Evelyn Reynolds

Even before a disappointing July jobs report, Federal Reserve officials thought they would probably cut rates at their Sept. 17-18 meeting.Federal Reserve officials held off on cutting interest rates at their July meeting, but minutes from that gathering showed that they were clearly poised to lower them at their meeting in September, just weeks before the presidential election.“The vast majority” of officials thought that “if the data continued to come in about as expected, it would likely be appropriate to ease policy at the next meeting,” according to notes from the meeting released on Wednesday.Days after the Fed’s July gathering, a disappointing employment report showed that employers hired more slowly than expected. And in the weeks since, fresh data have showed that inflation continues to cool.That leaves the Fed primed to cut rates at their next meeting on Sept. 17-18, though just how much they will lower borrowing costs is still an open question. Investors think that a quarter-point reduction is most likely, but they see a half-point cut as a possibility.While the Fed is independent of politics, that move is likely to draw attention to the central bank. A reduction would come just weeks before November’s presidential election, and at a time when the Fed’s policies — especially its effort to fight inflation and its effect on the housing market through mortgage costs — have become a common topic of conversation on the campaign trail.The Fed has held interest rates steady at 5.3 percent, the highest level in more than two decades, since July 2023. At that level, interest rates are hefty enough to discourage many families and businesses from borrowing money, which weighs on demand and helps to cool the economy, making it harder for companies to lift prices.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 plan does not appear to amount to government price controls. It also might not bring down grocery bills anytime soon.Vice President Kamala Harris threw her support behind a federal ban on price-gouging in the food and grocery industries last week. It was the first official economic policy proposal of her presidential campaign, and it was pitched as a direct response to the high price of putting food on the table in America today.“To combat high grocery costs, VP Harris to call for first-ever federal ban on corporate price-gouging,” the Harris campaign proclaimed in the subject line of a news release last week, ahead of a speech laying out the first planks of her economic agenda.It is still impossible to say, from publicly available details, what exactly the ban would do. Republicans have denounced the proposal as “communist,” warning that it would lead to the federal government setting prices in the marketplace. Former President Donald J. Trump has mocked the plan on social media as “SOVIET Style Price Controls.”Progressives have cheered the announcement as a crucial check on corporate greed, saying it could immediately benefit shoppers who have been stunned by a 20 percent rise in food costs since President Biden took office.But people familiar with Ms. Harris’s thinking on the ban now say it might not resemble either of those characterizations. The ban, they also suggest, might actually not do anything to bring down grocery prices right now. Those who spoke about the strategy behind the emerging policy did so on the condition of anonymity.Ms. Harris’s campaign has created the space for multiple interpretations, by declining to specify how that ban would work, when it would apply or what behaviors it would prohibit.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 automaker said it would invest less in battery-powered cars and scrap a planned electric three-row sport utility vehicle.Ford Motor, which had once hoped to race ahead of other established automakers in electric vehicles, is again slowing the pace of its investments and new battery-powered models.The automaker said on Wednesday that it would delay the introduction of a new large electric pickup truck by about 18 months, to 2027, and scrap a three-row electric sport utility vehicle.The company is also reducing the amount of money it plans to spend on electric vehicles in an effort to stem multibillion-dollar losses on the technology, while adding plans to introduce a new electric delivery van in 2026. A new medium-size electric pickup is expected in 2027 as well, the company said.“The competitive nature of the market is changing globally,” Ford’s chief financial officer, John Lawler, said in a conference call. “That means these vehicles need to be profitable, and if not, we will pivot and adjust and make those tough decisions.”Mr. Lawler said investments in electric vehicles would now account for about 30 percent of the company’s capital budget, down from 40 percent. The company will take a charge of $400 million to account for the cost of manufacturing equipment it purchased for the production of the canceled electric S.U.V., and it may have up to $1.5 billion in additional expenses related to the project.“This is certainly not great news in terms of Ford’s progress on E.V.s,” said Sam Abuelsamid, a principal research analyst at Guidehouse Insights, a research firm. “Clearly they have not yet come to grips with cost-reduced E.V.s and getting more affordable products on the market.”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 was deemed to lack the authority to bar companies from restricting their employees’ ability to go to work for rivals.A federal judge on Tuesday upheld a challenge to the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements, blocking it from taking effect in September as scheduled.Judge Ada Brown of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the antitrust agency lacked authority to issue substantive rules related to unfair methods of competition, including the noncompete rule, which would have prohibited companies from restricting their employees’ ability to work for rivals.The push to adopt the rule is part of the Biden administration’s effort to crack down on practices that regulators argue are anticompetitive, unfairly constraining workers.Judge Brown had temporarily blocked the ban in July. Her decision on Tuesday renders that injunction permanent, and nationwide in scope.Banning noncompete agreements would increase workers’ earnings by at least $400 billion over the next decade, the F.T.C. has estimated. The agreements affect roughly one in five American workers, or around 30 million people, according to the agency, whose purview includes antitrust and consumer protection issues.Victoria Graham, an F.T.C. spokeswoman, said the agency was disappointed by Judge Brown’s decision and would “keep fighting to stop noncompetes that restrict the economic liberty of hardworking Americans, hamper economic growth, limit innovation and depress wages.”“We are seriously considering a potential appeal, and today’s decision does not prevent the F.T.C. from addressing noncompetes through case-by-case enforcement actions,” Ms. Graham added.A tax firm, Ryan, sued to block the rule just hours after the F.T.C. voted 3 to 2 in April to adopt it. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce later joined the case as a plaintiff, as did the Business Roundtable and two Texas business groups.The Chamber of Commerce and other groups have asserted that the F.T.C. lacks constitutional and statutory authority to adopt the rule, with Ryan calling it “arbitrary, capricious and otherwise unlawful” — a position with which Judge Brown agreed. Business groups have also argued that the ban would limit their ability to protect trade secrets and confidential information.In response to Judge Brown’s ruling, G. Brint Ryan, chief executive of Ryan, called the rule “continuing overreach and overregulation” by the federal government, adding that the firm was “happy we were able to successfully stop the overreach in this instance.”But the three Democrats on the five-member F.T.C. maintain that it can legally issue rules defining unfair methods of competition under the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the law that created the agency.In a separate case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania declined last month to block the rule. Diverging rulings on the fate of the ban could leave the door open to review by higher courts.“Many businesses will welcome the reprieve, but the uncertainty continues as the fight now moves to the appellate courts,” said Kevin Goldstein, an antitrust partner at Winston & Strawn. More

