Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Wheat Prices Remain High as Concern Grows About Black Sea Instability

    As Black Sea-bound vessels clustered in the waters near Istanbul, wheat prices remained elevated on Thursday, up 13 percent since Monday, when Russia pulled out of a wartime agreement that had been considered critical to stabilizing global food prices.The termination of the deal, which had permitted Ukraine to safely export its grain through the Black Sea, could have significant long-term consequences for grain supplies, said Alexis Ellender, a global analyst at Kpler, a commodities analytics firm. Despite robust grain harvests from exporters including Brazil and Australia, prices could become volatile.“By not having Ukraine there as a supplier, we’re increasing the vulnerability of the global grain market to these shocks,” Mr. Ellender said. “In the short term, supplies are good, but longer term, if we get any more supply shocks, we’re more vulnerable in terms of the global market.”Another drought in Brazil, like in 2021, or a disruption to Australia’s barley and wheat crop caused by El Niño, could cause prices to soar, he said.Russian threats to attack commercial vessels heading to Ukrainian ports have stalled traffic in the area. Marine tracking data shows that ships that had been en route to the Black Sea are sitting in ports in Istanbul as they wait to see if an agreement could be hammered out.“They’re still deciding what they’re going to do,” he said. Some vessels could look to pick up shipments of grain from other parts of Europe.At the moment, a quick resolution looks unlikely. Russia bombarded the port city of Odesa with missiles and drones on Tuesday and Wednesday, after an apparent Ukrainian drone strike on a Russian bridge linking the occupied Crimean Peninsula to mainland Russia.The suspension of the deal between Russia and Ukraine also has implications for maritime insurers and shipowners, who will no longer have insurance coverage to travel to Ukrainian ports, said James Whitlam, a product director at Concirrus, a marine data and analytics platform. While the deal between Russia and Ukraine was in effect, ships were able to secure insurance coverage under a temporary agreement.“Insurance markets are now scrambling around trying to understand what exposure they have,” Mr. Whitlam said.Despite recent increases, grain prices are still lower than they were on the eve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, partly because the end of the deal was expected, Mr. Ellender said. In addition, Ukrainian grain exports have recently been at reduced levels because of limited labor, with workers fighting the war, and limited fuel supplies and lost territory to Russia.Ukraine has also increased exports by truck, train and river barge.Ukraine is still likely to be able to export most of its wheat, corn, barley and sunflower seeds via alternative routes, said Rabobank, a Dutch bank, on Thursday. But this will put additional pressure on ports on the Danube River, which flows from the Black Forest in Germany to the Black Sea, and the cost of transport will become more expensive, and rail infrastructure will be at a higher risk of Russian attack, the note said.“The higher transport cost means that Ukrainian farmers may, quite possibly, reduce planted area in the future,” the note said.Ukraine is one of the leading exporters of grain and the leading global exporter of sunflower oil, and the deal had allowed Ukraine to restart the export of millions of tons of grain that dropped after the invasion.Ukraine has exported 32.9 million metric tons of grain and other agricultural products to 45 countries since the initiative began, according to United Nations data. Under the agreement, ships had been permitted to pass by Russian naval vessels that had blockaded Ukraine’s ports in the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion.Soaring prices are expected to hit the poorest people in the world the hardest. Ukraine last year had supplied more than half of the World Food Program’s wheat grain sent to people in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, according to the U.N. More

  • 88 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    How TV Writing Became a Dead-End Job

