Economy

Highlights The amount of fiscal stimulus in the pipeline is more than enough to close the US output gap. Inflation is likely to surprise on the upside this year. The Fed will brush off any evidence of economic overheating during the coming months, stressing the “transitory” nature of the problem. Still, long-term bond yields, over which the Fed has less control, will rise. As long as bond yields move higher in conjunction with improving growth expectations, stocks will remain in an uptrend. The bull market in equities will only end when the Fed starts to sound more hawkish. That is not in the cards for the next 12 months at least. Stimulus Smackdown During the past month, a debate has erupted over how much additional fiscal stimulus the US economy needs. The side arguing that the sea of red ink has gotten too deep includes an unlikely cast of characters like Larry Summers, who has famously contended that sustained large budget deficits are necessary to stave off secular stagnation. It also includes Olivier Blanchard, who previously served as the IMF’s chief economist and pushed the multilateral lender to abandon its historic adherence to fiscal austerity. Chart 1Generous Government Transfers Boosted Household Savings Rather than citing debt sustainability concerns, these newfound stimulus skeptics worry that large-scale fiscal easing at the present juncture risks overheating the economy. They point out that President Biden’s proposed $1.9 trillion package, coming on the heels of the $900 billion stimulus bill Congress passed in late December, would inject another 13% of GDP into the economy, on the back of the lagged boost from the first stimulus package. We estimate that US households had accumulated $1.5 trillion in excess savings (7% of GDP) as of the end of 2020, thanks to the fiscal transfers they received under the CARES Act (Chart 1). US real GDP in the fourth quarter of 2020 was 2.5% below its level in the fourth quarter of 2019. Assuming trend growth of 2%, this implies that the output gap – the difference between what the economy is capable of producing and what it actually is producing – has widened by about 4.5% of GDP since the onset of the pandemic.   The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) believes the US economy was operating 1% above potential in Q4 of 2019, suggesting that the output gap is around 3.5% of GDP. As it has in the past, the CBO is probably understating the amount of slack in the economy. Our guess is that the US was close to full employment in the months leading up to the pandemic, which implies that the output gap is currently somewhere between 4% and 5% of GDP. While fairly large in absolute terms, it is still smaller than the amount of stimulus currently in the pipeline. Gentle Jay Not So Worried About Overheating Stimulus advocates argue that households will continue to use stimulus checks to fortify their balance sheets, rather than rush out to spend the windfall. They also note that unemployment payments will come down if the labor market recovers more quickly than projected. And even if the economy does temporarily overheat, “so what” they say. The Fed has been trying to engineer an inflation overshoot for years. Now is its chance. Jay Powell seems to sympathize with this thesis. Speaking at a virtual conference organized by The Economic Club of New York this week, Powell repeated his call for fiscal easing and told attendees that the Fed is unlikely to “even think about withdrawing policy support” anytime soon. His words echo remarks made at the press conference following January’s FOMC meeting, where he said “I’m much more worried about falling short of a complete recovery and losing people’s careers,” before adding: “Frankly, we welcome slightly higher inflation.” Most other FOMC members have struck a similar tone. Earlier this year, Fed Governor Lael Brainard noted that “The damage from COVID-19 is concentrated among already challenged groups. Federal Reserve staff analysis indicates that unemployment is likely above 20 percent for workers in the bottom wage quartile, while it has fallen below 5 percent for the top wage quartile.” How Big Is The Fiscal Multiplier From Stimulus Checks? Chart 2Service Inflation Fell During The Pandemic, While Goods Inflation Rose One of the reasons that households saved much of last year’s stimulus checks was because there was not much to spend them on. Officially measured service inflation was well contained last year, but many services were simply not available for purchase. In contrast, goods prices, which usually fall over time, rose (Chart 2). As the economy opens up, total spending will recover. Rising household spending will have a multiplier effect. The simplest version of the Keynesian multiplier for fiscal transfer payments is equal to MPC/(1-MPC), where MPC is the marginal propensity to consume. Assuming that households initially spend 50 cents of every dollar they receive, the multiplier would be 0.5/(1-0.5)=1. In other words, every dollar of direct stimulus payments will eventually generate one additional dollar of aggregate demand. One could argue that this multiplier estimate overstates the impact on demand because it ignores the fact that households will regard stimulus checks