Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 75 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Job Openings Dropped in October

    The News:Job openings fell considerably in October, hitting the lowest level since March 2021, the Labor Department announced on Tuesday.There were 8.7 million job openings in October, down significantly from 9.3 million in September, according to the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. That was lower than economists’ expectations of 9.3 million openings.The rate of layoffs was little changed, as was the rate of quitting, which generally reflects workers’ confidence in their ability to find new employment.Job openings declined significantly in October, the Labor Department said.Tony Cenicola/The New York TimesWhy It Matters: The state of the labor market affects interest rate policy.The labor market is closely watched by the Federal Reserve as it mulls its interest rate policy. A cooling labor market tends to fuel predictions that the Fed will not further increase rates, which have risen to a range of 5.25 to 5.5 percent from nearly zero in March 2022.The labor market has been surprisingly resilient since the Fed started its rate increases in a campaign to tame inflation. But as the job market shows signs of cooling, so has consumer spending. Many companies told investors that in the most recent quarter customers were pulling back and spending less on products and more on services and experiences. The Fed’s preferred inflation measure confirmed that consumer spending slowed in October.At the same time, investors are increasingly hopeful that the Fed is done raising rates. Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, recently suggested in a speech that the central bank would leave rates steady if data continued to point to a cooling economy. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield fell on Tuesday, reaching its lowest point since September, as investors expected interest rates to fall in the future.A reduction in job opportunities discourages the Fed from raising rates or keeping them high too long because such a trend often foreshadows a recession. “With this evidence coming in that the labor market is cooling substantially, I think it’s raising the chances that the Fed is done with the rate hikes,” said Julia Pollak, chief economist at ZipRecruiter.Background: Unemployment and openings have reverted to earlier levels.Though the labor market is slowing, it remains a healthy landscape for workers. The unemployment rate ticked up in October, to nearly 4 percent, which is in line with prepandemic levels.Job openings reached a record of more than 12 million in March 2022 and have trended down since. The last time job openings hovered around nine million — where it is now — was in the spring of 2021.There are still ample opportunities for workers. The rate of hiring remained steady in October despite the decline in openings.One difference is that layoffs are lower than they were before the pandemic. That probably reflects companies’ decisions to reduce staffing by natural attrition rather than cuts.“This is perhaps the biggest sign that we still have a strong economy and labor market,” said Sonu Varghese, a strategist at Carson Group, a financial advisory firm.Though inflation has slowed significantly since the Fed started raising rates in March 2022, it remains above the central bank’s 2 percent target.The Fed’s preferred inflation measure fell to 3 percent in October from a year earlier. But without including food and fuel prices, which are volatile and less sensitive to the Fed’s policy actions, the rate was 3.5 percent.What’s next: The November jobs report comes on Friday.The November jobs report will be released on Friday by the Labor Department. Economists forecast that the unemployment rate will stay around 4 percent, with a gain of about 180,000 jobs.That report will be one of the last insights into the state of the labor market before the Fed’s next policy meeting on Dec. 12 and 13. More

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Why Doctors and Pharmacists Are in Revolt

    Dr. John Wust does not come off as a labor agitator. A longtime obstetrician-gynecologist from Louisiana with a penchant for bow ties, Dr. Wust spent the first 15 years of his career as a partner in a small business — that is, running his own practice with colleagues.Long after he took a position at Allina Health, a large nonprofit health care system based in Minnesota, in 2009, he did not see himself as the kind of employee who might benefit from collective bargaining.But that changed in the months leading up to March, when his group of more than 100 doctors at an Allina hospital near Minneapolis voted to unionize. Dr. Wust, who has spoken with colleagues about the potential benefits of a union, said doctors were at a loss on how to ease their unsustainable workload because they had less input at the hospital than ever before.“The way the system is going, I didn’t see any other solution legally available to us,” Dr. Wust said.At the time he and his colleagues voted to unionize, they were one of the largest groups of private-sector doctors ever to do so. But by October, that distinction went to a group that included about 400 primary-care physicians employed in clinics that are also owned by Allina. The union that represents them, the Doctors Council of the Service Employees International Union, says doctors from dozens of facilities around the country have inquired about organizing over the past few years.And doctors are not the only health professionals who are unionizing or protesting in greater numbers. Health care workers, many of them nurses, held eight major work stoppages last year — the most in a decade — and are on pace to match or exceed that number this year. This fall, dozens of nonunion pharmacists at CVS and Walgreens stores called in sick or walked off the job to protest understaffing, many for a full day or more.The reasons for the recent labor actions appear straightforward. Doctors, nurses and pharmacists said they were being asked to do more as staffing dwindles, leading to exhaustion and anxiety about putting patients at risk. Many said that they were stretched to the limit after the pandemic began, and that their work demands never fully subsided.