Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    San Francisco Fed Ties to S.V.B. Chief Attracts Scrutiny to Century-Old Setup

    As Greg Becker, the former C.E.O. of Silicon Valley Bank, prepares to testify before Congress, boards that oversee regional Federal Reserve branches are in the spotlight.The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank has drawn attention to the relationship between the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which was in charge of overseeing safety and soundness at the lender, and the bank’s former chief executive, Greg Becker, who for years sat on the San Francisco Fed’s board of directors.The bank’s collapse on March 10 has prompted criticism of the Fed, whose bank supervisors were slow to spot and stop problems before Silicon Valley Bank experienced a devastating run that necessitated a sweeping government response.Now, Mr. Becker could face lawmaker questions about his board role — and whether it created too close a link between the bank and its regulators — when he testifies on Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee about Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse.In prepared testimony published before the hearing, Mr. Becker said he was “truly sorry” for the bank’s failure. “I do not believe that any bank could survive a bank run of that velocity and magnitude,” he said.Mr. Becker’s position on the San Francisco Fed board would have given him little formal power, according to current and former Fed employees and officials. The Fed’s 12 reserve banks — semiprivate institutions dotted across the country — each has a nine-person board of directors, three of whom come from the banking industry. Those boards have no say in bank supervision, and serve mainly as advisers for the Fed bank’s leadership.But many acknowledged that the setup created the appearance of coziness between S.V.B. and the Fed. Some outside experts and politicians are beginning to question whether the way the Fed has been organized for more than a century makes sense today.“They’re like a glorified advisory committee,” said Kaleb Nygaard, who researches central banks at the University of Pennsylvania. “It causes massive headaches in the best of times, potentially fatal aneurysms in the worst of times.”The Fed boards date back to 1913.In the days after Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse, headlines about Mr. Becker’s close ties to his bank’s regulator abounded, with many raising questions about a possible conflict of interest.Though regional Fed presidents and other officials play a limited role in bank oversight — which is mostly in Washington’s domain — some critics wondered if supervisors at the San Francisco Fed failed to effectively police Silicon Valley Bank partly because of the reserve bank’s close ties to the bank’s chief executive.And some asked: Why do banks have representatives on the Fed Board at all?The answer is tied to the Fed’s history.When Congress and the White House created the Fed in 1913, they were skeptical about giving either the government or the private sector unilateral power over the nation’s money supply. So they compromised. They created a public Fed Board in Washington, alongside quasi-private reserve banks around the country.Those reserve banks, which ended up numbering 12 in total, would be set up like private companies with banks as their shareholders. And much like other private companies, they would be overseen by boards — ones that included bank representatives. Each of the Fed reserve banks has nine board members, or directors. Three of them come from banks, while the others come from other financial companies, businesses, and labor and community groups.“The setup is the way that it is because of the way the Fed was set up in 1913,” said William Dudley, the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who said that the directors served mainly as a sort of advisory focus group on banking issues and operational issues, like cybersecurity.The boards may give members benefits.Several former Fed officials said that the bank-related board members provided a valuable function, offering real-time insight into the finance industry. And 10 current and former Fed employees interviewed for this article agreed on one point: These boards have relatively little official power in the modern era.While they vote for changes on a formerly important interest rate at the Fed — called the discount rate — that role has become much less critical over time. Board members select Fed presidents, though since the 2010 Dodd Frank law, the bank-tied directors have not been allowed to participate in those votes.But the law didn’t go so far as to cut bank representatives from the boards altogether because of a lobbying push to keep them intact, said Aaron Klein, who was deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department at the time and worked closely on the law’s passage.“The Fed didn’t want that, and neither did the bankers,” Mr. Klein said.From a bank’s perspective, directorships offer prestige: Regional Fed board members rub shoulders with other bank and community leaders and with powerful central bankers.They might also offer either an actual or a perceived information advantage about the economy and about monetary policy. Although the discount rate is not as important today, directors at some regional banks are given economic briefings as they make their decisions.Mr. Becker would have seen Mary C. Daly, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, at meetings held roughly once a month, her calendars suggest.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesRegional board discount votes have often been seen as a sort of weather vane for how a regional bank’s leadership is thinking about policy — suggesting that directors might know how their president is going to vote when it comes to the federal funds rate, the important interest rate that the Fed uses to guide the speed of the economy.That is notable in an era in which Wall Street traders hang on Fed officials’ every word when it comes to interest rates.“It’s a very awkward thing,” said Narayana Kocherlakota, a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. “There’s no gain to having them vote on discount rates.”Renée Adams, a former New York Fed researcher who studies corporate boards and is now at the University of Oxford, has found that when a bank executive becomes a director, the stock price of their firm rises on the news.“The market believes that they have some advantage,” she said.And Board members do get substantial face time with Fed presidents, who meet regularly with their directors. Mr. Becker would have seen Mary C. Daly, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, at meetings held roughly once a month, her calendars suggest.‘Supervisory leniency’ is a risk.Bank-tied directors have no direct role in supervision, nor can they appoint officials or participate in budget decisions related to bank oversight, according to the Fed.But Mr. Klein is skeptical that Mr. Becker’s position on the San Francisco Fed’s board did not matter at all in the case of Silicon Valley Bank.“Who wants to be the person raising problems about the C.E.O. who is on the board of your own C.E.O.?” he said, explaining that even though the organizational structure might have drawn clear lines, those may not have cleanly applied in the “real world.”Ms. Adams’s research found that banks whose executives sat on boards did in fact see fewer enforcement actions — slaps on the wrist from Fed supervisors — during the director’s tenure. “There may be supervisory leniency,” she said.Changing the system might prove difficult.This is not the first time the Fed regional boards have raised ethical issues. In the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, Dick Fuld, the Lehman Brothers chief executive at the time, and Steve Friedman, who was a director at Goldman Sachs, both served on the New York Fed board.Mr. Fuld resigned just before Lehman collapsed in 2008. Mr. Friedman left in 2009, after news broke that he had bought Goldman Sachs stock during the crisis, at a time when the Treasury and the Fed were drawing up plans to bolster big banks.Given that controversy, politicians have at times focused on the Fed boards. The Democratic Party included language in its 2016 platform to bar executives of financial institutions from serving on reserve bank boards. And the issue has recently garnered bipartisan interest. Draft legislation under development by members of the Senate Banking Committee would limit directorships to small banks — those with less than $10 billion in assets, according to a person familiar with the material.The committee has a hearing on Fed accountability planned for May 17. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Democrat from Massachusetts, and Rick Scott, Republican from Florida, plan to introduce the legislation ahead of that, a spokesperson for Ms. Warren said.“It’s dangerous and unethical for executives from the largest banks to serve on Fed boards where these bankers could secure preferential regulatory treatment or exploit privileged information,” Ms. Warren said in a statement.But — as the Dodd Frank legislation illustrated — stripping banks of their power at the Fed has been a heavy lift.“As a political target,” said Ms. Binder, the political scientist, “it’s a little in the weeds.” More