as one-time payments rather than a continuous flow of income. One could also point out that taxes and imports will cut into the multiplier effect on domestic spending. There is truth to all these arguments, but they are not as compelling as they seem. According to a recent US Census study, only 37% of Americans reported no difficulty in paying for usual household expenses during the pandemic. A mere 16% of workers with incomes below $35,000 reported no difficulty, compared with more than two-thirds of workers with incomes above $100,000 (Chart 3). In the euphemistic parlance of economics, most US households are “liquidity constrained,” meaning that they are likely to spend a large chunk of any income they receive, even if it is a one-off grant.1 Chart 3The Pandemic Has Put A Spotlight On The Liquidity Constraints Of US Households As for taxes, while the income from subsequent spending will be taxed, the stimulus checks that households receive will remain untaxed. Granted, some of the demand generated by stimulus checks will leak abroad in the form of higher imports. However, keep in mind that the US is a fairly closed economy – imports account for only 15% of GDP. Moreover, the full impact on imports depends on what happens to the value of the dollar. If the Fed keeps rates unchanged but inflation rises, the accompanying decline in short-term real rates could weaken the dollar, curbing imports and boosting exports in the process. This could lead to a higher multiplier rather than a lower one. Lastly, higher consumption is likely to boost corporate capex, as companies scramble to raise capacity in anticipation of strong demand (Chart 4). Economists call this the “accelerator effect.” Investment spending is 2.5-times as volatile as consumption. Hence, even modest increases in consumption can trigger large increases in investment. Chart 4Stronger Consumption Tends To Boost Capex Unemployment Benefits: Adding To Aggregate Demand But Subtracting From Supply? As Chart 5 shows, stimulus payments to households account for 17% of the December stimulus bill and 26% of Biden’s proposed package for a combined total of around $650 billion (3% of GDP, or around two-thirds of the current output gap). The balance consists of expanded unemployment benefits, health and education funding, support for small businesses, and aid to state and local governments. Chart 5Stimulus Package Breakdowns Unemployment benefits are likely to be spent fairly quickly since, in most cases, they replace lost income that had previously been used to finance consumption. More generous unemployment benefits could temporarily reduce aggregate supply. Higher federal unemployment benefits would more than offset the lost income of close to half of jobless workers, potentially creating a disincentive to seek employment. Inflation Expectations Will Continue To Rise Aggregate demand is likely to outstrip the economy’s supply-side potential over the coming months. Hence, inflation will probably surprise on the upside this year, although not by enough to force the Fed to abandon its easy money stance. Inflation expectations have recovered since the depths of the pandemic. However, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate is still below the level that BCA’s bond strategists believe the Fed regards as consistent with its long-term inflation objective, and even farther below the level that would cause the Fed to panic (Chart 6). This suggests that the Fed will brush off any evidence of overheating during the coming months, stressing the “transitory” nature of the problem. Still, rising inflation expectations will push up long-dated bond yields. At present, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stands at 1.89%. This is below the median estimate of the long-run equilibrium fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers (Chart 7). With policy rates on hold, higher long-term bond yields will translate into steeper yield curves. We expect the 10-year Treasury yield to rise to 1.5% by the end of the year from the current level of 1.16%, with risks to yields tilted to the upside. Chart 6Inflation Expectations Have Recovered But Are Still Below Levels That Would Cause Concern For The Fed Chart 7Forward Treasury Yields Are Below Primary Dealers' Projections   Can Stocks Stand The Heat? To what extent will higher bond yields hurt stocks? To get a sense of the answer, it is useful to consider a dividend discount model. The simplest model, the Gordon Growth Model, says that the price of a stock, P, should equal the dividend that it pays, D, divided by the difference between the long-term discount rate, r, and the expected dividend growth rate, g:   We can write the discount rate as the combination of the long-term risk-free rate and the equity risk premium such that r = rf + ERP and then solve for the dividend yield:     Note that the value of the stock market becomes increasingly sensitive to changes in the risk-free rate when the dividend yield is low to begin with. For example, if the dividend yield is 2%, a 10-basis-point rise in the long-term risk-free rate will push down stock prices by 5%. In contrast, if the dividend yield is 1%, a 10-basis-point rise in the long-term risk-free rate will push down stock prices