“We’re seen as cogs in the wheel,” Dr. Alia Sharif said, “You can be a physician or a factory worker and you’re treated exactly the same way by these large corporations.”Jenn Ackerman for The New York TimesBut in each case, the explanation runs deeper: A longer-term consolidation of health care companies has left workers feeling powerless in big bureaucracies. They say the trend has left them with little room to exercise their professional judgment.“People do feel put upon — that’s real,” said John August, an expert on health care labor relations at the Scheinman Institute at Cornell University. “The corporate structures in health care are not evil, but they have not evolved to the point of understanding how to engage” with health workers.Allina said that it had made progress on reducing doctors’ workloads and that it was partnering with health care workers to address outstanding issues. CVS said it was making “targeted investments” in pharmacies to improve staffing in response to employees’ feedback, while Walgreens said it was committed to ensuring that workers had the support they needed. Walgreens added that it had invested more than $400 million over two years to recruit and retain staff members.Professionals in a variety of fields have protested similar developments in recent years. Schoolteachers, college instructors and journalists have gone on strike or unionized amid declining budgets and the rise of performance metrics that they feel are more suited to sales representatives than to guardians of certain norms and best practices.But the trend is particularly pronounced in health care, whose practitioners once enjoyed platinum-level social status at high school reunions and Thanksgiving dinners.For years, many doctors and pharmacists believed they stood largely outside the traditional management-labor hierarchy. Now, they feel smothered by it. The result is a growing worker consciousness among people who haven’t always exhibited one — a sense that they are subordinates constantly at odds with their overseers.“I realized at end of the day that all of us are workers, no matter how elite we’re perceived to be,” said Dr. Alia Sharif, a colleague of Dr. Wust’s at Allina who was heavily involved in the union campaign. “We’re seen as cogs in the wheel. You can be a physician or a factory worker, and you’re treated exactly the same way by these large corporations.”‘We were all partners.’ Then came the metrics.Pharmacists at Walgreens and CVS have complained of understaffing and overly aggressive performance targets. Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesThe details vary across health care fields, but the trend lines are similar: A before-times in which health care professionals say they had the leeway and resources to do their jobs properly, followed by what they see as a descent into the ranks of the micromanaged.As a pharmacy intern and pharmacist at CVS in Massachusetts beginning in the late 1990s, Dr. Ed Smith found the stores consistently well staffed. He said pharmacists had time to develop relationships with patients.Around 2004, he became a district manager in the Boston area, overseeing roughly 20 locations for the company. Dr. Smith said CVS executives were attentive to input from pharmacists — raising pay for technicians if there was a shortage, or upgrading clunky software. “Every decision was based on something that we said we needed,” he recalled.Dr. Wust looked back on his days in an independent practice of about 25 doctors with a similar wistfulness. “We were all partners,” he said. “It was relative workplace democracy. Everybody got a vote. Everybody’s concerns were heard.”Over time, however, consolidation and the rise of ever-larger health care corporations left workers with less influence.As so-called pharmacy benefit managers, which negotiate discounts with pharmacies on behalf of insurers and employers, bought up rivals, retail giants like Walgreens and CVS made acquisitions as well, to avoid losing market power.The chains closed many of their newly owned locations, driving more customers to existing stores. They sought to cut costs, especially labor costs, as the benefit managers reined in drug prices.Around 2015, Dr. Smith stepped down from his role as a district manager and became a frontline pharmacist again, reluctant to supervise co-workers under conditions he considered subpar. “I couldn’t ask my pharmacists to do what I couldn’t accomplish,” he said.Among his frustrations, he said, was the need to strictly limit the number of workers each pharmacy could schedule. “Every week that you’re over your labor budget, you get a call, regardless of prescription volume, from your district manager,” Dr. Smith said. “If your budget for tech hours is 100 and you used 110, you get a phone call. It’s not much money — maybe $180 — but you’re getting a call.”Asked how labor budgets were applied, CVS said managers were “provided guidance” based on expected volume and other factors, with adjustments made to ensure adequate staffing.Dr. Smith and other current and former CVS and Walgreens pharmacists said their stores’ allotment of hours for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians had dropped most years in the decade before the pandemic.The pharmacists also described being held to increasingly strict performance metrics, such as how quickly they answered the phone, the portion of prescriptions that are filled for 90 days rather than 30 or 60 days (longer prescriptions mean more money up front) and calls made urging people to fill or pick up prescriptions.For years, Walgreens and CVS pharmacists could largely ignore these narrower metrics so long as overall profits and customer satisfaction stayed high. But in the early to mid-2010s, both companies elevated the importance of these indicators, several pharmacists said.At Walgreens, many pharmacy managers began reporting to a districtwide retail supervisor rather than a supervisor trained as a pharmacist. “It coincided with more pushing of the metrics,” said Dr. Sarah Knolhoff, a Walgreens pharmacist from 2009 to 2022.“Never having been a pharmacist, they would push the pharmacy the same way they would push the front end,” Dr. Knolhoff added, alluding to the rest of the store.CVS said that performance metrics were needed to ensure safety and efficiency for patients but that in recent years it had reduced the number of metrics it tracked. Walgreens announced last year that it would no longer rely on “task-based metrics” in performance reviews for pharmacy staff members, though it still used them to track store-level performance.