Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Julie Su Faces Senate Fight as Labor Dept. Nominee

    Business groups are critical of the candidate, Julie Su, and key senators are wavering. The administration’s labor policies are central to the clash.Just over a year ago, the White House suffered an embarrassing defeat when three Democratic senators voted against advancing President Biden’s pick to run a key labor agency, dealing a blow to the administration’s pro-labor agenda.On Thursday, the administration and Senate Democrats tried to ensure that history wouldn’t repeat itself, only this time the stakes were even higher.The occasion was the Senate confirmation hearing of Julie Su, who has served as acting labor secretary since March 11 and is Mr. Biden’s choice to fill the job permanently.As with last year’s confirmation battle, over the government’s top enforcer of minimum wage and overtime laws, Ms. Su’s nomination represents a broader fight over workplace regulation, with business groups chafing against Mr. Biden’s push to strengthen unions and increase workers’ rights and benefits.And once again, there are signs that the administration may fall short, with at least two Democrats and an independent wavering over whether to support Ms. Su. A vote of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions is scheduled for next week.In her testimony before the committee on Thursday, Ms. Su largely associated herself with the record of her predecessor, Martin J. Walsh — whom some Republicans and business groups have held up as pragmatic, and whom Ms. Su served as deputy.She said she would seek employers’ advice on improving worker safety, and described the reverence she gained for small business owners after watching her immigrant parents operate a dry cleaner and a pizza franchise.Democrats argue that Ms. Su, who has strong backing from labor unions, would be a strong worker advocate and enforcer of provisions like the minimum wage, safety regulations and restrictions on child labor, as well as the right to join unions.“You need in terms of a bully pulpit a secretary of labor who makes clear that she is going to stand with working families, and she is prepared to use the powers of the office to take on corporate interests,” Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who heads the labor committee, said in an interview on Wednesday.If confirmed, Ms. Su is also likely to lead the Biden administration’s effort to expand overtime pay for salaried workers. The administration is expected to propose a rule substantially raising the salary threshold — currently about $35,500 — below which most workers automatically qualify for overtime.Those questioning the merits of Ms. Su’s nomination have cited her record as California labor secretary and her support for the state’s labor regulations to suggest that she is a threat to certain industries.When Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the committee’s ranking Republican, pressed at the hearing for assurances that she wouldn’t pursue regulations that could harm the franchise business model, Ms. Su reminded him that her parents had been franchise owners and suggested that their businesses “were the reason my sister and I were able to go to college.”President Biden with Ms. Su and her daughters at the White House in March.Yuri Gripas for The New York TimesThe Flex Association, a trade group representing several prominent gig economy companies, has called attention to her support for a California measure that would have effectively classified gig workers as employees, requiring companies like Uber and DoorDash to pay them a minimum wage and overtime and to contribute to unemployment insurance. (The law was later scaled back through a ballot measure.)The group circulated an email on Wednesday expressing concern that Ms. Su “does not appreciate” that classifying gig workers as employees could cause many to lose access to such work.Some labor experts have disputed this claim, and a rule being finalized by the Labor Department on how to classify workers takes a different approach from the California measure. But Kristin Sharp, the Flex Association’s chief executive, said that the labor secretary would have discretion over how to carry out the new rule and that “we want to make sure that person is objective in his or her views of nontraditional work.” The group has not taken an official stand on Ms. Su’s nomination.Other business groups have cited what they say is Ms. Su’s support for a California law setting up a council to issue health and safety regulations for fast-food restaurants and create an industry-specific minimum wage.“She has supported policies that directly attack our model,” said Matthew Haller, president of the International Franchise Association, alluding to the fast-food measure. A ballot measure next year will allow voters to decide whether to nullify the law. It is unclear from a video the groups point to that she has specifically supported the law.And Republicans and a variety of business groups have highlighted accusations that California issued billions in fraudulent unemployment insurance claims while she was the state’s labor secretary in 2020. At the hearing, Mr. Cassidy recounted a report of a rapper securing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraudulent funds in California and boasting about it on a video.Ms. Su has conceded that a large number of claims were improper. Mr. Sanders pointed out that the overpayments reflected features of a federal program that the state merely administered, and that other states paid out a far higher percentage of fraudulent claims.In recent weeks, a coalition of business groups has erected billboards and run ads critical of Ms. Su in the home states of potentially decisive senators, such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Jon Tester of Montana, all of whom have so far refrained from backing her nomination.The effort is reminiscent of a business-backed campaign against David Weil, whom Mr. Biden tapped to head the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division in 2021, and who had led the agency during the Obama administration. That nomination died on the Senate floor last year after Mr. Manchin, Ms. Sinema and a third Democratic senator, Mark Kelly of Arizona, declined to support him. (Ms. Sinema has since become an independent.)Mr. Weil and his backers lamented the muted response from progressive groups on his behalf. This time, labor unions and other supporters are making a more determined push. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. president, Liz Shuler, announced on Wednesday that a coalition of unions would make a “six-figure buy” of ads backing Ms. Su in states like Arizona and West Virginia and would urge local union members to contact their senators.The United Mine Workers of America, which is influential in Mr. Manchin’s home state and sat out the fight over Mr. Weil, endorsed Ms. Su last week.Emilie Simons, a spokeswoman for the president, said that the White House felt confident about Ms. Su’s confirmation and that it was working hard for every vote. She said that Ms. Su had offered to meet with every senator on the labor committee and that she had met with senators from both parties.At a Senate Democratic lunch on Tuesday, Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado, regarded as one of the more moderate Democrats on the labor committee, spoke up on Ms. Su’s behalf, noting her work on expanding apprenticeships as deputy secretary.Mr. Hickenlooper said in an interview that he had watched Mr. Tester, his undecided colleague from Montana, as he delivered his remarks and that he was “hopeful that we’ll get him.”But Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema may be harder to wrangle, according to veterans of such nomination fights. Mr. Manchin, who is up for re-election next year in a Republican-leaning state, has yet to meet with Ms. Su. Ms. Sinema is likely to face a challenge from a labor-backed candidate in her re-election bid, giving her little incentive to accommodate unions.Larry Cohen, a former president of the Communications Workers of America who advises multiple unions and has helped secure the nomination of many pro-labor officials over the years, said that generating popular support for Ms. Su in Arizona and West Virginia might help her cause with Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema.But, he added, “I think there is good reason to be worried about both of them.”Jonathan Weisman More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Veteran investor David Roche says a credit crunch is coming for ‘small-town America’

