Evelyn Reynolds

Franchisees are fighting Choice Hotels’ attempted takeover of its biggest rival, which would create a dominant player in the budget hotel sector.When Patrick Pacious, the chief executive of a large portfolio of hotel brands, promoted a blockbuster attempt to acquire a competitor in October, he said the proposed merger would lower costs and attract more customers for the families and small businesses that own most of the company’s locations.“Our franchisees instantly grasped the strategic benefit this would bring to their hotels,” Mr. Pacious, who leads Choice Hotels, said on CNBC.As the weeks have passed, however, the reaction has not been positive. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, the target of the proposed deal, rejected the offer from Choice, which is now pursuing a hostile takeover. And in early December, an association representing the majority of hoteliers who own Choice and Wyndham-branded properties came out strongly against it.“We all don’t know what’s driving this merger. Many of us feel it’s not needed,” said Bharat Patel, the chairman of the organization, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association. The group surveyed its 20,000 members and found that about 77 percent of respondents who own hotels under either brand or both thought a merger would hurt their business.“I’m not against Choice or Wyndham,” said Mr. Patel, who owns two Choice hotels. “We just need robust competition in the markets.”That opposition illustrates a growing resistance to consolidation in industries that have grown more concentrated in recent years. Even some Wall Street analysts have expressed skepticism that Choice’s proposal is a good idea.The views of hotel owners could become a hurdle for Choice as it seeks approval for a merger from the Federal Trade Commission, which has taken an interest in franchising as evidence has mounted that the economic and legal relationship has increasingly tilted in favor of brand owners and away from franchisees.To understand why franchisees are worried, it’s helpful to understand how hotels are structured.About 70 percent of the nation’s 5.7 million hotel rooms operate under one of the several big national brands like Marriott or Hilton, according to the real estate data firm CoStar. The rest are independent.Over the past few decades, franchise chains have bought one another and merged to the point where the top six companies by number of rooms — Marriott, Hilton, InterContinental, Best Western, Choice and Wyndham — account for about 80 percent of all branded hotels.How a Choice/Wyndham merger would stack upCombining the two companies would create America’s largest branded hotel chain

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

Number of hotel rooms in the United States
Note: Data is as of Dec. 19.Source: CoStar GroupBy The New York TimesUnlike fast food franchisees, hotel owners typically develop or buy their own buildings, representing a multimillion-dollar investment for each property. The industry has drawn thousands of immigrant entrepreneurs from South Asia. Some owners accumulate sprawling portfolios, but most end up with just a few hotels.The average member of the Asian American owners’ group owns just two hotels, most commonly with one of the economy or midscale brands. Choice and Wyndham dominate that segment, with 6,270 and 5,907 hotels in the United States, including Days Inn, Howard Johnson, Quality Inn and Econo Lodge.Being part of a franchise network provides a recognized name, a business plan and collective purchasing that is supposed to give small businesses the benefits of scale. In exchange, hotel owners pay the brands a fee to join, ongoing royalties and other payments for marketing, technology and consulting.As a result, franchisees are effectively customers of the hotel brands. Less competition between hotel chains can leave owners with fewer options and, thus, less leverage to demand better services for a lower cost.Consider the frustrations of Jayanti Patel, who owns a Comfort Inn — one of Choice’s 22 brands — in Gettysburg, Pa.He said Choice had been taking a larger cut, via charges like an $18 monthly fee for reporting his property’s energy use, discounts for rooms booked with rewards programs and penalties when guests file complaints. Mr. Patel also laments declining service, such as from revenue management consultants who are supposed to provide advice that increases his profits. Choice has outsourced this work to a service that operates partly overseas.Mr. Patel said his profit margins had become “thinner and thinner,” and he’s considering signing up with a different brand when his franchise agreement ends in a couple of years. Friends who own Wyndham-branded properties seem happy, so he might adopt one of its brands as long as Choice doesn’t acquire that chain.“When my window comes up in 2026, 99 percent I don’t want to renew my agreement,” Mr. Patel said. “And maybe If I want to go to Wyndham, they have nearly 20 brands, and I lose that opportunity, because it will be the same thing.”Choice argues that as its rivals have expanded and merged, it also needs to grow to offer hotel owners bigger savings on supplies like signage and bedsheets. The company is also promising to bargain down the commissions that hotel owners pay websites like Expedia and Booking.com, which are particularly crucial in the budget segment.“Combining with Wyndham would enable us to continue to deliver enhanced profitability for franchisees — by helping to lower their costs and grow their direct revenue while providing our best-in-class technology platform,” Choice said in a statement.However, many hotel owners say that even if Choice did negotiate lower prices, they are skeptical that they would reap those benefits. In 2020, 90 franchisees filed a lawsuit that accused the company of, among other things, not passing along rebates from contracts with vendors. A judge ruled that hotel owners would have to pursue their claims in separate arbitration cases, and several did.Rich Gandhi, a hotelier in New Jersey, supports a campaign for state legislation that would improve the rights of franchisees in the hospitality industry.Hannah Yoon for The New York TimesChoice prevailed in two of those proceedings. But in one, brought by a hotelier in North Dakota, an arbitrator found this past summer that Choice had “made virtually no efforts to leverage its size, scale and distribution to obtain volume discounts.” He ordered Choice to pay $760,008 in legal fees and compensation. Choice is contesting the award.The case is just one example, but it squares with recent economic research. A 2017 study found that while being part of a hotel franchise system helped bring in guests, it did not lower the cost of doing business compared with operating an independent hotel.But litigating on your own is expensive, which is why few franchisees do so even when they feel they’ve been mistreated.Rich Gandhi, a hotelier in New Jersey, is supporting a campaign for state legislation that would improve the rights of franchisees in the hospitality industry. He leads a three-year-old group called Reform Lodging that is also opposing the merger.Mr. Gandhi has turned four of his Choice-branded hotels into Best Westerns and Red Roof Inns, both non-Choice brands that he said offered better assistance, fewer restrictions and more reasonable fees. Choice, he argued, introduced too many competitors to his area because it makes money from selling new franchises and controlling more of the market, even if the practice squeezes existing owners.“They want the biggest pie, because to them it’s all incremental revenue,” Mr. Gandhi said. “If you keep accumulating all these buildings and provide no support, it’s like one of those old pyramid schemes that’s ready to fall apart, which is exactly what’s happening.”A representative for Choice referred The New York Times to four hoteliers who it said would speak favorably of the merger. Two of them, including the chairman of the Choice Hotels Owners Council — to which all franchisees must belong and pay dues — declined to comment on the record. A third, who owns three Radisson hotels and was happy when Choice bought the brand, said the purchase of Wyndham — a much bigger company — could pose problems.The fourth, a Florida hotelier, Azim Saju, said that despite the loss of competition, if Choice acquired Wyndham the company would still have an incentive to make sure franchisees stayed afloat.“The concern is valid, but the bottom line is that franchising doesn’t do well unless the franchisees are profitable,” Mr. Saju said. “I think Choice has become more conscientious of the importance of franchisee profitability in order to further their success.”The dissatisfaction of hotel owners could hurt Choice’s ability to absorb Wyndham, especially if more franchisees switch to other brands. That prospect has soured some Wall Street analysts on the deal.“In hotel franchising, the critical constituency, as much as consumers walking in the door, is that franchising community,” said David Katz, an analyst who covers the hospitality and gambling industries for Jefferies & Company. “They’re going to own more than 50 percent of the limited service and economy hotels in the United States, and not have the full support of the largest franchisee organization out there? I think that merits further debate.”Franchisee support isn’t important just for morale. It could also sway federal regulators, who have started to take into account the effect of corporate mergers not just on their consumers but also on suppliers like book authors, chicken farmers and Amazon sellers.“Traditionally in antitrust there’s this consumer welfare standard, which is focused on ‘Is this going to be good or bad for consumers?’” said Brett Hollenbeck, an associate professor at the Anderson School of Management of the University of California, Los Angeles. “If the F.T.C. doesn’t feel like this argument will hold sway, they could try a more novel theory, which is that it could hurt franchisees.”Choice said it anticipated that its deal would be approved and was expecting to complete the transaction within a year. Its offer to buy all outstanding Wyndham shares extends through March, when it will try to replace the directors on the company’s board with people who will approve the sale. More

