The U.S. labor shortage is hitting the public education sector hard. Yes, COVID-19 and its mutations have had a lot to do with the lack of teachers, but the problem predates the pandemic. In just the last two months, 65,000 public education employees left the industry.

 

Across the United States, in October 2021, there were 575,000 fewer state and local education employees than in February 2020, according to the latest employment report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The pandemic, in some ways, was simply the straw that broke this camel's back.

 

Stagnant wages, or worse, falling wages, have beset the teaching industry for years. In 2018, for example, the wage gap between teachers and a comparably educated U.S. workforce was roughly 21 percent. Twenty-five years ago, that same wage gap was only 6 percent, but beginning to grow. And while most teachers, like everyone else, have enjoyed yearly wage gains of about 0.7 percent, that is less than half the average annual gains for the rest of the civilian workforce.

 

The pay issue extends beyond the teachers, however. Support staff and school bus drivers have had the same issues. In today's strapped labor market, public education support workers have a choice.  Why continue to file school records, answer phones, or maneuver a bus load of kids when private sector offices and trucking companies are paying far more (with benefits) for that labor?

 

As you might imagine, fear of COVID-19 and continued stress brought on by the pandemic provided the impetus many teachers needed to make the decision to retire, or simply quit. Some hoped that as the pandemic waned, teachers and support staff would return, but that has not been the case. As a result, schools are making do where they can.

 

Some schools are continuing and extending their efforts to provide virtual learning. Others are shortening teaching hours, or in some cases, simply closing for a day or two per week. A school administrator's worst nightmare today is finding substitutes for a teacher on holiday, sick, or who enters quarantine after testing positive for the coronavirus. Those who might be willing to fill in as a teaching substitute are opting instead for different jobs. That is because temporary teaching wages are so low that cooking burgers at fast food restaurants pays more.

 

Unfortunately, the present demand for teachers is far outstripping the supply.  Less and less college and university students are willing to embark on a teaching career. Many would face decades of repaying student loan debts on skimpy salaries with little or no prospects of ever making ends meet.

 

The public school labor shortage is worse, depending upon geographic location, grades, and subject matter. High schools and middle schools have always been harder to staff than elementary schools. STEM areas (science, math, special education and foreign languages) have always been chronically understaffed and have become more so since COVID-19. The Southern, Southwestern, and Western U.S. have historically struggled with teacher shortages. It is also the case when comparing urban and rural schools, versus easier to staff suburban schools.  

 

Those teachers who have maintained their careers and jobs over the last year or two have had to contend with an overwhelming amount of responsibility during the pandemic. Overworked and stressed, many teachers are in burnout mode with few avenues to reduce their immediate symptoms. And while my heart goes out to this beleaguered group of workers, the impact of this shortage has severe ramifications for the future of education in America.

 

As most readers know, the U.S. continues to slip in educational rankings when compared to the developed world. It is most apparent in science and math. However, we are still perceived as having the best all-around educational system in the world. In order to remain at the top, we need good teachers — well-paid, well-educated people — who are proud and fulfilled in their chosen careers. As a first step, raising wages would seem to me to be a no-brainer. 

 

High-income tax states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, and New York would appear to be winners if President Biden's "Build Back Better" plan is finally passed by Congress. The Trump-era limit on state and local tax deductions could provide a $200 billion (or more) wind fall for wealthy Americans.

 

As it stands now, congressional Democrats, especially those who represent high tax states, are crafting a change in the SALT deduction cap. Presently American households can only deduct $10,000 of state and local taxes from their federal income taxes. That cap deduction is poised to end by 2026.

 

In a prior column, I explained that in exchange for their votes on Biden's $1.7 trillion plan, high tax state legislatures insisted on lifting the amount of the SALT cap. The House Rules Committee is now working on a change that would raise the $10,000 cap to $72,500 for five years (that would be retroactive to 2021).

 

The largest beneficiaries, according to the Tax Policy Center, would be households earning at least seven figures. They would receive the lion's share of benefits. As for middle-income U.S. households, the average cut in taxes would only amount to roughly $20 per year, while the higher income earners would be saving $23,000 per year. 

 

A full 25 percent of the tax cuts would flow to the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers. For them, the average savings in taxes would be $145,000. Another 57 percent of the benefits would go to the top 1 percent, who would save roughly $33,100 annually.

 

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-partisan, non-profit economic education organization, believes the tax benefit would cost $300 billion over the next four years with $240 billion of that cost accruing to those who make more than $200,000 a year. That would put the price tag for the SALT cap expansion on par with childcare subsidies, and the clean energy tax credits, making it the third costliest element of the overall Biden plan.

 

The legislation puts Democrats between a rock and a hard place. Clearly, most of the benefits would be going to the bluest-of-the-blue coastal states. The fact that it also benefits the wealthiest Americans flies in the face of the progressive side of the party, who have stomped and won their seats railing against income and wealth inequality.