    The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and two other small U.S. lenders last month triggered contagion fears that led to record outflows of deposits from smaller banks.
    Earnings reports last week indicated that billions of dollars of deposit outflows from small and mid-sized regional lenders, executed amid the panic, were redirected to Wall Street giants.

    A home in Lynch, Kentucky.
    Scott Olson | Getty Images

    The banking turmoil of March, which saw the collapse of several regional U.S. lenders, will lead to a credit crunch for “small-town America,” according to veteran strategist David Roche.
    The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and two other small U.S. lenders last month triggered contagion fears that led to record outflows of deposits from smaller banks.

    Earnings reports last week indicated that billions of dollars of deposit outflows from small and mid-sized lenders, executed amid the panic, were redirected to Wall Street giants — with JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Citigroup reporting massive inflows.
    “I think we’ve learned that the big banks are seen as a safe haven, and the deposits which flow out of the small and regional banks flow into them (big banks), but we’ve got to remember in a lot of key sectors, the smaller banks account for over 50% of lending,” Roche, president of Independent Strategy, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Thursday.
    “So I think, on balance, the net result is going to be a further tightening of credit policy, of readiness to lend, and a contraction of credit to the economy, particularly to the real economy — things like services, hospitality, construction and indeed small and medium-sized enterprises — and we’ve got to remember that those sectors, the kind of small America, small-town America, account for 35 or 40% of output.”

    The ripple effects of the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank were vast, setting in motion a chain of events that eventually led to the collapse of 167-year-old Swiss institution Credit Suisse, and its rescue by domestic rival UBS.
    Central banks in Europe, the U.S. and the U.K. sprang into action to reassure that they would provide liquidity backstops, to prevent a domino effect and calm the markets.

    Roche, who correctly predicted the development of the Asian crisis in 1997 and the 2008 global financial crisis, argued that, alongside their efforts to rein in sky-high inflation, central banks are “trying to do two things at once.”
    “They’re trying to keep liquidity high, so that the problems of deposit withdrawals and other problems relating to mark-to-market of assets in banks do not cause more crises, more threats of systemic risk,” he said.
    “At the same time, they’re trying to tighten monetary policy, so, in a sense, you’ve got a schizophrenic personality of every central bank, which is doing with the right hand one thing and doing with the left hand the other thing.”

    He predicted that this eventually results in credit tightening, with fear transmitting to major commercial banks that receive fleeing assets and “don’t want to be caught up in a systemic crisis” and will be more cautious on lending.
    Roche does not anticipate a full-scale recession for the U.S. economy, although he is convinced that credit conditions are going to tighten. He recommended investors should take a conservative approach against this backdrop, parking cash in money market funds and taking a “neutral to underweight” position on stocks, which he said were at the “top of the crest” of their latest wave.
    “We will probably go down from here, because we will not get rapid cuts in interest rates from central banks,” he said.
    He added that 10-year U.S. Treasurys were “reasonably safe” at the moment, as are long position on the Japanese yen and short on the U.S. dollar.
    Investors assume long positions by buying assets whose value they expect to increase over time. Short positions are held when investors sell securities they do not own, with the expectation of purchasing them at a later date at a lower price.
    Despite commodities not yielding much this year, Roche is sticking to long calls on grains, including soya, corn and wheat.
    “Beyond the geopolitical risks which are still there, the supply and demand balances for those products looking out five years is very good,” he said. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    House G.O.P. Eyes Rescinding Unspent Covid Money as Part of Its Fiscal Plan

