Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 175 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Blasts Google Over Paying $10 Billion a Year to Cut Out Search Rivals

    The Justice Department and 38 states and territories on Tuesday laid out how Google had systematically wielded its power in online search to cow competitors, as the internet giant fiercely parried back, in the opening of the most consequential trial over tech power in the modern internet era.In a packed courtroom at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, the Justice Department and states painted a picture of how Google had used its deep pockets and dominant position, paying $10 billion a year to Apple and others to be the default search provider on smartphones. Google viewed those agreements as a “powerful strategic weapon” to cut out rivals and entrench its search engine, the government said.“This feedback loop, this wheel, has been turning for more than 12 years,” said Kenneth Dintzer, the Justice Department’s lead courtroom lawyer. “And it always turns to Google’s advantage.”Google denied that it had illegally used agreements to exclude its search competitors and said it had simply provided a superior product, adding that people can easily switch which search engine they use. The company also said that internet search extends more broadly than its general search engine and pointed to the many ways that people now find information online, such as Amazon for shopping, TikTok for entertainment and Expedia for travel.“Users today have more search options and more ways to access information online than ever before,” said John E. Schmidtlein, the lawyer who opened for Google.The back-and-forth came in the federal government’s first monopoly trial since it tried to break up Microsoft more than two decades ago. This case — U.S. et al. v. Google — is set to have profound implications not only for the internet behemoth but for a generation of other large tech companies that have come to influence how people shop, communicate, entertain themselves and work.Over the next 10 weeks, the government and Google will present arguments and question dozens of witnesses, digging into how the company came to power and whether it broke the law to maintain and magnify its dominance. The final ruling, by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, could shift the balance of power in the tech industry, which is embroiled in a race over artificial intelligence that could transform and disrupt people’s lives.A government victory could set limits on Google and change its business practices, sending a humbling message to the other tech giants. If Google wins, it could act as a referendum on increasingly aggressive government regulators, raise questions about the efficacy of century-old antitrust laws and further embolden Silicon Valley.“It is a test of whether our current antitrust laws — the Sherman Act, written in 1890 — can adapt to markets that are susceptible to monopolization in the 21st century,” said Bill Baer, a former top antitrust official at the Justice Department, adding that Google was “indisputably powerful.”The case is part of a sweeping effort by the Biden administration and states to rein in the biggest tech companies. The Justice Department has filed a second lawsuit against Google over its advertising technology, which could go to trial as early as next year. The Federal Trade Commission is separately moving toward a trial in an antitrust lawsuit against Meta. Investigations remain open in efforts that could lead to antitrust lawsuits against Amazon and Apple.The Justice Department filed the case accusing Google of illegally maintaining its dominance in search in October 2020. Months later, a group of attorneys general from 35 states, Puerto Rico, Guam and the District of Columbia filed their own lawsuit arguing that Google had abused its monopoly over search. Judge Mehta is considering both lawsuits during the trial.The case centers on the agreements that Google reached with browser developers, smartphone manufacturers and wireless carriers to use Google as the default search engine on their products. Since the lawsuit was filed, more than five million documents and depositions of more than 150 witnesses have been submitted to the court. Last month, Judge Mehta narrowed the scope of the trial, while allowing the core claims of monopoly abuse in search to remain.The trial unfolded on Tuesday in Courtroom 10 at Washington’s federal courthouse, a complex minutes from Capitol Hill. It drew a large crowd, with some people standing in line to enter as early as 4:30 a.m. Officials from the Google rivals Yelp and Microsoft also attended, as did dozens of attorneys and staff from the Justice Department, states and Google after years of work on the case.Judge Mehta began the proceedings punctually. In the government’s opening statement, Mr. Dintzer focused on the search agreements Google had struck with Apple and others. He referenced internal company documents that described how Google would not share revenue with Apple without “default placement” on its devices and how it worked to ensure that Apple couldn’t redirect searches to its Siri assistant.“Your honor, this is a monopolist flexing,” Mr. Dintzer said.In blunt language, Mr. Dintzer also argued that Google had tried to hide documents from antitrust enforcers by including lawyers on conversations and marking them as subject to attorney-client privilege. He showed a message from Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, asking for the chat history to be turned off in one conversation.“They turned history off, your honor, so they could rewrite it here in this courtroom,” Mr. Dintzer said.William Cavanaugh, a lawyer for the states, echoed Mr. Dintzer’s concerns about Google’s agreements to become the default search engines on smartphones. He added that Google had limited a product used to place ads on other search engines to hurt Microsoft, which makes the Bing search engine.In response, Mr. Schmidtlein, Google’s lawyer, argued that the company’s default agreements with browser makers don’t lock up the market the way that the Justice Department said. Browser makers such as Apple and Mozilla both promote other search engines, he said, and it was easy for users to switch their default search engine.Using a slide show, Mr. Schmidtlein demonstrated the number of taps or clicks required to change the default on popular smartphones. People who wished to switch their search engine but did not know how could search Google for instructions or watch a video tutorial on YouTube, which Google owns, he said.The government’s evidence was coming from “snippets and out-of-context” emails, he said.The lawyers also sparred over whether Google was as dominant as the government claimed. The Justice Department and the states said Google competes primarily with broad search engines that act as a single place to look for multiple types of information. But Mr. Schmidtlein said Google’s universe of competitors was wider, including online retailers like Amazon, food delivery apps like DoorDash and travel booking sites like Expedia.In the afternoon, the Justice Department called Hal Varian, Google’s chief economist, as its first witness to establish that the company had long been aware of its power in search and deliberately tried to sidestep antitrust scrutiny.In more than three hours of testimony, Mr. Varian was asked about views that he shared with other Google employees on the power of defaults, the threat of Microsoft’s entry into search and his awareness of language that could invite the attention of antitrust regulators. The Justice Department drew from Mr. Varian’s emails and memos from as far back as the early 2000s.Mr. Varian is scheduled to return to the witness stand on Wednesday.Nico Grant More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Poverty Rate Soared in 2022 as Aid Ended and Prices Rose