by 10%. Today, dividend and earnings yields for most global equity sectors are quite low, although not as low as they were in 2000 (Chart 8). Watch The Correlation Between  r  And  g The fact that dividend and earnings yields are below their long-term average does make stocks vulnerable to a rise in bond yields. This is especially the case for relatively expensive equity sectors such as tech and consumer discretionary. Nevertheless, there is an important mitigating factor at work: Increases in the risk-free rate have generally been accompanied by stronger growth expectations. Chart 9 shows that S&P 500 forward earnings estimates have moved in lockstep with the 10-year Treasury yield, a proxy for the long-term risk-free rate. Chart 8Global Dividend And Earnings Yields Are Quite Low, Although Not As Low As In 2000 Chart 9Earnings Estimates Move In Lockstep With Bond Yields   This suggests that the main danger to equity investors is not higher bond yields per se, but a rise in bond yields in excess of upward revisions to growth expectations, or worse, against a backdrop of faltering growth. Such a predicament could eventually manifest itself. However, it is only likely to happen when the Fed turns hawkish. This is not in the cards for the next 12 months at least.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  The difficulty that many households have had in making ends meet predates the pandemic. For example, in May 2019, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau found that about 40% of US consumers claimed that they had difficulty paying bills and expenses. Among those with annual household incomes of $20,000 or less, difficulties were experienced by 6 out of 10 people. Moreover, about half of consumers reported that they would be able to cover expenses for no more than two months if they lost their main source of income by relying on all available sources of funds, including borrowing, savings, selling assets, or even seeking help from family and friends. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights The Biden administration’s budget reconciliation bill will close the output gap, so markets will have to start thinking about upcoming tax hikes, rising wages, and eventual Fed interest rate hikes. Biden’s lax immigration policies will not have a major negative impact on wage growth. A doubling of the minimum wage, which could still make it into one of two budget reconciliation bills, would include a measure to index the post-2026 minimum wage to the average rate of wage rises. Biden’s industrial policy and support of labor unions would also increase wages. Stay long Treasury inflation-protected securities versus duration-matched Treasuries and long value stocks over growth stocks.  Feature The Senate and House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution on the budget for FY2021, the first step in the budget reconciliation process that will enable Democratic leadership to pass President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan with only a simple majority in the Senate. The budget resolution is a fantasy that the ruling party uses to bypass the Senate filibuster, as was the case under George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. The latest such resolution claims that the budget deficit will be smaller, not larger, after the Biden rescue plan than what is currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office (Chart 1). It envisions the entire $1.9 trillion being spent in 2021 and then a huge drop in expenditures in 2022. A fiscal cliff ahead of the 2022 midterm election will not occur. Instead the second budget reconciliation maneuver, for FY2022, will increase spending levels once again with infrastructure and green projects, as per Biden’s campaign platform. Chart 1Democrats Pass Budget Resolution The FY2021 budget resolution does not contain any tax increases, “revenue offsets,” to keep the budget in line because the COVID relief is emergency spending that is one-off, not recurring. The FY2022, however, will aim partially to repeal President Trump’s tax cuts. As such financial markets will continue to “buy the rumor” of additional fiscal spending for now but they will also sell the news given that the next reconciliation bill will push up inflation expectations even further, hasten the Federal Reserve’s policy normalization, and include tax hikes. And the current buy-the-rumor phase could be interrupted anyway by Biden’s immediate foreign policy challenges. Larry Summers And The Output Gap Democrats will err on the larger side of the $1.9 trillion stimulus because they regret erring on the smaller side back in 2009. But it is still possible for the price tag to be knocked down to around $1.5 trillion given that the economy is recovering and several moderate Democrats will balk at the enormous size. After all, $900 billion passed at the end of the year is not yet spent. Biden has already compromised by raising the eligibility requirements for households to receive $1,400 stimulus checks. Larry Summers, a frequent guest at the annual BCA conference and a veteran of the Clinton and Obama White Houses, has stirred up a firestorm over the past month by warning that too much federal money spent on short-term cash handouts today would crowd out the administration’s political capital and the amount of deficit spending that is available for long-term, productivity-enhancing investments. Summers warned that the current proposed stimulus is three times larger than required to fill the output gap. Chart 2 shows the output gap from 2009-12 and projected from 2021-24 alongside the size of the relevant stimulus packages to illustrate his point. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen defended the $1.9 trillion price tag – like Summers, she is not normally one to worry about overheating the economy, but unlike Summers, she is now an administration official. She predicted that this size of package would bring the economy back to full employment by next year. The Congressional Budget Office, based on earlier congressional actions, had predicted employment would not return to its pre-COVID level until around 2024. The administration will look to Yellen now and in future to make the call on when enough stimulus is enough. With inflation expectations recovering rapidly, the Fed could be forced to hike rates as early as late 2022, though we think 2023 is more likely given our methodological bias as political analysts. This means the scope for overheating is quite large – a point reinforced by the comparison with the economic recovery back in 2009 (Chart 3). Summers’s criticism is not remiss and could come back to haunt the administration.1 When inflation picks up, the Fed will have to allow an overshoot according to its new policy of targeting average inflation. But once it is assured, it will have to start hiking rates. And once it starts hiking rates it could trigger a recession. Plus, even if we set recession risks aside, Summers’s critical point is that too much stimulus today will reduce the political and budgetary scope for Biden’s long-term agenda, which includes what will likely be his second major bill focused on infrastructure and renewables. The reconciliation process makes it highly likely that Democrats will drive through this initiative through the Senate but not if moderate Senate Democrats balk in the face of rising budget deficits and inflation. Chart 2How Much Is Too Much Stimulus? Our base case still holds that Democrats will pass both reconciliation bills over the next roughly 12 months but investors should keep Summers’s warning in mind. Chart 3Recovery Is Ahead Of The Previous Cycle There are tailwinds for Biden’s agenda. First, his political capital is moderate-to-strong and likely to strengthen over the coming year. It will get bumped up by improving economic conditions, including most recently a marked decline in bankruptcy filings from Q3 to Q4. Our updated Political Capital Index is shown in the  Appendix. Second, concern about budget deficits has eroded, as Republican fiscal largesse showed under Trump – the pandemic and atmosphere of crisis greatly reinforce this point. Third, divisions in the Republican Party have produced as many as five moderates who could assist Biden in winning close legislative votes – even beyond the relatively easy passage of the American Rescue Plan in his honeymoon period. This Republican Party split is the only significance of President Trump’s second impeachment. Trump’s legal woes will continue after he is acquitted in the Senate. The deeper Republicans are divided over Trump’s legacy the harder time they will have recovering in the 2022 midterms, where opposition parties are normally favored. But the Biden administration’s leftward agenda will bring Republicans together, especially once the country moves out of the crisis. One of the biggest battles looms over the southern border. Bottom Line: The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan will more than close the output gap and yet it is only one of two budget reconciliation bills that the Biden administration will seek to pass over the next 12 months. There are still domestic and international factors that could impede the recovery, not least China’s policy tightening, but the risk of excessively short-term stimulus at the expense of long-term public investment is clear. Republicans Will Regroup Over Immigration To Summers’s warning about Biden’s legislative window of opportunity, recall that President Trump never achieved his signature 2016 policy promise – to build a wall on the border with Mexico – because congressional Republicans led him to prioritize repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (which failed) and passing the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (which succeeded). There was no political capital left for a major legislative push on the border and immigration. Immigration is one of the areas where Biden has a major incentive to push his policies aggressively. Immigrants tend to skew Democratic in their party affiliations. Americans increasingly believe immigration should be increased, a trend that accelerated after Trump’s election on an avowedly anti-immigration platform (Chart 4, top panel). Today 34% believe it should be increased in addition to 36% who are comfortable with the current level. Meanwhile the number who believe it should be decreased has fallen to 28%, down from 34%-38% around the time of Trump’s election. An anti-immigration