 

In order to pass the Build Back legislation, Democrats need all hands-on deck. But the group of legislators most impacted by the present SALT tax has made it clear that without a SALT deal there would be no deal on the overall Biden plan. 

 

Over in the U.S Senate, key players are backing a different approach. They want to exempt taxpayers from the SALT cap, who make under a certain income level. That level is still being debated.  Achieving a resolution between the House and the Senate will be necessary before Democrats can hope to send a new version of the budget reconciliation package to the White House.   

 

In the middle of the debate sits the president. The framework of President Biden's plan, released last week, did not include a SALT repeal, or change in the present tax cap. In the past, however, the president has indicated he might be open to eliminating the deduction cap altogether. 

 

My own guess is that the Senate approach, which favors an income-based exemption, would be more palatable to a voter base that would not be interested in giving the wealthy another huge tax break.    

 

Rising prices at the gas pump, combined with soaring shopping bills at the supermarket, are having a noticeable impact on the consumer's pocketbook. But what's worse is that higher prices in oil beget higher prices in food in the future. Here's why.

 

Historical economic studies tell us that energy prices have a significant impact on food prices with 64.17 percent of changes in food prices explained by the movement of oil prices. But that only tells half the story. As energy prices climb, inputs to farm production are also impacted. Fertilizers, for example, account for between 33 percent to 44 percent of operating costs. 

 

The production of fertilizer and its inputs (such as nitrogen, phosphate, and potash) requires substantial amounts of energy, which increase the selling costs to farmers. Fertilizer prices are now the highest in decades. To make matters worse, the prices of fertilizer and its inputs continue to see dramatic increases, rising as much as 18 to 26 percent during the last month alone.

 

Obviously, energy in the form of diesel, gasoline, and electricity is also a direct input cost to the agricultural sector. It is critical to running and maintaining the myriad machinery required to plant, grow, harvest, and transport food products to market.

 

In addition, the explosion of greenhouse growing of vegetables has also been hit hard by higher energy costs. That is no surprise, since this is an extremely energy-intensive area. And as energy prices continue to climb, more farmers have shut down their greenhouses, reducing crop production even further.

 

Higher energy prices have also prompted farmers to switch more of their fields from food production to making biofuels. As more and more acreage are switched to soybeans and corn (key inputs in biofuels), there is less acreage devoted to other crops. That leads to less supply and higher prices for everything from wheat to livestock feed.  

 

The United Nations index of food costs has climbed by a third over the past year. This has led to a decade-high jump in global food prices at a time when the world is contending with its worst hunger crisis in 15 years. As readers may be aware, this energy/food issue is being aided and abetted by worker shortages, supply chain issues, and weather calamities such as flooding and drought. This is particularly bad news for poorer nations that are dependent on imports.

 

It is currently harder to buy food on the international market than in almost every year since 1961, which is when the U.N. record keeping began. The only exception was the period 1974-1975. That is no coincidence, since the OPEC-driven oil price spike of 1973 spawned the rapid inflation that impacted food prices.

 

To give you an idea of how food stuffs are climbing throughout the globe, in September 2021, alone, the U.N. food index rose 1.2 percent. Grains jumped 2 percent, driven by wheat, which has been hit by drought in North America and Russia, the world's largest producers. Sugar, a big Brazilian export, also saw big price gains. These price hikes are boosting import bills for buyers around the world. Competition for additional food supplies is also adding upward pressure to prices as well.

 

Most of us here in the United States are at least able to afford the twin increases in fuel and energy for now. However, there is a time lag between the recent price spikes in the oil and agricultural markets and how long it will take to filter through to grocery stores. In the meantime, keep an eye on the oil price as an indication of where your grocery bill will be going into the weeks and months ahead.

 

This week, the Democrats unveiled a new plan to finance President Biden's "Build Back Better" legislation. That proposal, along with a 15 percent corporate minimum tax, has politicians scrambling to line up for or against the idea. Does it have a chance to pass?

 

Credit for the idea goes to the Senate's top tax expert, Finance Chair Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat. His plan is to target only people with $1 billion in assets, or who are earning more than $100 million over three consecutive years. This group would be required to pay capital gains taxes each year on the appreciation in the value of their assets. It won't matter whether they sell or hold those assets.

 

The plan would impose a one-time tax on all the gains accumulated before the tax was created. That could mean a huge tax bill for some entrepreneurs that still hold a sizable portion of their company in stocks, bonds, etc. These founders would have five years to pay off their one-time tax. Each year after that capital gains taxes would be levied on the annual appreciation of assets that are easily valued such as publicly traded assets (bonds and stocks). Ownership of private companies and real estate holdings might not be assessed until after they are sold with different tax rules, depending on the nature of the assets.