    The increase in poverty reversed two years of large declines. Median income, adjusted for inflation, fell 2.3 percent to $74,580.Poverty increased sharply last year in the United States, particularly among children, as living costs rose and federal programs that provided aid to families during the pandemic were allowed to expire.The poverty rate rose to 12.4 percent in 2022 from 7.8 percent in 2021, the largest one-year jump on record, the Census Bureau said Tuesday. Poverty among children more than doubled, to 12.4 percent, from a record low of 5.2 percent the year before. Those figures are according to the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in the impact of government assistance and geographical differences in the cost of living.The increases followed two years of historically large declines in poverty, driven primarily by safety net programs that were created or expanded during the pandemic. Those included a series of direct payments to households in 2020 and 2021, enhanced unemployment and nutrition benefits, increased rental assistance and an expanded child tax credit, which briefly provided a guaranteed income to families with children.Nearly all of those programs had expired by last year, however, leaving many families struggling to stay ahead of rising prices despite a strong job market and improving economy. Overall poverty now looks much the way it did in 2019, with the notable difference that financial hardship has declined among Black households, reflecting higher incomes in recent years.The Share of Children in Poverty More Than DoubledThe poverty rate for those under 18 rose to 12.4 percent last year.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Share of each age group living in poverty
    Note: Data are the supplemental poverty rates, which adjust for geographic differences. The rates also include wage income, taxes and the fullest account of government aid.Source: Census BureauBy Karl RussellOne pandemic program that did not expire was a temporary freeze in Medicaid terminations, a move that allowed the program to cover more Americans than ever. Because of that program, the share of Americans without health insurance matched a record low last year of 7.9 percent. But states are unwinding that temporary coverage, and the uninsured rate has probably increased in recent months.The increasing cost of living added to the challenge last year. The poverty threshold, which is based on the cost of essential items like food and housing, rose sharply: A family of four living in a rental home was considered poor under the supplemental measure if the family’s income was less than $34,518 in 2022, up from $31,453 in 2021.Higher prices didn’t just hit the poor. Median household income, adjusted for inflation, fell 2.3 percent in 2022, to $74,580, as the fastest inflation since 1981 overwhelmed the impact of increased employment and rising wages.“People are working hard,” said Margaret O’Conor, who runs Common Pantry, a small food bank in Chicago. “They’re just not making ends meet, the cost of living is too much.” Rent in particular has soaked up a lot of people’s extra earnings.Common Pantry, like many food banks, had demand explode during the pandemic and then recede in 2021, when people received stimulus checks, enhanced unemployment benefits and the child tax credit, among other assistance. Then, as those programs lapsed, demand began to climb again.“2022 just threw us,” Ms. O’Conor said. “We were not expecting it. I don’t think any food pantry was really expecting it.”The White House, in a blog post previewing the report, argued that more recent data “tell a more optimistic story.” Inflation has cooled in recent months, while the job market has remained strong and wages continue to rise.The hot job market has had clear benefits for those able to take advantage of it. Many workers, especially in low-paying industries like hospitality and retail, experienced significant wage gains in 2022. Supersized unemployment benefits and other cash payments allowed workers to hold out for higher-paying jobs. Income for the poorest 20 percent of households — excluding tax credits and some other government benefits — rose 4.3 percent last year, adjusted for inflation. Income gains also outpaced inflation for the least educated workers.Those effects were more pronounced for women. The share of working women who were employed full time for the whole year reached 65.6 percent, the highest level on record — which also allowed real earnings to fall less for women than they did for men.The story was not as rosy for Americans over 65, for whom the poverty rate rose to 14.1 percent, despite an 8.7 percent cost-of-living increase in Social Security payments. Labor force participation among older people remains depressed, as many lost jobs and have had a difficult time re-entering the workplace.