candidate may be able to win within the Republican Party (especially under the specific circumstances of 2015-16) but he or she will have trouble winning general elections. Trump himself discarded the topic in the 2020 race. For Democrats, immigration is also probably the single most effective way to drive a wedge between the populist and establishment factions of the Republican Party. For example, establishment Republican presidents oversaw huge infusions of foreigners into US society, the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act, which granted amnesty to three million illegal immigrants, and the 1990 Immigration Act, which increased the quota of legal immigrants. By contrast Trump rose to power by attacking the bipartisan consensus on “open borders.” As long as a substantial cohort of Republicans defends immigration on free market principles, and upholds the corporate interest in having plentiful availability of lower wage seasonal and specialized workers, the party will be divided. The above points explain why the Biden administration will pursue immigration reform more intently than public opinion would leave one to believe. Polls show that voters want to focus on the economic recovery, the pandemic response, and social and civil rights policies more than immigration. There is no question that Biden is prioritizing the pandemic, the economy, and health care (Chart 4, bottom panel). But the Democratic Party has a strategic interest in expanding immigration so Biden will continue to plow forward with executive orders and comprehensive immigration reform in Congress. The US does need immigration reform – to ensure the flow is orderly. President Trump’s “wall” proposal did not come out of nowhere. Like the “Know Nothing Party” that emerged in the 1840s and rose to prominence in the 1850s, the Trump movement arose amid a historic increase in the foreign-born share of the population (Chart 5). But Trump’s policies hardly made a dent in the flow of legal immigrants into the US. Now Biden will reverse them and encourage more incomers. Therefore immigration will persist as a bone of contention in the 2020s. Granted, immigration has amply attested positive effects on the economy – including most clearly by lifting the US’s fertility rate so that it does not suffer from as rapid of an aging process as other developed countries. Indeed, voters are primarily concerned about illegal, not legal, immigration. Still, Republicans will struggle to walk the line between tighter immigration policies and appealing to an audience beyond “old white folks.” This suggests the Biden administration has room to run. Chart 4Public Not Too Concerned About Immigration Chart 5Historically Large Foreign-Born Population It helps Biden that the post-World War II and post-Cold War booms in legal immigration are relatively measured when compared to the overall population. The inflow of migrants was around 0.3% in 2019, very far from its post-war peak of 0.7% per year (Chart 6). Thus the Biden administration will not be overly concerned about being too progressive on this issue. Chart 6Boom In Legal Immigration Less Impressive Relative To Population Chart 7Detainees On The Mexican Border Illegal immigration is the biggest factor motivating periodic public backlashes such as in 2016. Southwestern border apprehensions – the only credible way to measure the unauthorized flow of people over the Mexican border – spiked under President Obama as well as President Trump, though US agents detained nowhere near the numbers witnessed in the 1980s and 1990s (Chart 7). The stock of illegal immigrants in the US ranges from 10-11 million and has remained flat, or fallen slightly, since the financial crisis of 2008. The weakening of the US economy, in the context of tighter border security, reduced incentives to make the difficult journey (Chart 8). The fact that President Obama and Trump increased detentions suggests that the demand to get into the country recovered over the course of the last business cycle. Based on President Biden’s voting record in the Senate and statements during the 2020 campaign, he is not an ultra-dove on the border – but his party has moved to the left on the issue. This is clear from his rivals’ positions in the Democratic primary election. Even his Vice President Kamala Harris, who was not the most radical on stage, supported decriminalizing illegal border crossings and downgrading Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Still, until Democrats repeal the filibuster in the Senate, they will not have a chance of passing comprehensive immigration reform with Republicans unless they accept stronger enforcement provisions. Biden voted for the 2006 Secure Fence Act but more recently has emphasized high-tech upgrades to better monitor crossovers. Harris also accepted high-tech security funding that did not involve building a wall. Even with these compromises, it will still be a stretch to find 10 Republicans willing to cross the aisle on this issue while Trump and his faction remain active to punish them in primary elections. Chart 8Estimate Of Total Illegal Immigrants The demand to enter the US will revive once the pandemic is over. The big surge in illegal border crossings in the 