Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Why Are Oil Prices Falling While War Rages in the Middle East?

    Energy markets have shrugged off the fighting between Israel and Hamas so far, focusing instead on forecasts of subdued demand.Intense fighting is underway in a region that holds much of the world’s petroleum resources. Yet, after a few days of anxiety following the bloody Oct. 7 raids by Hamas militants in Israel, energy markets have been slumping. Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, is selling for about $80 a barrel, cheaper than when the fighting started.Why aren’t prices higher? A main reason, analysts say, is that the fighting, no matter how vicious, has produced little disruption to petroleum supplies, leading traders to conclude that there is no immediate threat.“While traders realize there is an increased risk, that hasn’t led to a lot of precautionary buying,” said Richard Bronze, head of geopolitics at Energy Aspects, a London-based market research firm.With respect to the Middle East, the markets are “effectively dismissing that anything could go wrong,” said Raad Alkadiri, managing director for energy and climate at Eurasia Group, a political risk firm.Mr. Alkadiri said that traders are unlikely to bid up prices unless they see “actual barrels removed” from the market.Waning Demand in FocusThe market appears to have blocked the war out, and has returned to a mood of pessimism about future demand for petroleum, dominated by economic concerns about China, the largest oil importer, and other large consumers. Saudi Arabia and other producers have been trying to support prices by reducing their oil output.Forecasters are warning that 2024 could be a difficult year in the oil markets. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted this week that gasoline consumption in the United States would decline next year because of more efficient vehicle engines, growing numbers of electric cars, and reduced commuting as more people work hybrid schedules.The bearish sentiment drove down prices sharply before the Israel-Hamas conflict and it appears to be weighing on the market again, despite the risks of a broader war.Robust oil production in the United States has also reassured markets, with supplies from the world’s largest producer recently setting a monthly record, at just over 13 million barrels a day. “Strong oil market fundamentals are prevailing over any fears at the moment, “ said Jim Burkhard, vice president and head of research for oil markets, energy and mobility at S&P Global Commodity Insights.Haves and Have-NotsAs the fighting continues, traders have figured out that when it comes to oil there are haves and have-nots in the Middle East. Gaza produces no oil and Israel little. For there to be a material disruption in supply, the war’s effects would need to spread to the gigantic oil fields of Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Iran.Early in the conflict, Iran’s foreign minister called for an oil embargo against Israel, stirring memories of the oil embargo of 50 years ago. But times have changed: Given concerns about the role that fossil fuels play in climate change and their dependence on oil for revenues, any such move would risk backfiring on countries that imposed such a ban. Iran would risk alienating China, the Islamic Republic’s key customer.“The risk to supply is very unlikely to come from an independent decision to curtail oil sales by Iran or OPEC,” Eurasia Group said in a recent note. “Any such move would inflict as much — if not more — damage on producers as on consumers.”The Remaining RisksA disruption is not inconceivable. Four years ago, a missile attack on a key Saudi facility — for which American officials blamed Iran — temporarily knocked out about half of the kingdom’s oil production.In an extreme case, Iran, the key backer of Hamas, could try to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which huge volumes of oil flow to the rest of the world. “I still think that there is considerable risk that this spreads,” said Helima Croft, head of commodities at RBC Capital Markets, an investment bank.Ms. Croft said seeming complacency about the war’s impact could stem in part from traders’ having lost money when prices surged above $120 a barrel after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but then quickly fell.“The market just has no attention span for these kinds of issues anymore,” she said.Ms. Croft, a former analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency, said the apparent success of the early days the 2003 invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces eventually led to a conflict that dragged on for years. “We could still be caught by a nasty surprise in the Middle East,” she said.The Biden administration is trying to prevent a widening of the war. Regional oil powers, including Iran, would also prefer to keep tanker traffic moving through the Persian Gulf. Any halts would crimp their own export earnings, while price spikes would risk hurting and alienating their most valued customers.“It’s likely the conflict remains contained and doesn’t spill over into the big oil producers in the region or the key shipping lanes,” said Mr. Bronze of Energy Aspects. “The risks are more from miscalculation and misjudgment,” he added. More

  • 163 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    ‘Our Family Can Have a Future’: Ford Workers on a New Union Contract