“People became more isolated, experienced significantly more health problems,” said Jess Maurer, the executive director of the Maine Council on Aging. “Older people had a harder time coming out of the pandemic, coming back into the community.”Inequality, as measured by the gap in pretax income between the richest and poorest 10 percent of households, narrowed, as most of the decrease in median incomes came from those at the middle and top of the wage distribution. Racial gaps also shrank, as white households lost ground to inflation, while inflation-adjusted income was little changed for other racial and ethnic groups.The “official” poverty rate — an older measure that is widely considered outdated because it excludes many of the government’s most important anti-poverty programs, among other shortcomings — was nearly flat last year, at 11.5 percent, reflecting the offsetting forces of higher prices and increased earnings of low-wage workers. By that measure, the poverty rate for Black Americans was 17.1 percent, the lowest rate on record.U.S. Poverty Increased Last YearThe supplemental poverty rate — which accounts for the impact of government programs — increased to to 12.4 percent last year, surpassing the official poverty rate, which was 11.5 percent.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Share of the population living in poverty
    Note: The supplemental rate adjusts for geographic differences. It also includes wage income, taxes and the fullest account of government aid.Source: Census BureauBy Karl Russell“There has really been this resurgence in terms of the labor market fortunes of Black workers, particularly Black male workers,” said Michelle Holder, an economist at John Jay College in New York. “The most important element for people in my community is can we get a job, and if we can get a job, can we keep a job? And right now, both things look pretty darn good.”But those unable to work, or unable to work full-time, faced a one-two punch of higher costs and lost benefits in 2022 — problems that have continued this year. Increased federal nutrition benefits, one of the last vestiges of pandemic aid efforts, expired last spring. Factoring in the loss of benefits, real income fell for the poorest households in 2022, and inequality rose.“Tight labor markets are incredibly powerful, they’re really important, but they’re not sufficient,” said Elisabeth Jacobs, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.When a high-risk pregnancy forced Amber Summers to leave her job in rural Southern Illinois in 2021, the expanded child tax credit provided a lifeline. The $250 monthly payments helped cover her mortgage and allowed her son, now 9, to play Little League Baseball for the first time.“It was financial stability and stress relief for our family,” she said.But when the payments lapsed at the end of 2021, the family’s finances quickly unraveled — especially after Ms. Summers’s husband, Tim, contracted Covid and lost his job as a cook. And while both of them have since returned to work, neither is receiving full-time hours, and they are falling further behind on their bills. Opportunities for better-paying jobs are limited in their area.“The child tax credit helped pull our family out of poverty for such a short period of time,” Ms. Summers, 32, said.Congress passed the expanded child tax credit as part of the American Rescue Plan, President Biden’s pandemic-relief package, in early 2021. But while other Covid-era relief programs were always intended to expire once the emergency passed, supporters hoped to make the expanded child credit permanent.That didn’t happen. Faced with united opposition from congressional Republicans as well as some conservative Democrats, Mr. Biden dropped his effort to extend the program at the end of 2021; a renewed push failed again last year. The rise in poverty in 2022, social policy experts said, was the inevitable result of that decision.“Today’s Census report shows the dire consequences of congressional Republicans’ refusal to extend the enhanced Child Tax Credit, even as they advance costly corporate tax cuts,” Mr. Biden said in a statement.Correspondingly, the highest increases in poverty were in the South, where research has shown the child tax credit had the greatest effect, and among Alaska Natives and American Indians, for whom the poverty rate rebounded to 23.2 percent.Critics of the child tax credit and other pandemic aid have argued that the rapid rebound in poverty after the programs’ expiration is evidence that the progress made against poverty in recent years was, in effect, artificial. Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, argued that programs that offer incentives to work — such as the earned-income tax credit and the standard child tax credit — have led to more sustainable gains.“Yes, this alleviated child poverty, but it didn’t really do a whole lot to encourage self-sufficiency,” he said.Progressives take a different lesson: Government programs succeeded in lifting millions of people out of poverty. An analysis by researchers at Columbia University on Tuesday found that child poverty would have been nearly 50 percent lower in 2022 if the expanded tax credit had remained in place. The programs might also have had longer-run benefits, they argue, but ended before those effects could be seen.“The last few years just illustrated in an incredible way the power of effective government intervention,” said Arloc Sherman, a vice president at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive research organization. “The last couple years, through a plunge in poverty and what is now a record single-year increase in poverty in 2022, have shown that poverty is very much a policy choice.”Margot Sanger-Katz More