1980s-90s coincided with a period in which US economic growth and wellbeing far outpaced that of Mexico and Central America (Chart 9). The gap in GDP per capita is the crudest possible measure and does not reflect the dramatic differences in quality of life that drive people to relocate. Nevertheless, the gap remains drastic, especially with Mexico. Chart 9The Grass Is Greener On The Other Side The gap in current economic activity, such as manufacturing PMIs, between the US and Mexico is as wide as ever. Even as manufacturing contracts in Mexico, the demand for workers in US service industries is soaring (Chart 10). Moreover the US economic revival will be super-charged by the gargantuan fiscal stimulus of 2020-21 whereas Mexican government support for the economy is comparatively austere (Chart 11) Chart 10Super-Charged US Recovery Opens Big Gap With Mexico Chart 11Less Government Support In Mexico Than US Bottom Line: Biden is opening up the borders at a time of economic disparity between the US and Latin America that will lead to an influx of immigration. This is positive for US labor force growth and productivity but it will be hard to pass a long-term solution through Congress. The Republican Party is deeply divided on the issue today but it is likely to become a rallying cry as numbers of newcomers increase and as Trump-style populism remains an active force within the party. Immigration, Wages, And The Minimum Wage   The macroeconomic and market impact of easier border and immigration controls boils down to the impact on wages. There is a vast literature on this subject and we will not pretend to be comprehensive. We will merely make a few observations. The foreign-to-native-born wage differential has narrowed substantially over the past twenty years. The discount to hire immigrants has shrunk from 24% to 15% (Chart 12). This is a reflection of the high demand for immigrant labor and especially the increase in high-skilled workers alongside the booming tech, legal, financial, personal care, and health care industries in the United States – the fastest growing sectors for foreign-born workers since 2003. Earnings growth for foreign workers is more cyclical than for native workers and has been rising faster in recent decades (Chart 13). Chart 12Immigrants Command A Higher Price Than They Used To Chart 13Immigrant Wages Grow In Boom Times Immigrants work the lowest-wage jobs and hence there is some correlation between the share of foreign-born workers in any given industry and the hourly wage, just as there was at the turn of the century (Chart 14). But it does not follow that an increase in immigration suppresses wages as a whole. Chart 15 shows that, over the last business cycle at least, a change in the foreign worker share of a given industry does not correlate with a change in wage growth. Of course, it stands to reason that increasing the supply of labor decreases the price. But not if demand is growing sufficiently to raise the price for all workers. As we have seen, since migrants are willing to undertake long and dangerous journeys for work, they are likely to go where the demand is strong and the price is right – and the flow drops when the jobs dry up. Chart 14Immigrants Work The Lowest Wage Jobs Chart 15More Immigration Not Necessarily A Pay Cut Academics debate the impact on wages. There could be a negative impact, especially for low-skilled native workers, but the aggregate effect is small. One study showed that wages for native workers fell by three percent cumulatively over the 20-year period from 1980-2000 due to immigration.2  This is not dramatic. We can test the connection between immigration and wage growth informally by plotting the growth of southwest border detentions and legal permanent residence admissions alongside that of real wages. There is no clear relationship either way (Chart 16). The same is true if we test it with real median wages – the surge in border apprehensions under President Trump coincided with a boom in wages across the spectrum.  Chart 16Border Influx Does Not Suppress Wages Thus we cannot rule out the possibility that the Biden administration’s relaxation of border controls will have a dampening effect on wages over the long run but we cannot endorse it either. Chances are that the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines and government spending will continue to power a recovery that tightens the labor market and lifts wages for most workers.   What about the administration’s simultaneous policy of doubling the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour by the year 2026 – and indexing wage growth after that date to the median hourly wage? The minimum wage hike might yet make it into the budget reconciliation bill under negotiation – but Biden has already signaled it can be delayed. There is a growing fear about the negative impact on small businesses struggling during the pandemic. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that anywhere from 1 million to 2.7 million jobs could be lost in 2025 if the wage hike were implemented now and businesses would pay $333 billion.3 But the proposal will return when the second budget reconciliation bill is up for consideration unless the Senate parliamentarian rules it out, in which case its passage becomes much less likely. Only about 2% of workers are paid at or below the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour so a minimum wage hike but the CBO estimates that 10 percent of workers would be below the proposed wage level by 2025 (Chart 17). The states with higher proportions of minimum wage workers will be the ones most affected and are mostly in the south, including South Carolina, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Texas, though there are a few in the north such as New Hampshire and Pennsylvania (Chart 18). Chart 17Most Workers Earn More Than Minimum Wage Chart 18Minimum Wage Workers By State Previous minimum wage hikes did not prevent the economy from reaching full employment – nor did they lead to a lasting pickup in overall wage growth. But indexation to overall wage growth would mark a big change in favor of an eventual wage-price spiral. It cannot be ruled out given that the reconciliation option might be available to Democrats, though it would not take effect till 2026. Bottom Line: There is no firm link between immigration growth and wage growth. Increased immigration flows often coincide with higher incomes and wages as growth and productivity improve. Meanwhile a change in the minimum wage will have a limited impact from a macro point of view alone but a bigger impact if it is indexed to wage growth after 2026, which is possible. In the coming years the much greater impact of Biden’s policies will stem from the massive infusion of fiscal spending he is likely to pass through Congress, which will close the output gap quickly and put upward pressure on wages.    Investment Takeaways Easier immigration and a higher minimum wage are not the only Biden policies that will affect wages. One of the biggest developments since Biden took office is his confirmation that he will maintain a tougher trade policy than his predecessors, excluding Trump. Biden won the election among Midwestern blue collar voters at least partly by stealing Trump’s thunder on trade and globalization. Since taking office he has issued a “Buy American” executive order and declared that he will maintain “extreme” competition with China. His cabinet appointees – notably Antony Blinken at the State Department and Janet Yellen at the Treasury – have given words of warning to China over trade as well. Geopolitical risk is one reason we are cutting back on our participation in the market’s exuberance at the moment, given that critical foreign policy stances are likely to be tested early in Biden’s term. But there is also a long-term implication of the Democrats’ marginal increase in protectionism.   It was the overall policy context of hyper-globalization that led to sluggish wage growth in the United States over the previous forty years. A major factor was the decline of manufacturing and unionization as a result of a lack of competitiveness in the US as global production came online. The erosion in manufacturing jobs only stopped in recent years (Chart 19). Popular support for unions has risen to levels last seen in the late 1970s and 1990s since the Great Recession – under Trump even Republicans talked up unions. Chart 19Blame Fall In Manufacturing, Not Foreign Workers, For Flat Wages Biden’s policies outlined above are reminiscent of the “third way” Democrats in the 1990s – particularly Bill Clinton, who oversaw an increase in the minimum wage and a surge in both legal and illegal immigration. But on trade Biden is shaping up to be more like Trump than Clinton, albeit directing his protectionism more at China than other trade partners. His spending bills will also use fiscal spending to promote industrial policy. Meanwhile labor protections will go up and unionization will at least stem its multi-decade decline.    For the stock market the risk of higher wages looms mostly due to the super-charging of the economy with stimulus. But shoring up domestic manufacturing, unions, labor perks and protections, and possibly indexing the minimum wage will contribute to faster wage growth and – to corporations – higher employment costs (Chart 20). This is a headwind to the corporate earnings outlook. But like the Biden administration’s tax hikes it is not yet affecting the market’s overall bullishness – and may not until the first reconciliation bill passes and the narrative shifts from stimulus to structural reform. Investors may soon find out that they will be dealing with higher wages, higher taxes, higher inflation, and a higher cost of capital. Chart 20Higher Wages, Lower Corporate Profits Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A1BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A1CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments     Footnotes 1     See BCA Global Investment Strategy, “Fiscal Stimulus: How Much Is Too Much?” January 8, 2021, bcaresearch.com. 2     George J. Borjas and Stephen J. Trejo, “The Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce in the United States,” in Borjas, ed, Mexican Immigration to the United States (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2005), pp.13-55.     3    See “The Budgetary Effects of the Raise the Wage Act of 2021,” Congressional Budget Office, February 2021, cbo.gov.