‘Corporate tells you how to manage your patient.’At health systems like Allina, doctors have incentives to talk to patients about conditions that may not be relevant to their immediate care. Health experts say it can help ensure that high-risk conditions are attended to.Jenn Ackerman for The New York TimesThe transition for doctors and nurses came around the same time. As independent medical practices found they had lost leverage in negotiating reimbursement rates with insurers, many doctors went in house at larger health systems, which could use their size to secure better deals.The passing of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, along with federal rule-making efforts, rewarded bigness by tying reimbursement to certain health outcomes, like the portion of patients who must be readmitted. Getting bigger helped a hospital system diversify its patient population, the way an insurer does, so that certain groups of high-risk patients weren’t financially ruinous.Administrators increasingly evaluated their medical staff according to similar metrics tied to patients’ health and put a variety of incentives and mandates in place.Doctors and nurses chafed at the changes. “Corporate tells you how to manage your patient,” said Dr. Frances Quee, president of the Doctors Council, which represents about 3,000 doctors, most of them at public hospitals. “You know that’s not how you’re supposed to manage your patient, but you can’t say anything because you’re scared you’re going to be fired.”At Allina, primary care doctors are given incentives to talk to patients about their high-risk or chronic medical conditions, even if those conditions are well managed and aren’t relevant to a visit.“Is that a valuable use of our 25 minutes together?” said Dr. Matt Hoffman, a primary care doctor at an Allina clinic that unionized in October. “No, but it means Allina gets more money from Medicare.”Dr. Wust said hospital administrators increasingly relied on management theories borrowed from other industries, like manufacturing, that sought to minimize excess capacity.For example, he said, obstetricians at Allina had one or two hold spots a day of 15 minutes each, in case of a patient emergency, when he began working at the system. Several years ago, Allina took away these buffers, instructing obstetricians to double book instead.Asked about the hold spots, Allina said, “We’re always looking at how we’re using our resources to deliver high-quality care.” It said the incentives tied to high-risk conditions could still be achieved if a doctor stated that the problem was no longer relevant. Dr. Josh Scheck, another Allina primary care doctor, said he found the nudge helpful and not very time consuming to address. He said the health system had allowed his clinic to experiment with ways to make its work flow more efficient.Other health workers complained that some of the metrics they’re evaluated on, like patient satisfaction, made them feel like retail clerks or dining employees rather than medical professionals.Adam Higman, an expert on hospital operations at the consulting firm Press Ganey, said consolidation and the increased use of metrics had arisen in response to a need to lower U.S. health care costs, long the world’s highest per capita, and ensure that the spending actually benefits patients.He pointed to data showing that more empathetic and communicative doctors and nurses — factors that affect patients’ experience — lead to healthier patients.But Mr. Higman acknowledged that many health systems had increased tensions with doctors and nurses by failing to involve them more in developing and putting in place the system of metrics on which they are judged. “The progressive, smart health systems and medical groups are listening to physicians, looking at their experience and turnover and creating venues to have discussions,” he said. “If not, that’s one of the contributing factors to organizing.”‘I would not have put unions and physicians in the same mind.’Nurses went on strike for three days in January at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York to protest understaffing.Gregg Vigliotti for The New York TimesThe pandemic magnified these strains.As retail chains rolled out Covid-19 vaccines, pharmacists complained of being overworked to the point of skipping bathroom breaks and said they worried constantly about making mistakes that could harm patients. (CVS said it began closing most pharmacies for 30 minutes each afternoon last year to give pharmacists a consistent break. Walgreens said “dedicated pharmacist meal breaks” began in all stores in 2020.)Doctors and nurses found that their already backed-up inboxes were suddenly bursting, as frightened patients clamored for medical advice. Administrators sought to squeeze more patients into overloaded hospitals and clinics.The breaking point came when the height of the pandemic passed, but conditions barely improved, according to many workers. Although health systems had promised to add staffing, many found themselves running deficits amid inflation and a shortage of doctors and nurses.Professionals who had never considered themselves candidates for union membership began to organize. When she started at Allina in 2009, Dr. Sharif said, “I would not have put unions and physicians in the same mind — it would have been a totally alien concept.” She reached out to the Doctors Council last year for help unionizing her colleagues.Dr. Quee, the union president, said that inquiries from doctors were up more than threefold since the second group of Allina doctors unionized last month — and that as a result, the Doctors Council was hiring more organizers. (Allina is appealing the outcome of the union vote at the hospital but not at its clinics.) Even pharmacists are reaching out. “Two days ago, pharmacists called me from Florida,” she said. “We’ve never done pharmacists before.”In September, Dr. Smith, who long ago shifted from CVS district manager to frontline pharmacist, took on an additional role: labor organizer. After CVS fired a district manager who had refused to close some stores on weekends to address understaffing, Dr. Smith helped organize a series of coordinated sick days and walkouts in the Kansas City, Mo., area, where he has worked for the company in recent years.The walkouts affected roughly 20 locations and drew the company’s chief pharmacy officer and a top human resources official to town for a meeting with the renegades. A few weeks later, CVS said it would rein in vaccination appointments and add work hours for pharmacy technicians, though it had not increased their pay.CVS said several Kansas City-area pharmacists had called in sick on certain days in September, “resulting in about 10 unexpected pharmacy closures” on one day and part of another. In response, it said, executives met with pharmacists to listen to and address their concerns.During an interview in October, while Dr. Smith and his colleagues were still awaiting the company’s response, he made clear that his patience had run out. “I’ve been asking and asking and asking for improvements for years,” he said. “Now we’re not asking any more — we’re demanding it.” More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    At COP28, More Than 20 Nations Pledge to Triple Nuclear Capacity