 

The beauty of this plan for politicians on both sides of the aisle is that if passed, the billionaire tax would only impact around 700 people. As such, there is not a lot of voter risk involved in this idea. But the upside would be that it would generate several hundred billion dollars in revenues. Capital losses on assets would be allowed, which could also be carried forward (and in some cases backwards).

 

For those who might oppose this plan, the idea of defending a bunch of billionaires is dicey at best. Most voters (and most of the media) believe this wealthy handful of people are not paying their "fair share" of taxes in the first place. And as for the corporate tax rate, most large corporations are not paying the official tax rate any way. After all the credits and other tax loopholes that have been accumulated over the decades, the effective tax rate for most corporations is well below. The tax rate for some companies is zero or below.

 

As with most new or proposed legislation nowadays, even if the tax is passed, it would likely be challenged in court. The American Constitution does not allow so-called direct taxes. The idea is that you can't levy a tax on someone that can't be imposed on others. However, thanks to the 16th Amendment, there is an exception when it comes to income taxes, which allows Congress to tax earnings. A court case would focus on whether a billionaires' tax would count as an income tax.

 

The new plan is a result of the present stumbling block between Democrats of different persuasions. Sen. Joe Manchin III, a Democrat from West Virginia, and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat from Arizona, have stalled any agreements, both from the size of the spending, as well the best way to pay for it. Will this tax, as well as the minimum corporate tax, ever see the light of day?

 

In the case of the corporate minimum tax there may be enough support for it within the Senate. As for a billionaire's tax, probably not.  Aside from the question of constitutionality, the current Supreme Court would also be an obstacle to interpretating the legality of the tax. The billionaire victims of the proposal, while a small group, carry enormous political weight among politicians. They would be sure to express their opposition (privately) to those that matter.

 

And finally, most Americans would probably see this kind of wealth tax as an unmistakable step toward socialism, if not Marxist. I don't think the average voter is ready to take that step quite yet.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

Inflation is worrying investors. Every new data point seems to be heightening their anxiety. Oil and other commodities are raging higher. The rate of wage increases is also climbing, but the most important variable the Fed is watching is about to move higher.

 

Housing and/or home ownership is one of the most important components of the U.S. economy. However, housing prices per se are not included in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Instead, the CPI measures the cost of shelter, which is broken down between actual rents paid and the Owners' Equivalent Rent or OER.

 

OER is the amount of rent that would need to be paid in order to substitute a currently owned house as a rental property. It measures (in an indirect way) the value of the present price increases in the real estate market including your home.

 

One could call it the "shelter" component of the Consumer Price Index, which is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The OER represents about one third of the CPI basket and it is a number the Fed watches carefully.

 

You may wonder why rent is included in the CPI, but not food and energy. The Fed considers price fluctuations in food and energy as transitory. If, for example, OPEC decides to raise oil production next month, the price of oil would probably decline. That, in turn, would likely impact how much consumers will pay at the gas pump. Rents, on the other hand, are stickier and tend to last longer.

 

It is obvious to most readers that housing costs have skyrocketed during the last two years. Since the start of the pandemic, inflation-adjusted home prices have increased 11.8 percent annualized. To put that in perspective, real house prices have been rising 100 times faster than they did from 1955 to 1998.

 

But there has been no commensurate increase in the OER, until recently. That is because there is usually a lag time between increased housing prices and rent increases (by roughly five quarters). That lag time is now up, and right on schedule we are beginning to see OER impact the inflation rate in both the CPI and the PPI (Producer Price Index). In September 2021, the shelter index rose by 0.4 percent, accounting for nearly one third of the increase in prices across all goods and services in the CPI.

 

That is the largest increase in 20 years. OER rose by 0.4 percent, while rents of primary residences rose by 0.5 percent. Those were the biggest one month increases since the early 2000s. Economists blame the results on rapid housing price gains, more aggressive landlord pricing, low inventory and faster wage growth.

 

For the Fed, this is bad news. As the headline number of the Fed's inflation gauges, the CPI and the Producer Price Index (PPI), continue to climb higher, the pressure to raise interest rates sooner rather than later is building. The idea that broad-based inflation pressures will continue to rise thanks to supply chain issues and aided and abetted by wage growth has the financial markets nervous.  They also know that some of the long-lasting economic forces that have kept inflation low for decades have been turned on their heads. China, for example, is exporting inflation right now, after functioning as a massive deflationary force for the last thirty years.

 

Consumer expectations for inflation are continuing to surge, rising to 5.3 percent over the next year, and 4.2 percent over the next three years. Both are the highest in the history of data going back eight years, according to the New York Fed.

 

 As it stands, about half of the Fed's policy makers are expecting to start raising interest rates next year and think borrowing costs should increase to at least 1 percent by the end of 2023. That timetable may have to be pulled forward if the present trends continue. Watching the OER may give us an early warning of what the Fed will do next.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.