    The writers say Hollywood studios are increasingly limiting their roles in television productions, highlighting a trend for white-collar workers.For the six years he worked on “The Mentalist,” beginning in 2009, Jordan Harper’s job was far more than a writing gig. He and his colleagues in the writers’ room of the weekly CBS drama were heavily involved in production. They weighed in on costumes and props, lingered on the set, provided feedback to actors and directors. The job lasted most of a year.But by 2018, when he worked on “Hightown,” a drama for Starz, the business of television writing had changed substantially. The writers spent about 20 weeks cranking out scripts, at which point most of their contracts ended, leaving many to scramble for additional work. The job of overseeing the filming and editing fell largely to the showrunner, the writer-producer in charge of a series.“On a show like ‘The Mentalist,’ we’d all go to set,” Mr. Harper said. “Now the other writers are cut free. Only the showrunner and possibly one other writer are kept on board.”The separation between writing and production, increasingly common in the streaming era, is one issue at the heart of the strike begun in May by roughly 11,500 Hollywood writers. They say the new approach requires more frequent job changes, making their work less steady, and has lowered writers’ earnings. Mr. Harper estimated that his income was less than half what it was seven years ago.While their union, the Writers Guild of America, has sought guarantees that each show will employ a minimum number of writers through the production process, the major studios have said such proposals are “incompatible with the creative nature of our industry.” The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which bargains on behalf of Hollywood studios, declined to comment further.SAG-AFTRA, the actors’ union that went on strike last week, said its members had also felt the effects of the streaming era. While many acting jobs had long been shorter than those of writers, the union’s executive director, Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, said studios’ “extreme level of efficiency management” had led shows to break roles into smaller chunks and compress character story lines.But Hollywood is far from the only industry to have presided over such changes, which reflect a longer-term pattern: the fracturing of work into “many smaller, more degraded, poorly paid jobs,” as the labor historian Jason Resnikoff has put it.In recent decades, the shift has affected highly trained white-collar workers as well. Large law firms have relatively fewer equity partners and more lawyers off the standard partner track, according to data from ALM, the legal media and intelligence company. Universities employ fewer tenured professors as a share of their faculty and more untenured instructors. Large tech companies hire relatively fewer engineers, while raising armies of temps and contractors to test software, label web pages and do low-level programming.Over time, said Dr. Resnikoff, an assistant professor at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, “you get this tiered work force of prestige workers and lesser workers” — fewer officers, more grunts. The writers’ experience shows how destabilizing that change can be.The strategy of breaking up complex jobs into simpler, lower-paid tasks has roots in meatpacking and manufacturing. At the turn of the 20th century, automobiles were produced largely in artisanal fashion by small teams of highly skilled “all around” mechanics who helped assemble a variety of components and systems — ignition, axles, transmission.By 1914, Ford Motor had repeatedly divided and subdivided these jobs, spreading more than 150 men across a vast assembly line. The workers typically performed a few simple tasks over and over.For decades, making television shows was similar in some ways to the early days of automaking: A team of writers would be involved in all parts of the production. Many of those who wrote scripts were also on set, and they often helped edit and polish the show into its final form.The “all around” approach had multiple benefits, writers say. Not least: It improved the quality of the show. “You can write a voice in your head, but if you don’t hear it,” said Erica Weiss, a co-showrunner of the CBS series “The Red Line,” “you don’t actually know if it works.”Ms. Weiss said having her writers on the set allowed them to rework lines after the actors’ table read, or rewrite a scene if it was suddenly moved indoors.She and other writers and showrunners said the system also taught young writers how to oversee a show — essentially grooming apprentices to become the master craftspeople of their day.But it is increasingly rare for writers to be on set. As in manufacturing, the job of making television shows is being broken down into more discrete tasks.In most streaming shows, the writers’ contracts expire before the filming begins. And even many cable and network shows now seek to separate writing from production. “It was a good experience, but I didn’t get to go to set,” said Mae Smith, a writer on the final season of the Showtime series “Billions.” “There wasn’t money to pay for me to go, even for an established, seven-season show.”Showtime did not respond to a request for comment. Industry analysts point out that studios have felt a growing need to rein in spending amid the decline of traditional television and pressure from investors to focus on profitability over subscriber growth.In addition to the possible effect on a show’s quality, this shift has affected the livelihoods of writers, who end up working fewer weeks a year. Guild data shows that the typical writer on a network series worked 38 weeks during the season that ended last year, versus 24 weeks on a streaming series — and only 14 weeks if a show had yet to receive a go-ahead. About half of writers now work in streaming, for which almost no original content was made just over a decade ago.Members of the Writers Guild of America have been on strike since May.Mark Abramson for The New York TimesMany have seen their weekly pay dwindle as well. Chris Keyser, a co-chair of the Writers Guild’s negotiating committee, said studios had traditionally paid writers well above the minimum weekly rate negotiated by the union as compensation for their role as producers — that is, for creating a dramatic universe, not just completing narrow assignments.But as studios have severed writing from production, they have pushed writers’ pay closer to the weekly minimum, essentially rolling back compensation for producing. According to the guild, roughly half of writers were paid the weekly minimum rate last year — about $4,000 to $4,500 for a junior writer on a show that has received a go-ahead and about $7,250 for a more senior writer — up from one-third in 2014.Writers also receive residual payments — a type of royalty — when an episode they write is reused, as when it is licensed into syndication, but say opportunities for residuals have narrowed because streamers typically don’t license or sell their shows. The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers said in its statement that the writers’ most recent contract had increased residual payments substantially.(Actors receive residuals, too, and say their pay has suffered in other ways: The streaming era creates longer gaps between seasons, during which regular characters aren’t paid but often can’t commit to other projects.)The combination of these changes has upended the writing profession. With writing jobs ending more quickly, even established writers must look for new ones more frequently, throwing them into competition with their less-experienced colleagues. And because more writing jobs pay the minimum, studios have a financial incentive to hire more-established writers over less-established ones, preventing their ascent.“They can get a highly experienced writer for the same price or just a little more,” said Mr. Harper, who considers himself fortunate to have enjoyed success in the industry.Writers also say studios have found ways to limit the duration of their jobs beyond walling them off from production.Many junior writers are hired for a writers’ room only to be “rolled off” before the room ends, leaving a smaller group to finish the season’s scripts, said Bianca Sams, who has worked on shows including the CBS series “Training Day” and the CW program “Charmed.”“If they have to pay you weekly, at a certain point it becomes expensive to keep people,” Ms. Sams said. (The wages of junior writers are tied more closely to weeks of work rather than episodes.)The studios have chafed at writers’ description of their work as “gig” jobs, saying that most are guaranteed a certain number of weeks or episodes, and that they receive substantial health and pension benefits.But many writers fear that the long-term trend is for studios to break up their jobs into ever-smaller pieces that are stitched together by a single showrunner — the way a project manager might knit together software from the work of a variety of programmers. Some worry that eventually writers may be asked to simply rewrite chatbot-generated drafts.“I think the endgame is creating material in the cheapest, most piecemeal, automated way possible,” said Zayd Dohrn, a Writers Guild member who oversees the screen and stage master’s degree program at Northwestern University, “and having one layer of high-level creatives take the cheaply generated material and turn it into something.”He added, “It’s the way coders write code — in the most drone-like way.” More