    The group, including Britain, France and the United States, said the agreement was critical to meeting nations’ climate commitments.The United States and 21 other countries pledged on Saturday at the United Nations climate summit in Dubai to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, saying the revival of nuclear power was critical for cutting carbon emissions to near zero in the coming decades.Proponents of nuclear energy, which supplies 18 percent of electricity in the United States, say it is a clean, safe and reliable complement to wind and solar energy. But a significant hurdle is funding.Last month, a developer of small nuclear reactors in Idaho said it was canceling a project that had been expected to be part of a new wave of power plants. The cost of building the reactors had risen to $9.3 billion from $5.3 billion because of increasing interest rates and inflation.Britain, Canada, France, Ghana, South Korea, Sweden and the United Arab Emirates were among the 22 countries that signed the declaration to triple capacity from 2020 levels.Tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050, which would also help Europe reduce its dependence on Russia oil and gas, would require significant investment. In advanced economies, which have nearly 70 percent of global nuclear capacity, investments has stalled as construction costs have soared, projects have run over budget and faced delays. On top of cost, another hurdle to expanding nuclear capacity is that plants are slower to build than many other forms of power.Addressing the issue of financing, John Kerry, President Biden’s climate envoy, said that there were “trillions of dollars” available that could be used for investment in nuclear. “We are not making the argument to anybody that this is absolutely going to be the sweeping alternative to every other energy source — no, that’s not what brings us here,” he said. But, he added, the science has shown that “you can’t get to net-zero 2050 without some nuclear.”Nuclear power does not emit carbon, and an International Energy Agency report last year that said nuclear was crucial to helping to reduce carbon emissions in line with the Paris Agreement goals outlined in 2015. President Emmanuel Macron of France said nuclear energy, including small modular reactors, was an “indispensable solution” to efforts to curb climate change. France, Europe’s biggest producer of nuclear power, gets about 70 percent of its own electricity from nuclear stations.Mr. Macron and other leaders, including Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson of Sweden, called on the World Bank and international financial institutions to help finance nuclear projects. Mr. Kristersson said that governments must “assume a role in sharing the financial risks to strengthen the conditions and provide additional incentives for investments in nuclear energy.”While world leaders on Saturday called nuclear the most effective alternative to fossil fuels, some climate activists said nuclear energy was not a panacea.David Tong, a researcher at Oil Change International, said the pledge was divorced from the reality of nuclear energy — that it was too costly and too slow. “It’s a self-serving political pledge that doesn’t reflect the role that nuclear is likely to play in the energy transition, which is menial,” he said. “There is very small growth in nuclear — certainly nothing like tripling.” He said he rejected the stance that there was no pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, a goal set in the Paris Agreement to avoid the worst effects of global warming, without nuclear. Masayoshi Iyoda, an activist from Japan with 350.org, an international climate action campaign, cited the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in 2011 and said that nuclear power was a dangerous distraction from decarbonization goals. “It is simply too costly, too risky, too undemocratic, and too time-consuming,” he said in a statement.“We already have cheaper, safer, democratic, and faster solutions to the climate crisis, and they are renewable energy and energy efficiency,” Mr. Iyoda said.All but four of the 31 reactors that have begun construction since 2017 were designed by Russia or China, with China poised to become the leading nuclear power producer by 2030, the International Energy Agency said. This year, Germany shut its last three nuclear plants.Nuclear capacity rose in the 1980s, particularly in Europe and North America, but dropped sharply over the subsequent years after accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. New technology and tighter regulations have been put in place since then. Americans are conflicted about nuclear power, but a growing number favor expansion compared with a few years ago, according to a Pew Research Center study published in August. More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Limits China’s Ability to Benefit From Electric Vehicle Subsidies

