Business
Counties where the most people work from home in each state
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck in early 2020, every task that could adapt to a remote activity did—fitness classes, happy hours, even doctor’s visits—and, crucially, the workday.
But plenty stayed in-person, partly depending on the task or job. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in October 2020 found that 71% of people who could do their jobs remotely were working remotely. Still, lower-income workers were less likely to be doing so, regardless of what their job duties were.
Geography mattered, too: Cities were more likely to have remote-friendly jobs, according to an OECD analysis, but many rural areas sought to attract workers who could now work from anywhere.
The shift to remote work didn’t completely end once offices reopened for in-person work: According to another survey from Pew Research Center, 59% of respondents were still working remotely in 2022.
ClickUp used Census Bureau data from the 2021 American Community Survey to find the county in each state with the largest percentage of people working from home at least some of the time.
Of course, the reason many workers are choosing to telework is different in 2023 than it was in March 2020. In the same 2022 Pew Research Center survey, respondents said working from home made it easier to balance their personal lives with work and meet deadlines. Fewer remote workers said they were concerned about being exposed to COVID-19 than in 2020.
Furthermore, a 2022 survey conducted by McKinsey and Company found that of the professionals surveyed who had the opportunity to work from home, 87% took advantage of it. A flexible working arrangement was even cited as the third-most powerful motivator to look for a new job.
So what is the state of remote work across the country? Nearly 18% of Americans who responded to the 2021 Census Bureau American Community Survey said they worked from home at least some during the previous week. That’s 27.6 million people—roughly triple the 9 million who said they worked from home in 2019.
Of course, the amount of remote workers varies from state to state: Nearly half of District of Columbia professionals worked remotely in 2021, with nearly a quarter of workers in Washington, Maryland, Colorado, and Massachusetts also logging on at home.
In this analysis, ties were broken by the number of workers in a county. Single-year American Community Survey estimates were only available for about 620 counties—those with populations over 65,000—out of over 3,000 nationwide, but were used instead of five-year estimates due to the extreme changes in work-from-home trends over the past few years. States are listed here in alphabetical order.
Keep reading to discover where most people work from home in your state.
Canva
Alabama: Madison County
– People working from home within county: 19.2% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 193,623
– People working from home statewide: 9.6% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 2.2 million
Canva
Alaska: Anchorage Municipality
– People working from home within county: 12.6% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 145,508
– People working from home statewide: 10.3% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 343,883
Gregory E. Clifford // Shutterstock
Arizona: Maricopa County
– People working from home within county: 23.8% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 2.2 million
– People working from home statewide: 20.7% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 3.3 million
shuttersv // Shutterstock
Arkansas: Benton County
– People working from home within county: 21.5% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 145,609
– People working from home statewide: 9.7% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 1.3 million
Canva
California: San Francisco County
– People working from home within county: 45.6% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 438,943
– People working from home statewide: 21.4% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 17.8 million
Maciej Bledowski // Shutterstock
Colorado: Boulder County
– People working from home within county: 36.3% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 172,868
– People working from home statewide: 23.7% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 3.0 million
Canva
Connecticut: Fairfield County
– People working from home within county: 23.5% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 479,278
– People working from home statewide: 19.5% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 1.8 million
Real Window Creative // Shutterstock
Delaware: New Castle County
– People working from home within county: 23.6% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 275,885
– People working from home statewide: 18.6% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 455,993
Brittx // Shutterstock
Florida: Seminole County
– People working from home within county: 25.6% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 240,502
– People working from home statewide: 16.6% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 9.9 million
Brett Barnhill // Shutterstock
Georgia: Fulton County
– People working from home within county: 36.3% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 558,580
– People working from home statewide: 18.2% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 5.0 million
dirkr // Shutterstock
Hawaii: Hawaii County
– People working from home within county: 13.0% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 82,140
– People working from home statewide: 10.7% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 668,446
Charles Knowles // Shutterstock
Idaho: Ada County
– People working from home within county: 20.0% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 254,309
– People working from home statewide: 13.3% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 889,536
Canva