Buying mattresses, clothes and other goods on installment plans has propped up spending, but economists worry that such loans could put some people at risk.“Buy now, pay later” loans are helping to fuel a record-setting holiday shopping season. Economists worry they could also be masking and exacerbating cracks in Americans’ financial well-being.The loans, which allow consumers to pay for purchases in installments, often interest-free, have soared in popularity because of high prices and interest rates. Retailers have used them to attract customers and to get people to spend more.But such loans may be encouraging younger and lower-income Americans to take on too much debt, according to consumer groups and some lawmakers. And because such loans aren’t routinely reported to credit bureaus or captured in public data, they could also represent a hidden source of risk to the financial system.“The more I dig into it, the more concerned I am,” said Tim Quinlan, a Wells Fargo economist who recently published a report that described pay-later loans as “phantom debt.”Traditional measures of consumer credit indicate that U.S. household finances overall are relatively healthy. But, Mr. Quinlan said, “if those are missing the fastest-growing piece of the market, then those reassurances aren’t worth a darn.”Estimates of the size of this market vary widely. Mr. Quinlan thinks that spending through pay-later options was about $46 billion this year. That is small when compared with the more than $3 trillion that Americans put on their credit cards last year.But such loans — offered by companies like Klarna, Affirm, Afterpay and PayPal — have climbed fast at a moment when the finances of some Americans are showing early signs of strain.Credit card borrowing is at a record high in dollar terms — though not as a share of income — and delinquencies, though low by historical standards, are rising. That stress is especially evident among younger adults.People in their 20s and 30s are by far the biggest users of pay-later loans, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. That could be both a sign of financial problems — young people may be using pay-later loans after maxing out credit cards — and a cause of it by encouraging them to spend excessively.Liz Cisneros, a 23-year-old college student in Chicago who works part time at Home Depot, said she was surprised by the ease of pay-later programs. During the pandemic, she saw influencers on TikTok promoting the loans, and a friend said they helped her buy designer shoes.Ms. Cisneros started using them to buy clothes, shoes and Sephora beauty products. She often had multiple loans at a time. She realized she was overspending when she didn’t have enough money while in a grocery checkout line. A pay-later company had withdrawn funds from her bank account that morning, and she had lost track of her payment schedule.“It’s easy when you keep continually clicking and clicking and clicking, and then it’s not,” she said, referring to when she realizes she has spent too much.Ms. Cisneros said the problem was particularly intense around Christmas, and this year she was not shopping for the holiday so she could pay off her debts.Pay-later loans became available in the United States years ago, but they took off during the pandemic when online shopping surged.The products are somewhat similar to the layaway programs offered decades earlier by retailers. Online shoppers can choose from pay-later options at checkout or on the apps of pay-later companies. The loans are also available at some physical stores; Affirm said on Tuesday that it had started offering pay-later loans at the self-checkout counters at Walmart stores.The most common loans require buyers to pay a quarter of the purchase price upfront with the rest usually paid in three installments over six weeks. Such loans are typically interest-free, though users sometimes end up owing fees. Pay-later companies make most of their money by charging fees to retailers.Some lenders also offer interest-bearing loans with repayment terms that can last a few months to more than a year. Pay-later companies say their products are better for borrowers than credit cards or payday loans. They say that by offering shorter loans, they can better assess borrowers’ ability to repay.“We’re able to identify and extend credit to consumers who have the ability and willingness to repay above that of revolving credit accounts,” Michael Linford, Affirm’s chief financial officer, said in an interview.In its most recent quarter, 2.4 percent of Affirm’s loans were delinquent by 30 days or longer, down from 2.7 percent a year earlier. Those numbers exclude its four-payment loans.Briana Gordley, who works on consumer finance issues for a progressive policy organization, learned about pay-later firms in college from friends, and still uses them occasionally for larger purchases.Montinique Monroe for The New York TimesThe service makes the most sense for certain purchases, like buying an expensive sweater that will last many years, said the chief executive of Klarna, Sebastian Siemiatkowski.He said pay later probably made less sense for more frequent purchases like groceries, though Klarna and other companies do make their loans available at some grocery stores.Mr. Siemiatkowski acknowledged that people could misuse his company’s loans.“Obviously it’s still credit, and so you’re going to find a subset of individuals who unfortunately are using it in not the way intended,” said Mr. Siemiatkowski, who founded Klarna in 2005. He said the company tried to identify those users and deny them loans or impose stricter terms on them.Klarna, which is based in Stockholm, says its global default rates are less than 1 percent. In the United States, more than a third of customers repay loans early.Kelsey Greco made her first pay-later purchase about four years ago to buy a mattress. Paying $1,200 in cash would have been difficult, and putting the purchase on a credit card seemed unwise. So she got a 12-month, interest-free loan from Affirm.Since then, Ms. Greco, 30, has used Affirm regularly, including for a Dyson hair tool and car brakes. Some of the loans charged interest, but she said that even then she preferred this form of borrowing because it was clear how much she would pay and when.“With a credit card, you can swipe it all day long and be like, ‘Wait, what did I just get myself into?’” Ms. Greco, a Denver resident, said. “Whereas with Affirm, it’s giving you these clear-cut numbers where you can see, ‘OK, this makes sense’ or ‘This doesn’t make sense.’”Ms. Greco, who was introduced to The New York Times by Affirm, said pay-later loans helped her avoid credit card debt, with which she previously had trouble.But not all consumers use pay-later options carefully. A report from the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau this year found that nearly 43 percent of pay-later users had overdrawn a bank account in the previous 12 months, compared with 17 percent of nonusers. “This is just a more vulnerable portion of the population,” said Ed deHaan, a researcher at Stanford University.In a paper published last year, Mr. deHaan and three other scholars found that within a month of first using pay-later loans, people became more likely to experience overdrafts and to start accruing credit card late fees.Financial advisers who work with low-income Americans say more clients are using pay-later loans.Barbara L. Martinez, a financial counselor in Chicago who works at Heartland Alliance, a nonprofit group, said many of her clients used cash advances to cover pay-later loans. When paychecks arrive, they don’t have enough to cover bills, forcing them to turn to more pay-later loans.“It is not that the product is bad,” she added, but “it can get out of control really fast and cause a lot of damage that could be prevented.”Barbara L. Martinez, a financial counselor in Chicago who works with low-income families, meeting with a colleague about an upcoming workshop for people wanting to learn more about financial stability.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesBriana Gordley learned about pay-later products in college. She was working part time and couldn’t get approved for a credit card, but pay-later providers were eager to extend her credit. She started falling behind when her work hours were reduced. Eventually, family and friends helped her repay the debts.Ms. Gordley, who testified about her experience last year in a listening session hosted by the Senate, now works on consumer finance issues for Texas Appleseed, a progressive policy organization. She said pay-later loans could be an important source of credit for communities that lacked access to traditional loans. She still uses them occasionally for larger purchases.But she said companies and regulators needed to make sure that borrowers could afford the debt they were taking on. “If we’re going to create these products and build out these systems for people, we also just have to have some checks and balances in place.”The Truth in Lending Act of 1968 requires credit card companies and other lenders to disclose interest rates and fees and provides borrowers with various protections, including the ability to dispute charges. But the act applies only to loans with more than four payment installments, effectively excluding many pay-later loans.Many such loans also aren’t reported to credit agencies. As a result, consumers could have multiple loans with Klarna, Afterpay and Affirm without the companies knowing about the other debts.“It’s a huge blind spot right now, and we all know that,” said Liz Pagel, a senior vice president at TransUnion who oversees the company’s consumer lending business.TransUnion and other major credit bureaus and pay-later companies all say they are supportive of more reporting.But there are practical hurdles. The credit-rating system rates borrowers more highly for having longer-term loans, including longstanding credit card accounts. Each pay-later purchase qualifies as a separate loan. As a result, those loans could lower the scores of borrowers even if they repay them on time.Ms. Pagel said TransUnion had created a new reporting system for the loans. Other credit bureaus, such as Experian and Equifax, are doing the same.Pay-later firms say they are reporting certain loans, particularly ones with longer terms. But most are not reporting and won’t commit to reporting loans with just four payments.That worries economists who say they are particularly concerned about how such loans will play out when the economy weakens and workers start losing their jobs.Marco di Maggio, a Harvard Business School professor who has studied pay-later products, said that when times were tough more people would use such loans for smaller expenses and get into trouble. “You only need one more shock to push people into default.” More