  • 163 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Bharat Ramamurti, a Senior Biden Aide Who Helped Shape Economic Agenda, Is Leaving

    Bharat Ramamurti supported the president’s competition agenda and pushed the administration to do more for student borrowers and salaried workersBharat Ramamurti, the last original senior member of President Biden’s National Economic Council, will leave the White House at the end of the month. His departure closes a chapter in Mr. Biden’s tenure that included a flurry of economic legislation directing large sums of federal money toward infrastructure, manufacturing, clean energy and other initiatives.Mr. Ramamurti, an N.E.C. deputy, has been a key player in Mr. Biden’s efforts to boost the economy through both legislation and executive action. That included Mr. Biden’s attempts to increase corporate competition — an initiative outlined in an executive order in 2021 — and his plan to forgive a wide swath of student loans, which the Supreme Court struck down.Mr. Ramamurti was a candidate to lead the N.E.C. when its first director under Mr. Biden, Brian Deese, stepped down in February. The position instead went to a former top Federal Reserve official, Lael Brainard.In an interview, Ms. Brainard praised Mr. Ramamurti for “outstanding judgment, collegiality, strategic sense, policy chops and communications.”Before joining Mr. Biden’s transition team after the 2020 presidential election, Mr. Ramamurti was a policy aide to Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, and the first member of the Congressional Oversight Commission charged with tracking some of the $2 trillion of economic stimulus approved by President Donald J. Trump amid the Covid-19 pandemic.Many observers expected Mr. Ramamurti to help link Mr. Biden’s economic team with Ms. Warren and other progressive Democrats in Congress on issues like student debt relief, where Mr. Biden’s plans called for less expansive action than the more liberal wing of his party had urged.Mr. Deese recalled that Mr. Ramamurti, in developing the ill-fated student debt proposal, was influential and pragmatic in expanding on Mr. Biden’s original promise of $10,000 in loan relief for lower-income and middle-class borrowers.Mr. Ramamurti was among those pushing for more expanded relief that could help Black students and other students of color with particularly large debt levels. He suggested several different ways to expand forgiveness in a targeted manner, at the request of Mr. Deese and Susan Rice, who was then the head of Mr. Biden’s Domestic Policy Council. The team eventually settled on a plan that offered an additional $10,000 in relief for students who had been eligible for federal Pell Grants, which benefit lower-income families.“In all of our work on college affordability, he was very conscious of racial equity and distributional impacts,” said Jared Bernstein, the chairman of Mr. Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers. In the student debt debate, he said, Mr. Ramamurti “brought a level of both policy expertise and emotion — which is a nice way of saying ‘pissed off’ — to those meetings.”Some of Mr. Ramamurti’s influence on policy was more durable — if less visible. Mr. Bernstein said he had successfully pushed other administration officials to be more aggressive in setting a Labor Department rule that expands the number of salaried workers who automatically qualify for time-and-a-half overtime pay after working 40 hours in a week.He coordinated the administration’s efforts to broker an agreement in early 2022 between the nation’s telecom giants and leading airlines over the deployment of 5G wireless towers near airports, which could have caused crippling disruptions in air travel.He also helped lead much of Mr. Biden’s competition agenda, including his efforts to crack down on so-called junk fees charged by banks, airlines and online ticketing agencies. That effort spanned cabinet agencies and several parts of the West Wing, and colleagues repeatedly praised Mr. Ramamurti’s coordination skills.It was a “major undertaking that could not have happened without Bharat’s ability to run good process and communicate so clearly and distill things down for people, including at all levels of the White House,” said Hannah Garden-Monheit, who now leads Mr. Biden’s competition council.Mr. Biden has seen significant turnover from his original economic team. Along with Mr. Deese and Ms. Rice, he lost his first C.E.A. chair, Cecilia Rouse, and several senior deputies across the White House. His first labor secretary, Marty Walsh, stepped down to become the head of the National Hockey League players’ union. More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Restaurants Agree to Raise Pay to $20 an Hour in California