    The Biden administration issued new rules to prevent Chinese firms from supplying parts for electric cars set to receive billions of dollars in tax credits.The Biden administration proposed new rules on Friday aimed at shifting more production of electric vehicle batteries and the materials that power them to the United States, in an attempt to build up a strategic industry now dominated by China.The rules are meant to limit the role that firms in China can play in supplying materials for electric vehicles that qualify for federal tax credits. They will also discourage companies that seek federal funding to build battery factories in the United States from sourcing materials from China or Russia.The rules could encourage shifts in automotive supply chains, which continue to rely heavily on China for materials and components of electric vehicles. Automakers are also facing intense cost pressures as they try to modify their factories to make electric cars, and China offers some of the most advanced and lowest-priced battery technology in the world.The Biden administration is trying to use billions of dollars in new federal funding to change that dynamic and create a U.S. supply chain for electric vehicles.The climate law that President Biden signed in 2022 includes up to $7,500 in tax credits to consumers who buy electric vehicles made in the United States using largely domestic materials. The law also included a general ban on Chinese products. Lawmakers mandated that firms in China, Russia, North Korea and Iran be prohibited from providing certain materials to cars that received those tax breaks.But the law left open several questions, including what constitutes a Chinese or Russian company. Administration officials said those definitions included any entity that was incorporated or had headquarters in China or Russia, as well as any firm in which 25 percent of the board seats or equity interest was held by Chinese or Russian governments.Chinese companies that set up operations outside China appear to be able to benefit from the rules as long as the Chinese government is not a significant shareholder. That provision came as a relief to some automakers, which feared that the Biden administration might bar them from contracting with Chinese-owned mines or factories in the United States or other parts of the world.Lithium hydroxide is processed at a facility in Bessemer City, N.C. American companies are investing in factories and technologies aimed at developing the materials needed for electric vehicle.Travis Dove for The New York TimesThe law also requires battery makers that strike contracts or licensing agreements with Chinese firms to ensure that they are retaining certain rights over their projects. That provision is intended to make sure a Chinese firm is not effectively in control of such a project.Some conservative lawmakers had challenged Ford Motor’s plans to license technology from the Chinese battery giant known as CATL for a plant in Marshall, Mich., arguing that such a partnership should not be eligible for federal tax credits. Some Republican lawmakers suggested on Friday that the Treasury Department’s guidance did not go far enough to lessen the country’s dependence on China.“At a time when China is using massive subsidies to undercut U.S. manufacturers and throttle the global market for battery components, Treasury’s naïve new regulations would open the floodgates for American tax dollars to flow to Chinese companies complicit in trade violations and forced labor abuses,” said Representative Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. The rules kick in for battery components in 2024, and in 2025 for critical minerals like lithium, cobalt and nickel. They could be adjusted depending on industry comment.The rules could have a profound impact on the U.S. electric vehicle market, which is rapidly growing — battery-powered vehicles made up about 8 percent of new cars sold in the third quarter. Car and battery makers said Friday that they were still reviewing the rules, and that it would take time to determine how many models would qualify for tax credits.Tesla said on Friday that the two least expensive versions of its Model 3 sedan would qualify for only half the $7,500 credit starting in January. The Model Y sport utility vehicle also might not qualify for the full credit after Dec. 31, Tesla said. The Model Y and Model 3 are the top two electric vehicles by sales in the United States. Tesla buys some batteries from CATL.John Bozzella, the chief executive of Alliance for Automotive Innovation, wrote in a blog post Friday that the rules struck “a pragmatic balance,” including by exempting trace materials. If the administration had banned all minor Chinese parts from the supply chain, no car models might have qualified for tax credits next year, he said.Many cars have already been disqualified from purchase credits by other rules, like a requirement that vehicles be assembled in North America. Only about 20 vehicles currently qualify for the program out of more than 100 electric vehicles sold in the United States.The rules also raised new questions about whether stricter requirements for supply chains could continue a trend of driving more shoppers to lease, rather than buy, vehicles.The prohibition on sourcing from China applies only to vehicles that are sold, not to those that are leased. Consumers can receive tax credits for electric vehicles they lease from auto dealers, and that has led to a boom in E.V. leasing.Jack Fitzgerald, chairman of Fitzgerald Auto Malls, which operates dealerships in Florida, Maryland and Pennsylvania, said he had seen a spike in customers leasing electric vehicles. But he said concern about electric vehicle range and the availability of chargers, more than price, was holding back electric vehicle sales.“That’s the principal thing,” Mr. Fitzgerald said.Auto industry lobbyists have warned that extremely strict rules could stifle electric vehicle sales, and they have urged the administration to strike more trade deals to secure supplies of scarce battery minerals. But Paul Jacobson, the chief financial officer of General Motors, said the company had structured its electric vehicle operations to be successful regardless of the federal rules.“We’re not anchoring the business on saying this has to happen” with regard to regulations, Mr. Jacobson told reporters on Thursday. If regulations change, he added, “it’s not a backbreaking thing for us.”While the rules may create headaches for automakers, they are likely to benefit companies planning to supply batteries from factories in the United States.“It’s actually good news for us,” said Siyu Huang, chief executive of Factorial, a Massachusetts company that is developing next-generation electric vehicle batteries with support from Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai and Stellantis, the owner of Dodge, Jeep and Ram.Acquiring large amounts of lithium, an essential ingredient in batteries, could be difficult because most of the metal is processed in China, Ms. Huang said. But the rules will encourage investment in U.S.