    Before autoworkers went on strike in September, Dave and Bailey Hodge were struggling to juggle the demands of working at a Ford Motor plant in Michigan and raising their young family.Both were working 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, to earn enough to cover monthly bills, car payments and the mortgage on a home they had recently bought. They were also saving for the things they hoped life would eventually bring — vacations, college for their two children and retirement.They were holding their own financially, but their shifts left them little time away from the assembly line, where both worked from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.“You just sleep all the time you’re not at work,” Ms. Hodge, 25, said. Some days, she’d see her 8-year-old son off to school in the morning. She’d fall asleep with her 14-month-old daughter lying between her and Dave.“I’d wake up in the afternoon, get dinner for the kids and go back to the plant,” she said. “Life revolved around work.”“Dave paid the bills with the strike money, and if I needed anything, I used the money I got from tips,” Ms. Hodge said.During the strike, Ms. Hodge worked at a local beauty spa.But the couple said they expected all that to change now. Last month, Ford and the United Automobile Workers, the union that Mr. and Ms. Hodge are members of, struck a tentative agreement containing some of the biggest gains that autoworkers had won in a new contract in decades.If the agreement is ratified, Mr. Hodge, who has been at the plant longer than Ms. Hodge, will make almost $39 an hour, up from $32. Ms. Hodge’s hourly wage will increase to more than $35 from $20. By the end of the four-and-a-half-year contract, both will be making more than $40 an hour. The agreement also provides for more time off.Mr. Hodge, 36, said he had teared up when he heard the details. “I was super happy,” he said. “It makes me feel like our family can have a future now.”About 145,000 workers at Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, the parent company of Chrysler, Jeep and Ram, are voting on separate but similar contracts the U.A.W. negotiated with the companies. Many labor and auto experts said a large majority of workers would most likely have the same reaction to the agreements that Mr. Hodge had and would vote in favor of the deals.The Hodges were required to walk the picket line at the plant one day a week. The United Automobile Workers provided $500 a week for each striking worker.Mr. Hodge’s first day back after the strike. “I was super happy,” he said of the new contract. “It makes me feel like our family can have a future now.”Just over 80 percent of the union members at the plant the Hodges work at, in Wayne, Mich., have already voted in favor of the deal. Voting at Ford plants is expected to end on Nov. 17.The tentative agreement also means the Hodges are going back to work after being on strike for 41 days. Their plant, which is a 30-minute drive from downtown Detroit, was one of the first three auto factories to go on strike in September. It makes the Ford Bronco sport utility vehicle and the Ranger pickup truck.On the evening of Sept. 14, Ms. Hodge was on a break when a union representative came by telling workers to leave. She and Mr. Hodge knew a strike was possible and had set aside enough money to cover their expenses for two to three months, but they were still surprised they were called on to strike first.The Hodges were required to walk the picket line at the plant one day a week, leaving them lots of time for the family activities they had been missing. The U.A.W. provided $500 a week for each striking worker. The $1,000 a week the Hodges collected helped, but Ms. Hodge also went to work at a beauty spa.The Hodges’ son arriving home from school.“At first, you were happy to have some time off and have dinner as a family, put the kids to bed, but then it keeps going on, and you’re like, ‘Whoa, this doesn’t seem to be ending,’” Ms. Hodge said.“Dave paid the bills with the strike money, and if I needed anything, I used the money I got from tips,” Ms. Hodge said.But as the strike wore on, the Hodges found they had to keep close track of their grocery shopping and stopped eating out.“At first, you were happy to have some time off and have dinner as a family, put the kids to bed, but then it keeps going on, and you’re like, ‘Whoa, this doesn’t seem to be ending,’” Ms. Hodge said. “As it goes along, it gets scary.”On Oct. 25, Ms. Hodge began getting texts from friends at the plant that the U.A.W. and Ford had reached a tentative agreement. That evening, she and Mr. Hodge watched an announcement by the union’s president, Shawn Fain, on Facebook.By the end of the four-and-a-half-year contract, both will be making more than $40 an hour.As the strike wore on, the Hodges found that they had to keep close track of their grocery shopping and stopped eating out.For Mr. Hodge, the news of the union’s gains — including a 25 percent general wage increase, cost-of-living adjustments and increased retirement contributions — was hard to fathom given the slower progress workers had made in recent years.He had started at Ford in 2007 as a temporary worker and over five years climbed to the top temporary worker wage of $27 an hour. In 2012, when he became a permanent employee, he had to start at the entry-level wage of $15 an hour.“It took me a good 11 years to get to where I am now,” he said. “So this feels like I’m getting back what I would’ve had.”The Hodges plan to continue working 12-hour, seven-day schedules for a short while to rebuild their savings account, and to take care of expenses they had put off, like fixing the dented bumper and cracked windshield in Ms. Hodge’s Ford Explorer.But eventually, they want to cut back to working Monday through Friday, and perhaps one weekend a month.“It will be great just doing some overtime, not overtime all the time,” Ms. Hodge said. “And we’ll start doing things with the kids. Maybe take them to a hotel that has a swimming pool. That would be nice.”A 25 percent general wage increase was hard to fathom given the slower progress workers had made in recent years.“It will be great just doing some overtime, not overtime all the time,” Ms. Hodge said. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    SAG-AFTRA and Hollywood Studios Agree to Deal to End Actors’ Strike