    The deal will avoid a ballot fight over a law passed last year that could have resulted in higher pay and other changes opposed by restaurant companies and franchisees.Labor groups and fast-food companies in California have reached an agreement that will pave the way for workers in the industry to receive a minimum wage of $20 per hour.The deal, which will result in changes to Assembly Bill 1228, was announced by the Service Employees International Union on Monday, and will mean an increase to the minimum wage for California fast-food workers by April. In exchange, labor groups and their allies in the Legislature will agree to the fast-food industry’s demands to remove a provision from the bill that could have made restaurant companies liable for workplace violations committed by their franchisees.The agreement is contingent on the withdrawal of a referendum proposal by restaurant companies in California that would have challenged the proposed legislation in the 2024 ballot. Businesses, labor groups and others have often used ballot measures in California to block legislation or advance their causes. The proposed legislation would also create a council for overseeing future increases to the minimum wage and enact workplace regulations.Mary Kay Henry, the president of the S.E.I.U., said the measure in California would be a model for other states. “California fast-food workers’ fight for a seat at the table has reshaped what working people believe is possible when they join together,” she said.Sean Kennedy, the executive vice president of public affairs at the National Restaurant Association, said the deal also benefited restaurants. “This agreement protects local restaurant owners from significant threats that would have made it difficult to continue to operate in California,” he said. “It provides a more predictable and stable future for restaurants, workers and consumers.”Even so, some franchisees said they did not support the deal.“The real issue is who is this impacting the most? It’s the franchisees,” said Keith Miller, a Subway franchisee in Northern California who has become an advocate for the interests of others like him. “There was a lot of back-room dealing that made this happen and no time for anyone to really voice opposition.”Willie Armstrong, the chief of staff for Assemblyman Chris Holden, a Democrat, who is the sponsor of A.B. 1228, said the lawmaker expected the measure to be approved by the Legislature before its session ended on Thursday.Last year, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 257, a measure Mr. Holden also sponsored, which would have created a council with the authority to raise the minimum wage to $22 per hour for restaurant workers. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it on Labor Day last year.But the bill met fierce opposition from business interests and restaurant companies, and a petition received enough signatures to put a measure on the November 2024 ballot to stop the law from going into effect.Other business groups in California have successfully used that tactic to change or reverse legislation they opposed.In 2020, ride-sharing and delivery companies like Uber and Instacart campaigned for and received an exemption from a key provision of Assembly Bill 5, which was signed by Mr. Newsom and would have made it much harder for the companies to classify drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.Those companies collected enough signatures to get the issue on the ballot as Proposition 22, which passed in November 2020. More than $200 million was spent on that measure, making it the costliest ballot initiative in the state at the time.And in February, oil companies received enough signatures for a measure that aims to block legislation banning new drilling projects near homes and schools. That initiative will be on the 2024 ballot.In response to calls from advocacy groups who have said the referendum process unfairly benefits wealthy special-interest groups, and in an effort to demystify a system that many Californians say is confusing, Mr. Newsom signed legislation on Sept. 8 that aims to simplify the referendum process.Kurtis Lee More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Europe Rushes to Build Defenses But With Little Consensus on How