Illinois: DuPage County
– People working from home within county: 26.7% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 468,211
– People working from home statewide: 19.3% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 6.0 million
Canva
Indiana: Hamilton County
– People working from home within county: 27.4% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 187,363
– People working from home statewide: 11.9% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 3.2 million
Jacob Boomsma // Shutterstock
Iowa: Dallas County
– People working from home within county: 27.4% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 59,377
– People working from home statewide: 13.4% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 1.6 million
Canva
Kansas: Johnson County
– People working from home within county: 27.1% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 329,827
– People working from home statewide: 13.8% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 1.4 million
Stephen Bailey // Shutterstock
Kentucky: Oldham County
– People working from home within county: 21.4% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 33,386
– People working from home statewide: 11.5% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 2.0 million
TFoxFoto // Shutterstock
Louisiana: Orleans Parish
– People working from home within county: 17.8% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 164,397
– People working from home statewide: 8.4% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 1.9 million
Joseph Sohm // Shutterstock
Maine: Cumberland County
– People working from home within county: 26.3% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 161,823
– People working from home statewide: 17.7% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 660,465
Canva
Maryland: Montgomery County
– People working from home within county: 37.1% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 540,481
– People working from home statewide: 24.0% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 3.1 million
Joseph Sohm // Shutterstock
Massachusetts: Middlesex County
– People working from home within county: 32.3% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 866,649
– People working from home statewide: 23.7% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 3.5 million
Jacob Boomsma // Shutterstock
Michigan: Washtenaw County
– People working from home within county: 29.5% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 183,684
– People working from home statewide: 16.4% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 4.5 million
Jeff Lueders // Shutterstock
Minnesota: Washington County
– People working from home within county: 32.3% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 140,694
– People working from home statewide: 20.9% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 2.9 million
Monarch Productions // Shutterstockk
Mississippi: DeSoto County
– People working from home within county: 10.2% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 91,372
– People working from home statewide: 6.3% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 1.2 million
Rob Neville Photos // Shutterstock
Missouri: St. Charles County
– People working from home within county: 22.6% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 216,203
– People working from home statewide: 14.7% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 2.9 million
Madison Kent // Shutterstock
Montana: Gallatin County
– People working from home within county: 18.0% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 66,583
– People working from home statewide: 14.0% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 522,807
Canva
Nebraska: Douglas County
– People working from home within county: 19.1% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 303,363
– People working from home statewide: 12.8% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 1.0 million
Jacob Boomsma // Shutterstock
Nevada: Washoe County
– People working from home within county: 14.2% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 245,560
– People working from home statewide: 13.0% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 1.4 million
Canva
New Hampshire: Hillsborough County
– People working from home within county: 22.7% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 233,146
– People working from home statewide: 19.3% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 733,129
FotosForTheFuture // Shutterstock
New Jersey: Somerset County
– People working from home within county: 31.4% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 178,934
– People working from home statewide: 22.1% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 4.4 million
Jimack // Shutterstock
New Mexico: Santa Fe County
– People working from home within county: 24.3% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 69,704
– People working from home statewide: 15.2% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 877,399
pisaphotography // Shutterstock
New York: New York County
– People working from home within county: 36.5% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 793,149
– People working from home statewide: 19.6% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 9.0 million
Bryan Pollard // Shutterstock
North Carolina: Orange County
– People working from home within county: 35.2% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 71,761
– People working from home statewide: 18.8% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 4.9 million
Guy William // Shutterstock
North Dakota: Cass County
– People working from home within county: 13.7% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 107,722
– People working from home statewide: 8.9% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 397,892
dvgpro // Shutterstock
Ohio: Delaware County
– People working from home within county: 32.1% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 116,974