    The agreement all but ends one of the longest labor crises in the history of the entertainment industry. Union members still have to approve the deal.One of the longest labor crises in Hollywood history is finally coming to an end.SAG-AFTRA, the union representing tens of thousands of actors, reached a tentative deal for a new contract with entertainment companies on Wednesday, clearing the way for the $134 billion American movie and television business to swing back into motion.Hollywood’s assembly lines have been at a near-standstill since May because of a pair of strikes by writers and actors, resulting in financial pain for studios and for many of the two million Americans — makeup artists, set builders, location scouts, chauffeurs, casting directors — who work in jobs directly or indirectly related to making TV shows and films.Upset about streaming-service pay and fearful of fast-developing artificial intelligence technology, actors joined screenwriters on picket lines in July. The writers had walked out in May over similar concerns. It was the first time since 1960, when Ronald Reagan was the head of the actors’ union and Marilyn Monroe was still starring in films, that actors and writers were both on strike.The Writers Guild of America, which represents 11,500 screenwriters, reached a tentative agreement with studios on Sept. 24 and ended its 148-day strike on Sept. 27. In the coming days, SAG-AFTRA members will vote on whether to accept their union’s deal, which includes hefty gains, like increases in compensation for streaming shows and films, better health care funding, concessions from studios on self-taped auditions, and guarantees that studios will not use artificial intelligence to create digital replicas of their likenesses without payment or approval.SAG-AFTRA, however, failed to receive a percentage of streaming service revenue. It had proposed a 2 percent share — later dropped to 1 percent, before a pivot to a per-subscriber fee. Fran Drescher, the union’s president, had made the demand a priority, but companies like Netflix balked, calling it “a bridge too far.”Instead, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which bargains on behalf of entertainment companies, proposed a new residual for streaming programs based on performance metrics, which the union, after making some adjustments, agreed to take.At 118 days, it was the longest movie and television strike in the union’s 90-year history. SAG-AFTRA said in a terse statement that its negotiating committee had voted unanimously to approve the tentative deal, which will proceed to the union’s national board on Friday for “review and consideration.”It added, “Further details will be released following that meeting.”Shaan Sharma, a member of the union’s negotiating committee, said he had mixed emotions about the tentative deal, though he declined to go into specifics because the SAG-AFTRA board still needed to review it.“They say a negotiation is when both sides are unhappy because you can’t get everything you want on either side,” he said, adding, “You can be happy for the deal overall, but you can feel a sense of loss for something that you didn’t get that you thought was important.”Ms. Drescher, who had been active on social media during the strike, didn’t immediately post anything on Wednesday evening. She and other SAG-AFTRA officials had come under severe pressure from agents, crew member unions and even some of her own members, including George Clooney and Ben Affleck, to wrap up what had started to feel like an interminable negotiation.“I’m relieved,” Kevin Zegers, an actor most recently seen in the ABC show “The Rookie: Feds,” said in an interview after the union’s announcement. “If it didn’t end today, there would have been riots.”The studio alliance said in a statement that the tentative agreement “represents a new paradigm,” giving SAG-AFTRA “the biggest contract-on-contract gains in the history of the union.”There is uncertainty over what a poststrike Hollywood will look like. But one thing is certain: There will be fewer jobs for actors and writers in the coming years, undercutting the wins that unions achieved at the bargaining table.Even before the strikes, entertainment companies were cutting back on the number of television shows they ordered, a result of severe pressure from Wall Street to turn money-losing streaming services into profitable businesses. Analysts expect companies to make up for the pair of pricey new labor contracts by reducing costs elsewhere, including by making fewer shows and canceling first-look deals.The actors, like the writers, said the streaming era had negatively affected their working conditions and compensation.Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York TimesFor the moment, however, the agreements with actors and writers represent a capitulation by Hollywood’s biggest companies, which started the bargaining process with an expectation that the unions, especially SAG-AFTRA, would be relatively compliant. Early in the talks, for instance, the studio alliance — Netflix, Disney, NBCUniversal, Apple, Amazon, Sony, Paramount, Warner Bros. — refused to negotiate on multiple union proposals. “Rejected our proposal, refused to make a counter” became a rallying cry among the striking workers.As the studio alliance tried to limit any gains, the companies cited business challenges, including the rapid decline of cable television and continued streaming losses. Disney, struggling with $4 billion in streaming losses in 2022, eliminated 7,000 jobs in the spring.But the alliance underestimated the pent-up anger pulsating among the studios’ own workers. Writers and actors called the moment “existential,” arguing that the streaming era had deteriorated the working conditions and compensation for rank-and-file members of their professions so much that they could no longer make a living. The companies brushed such comments aside as union bluster and Hollywood dramatics. They found out the workers were serious.With the strikes dragging into the fall and the financial pain on both sides mounting, the studio alliance reluctantly switched from trying to limit gains to figuring out how to get Hollywood’s creative assembly lines running again — even if that meant bending to the will of the unions.“It was all macho, tough-guy stuff from the companies for a while,” said Jason E. Squire, professor emeritus at the University of Southern California’s School of Cinematic Arts. “But that certainly did change.”There had previously been 15 years of labor peace in Hollywood.“The executives of these companies didn’t need to worry about labor very much — they worried about other things,” Chris Keyser, a chair of the Writers Guild negotiating committee, said in an interview after the writers’ strike concluded. “They worried about Wall Street and their free cash flow, and all of that.”Mr. Keyser continued: “They could say to their labor executives, ‘Do the same thing you’ve been doing year after year. Just take care of that, because labor costs are not going to be a problem.’ Suddenly, that wasn’t true anymore.” As a result of the strikes, studios are widely expected to overhaul their approach to union negotiations, which in many ways dates to the 1980s.Writers Guild leaders called their deal “exceptional” and “transformative,” noting the creation of viewership-based streaming bonuses and a sharp increase in royalty payments for overseas viewing on streaming services. Film writers received guaranteed payment for a second draft of screenplays, something the union had tried but failed to secure for at least two decades.The Writers Guild said the contract included enhancements worth roughly $233 million annually. When bargaining started in the spring, the guild proposed $429 million in enhancements, while studios countered with $86 million, according to the guild.For an industry upended by the streaming revolution, which the pandemic sped up, the tentative accord takes a meaningful step toward stabilization. About $10 billion in TV and film production has been on hold, according to ProdPro, a production tracking service. That amounts to 176 shows and films.The fallout has been significant, both inside and outside the industry. California’s economy alone has lost more than $5 billion, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom. Because the actors’ union prohibited its members from participating in promotional campaigns for already-finished work, studios pulled movies like “Dune: Part Two” from the fall release schedule, forgoing as much as $1.6 billion in worldwide ticket sales, according to David A. Gross, a film consultant.With labor harmony restored, the coming weeks should be chaotic. Studio executives and producers will begin a mad scramble to secure soundstages, stars, insurance, writers and crew members so productions can start running again as quickly as possible. Because of the end-of-year holidays, some projects may not restart until January.Both sides will have to go through the arduous process of working together again after a searing six-month standoff. The strikes tore at the fabric of the clubby entertainment world, with actors’ union leaders describing executives as “land barons of a medieval time,” and writers and actors still fuming that it took studio executives months, not weeks, to reach a deal.Workers and businesses caught in the crossfire were idled, potentially leaving bitter feelings toward both sides.And it appears that Hollywood executives will now have to contend with a resurgent labor force, mirroring many other American businesses. In recent weeks, production workers at Walt Disney Animation voted to unionize, as did visual-effects workers at Marvel.Contracts with powerful unions that represent Hollywood crews will expire in June and July, and negotiations are expected to be fractious.“It seemed apparent early on that we were part of a trend in American society where labor was beginning to flex its muscles — where unions were beginning to reassert their power,” said Mr. Keyser, the Writers Guild official.Brooks Barnes More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Las Vegas Unions and Caesars Reach Tentative Agreement as Strike Looms