  • 175 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Consumer debt passes $17 trillion for the first time despite slide in mortgage demand

    Total consumer debt hit a fresh new high in the first quarter of 2023, at just over $17 trillion.
    New mortgage originations, including refinancings, totaled just $323.5 billion, the lowest level since the second quarter of 2014.

    A clerk uses a credit card reader to charge a customer in Miami.
    Getty Images

    Total consumer debt hit a fresh new high in the first quarter of 2023, pushing past $17 trillion even amid a sharp pullback in home borrowing.
    The total for borrowing across all categories hit $17.05 trillion, an increase of nearly $150 billion, or 0.9% during the January-to-March period, the New York Federal Reserve reported Monday. That took total indebtedness up about $2.9 trillion from the pre-Covid period ended in 2019.

    That increase came even though new mortgage originations, including refinancings, totaled just $323.5 billion, the lowest level since the second quarter of 2014. The total was 35% lower than in the fourth quarter of 2022 and 62% below the same period a year ago.
    New home loans peaked at $1.22 trillion in the second quarter of 2021 and have been falling since as interest rates have increased. A series of Fed rate cuts helped push 30-year mortgage rates to a low around 2.65% in January 2021.
    But rates are now around 6.4%, as the central bank has enacted 10 rate increases totaling 5 percentage points to fight inflation, according to central bank data through Fannie Mae. The higher rates helped push total mortgage debt to $12.04 trillion, up 0.1 percentage point from the fourth quarter.
    Borrowers had used the previously lower rates both to buy new homes and to refinance, the latter seeing a boom that appears to have ended.
    “The mortgage refinancing boom is over, but its impact will be seen for decades to come,” Andrew Haughwout, director of household and public policy research at the New York Fed, said in a statement accompanying the report.

    Fed data shows that about 14 million mortgages were refinanced during the pandemic period starting in March 2020. Some 64% were considered “rate refinances,” or homeowners looking to take advantage of lower borrowing costs. Average savings totaled about $220 per month for those borrowers, according to the New York Fed.
    “As a result of significant equity drawdowns, mortgage borrowers reduced their annual payments by tens of billions of dollars, providing additional funding for spending or paydowns in other debt categories,” Haughwout said.
    Despite rising rates, mortgage foreclosures remained low. Delinquency rates for all debt increased, up 0.6 percentage point for credit cards to 6.5% and 0.2 percentage point for auto loans to 6.9%. Total delinquency rates moved up 0.2 percentage point to 3%, the highest since the third quarter of 2020.
    Student loan debt edged higher to $1.6 trillion and auto loans nudged up as well to $1.56 trillion. More

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S.-Made Technology Is Flowing to Sanctioned Russian Airlines

