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. 

 

The stock and bond markets knew inflation was coming. This week's 6.2 percent jump in the Consumer Price Index drove home the fact that inflation has become a fact of economic life, at least for the near future.

 

The jury is still out on whether inflation will prove to be "transitory" as the Federal Reserve Bank argues and as some economists believe. Others fear that we could be on the verge of something a little more serious. The fear is that the Fed might be forced to raise interest rates if that were the case.

 

The Producer Price Index (PPI) and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) both came in a little warmer than forecasted on a year-over-year basis, but not as high as some expected. And yet the U.S. dollar spiked to new highs, the yield on the U.S. Treasury rose by more than 10 basis points, gold and silver jumped, and stocks dropped.

 

The culprit behind the ongoing pressure on the inflation rate, as readers know, is the heightened consumer demand caused by the reopening of the economy and the supply chain issues that do not seem to be easing. The pandemic can be blamed for both conditions.

 

For me, the markets were so over-extended and in need of a pullback that traders were just looking for a reason to take down the averages. As you may recall, I had been expecting a minor bout of profit-taking, no more than 3 percent or so, in the markets. This week, the S&P 500 Index lost almost 2 percent, while some other indexes like the small-cap, Russell 2000 Index and some technology areas were down more than 3 percent before rebounding.

 

Between the good news on the passage of the $1 trillion infrastructure bi-partisan spending program (which now awaits signing by President Biden) and the climbing rate of inflation, the market winners have been mostly in sectors that benefit from construction and inflation. Mines and metals, gold and silver, basic materials, lithium, uranium and rare earth plays have climbed during the past few days. These sectors have played a back seat to large-cap technology stocks over the last two months. We have seen this kind of rotation many times in the past. Once prices have been bid up to unreasonable levels, short-term traders will switch their focus back to technology, or reopening plays. What is important to understand is that the overall markets tend to rise, or at worse move sideways, as some sectors that are out of favor are simply replaced by those in favor. 

 

Consolidation is healthy for the markets. A period of digesting gains, possibly over the next few days, would do wonders for reducing the overbought conditions that presently plague many stocks and sectors. Investors should keep their eyes on the U.S. dollar, which appears to want to climb even higher. If it does, it could squash the present rise in commodities.

 

Gold is another asset I am tracking closely. It has been one of the world's worst performing assets in 2021. If inflation fears continue to worry investors, there is a possibility that gold may reemerge in its traditional role as an inflation hedge.

 

Last, but not least is the cannabis space. A bill introduced by Nancy Mace, a Republican House member from South Carolina, to decriminalize and regulate what is now a federally illegal substance, sent pot stocks higher. This could be a huge boost for the U.S. cannabis industry. Stock prices in this industry has languished all year, despite improving profitability in many cases.    

 

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.

 

The Federal Reserve Bank signaled an all-clear for the financial markets this week. The tapering they promised will begin on schedule, but Fed Chairperson Jerome Powell has no plans to raise interest rates until at least some time next year.

 

The announcement was met with relief. Investors reacted by catapulting the stock market to yet another higher high. Bond traders were somewhat mollified, as well as seen by the lack of movement in interest rates. If anything, Chair Powell was a bit more dovish than investors expected.

 

He surprised markets by reducing the size of the monthly taper, which will begin later this month. At present, the U.S. Central Bank is buying $120 billion a month in assets. Investors were expecting a $20 billion monthly reduction in purchases, but the Fed decided to reduce those purchases by only $15 billion a month.

 

It appears that the rate of inflation is still not serious enough for the Federal Reserve to move forward their expectations on raising interest rates. Next summer is the earliest Powell sees a need to raise interest rates. However, he did admit that he expects the conditions that are pushing inflation higher could persist well into next year. 

 

His stance is similar to the position already taken by the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB expects to continue its easy money policies into next year. But while most of the developed world is applying the momentary brakes ever so gradually, many emerging market countries are already raising interest rates to head off rising inflation in their economies. Chile, Russia, and Brazil, for example, have hiked interest rates recently. Of the 38 central banks followed by the Bank for International Settlements, 13 have raised a key interest rate at least once this year.

 

Investors are paying close attention to the stalled situation surrounding the two large Biden infrastructure bills after the resounding thrashing the Democrats suffered this week in various elections. Voters seem to be increasingly unhappy with what they perceive as their "do nothing." President Biden's approval ratings are dismal, and time is running out to reverse the situation before the mid-term elections.

 

It remains to be seen whether this week's election results will spur this fractured party to come together and start legislating or sink further into disarray. The House is expected to vote on at least one if not both bills on Friday, Nov. 5.

 

There is a lot riding on the outcome for the economy and the markets. And while the price tag for both bills is high, as a percentage of GDP, in reality the expenditures are a drop in the bucket when compared to what other countries are spending on their own infrastructure plans. Is it any wonder that China sees us as no more than a "paper tiger," whose politicians lack the will to compete in the areas that really matter?

 

Earnings season is winding down, but once again the results defied even the most bullish of expectations. That bodes well for stocks. More and more sectors are participating in the upturn and there doesn't seem to be many storm clouds on the horizon until we head into December, if then. This week's decline in oil may also act as a tailwind for stocks. Higher energy prices have been leading inflation higher for the last few months. If oil pulls back from here, or just remains in a trading range, equities could get a boost from that as well.

 

To me, however, the most important event of the week was drug company Pfizer's announcement that Paxlovid, a COVID-19 pill, reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 80 percent in a clinical trial that tested the drug in adults with the disease who were also in high-risk health groups. 

 

Pfizer CEO and Chairman, Albert Bourla, said, "These data suggest that our oral antiviral candidate, if approved or authorized by regulatory authorities, has the potential to save patients' lives, reduce the severity of COVID-19 infections, and eliminate nine out of 10 hospitalizations." To me, this pill could be a game changer for the economy and for people all over the world. It is possible that we could see the coronavirus battle won by sometime next year.

 

I have been expecting a shallow pullback in the markets for the past two weeks. Instead, stocks have just climbed higher and higher. They are extended, but history says they can get even more so. As such, I am not holding my breath, nor waiting around for it. Whatever pullback does occur should be bought.