    The deal was announced two days before a strike deadline set by two unions. The walkout threat still hangs over other resorts and the city’s economy.Unions representing hospitality workers in Las Vegas reached a tentative agreement on Wednesday with one of the city’s three major resort operators, two days before a strike deadline that loomed just as tourists arrive for a major sporting event.Culinary Workers Union Local 226 and Bartenders Union Local 165, which are affiliates of UNITE HERE, announced the tentative agreement on a five-year contract with Caesars Entertainment. Negotiations with MGM Resorts International and Wynn Resorts are continuing.Contracts for housekeepers, bartenders, cooks and food servers at the three companies and Caesars expired on Sept. 15, after being extended from a June deadline.At a news conference on Wednesday afternoon, Ted Pappageorge, the head of Local 226, said the tentative agreement would provide compensation increases “far above” those in the last five-year contract, which amounted to $4.57 an hour overall in wages, health care and pensions. Members of the union make $26 an hour on average.The culinary union said the deal with Caesars had been reached after 20 straight hours of negotiations and covered 10,000 workers. Those workers will have 10 days to ratify the contract. Caesars said in a statement that the accord would provide “meaningful wage increases that align with our past performance, along with continued opportunities for growth tied to our future plans to bring more union jobs to the Las Vegas Strip.”The Caesars properties in Las Vegas include Caesars Forum, Caesars Palace, Flamingo, Harrah’s, Horseshoe, Paris, Planet Hollywood, the Cromwell and the Linq.The two unions said last week that 35,000 members would walk off the job on Friday at 18 hotels along the Strip owned by Caesars, MGM Resorts International and Wynn Resorts, posing a major threat to the city’s economy. The last major strike of Las Vegas casinos occurred in 1984, when workers walked off the job for more than 60 days.As Las Vegas prepared for the impact of a strike, crews began to block off roads and erect bleachers near the Strip, which will serve as the course for the Las Vegas Grand Prix, a big international auto race.In early December, the National Finals Rodeo is planned for two weeks.The local unions have been negotiating with the resorts since April over demands that include higher wages, more safety protections and stronger recall rights, a protection that prioritizes rehiring laid-off employees, such as those let go during the pandemic lockdowns or economic downturns.In September, the union passed a strike authorization vote with 95 percent support. More recently, workers have picketed outside the major hotels, marching under palm trees in 80-degree heat with signs that read, “One Job Should Be Enough,” alluding to low pay.In a series of rolling walkouts that began in July, thousands of housekeepers, front desk clerks and other hospitality workers from several Southern California hotels have been on strike at various times; in Michigan, employees at MGM Grand Detroit have been on strike since mid-October.For years, the culinary union, which represents 60,000 hospitality workers in Nevada, has been a powerful political force, one seen as a critical base for Democratic candidates in the state and nationally. In 2020, the ground operation and door-knocking campaign by union members helped propel Joseph R. Biden Jr. to a narrow victory in the state.Ahead of his re-election campaign next year, President Biden trailed former President Donald J. Trump by 10 percentage points in the state in a recent New York Times/Siena College poll.During a trip last month, Vice President Kamala Harris visited the culinary union’s headquarters and praised the workers as the “true champions for working people.”Lynnette Curtis More

  • 163 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Xi Jinping to Address U.S. Business Leaders Amid Rising Skepticism of China Ties