    Russian customs data shows that millions of dollars of aircraft parts made by Boeing, Airbus and others were sent to Russia last year despite sanctions.Last August, Oleg Patsulya, a Russian citizen living near Miami, emailed a Russian airline that had been cut off from Western technology and materials with a tempting offer.He could help circumvent the global sanctions imposed on Rossiya Airlines after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by shuffling the aircraft parts and electronics that it so desperately needed through a network of companies based in Florida, Turkey and Russia.“In light of the sanctions imposed against the Russian Federation, we have been successfully solving challenges at hand,” Mr. Patsulya wrote, according to a criminal complaint filed Friday with the U.S. District Court in Arizona.Mr. Patsulya and his business partner were arrested Thursday on charges of violating U.S. export controls and international money laundering in a case that illustrates the global networks that are trying to help Russia bypass the most expansive technological controls in history.Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States has acted in partnership with nearly 40 other governments to impose sanctions on Russia, including limits on Moscow’s access to weapons, computer chips, aircraft parts and other products needed to fuel its economy and its war. The sanctions also applied to Russian airlines including Aeroflot, its subsidiary Rossiya and others.But despite these far-reaching sanctions, thousands of shipments of aircraft parts were successfully sent into Russia last year, according to a trove of Russian customs data obtained by The New York Times.The data, which was compiled and analyzed by Import Genius, a U.S.-based trade data aggregator, shows that tens of millions of dollars of aircraft parts were sent to Russian airlines explicitly sanctioned by the Biden administration, including to Rossiya Airlines, Aeroflot, Ural Airlines, S7 Airlines, Utair Aviation and Pobeda Airlines.Those shipments were made possible by illicit networks like Mr. Patsulya’s, which have sprung up to try to bypass the restrictions by shuffling goods through a series of straw buyers, often in the Middle East and Asia.For instance, dozens of shipments of copper wires, bolts, graphite and other parts marked as made in the United States by Boeing slipped into the warehouses of Aeroflot last year. They traversed obscure trading companies, free-trade zones and industrial parks in the United Arab Emirates and China, and then traveled into Russia, to help patch up Aeroflot’s dilapidated fleet.The data captures more than 5,000 individual shipments of aircraft parts into Russia over a period of eight months in 2022, from simple screws to a Honeywell-branded aircraft engine starter valued at $290,000.In all, it shows that $14.4 million of U.S.-made aircraft parts were sent into Russia during the eight months, including $8.9 million of parts that are described as being manufactured or trademarked by the U.S. plane maker Boeing and sold into Russia via third parties.Boeing said it had fully complied with U.S. sanctions and had suspended providing parts, maintenance and technical support for customers in Russia in early 2022. Experts in the aviation supply chain said the parts probably came from a variety of sources, such as existing overseas stocks from airlines and repair facilities or resellers who trade in scrapped parts.A Boeing plant in Renton, Wash. Millions of dollars of parts described as being manufactured or trademarked by the U.S. plane maker were sold into Russia via third parties.Grant Hindsley for The New York TimesMost of the products were routed through countries like the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, China and the Maldives, according to the data. But a handful of shipments — including to Rossiya — were sent directly from the United States or Europe.The shipments also increased over the course of last year as Russia recruited global businesses to help it bypass the sanctions. The trend suggests that “networks for evading sanctions took time to establish during the immediate post-export-control scramble but are now in a position to help Russian airlines source some key parts,” said William George, the director of research at Import Genius.The Russian nationals taken into custody on Thursday began setting up their scheme last May to send aircraft parts from the United States to Russia in violation of export regulations, according to the criminal complaint.The men are accused of fielding requests for parts, including expensive brake systems for a Boeing 737, from at least three Russian airlines, including two that had been strictly barred from purchasing U.S.-made products through a so-called temporary denial order issued by the Commerce Department. F.B.I. agents raided a condo owned by the men’s company in the Trump Towers in Sunny Isles Beach, Fla., on Thursday, The Miami Herald reported.Lawyers for the men did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Despite the level of sanctions evasion, airplane shipments into Russia remain significantly lower than before the war. U.S. officials say Russian airlines have been forced to cannibalize planes, breaking them down for spare parts to keep others in operation, as well as turning to Iran for maintenance and parts.Russia’s imports of aircraft and aircraft parts fell from $3.45 billion annually before the invasion to only about $286 million afterward, according to The Observatory of Economic Complexity, a data visualization platform that explores global trade dynamics.According to Silverado Policy Accelerator, a Washington nonprofit, China has been the leading overall exporter of parts for aircraft, spacecraft and drones to Russia since the invasion, accounting for about half of all shipments, followed by India. The number of single-aisle planes in use in Russia fell about 16 percent from the summer of 2021 to the summer of 2022, after the invasion, according to Cirium, an aviation data provider. The number of larger twin-aisle planes, often used on international routes, was down about 40 percent.Aviation experts say it will become more challenging for Russian airlines to continue flying planes without access to Western suppliers and help from Boeing and Airbus. The manufacturers regularly consult with airlines to assess any damage and strictly control access to technical documentation used by mechanics.But for now, Russian airlines have been kept alive with the help of international shipments and the use of hundreds of foreign jets that were stranded there after the war began.Tens of thousands of flights are expected to crisscross Russia this month, according to schedules published by Cirium. More than 21,000 flights — over half of them operated by Russian airlines — are expected to carry passengers to and from countries in Central Asia, as well as Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, China and Thailand.Half a dozen export control lawyers and former government officials consulted by The New York Times said that many of the shipments in the Import Genius data likely violated sanctions, but that plane makers like Boeing or Airbus were not necessarily at fault. The aviation supply chain is complex and global, and the parts could have come from a variety of sources.“There is pretty clearly a violation,” said William Reinsch, a trade expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who oversaw export controls during the Clinton administration. “Less clear is the guilty party.”Aircraft parts originating in the European Union, including those marked as being manufactured or trademarked by Airbus, were also shipped into Russia last year, according to the data.Working on an Airbus A320 plane at a hangar in Haikou, China, in May. Airbus parts were also shipped into Russia last year.Zhang Liyun/Xinhua, via Getty ImagesJustin Dubon, a spokesman for Airbus, said that the company keeps track of genuine parts and documentation provided to its customers and conducts due diligence on all parties requesting spare parts. Restrictions in the United States and Europe mean that “there is no legal way that genuine aircraft parts, documentation and services can get to Russian carriers,” he said.U.S. restrictions technically allow companies to apply for a special license to continue sending products to Russian carriers for “safety of flight” reasons, but both Boeing and Airbus said that they had neither sought nor received such a license. In addition, Airbus said that E.U. laws prevent it from shipping such goods to Russia, regardless of U.S. licensing.Current and former U.S. officials say that some shipments into Russia are to be expected. Kevin Wolf, a partner at the law firm Akin Gump who oversaw export controls during the Obama administration, said the restrictions “can never block everything,” but that the rules were still significantly degrading Russia’s capabilities.He added that the scope of the new rules still exceed current methods of tracking and enforcement in other allied countries. Until the invasion of Ukraine, trade in aircraft parts was mostly unrestricted by the United States and other countries, except to Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Syria.“It’s improving,” Mr. Wolf said, “but it’s still way, way behind.”Compared with other countries that mostly limit their scrutiny to goods crossing their own borders, the United States is unparalleled in its attempt to police commerce around the world.In the past three years, the United States has imposed new technology restrictions for Russia, China and Iran that apply extraterritorially: Products made in the United States, or in foreign countries with the help of American components or technology, are subject to U.S. rules even when changing hands on the other side of the world.Both the United States and the European Union have been ramping up penalties for companies that violate sanctions, and dispatching officials to countries like Kazakhstan to try to persuade them to clamp down on shipments to Russia through their territory. The U.S. government has nine export control officers stationed in Istanbul, Beijing and other locations to trace shipments of sensitive products, and it is setting up three more offices.But providing parts can be a lucrative business. James Disalvatore, an associate director at Kharon, a data and analytics firm that has been monitoring Russia’s efforts to bypass sanctions, said the value of some aircraft parts imported by Russian airlines since the invasion had risen fourfold or more.“I don’t think there’s any secret what’s going on,” said Gary Stanley, a trade compliance expert who advises businesses in aerospace and other industries. “How long have we had Cuban sanctions? How long have we had North Korean sanctions? How long have we had Iranian sanctions? It never seems to put these folks out of business.” More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, With Familiar (Rich) Winners