– People working from home statewide: 14.8% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 5.5 million
Valiik30 // Shutterstock
Oklahoma: Tulsa County
– People working from home within county: 14.0% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 311,061
– People working from home statewide: 10.4% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 1.8 million
Josemaria Toscano // Shutterstock
Oregon: Multnomah County
– People working from home within county: 32.1% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 425,906
– People working from home statewide: 22.7% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 2.0 million
LittleKitty // Shutterstock
Pennsylvania: Chester County
– People working from home within county: 29.1% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 280,530
– People working from home statewide: 18.7% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 6.1 million
Ramunas Bruzas // Shutterstock
Rhode Island: Newport County
– People working from home within county: 23.2% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 42,058
– People working from home statewide: 17.5% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 533,088
Nolichuckyjake // Shutterstock
South Carolina: York County
– People working from home within county: 18.5% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 137,482
– People working from home statewide: 11.7% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 2.3 million
Steven Frame // Shutterstock
South Dakota: Minnehaha County
– People working from home within county: 14.7% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 109,606
– People working from home statewide: 11.1% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 445,606
Canva
Tennessee: Williamson County
– People working from home within county: 31.3% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 131,742
– People working from home statewide: 14.0% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 3.2 million
Canva
Texas: Travis County
– People working from home within county: 36.2% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 731,623
– People working from home statewide: 16.3% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 13.6 million
Canva
Utah: Salt Lake County
– People working from home within county: 23.5% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 613,545
– People working from home statewide: 20.0% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 1.6 million
Erika J Mitchell // Shutterstock
Vermont: Chittenden County
– People working from home within county: 26.4% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 91,678
– People working from home statewide: 19.6% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 327,910
Orhan Cam // Shutterstock
Virginia: Arlington County
– People working from home within county: 48.8% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 142,653
– People working from home statewide: 22.3% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 4.3 million
Orhan Cam // Shutterstock
Washington DC
– People working from home within county: 48.3% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 354,033
– People working from home statewide: 48.3% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 354,033
kan_khampanya // Shutterstock
Washington: King County
– People working from home within county: 38.3% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 1.2 million
– People working from home statewide: 24.2% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 3.7 million
Canva
West Virginia: Monongalia County
– People working from home within county: 16.1% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 50,715
– People working from home statewide: 10.2% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 707,299
Paul Brady Photography // Shutterstock
Wisconsin: Dane County
– People working from home within county: 24.4% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 313,158
– People working from home statewide: 14.8% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 2.9 million
Canva
Wyoming: Natrona County
– People working from home within county: 7.3% of workers
– Total number of workers within county (age 16+): 38,741
– People working from home statewide: 8.9% of workers
– Total number of workers statewide (age 16+): 283,628
This story originally appeared on ClickUp and was produced and
distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.
It’s well-documented that the surest, and often best, return on investments comes from playing the long game. But between stocks and real estate, which is the stronger bet?
To find out, financial planning firm Wealth Enhancement Group analyzed data from academic research, Standard and Poor’s, and Nareit to see how real estate compares to stocks as an investment.
Data going back to 1870 shows the well-established power of real estate as a powerful “long-run investment.” From 1870-2015, and after adjusting for inflation, real estate produced an average annual return of 7.05%, compared to 6.89% for equities. These findings, published in the 2019 issue of The Quarterly Journal of Economics, illustrate that stocks can deviate as much as 22% from their average, while housing only spreads out 10%. That’s because despite having comparable returns, stocks are inherently more volatile due to following the whims of the business cycle.
Real estate has inherent benefits, from unlocking cash flow and offering tax breaks to building equity and protecting investors from inflation. Investments here also help to diversify a portfolio, whether via physical properties or a real estate investment trust. Investors can track markets with standard resources that include the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, which tracks residential real estate prices; the Nareit U.S. Real Estate Index, which gathers data on the real estate investment trust, or REIT, industry; and the S&P 500, which tracks the stocks of 500 of the largest companies in the U.S.