    At Saab’s sprawling combat production center in Karlskoga, Sweden, the 84-millimeter shells that can take out a battle tank in a single stroke are carefully assembled by hand. One worker stacked tagliatelle-shaped strips of explosive propellant in a tray. Another attached the translucent sheafs around the rotating fins of a guiding system.Outside the squat building, one of hundreds in the guarded industrial park, construction is underway on another factory. Capacity at this plant — a few minutes’ drive from the home of Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite and founder of the peace prize — is scheduled to more than double in the next two years.The enlargement is part of a titanic expansion in military spending that every country in Europe has undertaken since Russia invaded Ukraine 18 months ago. Yet the mad dash by more than 30 allied countries to stockpile arms after years of minimal spending has raised concerns that the massive buildup will be disjointed, resulting in waste, supply shortages, unnecessary delays and duplication.“Europeans have not addressed the deeply fragmented and disorganized manner in which they generate their forces,” a recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies said. “Investing more in an uncoordinated manner will only marginally improve a dysfunctional status quo.”The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which sets overall defense strategy, and the European Union have pushed for greater cooperation and integration, creating several new initiatives, including one to coordinate weapons procurement.Manufacturing shells at a Saab facility in Karlskoga, Sweden.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesAnother step in the production at the Karlskoga facility.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesCleaning the main charges on the production line.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesStill, a growing chorus of weapons manufacturers, political figures and military experts warn the efforts fall far short of what is needed. “There needs to be some clarity since we’re not the United States of Europe,” Micael Johansson, the president and chief executive of Saab, explained from the company’s headquarters in Stockholm. “Every country decides themselves what type of capabilities they need.”Each country has its own strategic culture, procurement practices, specifications, approval processes, training and priorities.Alliance members may sometimes use the same aircraft but with different encryption systems and varying instruments. As Ukrainian soldiers have discovered, 155-millimeter shells produced by one manufacturer do not necessarily fit into a howitzer made by another. Ammunition and parts are not always interchangeable, complicating maintenance and causing more frequent breakdowns.The European Union does not “have a defense planning process,” said Mr. Johansson. This summer, he was appointed vice chairman of the board at the Aerospace and Defense Industries Association of Europe, a trade association representing 3,000 companies. “NATO has to rethink how do we create resilience in the whole system,” including supply chains that produce the munitions soldiers use on the battlefield.Saab’s president and chief executive, Micael Johansson, at the company’s headquarters in Stockholm.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesCrucial raw materials like titanium and lithium, as well as sophisticated electronics and semiconductors, are in great demand.And there is a shortage of explosives, particularly powder, which manufacturers across the entire weapons industry depend on. But there has been little detailed discussion about which systems should get priority or how the supply of powder as a whole could be increased.“I suggested it,” Mr. Johansson said, “but it hasn’t happened yet.”The discussions are taking place at a time when the resilience of far-flung supply chains of all kinds are being re-examined. Memories are still fresh of interruptions in the flow of natural gas and grain resulting from the war in Ukraine, not to mention the severe backlogs in the production and delivery of goods and materials caused by the Covid pandemic.The big trend now, said Michael Hoglund, head of business area ground combat at Saab, is to bring supply chains closer to home and to create reliable backups. “We’re no longer buying the cheapest,” he said. “We’re paying a fee to feel safer.”Workers on the production line.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesAssembling a weapon.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesCoordinating supplies is just one element. Getting a jumble of varying weapons systems, practices and technologies to smoothly perform in concert has always been a challenge. NATO has set standards so that the different systems are compatible — what is known as interoperability.The practice, though, can be less than harmonious.The European Defense Agency’s annual review last year found that only 18 percent of defense investments are done together, half of the targeted amount. “The degree of cooperation among our armies is very low,” Josep Borrell, the European Union’s top diplomat, said at the time.Sweden is on the cusp of joining NATO, but it has partnered with the military alliance before, and Saab, which produces a range of weapons systems including the Gripen fighter jet, sells to scores of countries around the world.Managers there have seen some of the challenges to coordination up close in large and small ways.A Gripen aircraft at the Saab test center in Linkoping.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesJakob Hogberg, a Gripen test pilot, discussing the aircraft.Loulou d’Aki for The New York Times“The whole system in each army is built up in a special way,” said Gorgen Johansson, who oversees the Karlskoga operation. (He is not related to the chief executive.) Behind him sat an empty green tube used to launch Saab’s shoulder-fired NLAW anti-tank missile. It was signed by Ukraine’s former minister of defense and returned to its maker as a token of appreciation.Some customers, he said, want two launchers packed in a single box, another wants four, or six, because they have bought vehicles and equipment that can hold different numbers of launchers.Mr. Johansson said that until very recently, it was impossible to get the players to even talk about standardizing where labels were positioned or what color they should be.Bigger problems remain. After the Cold War ended, there was an enormous consolidation of defense companies as military spending shrank. Still, like varying brands of cereal, there is a wide range of each major weapons system. Europe has 27 different types of howitzers, 20 types of fighter jets and 26 types of destroyers and frigates, according to an analysis by McKinsey & Company.In building a unified fighting force, Europe must balance competition, which can result in improvements and innovation, with the need to eliminate waste and streamline operations, by ordering or even designing weapons in concert.Underlying the once-in-a-generation military expansion is that the continent is still primarily dependent on the United States for its safety. President Trump’s complaints in 2018 of insufficient spending in Europe and veiled threats to withdraw from NATO profoundly shook the region.A staff member collecting equipment from a tank used as a target at a test center.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesHolding up shrapnel that hit the target after a firing exercise.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesBut the view that Europe has to take more financial responsibility for its own defense is now widespread, urgently ratcheting up the pressure to better unify Europe’s defenses.Coordination, though, faces several built-in hurdles. As the center’s report concluded, integrating European defense “will be a slow laborious process and a generational effort.”Governments are already funneling millions or billions of dollars to defense and, naturally, every one wants to support its own industries and workers.And whatever Europe’s overall defense needs may be, each nation’s first priority is protecting their borders. There is limited trust even among alliance members.“We think we are friends,” said Gorgen Johansson in Karlskoga. But he noted that during the pandemic when there was a shortage of ventilators, Germany, which had a surplus, stopped supplying them to Sweden, Italy and other countries in need.“The talks have started,” Mr. Johansson said of efforts to improve coordination. “Do I think it will go quickly? No.”Working on a plane at Saab’s fighter production facility in Linköping.Loulou d’Aki for The New York TimesWorkers assembling an aircraft in Linköping.Loulou d’Aki for The New York Times More

  • 225 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Fears over access to credit hit highest level in more than a decade, New York Fed survey shows

    Respondents indicating that the ability to get credit is harder now than it was a year ago rose to nearly 60%, the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations for August showed.
    The survey showed that the mean expectation of losing one’s job in the next year rose by 2 percentage points to 13.8%, the highest since April 2021.