    In an era of surging home and stock values, U.S. family wealth has soared. The trillions of dollars going to heirs will largely reinforce inequality.An intergenerational transfer of wealth is in motion in America — and it will dwarf any of the past.Of the 73 million baby boomers, the youngest are turning 60. The oldest boomers are nearing 80. Born in midcentury as U.S. birthrates surged in tandem with an enormous leap in prosperity after the Depression and World War II, boomers are now beginning to die in larger numbers, along with Americans over 80.Most will leave behind thousands of dollars, a home or not much at all. Others are leaving their heirs hundreds of thousands, or millions, or billions of dollars in various assets.In 1989, total family wealth in the United States was about $38 trillion, adjusted for inflation. By 2022, that wealth had more than tripled, reaching $140 trillion. Of the $84 trillion projected to be passed down from older Americans to millennial and Gen X heirs through 2045, $16 trillion will be transferred within the next decade.Baby Boomers Hold Half of the Nation’s $140 Trillion in Wealth More

  • 163 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Shifting to life post-Covid: How remote work transformed this city in the Midwest

    It’s been more than three years since the global pandemic sent workers accustomed to five-day, in-person work weeks away from offices.
    Many desk workers are still working from home for at least some of the week.
    The trend has, in turn, changed the aesthetic and culture of downtown centers across the country that could once rely on an influx of commuters, including Lansing, Michigan.