    Corporate executives will pay $2,000 a head to dine with China’s leader in San Francisco next week, in one of a series of engagements aimed at stabilizing the U.S.-China relationship.The Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who is set to meet with President Biden in San Francisco next week, is expected to speak to top American business executives at a dinner following that bilateral meeting.Mr. Xi, who is traveling to the United States for an international conference, will address business leaders at a challenging moment in U.S.-China relations. The United States has expressed growing concern about China’s military ambitions and has sought to cut off Beijing’s access to technology that could be used against the United States. China’s treatment of Western companies, which are facing tougher restrictions in how they do business, have also prompted firms to question the wisdom of investing in China.Still, Chinese and American leaders have expressed interest in bolstering ties between their economies, the world’s two largest, which remain inextricably linked through trade. The Biden administration has sent several top officials to China this year to try to make clear that while the United States wants to protect national security, it does not seek to sever economic ties with Beijing.It is unclear whether Mr. Xi’s visit will do much to alleviate the skepticism of foreign businesses, many of which are deterred both by China’s slowing economic growth and the tighter grip of the Chinese Communist Party on business activity under Mr. Xi.Tickets to the dinner and reception, hosted by the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and the U.S.-China Business Council, cost $2,000 each, according to an invitation circulating online. For $40,000, companies can purchase eight seats at a table plus one seat at Mr. Xi’s table, a person familiar with the event said.Engagements between Chinese officials and the U.S. business sector will try to send the signal that China remains an attractive place to do business, “as evidenced by these companies flocking to meet with Xi Jinping and have dinner with him,” Jude Blanchette, the Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a briefing on Tuesday.Beijing wants this for “tactical reasons,” Mr. Blanchette said. “I don’t think, at a broad level, they’re expecting or see the prospect of resetting or recalibrating the relationship.”Foreign firms are particularly concerned about Chinese regulations that block them from selling to the government or into certain markets, and a broader counter-espionage law that can lead to prison time for company executives and researchers who deal in sensitive industries. At the same time, the United States is stepping up restrictions on investing and selling advanced technology to China, saying that such ties can pose national security concerns.Many businesses still see China as an essential market, but an increasing number are starting to look to other countries for their new investments. A survey by the U.S.-China Business Council of its members this year found that 34 percent had stopped or reduced planned investment in China over the past year, a higher percentage than in previous years.Mr. Blanchette said Chinese officials would also see the meeting as an opportunity to try to shift the U.S. trajectory on the technology controls it has placed on China. But the United States is unlikely to change its stance, he said.“I think this will be one of the issues where the U.S. and China will have longstanding tensions. And I’m sure this will be communicated to Beijing,” Mr. Blanchette said.The visit will be Mr. Xi’s first trip to the United States since 2017, when he met with President Donald J. Trump at the Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Since then, U.S.-China business relations have changed drastically, with the countries carrying out a trade war and sparring over advanced technology and geopolitical influence, and China turning notably more authoritarian under Mr. Xi.The dinner and reception featuring Mr. Xi will be part of a two-day “C.E.O. Summit” taking place next week on the sidelines of a bigger meeting of the leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, a group of 21 countries that ring the Pacific Ocean. Mr. Biden is expected to meet with Mr. Xi earlier next Wednesday, in their first face-to-face meeting in a year.Mr. Biden and Mr. Xi are expected to discuss business and technology ties, as well as issues like communication between the countries’ militaries, stopping the flow of fentanyl to the United States and new agreements for governing artificial intelligence.In recent weeks high-level Chinese officials have met with U.S. counterparts to lay the groundwork for the trip. In a news release Wednesday, the organizers of the C.E.O. summit said that Mr. Biden and Mr. Xi would be in attendance at the two-day summit, along with other world leaders and the chief executives of companies including Microsoft, Mastercard and Pfizer. More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    ‘Morning in America’ Eludes Biden, Despite Economic Gains