High interest rates and a competitive market dampened the flurry of real-estate investments made in the last four years. The rise in interest rates equates to a bigger borrowing cost for investors, which can spell big reductions in profit margins. That, combined with the risk of high vacancies, difficult tenants, or hidden structural problems, can make real estate investing a less attractive option—especially for first-time investors.
Keep reading to learn more about whether real estate is a good investment today and how it stacks up against the stock market.
Wealth Enhancement Group
Stocks and housing have both done well
REITs can offer investors the stability of real estate returns without bidding wars or hefty down payments. A hybrid model of stocks and real estate, REITs allow the average person to invest in businesses that finance or own income-generating properties.
REITs delivered slightly better returns than the S&P 500 over the past 20-, 25-, and 50-year blocks. However, in the short term—the last 10 years, for instance—stocks outperformed REITs with a 12% return versus 9.5%, according to data compiled by The Motley Fool investor publication.
Whether a new normal is emerging that stocks will continue to offer higher REITs remains to be seen.
This year, the S&P 500 reached an all-time high, courtesy of investor enthusiasm in speculative tech such as artificial intelligence. However, just seven tech companies, dubbed “The Magnificent 7,” are responsible for an outsized amount of the S&P’s returns last year, creating worry that there may be a tech bubble.
While indexes keep a pulse on investment performance, they don’t always tell the whole story. The Case-Shiller Index only measures housing prices, for example, which leaves out rental income (profit) or maintenance costs (loss) when calculating the return on residential real estate investment.
Wealth Enhancement Group
Housing returns have been strong globally too
Like its American peers, the global real estate market in industrialized nations offers comparable returns to the international stock market.
Over the long term, returns on stocks in industrialized nations is 7%, including dividends, and 7.2% in global real estate, including rental income some investors receive from properties. Investing internationally may have more risk for American buyers, who are less likely to know local rules and regulations in foreign countries; however, global markets may offer opportunities for a higher return. For instance, Portugal’s real estate market is booming due to international visitors deciding to move there for a better quality of life. Portugal’s housing offers a 6.3% return in the long term, versus only 4.3% for its stock market.
For those with deep enough pockets to stay in, investing in housing will almost always bear out as long as the buyer has enough equity to manage unforeseen expenses and wait out vacancies or slumps in the market. Real estate promises to appreciate over the long term, offers an opportunity to collect rent for income, and allows investors to leverage borrowed capital to increase additional returns on investment.
Above all, though, the diversification of assets is the surest way to guarantee a strong return on investments. Spreading investments across different assets increases potential returns and mitigates risk.
Story editing by Nicole Caldwell. Copy editing by Paris Close. Photo selection by Lacy Kerrick.
This story originally appeared on Wealth Enhancement Group and was produced and
distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.
In today’s digital climate, consuming sports has never been easier. Thanks to a plethora of streaming sites, alternative broadcasts, and advancements to home entertainment systems, the average fan has myriad options to watch and learn about their favorite teams at the touch of a button—all without ever having to leave the couch.
As a result, more and more sports venues have committed to improving and modernizing their facilities and fan experiences to compete with at-home audiences. Consider using mobile ticketing and parking passes, self-service kiosks for entry and ordering food, enhanced video boards, and jumbotrons that supply data analytics and high-definition replays. These innovations and upgrades are meant to draw more revenue and attract various sponsored partners. They also deliver unique and convenient in-person experiences that rival and outmatch traditional ways of enjoying games.
In Los Angeles, the Rams and Chargers’ SoFi Stadium has become the gold standard for football venues. It’s an architectural wonder with closer views, enhanced hospitality, and a translucent roof that cools the stadium’s internal temperature.
The Texas Rangers’ ballpark, Globe Life Field, added field-level suites and lounges that resemble the look and feel of a sports bar. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Clippers are building a new arena (in addition to retail space, team offices, and an outdoor public plaza) that will seat 18,000 people and feature a fan section called The Wall, which will regulate attire and rooting interest.