    Michigan Avenue in Lansing, Michigan.
    Mike Kline (Notkalvin) | Moment | Getty Images

    Lansing, Michigan may never be the same. The city of just over 110,000 residents known for its towering state capitol building, large convention center and proximity to campuses is trying to reshape itself for a post-Covid world.
    It’s been more than three years since the global pandemic sent workers accustomed to five-day, in-person work weeks away from offices. Many desk workers are still working from home for at least some of the week. That’s because remote and hybrid work models originally adopted as a short-term solution have shown staying power, even with the global public health emergency officially declared over.

    The trend has, in turn, changed the aesthetic and culture of downtown centers across the country that could once rely on an influx of commuters. In Lansing, that change is seen in different work hours, more housing and new event spaces as community and business leaders try to reimagine what and who the downtown caters to. It’s all being done in a bid to attract people to live or visit as reality sets in that Lansing and other cities can no longer thrive on office-centric economies.
    “We are looking at how do we shift our energy from serving mainly one type of demographic, to making sure that our downtown neighborhoods are welcoming and inclusive of all?” said Cathleen Edgerly, executive director of Downtown Lansing, Inc., a nonprofit working on the culture and sustainability of the downtown. The goal is to build “the downtown and community for those who want to be there, not those who are just coming in and out as fast as they can.”

    ‘A rising tide’

    Workers across the country have pushed to keep remote privileges even as executives at giant companies such as Disney to Tesla try to get their employees back into the office at least part time. 
    A larger share of job listings across the country are offering at least one day of remote work compared with pre-pandemic, according to data from WFH Map in a collaboration between a group of researchers and Lightcast, a labor-market analytics firm. It’s a sign that flexible work experiences remain increasingly normal — and not just for jobs started before or during the pandemic.
    Lansing had the largest share of job listings in March with at least one day of remote work of any city, according to WFH Map. Founder Peter Lambert, an economic PhD candidate at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said capital cities and technology hubs tend to top the list given their tilt toward remote-friendly industries including tech, finance, insurance, higher education and government.

    “Lansing is a great case study, as it ticks all the above boxes,” he said.

    In the downtown area, Edgerly said that initial shift meant a 30% overnight decrease in workers commuting in and over 1 million square feet of canceled office space with the onset of the pandemic. Since that shakeup, she said businesses have begun shifting hours to later in the evening and weekends as the economic focus moves away from commuters.
    New community-oriented spaces are also popping up. Plans for two entertainment venues have been announced in hopes of attracting visitors on nights and weekends. And, the owner of a Detroit food hall opened a similar space in Lansing earlier this year.
    About 40% of first-floor retail shops sat vacant at one point, but that number has been falling. That is, according to Edgerly, due in part to the success of a micro-market business incubator created to help merchants find a low-barrier place to operate in Lansing for a year. Of the past participants, Edgerly said all are still in business and about four out of every five have opened permanently in the city.
    Between 300 and 400 residential housing units have also been added in the past few years, Edgerly said, as a comprehensive market analysis showed the need for more living spaces.

    A view of downtown Lansing, Michigan.
    Denistangneyjr | E+ | Getty Images

    There still is tourism given that Lansing is Michigan’s capital, though the city is not as large as others in the state such as Detroit. Around 115,000 people visit the capital each year, according to the government.
    At the Impression 5 Science Center, a museum, executive director Erik Larson said his team started training with the local tourism bureau to better promote the other experiences available to tourists. He said the goal is that more visitors will want to come if they realize all their options in a trip to the city.
    “It’s a rising tide,” he said. “We want the downtown core and beyond that to have a really strong, vibrant small business community.”
    State-wide initiatives such as the approval of outdoor business districts that allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages within their parameters have also helped build that economic fabric between businesses. A visitor or resident can now, for example, buy a beer to-go from a bar and peruse retail shops in one visit.
    Other cities around the country are experiencing big changes to as well.
    In San Francisco, which has become somewhat of a national symbol for the office exodus, less than half of the number of workers commuting into the city before the pandemic came in on a weekly basis in the beginning of April, according to data from the city’s Office of Workforce and Development. And an analysis by Bloomberg found remote work has cost Manhattan more than $12 billion annually.

    ‘A better place’

    Despite the progress, challenges remain for the local economy.
    Karl Dorshimer, president of the Lansing Economic Development Corporation, said the biggest challenge for businesses is still a continued worker shortage in the retail and service sectors. Rising wages enticed some workers back but have not fully solved the issue, he said. (Lansing’s unemployment rate is significantly lower than at the height of the pandemic, but it’s is still above where it sat before stay-at-home orders took effect in 2020.)
    The cost of child care also remains a challenge, particularly for women in the local labor market, according to Keith Lambert, chief operating officer of the Lansing Economic Area Partnership. LEAP has helped start a coalition aimed at lowering child care costs after the issue’s impact on the workforce became unmistakable during the pandemic.
    Similarly, Lambert said large businesses are starting to think they about their role in improving transportation in the region. A lack of parking has also hindered businesses and visitor interest downtown, according to multiple small business owners.