  • 88 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Recession Appears Less Likely, Economists Say

    Rising interest rates were widely expected to put the U.S. economy in reverse. Now things are looking rosier, but don’t pop the Champagne corks yet.The recession was supposed to have begun by now.Last year, as policymakers relentlessly raised interest rates to combat the fastest inflation in decades, forecasters began talking as though a recession — economic contraction rather than growth — was a question not of “if” but of “when.” Possibly in 2022. Probably in the first half of 2023. Surely by the end of the year. As recently as December, less than a quarter of economists expected the United States to avoid a recession, a survey found.But the year is more than half over, and the recession is nowhere to be found. Not, certainly, in the job market, as the unemployment rate, at 3.6 percent, is hovering near a five-decade low. Not in consumer spending, which continues to grow, nor in corporate profits, which remain robust. Not even in the housing market, the industry that is usually most sensitive to rising interest rates, which has shown signs of stabilizing after slumping last year.At the same time, inflation has slowed significantly, and looks set to keep cooling — offering hope that interest-rate increases are nearing an end. All of which is leading economists, after a year spent being surprised by the resilience of the recovery, to wonder whether a recession is coming at all.“The chances of a soft landing are higher — there’s no question about that,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG US, referring to the possibility of bringing down inflation without causing an economic downturn. “I’m more optimistic than I was six months ago: That’s the good news.”The public is feeling sunnier, too, though hardly ebullient. Measures of consumer confidence have picked up recently, although surveys show that most Americans still expect a recession, or believe the country is already in one.There is still plenty that could go wrong, which Ms. Swonk noted. Inflation could, again, prove more stubborn than expected, leading the Federal Reserve to press on with interest rate increases to curb it. Or, on the flip side, the steps the Fed has already taken could hit with a delay, sharply cooling the economy in a way that has not surfaced yet. And even a slowdown short of a recession could be painful, leading to layoffs that are likely to disproportionately hit Black and Hispanic workers.“Soft is in the eye of the beholder,” said Nick Bunker, director of North American economic research at the career site Indeed.Economists are wary of declaring victory prematurely — burned, perhaps, by past episodes in which they did just that. In early 2008, for example, a string of positive economic data led some forecasters to conclude that the United States had navigated the subprime mortgage crisis without falling into a recession; researchers later concluded that one had already begun.But for now, at least, talk of worst-case scenarios — runaway inflation that the Fed struggles to tame, or “stagflation” in which prices and unemployment rise in tandem — has been ceding the conversation to cautious optimism.“We have seen a huge string of shocks, so I can’t predict what the future will hold,” Lael Brainard, a top White House economic adviser, said in an interview last week. “But so far, the data is very much consistent with moderating inflation and a still-resilient job market.”Inflation has come down.Economists have become more optimistic for two main reasons.The first is inflation itself, which has cooled rapidly in recent months. The Consumer Price Index in June was up just 3 percent from a year earlier, compared with a peak of 9 percent last summer. That is partly a result of factors that are unlikely to repeat — no one expects oil prices to keep falling 30 percent per year, for example.But measures of underlying inflation have also shown significant progress. And consumers and businesses appear to expect price increases to return to normal over the next few years, which makes it less likely that inflation will become embedded in the economy.Cooling inflation could allow the Fed to continue to slow its campaign of interest rate increases, or perhaps even to stop raising rates altogether earlier than planned. That could reduce the chances that policymakers go too far in their effort to control inflation and cause a recession by mistake.“Things have been going in the direction you would need them to go in order for you to get a soft landing,” said Louise Sheiner, a former Fed economist who is now at the Brookings Institution. “It doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed to get it, but certainly it’s more likely than if inflation was still 7 percent.”The job market has been resilient.The second reason for optimism has been the gradual cooling of the labor market from a rolling boil to a strong simmer.The rapid reopening of the economy in 2021 led to a huge imbalance between supply and demand: Restaurants, hotels, airlines and other businesses suddenly had hundreds of thousand of jobs to fill and not enough people to fill them. For workers, it was a rare moment of leverage, resulting in the fastest wage growth in decades. But economists worried that those rapid gains could make it hard to get inflation under control.In recent months, however, the frenzy has subsided. Employers are not posting as many openings. Employees are not hopping from job to job as freely in search of higher pay. At the same time, millions of workers have joined or rejoined the work force, helping to ease the labor shortage.So far, however, that easing has happened without a significant increase in unemployment. The jobless rate is roughly where it was in the strong labor market that preceded the pandemic. Some industries, such as tech and finance, have laid off employees, but most of those workers have found other jobs relatively quickly.“Labor market overheating is diminishing substantially, to levels where it’s no longer so worrisome,” said Jan Hatzius, chief economist for Goldman Sachs.Mr. Hatzius, who has long been more optimistic about the prospects for a soft landing than many of his peers on Wall Street, on Monday lowered his estimated probability of a recession to 20 percent from 25 percent. He said the recent progress in inflation and the labor market — as well as in consumer spending and other areas — suggested that the economy was gradually moving past the disruptions of the past few years.“We’re seeing the other side of the pandemic,” he said. “The pandemic created all of this enormous turbulence in economies, and now I think it’s going away, and to me that’s the overriding theme.”Risks remain.Still, many economists are less sanguine. Inflation, at least excluding volatile food and energy prices, remains well above the Fed’s 2 percent annual target, at 4.8 percent in June. And although the progress on inflation so far may have been relatively painless, there is no guarantee that will continue — employers that initially responded to higher interest rates by hiring fewer workers may soon begin cutting jobs outright.“People taking victory laps declaring a soft landing I think are premature,” said Laurence M. Ball, a Johns Hopkins economist who last year wrote an influential paper concluding that it would be difficult for the Fed to get inflation back to 2 percent without a significant increase in unemployment.Part of the problem is that the Fed has little margin for error. Act too aggressively to tame inflation, and the central bank could push the economy into a recession. Do too little, and inflation could pick back up — forcing policymakers to clamp back down.Neil Dutta, head of economic research at Renaissance Macro, said he worried that the strong labor market would fuel a new acceleration in the economy, leading to a resumption of rapid price increases — an “inflationary boom” that reverses much of the recent progress.“The next three to six months, the inflation dynamics will look pretty good — it will feel like a soft landing,” he added. “The question is, what comes after?”Then there are the factors outside policymakers’ control. Oil prices, which soared last year when Russia invaded Ukraine, could do so again. Food prices could start rising again, too — a possibility that became more real this week when Russia canceled a deal to allow Ukraine to export grain on the Black Sea.With the economy already slowing, even relatively small developments — such as the looming resumption of student loan payments, which will strain the finances of many younger adults in particular — could be enough to knock the recovery off course, said Jay Bryson, chief economist for Wells Fargo.“The student loan thing is not, in and of itself, enough to cause a recession, but if you do have a downturn, it could be a kind of death by a thousand paper cuts,” he said.Mr. Bryson still expects a recession to start this year. But he has become less certain in recent months. He recently asked the nearly 20 people on his team to write down how likely they thought a recession was in the next year. Answers ranged from 30 percent to 65 percent, with an average of exactly 50 percent — coin-flip odds for a soft landing that many people once thought impossible.“Keep the Champagne on ice,” Mr. Bryson said. “Hopefully early next year we can start popping it.” More

