.
Still, tax and spending policy alone cannot cause inflation. The Federal Reserve must also allow too much money growth.
Inflation affects all goods and services, including wages. So, during this unpleasant bout of inflation, wages actually grew more than prices — at least for the average private sector worker.
Tariffs work very differently. Tariffs are taxes on imports and range from 10% to 55%, depending on the country of origin, the product in question and the president's hormone level.
Following the 2018 tariffs, we learned from multiple studies that American consumers paid almost all the tariffs. This was to be expected, because we're a rich country buying goods from poorer nations. We are likely to be less price sensitive than manufacturing firms in developing countries. Hence, we pay more of — or nearly all of — the tariffs.
The good news is that in February, March and April, American imports spiked. In those three months alone, we bought roughly five extra months' worth of goods. Those purchases were clearly intended to beat the tariff deadlines and avoid the extra tax.
That surge of imports meant that many of the goods now on store shelves and being assembled into cars, computers and washing machines were bought before the tariffs. That pre-tariff stockpile has meant that price increases have been relatively low so far.
The bad news is that only $335 of that $2,500 family tariff bill has hit so far. The rest is coming as importing firms pass along their costs.
The consumer price index — the main measure of inflation — rose 0.3% in the latest reading. That's modest, but it came as the Federal Reserve was successfully reducing inflation. Prices have stopped falling and are rising again.
These higher prices are solely due to Trump tariffs. They are poised to worsen substantially as the stockpile of pre-tariff goods are sold by retailers or put onto cars, RVs and other American-made products. The cost of goods sold later this summer, and until tariffs are eliminated, will continue to rise.
This increase in prices and the consumer price index will look, feel and taste just like inflation. Journalists and even economists will call it inflation, but it's not inflation. If it was inflation, we'd eventually see wages rising as well. But higher tariff costs don't lead to higher wages; in fact, the opposite may occur.
The tariffs took the U.S. from 2.4% growth in the fourth quarter of 2024 to -0.5% in the first quarter this year. The economy continues contracting, which will reduce wage growth and maybe even reverse it. So, as prices go up, wages will decline for the average worker.
We import goods to make American workers more productive. Skilled American workers focus on high-value manufacturing while importing cheaper components from abroad. When tariffs force companies to pay more for imports or make low-value parts themselves, productivity falls. That means lower wages and profits — or more job automation.
In the two months of data since Trump's Liberation Day tariffs were announced, the U.S. has lost 14,000 factory jobs. The slowdown in the economy this year follows a pattern that is nearly a precise example of what economic explanations of tariffs have predicted for a half century.
The price increases due to tariffs are not technically inflation. Economists have a name for rising prices during a weak economy: stagflation. It's what made the 1970s so miserable.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
WSFS Financial Second Quarter 2025 Earnings: EPS Beats Expectations
WSFS Financial (NASDAQ:WSFS) Second Quarter 2025 Results Key Financial Results Revenue: US$254.9m (up 3.5% from 2Q 2024). Net income: US$72.3m (up 4.4% from 2Q 2024). Profit margin: 28% (in line with 2Q 2024). EPS: US$1.27 (up from US$1.16 in 2Q 2024). Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period WSFS Financial EPS Beats Expectations Revenue was in line with analyst estimates. Earnings per share (EPS) surpassed analyst estimates by 12%. Looking ahead, revenue is forecast to grow 6.6% p.a. on average during the next 2 years, compared to a 7.5% growth forecast for the Banks industry in the US. Performance of the American Banks industry. The company's shares are down 3.1% from a week ago. Balance Sheet Analysis While earnings are important, another area to consider is the balance sheet. We have a graphic representation of WSFS Financial's balance sheet and an in-depth analysis of the company's financial position. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why does the White House want to redesign gas cans? Explaining the situation