    Lansing, Michigan, USA at the Michigan State Capitol during the evening.
    Sean Pavone | Istock | Getty Images

    Economic development leaders and business owners alike note there’s still room for progress. Mike Mahdi, owner of New Daily Bagel, said he still doesn’t have enough foot traffic to support weekends, but he’s noticed a better mix of street clothes and office attire among customers.
    But those who’ve seen the downtown’s ebbs and flows certainly recognize at least the first indications of a tide change. Stewart Powell, who has worked in the city for around four decades at Linn & Owen Jewelers, said he’s seen the shift away from the city acting as a “very large food court” to a more traditional city with a diverse mix of businesses and customers since the pandemic took hold.
    “I believe that in the long run, this will end up being a better place,” he said. “Not because of Covid, but in spite of Covid.” More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Rural Georgia Factory, Flush With Federal Funds, Votes to Unionize

    Friday’s victory by the United Steelworkers at a factory building electric school buses was a test for Democratic hopes that clean-energy funding from Washington could bolster organized labor.Workers at a rural Georgia factory that builds electric school buses under generous federal subsidies voted to unionize on Friday, handing organized labor and Democrats a surprise victory in their hopes to turn huge new infusions of money from Washington into a union beachhead in the Deep South.The company, Blue Bird in Fort Valley, Ga., may lack the cachet of Amazon or the ubiquity of Starbucks, two other corporations that have attracted union attention. But the 697-to-435 vote by Blue Bird’s workers to join the United Steelworkers was the first significant organizing election at a factory receiving major federal funding under legislation signed by President Biden.“This is just a bellwether for the future, particularly in the South, where working people have been ignored,” Liz Shuler, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said Friday evening after the vote. “We are now in a place where we have the investments coming in and a strategy for lifting up wages and protections for a good high-road future.”The three bills making up that investment include a $1 trillion infrastructure package, a $280 billion measure to rekindle a domestic semiconductor industry and the Inflation Reduction Act, which included $370 billion for clean energy to combat climate change.Each of the bills included language to help unions expand their membership, and Blue Bird’s management, which opposed the union drive, had to contend with the Democrats’ subtle assistance to the Steelworkers.Banners appeared outside the Blue Bird plant in the period leading up to the union vote.Jonathan Weisman/The New York TimesBlue Bird stands to benefit from the new federal funds. Last year, it hailed the $500 million that the Biden administration was providing through the infrastructure bill for the replacement of diesel-powered school buses with zero- and low-emission buses. Georgia school systems alone will get $51.1 million to buy new electric buses, but Blue Bird sells its buses across the country. Still more money will come through the Inflation Reduction Act, another law praised by the company.But that money came with strings attached — strings that subtly tilted the playing field toward the union. Just two weeks ago, for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the Clean School Bus Program, pushed a demand on all recipients of federal subsidies to detail the health insurance, paid leave, retirement and other benefits they were offering their workers.They also required the companies to have “committed to remain neutral in any organizing campaign and/or to voluntarily recognize a union based on a show of majority support.” And under the rules of the infrastructure bill, no federal money may to be used to thwart a union election.The Steelworkers union used the rules to its advantage. In late April, it filed multiple unfair labor practice charges against Blue Bird’s management, citing $40 million in rebates the company had received from the E.P.A., which stipulated that those funds could not be used for anti-union activity.“The rules say if workers want a union, you can’t use any money to hire anti-union law firms, or use people to scare workers,” Daniel Flippo, director of the Steelworkers district that covers the Southeast, said before the vote. “I’m convinced Blue Bird has done that.”Politicians also got involved. Georgia’s two Democratic senators and southwestern Georgia’s Democratic House member also subtly nudged the plant’s management, in a union-hostile but politically pivotal state, to at least keep the election fair.“I have been a longtime supporter of the USW and its efforts to improve labor conditions and living standards for workers in Georgia,” the Democratic congressman, Representative Sanford Bishop, wrote of the United Steelworkers in an open letter to Blue Bird workers. “I want to encourage you in your effort to exercise your rights granted by the National Labor Relations Act.”Blue Bird’s management minimized such pressure in its public statements, even as it fought hard to beat back union organizers.“Although we respect and support the right for employees to choose, we do not believe that Blue Bird is better served by injecting a labor union into our relationship with employees,” said Julianne Barclay, a spokeswoman for the company. “During the pending election campaign, we have voiced our opinion to our employees that a union is not in the best interest of the company or our employees.”Friday’s union victory has the labor movement thinking big as the federal money continues to flow, and that could be good for Mr. Biden and other Democrats, especially in the pivotal state of Georgia.“Workers at places like Blue Bird, in many ways, embody the future,” Mr. Flippo said after the vote, adding, “For too long, corporations cynically viewed the South as a place where they could suppress wages and working conditions because they believed they could keep workers from unionizing.”The Blue Bird union shop, 1,400 workers strong, will be one of the biggest in the South, and union leaders said it could be a beachhead as they eyed new electric vehicle suppliers moving in — and potentially the biggest, most difficult targets: foreign electric vehicle makers like Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz and BMW, which have located in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina in part to avoid unions.“Companies move there for a reason — they want as smooth a path toward crushing unions as possible,” said Steve Smith, a national spokesman for the A.F.L.-C.I.O. “But we have federal money rolling in, a friendly administration and a chance to make inroads like we have never had before.”The Blue Bird plant, which rises suddenly off a rural highway lined with peach and pecan orchards, has long made it a practice to hire less educated workers, some of whom have prison records and most of whom start at $16 or $17 an hour, said Alex Perkins, a main organizer for the United Steelworkers in Georgia.A union was a tough sell for such vulnerable workers against a management that was fiercely opposed, organizers conceded. Coming off the last shift of the day on Thursday, most workers declined to speak on the record. A clutch of about a dozen workers stood on Friday at the Circle K gas station across the street from the plant in the predawn darkness, holding pro-union signs as the first workers arrived to cast ballots under the gaze of National Labor Relations Board monitors.But Cynthia Harden, who has worked at the plant for five years and voted in favor of organizing, did talk about the pressure workers were under to vote against it. Slide shows on the voting process, which showed ballots marked “no,” said that the company could go broke if the union won, and there was a sudden appearance of food trucks at lunch and banners on the perimeter fence reading, “We Love Our Employees!”“They’ve made some changes already, but if the union hadn’t started, nothing would have happened,” she said.The letter that Georgia’s Democratic senators, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, wrote to Matt Stevenson, Blue Bird’s chief executive and president, was remarkably timid, praising the company for its cooperation and its well-paying jobs before “encouraging all involved, whatever their desired outcome, to make sure that the letter and the spirit of the National Labor Relations Act are followed.”Mr. Perkins fumed at that tone, considering the work that unions had put in to help Mr. Warnock win re-election last year. “I won’t forget it next time,” he said.Both senators declined requests to comment on the election. More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Solar Makers Criticize Biden’s Tax Credits as Too Lax on China