    Estimates put the amount of leftover money between $50 billion and $70 billion. But even if Republicans could claw it back, it would not make much of a dent in the deficit.WASHINGTON — House Republicans demanding spending cuts in exchange for raising the nation’s debt limit have rallied around a seemingly straightforward proposal: recalling billions of dollars in coronavirus relief funds that Congress approved but have not been spent.Top Republicans regard the idea of rescinding unspent pandemic emergency money — an amount estimated to be between $50 billion and $70 billion — as an easy way to save money while avoiding more politically perilous options like cutting funding for popular federal programs. Their focus on the idea reflects how, after toiling unsuccessfully for months to unite their rank and file around a fiscal blueprint, G.O.P. leaders have become acutely aware that they have few options for doing so that could actually pass the House.On Wednesday, Speaker Kevin McCarthy highlighted the measure when he finally unveiled House Republicans’ proposal to raise the debt limit for one year in exchange for a series of spending cuts and policy changes. The party plans to vote on the legislation next week.“The American people are tired of politicians who use Covid as an excuse for more extreme inflationary spending,” Mr. McCarthy said in a speech on the House floor. “If the money was authorized to fight the pandemic, what was not spent during the pandemic should not be spent after the pandemic is over.”But going after the leftover money scattered across the patchwork of government programs used to dole out the relief funding — dozens of different accounts — is easier said than done.And even if House Republicans can find a way to identify and get their hands on the comparatively small sums of leftover money, it would do little to shrink the nation’s $1.4 trillion deficit. Additionally, the federal budget analysts who calculate the deficit have already accounted for the fact that some of the money Congress allocated for pandemic relief programs will likely never be spent.House Republicans have identified the move as just one way to rein in federal spending, which they say must be done in exchange for their votes to raise the debt ceiling, which is expected to be breached as early as June.But the challenges around what has widely been considered one of the simplest options underscore how difficult it will be for the party to meet the lofty goals Republican leaders laid out at the beginning of the year. They have already abandoned their aspiration of balancing the federal budget in 10 years and have been unable to reach consensus on freezing spending levels and other cuts that would shave down the deficit without touching Medicare or Social Security.Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesOver the span of two years and six laws, Congress approved about $4.6 trillion in federal spending to help the nation respond to and recover from the coronavirus pandemic. While most of that money has already been spent, either by federal agencies or state or local governments, tens of billions of dollars have yet to be earmarked for specific use.An internal document circulated by House Republican leaders laying out a draft of their fiscal demands in exchange for raising the debt limit until May 2024 estimated that there is $50 to $70 billion in leftover federal coronavirus relief funds scattered across federal agencies and programs. The Government Accountability Office reported in February that there was about $90 billion remaining.That money is spread across dozens of programs, and many agencies are still doling out money, including the Health and Human Services Department, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Transportation Department.The bulk of it is intended for grants to health care providers, medical care for veterans, pension benefits and aid for public transit agencies that saw ridership levels plummet during the pandemic. Although Biden administration officials expect much of the remaining funds to be spent eventually, officials believe some programs with leftover money are largely over, including one designed to help aircraft manufacturers pay for compensation costs during the pandemic, which had about $2.3 billion left as of January.The funds could be unspent for various reasons. Transit agencies could already be using some to fund operations, but may not have submitted reimbursement requests to the federal government because they have more than a year left to spend the money. Funds for public health have been set aside for research, vaccine distribution and refilling stockpiles of personal protective equipment. A program that provides assistance to financially troubled pension plans is accepting applications through 2026 because of its extensive review process.Economists and policy researchers said rescinding the unspent funding would help trim the deficit — but only by a relatively small amount.Even if lawmakers were able to rescind, for example, $70 billion in relief funds, it likely would not result in a $70 billion reduction of the deficit, according to economic researchers. That is because researchers at Congress’s nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office who project the deficit have already assumed that not all pandemic relief funds would be spent and factored that into their calculations.Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the president of the conservative American Action Forum and a former C.B.O. director, said it would “make good sense” to rescind unspent relief funds if there were a substantial amount left and they were not needed, but the total savings would be relatively scant. He argued that it would be more effective for lawmakers to instead focus on slowing the growth of benefit programs such as Social Security or Medicare.“If you’re genuinely worried about the fiscal future and the unsustainable nature of the federal budget, good, but this won’t solve any of those problems,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “This is a one-time reduction in spending that looks backward, not forward, and the real issues are in front of us.”Marc Goldwein, the senior vice president at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, said the federal government should pursue some of the relief money that is not being used and try to recoup funds by investigating cases of potential fraud, though it would be a “little too late” now.“We shouldn’t have a bunch of money sitting out there that’s not being used if it’s not needed, but we just shouldn’t expect much budget savings from it,” Mr. Goldwein said.The White House has pushed back on the proposal and signaled that it would not support a move to rescind a significant amount of the funds.Gene Sperling, a senior White House adviser, said that about 98 percent of the funding in the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan has already been spent or is “on the train to go out to people and places as it was specifically intended to by the law.”Rescinding the unspent funds, he said, would “lead to significant pain for veterans, retirees [and] small businesses.”“This is a one-time reduction in spending that looks backward, not forward, and the real issues are in front of us,” said Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the president of the conservative American Action Forum and a former C.B.O. director.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesCongressional negotiators have previously attempted to offset the costs of other bills by rescinding unspent Covid money provided to state and local governments, including last year, when Democrats tried to cover the cost of a $15 billion pandemic relief bill in part by rescinding funding earmarked for state and local relief funds.But a revolt from Midwestern House Democrats — whose states would have been disproportionately affected by the clawbacks and whose governors yowled at the idea of being stripped of money they had already planned to use — ultimately led party leaders to drop the measure altogether.The episode served as a warning to state and local leaders, and ahead of the debt limit fight, some prominent mayors began publicly warning their peers to spend down the federal funds available to them quickly.Lawmakers last year also sought to offset the costs of the stand-alone pandemic aid bill by raiding the $2.3 billion in unspent money from the Transportation Department’s program to help aircraft manufacturers cover the costs of their employees’ wages during the pandemic. The idea was ultimately scuttled after the revolt around rescinding state and local funds. More