-based refineries, she continued. “Its definitely going to be another incentive to build more domestic supply,” Ms. Huang said.John DeMaio, chief executive of Graphex Technologies, which is building a factory in Michigan to process graphite for batteries, said the rules might temporarily slow electric vehicle sales by making it harder to qualify for the tax credit. But in the long run, he added, they will encourage investment in domestic suppliers.“It might be a hiccup,” he said, “but in general it provides certainty and clarity to get people off the fence.”Wally Adeyemo, the deputy secretary of the Treasury Department, said in a briefing with reporters that the rules would help advance the administration’s goals of building up an American clean energy supply chain while also cutting emissions in the transportation sector.“These changes take time, but companies are making the investments and Americans are buying these cars,” he said.Over the past year, companies have invested $213 billion in the manufacturing and deployment of clean energy, clean vehicles, building electrification and carbon management technology in the United States, according to tracking by the Rhodium Group and the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That is a 37 percent increase from a year earlier..A lithium mine in northern Quebec. A majority of the world’s lithium and cobalt is processed in China.Brendan George Ko for The New York TimesStill, the global electric vehicle industry remains heavily anchored in China, which is the world’s largest producer and exporter of electric vehicles. China produces about two-thirds of the world’s battery cells, and refines most of the minerals that are key to powering an electric vehicle.The rules also restrict automakers from sourcing nickel used in their batteries from Russia, which is one of the world’s largest nickel producers.One of the challenges for automakers will be developing systems to track all the components of their battery through a long, and often opaque, supply chain.Vehicles that are reported incorrectly will be subtracted from an automaker’s eligibility for tax credits, Treasury said, and automakers that commit fraud or intentionally disregard the rules could be declared ineligible for the credit in the future. More

  • 150 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Jerome Powell Says It’s Too Soon to Guess When Rates Will Drop

    The Federal Reserve chair said officials could still raise rates “if” that becomes necessary, and that it’s too soon to guess when they will ease.Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, suggested on Friday that the central bank may be done raising interest rates if inflation and the economy continue to cool as expected, saying that central bankers could raise interest rates further if that became necessary.“It would be premature to conclude with confidence that we have achieved a sufficiently restrictive stance, or to speculate on when policy might ease,” Mr. Powell said in a speech at Spelman College. “We are prepared to tighten policy further if it becomes appropriate to do so.”Mr. Powell’s comments are likely to cement an already-widespread expectation that the Fed will leave interest rates unchanged at its meeting on Dec. 12 and 13. The Fed has already raised interest rates to a range between 5.25 and 5.5 percent, up sharply from near-zero as recently as March 2022. Those higher borrowing costs are weighing on demand for mortgages, car loans and business debt, cooling the economy in a bid to lower inflation.Given how high interest rates are now, the Federal Open Market Committee has paused its rate increases for several months. Investors have increasingly come to expect that its next move would be to cut rates — though Fed officials have been hesitant to declare victory, or to confidently predict exactly when lower borrowing costs could arrive.The Fed can “let the data reveal the appropriate path,” Mr. Powell said. “We’re getting what we wanted to get, we now have the ability to move carefully.”The Fed will release fresh economic projections after the December meeting. Those will show where policymakers expect rates to be at the end of 2024. That will give investors a hint at how much officials expect to lower interest rates next year, but little insight into when the cuts might commence.Policymakers want to avoid setting interest rates in a way that crushes the economy, risking much-higher unemployment and a recession. But they also want to be sure to fully stamp out rapid inflation, because if price increases are allowed to run too hot for too long, they could become entrenched in the way that consumers and companies behave. That would make rapid inflation even more difficult to get rid of in the longer run.After months of choppy progress, the Fed has recently received a spate of data suggesting that it is making meaningful progress toward achieving its goals.Inflation has been moderating noticeably, and the slowdown is coming across a range of products and services. The job market has cooled from white-hot levels last year, although companies are still hiring. Consumer spending is showing some signs of deceleration, though it has not fallen off a cliff.All of those signals are combining to give central bankers more confidence that interest rates may be high enough to bring inflation back toward their 2 percent goal within a couple of years. In fact, the data are shoring up optimism that they might be able to pull off a historically rare “soft landing”: Cooling inflation gently and without inflicting serious economic pain.“There’s a path to getting inflation back down to 2 percent without that kind of large job loss,” Mr. Powell said, explaining that he believes a gentle cooling is possible. “We’re on that path.”Still, inflation has cooled before, only to pick back up, and the staying power of consumer spending has surprised many economists. Given that, officials do not want to celebrate prematurely.“As the demand- and supply-related effects of the pandemic continue to unwind, uncertainty about the outlook for the economy is unusually elevated,” Mr. Powell said Friday.The Fed, he said, “is strongly committed to bringing inflation down to 2 percent over time, and to keeping policy restrictive until we are confident that inflation is on a path to that objective.” More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Climate Protesters Get in Fed’s Face as Policy Clash Grows Louder