  • 63 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    The Pandemic’s Job Market Myths

    Remember the “she-cession”? What about the early-retirement wave, or America’s army of quiet quitters?For economists and other forecasters, the pandemic and postpandemic economy has been a lesson in humility. Time and again, predictions about ways in which the labor market had been permanently changed have proved temporary or even illusory.Women lost jobs early in the pandemic but have returned in record numbers, making the she-cession a short-lived phenomenon. Retirements spiked along with coronavirus deaths, but many older workers have come back to the job market. Even the person credited with provoking a national conversation by posting a TikTok video about doing the bare minimum at your job has suggested that “quiet quitting” may not be the way of the future — he’s into quitting out loud these days.That is not to say nothing has changed. In a historically strong labor market with very low unemployment, workers have a lot more power than is typical, so they are winning better wages and new perks. And a shift toward working from home for many white-collar jobs is still reshaping the economy in subtle but important ways.But the big takeaway from the pandemic recovery is simple: The U.S. labor market was not permanently worsened by the hit it suffered. It echoes the aftermath of the 2008 recession, when economists were similarly skeptical of the labor market’s ability to bounce back — and similarly proved wrong once the economy strengthened.“The profession has not fully digested the lessons of the recovery from the Great Recession,” said Adam Ozimek, the chief economist at the Economic Innovation Group, a research organization in Washington. One of those lessons, he said: “Don’t bet against the U.S. worker.”Here is a rundown of the labor market narratives that rose and fell over the course of the pandemic recovery.True but Over: The ‘She-cession’Women lost jobs heavily early in the pandemic, and people fretted that they would be left lastingly worse off in the labor market — but that has not proved to be the case.

    Note: Data is as of June 2023 and is seasonally adjusted.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesIn the wake of the pandemic, employment has actually rebounded faster among women than among men — so much so that, as of June, the employment rate for women in their prime working years, commonly defined as 25 to 54, was the highest on record. (Employment among prime-age men is back to where it was before the pandemic, but is still shy of a record.)Gone: Early RetirementsAnother frequent narrative early in the pandemic: It would cause a wave of early retirements.Historically, when people lose jobs or leave them late in their working lives, they tend not to return to work — effectively retiring, whether or not they label it that way. So when millions of Americans in their 50s and 60s left the labor force early in the pandemic, many economists were skeptical that they would ever come back.