The new contract would provide raises and better benefits, following similar deals at other big airlines.Southwest Airlines and its pilots union have reached a tentative deal on a new, five-year labor contract that would raise wages 50 percent over the next several years and increase retirement benefits.The union’s board unanimously approved the deal, which it said was worth $12 billion, on Wednesday, sending it to the more than 11,000 union members, who have until Jan. 22 to cast a vote.The deal would provide benefits that are similar to those secured by pilots unions at the three other large U.S. airlines in separate negotiations this year. Pilots have had the upper hand in labor talks because they are in high demand amid the strong recovery in air travel after a steep decline in the early part of the pandemic.Capt. Casey Murray, the president of the union, the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association, said that the airline had started to lag behind its peers in attracting and keeping pilots in recent years. “What this contract was about was closing that gap so that we could recruit and retain competitively,” he said in an interview.Southwest welcomed the deal. In a statement, Adam Carlisle, vice president of labor relations for the company, said that the agreement would deliver “industry-leading” pay rates.Relations between Southwest and the union have been contentious at times. In 2021, the union sued the airline over changes made by management during the pandemic. Last year, the company and union entered federal mediation over contract talks. In May, Southwest’s pilots voted to approve a strike for the first time in the company’s history, according to the union, though federal law prohibits pilots from walking off the job without first pursuing mediation and other steps.Other pilots unions have achieved big gains. In March, pilots at Delta Air Lines approved a contract that would boost wages 34 percent over several years. Pilots at American Airlines this summer approved a contract that grants them a 46 percent raise, and pilots at United Airlines approved a 40 percent pay increase.All three contracts included improvements to vacation and retirement benefits and greater protections against last-minute reassignments. Southwest’s deal will include similar improvements. The new contracts at the big airlines have also increased pressure on smaller carriers to improve pay and benefits to keep pilots from leaving for larger employers.Pilots at big airlines easily earn six-figure salaries. The most senior pilots, who typically fly larger planes on longer routes, can earn several hundred thousand dollars a year. Labor and fuel account for about half of airlines’ operating expenses. In recent months, airline executives have warned that such costs could push down their profits.If approved, the new Southwest deal would extend through December 2028. The contracts at Delta, American and United are all in effect through at least 2026.There is no guarantee that Southwest’s pilots will approve the deal. The airline’s flight attendants rejected a deal this month, sending negotiators back to the table. Flight attendants at American and United are also negotiating new contracts. More