    Jerome H. Powell, the central bank’s chair, has been interrupted recently by a climate group that thinks disruption will win the day.A video of security officers wrestling a protester to the floor in the lobby of the Jackson Lake Lodge in Wyoming, outside the Federal Reserve’s most closely watched annual conference, clocked more than a million views.A protest that disrupted a speech by Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, at the Economic Club of New York this fall generated extensive coverage. And when the activists showed up again at Mr. Powell’s speech at the International Monetary Fund in early November, they seemed to get under his skin: The central bank’s usually staid leader was caught on a hot mic using a profanity as he told someone to close the door.All three upheavals were caused by the same group, Climate Defiance, which a now-30-year-old activist named Michael Greenberg founded in the spring. Mr. Greenberg had long worked in traditional climate advocacy, but he decided that something louder was needed to spur change at institutions like the Fed.“I realized there was a big need for disruptive direct action,” he explained in an interview. “It just gets so, so, so, so, so much more attention.”The small but noisy band of protesters dogging the Fed chair is also spotlighting a problem that the central bank has long grappled with: precisely what role it should play in the world’s transition to green energy.Climate-focused groups often argue that as a regulator of the nation’s largest banks, the Fed should play a major role in preparing the financial system for the damaging effects of climate change. Some want it to more overtly discourage bank lending to fossil fuel companies. Mr. Greenberg, for instance, said he would like the Fed to use regulation to make lending to oil and gas companies essentially cost-prohibitive.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?  More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    The Fed’s Preferred Inflation Measure Eased in October

    The Personal Consumption Expenditures price index continued to cool and consumer spending was moderate, good news for the Federal Reserve.A closely watched measure of inflation showed continued signs of fading in October, encouraging news for the Federal Reserve as officials try to gauge whether they need to take further action in order to fully stamp out rapid price increases.The Personal Consumption Expenditures inflation measure, which the Fed cites when it says it aims for 2 percent inflation on average over time, climbed by 3 percent in the year through October. That was down from 3.4 percent the previous month, and was in line with economist forecasts. Compared with the previous month, prices were flat.After volatile food and fuel prices were stripped out for a clearer look at underlying price pressures, inflation climbed 3.5 percent over the year. That was down from 3.7 percent previously.The latest evidence that price increases are slowing came alongside other positive news for Fed officials: Consumers are spending less robustly. A measure of personal consumption climbed 0.2 percent from September, a slight slowdown from the previous month.The report could offer important insights to Fed officials as they prepare for their final meeting of 2023, which takes place Dec. 12-13. While investors widely expect policymakers to leave borrowing costs unchanged at the meeting, central bankers will release a fresh set of economic projections that could hint at their plans for future policy. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, will also deliver a news conference.“They’re going to want to still stay cautious about declaring ‘Mission Accomplished’ too soon,” said Omair Sharif, founder of Inflation Insights. Still, “we’ve had a string of really good readings.”Policymakers have been closely watching how both inflation and consumer spending shape up as they assess how to proceed. They have already raised interest rates to a range of 5.25 to 5.5 percent, the highest level in more than two decades. Given that, many officials have signaled that it may be time to stop and watch how policy plays out.John C. Williams, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, hinted in a speech on Thursday that he expected inflation to moderate enough for the Fed to be done raising interest rates now, though officials could raise interest rates more if the data surprised them.“If price pressures and imbalances persist more than I expect, additional policy firming may be needed,” Mr. Williams said. He reiterated his assessment that the Fed is “at, or near, the peak level of the target range of the federal funds rate.”The economy has been more resilient to those higher borrowing costs than many expected, which is one reason that the Fed has maintained a wary stance. If strong demand gives companies the ability to keep raising prices without losing customers, it could be harder to fully vanquish inflation.That said, recent signs that consumers and companies are finally turning more cautious have been welcome at the Fed.“I am encouraged by the early signs of moderating economic activity in the fourth quarter based on the data in hand,” Christopher Waller, one Fed governor, said this week. He added that “inflation is still too high, and it is too early to say whether the slowing we are seeing will be sustained.”Mr. Sharif noted that the talk on Wall Street had coalesced around when the first interest rate decrease might come, and the Fed’s coming economic projections should offer insight. Some of Mr. Waller’s remarks this week fueled speculation that cuts could come on the early side next year.But “you don’t want to get too far ahead of your skis, for now,” Mr. Sharif said, noting that the data has gotten better in the past before worsening again. He doesn’t think that the Fed will want to start to talk about rate cuts too forcefully until it has data for late 2023 and early 2024 in hand.“I just think they’re going to want to stay a little bit cautious right now,” he said. More

  • 213 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Fed’s favorite gauge shows inflation rose 0.2% in October and 3.5% from a year ago, as expected

    The personal consumption expenditures price index, excluding food and energy prices, rose 0.2% for the month and 3.5% on a year-over-year basis, both in line with expectations.