    Notes: Percentages compare June 2023 with the 2019 average. Data is seasonally adjusted.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesBut the early retirement wave never really materialized. Americans between ages 55 and 64 returned to work just as fast as their younger peers and are now employed at a higher rate than before the pandemic. Some may have been forced back to work by inflation; others had always planned to return and did so as soon as it felt safe.The retirement narrative wasn’t entirely wrong. Americans who are past traditional retirement age — 65 and older — still haven’t come back to work in large numbers. That is helping to depress the size of the overall labor force, especially because the number of Americans in their 60s and 70s is growing rapidly as more baby boomers hit their retirement years.Questionable: The White-Collar RecessionTechnology layoffs at big companies have prompted discussion of a white-collar recession, or one that primarily affects well-heeled technology and information-sector workers. While those firings have undoubtedly been painful for those who experienced them, it has not shown up prominently in overall employment data.

    Note: Data is seasonally adjusted.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesFor now, the nation’s high-skilled employees seem to be shuffling into new and different jobs pretty rapidly. Unemployment remains very low both for information and for professional and business services — hallmark white-collar industries that encompass much of the technology sector. And layoffs in tech have slowed recently.Nuanced: The Missing MenIt looked for a moment like young and middle-aged men — those between about 25 and 44 — were not coming back to the labor market the way other demographics had been. Over the past few months, though, they have finally been regaining their employment rates before the pandemic.That recovery came much later than for some other groups: For instance, 35-to-44-year-old men have yet to consistently hold on to employment rates that match their 2019 average, while last year women in that age group eclipsed their employment rate before the pandemic. But the recent progress suggests that even if men are taking longer to recover, they are slowly making gains.False (Again): The Labor Market Won’t Fully Bounce BackAll these narratives share a common thread: While some cautioned against drawing early conclusions, many labor market experts were skeptical that the job market would fully recover from the shock of the pandemic, at least in the short term. Instead, the rebound has been swift and broad, defying gloomy narratives.This isn’t the first time economists have made this mistake. It’s not even the first time this century. The crippling recession that ended in 2009 pushed millions of Americans out of the labor force, and many economists embraced so-called structural explanations for why they were slow to return. Maybe workers’ skills or professional networks had eroded during their long periods of unemployment. Maybe they were addicted to opioids, or drawing disability benefits, or trapped in parts of the country with few job opportunities.In the end, though, a much simpler explanation proved correct. People were slow to return to work because there weren’t enough jobs for them. As the economy healed and opportunities improved, employment rebounded among pretty much every demographic group.The rebound from the pandemic recession has played out much faster than the one that took place after the 2008 downturn, which was worsened by a global financial blowup and a housing market collapse that left long-lasting scars. But the basic lesson is the same. When jobs are plentiful, most people will go to work.“People want to adapt, and people want to work: Those things are generally true,” said Julia Coronado, the founder of MacroPolicy Perspectives, a research firm. She noted that the pool of available workers expanded further with time and amid solid immigration. “People are resilient. They figure things out.” More

  • 138 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    ‘Training My Replacement’: Inside a Call Center Worker’s Battle With A.I.