  • 88 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Yellen to Call for ‘Constructive’ China Relationship

    The Treasury secretary will strike a more conciliatory note in a speech Thursday, following months of escalated tensions between the world’s two largest economies.WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen on Thursday will call for a “constructive” and “healthy” economic relationship between the United States and China, one in which the two nations work together to confront challenges like climate change, according to excerpts from prepared remarks.Ms. Yellen’s comments, which she will deliver at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, will strike a notably positive tone about the U.S.-China relationship following months of heightened tensions between the two nations, which have the world’s largest economies.Ms. Yellen is expected to stress the importance of securing American national security interests, as well as of protecting human rights. She will also emphasize that targeted actions the United States has taken against China — like cutting it off from the world’s most advanced semiconductors — are aimed purely at protecting U.S. national security.China has criticized U.S. restrictions on its technological development, saying that they are unlawful and a blatant effort to try and weaken the Chinese economy. Ms. Yellen will seek to allay those concerns.The U.S. has imposed sweeping restrictions on selling semiconductors and chip-making equipment, such as that made by the Dutch company ASML, to China.Bryan Derballa for The New York Times“These national security actions are not designed for us to gain a competitive economic advantage, or stifle China’s economic and technological modernization,” Ms. Yellen is expected to say. “Even though these policies may have economic impacts, they are driven by straightforward national security considerations.”She also will emphasize the strength of the American economy, noting that the economic output of the United States remains far larger than China’s.Relations between the two nations have been tense recently, including a diplomatic blowup in February after a Chinese spy balloon traversed the United States before being shot down over the Atlantic Ocean. Republicans as well as Democrats continue to describe China as an obvious economic rival as well as a security threat.Tensions also remain high over the future of Taiwan, which China claims as its territory. And many American officials have lost patience with the idea of bringing China into the rules-based international system, arguing that efforts to do so in past decades had failed to adequately improve its trade practices.But Ms. Yellen will argue that competition between the United States and China can lead to mutual improvement, within certain parameters.“Sports teams perform at a higher level when they consistently face top rivals,” her prepared remarks say. “But this type of healthy competition is only sustainable if it is fair to both sides.” China has long used government support to help its firms at the expense of foreign competitors, and its industrial policy “has become more ambitious and complex,” Ms. Yellen will say. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    House G.O.P. Unveils Debt Limit Bill Lifting Borrowing Cap for One Year

