Evelyn Reynolds

The Labor Department provided insight into a recent lapse in which revised payroll data was given out à la carte before it went online.Banks and research firms that serve hedge funds managed to confirm a closely watched economic data point last week as much as 20 minutes before the data was posted online, giving them a possible jump on financial market trading — the latest in a series of lapses at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Now, details into what happened are beginning to emerge.A technical issue prevented the data, which showed a large downward revision to job growth in 2023 and early 2024, from publishing on the agency’s website at 10 a.m. as scheduled last Wednesday, according to details provided by the Department of Labor.In response, agency technology staff began to load the data onto the site manually. At that point, starting a bit after 10:10 a.m., other bureau staff could see the update on the website — even though it wouldn’t be visible to the public until 10:32 a.m. And bureau staff began replying to people, including those at Wall Street firms, who called or emailed with questions. That enabled some to get access to key data before others.It isn’t clear how many investors got early access to the data, or whether anyone actually traded on the information. The revisions ultimately did not have a huge effect on stock markets. But the fact that Wall Street funds that make money by betting on every minor move in economic data — including reports like this one — managed to get the figures before the public has raised serious questions about what happened.Part of the problem, according to the information provided by the department, is that the payroll revision data was not considered a “news release” like the monthly jobs data and inflation numbers. That data is subject to strict to controls to avoid leaks. Instead, it was considered a “website release,” which has fewer guardrails.The bureau had no backup plan to make sure there was a way to quickly push a website update out to the broader public, such as with prepared social media posts of data highlights.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Change in jobs +10% –10% +50% –50% More

Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has floated the idea of a 10 percent tariff on all U.S. imports, a plan that economists say could badly damage trade.Former President Donald J. Trump blames the global trading system for inflicting a long list of ills on the American economy including lost jobs, closed foreign markets and an overvalued dollar.The remedy, he insists, is simple: tariffs. Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has repeatedly said he would raise tariffs if elected. China, a geopolitical and economic rival, would face an additional 50 or 60 percent tariff on its exports to the United States. He has also floated the idea of a 10 to 20 percent surcharge on exports from the rest of the world.Although smaller than the percentage proposed for Chinese exports, an across-the-board tariff has the potential to deliver a much more devastating jolt to world trade, many economists warn.Such a surcharge would not distinguish between rivals and allies, critical necessities and nonessentials, ailing industries and superstars, or countries adhering to trade treaties and those violating them. (Democrats have also embraced tariffs as a policy tool, but Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has criticized Mr. Trump’s universal approach as inflationary.)Here is what you need to know about the idea of a universal tariff on all imports.In 1971, President Richard M. Nixon levied a 10 percent surcharge on all taxable imports.Associated PressWhat are the historical precedents?Mr. Trump’s broad-brush tariffs frequently evoke comparisons with the destructive global trade war that the United States helped to initiate in the 1930s with the Smoot-Hawley tariffs passed by Congress. The Senate Historical Office has called that law “among the most catastrophic acts in congressional history.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Both Democrats and Republicans are expressing support for tariffs to protect American industry, reversing decades of trade thinking in Washington.When Donald J. Trump ran for president in 2016, there was not much love for tariffs in Washington. Many Republicans and Democrats believed that putting levies on imports created economic inefficiencies and that freer trade was the best recipe for growth.That view has largely fallen out of fashion in 2024. While Mr. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, differ greatly in their campaign proposals, both of their parties are increasingly embracing tariffs as an essential tool in protecting American manufacturers from Chinese and other global competitors.It has been a sharp reversal from previous decades, when most politicians fought to lower tariffs rather than raise them. But the loss of American manufacturing jobs as a result of globalization and China’s focus on churning out cheap exports have created a bipartisan backlash against more open trade. Given that Mr. Trump’s 2016 win capitalized on such sentiments, Democrats have been striving to avoid losing voters opposed to free trade.“On economic policy and trade issues, you have both major parties moving in the same direction,” said Nick Iacovella, a senior vice president at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, which advocates tariffs and domestic investments in industry.Mr. Iacovella said that Mr. Trump would most likely go further on tariffs than Ms. Harris would, but that no matter who won the election “it’s still going to be a tariffs administration, and an industrial policy one.”Ms. Harris has sought to differentiate herself from Mr. Trump’s trade proposals, which include tariffs of 10 percent to 20 percent on most imports, as well as levies of more than 60 percent on China. Many economists say that level of tariffs would drive up prices for consumers, since companies would be likely to pass on higher import costs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The Federal Trade Commission, which is trying to block Kroger’s plan to acquire Albertsons, said in court that the merger of grocery giants would also hurt workers’ pay and benefits.A trial that could determine whether the two largest supermarket chains in the United States can merge opened in Portland, Ore., on Monday, pitting the grocery giant Kroger against regulators who argue that its takeover of Albertsons would eliminate competition at the expense of consumers and workers.Before Judge Adrienne Nelson of U.S. District Court, the Federal Trade Commission and the supermarket chains laid out their arguments in court for the first time, as union representatives and workers protested the deal on the courthouse steps. Less competition, the agency’s lawyers said, would give Kroger more leverage to raise prices on millions of consumers.The highly anticipated proceedings, set to last three weeks, come as high food prices have become a critical focus in the presidential race. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has backed a federal ban on price-gouging in the food and grocery industries to combat high grocery costs.Kroger and Albertsons defended the $24.6 billion deal, which would be the biggest supermarket merger in U.S. history, saying it would bolster their leverage with suppliers and improve competition against major retailers like Costco, Amazon and Walmart. But the F.T.C. — backed by a chorus of unions, consumer advocates, politicians and independent grocery chains — reiterated its position that the merger would probably result in higher prices for groceries and worse conditions for workers.The deal “would eliminate the competition that shoppers and workers depend on in one fell swoop,” Susan Musser, the F.T.C.’s chief trial counsel, said in her opening statement. “This lawsuit is part of an effort aimed at helping Americans feed their families.”In bringing the case, the F.T.C. has been joined by the attorneys general of eight states, including California and Illinois, as well as the District of Columbia. It’s part of a regulatory push under the Biden administration to rein in corporate consolidation in an array of industries, including airlines, Big Tech, book publishing and pharmaceuticals.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