    U.S.-based manufacturers of solar products say rules issued by the Biden administration on Friday will “cement China’s dominance” over the solar industryBiden administration rules released on Friday that will determine which companies and manufacturers can benefit from new solar industry tax credits are being criticized by U.S.-based makers of solar products, who say the guidelines do not go far enough to try to lure manufacturing back from China.The rules stem from President Biden’s sweeping clean energy bill, which offers a mix of tax credits and other incentives to try and spur the construction of more solar factories in the United States and reduce the country’s reliance on China for clean energy goods needed to mitigate climate change.The Treasury Department, in guidance issued on Friday, said it would offer a 10 percent additional tax credit for facilities assembling solar panels in the United States, even if they import the silicon wafers used to make those panels from foreign countries. Under the Biden administration’s new climate legislation, solar and wind farms can apply for a 30 percent tax credit on the costs of their facilities.Senior administration officials told reporters on Thursday that they were trying to take a balanced approach, one that leaned toward forcing supply chains to return to the United States. But China’s dominance of the global solar industry has created a tricky calculus for the Biden administration, which wants to promote U.S. manufacturing of solar products but also ensure a plentiful supply of low-cost solar panels to reduce carbon emissions.The officials said that the Biden administration would have the leeway to change the rules when American supply chains become stronger.“The domestic content bonus under the Inflation Reduction Act will boost American manufacturing, including in iron and steel, so America’s workers and companies continue to benefit from President Biden’s Investing in America agenda,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said in a statement. “These tax credits are key to driving investment and ensuring all Americans share in the growth of the clean energy economy.”Critics said the new rules would not go far enough to give companies incentives to move the solar supply chain out of China.Mike Carr, the executive director of the Solar Energy Manufacturers for America Coalition, which includes solar companies with U.S. operations like Hemlock Semiconductor, Wacker Chemie, Qcells and First Solar, called the move “a missed opportunity to build a domestic solar manufacturing supply chain.”“The simple fact is today’s announcement will likely result in the scaling back of planned investments in the critical areas of solar wafer, ingot, and polysilicon production,” he said in a statement. “China is producing 97 percent of the world’s solar wafers — giving them substantial control over both polysilicon and cell production. We fear that this guidance will cement their dominance over these critical pieces of the solar supply chain.”A four-acre solar rooftop in Los Angeles. The Biden administration wants 100 percent of the nation’s electricity to come from carbon-free energy sources by 2035.Mario Tama/Getty ImagesThe Biden administration has set an ambitious goal of generating 100 percent of the nation’s electricity from carbon-free energy sources by 2035, a goal that may require more than doubling the annual pace of solar installations.The United States still relies heavily on Chinese manufacturers for low-cost solar modules, although many Chinese-owned factories now make these goods in Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand.China also supplies many of the key components in solar panels, including more than 80 percent of the world’s polysilicon, which most solar panels use to absorb energy from sunlight. And a significant portion of Chinese polysilicon comes from the Xinjiang region, where the U.S. government has banned imports because of concerns over forced labor.Other companies in the solar supply chain, which rely on imported components, were more positive about the Treasury Department’s guidance.Abigail Ross Hopper, the chief executive of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said the guidance was an important step forward that would “spark a flood of investment in American-made clean energy equipment and components.”“The U.S. solar and storage industry strongly supports onshoring a domestic clean energy supply chain, and today’s guidance will supplement the manufacturing renaissance that began when the historic Inflation Reduction Act passed last summer,” she said.Congressional Republicans have already targeted the Biden administration’s climate legislation, saying that it fails to set tough guidelines against manufacturing in China and that it may funnel federal dollars to Chinese-owned companies that have set up in the United States.The Biden administration is also dispensing funding to build up the semiconductor and electric vehicle battery industries. Guidelines for that money include limits on access to so-called foreign entities of concern, like Chinese-owned companies. But the Inflation Reduction Act does not contain guardrails against federal dollars going to the U.S. operations of Chinese solar companies.In a congressional hearing on April 25, Representative Jason Smith, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, pointed to the Florida facilities of JinkoSolar, a Chinese-owned manufacturer, as being eligible for federal tax credits.“Work at the plant involves robots placing strings of solar cells — which are largely sourced from China — onto a solar panel base,” a fact sheet released by Mr. Smith said.Mr. Biden has also clashed with domestic solar manufacturers over a separate trade case that would see tariffs imposed on solar products imported from Chinese companies based in Southeast Asia.Mr. Biden’s decision to waive the tariffs for two years angered Republicans and some Democrats in Congress, who said U.S.-based manufacturers deserved more protection. In recent weeks, the House and Senate approved a measure to reverse the president’s decision, which Mr. Biden is expected to veto. More