    The proposal would impose work requirements on food stamp and Medicaid recipients and repeal funding to beef up tax enforcement.WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders on Wednesday unveiled their proposal to lift the debt ceiling for one year in exchange for spending cuts and policy changes, as they scrounged for the votes to pass the fiscal blueprint in an effort to force President Biden to the negotiating table.Speaker Kevin McCarthy said in a speech on the House floor that he would put the legislation to a vote next week. He urged his conference to unite around the measure in an attempt to speed up discussions with the White House amid growing anxiety about a looming default deadline, given the United States could run out of money to pay its bills within a few months.Even if Mr. McCarthy can get his own Republican caucus behind the bill, which is not at all guaranteed, it would be dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Mr. McCarthy described the effort as a way to get the White House and Democrats to engage on spending cuts at a moment when the nation’s debt has grown to about $31.4 trillion.“Now that we’ve introduced a clear plan for responsible debt limit increase,” Mr. McCarthy said, Democrats “have no more excuse” not to negotiate.But Mr. Biden seemed in no mood to negotiate. He lashed out at Mr. McCarthy and Republicans in a speech at a Maryland union hall that he was giving just as the House Republicans released their proposals.The president accused the speaker and his party of seeking to slash spending in ways that will hurt Americans while protecting tax cuts for the country’s wealthiest people. Mr. Biden denounced the bill in some of his most aggressive language yet, saying it would gut critical programs and hurt the most vulnerable.“That would mean cutting the number of people who administer Social Security and Medicare, meaning longer wait times,” he said. “Higher costs for child care, significantly higher — preschool, colleges. Higher costs for housing, especially for older Americans, people with disabilities, families and children, veterans.”The legislation would suspend the debt ceiling — which caps the amount that the United States is authorized to borrow — until March 2024 or until the debt grows to $32.9 trillion, teeing up another fiscal confrontation just as the 2024 presidential campaign hits a critical period. In exchange for temporarily suspending the cap, House Republicans are demanding that total federal spending be frozen at last year’s levels and that Congress claw back unspent pandemic relief funds and enact stricter work requirements on food stamp and Medicaid recipients.In his speech, Mr. Biden angrily demanded that Mr. McCarthy agree to an increase in the debt limit without conditions, and insisted that he will not negotiate about spending under the threat of the first default of America’s financial obligations.“They say they’re going to default unless I agree to all these wacko notions they have,” Mr. Biden said, repeatedly referring to Mr. McCarthy and his party as “MAGA Republicans.” He said Mr. McCarthy’s actions mean that Congress may fail to increase the debt limit in time to prevent a default.“Let’s be clear,” Mr. Biden said. “If he fails, the American people will be devastated.”House G.O.P. leaders also added measures to the legislation at the request of the hard-right Freedom Caucus to repeal key tenets of Mr. Biden’s landmark health, climate and tax law, including tax credits incentivizing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and clawing back the $80 billion allocated to the Internal Revenue Service. While the Republican conference has said it wants to cut spending to reduce the deficit, eliminating the I.R.S. funding would actually reduce government revenues from tax collections, effectively costing the government money, according to congressional scorekeepers.The bill would also bar the administration from enacting its student loan forgiveness plan and includes a bill already passed by House Republicans to expand domestic mining and fossil fuel production.All told, the plan amounts to a significant watering down from some of the party’s objectives outlined earlier this year, including balancing the federal budget in 10 years. But facing mounting external pressure to avert a catastrophic default as early as June, Republicans framed the bill as a sensible solution to begin negotiations.Mr. McCarthy said on Wednesday that the legislation would save taxpayers $4.5 trillion, though no independent agencies have yet assessed the economic impact of the legislation. Analysis by the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper for tax legislation last year found that repealing Mr. Biden’s full health, climate and tax law would actually increase the deficit.“Whatever goes to the Senate, you can never” negotiate “up,” said Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina, a member of the Freedom Caucus who has never voted to raise the debt ceiling. “You can always negotiate down.”Mr. Biden excoriated Republicans for seeking to protect wealthy people even as they demand cuts that he said will have the biggest negative effect on lower-income Americans.“MAGA officials are separately pushing for more tax giveaways and overwhelming benefits to the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations,” Mr. Biden said. “Folks, this time the same old trickle down, dressed up MAGA clothing is worse than ever.”President Biden lashed out at Mr. McCarthy and Republicans in a speech at a Maryland union hall.Doug Mills/The New York TimesIt was unclear whether Mr. McCarthy had yet secured the votes to pass the legislation. Republicans, plagued by internal divisions, have so far been unable to coalesce the conference around a full budget blueprint. And a small handful of hard-right Republicans, including Representatives Tim Burchett of Tennessee and Eric Burlison of Missouri, have balked at the prospect of raising the debt ceiling at all.Still, some of the conference’s most conservative lawmakers expressed cautious optimism about the plan, indicating that Mr. McCarthy is not — as of yet — facing an organized bloc of hard-right opposition to what would amount to House Republicans’ opening offer.Russell T. Vought, the former Trump administration budget director who now leads the far-right Center for Renewing America and has been advising Republicans on their debt limit strategy, praised the proposal as “an important first step towards reining in our unsustainable levels of federal spending along with the woke and weaponized bureaucracy waging war on the American people.”The proposal Mr. McCarthy unveiled on Wednesday also appeared tailored to assuage the concerns raised by Republicans facing tough re-election fights in swing districts over enacting stronger work requirements for food stamps and Medicaid.Republican leaders ultimately backed away from including harsher measures, including a move that would have substantially narrowed an exemption from work requirements for food stamp recipients in households with children under 18, excusing only those whose households include children under the age of 7.That did not stop Democrats, who are demanding that Republicans vote to raise the debt ceiling without any conditions, from crowing about the fissures in the House G.O.P. conference.“We’re getting closer and closer to when we have to act to avoid default,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader. “For all the speeches, for all the letters, for all the wish lists and meetings with this family or that family, the underlying facts haven’t changed: At this point, Speaker McCarthy does not have a plan for avoiding a catastrophic default on the debt.”Jim Tankersley More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Why China’s Shrinking Population Is a Problem for Everyone