    To many people, chatbots and other technology feel like a ticking time bomb, sure to explode their work. But to some, the threat is already here.“This A.I. stuff is getting really crazy.”The voices of Charlamagne tha God, host of the nationally syndicated radio show “The Breakfast Club,” and his guests Mandii B and WeezyWTF filled Ylonda Sherrod’s car as she sped down Interstate 10 in Mississippi during her daily commute. Her favorite radio show was discussing artificial intelligence, specifically an A.I.-generated sample of Biggie.“Sonically, it sounds cool,” Charlamagne tha God said. “But it lacks soul.”WeezyWTF replied: “I’ve had people ask me like, ‘Oh, would you replace people that work for you with A.I.?’ I’m like, ‘No, dude.’”Ms. Sherrod nodded along emphatically, as she drove past low-slung brick homes and strip malls dotted with Waffle Houses. She arrived at the AT&T call center where she works, feeling unsettled. She played the radio exchange about A.I. for a colleague.“Yeah, that’s crazy,” Ms. Sherrod’s friend replied. “What do you think about us?”Like so many millions of American workers, across so many thousands of workplaces, the roughly 230 customer service representatives at AT&T’s call center in Ocean Springs, Miss., watched artificial intelligence arrive over the past year both rapidly and assuredly, like a new manager settling in and kicking up its feet.Suddenly, the customer service workers weren’t taking their own notes during calls with customers. Instead, an A.I. tool generated a transcript, which their managers could later consult. A.I. technology was providing suggestions of what to tell customers. Customers were also spending time on phone lines with automated systems, which solved simple questions and passed on the complicated ones to human representatives.Ms. Sherrod, 38, who exudes quiet confidence at 5-foot-11, regarded the new technology with a combination of irritation and fear. “I always had a question in the back of my mind,” she said. “Am I training my replacement?”Ms. Sherrod, a vice president of the call center’s local union chapter, part of the Communications Workers of America, started asking AT&T managers questions. “If we don’t talk about this, it could jeopardize my family,” she said. “Will I be jobless?”In recent months, the A.I. chatbot ChatGPT has made its way into courtrooms, classrooms, hospitals and everywhere in between. With it has come speculation about A.I.’s impact on jobs. To many people, A.I. feels like a ticking time bomb, sure to explode their work. But to some, like Ms. Sherrod, the threat of A.I. isn’t abstract. They can already feel its effects.When automation swallows up jobs, it often comes for customer service roles first, which make up about three million jobs in America. Automation tends to overtake tasks that repeat themselves; customer service, already a major site for outsourcing of jobs abroad, can be a prime candidate.The AT&T call center where Ms. Sherrod works, in Ocean Springs, Miss. The company has increasingly been integrating A.I. into many parts of its customer service work.Bryan Tarnowski for The New York TimesA majority of U.S. call center workers surveyed this year reported that their employers were automating some of their work, according to a 2,000-person survey from researchers at Cornell. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they felt it was somewhat or very likely that increased use of bots would lead to layoffs within the next two years.Technology executives point out that fears of automation are centuries old — stretching back to the Luddites, who smashed and burned textile machines — but have historically been undercut by a reality in which automation creates more jobs than it eliminates.But that job creation happens gradually. The new jobs that technology creates, like engineering roles, often demand complex skills. That can create a gap for workers like Ms. Sherrod, who found what seemed like a golden ticket at AT&T: a job that pays $21.87 an hour and up to $3,000 in commissions a month, she said, and provides health care and five weeks of vacation — all without the requirement of a college degree. (Less than 5 percent of AT&T’s roles require a college education.)Customer service, to Ms. Sherrod, meant that someone like her — a young Black woman raised by her grandmother in small-town Mississippi — could make “a really good living.”“We’re breaking generational curses,” Ms. Sherrod said. “That’s for sure.”In Ms. Sherrod’s childhood home, a one-story, brick A-frame in Pascagoula, money was tight. Her mother died when she was 5. Her grandmother, who took her in, didn’t work, but Ms. Sherrod remembers getting food stamps to take to the corner bakery whenever the family could spare them. Ms. Sherrod cries recalling how Christmas used to be. The family had a plastic tree and tried to make it festive with ornaments, but there was typically no money for presents.To students at Pascagoula High School, she recalled, job opportunities seemed limited. Many went to Ingalls Shipbuilding, a shipyard where work meant blistering days under the Mississippi sun. Others went to the local Chevron refinery.“It felt like I was going to always have to do hard labor in order to make a living,” Ms. Sherrod said. “It seemed like my lifestyle would never be something with ease, something I enjoyed.”When Ms. Sherrod was 16, she worked at KFC, making $6.50 an hour. After graduating from high school, and dropping out of community college, she moved to Biloxi, Miss., to work as a maid at IP Casino, a 32-story hotel, where her sister still works. Within months of working at the casino, Ms. Sherrod felt the toll of the job on her body. Her knees ached, and her back thrummed with pain. She had to clean at least 16 rooms a day, fishing hair out of bathroom drains and rolling up dirty sheets.When a friend told her about the jobs at AT&T, the opportunity seemed, to Ms. Sherrod, impossibly good. The call center was air-conditioned. She could sit all day and rest her knees. She took the call center’s application test twice, and on her second time she got an offer, in 2006, starting out making $9.41 an hour, up from around $7.75 at the casino.“That $9 meant so much to me,” she recalled.So did AT&T, a place where she kept growing more comfortable: “Out of 17 years, my check hasn’t ever been wrong,” she said. “AT&T, by far, is the best job in the area.”‘Your Biggest Nightmare’Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, testified before a Senate subcommittee in May. In recent months, OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot has made its way into courtrooms.Win McNamee/Getty ImagesThis spring, lawmakers in Washington hauled forward the makers of A.I. tools to begin discussing the risks posed by the products they’ve unleashed.“Let me ask you what your biggest nightmare is,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, asked OpenAI’s chief executive, Sam Altman, after sharing that his own greatest fear was job loss.“There will be an impact on jobs,” said Mr. Altman, whose company developed ChatGPT.That reality has already become clear. The British telecommunications company BT Group announced in May that it would cut up to 55,000 jobs by 2030 as it increasingly relied on A.I. The chief executive of IBM said A.I. would affect certain clerical jobs in the company, eliminating the need for up to 30 percent of some roles, while creating new ones.AT&T has begun integrating A.I. into many parts of its customer service work, including routing customers to agents, offering suggestions for technical solutions during customer calls and producing transcripts. The company said all of these uses were intended to create a better experience for customers and workers. “We’re really trying to focus on using A.I. to augment and assist our employees,” said Nicole Rafferty, who leads AT&T’s customer care operation and works with staff members nationwide.“We’re always going to need in-person engagement to solve those complex customer situations,” Ms. Rafferty added. “That’s why we’re so focused on building A.I. that supports our employees.”Economists studying A.I. have argued that it most likely won’t prompt sudden widespread layoffs. Instead, it could gradually eliminate the need for humans to do certain tasks — and make the remaining work more challenging.“The tasks left to call center workers are the most complex ones, and customers are frustrated,” said Virginia Doellgast, a professor at the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell.Ms. Sherrod has always enjoyed getting to know her customers. She said she took about 20 calls a day, from 9:30 to 6:30. While she’s resolving technical issues, she listens to why people are calling in, and she hears from customers who just bought new homes, were married or lost family members.“It’s sort of like you’re a therapist,” she said. “They tell you their life stories.”She is already finding her job growing more challenging with A.I. The automated technology has a hard time understanding Ms. Sherrod’s drawl, she said, so the transcripts from her calls are full of mistakes. Once the technology is no longer in a pilot phase, she won’t be able to make corrections. (AT&T said it was refining the A.I. products it used to prevent these kinds of errors.)It seems likely, to Ms. Sherrod, that at some point as the work gets more efficient, the company won’t need quite as many humans answering calls in its centers. Ms. Sherrod wonders, too: Doesn’t the company trust her? For two consecutive years, she won AT&T’s Summit Award, placing her in the top 3 percent of the company’s customer service representatives nationally. Her name was projected on the call center’s wall.“They gave everyone a little gift bag with a trophy,” Ms. Sherrod recalled. “That meant a lot to me.”‘Look at My Life’Ms. Sherrod at the Communications Workers of America’s regional labor union office where she is a vice president.Bryan Tarnowski for The New York TimesAs companies like AT&T embrace A.I., experts are floating proposals meant to protect workers. There’s the possibility of training programs helping people make the transition to new jobs, or a displacement tax levied on employers when a worker’s job is automated but the person is not retrained.Labor unions are wading into these battles. In Hollywood, the unions representing actors and television writers have fought to limit the use of A.I. in script writing and production.Just 6 percent of the country’s private-sector workers are represented by unions. Ms. Sherrod is one, and she has begun fighting her company for more information about its A.I. plans, sitting in her union hall nine miles from the call center, where she works under a Norman Rockwell painting of a wireline technician.For years, Ms. Sherrod’s demands on behalf of the union have been rote. As a steward, she typically asked the company to reduce penalties for colleagues who got in trouble.But for the first time, this summer, she feels that she is taking up an issue that will affect workers beyond AT&T. She recently asked her union to establish a task force focused on A.I.In late May, Ms. Sherrod was invited by the Communications Workers of America to travel to Washington, where she and dozens of other workers met with the White House’s Office of Public Engagement to share their experience with A.I.A warehouse worker described being monitored with A.I. that tracked how speedily he moved packages, creating pressure for him to skip breaks. A delivery driver said automated surveillance technologies were being used to monitor workers and look for potential disciplinary actions, even though their records weren’t reliable. Ms. Sherrod described how the A.I. in her call center created inaccurate summaries of her work.Her son, Malik, was astonished to hear that his mother was headed to the White House. “When my dad told me about it, at first I said, ‘You’re lying,’” he said with a laugh. With her pay and commissions, Ms. Sherrod has been able to buy a home and give her son, Malik, the childhood she never had.Bryan Tarnowski for The New York TimesMs. Sherrod sometimes feels that her life presents an argument for a type of job that one day might no longer exist.With her pay and commissions, she has been able to buy a home. She lives on a sunny street full of families, some of whom work in fields like nursing and accounting. She is down the road from a softball field and playground. On the weekends, her neighbors gather for cookouts. The adults eat snowballs, while the children play basketball and set up splash pads.Ms. Sherrod takes pride in buying Malik anything he asks for. She wants to give him the childhood she never had.“Call center work — it’s life-changing,” she said. “Look at my life. Will all that be taken away from me?” More