The New York Fed’s labor market survey showed cracks just as Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, prepares for a closely watched Friday speech.Americans are increasingly worried about losing their jobs, a new survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released on Monday showed, a worrying sign at a moment when economists and central bankers are warily monitoring for cracks in the job market.The New York Fed’s July survey of labor market expectations showed that the expected likelihood of becoming unemployed rose to 4.4 percent on average, up from 3.9 percent a year earlier and the highest in data going back to 2014.In fact, the new data showed signs of the labor market cracking across a range of metrics. People reported leaving or losing jobs, marked down their salary expectations and increasingly thought that they would need to work past traditional retirement ages. The share of workers who reported searching for a job in the past four weeks jumped to 28.4 percent — the highest level since the data started — up from 19.4 percent in July 2023.The survey, which quizzes a nationally representative sample of people on their recent economic experience, suggested that meaningful fissures may be forming in the labor market. While it is just one report, it comes at a tense moment, as economists and central bankers watch nervously for signs that the job market is taking a turn for the worse.The unemployment rate has moved up notably over the past year, climbing to 4.3 percent in July. That has put many economy watchers on edge. The jobless rate rarely moves up as sharply as it has recently outside of an economic recession.But the slowdown in the labor market has not been widely backed up by other data. Jobless claims have moved up but remain relatively low. Consumer spending remains robust, with both overall retail sales data and company earnings reports suggesting that shoppers continue to open their wallets.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 New York Fed survey released Monday showed that of those who were employed at the time of the last survey in March, 88% still had jobs, the lowest in data going back to 2014.
Those who expected to become unemployed rose to 4.4%, a 0.5 percentage point increase from a year ago and the highest in the survey’s history.

Job seekers attends the JobNewsUSA.com South Florida Job Fair held at the Amerant Bank Arena on June 26, 2024 in Sunrise, Florida. 
Joe Raedle | Getty Images

In another sign of cracks forming in the U.S. labor market, a New York Federal Reserve survey Monday showed a slide in people reporting they are employed, a surge in those looking for work and growing dissatisfaction with pay.
The thrice-yearly measure of labor activity, confidence and satisfaction reflected growing concern in July about job security and an increase in those expecting to work past typical retirement age. Workers are still looking for higher starting salaries but are getting lower offers.

The results come with the unemployment rate ticking higher and Wall Street and Fed policymakers watching the developments closely for clues about where things are headed for the U.S. economy.
Among the findings was that, of those who were employed at the time of the last survey in March, 88% still had jobs, the lowest in data that goes back to 2014. Similarly, those who expected to become unemployed rose to 4.4%, a 0.5 percentage point increase from a year ago and the highest in the survey’s history.
Moreover, the level of those searching for a new job in the previous four weeks popped to 28.4%, up 9 percentage points from a year ago and another historic high going back to March 2014.
On wages, satisfaction with current compensation dropped to 56.7%, down more than 3 percentage points from the same period in 2023. Satisfaction with benefits tumbled to 56.3%, off more than 8 points from a year ago, while satisfaction with opportunities for promotion slid to 44.2%, down from 53.5% last year, and was most pronounced among women, those without a college degree and respondents with household incomes less than $60,000.
The typical wage offering for full-time jobs in the past four months declined slightly to $68,905 while the average “reservation wage,” or the minimum level workers would accept for a new job rose to $81,147, up about $2,500 from a year ago but fractionally below the record high in the last survey.