From girl dinners to ChatGPT, a look back at the trends that broke the internet and taught us about the American economy this year.This year, the world learned that some men just can’t stop thinking about the Roman Empire. Over here at The New York Times, we can’t stop thinking about what social trends like that one tell us about the American economy.We had no shortage of viral memes and moments to discuss in 2023. Americans flocked to Paris (and overseas in general). Millennial women stocked up on the Stanley thermoses their dads used to use, one of a range of female-powered consumer fads. Thanks partly to Barbie, Birkenstocks also came back harder than a ’90s trend. People spoke in Taylor Swift lyrics.Social developments like those can tell us a lot about the economy we’re living in. To wrap up 2023, we ran through some of the big cultural events and what they taught us about the labor market, economic growth and the outlook for 2024.‘He’s Just Ken’ Had Labor Market Tiebacks“Barbie,” the movie that launched a thousand think pieces, hit theaters this summer with a telling promotional catchphrase: “She’s everything. He’s just Ken.”This, clearly, was a movie about the labor market.The film pictured Barbie trying to grapple with the harshness of a real world that was not dominated by women, and Ken trying to find his footing after realizing that he lacked a clear place in Barbie’s fictional world.That was more than just social commentary. As in Barbieland, America has seen a real divergence in outcomes for young and middle-aged men and women in recent years — specifically in the labor market. Younger women were working at historically high rates before the pandemic, and they bounced right back after the 2020 downturn.Young Women Work at Near Record RatesWhile the employment rate for young women is near its peak, the employment rate for young men is below where it was in the 1990s.

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

Share of people ages 25 to 34 who are employed
Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesMen were a different story. Younger men’s employment bounced back, but they are still working at much lower rates than a few decades ago. Men in the 35- to 44-year-old group in particular have been working less and less over the years, and have recently failed to recapture their 2019 employment peak.Falling Employment Rates for Middle-Aged MenMiddle-aged women are employed at record levels while men in the same age group have been working less and less.

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

Share of people ages 35 to 44 who are employed
Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesIn 2023 specifically, women gained 1.4 jobs for every one that men did (through November).What is behind the long-run decline in male work? Economists and sociologists point to a number of causes: A shift away from marriage and the decline in childbearing have eroded one traditional social rationale for work. Men may be having something of an on-the-job identity crisis in a modern economy where many new jobs tilt toward “pink collar” service industries like child care and nursing.“Ken is trying to find his place in the world,” said Betsey Stevenson, an economist at the University of Michigan, explaining that it ties back to a world of different opportunities that have left some men searching for a new footing. “We moved from an economic model where the median job is making stuff to an economy where the median job is taking care of somebody.”Men are also less educated than today’s young women, which may leave some with less marketable résumés. (In the movie, Ken tries to get a job on the shoreline but is told he lacks the skills. He laments: “I can’t even beach here!”)Taylor Swift and Beyoncé Showed America’s Willingness to SpendIt wasn’t just the labor market that women dominated this year: It was a year of female-centric consumerism. Take, for instance, the two musical events of the summer. Both Beyoncé and Taylor Swift had huge concert tours that spurred lots of economic activity. They also released films of their shows, bringing the fun (and the money) to the box office.The concert spree itself was an example of a broader economic trend. Consumers continued to spend strongly in 2023, especially on services like live music and international travel. That was something of a surprise because forecasters had thought that much-higher interest rates from the Federal Reserve were likely to tip the economy into recession this year. ‘Girl Dinners’ Ranked Among Cheapish Food TrendsAnother place where ladies led the way in 2023? Culinary innovation. Young women posted viral TikToks about what might have, depending on one’s demographic patois, been termed a charcuterie board (millennial), a Ploughman’s (Brit) or a lunchable (Oscar Mayer). But to Generation Z, it was Girl Dinner.This, much like the Roman Empire and men meme, was an instance of a gender’s being applied to a pretty broad and basic concept. Girl dinners came in many shapes and sizes, but they were essentially just meals constructed from relatively affordable ingredients: Think leftover cheese chunks, boxed macaroni or chicken nuggets.What they did clearly echo was a broader economywide trend toward greater food thriftiness. Big retailers including Walmart and McDonald’s reported seeing a new group of shoppers as even comfortably middle-class consumers tried to save money on groceries after years of rapid food inflation. Overall price increases slowed markedly in 2023, but several years of rapid inflation have added up, leaving many prices notably higher for many basic necessities.Ozempic Worried Big FoodConsumer grocery trends saw another big and unexpected change this year. Some big food companies are worried that people are on the cusp of buying less food because of products like Ozempic and Wegovy, which rose to prominence this year as part of a new and effective set of weight-loss drugs. While that was a hopeful moment for many who have struggled with obesity and its health effects, it was one that caused consternation and adaptation at some retailers and fast-food chains. Walmart has said it already sees an impact on demand.ChatGPT Raised Eyebrows in EconomicsHealth care wasn’t the only sphere to see a big breakthrough in 2023. OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot rocketed to prominence this year for generating humanlike writing, and its competitors put up their own offerings (including one that fell in love with a Times columnist).Such technologies could have major economic implications, reshaping how we work, replacing some jobs and potentially boosting productivity. For now, office workers have used it to write emails. Students have used it to write papers. Your friendly economics correspondent tried to use it to write this story section, but artificial intelligence and Times editors have a different understanding of the term “brief.”The freely available version of ChatGPT is working from 2022 data, so it also declined to comment on another key development from this year.“If ‘rizz’ refers to something specific, please provide more context or clarify,” the chatbot responded when asked if it possessed Oxford’s word of the year, a Gen Z shorthand for “charisma.”With a little more prodding, it admitted, “I don’t have personal qualities.” More