    Seeking re-election in 1984, Ronald Reagan presided over an economy similar in many ways to today’s. But he sold a message of progress and promise.President Ronald Reagan rode a “Morning in America” message to a blowout re-election victory in 1984, based partly on warm feelings about his economic performance. Today’s economy is similar in many ways to Mr. Reagan’s as he entered that campaign, with one big difference: There is widespread voter angst over the incumbent’s economic stewardship.A New York Times/Siena College poll shows President Biden trailing his likely Republican opponent, former President Donald J. Trump, in key battleground states. Poll respondents rate the economy poorly and say they trust Mr. Trump more to fix it. That’s true even though the economy grew faster and added more jobs over the last year than forecasters expected, while inflation fell sharply from what had been a four-decade high.In public and private conversations, and in consultation with outside economists and other experts, Mr. Biden’s economic team has been consumed with that disconnect: Why do Americans remain so down on the economy when economic data are trending up?The answer is almost certainly some combination of how Americans process the economic moment and how Mr. Biden communicates about it.In both cases, the contrast with Mr. Reagan — and with the economic environment of the early 1980s — is instructive.In the fall of 1983, Mr. Reagan’s re-election was not assured. The nation was still emerging from a recession that had marred his first two years in office. Consumer prices had risen more than 15 percent since he took office — nearly as much as they have risen on Mr. Biden’s watch. Translated into today’s dollars, the price of a gallon of gasoline was about $3.80, about 40 cents higher than it is now. The typical American’s wages had not increased at all during Mr. Reagan’s tenure, after adjustment for higher prices, similar to Mr. Biden’s experience.But public faith in the economy, and in Mr. Reagan’s handling of it, was significantly stronger than it is for Mr. Biden.President Ronald Reagan rode a “Morning in America” message to re-election in 1984, partly on the strength of warm feelings about his economic performance.Bettmann/Getty ImagesThe University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment was roughly 50 percent higher under Mr. Reagan in the fall of 1983 than it is now. Polls showed his approval rating climbing, including sentiment on the economy, in a reversal from the start of the year.A year later, Mr. Reagan would air “Prouder, Stronger, Better,” a television ad that began with the words “It’s morning again in America.” It highlighted falling inflation and lower interest rates allowing more Americans to buy a home.Mr. Reagan’s appeals worked in part because Americans had just endured more than a decade of persistently high prices and high interest rates. Economists and historians generally agree that voters came to see the progress under Mr. Reagan as relief from a long, difficult period.Voter psychology is very different under Mr. Biden. The 9 percent annual inflation rate that the country experienced last year was more than triple the average rate from the end of Mr. Reagan’s time in the White House to the start of Mr. Biden’s. Those mortgage rates Mr. Reagan trumpeted? They were around 14 percent in 1984. Right now, rates are just below 8 percent. The difference is that under Mr. Reagan, rates fell, and under Mr. Biden, they’ve gone up.For Mr. Biden and his economic team, “the problem is really in the way people think about and process economic information, rather than the economic fundamentals,” said Francesco D’Acunto, an economist at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business who recently briefed the White House Council of Economic Advisers.Mr. D’Acunto presented slides at the White House highlighting work he and colleagues have done, drilling down into how consumers process price increases. They find that consumers’ attitudes are shaped most by the products they buy most often — like milk, gasoline, bread and beer — and not by the things they spend the most money on.They also find that unexpected price surges stick in shoppers’ minds, negatively. They linger in a way that slower-building price increases, or even prolonged periods of high prices, do not.That research helps explain why voters did not punish Mr. Reagan for inflation even though the price growth he oversaw never reversed itself: They were accustomed to rapid price growth and grateful for improvement.One overly simplistic explanation for Mr. Biden’s woes is that voters are waiting for prices to fall back to their prepandemic levels. If that were true, Mr. Biden would almost certainly be doomed electorally. On the whole, the path of prices across American history is an upward march.But Mr. D’Acunto says his research suggests that Mr. Biden might be able to brighten voters’ moods by mounting a public persuasion campaign, focusing on prices that have begun to come down from recent highs. That includes consumer electronics like smartphones and computers, which are less expensive today than they were a year ago, on average, and which are often large-dollar purchases.For Mr. Biden and his economic team, “the problem is really in the way people think about and process economic information,” said Francesco D’Acunto, a Georgetown University economist.Desiree Rios for The New York TimesMr. Biden’s campaign recently spent $25 million on television ads to promote “Bidenomics” — a mix of the president’s blue-collar background and policy blueprint that is meant to resonate with the working class. It includes an ad focusing on a provision in the Inflation Reduction Act, which Mr. Biden signed last year, that seeks to reduce the cost of prescription drugs through Medicare. Campaign aides say it is scoring well in surveys with viewers.There is little evidence in polls that those efforts have broken through. Biden aides say they did not expect immediate results. They are testing messages, they say, including how best to talk about Mr. Biden’s economic record, as the president prepares to spend $1 billion or more in advertising before the election.Aides also insist that continued economic improvement will eventually punch through to the public. They contend that continued wage growth will restore some of the buying power Americans lost to recent inflation, and that consumers will gradually acclimate to prices that are higher than what they were used to before the pandemic.“What the president brings to the table is a deep and effective pro-worker agenda that’s maintaining a great job market, putting downward pressure on prices,” Jared Bernstein, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in an interview. “I understand that hasn’t reached the sentiment indexes yet. But I’m confident it will.”Some Democrats worry that Mr. Biden himself is a barrier to getting that message through, particularly to younger voters who express concerns over his age. Campaign officials say his direct appeals resonate well in tests. The Reagan comparison offers evidence for both sides.Economic surveys have become more politicized in recent years, with Republicans in particular resistant to praising the economy’s performance with a Democrat in office. Still, components of the Michigan survey suggest that Mr. Reagan had far more success than Mr. Biden as an economic cheerleader.Mr. Reagan made a habit of both championing the economy’s performance and critiquing press coverage of its flaws. At this point in his presidency, Americans were far more likely to report hearing positive news about the economy and prices than they do under Mr. Biden. They even reported hearing better news on unemployment, at a time when the rate was near 9 percent. It is under 4 percent today.Mr. Biden has often tried to strike more of a balance between celebrating strong job growth and acknowledging the pain of high prices. He has leaned more into boosterism in recent months — as the share of Americans reporting in the Michigan index that they hear good economic news has grown. More

  • 188 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Central banks look to have hit peak rates. Here’s how markets think they’ll come down

    The U.S. Federal Reserve, European Central Bank and the Bank of England dramatically hiked interest rates over the last 18 months in a bid to tame runaway inflation.
    All three kept rates on pause at their most recent meetings, and market pricing suggest varying quantities of cuts by the end of 2024 despite policymakers’ cautious tones.

    A trader works, as a screen displays a news conference by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell following the Fed rate announcement, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York City, July 26, 2023.
    Brendan McDermid | Reuters

    The world’s major central banks paused their interest rate hiking cycles in recent weeks and with data suggesting economies are softening, markets are turning their attention to the first round of cuts.
    The U.S. Federal Reserve, European Central Bank and the Bank of England dramatically hiked rates over the last 18 months in a bid to tame runaway inflation.

    The Fed on Wednesday held benchmark interest rates steady at a target range of 5.25%-5.5% for the second consecutive meeting after ending a string of 11 hikes in September.
    Though Chairman Jerome Powell has been keen to reiterate that the Fed’s work on inflation is not yet done, the annual rise in the consumer price index (CPI) came in at 3.7% in September, down from a pandemic-era peak of 9.1% in June 2022.
    Yet despite Powell’s refusal to close the door on further hikes in order to finish the job on inflation, markets interpreted the central bank’s tone as a slightly dovish pivot and rallied on the back of the decision.
    The market is now narrowly pricing a first 25 basis point cut from the Fed on May 1, 2024, according to CME Group’s FedWatch tool, with 100 basis points of cuts now expected by the end of next year.
    Since last week’s decision, U.S. nonfarm payrolls came in softer than expected for October, with job creation below trend, unemployment rising slightly and a further deceleration in wages. Although headline inflation remained unchanged at 3.7% annually from August to September, the core figure came down to 4.1%, having roughly halved over the last 12 months.