    China struggled for years to curtail its rapid population growth. Now that its population is declining, economists and others fear serious implications for China and countries around the world.Despite the rollback of China’s one-child policy, and even after more recent incentives urging families to have more children, China’s population is steadily shrinking — a momentous shift that will soon leave India as the world’s most populous nation and have broad rippling effects both domestically and globally.The change puts China on the same course of both aging and shrinking as many of its neighbors in Asia, but its path will have outsize effects not just on the regional economy, but on the world at large as well.Here’s why economists and others are alarmed by the developments.China’s shrinking work force could hobble the global economy.For years, China’s massive working-age population powered the global economic engine, supplying the factory workers whose cheap labor produced goods that were exported around the world.In the long run, a shortage of factory workers in China — driven by a better-educated work force and a shrinking population of young people — could raise costs for consumers outside China, potentially exacerbating inflation in countries like the United States that rely heavily on imported Chinese products. Facing rising labor costs in China, many companies have already begun shifting their manufacturing operations to lower-paying countries like Vietnam and Mexico.A shrinking population could also mean a decline in spending by Chinese consumers, threatening global brands dependent on sales of products to China, from Apple smartphones to Nike sneakers.A factory in Guangzhou. In the long run, a shortage of factory workers could raise costs for consumers outside of China.Gilles Sabrie for The New York TimesThe data is bad news for China’s crucial housing market.In the short term, a plunging birthrate poses a major threat to China’s real estate sector, which accounts for roughly a quarter of the country’s economic output. Population growth is a key driver of housing demand, and homeownership is the most important asset for many Chinese people. During widespread pandemic lockdowns that dampened consumer spending and export growth, China’s economy became even more dependent on the ailing housing sector.The government recently intervened to help distressed real estate developers, in an attempt to stem the fallout from its housing crisis.A housing development in Shanghai. Population growth is a key driver of housing demand, and a plunging birthrate poses a major threat to China’s real estate sector.Qilai Shen for The New York TimesChina’s shrinking work force may not be able to support its growing, aging population.With fewer working-age people in the long run, the government could struggle to sustain an enormous population that is growing older and living longer. A 2019 report by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences predicted that the country’s main pension fund would run out of money by 2035, in part because of the shrinking work force.Economists have compared China’s demographic crisis to the one that stalled Japan’s economic boom in the 1990s.But China does not have the same resources as a country like Japan to provide a safety net for its aging population. Its households live on much lower incomes on average than in the U.S. and elsewhere. Many older Chinese residents rely on state pension payments as a key source of income during retirement.China also has some of the lowest retirement ages in the world, with most workers retiring by 60. The situation has put a tremendous strain not only on state pension funds, but also on the country’s hospital system.Older Chinese citizens exercising at a park in Beijing. With fewer working-age people, the government could struggle to sustain an enormous population that is both growing older and living longer.Gilles Sabrie for The New York TimesThe crisis has been decades in the making.China introduced the one-child policy in the late 1970s, arguing that it was necessary to keep population growth from reaching unsustainable levels. The government imposed onerous fines on most couples who had more than one child, and compelled hundreds of millions of Chinese women to have abortions. Many families favored boys over girls, often aborting baby girls or abandoning them at birth, resulting in a huge surplus of single men in the Chinese population.China announced the relaxing of the family size restrictions in 2013, but many demographic experts said the change had come too late to change the country’s population trajectory.The government’s efforts to incentivize a baby boom to solve the demographic crisis have failed to stabilize falling birthrates.Gilles Sabrie for The New York TimesThere are no easy fixes.The government’s efforts to start a baby boom to solve the demographic crisis — including offering cash handouts and easing the one-child policy to allow for three — have failed to stabilize falling birthrates. Educated Chinese women are increasingly delaying marriage and choosing not to have children, deterred by the high costs of housing and education.China has also been unwilling to loosen immigration rules to boost the population, and has historically issued relatively few green cards to replenish its shrinking work force.To address the labor shortage, China has been outsourcing low-skilled production to other countries in Asia, and adding more automation to its factories, hoping to rely more on artificial intelligence and technology sectors for future growth. More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Russia Is Importing Western Weapons Technology, Bypassing Sanctions