Josiah Citrin, the owner and chef of a Santa Monica restaurant with two Michelin stars, opened a new steakhouse a few months ago off the Sunset Strip. He is already concerned about whether the restaurant can survive.The reason, Mr. Citrin said, is singular: a West Hollywood city mandate that workers be paid at least $19.08 an hour, the highest minimum wage in the country.“It’s very challenging,” Mr. Citrin, 55, said of the new minimum wage, which took effect about two weeks before he opened his doors in July. “Really, it’s almost impossible to operate.”His sentiment is widely shared among business owners in West Hollywood, a city of 35,000 known for restaurants, boutiques and progressive politics. In recent weeks, many owners have written to lawmakers, pleading for a moratorium on further increases to the minimum wage; another is scheduled for July, based on inflation. And last month, several marched to a local government building carrying signs that read, “My WeHo” and “R.I.P. Restaurants in West Hollywood.”Their sense of duress arises partly from geography. The jaggedly shaped city is bordered by Beverly Hills to the west and Los Angeles to the north, south and east. Some streets begin in Los Angeles, slice through West Hollywood and end in Beverly Hills. You can be in three cities — barring, of course, traffic — in a matter of minutes.And that means West Hollywood’s small businesses have competitors down the street with lower costs.Beyond raising the minimum wage, the West Hollywood ordinance, which the City Council approved in 2021, requires that all full-time employees receive at least 96 hours a year of paid time off for sick leave, vacation or other personal necessities, as well as 80 hours that they can take off without pay.The State of California’s hourly minimum wage is $15.50, the third highest in the nation, trailing only the District of Columbia at $17 and Washington State at $15.74. But just as each state’s minimum wage can supersede the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour, more than two dozen cities across California, including West Hollywood and several in the Bay Area, have higher minimum wages than the state, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.The number of workers at Charcoal Sunset restaurant in West Hollywood has fallen to 35 from around 50. The owner is wondering about his future in the city.Mark Abramson for The New York TimesIn San Francisco, it’s $18.07; in Los Angeles, $16.78.Chris Tilly, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies labor markets and public policies that shape the workplace, said research had shown that gradual and moderate increases to the minimum wage had no significant impact on employment levels.“The claim that minimum wage increases are job-killers is overblown,” Mr. Tilly said. But “there are possible downsides,” he added. “One is that economic theory tells us an overly large increase in the minimum is bound to deter businesses from hiring.”Over the past year, workers in several California industries have seen significant pay raises due, in many instances, to wins by organized labor. Health care workers at Kaiser Permanente facilities secured a contract that includes a $25-an-hour minimum wage in the state. Fast food workers across the state will soon make a minimum wage of $20 per hour, and hotel workers have received significant pay bumps across Southern California.Until recently, West Hollywood followed the state’s minimum wage increases, which have risen every year since 2017, often by a dollar at a time. But that changed with the new ordinance, which included a series of increases.Genevieve Morrill, president of the West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, said that while her group wanted workers to earn a living wage in an increasingly expensive part of the country, she felt that the ordinance had done more to hurt workers, who have lost hours or, in some cases, their jobs after places have shuttered.Around the time the recent wage bump took effect, Ms. Morrill helped more than 50 local businesses, including Mr. Citrin’s restaurant, write a letter to the City Council outlining their concerns. They called for a moratorium on further minimum wage increases through 2025 or until the rate aligns with the Los Angeles rate. They also asked that the city roll back the mandated paid time-off policy.West Hollywood has promoted itself as “a leader in many critical social movements.”Mark Abramson for The New York TimesA journey of mere blocks can pass through Los Angeles, West Hollywood and Beverly Hills.Mark Abramson for The New York TimesWest Hollywood, which was incorporated in 1984, was the first city in the nation to have a City Council with a majority of members who were openly gay. It has promoted itself as “a leader in many critical social movements,” including, among other things, advocacy for H.I.V. causes, affordable housing and women’s rights, according to a post on the city’s website.When you walk along Santa Monica Boulevard, which cuts through the center of this city, a bustling energy fills the sidewalks. Several residents are catching up with phone calls while out walking their dogs, and others are grabbing a latte or strolling through an art gallery. People are doing calisthenics in a park. At night, the city’s vibrant bar and restaurant scene brings a buzz.Mayor Sepi Shyne, who was sworn in this year, said businesses had long been a part of the fabric of the community.“Our businesses are also the backbone of support for workers: Lifting workers with fair pay is part of securing economic justice and a brighter future for everyone,” said Ms. Shyne, who supports the minimum wage ordinance but said she was seriously listening to resistance from the business community.Last month, the City Council, of which Ms. Shyne is a member, approved about $2.8 million in waivers, credits and marketing dollars to help the business community. The City Council, she said, has also directed staff members to get feedback from workers about the effect of paid time off.A major supporter of the ordinance was UNITE HERE Local 11, which represents 30,000 workers at hotels and restaurants across Southern California.West Hollywood has a vibrant bar and restaurant scene that brings a buzz to the city.Mark Abramson for The New York TimesSunset Plaza is a center of various businesses on the Sunset Strip in West Hollywood.Mark Abramson for The New York TimesKurt Petersen, co-president of the local, said West Hollywood was setting a standard that should be replicated across California and the country. “It has raised living standards and given workers the security of paid time off,” he said.Near the intersection of Santa Monica and La Cienega Boulevards, Paul Leonard plans to open a location for his pet grooming business, Collar & Comb. He has operated at other locations, a few blocks away in Los Angeles, since 2019. The most popular service, Mr. Leonard said, is a full-spectrum specialty groom for dogs under 20 pounds at $166.In an interview, Mr. Leonard said he was not concerned about the minimum wage because he paid his groomers at least $23 an hour.“Everything is going up, and so should wages,” he said.Steve Lococo, who has been a part of the business community for decades, said small-business owners “have not at all been heard” over the last two years in West Hollywood. He has raised prices — an average haircut, previously $150, is now $195 — and his business, B2V Salon, which he co-owns with Alberto Borrelli, has cut back to five employees from nine. At the start of the new year, Mr. Lococo said, the salon will assess staffing again.“There need to be modifications to this ordinance,” he said. “Lately, it’s just like, you feel as if you have no say as a business owner in how things are done in the city.”Paul Leonard of Collar & Comb with his dog, Lincoln. “Everything is going up,” Mr. Leonard said, “and so should wages.”Mark Abramson for The New York TimesMeanwhile, Mr. Citrin, who has run restaurants in the Los Angeles area for more than 25 years, said the staff at his West Hollywood restaurant, Charcoal Sunset, which specializes in prime cuts of meat, had fallen to 35 from around 50.At high-end restaurants like his, Mr. Citrin noted, servers often make good money — sometimes more than $50 an hour when tips are included, he said. Most nights, his West Hollywood restaurant makes revenue comparable to what his Los Angeles and Santa Monica restaurants bring in, but his overhead costs are higher in West Hollywood. For now, he said, he is unsure of his future in the city.He often wonders if it’s easier to simply focus on his restaurants elsewhere in the area.“That’s something I need to answer in the coming months,” he said. More