A meat counter showing a variety of sausages at a Fred Meyer grocery store, a sub of Kroger, in Palmer, Alaska.
Michael Siluk | UCG | Universal Images Group | Getty Images

An uptick in sausage demand can offer the latest sign of consumers tightening their belts as they continue grappling with high prices.
There has been “modest growth” in the dinner sausage category for one producer, according to the Dallas Federal Reserve’s Texas Manufacturing Outlook Survey released Monday. This underscores the trends of shoppers opting for cheaper products and pulling back spending all together as cumulative inflation bites into purchasing power.

“This category tends to grow when the economy weakens,” the respondent said, according to edited comments included in the Dallas Fed’s report. That is because “sausage is a good protein substitute for higher-priced proteins and can ‘stretch’ consumers’ food budgets.”
This anecdote pointed out by eagle-eyed Bespoke Investment Group on social media site X comes as grocery prices remain top of mind for consumers. While the rate of annualized inflation has fallen closer to levels deemed healthy by economic policymakers, the collective increase in prices compared to just a few years ago has left everyday Americans feeling sour about the state of the national economy.
Additionally, it bolsters two themes emerging as hallmarks of today’s post-pandemic economy.
A growing chorus of corporate executives, including those leading some of the largest restaurant chains, have warned that the consumer is starting to slow down. In particular, they have pointed to stress on lower-income tax brackets as they attempt to make their dollars go further.
The shift to sausage also highlights an action experts call the “trade down.” Carefree customers may select protein that is typically more expensive such as steak or chicken. On the other hand, price-conscious shoppers will hunt for sausage or other lower-cost alternatives.

Other food manufacturers who responded to the Dallas Fed’s survey also raised concern about their economic health. One said agriculture as a whole was “hurting,” citing challenges from factors such as weather and higher costs.
Another put it more plainly, saying it was “preparing for the recession.”

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

The two presidential candidates can both point to records of pushing poverty rates down, but their approaches could hardly be more different.Follow the latest updates on the Harris and Trump campaigns.The presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump presents the sharpest clash in antipoverty policy in at least a generation, and its outcome could shape the economic security of millions of low-income Americans.As the onset of the pandemic in early 2020 threatened to decimate the economy, Mr. Trump signed a large stimulus package that included substantial aid for the poor. When President Biden and Ms. Harris took office in 2021, their administration pushed more big aid expansions through Congress as part of their pandemic-recovery plan, driving the poverty rate still lower.But if the two candidates’ responses to that extraordinary period had elements in common, the lessons they took from it were very different.In the pandemic-era programs, now mostly expired or reduced, Ms. Harris and other Democrats found reinforcement of their faith in the government’s power to ameliorate hardship. If elected, she would seek to sustain or expand many of them, including subsidies for food, health care and housing, and revive a change to the child tax credit that essentially created a guaranteed income for families with children. Those policies helped temporarily cut the poverty rate by more than half from prepandemic levels.She backs a $15 federal minimum wage, which Republicans have fought, and is a vocal supporter of programs like subsidized child care and paid family leave meant to help balance work and family.Mr. Trump says little about his role in pandemic-era poverty programs, which many Republicans view as having been excessive and fraud-ridden. Instead, he touts his 2017 tax cuts, which he credits for boosting the economy and reducing poverty to a prepandemic low, and he has vowed to extend them when they expire next year. Most of the direct benefit from those cuts went to corporations and the wealthy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The most surprising moment of this year’s Republican National Convention may have come on its first night, when the president of the Teamsters railed in prime time against corporate elites and denounced a “war against labor” by business groups. The gasps from some in the hall were almost audible on television.But in many ways, it was a little-noted speech the week before, by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, that was more revealing about the party’s evolving relationship with organized labor.If anything, Mr. Hawley, a rising Republican star who is one of the Senate’s most conservative members, seemed to outflank the Teamsters’ leader. His speech, delivered at the National Conservatism Conference, criticized Republicans who “cheerleaded for corporate tax cuts and low barriers for corporate trade, then watched these same corporations ship American jobs overseas.” Mr. Hawley concluded that, “in the choice between labor and capital,” his party must “start prioritizing the workingman.”Since at least the Nixon era, Republicans have nodded rhetorically at the working class, asserting that their party stands for the cultural values these voters hold dear. And for just as long, Democrats have called that pitch hollow, insisting that Republicans have sought to dupe blue-collar voters into supporting policies that benefit the wealthy. Speaker after speaker at the Democratic National Convention this week went on in this vein.Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri has become a leading voice among Republicans pushing for a new relationship with labor. Eric Lee/The New York TimesWhat’s far less common is for a Republican to agree with that critique. “The recent Republican Party, the 1990s party, privileged the money crowd in just about every possible way,” Mr. Hawley said in his speech.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More