Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 125 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    World Bank Projects Weak Global Growth Amid Rising Interest Rates

    A new report projects that economic growth will slow this year and remain weak in 2024.The World Bank said on Tuesday that the global economy remained in a “precarious state” and warned of sluggish growth this year and next as rising interest rates slow consumer spending and business investment, and threaten the stability of the financial system.The bank’s tepid forecasts in its latest Global Economic Prospects report highlight the predicament that global policymakers face as they try to corral stubborn inflation by raising interest rates while grappling with the aftermath of the pandemic and continuing supply chain disruptions stemming from the war in Ukraine.The World Bank projected that global growth would slow to 2.1 percent this year from 3.1 percent in 2022. That is slightly stronger than its forecast of 1.7 percent in January, but in 2024 output is now expected to rise to 2.4 percent, weaker than the bank’s previous prediction of 2.7 percent.“Rays of sunshine in the global economy we saw earlier in the year have been fading, and gray days likely lie ahead,” said Ayhan Kose, deputy chief economist at the World Bank Group.Mr. Kose said that the world economy was experiencing a “sharp, synchronized global slowdown” and that 65 percent of countries would experience slower growth this year than last. A decade of poor fiscal management in low-income countries that relied on borrowed money is compounding the problem. According to the World Bank, 14 of 28 low-income countries are in debt distress or at a high risk of debt distress.Optimism about an economic rebound this year has been dampened by recent stress in the banking sectors in the United States and Europe, which resulted in the biggest bank failures since the 2008 financial crisis. Concerns about the health of the banking industry have prompted many lenders to pull back on providing credit to businesses and individuals, a phenomenon that the World Bank said was likely to further weigh down growth.The bank also warned that rising borrowing costs in rich countries — including the United States, where overnight interest rates have topped 5 percent for the first time in 15 years — posed an additional headwind for the world’s poorest economies.The most vulnerable economies, the report warned, are facing greater risk of financial crises as a result of rising rates. Higher interest rates make it more expensive for developing countries to service their loan payments and, if their currencies depreciate, to import food.In addition to the risks posed by rising interest rates, the pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine have combined to reverse decades of progress in global poverty reduction. The World Bank estimated on Tuesday that in 2024, incomes in the poorest countries would be 6 percent lower than in 2019.“Emerging market and developing economies today are struggling just to cope — deprived of the wherewithal to create jobs and deliver essential services to their most vulnerable citizens,” the report said.The World Bank sees widespread slowdowns in advanced economies, too. In the United States, it projects 1.1 percent growth this year and 0.8 percent in 2024.China is a notable exception to that trend, and the reopening of its economy after years of strict Covid-19 lockdowns is propping up global growth. The bank projects that the Chinese economy will grow 5.6 percent this year and 4.6 percent next year.Inflation is expected to continue to moderate this year, but the World Bank expects that prices will remain above central bank targets in many countries throughout 2024. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Biden’s Debt Ceiling Strategy: Win in the Fine Print

    The president and his negotiators believe they worked out a deal that allowed Republicans to claim big spending cuts even as the reality was far more modest.Shalanda Young couldn’t sleep.A small team of Biden administration officials had spent the past two days in intense negotiations with House Republicans in an attempt to avert a catastrophic government default. Ms. Young, the White House budget director, had been trading proposals on federal spending caps with negotiators deputized by Speaker Kevin McCarthy, whose Republican caucus was refusing to raise the nation’s $31.4 trillion borrowing limit without deep cuts.Now, as she scrolled Netflix in search of “bad television” to distract her racing mind, Ms. Young had a sinking feeling. What if she cut a deal to reduce spending and raise the debt limit, only to see Republicans attempt to force through much deeper cuts when it came time to pass annual appropriations bills this fall?At work the next morning, Ms. Young asked her staff how to stop that from happening. They settled on a plan, which in essence would penalize Republicans’ most cherished spending programs if they failed to follow the contours of the agreement. Then they forced Republicans to include that plan in the legislative text codifying the deal.That approach reflected a broader strategy President Biden’s team followed in the debt limit negotiations, according to interviews with current and former administration officials, some Republicans and other people familiar with the talks.On Saturday, that strategy reached its conclusion as Mr. Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 into law, just days before a potential default and following weeks of talks and a revolt from right-wing lawmakers in the House that put an agreement at risk of collapse.In pursuit of an agreement, the Biden team was willing to give Republicans victory after victory on political talking points, which they realized Mr. McCarthy needed to sell the bill to his conference. They let Mr. McCarthy’s team claim in the end that the deal included deep spending cuts, huge clawbacks of unspent federal coronavirus relief money and stringent work requirements for recipients of federal aid.But in the details of the text and the many side deals that accompanied it, the Biden team wanted to win on substance. With one large exception — a $20 billion cut in enforcement funding for the Internal Revenue Service — they believe they did.The way administration officials see it, the full final agreement’s spending cuts are nothing worse than they would have expected in regular appropriations bills passed by a divided Congress. They agreed to structure the cuts so they appeared to save $1.5 trillion over a decade in the eyes of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But thanks to the side deals — including some accounting tricks — White House officials estimate that the actual cuts could total as little as $136 billion over the two enforceable years of the spending caps that are central to the agreement.Much of the $30 billion in clawed-back Covid-19 money was probably never going to be spent, Biden officials say, including dollars from an aviation manufacturing jobs program that had basically ended.At one point in the talks, administration officials offered to include in the deal more than 100 relief programs from which they were willing to rescind money. The final list spanned 20 pages of a 99-page bill, and Mr. McCarthy championed it on the House floor. But because much of the money was repurposed for other spending, the net savings added up to only about $11 billion over two years. One of the programs had a remaining balance of just $40.Many Democrats remain furious that the deal included new work requirements that could push 750,000 people off food stamps, which the Biden team begrudgingly concluded it had to accept.That measure alone could have tanked Democratic support for the deal in Congress, officials knew. So they sought to counterbalance it with efforts to expand food stamp eligibility for veterans, the homeless and others, which Republicans agreed to do. The budget office concluded that the changes would actually add recipients to the program, on net.Some Democrats and progressive groups have sharply criticized Mr. Biden for negotiating over the debt limit at all, denouncing the spending cuts and work requirements and saying he cemented Republicans’ ability to ransom the borrowing limit whenever a Democrat occupies the White House.Republican negotiators sold the deal as a game-changing blow to Mr. Biden’s spending ambitions. “They absolutely have tire tracks on them in this negotiation,” Representative Garret Graves of Louisiana said before the House vote on Wednesday.Mr. Biden views it differently. As the Senate prepared to pass the agreement on Thursday evening, he huddled with his chief of staff, Jeffrey D. Zients, along with Steve Ricchetti, counselor to the president, and other aides, in Mr. Zients’s office in the West Wing of the White House. Mr. Biden asked them what you might call a scorecard question: What percentage of Democrats in the House had voted for the deal, and what share were expected to in the Senate?When Mr. Ricchetti told him the number of Democrats would be larger, in both chambers, than the share of Republicans supporting the deal, Mr. Biden was pleased. It was validation, in his view, that he had cut a good deal.Mr. Zients referred to that vote share in an interview on Friday. “If you go back a few months ago, no one would have thought this was possible,” he said.It was not an assured outcome. The negotiating teams came to the table with divergent views of the drivers of federal debt in recent years. White House negotiators blamed Republican tax cuts. Republicans blamed Mr. Biden’s economic agenda, including a debt-financed Covid relief bill in 2021 and a bipartisan infrastructure bill later that year.The dispute occasionally grew profane. At one point, after Mr. Biden’s negotiators criticized the 2017 Republican tax cuts, a “very mild-mannered” aide to Mr. McCarthy stood up, shook his finger at the Biden team and hotly responded that their argument was nonsense, using a vulgarity, Mr. Graves recounted.Mr. Biden had insisted for months that he would not negotiate over raising the borrowing limit. But privately, many aides had been planning on talks all along — though they refused to admit those talks were linked to the debt limit. The Biden team reasoned that it would have to negotiate fiscal issues this year anyway, both on appropriations bills and on programs like food stamps that are included in a regularly reauthorized farm bill.Mr. Biden’s economic advisers, including Lael Brainard, the director of the National Economic Council, and Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, were