The financial world has been debating if market appetite for buying U.S. debt is near a limit. The ramifications for funding government priorities are immense.Typically, the esoteric inner workings of finance and the very public stakes of government spending are viewed as separate spheres.And bond trading is ordinarily a tidy arena driven by mechanical bets about where the economy and interest rates will be months or years from now.But those separations and that sense of order changed this year as a gargantuan, chaotic battle was waged by traders in the nearly $27 trillion Treasury bond market — the place where the U.S. government goes to borrow.In the summer and fall, many investors worried that federal deficits were rising so rapidly that the government would flood the market with Treasury debt that would be met with meager demand. They believed that deficits were a key source of inflation that would erode future returns on any U.S. bonds they bought.So they insisted that if they were to keep buying Treasury bonds, they would need to be compensated with an expensive premium, in the form of a much higher interest rate paid to them.In market parlance, they were acting as bond vigilantes. That vigilante mindset fueled a “buyers’ strike” in which many traders sold off Treasuries or held back from buying more.The basic math of bonds is that, generally, when there are fewer buyers of bonds, the rate, or yield, on that debt rises and the value of the bonds falls. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note — the benchmark interest rate the government pays — went from just above 3 percent in March to 5 percent in October. (In a market this large, that amounted to trillions of dollars in losses for the large crop of investors who bet on lower bond yields earlier this year.)Since then, momentum has shifted to a remarkable degree. Several analysts say some of the frenzy reflected mistimed and mispriced bets regarding recession and future Federal Reserve policy more than fiscal policy concerns. And as inflation retreats and the Fed eventually ratchets down interest rates, they expect bond yields to continue to ease.But even if the sell-off frenzy has abated, the issues that ignited it have not gone away. And that has intensified debates over what the government can afford to do down the road.Federal debt compared with the size of the U.S. economy neared peak levels during the pandemicFederal debt held by the public — the amount of interest-generating U.S. Treasury securities held by bondholders — relative to gross domestic product

Note: Gross federal debt held by the public is the sum of debt held by all entities outside the federal government (individuals, businesses, banks, insurance companies, state governments, pension and mutual funds, foreign governments and more.) It also includes debt owned by the Federal Reserve.Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. LouisBy The New York TimesUnder current law, growing budget deficits increase the amount of debt the federal government must issue, and higher interest rates mean payments to bondholders will make up more of the federal budget. Interest paid to Treasury bondholders is now the government’s third-largest expenditure, after Medicare and Social Security.Powerful voices in finance and politics in New York, Washington and throughout the world are warning that the interest payments will crowd out other federal spending — in the realm of national security, government agencies, foreign aid, increased support for child care, climate change adaptation and more.“Do I think it really complicates fiscal policy in the coming five years, 10 years? Absolutely,” said the chief investment officer for Franklin Templeton Fixed Income, Sonal Desai, a portfolio manager who has bet that government bond yields will rise because of growing debt payments. “The math doesn’t add up on either side,” she added, “and the reality is neither the right or the left is willing to take sensible steps to try and bring that fiscal deficit down.”Fitch, one of the three major agencies that evaluate bond quality downgraded the credit rating on U.S. debt in August, citing an “erosion of governance” that has “manifested in repeated debt limit standoffs and last-minute resolutions.”Yet others are more sanguine. They do not think the U.S. government is at risk of default, because its debt payments are made in dollars that the government can create on demand. And they are generally less certain that fiscal deficits played the leading role in feeding inflation compared with the shocks from the pandemic.Joseph Quinlan, head of market strategy for Merrill and Bank of America Private Bank, said in an interview that the U.S. federal debt “remains manageable” and that “fears are overdone at this juncture.”Samuel Rines, an economist and the managing director at Corbu, a market research firm, was more blunt — laconically dismissing worries that a bond vigilante response to debt levels could become such a financial strain on consumers and companies that it sinks markets and, in turn, the economy.“If you want to make money, yawn,” he said. “If you want to lose money, panic.”Interest payments for Treasuries have increased rapidlyFederal spending on interest payments to holders of Treasuries

Note: Data is not adjusted for inflation.Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic AnalysisBy The New York TimesThe debate over public debt is as fierce as ever. And it echoes, in some ways, an earlier time — when the term “bond vigilantes” first emerged.In 1983, a rising Yale-trained economist named Ed Yardeni published a letter titled “Bond Investors Are the Economy’s Bond Vigilantes,” coining the phrase. He declared, to great applause on Wall Street, that “if the fiscal and monetary authorities won’t regulate the economy, the bond investors will” — by viciously selling off U.S. bonds, sending a message to stop spending at its heightened levels.On the fiscal side, Washington reined in spending on major social programs. (A bipartisan deal had actually been reached shortly before Mr. Yardeni’s letter.) On the monetary side, the Federal Reserve began a new series of interest rate increases to keep inflation at bay.The Treasury bond sell-off continued into 1984, but by the mid-1980s, bond yields had come down substantially. Inflation, while mild compared with the 1970s, averaged about 4 percent in the following years, a level not tolerable by contemporary standards. Yet interest payments on government debt peaked in 1991 as a share of the U.S. economy and then declined for several years.That sequence of events may be an imperfect guide to the Treasury bond market of the 2020s.This time around, the Peterson Foundation, a group that pushes for tighter fiscal policy, has joined with policy analysts, former public officials and current congressional leaders to push for a bipartisan fiscal commission aimed at imposing lower federal deficits. Many assert that “tough questions” and “hard choices” are ahead — including a need to slash the future benefits of some federal programs.But some economic experts say that even with a debt pile larger than in the past, federal borrowing rates are relatively tame, comparable with past periods.According to a recent report by J.P. Morgan Asset Management, benchmark bond yields will fall toward 3.4 percent in the coming years, while inflation will average 2.3 percent. Other analyses from major banks and research shops have offered similar forecasts.In that scenario, the “real” cost of federal borrowing, in inflation-adjusted terms — a measure many experts prefer — would probably be close to 1 percent, historically not a cause for concern.Adam Tooze, a professor and economic historian at Columbia University, argues that current interest rates are “not a cause for action of any type at all.”At 2 percent when adjusted for inflation, those rates are “quite a normal level,” he said on a recent podcast. “It is the level that was prevailing before 2008.”In the 1990s, when bond vigilantes helped prod Congress into running a balanced budget, real borrowing rates for the government were hovering higher than they are now, mostly around 3 percent. Government yields were historically low before recent riseThe inflation-adjusted rate for the 10-year Treasury note, a key market measure of “real” government borrowing cost, jumped well above its 2010s levels this year.