It’s no longer acceptable to operate with old-school facilities and technology. Just look at Commanders Field (formerly FedExField), home of the Washington Commanders, which has faced criticism for its faulty barriers, leaking ceilings, poor food options, and long lines. Understandably, the team has been attempting to find a new location to build a state-of-the-art stadium and keep up with the demand for high-end amenities.
As more organizations audit their stadiums and arenas and keep up with technological innovations, Uniqode compiled a list of the latest tech advancements to coax—and keep—fans inside venues.
Jeff Gritchen/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register // Getty Images
Just Walk Out technology
After successfully installing its first cashierless grocery store in 2020, Amazon has continued to put its tracking technology into practice.
In 2023, the Seahawks incorporated Just Walk Out technology at various merchandise stores throughout Lumen Field, allowing fans to purchase items with a swipe and scan of their palms.
The radio-frequency identification system, which involves overhead cameras and computer vision, is a substitute for cashiers and eliminates long lines.
RFID is now found in a handful of stadiums and arenas nationwide. These stores have already curbed checkout wait times, eliminated theft, and freed up workers to assist shoppers, according to Jon Jenkins, vice president of Just Walk Out tech.
Billie Weiss/Boston Red Sox // Getty Images
Self-serve kiosks
In the same vein as Amazon’s self-scanning technology, self-serve kiosks have become a more integrated part of professional stadiums and arenas over the last few years. Some of these function as top-tier vending machines with canned beers and nonalcoholic drinks, shuffling lines quicker with virtual bartenders capable of spinning cocktails and mixed drinks.
The kiosks extend past beverages, as many college and professional venues have started using them to scan printed and digital tickets for more efficient entrance. It’s an effort to cut down lines and limit the more tedious aspects of in-person attendance, and it’s led various competing kiosk brands to provide their specific conveniences.
Kyle Rivas // Getty Images
Mobile ordering
Is there anything worse than navigating the concourse for food and alcohol and subsequently missing a go-ahead home run, clutch double play, or diving catch?
Within the last few years, more stadiums have eliminated those worries thanks to contactless mobile ordering. Fans can select food and drink items online on their phones to be delivered right to their seats. Nearly half of consumers said mobile app ordering would influence them to make more restaurant purchases, according to a 2020 study at PYMNTS. Another study showed a 22% increase in order size.
Many venues, including Yankee Stadium, have taken notice and now offer personalized deliveries in certain sections and established mobile order pick-up zones throughout the ballpark.
Darrian Traynor // Getty Images
QR codes at seats
Need to remember a player’s name? Want to look up an opponent’s statistics at halftime? The team at Digital Seat Media has you covered.
Thus far, the company has added seat tags to more than 50 venues—including two NFL stadiums—with QR codes to promote more engagement with the product on the field. After scanning the code, fans can access augmented reality features, look up rosters and scores, participate in sponsorship integrations, and answer fan polls on the mobile platform.
Boris Streubel/Getty Images for DFL // Getty Images
Real-time data analytics and generative AI
As more venues look to reinvigorate the in-stadium experience, some have started using generative artificial intelligence and real-time data analytics. Though not used widely yet, generative AI tools can create new content—text, imagery, or music—in conjunction with the game, providing updates, instant replays, and location-based dining suggestions
Last year, the Masters golf tournament even began including AI score projections in its mobile app. Real-time data is streamlining various stadium pitfalls, allowing operation managers to monitor staffing issues at busy food spots, adjust parking flows, and alert custodians to dirty or damaged bathrooms. The data also helps with security measures. Open up an app at a venue like the Honda Center in Anaheim, California, and report safety issues or belligerent fans to help better target disruptions and preserve an enjoyable experience.
Story editing by Nicole Caldwell. Copy editing by Paris Close. Photo selection by Lacy Kerrick.
This story originally appeared on Uniqode and was produced and
distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.
Inflation has cooled substantially, but Americans are still feeling the strain of sky-high prices. Consumers have to spend more on the same products, from the grocery store to the gas pump, than ever before.