  • 88 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Administration Unveils Tougher Guidelines on Mergers

    The proposed road map for regulatory reviews, last updated in 2020, includes a focus on tech platforms for the first time.The Biden administration’s top antitrust officials unveiled tougher guidelines against tech mergers on Wednesday, signaling their deepening scrutiny of the industry despite recent court losses in their attempts to block tech deal-making.Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, and Jonathan Kanter, the top antitrust official at the Department of Justice, released draft guidelines for merger reviews that for the first time include a focus on digital platforms and how dominant companies can use their scale to harm future rivals.The guidelines — which generally provide a road map for whether regulators block or approve deals — show the Biden administration’s commitment to an aggressive antitrust agenda aimed at curtailing the power of companies like Google, Meta, Apple and Amazon.The guidelines, which aren’t enforced by law, follow a losing streak in the courts. A ruling last week prevented the F.T.C. from delaying the closing of Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of the video game maker Activision Blizzard. In January, a court sided against the F.T.C. in its lawsuit to stop Meta’s purchase of Within, a virtual reality app maker.The forceful antitrust posture is a pillar of President Biden’s agenda to stamp out economic inequality and encourage greater competition. “Promoting competition to lower costs and support small businesses and entrepreneurs is a central part of Bidenomics,” a senior administration official said in a call with reporters.The new guidelines would apply to all deals across the economy. But they highlight obstacles to competition among digital platforms, including how an acquisition of a nascent rival may be intended to kill off future competition. Such deals, known as killer acquisitions, are prevalent in the tech industry and at the heart of an F.T.C. antitrust lawsuit against Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The agency has accused Meta of buying Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 to prevent future competition.The F.T.C. and Justice Department also said they would look at how companies used their scale, including their large number of users, to ward off competition. These so-called network effects have helped companies like Meta and Google maintain their dominance in social media and internet search.The agencies also laid out ways in which mergers involving “platform” businesses, the model used by Amazon’s online store and Apple’s App Store, could harm competition. An acquisition could hurt competition by giving a platform control over a significant stream of data, the draft guidelines said, echoing concerns that tech giants use their vast troves of information to squash rivals.“As markets and commercial realities change, it is vital that we adapt our law enforcement tools to keep pace so that we can protect competition in a manner that reflects the intricacies of our modern economy,” Mr. Kanter said in a statement. “Simply put, competition today looks different than it did 50 — or even 15 — years ago.”While they lack the force of law, the guidelines can influence how judges look at challenges to mergers and acquisitions. The effort to update the guidelines has been closely watched by businesses and corporate lawyers that navigate regulatory scrutiny of megadeals.The guidelines were last updated in 2020. In 2021, Mr. Biden ordered the Justice Department and the F.T.C. to update them again as part of a broader effort to improve competition across the economy. The agencies will take public comment on the proposals and could make amendments before final guidelines are adopted.“These guidelines contain critical updates while ensuring fidelity to the mandate Congress has given us and the legal precedent on the books,” Ms. Khan said in a statement.While the F.T.C. experienced the recent court losses, it has forced some companies, including the chip-maker Nvidia and the aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, to abandon some large deals. The Justice Department blocked the publisher Penguin Random House from buying Simon & Schuster, using an unusual argument that the merger would harm authors who sold the publication rights to their books. More