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of ClevelandBy The New York TimesIn the broader context of the interest rate controversy, there is disagreement on whether to even characterize U.S. debt as primarily a burden.Stephanie Kelton, an economics professor at Stony Brook University, is a leading voice of modern monetary theory, which holds that inflation and the availability of resources (whether materials or labor) are the key limits to government spending, rather than traditional budget constraints.U.S. dollars issued through debt payments “exist in the form of interest-bearing dollars called Treasury securities,” said Dr. Kelton, a former chief economist for the U.S. Senate Budget Committee. She argues, “If you’re lucky enough to own some of them, congratulations, they’re part of your financial savings and wealth.”That framework has found some sympathetic ears on Wall Street, especially among those who think paying more interest on bonds to savers does not necessarily impede other government spending. While the total foreign holdings of Treasuries are roughly $7 trillion, most federal debt is held by U.S.-based institutions and investors or the government itself, meaning that the fruits of higher interest payments are often going directly into the portfolios of Americans.David Kotok, the chief investment officer at Cumberland Advisors since 1973, argued in an interview that with some structural changes to the economy — such as immigration reform to increase growth and the ranks of young people paying into the tax base — a debt load as high as $60 trillion or more in coming decades would “not only not be troubling but would encourage you to use more of the debt because you would say, ‘Gee, we have the room right now to finance mitigation of climate change rather than incur the expenses of disaster.’”Campbell Harvey, a finance professor at Duke University and a research associate with the National Bureau of Economic Research, said he thinks “there is a lot of misinformation” about current U.S. debt burdens but made clear he views them “as a big deal and a bad situation.”“The way I look at it, there are four ways out of this,” Mr. Harvey said in an interview. The first two — to substantially raise taxes or slash core social programs — are not “politically feasible,” he said. The third way is to inflate the U.S. currency until the debt obligations are worth less, which he called regressive because of its disproportionate impact on the poor. The most attractive way, he contends, is for the economy to grow near or above the 4 percent annual rate that the nation achieved for many years after World War II.Others think that even without such rapid growth, the Federal Reserve’s ability to coordinate demand for debt, and its attempts to orchestrate market stability, will play the more central role.“The system will not allow a situation where the United States cannot fund itself,” said Brent Johnson, a former banker at Credit Suisse who is now the chief executive of Santiago Capital, an investment firm.That confidence, to an extent, stems from the reality that the Fed and the U.S. Treasury remain linchpins of global financial power and have the mind-bending ability, between them, to both issue government debt and buy it.There are less extravagant tools, too. The Treasury can telegraph and rearrange the amount of debt that will be issued at Treasury bond auctions and determine the time scale of bond contracts based on investor appetite. The Fed can unilaterally change short-term borrowing rates, which in turn often influence long-term bond rates.“I think the fiscal sustainability discourse is generally quite dull and blind to how much the Fed shapes the outcome,” said Skanda Amarnath, a former analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the executive director at Employ America, a group that tracks labor markets and Fed policy.For now, according to the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, a leading group of Wall Street traders, auctions of U.S. debt “continue to be consistently oversubscribed” — a sign of steady structural demand for the dollar, which remains the world’s dominant currency.Adam Parker, the chief executive of Trivariate Research and a former director of quantitative research at Morgan Stanley, argues that concerns regarding an oversupply of Treasuries in the market are conceptually understandable but that they have proved unfounded in one cycle after another. Some think this time is different.“Maybe I’m just dismissive of it because I’ve heard the argument seven times in a row,” he said. More

It Took 10 Years to Grow This Christmas Tree. The Price? $105 Dec. 18, 2023 Amid wild cost fluctuations and extreme weather conditions, a small army of workers toiled for years at Wyckoff’s Christmas Tree Farm in Belvidere, N.J. The goal? Producing this year’s crop, including this seven-foot Norway Spruce, which is sold for $105. […] More