Increased import costs are part of the problem. The U.S. is the largest goods importer in the world, bringing in $3.2 trillion in 2022. Import costs rose dramatically in 2021 and 2022 due to shipping constraints, world events, and other supply chain interruptions and cost pressures. At the June 2022 peak, import costs for all commodities were up 18.6% compared to January 2020.
While import costs have since fallen most months—helping to lower inflation—they remain nearly 12% above what they were in 2020. And beginning in 2024, import costs began to rise again, with January seeing the highest one-month increase since March 2022.
Machinery Partner used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to identify the soaring import costs that have translated to higher costs for Americans. Imports in a few industries have had an outsized impact, helping drive some of the overall spikes. Crop production, primary metal manufacturing, petroleum and coal product manufacturing, and oil and gas extraction were the worst offenders, with costs for each industry remaining at least 20% above 2020.
Machinery Partner
Imports related to crops, oil, and metals are keeping costs up
At the mid-2022 peak, import costs related to oil, gas, petroleum, and coal products had the highest increases, doubling their pre-pandemic costs. Oil prices went up globally as leaders anticipated supply disruptions from the conflict in Ukraine. The U.S. and other allied countries put limits on Russian revenues from oil sales through a price cap of oil, gas, and coal from the country, which was enacted in 2022.
This activity around the world’s second-largest oil producer pushed prices up throughout the market and intensified fluctuations in crude oil prices. Previously, the U.S. had imported hundreds of thousands of oil barrels from Russia per day, making the country a leading source of U.S. oil. In turn, the ban affected costs in the U.S. beyond what occurred in the global economy.
Americans felt this at the pump—with gasoline prices surging 60% for consumers year-over-year in June 2022 and remaining elevated to this day—but also throughout the economy, as the entire supply chain has dealt with higher gas, oil, and coal prices.
Some of the pressure from petroleum and oil has shifted to new industries: crop production and primary metal manufacturing. In each of these sectors, import costs in January were up about 40% from 2020.
Primary metal manufacturing experienced record import price growth in 2021, which continued into early 2022. The subsequent monthly and yearly drops have not been substantial enough to bring costs down to pre-COVID levels. Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting shows that increasing alumina and aluminum production prices had the most significant influence on primary metal import prices. Aluminum is widely used in consumer products, from cars and parts to canned beverages, which in turn inflated rapidly.
Aluminum was in short supply in early 2022 after high energy costs—i.e., gas—led to production cuts in Europe, driving aluminum prices to a 13-year high. The U.S. also imposes tariffs on aluminum imports, which were implemented in 2018 to cut down on overcapacity and promote U.S. aluminum production. Suppliers, including Canada, Mexico, and European Union countries, have exemptions, but the tax still adds cost to imports.
U.S. agricultural imports have expanded in recent decades, with most products coming from Canada, Mexico, the EU, and South America. Common agricultural imports include fruits and vegetables—especially those that are tropical or out-of-season—as well as nuts, coffee, spices, and beverages. Turmoil with Russia was again a large contributor to cost increases in agricultural trade, alongside extreme weather events and disruptions in the supply chain. Americans felt these price hikes directly at the grocery store.
The U.S. imports significantly more than it exports, and added costs to those imports are felt far beyond its ports. If import prices continue to rise, overall inflation would likely follow, pushing already high prices even further for American consumers.
Story editing by Shannon Luders-Manuel. Copy editing by Kristen Wegrzyn.
This story originally appeared on Machinery Partner and was produced and
distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.
-
Business5 months agomesh conference goes deep on AI, with experts focusing in on training, ethics, and risk
-
Business4 months agoSkill-based hiring is the answer to labour shortages, BCG report finds
-
People4 months agoHow connected technologies trim rework and boost worker safety in hands-on industries
-
Events6 months agoTop 5 tech and digital transformation events to wrap up 2023
-
Events3 months agoThe Northern Lights Technology & Innovation Forum comes to Calgary next month