    Western technology goods are winding up in Russian missiles, raising questions about the efficacy of sanctions.Late last month, American and European Union officials traded information on millions of dollars’ worth of banned technology that was slipping through the cracks of their defenses and into Russian territory.Senior tax and trade officials noted a surge in chips and other electronic components being sold to Russia through Armenia, Kazakhstan and other countries, according to slides from the March 24 meeting obtained by The New York Times. And they shared information on the flow of eight particularly sensitive categories of chips and other electronic devices that they have deemed as critical to the development of weapons, including Russian cruise missiles that have struck Ukraine.As Ukraine tries to repel Russia from its territory, the United States and its allies have been fighting a parallel battle to keep the chips needed for weapons systems, drones and tanks out of Russian hands.But denying Russia access to chips has been a challenge, and the United States and Europe have not made a clear victory. While Russia’s ability to manufacture weaponry has been diminished because of Western sanctions adopted more than a year ago, the country is still gaining circuitous access to many electronic components.The result is devastating: As the United States and the European Union rally to furnish Ukrainians with weapons to keep fighting against Russia, their own technology is being used by Russia to fight back.American officials argue that the sweeping sanctions they have imposed in partnership with 38 other governments have severely damaged Russia’s military capacity, and raised the cost to Russia to procure the parts it needs.“My view is that we’ve been very effective in impeding Russia’s ability to sustain and reconstitute a military force,” said Alan Estevez, who oversees U.S. export controls at the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Commerce Department, in an interview in March.“We recognize that this is hard, hard work,” Mr. Estevez added. “They’re adapting. We’re adapting to their adaptations.”There is no doubt that the trade restrictions are making it significantly harder for Russia to obtain technology that can be used on the battlefield, much of which is designed by firms in the United States and allied countries.Direct sales of chips to Russia from the United States and its allies have plummeted to zero. U.S. officials say Russia has already blown through much of its supply of its most accurate weapons and has been forced to substitute lower-quality or counterfeit parts that make its weaponry less accurate.But trade data shows that other countries have stepped in to provide Russia with some of what it needs. After dropping off sharply immediately after the Ukrainian invasion, Russia’s chip imports crept back up, particularly from China. Imports between October and January were 50 percent or more of median prewar levels each month, according to tracking by Silverado Policy Accelerator, a think tank.Sarah V. Stewart, Silverado’s chief executive, said the export controls imposed on Russia had disrupted pre-existing supply chains, calling that “a really positive thing.” But she said Russia was “still continuing to get quite a substantial amount” of chips.“It’s really a supply chain network that is very, very large and very complex and not necessarily transparent,” Ms. Stewart said. “Chips are truly ubiquitous.”A Ukrainian serviceman holding an electronic unit of an unmanned aerial vehicle used by Russia against Ukraine, during a media briefing of the Security and Defense Forces of Ukraine in Kyiv last week.STR/NurPhoto, via Getty ImagesAs Russia has tried to get around restrictions, U.S. officials have steadily ratcheted up their rules, including adding sanctions on dozens of companies and organizations in Russia, Iran, China, Canada and elsewhere. The United States has also expanded its trade restrictions to include toasters, hair dryers and microwaves, all of which contain chips, and set up a “disruptive technology strike force” to investigate and prosecute illicit actors trying to acquire sensitive technology.But the illicit trade in chips is proving hard to police given the ubiquity of semiconductors. Companies shipped 1.15 trillion chips to customers globally in 2021, adding to a huge worldwide stockpile. China, which is not part of the sanctions regime, is pumping out increasingly sophisticated chips.The Semiconductor Industry Association, which represents major chip companies, said that it was engaging with the U.S. government and other parties to combat the illicit trade in semiconductors, but that controlling their flow was extremely difficult.“We have rigorous protocols to remove bad actors from our supply chains, but with about one trillion chips sold globally each year, it’s not as simple as flipping a switch,” the association said in a statement.So far, the Russian military appears to have been relying on a large stockpile of electronics and weaponry it accumulated before the invasion. But that supply may be drying up, making it more urgent for Russia to obtain new shipments.A report issued Tuesday by Conflict Armament Research, an independent group that examines Russian weaponry recovered from the battlefield, revealed the first known example of Russia’s making weapons with chips manufactured after the invasion began.Three identical chips, made by a U.S. company in an offshore factory, were found in Lancet drones recovered from several sites in Ukraine this past February and March, according to Damien Spleeters, who led the investigation for C.A.R.Mr. Spleeters said his group was not revealing the chip’s manufacturer while it worked with the company to trace how the product ended up in Russia.These chips were not necessarily an example of an export control violation, Mr. Spleeters said, since the United States did not issue restrictions on this specific type of chip until September. The chips were manufactured in August and may have been shipped out soon thereafter, he said.But he saw their presence as evidence that Russia’s big prewar stockpile of electronics was finally running out. “Now we are going to start seeing whether controls and sanctions will be effective,” Mr. Spleeters said.The parent company of the firm that designed the drone, the Kalashnikov Group, a major Russian weapons manufacturer, has publicly challenged the West’s technology restrictions.“It is impossible to isolate Russia from the entire global electronic component base,” Alan Lushnikov, the group’s president, said in a Russian-language interview last year, according to a translation in a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. “It’s a fantasy to think otherwise.”That quote included “some bluster,” Gregory Allen, one of the report’s authors, said at an event in December. But he added: “Russia is going to try and do whatever it takes to get around these export controls. Because for them, the stakes are incredibly, incredibly high.”As the documents from the March meeting show, U.S. and European officials have become increasingly concerned that Russia is obtaining American and European goods by rerouting them through Armenia, Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries.One document marked with the seal of the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security said that in 2022, Armenia imported 515 percent more chips and processors from the United States and 212 percent more from the European Union than in 2021. Armenia then exported 97 percent of those same products to Russia, the document said.In another document, the Bureau of Industry and Security identified eight categories of chips and components deemed critical to Russian weapons development, including one called a field programmable gate array, which had been found in one model of Russian cruise missile, the KH-101.The intelligence sharing between the United States and Europe is part of a nascent but intensifying effort to minimize the leakage of such items to Russia. While the United States has deeper experience with enforcing sanctions, the European Union lacks centralized intelligence, customs and law enforcement abilities.The United States and the European Union have both recently dispatched officials to countries that were shipping more to Russia, to try to cut down that trade. Mr. Estevez said a recent visit to Turkey had persuaded that government to halt transshipments to Russia through their free trade zone, as well the servicing of Russian and Belarusian airplanes in Turkish airports.Biden administration officials say shipments to Russia and Belarus of the electronic equipment they have targeted fell 41 percent between 2021 and 2022, as the United States and its allies expanded their restrictions globally.Matthew S. Axelrod, the assistant secretary for export enforcement at the Bureau of Industry and Security, said the picture was one of a “broad decrease.”“But still there are certain areas of the world that are being used to get these items to Russia,” he said. “That’s a problem that we are laser-focused on.”John Ismay More