    Choochart Choochaikupt | Istock | Getty Images

    American consumers are worried about access to credit amid persistently higher interest rates and tighter standards at banks, according to a New York Federal Reserve survey released Monday.
    Respondents indicating that the ability to get loans, credit cards and mortgages is harder now than it was a year ago rose to nearly 60%, the highest level in a data series that goes back to June 2013. The results were part of the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations for August.

    Fears of credit access have been rising steadily since early 2022, around the same time that the Fed began raising interest rates. Since March of last year, the central bank has hiked its key borrowing rate 11 times totaling 5.25 percentage points as it seeks to tame inflation.
    While the Fed worries over higher prices, the inflation outlook was mixed.
    Expectations for inflation one year and five years out rose just 0.1 percentage point on the month, taking them respectively to 3.6% and 3%. The three-year outlook nudged down 0.1 point to 2.8%. The Fed targets inflation at 2%.
    However, the outlook was mostly different on commodity inflation.
    The survey showed that respondents’ expectations for gas prices rose 0.4 percentage point to 4.9%, 0.8 point for medical care to 9.2%, 0.1 point for food to 5.3%, and 0.2 point apiece for college education and rent, to 8.2% and 9.2%, respectively.
    Worries also are rising about employment: The survey showed that the mean expectation of losing one’s job in the next year rose by 2 percentage points to 13.8%, the highest since April 2021. That comes with an unemployment rate of just 3.8%, or 0.1 percentage point above its year-ago level. More

  • 125 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Automakers and U.A.W. Remain Far Apart as Contract Deadline Nears

    The United Auto Workers has said it is prepared to strike at General Motors, Ford and Stellantis if a deal is not reached before current contracts end on Thursday.The United Auto Workers union and the three established U.S. automakers remain far apart on wages and other issues with less than a week to go before contracts covering 150,000 union workers expire.So far, the companies — General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis, the parent of Chrysler — have offered to raise pay by 14 percent to 16 percent over four years. Their offers include lump sum payments to help ease the impact of inflation, and policy changes that would lift the pay of recent hires and temporary workers, who typically earn about a third less than veteran union members.But the union’s combative new president, Shawn Fain, has dismissed the offers as “insulting,” noting that the three manufacturers have been making near-record profits for almost a decade, and that pay packages of top executives have increased substantially. He has been seeking pay increases of about 40 percent and repeatedly warned that workers were ready to leave assembly lines when the current collective bargaining agreements with the automakers expire on Thursday.Mr. Fain has said the union is willing to strike at all three automakers simultaneously, a step it has never taken before. An across-the-board stoppage would deal a big blow to the economies of Michigan and other states.“We aren’t going to stand by and allow them to drag out the negotiations like they’ve done in the past,” Mr. Fain said Friday in a video on Facebook. “If we hit 11:59 on Thursday without a deal at any of the Big Three automakers, there will be a strike — at all three if need be.”A Summer of StrikesSee how a wave of labor activity in the United States this summer compares with decades past.The talks are taking place during a sweeping shift from combustion engine cars and trucks to electric vehicles, which require fewer parts and less labor to produce. U.A.W. leaders and members are increasingly worried that the transition will eliminate jobs and, over time, reduce wages and benefits.The automakers are also worried about the transition. G.M., Ford and Stellantis are spending tens of billions of dollars to build new factories and scour the world for battery raw materials like lithium. Company executives have argued that offering the U.A.W. members big raises could leave them at a significant cost disadvantage to Tesla, which dominates the U.S. electric car market and employs nonunion workers.The auto industry is the largest U.S. manufacturing sector, and accounts for about 3 percent of the nation’s economic output. The three Detroit automakers operate dozens of plants that make about 500,000 cars a month.The Anderson Economic Group, a research firm in East Lansing, Mich., estimated that a 10-day strike against the three companies would reduce the companies’ profits by $1 billion and wages by $900 million for U.A.W. members and workers employed by other companies that depend on the automakers.Aside from wages, the union and the companies remain far apart on several other matters, including measures to preserve jobs and discourage the closing of U.S. plants, increases in retirement benefits and cost-of-living adjustments, which were once standard in U.A.W. contracts.The union has made some progress in its discussions with Ford. In response to Mr. Fain’s demands, the automaker offered to increase wages by about 15 percent, through a 9 percent increase in base wages and one-time lump sum payments of $11,000 per worker. While Mr. Fain rejected that, the two sides have continued bargaining. He was scheduled to update U.A.W. members later on Friday about Ford’s latest offer.Talks with G.M. and Stellantis have proceeded more slowly. The U.A.W. filed a complaint last week with the National Labor Relations Board, saying the two manufacturers had refused to offer proposals in response to the union’s demands and were not negotiating in good faith.G.M. responded by offering a combination of base wage increases and lump sum payments that would lift worker pay by about 16 percent. “We have already said we want to reward and recognize our employees with wage increases,” Gerald Johnson, G.M.’s executive vice president for global manufacturing, said this week.Agreeing to all of the union’s demands would threaten G.M.’s ability to compete, he added.Mr. Fain said the wage offer didn’t go far enough to make up for the impact of inflation on workers’ take-home pay over the last decade, and was too little in light of the profits G.M. was making. The automaker reported profits of $7 billion in the first half of the year. Mr. Fain also complained that G.M. had rejected the union’s proposals on job security, retiree pay, cost-of-living adjustments and other issues.Stellantis submitted its proposal to the union Friday morning, offering a 14.5 percent rise in base wages with no lump-sum payments.“This is a responsible and strong offer that positions us to continue providing good jobs to our employees,” Mark Stewart, the chief operating officer of Stellantis’s North American operations, said in a statement. “With this offer, we are seeking a timely resolution to our discussions.”Stellantis, which is based in Amsterdam and was created by the merger of Fiat Chrysler and Peugeot in 2021, earned 11 billion euros ($12 billion) in the first half of the year, a record. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Taylor Swift is single-handedly giving a boost to hotel industry revenue