Finally, the expected likelihood of working past age 62 nudged up to 48.3% of respondents and increased to 34.2% of those saying they expect to work past 67, an increase of more than 2 percentage points.
While the unemployment rate of 4.3% would be considered low by historical standards, it has been on the rise lately and spurring fears of a broader erosion in the economy. July saw a gain of just 114,000 in nonfarm payrolls, so the August report, to be released in early September, will be closely watched.
Following their most recent meeting, Fed officials described job growth as having “moderated.” The central bank is widely expected to reduce its key borrowing rate by a quarter percentage point at its next meeting in September, the first move lower in more than four years.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

Goldman Sachs has cut its probability forecast for a U.S. recession to 20% from 25%, shortly after raising it from 15%.
After holding the odds at 15% for nearly a year, economists at Goldman — and elsewhere — were spooked by a weaker-than-expected July jobs report.
However, retail sales and jobless claims readings since then have signficantly eased concerns the world’s biggest economy is heading for a recession or is already in one.

Goldman Sachs has cut its probability forecast for a U.S. recession to 20% shortly after raising it, as fresh labor market data sparked a reassessment of market views on the economy.
Economists at Goldman earlier this month raised their 12-month U.S. recession probability from 15% to 25% after the U.S. July jobs report of Aug. 2 showed nonfarm payrolls grew by a less-than-expected 114,000. That was down from the downwardly revised 179,000 of June and below the Dow Jones estimate of 185,000. 

The report triggered widespread concerns about the world’s largest economy, and contributed to the sharp — but ultimately brief — stock market sell-off at the start of the month.
It also triggered the “Sahm rule,” a historical indicator showing that the initial phase of a recession has begun when the three-month moving average of the U.S. unemployment rate is at least half a percentage point higher than the 12-month low.
Goldman initially cited this as a reason for hiking the probability of an economic downturn — but changed tack on Saturday, when it wrote in a note that it saw the odds down to 20% because data released since Aug. 2 showed “no sign of a recession.”

That included retail sales for July — which rose by 1%, versus an estimate of 0.3% — and weekly unemployment benefit claims, which were lower than expected.
The figures prompted a change in mood which was reflected in a rally in global stocks late last week.

“Continued expansion would make the US look more similar to other G10 economies, where the Sahm rule has held less than 70% of the time,” Goldman economists said Saturday, noting that several smaller economies, including Canada, had seen sizeable unemployment rate increases in the current cycle without entering a recession.
Claudia Sahm, chief economist at New Century Advisors and inventor of the rule, told CNBC that she did not believe the U.S. was currently in a recession, but that further weakening in the labor market could push it into one.
A healthy jobs report on Sept. 6 would “probably” spur Goldman to cut its recession probability back to 15%, where it had been for nearly a year before August, the bank’s economists said.
Unless another downside surprise in the jobs report takes place, Goldman will become more confident in its forecast for a 25-basis-point rate cut at the Federal Reserve’s September meeting, rather than a steeper 50-basis-point trim, they added.
Markets have fully priced in a Fed rate cut in September, but have slashed the odds of a 50-basis-point reduction to just 28.5%, according to CME’s FedWatch tool.
Rashmi Garg, senior portfolio manager at Al Dhabi Capital, told CNBC’s “Capital Connection” on Monday she expected a cut of 25 basis points “unless we see a sizeable deterioration in the labor market in the September 6 jobs report.”
— CNBC’s Sam Meredith contributed to this story. More

Entrepreneurs say use of artificial intelligence for a variety of tasks is accelerating the path to hiring and, ideally, profitability.Sean Ammirati has been teaching a class on entrepreneurship for more than a decade.A professor at Carnegie Mellon University, Mr. Ammirati has groups of mostly graduate students start businesses from scratch over the course of the spring semester. Some of the start-ups that his 49 students created this year were classic examples of the form: a dating app for couples in long-distance relationships, a personalized fitness app.But Mr. Ammirati also noticed something unusual.“I have a pretty good sense how fast the progress that students should make in a semester should be,” he said. “In 14 years, I’ve never seen students make the kind of progress that they made this year.”And he knew exactly why that was the case. For the first time, Mr. Ammirati had encouraged his students to use generative artificial intelligence as part of their process — “think of generative A.I as your co-founder,” he recalled telling them.The students began sharing their ideas for use cases on a dedicated Slack channel. They used generative A.I. tools such ChatGPT, GitHub Copilot and FlowiseAI to help them with tasks including marketing, coding, product development and recruitment of early customers.By the end of the class in May, venture capitalists were descending on Carnegie Mellon’s campus in Pittsburgh.“It felt to me like what I felt like in the mid-2000s, when cloud and mobile happened at the same time,” said Mr. Ammirati, who is himself an entrepreneur. Generative A.I., he believed, could similarly change innovation “by an order of magnitude.”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