    “Core PCE, which is the Fed’s preferred inflation metric, is even lower at 2.5% (3-month, annualized),” noted analysts at DBRS Morningstar.
    “The lagged effects of a cooler housing market should reinforce the disinflationary trend over the next few months.”
    But despite the dovish data points, short-term U.S. Treasurys reversed course to sell off on Monday, which Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid chalked up to investors beginning to “wonder if last week’s narrative about rate cuts was overdone. The U.S. economy is also proving more resilient than the U.K. and euro zone.
    “For instance, market pricing for the Fed now implies a 16% chance of another rate hike, up from 11% on Friday,” Reid said in an email Tuesday.
    “Moreover, the rate priced in by the December 2024 meeting was up +12.4bps to 4.47%. So there was a clear, albeit partial unwinding of last week’s moves.”
    Reid also highlighted that this is the seventh time this cycle that markets have notably reacted on dovish speculation.
    “Clearly rates aren’t going to keep going up forever, but on the previous 6 occasions we saw hopes for near-term rate cuts dashed every time. Note that we’ve still got above-target inflation in every G7 country,” he added.
    The ECB
    The ECB late last month ended its run of 10 consecutive hikes to keep its benchmark interest rate at a record high of 4%, with euro zone inflation falling to a two-year low of 2.9% in October and the core figure also continuing to decline.
    The market is also pricing almost 100 basis point of cuts for the ECB by December 2024, but the the first 25 basis point cut is mostly priced in for April, with economic weakness across the 20-member common currency bloc fueling bets that the central bank will be the first to start unwinding its tight policy position.
    Gilles Moëc, group chief economist at AXA, said October’s inflation print confirmed and amplified the message that “disinflation has come in earnest to Europe,” vindicating the ECB’s “new-found prudence.”

    “Of course, the current disinflation does not preclude the possibility that a ‘line of resistance’ would be found well above the ECB’s target. Yet, the confirmation that the euro area was flirting with recession last summer reduces this probability,” Moëc said in a research note Monday.
    After the October meeting, ECB President Christine Lagarde batted away the suggestion of rate cuts, but National Bank of Greece Governor Yannis Stournaras has since openly discussed the possibility of a cut in the middle of 2024 provided inflation stabilizes below 3%.
    “This implicitly advocates a forward-looking version of monetary policy which takes lags into consideration to calibrate its stance. In clear, waiting for inflation to reach 2% before cutting rates would be ‘overkill,'” Moëc said.
    “There is no doubt in our mind that the current dataflow is clearly favouring the doves, but the hawks are far from having given up the fight.”
    The Bank of England
    The Bank of England on Thursday kept its main policy rate unchanged at 5.25% for a second consecutive meeting after ending a run of 14 straight hikes in September.
    However, minutes from last week’s meeting reiterated the Monetary Policy Committee’s expectations that rates will need to stay higher for longer, with U.K. CPI holding steady at 6.7% in September. Despite this, the market on Monday was pricing around 60 basis points of cuts by December 2024, albeit starting in the second half of the year.
    BNP Paribas economists on Thursday noted an “eye-catching” addition to the MPC’s guidance, which said its latest projections indicated that “monetary policy was likely to need to be restrictive for an extended period of time.”

    “Governor Andrew Bailey’s comments at the press conference indicated that this guidance was not intended as push-back on the market-implied policy rate path that underpins its latest forecasts, where a 25bp cut is not fully priced in until the second half of 2024,” they said.
    “Instead, the intention was to indicate that cuts are not likely to feature as part of the conversation any time soon.”
    In Thursday’s press conference, Bailey emphasized the upside risks to the Bank’s inflation projections, rather than entertaining any suggestion of cuts on the horizon.
    “While we don’t think it is necessarily indicative of a high risk of further hikes in the near term, we read it as a further sign that the MPC is not considering rate cuts and will not do so for a while,” BNP Paribas added. More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Solar Manufacturing Lured to U.S. by Tax Credits in Climate Bill