    Taylor Swift’s high-flying stadium tour has helped boost hotel revenue in the cities she’s visited, according to Bernstein.
    Revenue generated per room was higher in cities in the months Swift visited them compared with the national average and the same months a year ago.
    Hotels around the globe could feel a similar lift with her international tour, the firm said.

    Taylor Swift performs in Cincinnati, Ohio, June 30, 2023, during her Eras tour.
    Taylor Hill/tas23 | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

    Taylor Swift is providing a gold rush for the hotel industry.
    The “Cruel Summer” singer’s attention-grabbing “Eras” tour has pushed up revenue for hotels in cities across the U.S., according to data from investment firm Bernstein. And the so-called Swift-lift could be seen around the globe as the tour goes international.

    “This has been a notable boost to the hotel industry,” Bernstein analyst Richard Clarke wrote in a note to clients Friday, using the term “Swiftonomics.”
    Average revenue generated per room was more than 4 percentage points above the national benchmark in U.S. states during the months of Swift’s visits, Bernstein data shows. These states saw revenue per room up about 7% on average in the months of her stops compared with the same periods a year prior. (Revenue generated per room is calculated by dividing the total hotel revenue by number of available rooms, regardless of whether they were occupied.)
    Much of the revenue jump can be attributed to higher prices for rooms, Clarke said, but the number of bookings also improved in many cases. In the most extreme example, Nashville saw hotel occupancy rise more than 30% and room rates increase more than 50% on concert nights. Revenue per room more than doubled the weekend Swift was in town.
    Swift’s aid also buoyed U.S. hotels amid a boom among Americans in international tourism, Clarke noted. But he said other countries will have their chance at feeling the Swift-induced bump given the tour has an international leg.
    Meanwhile, Bernstein found a relatively muted — though still notable — impact on hotels from Beyoncé’s “Renaissance” tour.

    Bernstein’s analysis follows months of anecdotal reports about the economic boost from the tours, as well as other popular culture events this summer. The concerts have caught the attention of Wall Street and the Federal Reserve, which specifically noted high hotel bookings during Swift’s stop in Philadelphia.
    “Despite the slowing recovery in tourism in the region overall, one contact highlighted that May was the strongest month for hotel revenue in Philadelphia since the onset of the pandemic,” Fed officials wrote in the July beige book, which summarizes economic activity. That’s “in large part due to an influx of guests for the Taylor Swift concerts in the city.”
    Indeed, Clarke said occupancy was 11% higher in Philadelphia during the nights of Swift’s tour, while revenue per available room was up 59% on average.
    Swift announced last week that a filmed version of her tour would premiere in theaters in October. More