  • 175 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Faces ‘Significant Risk’ of Running Out of Cash in June, Budget Office Warns

    A default would cause financial distress, economic disruptions and rapid increases in borrowing rates, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said.The Congressional Budget Office said on Friday that there was a “significant risk” that the federal government could run out of cash sometime in the first two weeks of June, setting the United States up for a default.The warning came as the White House and congressional leaders spent the week in negotiations over how to raise the $31.4 trillion borrowing cap. The Treasury Department has been using accounting maneuvers known as extraordinary measures to keep paying the country’s bills without breaching that debt ceiling, which was officially reached on Jan. 19. But the department has said those tools could be exhausted as soon as June 1.The nonpartisan budget office outlined the fiscal strain facing the government as the legislative standoff continues. It also noted that the timing and revenue coming into the government, as well as its expenditures, were hard to predict.“If the debt limit is not raised or suspended before the Treasury’s cash and extraordinary measures are exhausted, the government will have to delay making payments for some activities, default on its debt obligations, or both,” the Congressional Budget Office said in a report released on Friday.It predicted that a default would lead to “distress in credit markets, disruptions in economic activity and rapid increases in borrowing rates for the Treasury.”Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warned this week that the consequences of a default would be dire.“A default would threaten the gains that we’ve worked so hard to make over the past few years in our pandemic recovery,” she said at a news conference in Japan on Thursday before a gathering of Group of 7 finance ministers. “And it would spark a global downturn that would set us back much further.”The day the United States runs out of cash — known as the X-date — could come later this summer. The budget office said that if the Treasury Department had sufficient funds to make it through June 15, an influx of quarterly tax receipts and additional extraordinary measures at its disposal would most likely allow the government to keep paying its bills through “at least the end of July.”President Biden and the four top congressional leaders, including Speaker Kevin McCarthy, were originally scheduled to meet again on Friday to discuss the debt limit after an initial face-to-face session on Tuesday produced no agreement. The second meeting is now expected to take place next week, before Mr. Biden departs on Wednesday for Japan to attend the G7 leaders’ meeting. In the interim, staff from both sides are continuing to try to reach some type of deal to avert a default.While the decision to delay the meeting was viewed as a positive development that could allow both sides to reach consensus, it remains unclear whether an agreement can be reached in time. Mr. McCarthy has insisted on deep spending cuts and a rollback of Mr. Biden’s clean energy agenda as a prerequisite to raising the debt limit. The president has insisted that Republicans raise the borrowing cap, arguing that it simply allows the United States to pay bills that Congress has already approved.Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said on Friday that the meeting was delayed so that the administration and congressional staff could continue their private discussions over a plan to raise the debt limit. While the White House continued to insist that raising it is not negotiable, she said, the president was willing to discuss other spending and budget matters with Republicans.“The meetings have been productive over the last few days,” Ms. Jean-Pierre said, adding that there was “a lot of urgency” to find a solution that prevents a default.The nation’s long-term fiscal outlook continues to be problematic and could only harden the Republican position that the government must rein in spending. In a separate report released on Friday, the Congressional Budget Office said it projected a federal budget deficit of $1.5 trillion this year — slightly higher than its forecast in February. Annual deficits are projected to nearly double over the next decade, totaling more than $20 trillion through 2033. More