    A combination of government policies is finally succeeding in reversing a long decline in solar manufacturing in the United States.Six years ago, an executive from Suniva, a bankrupt solar panel manufacturer, warned a packed hearing room in Washington that competition from companies in China and Southeast Asia was causing a “blood bath” in his industry. More than 30 U.S.-based solar companies had been forced to shut down in the previous five years alone, he said, and others would soon follow unless the government supported them.Suniva’s pleas helped spur the Trump administration to impose tariffs in 2018 on foreign-made solar panels, but that did not reverse the flow of jobs in the industry from going overseas. Suniva’s U.S. factories remained shuttered, with dim prospects for reopening.That is, until now. Last month, Suniva announced plans to reopen a Georgia plant, buoyed by tariffs, protective regulations and, crucially, lavish new tax breaks for Made-in-America solar manufacturing that President Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, created.Solar companies have long been the beneficiaries of government subsidies and trade protections, but in the United States, they have never been the object of so many simultaneous efforts to support the industry — and so much money from the government to back them up.The combination of billions of dollars of tax credits for new facilities and tougher restrictions on foreign products appears to be driving a wave of so-called reshoring of solar jobs. Those efforts are succeeding where more modest approaches did not, although critics argue that the gains come at a high cost to taxpayers and may not hold up in the long run.In the year since the climate law was passed, companies have announced nearly $8 billion in new investments in solar factories across the United States, according to data from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Rhodium Group, a nonpartisan research firm. That is more than triple the amount of total investment announced from 2018 through the middle of 2022.Suniva plans to reopen and expand a factory to make solar cells in Norcross, Ga., by spring. REC Silicon will restart this month a polysilicon plant in Moses Lake, Wash., that it shut down in 2019. Maxeon, a Singapore-based producer of solar cells and modules, will start work next year on a $1 billion site in New Mexico.In each of those cases, executives cited the incentives in the climate law as a driving factor in their investment decisions.In recent years, China overtook foreign competitors through huge government investments that allowed it to build factories 10 times as large as American ones.Gilles Sabrie for The New York Times“It was kind of exactly what we had in mind in terms of what would be needed, to pull these kinds of manufacturing initiatives forward,” said Peter Aschenbrenner, Maxeon’s chief strategy officer.China has loomed large over the industry for more than a decade. American demand for solar power has grown sharply since 2010 — by about 24 percent each year in that time, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group. But much of that spending went to cheaper foreign solar panels, often made by Chinese companies or with Chinese parts. That raised concerns of American overreliance on China, which is restricting supplies of other key products and whose solar production has been troubled by human rights concerns.U.S. solar manufacturing employment peaked in 2016, with just over 38,000 workers. By 2020, nearly one-fifth of those jobs were gone.Factory solar jobs have begun to grow again.E2, an environmental nonprofit organization, estimated that new investments announced in the first year of the climate law would create 35,000 temporary construction jobs and 12,000 permanent jobs across the entire solar industry in the years to come. Thousands of those permanent jobs are related to manufacturing, including an expected 2,000 at Maxeon’s planned plant in New Mexico.Economists and executives said that surge was largely due to public subsidies that flipped the economics of the solar industry in favor of domestic production.Mr. Aschenbrenner said Maxeon’s cost of domestic solar manufacturing would fall roughly 10 percent, just through a new manufacturing tax credit in the climate law that targets the production of both solar cells and solar modules. That is enough to offset the higher wage and construction costs of American factories, he said.The law also includes credits for customers, like homeowners and utilities, that install solar panels and begin generating electricity from them. If the customer buys panels that are sourced from the United States, like the ones Maxeon is planning, the value of that credit grows 10 percent.Those incentives could be enough to build an American industry that, within a matter of years, could be large and efficient enough to compete with China even without subsidies, Mr. Aschenbrenner said.Others are more skeptical. Analysts at Wood Mackenzie, an energy consultancy, estimate that nearly half the solar module capacity announced by 2026 will not materialize, given that some manufacturers announce long-term plans to gauge feasibility and interest.The recent embrace of subsidies and tariffs by politicians of both parties also irks some economists, who say that while such programs can save or create jobs, they do so at an extremely high cost.A 2021 study by the Peterson Institute of International Economics of past industrial policy programs found that the Obama administration’s 2009 investment in Solyndra, a solar company that ultimately went bankrupt, cost taxpayers about $216,000 for each job created, more than four times prevailing industry wages. Other programs were even more expensive.REC Silicon, a Norwegian maker of polysilicon, entered into a deal with QCells to supply that company’s planned U.S. plants.Megan Varner/Reuters“With certain kinds of technology, you can subsidize and protect your way to having factories,” said Scott Lincicome, who studies trade policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “The question is always about at what cost?”In addition to the costs incurred to taxpayers, protections for the U.S. industry are making solar products more expensive in the United States than in other countries, Mr. Lincicome said. That slows the adoption of solar technology, in contrast to climate goals.Trends in the global solar industry have often been closely linked with government action. The industry started booming over a decade ago when Germany and Japan began offering subsidies for solar power.In recent years, China overtook foreign competitors through huge government investments that allowed it to build factories 10 times as large as American ones. Since 2011, China has invested more than $50 billion in the sector, ultimately capturing more than 80 percent of the global share of every stage in the manufacturing process, according to the International Energy Agency.Tariffs also shaped the industry’s evolution. The United States imposed levies on Chinese solar products in 2012. The next year, China retaliated with tariffs of up to 57 percent on U.S. polysilicon, a raw material for solar panels.That proved to be the death knell for the factory that REC Silicon, a Norwegian maker of polysilicon, was operating in Washington State, said Chuck Sutton, the company’s vice president of global sales and marketing. With few companies still standing outside China, REC Silicon “basically didn’t have any customers left,” he said.REC Silicon worked with the Trump administration to get China to commit to buying more American polysilicon as part of a 2019 trade deal. But China never followed through on those purchases.The turnaround for REC Silicon came, Mr. Sutton said, with the new tax credits this year. The manufacturer entered into a deal with QCells to supply its polysilicon to QCells’ planned U.S. plants. The deal allowed REC Silicon to reopen its Washington site, Mr. Sutton said.To compete with China, the industry needed “a whole-of-government approach,” Mr. Card of Suniva said, that included both tariffs and tax credits for domestic manufacturing.“They are not opposing forces,” he said. “They work together and make each other stronger.” More