    Personal income and spending both rose 0.2% on the month, also meeting estimates and indicating that consumers are keeping pace with inflation.
    Continuing unemployment claims surged to 1.93 million, an increase of 86,000 and the highest level since Nov. 27, 2021.

    Inflation as measured by personal spending increased in line with expectations in October, possibly giving the Federal Reserve more incentive to hold rates steady and perhaps start cutting in 2024, according to a data release Thursday.
    The personal consumption expenditures price index, excluding food and energy prices, rose 0.2% for the month and 3.5% on a year-over-year basis, the Commerce Department reported. Both numbers aligned with the Dow Jones consensus and were down from respective readings of 0.3% and 3.7% in September.

    Headline inflation was flat on the month and at a 3% rate for the 12-month period, the release also showed. Energy prices fell 2.6% on the month, helping keep overall inflation in check, even as food prices increased 0.2%.
    Goods prices saw a 0.3% decrease while services rose 0.2%. On the services side, the biggest gainers were international travel, health care and food services and accommodations. In goods, gasoline led the gainers.
    Personal income and spending both rose 0.2% on the month, also meeting estimates and indicating that consumers are keeping pace with inflation. However, both numbers fell on the month; income rose 0.4% in September while spending was up 0.7%. Slower spending growth, though, aligns with the Fed’s goal of cooling the economy so inflation can recede.
    Stocks rallied following the news, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit a 2023 high. Bonds sold off, with Treasury yields popping as the rate-sensitive 2-year note moved up more than 6 basis points (0.06 percentage point) to 4.71%.
    Futures market pricing continued to point to the likelihood that the Fed won’t raise rates at any of its upcoming meetings and in fact likely will start cutting by the springtime. In all, traders are pricing in as many as

    While the public more closely watches the Labor Department’s consumer price index as an inflation measure, the Fed prefers the core PCE reading. The former measure primarily looks at what goods and services cost, while the latter focuses on what people actually spend, adjusting for consumer behavior when prices fluctuate. Core CPI was at 4% in October while headline was at 3.2%.
    In other economic news Thursday, initial weekly jobless claims rose to 218,000, an increase of 7,000 from the previous period though slightly below the 220,000 estimate. However, continuing claims, which run a week behind, surged to 1.93 million, an increase of 86,000 and the highest level since Nov. 27, 2021, the Labor Department said.
    “The Fed is on hold for now but their pivot to rate cuts is getting closer,” said Bill Adams, chief economist at Comerica Bank. “Inflation is clearly slowing, and the job market is softening faster than expected.”
    Markets already had been pricing in the likelihood that the Fed is done raising interest rates this cycle, and the PCE reading, along with signs of a loosening labor market, could solidify that stance. Along with the anticipation that the rate hikes are over, markets also are pricing in the equivalent of five quarter percentage point rate cuts in 2024.
    New York Fed President John Williams said Thursday that he expects inflation to continue to drift lower, finally hitting the Fed’s 2% target in 2025. However, he said policymakers will need to stay vigilant and keep rates at a “restrictive” level.
    “My assessment is that we are at, or near, the peak level of the target range of the federal funds rate,” he said in prepared remarks for a speech in New York. “I expect it will be appropriate to maintain a restrictive stance for quite some me to fully restore balance and to bring inflation back to our 2 percent longer-run goal on a sustained basis.”
    The fed funds rate, the central bank’s benchmark level for short-term lending, is targeted in a range between 5.25%-5.5%, its highest in more than 22 years. After implementing 11 hikes since March 2022, the Fed skipped its last two meetings, and most policymakers of late have been indicating that they are content now to watch the impact of the previous increases work their way through the economy.
    Other economic signals lately have shown the economy to be in fairly good shape, though several Fed officials recently have said the data doesn’t square with comments they are hearing on the ground.
    “I’m hearing consumers slowing down,” Richmond Fed President Thomas Barkin said Wednesday at the CNBC CFO Council Summit. “I’m not hearing [the] consumer falling off the table. I’m hearing normalizing, not recession, but I am hearing consumer slowing down.”
    The Fed’s inflation report comes the same day as encouraging news from the euro zone.
    Headline inflation there fell to 2.4% on a 12-month basis, though core, which excludes food, energy and tobacco, was still at 3.6%, though down from 4.2% in September. Like the Fed, the European Central Bank targets 2% as a healthy inflation level.
    Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO: More