The White House says it wants to 'Make Gas Cans Great Again.' Under a plan announced July 24 by President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency, the federal government is encouraging manufacturers to add vents to portable fuel containers, also known as gas cans. It would effectively reverse a 2009-rule by federal environmental officials at the time that required portable gas cans - used for lawnmowers, chainsaws, ATVS and stranded vehicles - to have special vents that stop the vapors from escaping. Proponents of that rule - which was finalized in 2007 - said the vapors that escape contributed to ozone pollution. But the 2009 rule created an online market for pre-ban gas cans among buyers dissatisfied with the new cans. Why does Trump want to redesign gas cans? 'Gas cans used to pour gas,' Trump's head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, said on X, formerly Twitter. 'Now they just dribble like a child's sippy cup.' But many modern designs are often infuriatingly ineffective at actually filling tanks because the vents work so poorly, critics argue. Instead of stopping vapors from flowing out the complicated spouts and relief valves, the new designs often cause gasoline spills, which some critics say are far worse than a tiny amount of vapor escaping from an older design. Some rules for gas cans will still remain in place Other rules for gas cans have to remain in place under federal law, like making sure they're child-resistant and limiting the risk of flash fires. What happens next for gas cans? The EPA's announcement is non-binding for manufacturers and doesn't prohibit the vents. Rather, the EPA is asking manufacturers to redesign the gas cans to have vents 'to facilitate fast and smooth fuel flow.' This article contains material from USA TODAY Daniel Munoz covers business, consumer affairs, labor and the economy for and The Record. Email: munozd@ Twitter:@danielmunoz100 and Facebook This article originally appeared on Gas can redesign considered by Trump White House. Here's why


Politico
8 minutes ago
- Politico
ICE Is Overplaying Its Hand. We've Seen It Happen Before.
Out of this breach emerged the Compromise of 1850, a grand bargain designed to preserve the Union. Under its provisions, California entered the Union as a free state, but the citizens of other former Mexican territories were left to make their own determinations about slavery. Congress abolished the slave trade, but not slavery, in Washington, D.C. And, in return for these concessions, Southern politicians secured what would prove to be the most incendiary component of the deal: the Fugitive Slave Act (FSA) of 1850. The new act inspired widespread disgust throughout the North. The law stripped accused runaways of their right to trial by jury and allowed individual cases to be bumped up from state courts to special federal courts. As an extra incentive to federal commissioners adjudicating such cases, it provided a $10 fee when a defendant was remanded to slavery but only $5 for a finding rendered against the slave owner. Most obnoxious to many Northerners, the law stipulated harsh fines and prison sentences for any citizen who refused to cooperate with or aid federal authorities in the capture of accused fugitives — much in the same way the Trump administration has threatened to jail persons who impede its immigration raids. Before the FSA, formerly enslaved people were able to build lives for themselves in many northern communities. They found homes, took jobs, made friends, started families, formed churches. But after the FSA, they were permanent fugitives — and anyone who employed them, associated with them or provided them housing were accomplices. Early enforcement made immediate martyrs of ordinary people and pierced the illusion that slavery was just a Southern problem. In 1851 federal agents in Boston arrested Thomas Sims, who had escaped enslavement in Georgia, and marched him to a federal courthouse under guard by more than 300 armed soldiers to prevent a rescue. For Boston, a city whose history was steeped in the struggle against King George's standing army, it was an ominous display. Sims' hearing was, just as the law intended, shambolic, and he was ultimately returned to Georgia. (He would later escape a second time during the Civil War.) Want to read more stories like this? POLITICO Weekend delivers gripping reads, smart analysis and a bit of high-minded fun every Friday. Sign up for the newsletter. That same year, Shadrach Minkins, a waiter who had also fled enslavement to Boston, was seized in broad daylight. This time, word traveled fast, and a local 'vigilance committee' — interracial groups formed to monitor and, when necessary, resist enforcement of the fugitive slave law — assembled, with an eye toward liberating the accused man. Awaiting a hearing in federal custody, Minkins was suddenly rescued in a dramatic confrontation witnessed by attorney Richard H. Dana, Jr. 'We heard a shout from across the courthouse,' Dana recalled, 'continued into a yell of triumph, and in an instant after down the steps came two negroes bearing the prisoner between them with his clothes half torn off, and so stupefied by his sudden rescue and the violence of the dragging off that he sat almost dumb, and I thought had fainted. ... It was all done in an instant, too quick to be believed.' Minkins made it to Montreal, where he lived the rest of his life in freedom.