  • 175 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Fed banking regulator warns A.I. could lead to illegal lending practices like excluding minorities

    Michael S. Barr, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, said AI technology has the potential to get credit to “people who otherwise can’t access it.”
    “While these technologies have enormous potential, they also carry risks of violating fair lending laws and perpetuating the very disparities that they have the potential to address,” he added.

    Michael Barr, vice chair for supervision of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve, testifies during a House Committee on Financial Services hearing on Oversight of Prudential Regulators, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2023.
    Mandel Ngan | AFP | Getty Images

    The Federal Reserve’s top banking regulator expressed caution Tuesday about the impact that artificial intelligence can have on efforts to make sure underserved communities have fair access to housing.
    Michael S. Barr, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, said AI technology has the potential to get credit to “people who otherwise can’t access it.”

    However, he noted that it also can be used for nefarious means, specifically to exclude certain communities from housing opportunities through a process traditionally called “redlining.”
    “While these technologies have enormous potential, they also carry risks of violating fair lending laws and perpetuating the very disparities that they have the potential to address,” Barr said in prepared remarks for the National Fair Housing Alliance.
    As an example, he said AI can be manipulated to perform “digital redlining,” which can result in majority-minority communities being denied access to credit and housing opportunities. “Reverse redlining,” by contrast, happens when “more expensive or otherwise inferior products” in lending are pushed to minority areas.
    Barr said work being done by the Fed and other regulators on the Community Reinvestment Act will be focused on making sure underserved communities have equal access to credit. More

  • 150 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Goldman Sachs cuts odds of a U.S. recession in the next year

    The investment bank’s chief economist, Jan Hatzius, cited a slew of better-than-expected economic data in a research report released late Monday.
    “The main reason for our cut is that the recent data have reinforced our confidence that bringing inflation down to an acceptable level will not require a recession,” he said.

    Skyline of lower Manhattan and One World Trade Center in New York City and the Water’s Soul sculpture on July 11, 2023, in Jersey City, New Jersey. (Photo by Gary Hershorn/Getty Images)
    Gary Hershorn | Corbis News | Getty Images

    Goldman Sachs revised down the odds of a U.S. recession happening in the next 12 months, cutting the probability down to 20% from 25% on the back of positive economic activity.
    The investment bank’s chief economist, Jan Hatzius, cited a slew of better-than-expected economic data in a research report released Monday.

    “The main reason for our cut is that the recent data have reinforced our confidence that bringing inflation down to an acceptable level will not require a recession,” he said.
    The chief economist cited resilient U.S. economic activity, saying second-quarter GDP growth was tracking at 2.3%. The rebound in consumer sentiment and unemployment levels falling to 3.6% in June also added to Goldman’s optimism.
    The U.S. economy expanded 2% at an annualized pace in the first quarter. Last Thursday, data from the Labor Department showed that initial jobless claims fell to 239,000 for the week ended June 24, well below estimates of 264,000 and marking a 26,000 decline from the previous week.

    There are also “strong fundamental reasons” to expect the easing of consumer price rises to continue after June’s core inflation, excluding food and energy, rose at the slowest pace since February 2021.
    The investment bank, however, expects some deceleration in subsequent quarters as a result of sequentially slower real disposable personal income growth.

    “But the easing in financial conditions, the rebound in the housing market, and the ongoing boom in factory building all suggest that the U.S. economy will continue to grow, albeit at a below-trend pace,” Hatzius said.
    Goldman still expects a 25 basis point hike from the upcoming Federal Reserve meeting next week, but Hatzius believes that it could mark the last of the current cycle.
    —CNBC’s Michael Bloom contributed to this report. More