  • 113 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    As Possible Debt Limit Crisis Nears, Wall Street Shrugs

    Few investors have focused on the possibility that Congress will not raise the nation’s borrowing limit in time to avoid an economically catastrophic default.WASHINGTON — Speaker Kevin McCarthy chose the New York Stock Exchange on Monday to deliver his most detailed comments yet on House Republicans’ demands for raising the nation’s borrowing limit. But his comments made little impression on Wall Street, where investors continue to trade stocks and Treasury bonds under the assumption that Congress and President Biden will find a way to avoid a calamitous government default.The lack of a market panic about the talks reflects a been-there, done-that attitude that investors have increasingly taken to partisan showdowns over taxes, spending and the government’s ability to pay its bills on time, which lawmakers often resolve at the last possible moment.But there are reasons to believe that this time could play out differently, starting with the chaos in Mr. McCarthy’s caucus — and new warnings that lawmakers might have less time to raise the $31.4 trillion limit than previously thought.The next few weeks will more precisely determine how quickly the government will exhaust its ability to pay bondholders, employees, Social Security recipients and everyone else it sends money to on a regular basis. That’s because data on the government’s tax receipts for the year will come into sharper focus after Tuesday’s deadline for people to file individual income tax returns for 2022.On Tuesday, Goldman Sachs economists sounded a warning that the potential default date could be much sooner than previous forecasts — which typically pegged the date in July or August — if revenue comes in soft. “While the data are still very preliminary, weak tax collections so far in April suggest an increased probability that the debt limit deadline will be reached in the first half of June,” they wrote.Republicans are refusing to raise the borrowing cap unless Mr. Biden agrees to reduce government spending and slow the growth of the national debt, a position that risks plunging the United States into recession if the Treasury Department runs out of money to pay all its bills on time. But Mr. McCarthy has struggled to unite his Republicans around specific cuts, even though he said Monday that he will put such a plan on the House floor next week.Moderates in the Republican caucus are wary of deep cuts to popular domestic programs, like education and national parks, that would be spurred by his proposal to cap domestic spending growth at a level well below the current inflation rate. Fiscal hawks, including a faction that resisted Mr. McCarthy’s appointment as speaker and could effectively force a vote to oust him at any time, have pushed for far more aggressive reductions. They include lawmakers who have never voted to raise or suspend the debt limit, even under President Donald J. Trump, who signed three suspensions of the limit into law.Mr. McCarthy detailed his plan to fellow Republicans on Tuesday. As outlined on Monday, it would raise the limit for about a year. It would also return most domestic spending to fiscal year 2022 levels and cap its growth over a decade. Mr. McCarthy also wants to add work requirements for recipients of federal food assistance and reduce federal regulations on fossil fuel development and other projects, which he says will increase economic growth.It is unclear if enough Republicans would vote for that package to ensure its passage in the House. Senate Democrats would almost certainly reject it, as would Mr. Biden, who has said repeatedly that he expects Congress to raise the borrowing limit with no strings attached.Mr. Biden has shown no indication that he will intervene to speed up discussions over raising the limit, or seek to broker any deals in Congress to do so. The president has said he will negotiate taxes and spending levels separately from the borrowing limit. But he and his aides are refusing to engage further with Mr. McCarthy on fiscal policy until Republicans rally around a budget plan.Mr. Biden slammed Mr. McCarthy’s plan in a speech on Tuesday, saying he has “proposed huge cuts to important programs that millions of Americans count on.” Mr. Biden said that Mr. McCarthy had “threatened to become the first speaker to default on our debt unless he gets the cuts he wants.”The only market thus far to reflect stress about the debt limit is the one most attuned to it: credit default swaps, which price the risk of the government failing to make scheduled payments to bondholders. Mr. McCarthy shrugged off that stress in a question-and-answer session after his speech on Monday.“Markets go up and down,” he said.Stock and bond markets were unfazed after Mr. McCarthy’s comments. They have in recent months been far more reactive to any evidence about what the Federal Reserve will do next in its campaign to tame high inflation by raising interest rates.Some White House officials privately say they expect Republicans to step up their efforts to raise the limit if and when investors begin to worry more about negotiations. That’s what happened in 2011, when a showdown between congressional Republicans and President Barack Obama nearly ended in default. Stocks plunged, and borrowing costs rose for corporations and home buyers. The damage took months to repair.Some Republicans are similarly hopeful that a wake-up on Wall Street will push Mr. Biden to change his negotiating stance, including Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.“I don’t think market participants have any idea of how bad off these negotiations are right now, which should give them pause and concern, and actually should bring the president to the table,” he said.Catie Edmondson More