Economists offer alternatives to financial safeguards created when the U.S. was the pre-eminent superpower and climate change wasn’t on the agenda.Martin Guzman was a college freshman at La Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina, in 2001 when a debt crisis prompted default, riots and a devastating depression. A dazed middle class suffered ruin, as the International Monetary Fund insisted that the government make misery-inducing budget cuts in exchange for a bailout.Watching Argentina unravel inspired Mr. Guzman to switch majors and study economics. Nearly two decades later, when the government was again bankrupt, it was Mr. Guzman as finance minister who negotiated with I.M.F. officials to restructure a $44 billion debt, the result of an earlier ill-conceived bailout.Today he is one of a number of prominent economists and world leaders who argue that the ambitious framework created at the end of World War II to safeguard economic growth and stability, with the I.M.F. and World Bank as its pillars, is failing in its mission.Martin Guzman, a former finance minister in Argentina, is among the economists and world leaders who argue that the framework created at the end of World War II to safeguard economic growth and stability is not working.Nathalia Angarita for The New York TimesJavier Milei, the newly elected president of Argentina, at an election event in Salta, Argentina, in October. He has described himself as an “anarcho-capitalist.”Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesThe current system “contributes to a more inequitable and unstable global economy,” said Mr. Guzman, who resigned last year after a rift within the government.The repayment that Mr. Guzman negotiated was the 22nd arrangement between Argentina and the I.M.F. Even so, the country’s economic tailspin has only increased with an annual inflation rate of more than 140 percent, growing lines at soup kitchens and a new, self-proclaimed “anarcho-capitalist” president, Javier Milei, who this week devalued the currency by 50 percent.The I.M.F. and World Bank have aroused complaints from the left and right ever since they were created. But the latest critiques pose a more profound question: Does the economic framework devised eight decades ago fit the economy that exists today, when new geopolitical conflicts collide with established economic relationships and climate change poses an imminent threat?Volunteers serving free meals in Buenos Aires. Argentina’s economy is in a tailspin, with growing lines at soup kitchens.Rodrigo Abd/Associated PressProtests in Buenos Aires in 2001. A debt crisis in Argentina led to default, riots and a devastating depression.Fabian Gredillas/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThis 21st-century clash of ideas about how to fix a system created for a 20th-century world is one of the most consequential facing the global economy.The I.M.F. was set up in 1944 at a conference in Bretton Woods, N.H., to help rescue countries in financial distress, while the World Bank’s focus was reducing poverty and investing in social development. The United States was the pre-eminent economic superpower, and scores of developing nations in Africa and Asia had not yet gained independence. The foundational ideology — later known as the “Washington Consensus” — held that prosperity depended on unhindered trade, deregulation and the primacy of private investment.“Nearly 80 years later, the global financial architecture is outdated, dysfunctional and unjust,” António Guterres, secretary general of the United Nations, said this summer at a summit in Paris. “Even the most fundamental goals on hunger and poverty have gone into reverse after decades of progress.”The world today is geopolitically fragmented. More than three-quarters of the current I.M.F. and World Bank countries were not at Bretton Woods. China’s economy, in ruins at the end of World War II, is now the world’s second-largest, an engine of global growth and a crucial hub in the world’s industrial machine and supply chain. India, then still a British colony, is one of the top five economies in the world.A session of the United Nations Monetary Conference in Bretton Woods, N.H., on July 4, 1944. Delegates from 44 countries are seated at the long tables.Abe Fox/Associated Press, via Associated PressAntónio Guterres, secretary general of the United Nations, said this summer that “the global financial architecture is outdated, dysfunctional, and unjust.”Martin Divisek/EPA, via ShutterstockThe once vaunted “Washington Consensus” has fallen into disrepute, with a greater recognition of how inequality and bias against women hamper growth, as well as the need for collective action on the climate.The mismatch between institution and mission has sharpened in recent years. Pounded by the Covid-19 pandemic, spiking food and energy prices related to the war in Ukraine, and higher interest rates, low- and middle-income countries are swimming in debt and facing slow growth. The size of the global economy as well as the scope of the problems have grown immensely, but funding of the I.M.F. and World Bank has not kept pace.Resolving debt crises is also vastly more complicated now that China and legions of private creditors are involved, instead of just a handful of Western banks.The World’s Bank’s own analyses outline the extent of the economic problems. “For the poorest countries, debt has become a nearly paralyzing burden,” a report released Wednesday concluded. Countries are forced to spend money on interest payments instead of investing in public health, education and the environment.An assembly line at the electric vehicle manufacturer Nio in Hefei, China. China’s economy was in ruins at the end of World War II but is now the world’s second largest and an engine of global growth.Qilai Shen for The New York TimesGita Gopinath, first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said of the current financial system, “We have countries strategically competing with amorphous rules and without an effective referee.”Jalal Morchidi/EPA, via ShutterstockAnd that debt doesn’t account for the trillions of dollars that developing countries will need to mitigate the ravages of climate change.Then there are the tensions between the United States and China, and Russia and Europe and its allies. It is harder to resolve debt crises or finance major infrastructure without bumping up against security concerns — like when the World Bank awarded the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei a contract that turned out to violate U.S. sanctions policy, or when China has resisted debt restructuring agreements.“The global rules-based system was not built to resolve national security-based trade conflicts,” Gita Gopinath, first deputy managing director of the I.M.F., said Monday in a speech to the International Economic Association in Colombia. “We have countries strategically competing with amorphous rules and without an effective referee.”The World Bank and I.M.F. have made changes. The fund has moderated its approach to bailouts, replacing austerity with the idea of sustainable debt. The bank this year significantly increased the share of money going to climate-related projects. But critics maintain that the fixes so far are insufficient.“The way in which they have evolved and adapted is much slower than the way the global economy evolved and adapted,” Mr. Guzman said.Argentina’s new president devalued the currency by 50 percent this week.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesA vegetables shop in Almagro in Buenos Aires. Argentina’s economy is South America’s second largest.Anita Pouchard Serra for The New York Times‘Time to Revisit Bretton Woods’Argentina, South America’s second-largest economy, may be the global economic system’s most notorious repeat failure, but it was Barbados, a tiny island nation in the Caribbean, that can be credited with turbocharging momentum for change.Mia Mottley, the prime minister, spoke out two years ago at the climate change summit in Glasgow and then followed up with the Bridgetown Initiative, a proposal to overhaul the way rich countries help poor countries adapt to climate change and avoid crippling debt.“Yes, it is time for us to revisit Bretton Woods,” she said in a speech at last year’s climate summit in Egypt. Ms. Mottley argues that there has been a “fundamental breakdown” in a longstanding covenant between poor countries and rich ones, many of which built their wealth by exploiting former colonies. The most advanced industrialized countries also produce most of the emissions that are heating the planet and causing extreme floods, wildfires and droughts in poor countries.Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, the executive vice president of the African Center for Economic Transformation, in Ghana, said that even recent agreements to deal with debt like the 2020 Common Framework were created without input from developing nations.“We are calling for a voice and seat at the table,” Ms. Owusu-Gyamfi said, from her office in Accra, as she discussed a $3 billion I.M.F. bailout of Ghana.Yet if the fund and bank are focused on economic issues, they are essentially political creations that reflect the power of the countries that established, finance and manage them.And those countries are reluctant to cede that power. The United States, the only member with veto power, has the largest share of votes in part because of the size of its economy and financial contributions. It does not want to see its influence shrink and others’ — particularly China’s — grow.The impasse over reapportioning votes has hampered efforts to increase funding levels, which countries across the board agree need to be increased.A vegetable market in Accra, Ghana. “We are calling for a voice and seat at the table,” said Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, the executive vice president of the African Center for Economic Transformation in Ghana.Natalija Gormalova for The New York TimesCustomers at lunch in Buenos Aires. Mr. Guzman and others pushing for change argue that indebted countries need more grants and low-interest loans with long repayment timelines.Sarah Pabst for The New York Times‘Big Hole’ in How to Deal With DebtStill, as Mr. Guzman said, “even if there are no changes in governance, there could be changes in policies.”Emerging nations need enormous amounts of money to invest in public health, education, transport and climate resilience. But they are saddled with high borrowing costs because of the market’s often exaggerated perception of the risk they pose as borrowers.And because they are usually compelled to borrow in dollars or euros, their payments soar if the Federal Reserve and other central banks raise interest rates to combat inflation as they did in the 1980s and after the Covid pandemic.The proliferation of private lenders and variety of loan agreements have made debt negotiations impossibly complex, yet no international legal arbiter exists.Zambia defaulted on its external debt three years ago, and there is still no agreement because the I.M.F., China and bondholders are at odds.There’s a “big hole” in international governance when it comes to sovereign debt, said Paola Subacchi, an economist at the Global Policy Institute at Queen Mary University in London, because the rules don’t apply to private loans, whether from a hedge fund or China’s central bank. Often these creditors have an interest in drawing out the process to hold out for a better deal.Mr. Guzman and other economists have called for an international legal arbiter to adjudicate disputes related to sovereign debt.“Every country has adopted a bankruptcy law,” said Joseph Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank, “but internationally we don’t have one.”The United States, though, has repeatedly opposed the idea, saying it is unnecessary.Rescues, too, have proved to be problematic. Last-resort loans from the I.M.F. can end up adding to a country’s budgetary woes and undermining the economic recovery because interest rates are so high now, and borrowers must also pay hefty fees.Those like Mr. Guzman and Ms. Mottley pushing for change argue that indebted countries need significantly more grants and low-interest loans with long repayment timelines, along with a slate of other reforms.“The challenges are different today,” said Mr. Guzman. “Policies need to be better aligned with the mission.”Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, offered a proposal this year to overhaul the way rich countries help poor countries adapt to climate change and avoid crippling debt.Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesFlash flooding in Bangladesh last year. The global economic framework was devised long before climate change posed an imminent threat to poor nations.Mushfiqul Alam/NurPhoto More