warning of catastrophic damage to the economy if the government could no longer pay its bills on time.The president appeared to score wins before the talks even started. He goaded Republicans into agreeing, in the midst of his State of the Union address, that Social Security and Medicare would be off limits in the talks — thanks to a spontaneous riff that grew out of a passage in his speech that he had worked on extensively in the days beforehand. He proposed a budget filled with tax increases on the rich and corporations that were meant to reduce debt, but he refused to engage Mr. McCarthy in serious talks until Republicans offered a spending plan of their own.In late April, the House passed a bill that included $4.7 trillion in savings from spending cuts, canceling clean-energy tax breaks and clawing back money for Covid relief and the I.R.S. It featured work requirements and measures to speed fossil fuel projects, and it raised the debt limit for one year.Mr. Biden, under fire from business groups and others who feared the standoff could result in the United States running out of money before the debt limit was raised, soon agreed to designate a team of negotiators. The White House team was led by officials including Ms. Young and one of her top aides, Michael Linden, who delayed his departure from the White House to help negotiate along with Louisa Terrell, the legislative affairs director, and Mr. Ricchetti.Mr. McCarthy’s negotiators gave Biden officials the impression that to reach agreement, they needed at least one talking point from every major aspect of the House Republican debt limit bill.The talks took a few surprising turns. Multiple White House officials say the Republican team briefly entertained relatively modest proposals to raise tax revenue, including closing loopholes that benefit some real-estate owners and people who trade cryptocurrency. Those discussions stalled quickly.Democrats agreed to fast-track a natural gas pipeline, in what officials concede was making good on a promise to Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, for backing Mr. Biden’s signature climate law last year.The spending caps ended up roughly where many Biden aides had predicted they would in private discussions months ago. But few White House officials believed they would have to give up $20 billion of the $80 billion that Democrats approved last year to help the I.R.S. crack down on tax cheats. Mr. Biden hammered out the amount in a final call with Mr. McCarthy.Ms. Young said that cut was painful. “And not just for me,” she added. “It’s something we talked to the president about many times. He cares deeply about this.”On Thursday evening in Mr. Zients’s office, the president and his team were focused on upsides. They had beaten back Republican attempts to cancel the climate law, to add new work requirements on Medicaid recipients and to impose binding spending caps for a decade. Mr. Biden was particularly pleased to spare key veterans’ programs from cuts.On Friday morning, Mr. Zients gathered core officials in his office, as he had every day, seven days a week, for several weeks running. Ms. Brainard and the economic team were relieved to have cleared the threat of default not just for this year, but through the next presidential election. Aides worked on honing Mr. Biden’s planned remarks in an Oval Office address on Friday evening.The speech started at 7:01 p.m., unusually promptly for Mr. Biden. By then, his staff was already celebrating. An hour earlier, happy hour had begun in Mr. Zients’s office.Catie Edmondson More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    The Debt-Ceiling Deal Suggests Debt Will Keep Growing, Fast

    The bipartisan deal to avert a government default this week featured modest cuts to a relatively small corner of the federal budget. As a curb on the growth of the nation’s $31.4 trillion debt load, it was a minor breakthrough, at best.It also showed how difficult — perhaps impossible — it could be for lawmakers to agree anytime soon on a major breakthrough to demonstrably reduce the nation’s debt load.There is no clear economic evidence that current debt levels are dragging on economic growth. Some economists contend that rising debt levels will hurt growth by making it harder for businesses to borrow money; others say spiraling future costs of government borrowing could unleash rapid inflation.But Washington is back to pretending to care about debt, which is poised to top $50 trillion by the end of the decade even after accounting for newly passed spending cuts.With that pretense comes the reality that the fundamental drivers of American politics all point toward the United States borrowing more, not less.The bipartisan agreement to suspend the debt ceiling for two years, which passed the Senate on Thursday, effectively sets overall discretionary spending levels over that period. The agreement cuts federal spending by $1.5 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by essentially freezing some funding that had been projected to increase next year and then limiting spending to 1 percent growth in 2025.But even with those savings, the agreement provides clear evidence that the nation’s overall debt load will not be shrinking anytime soon.Republicans cited that mounting debt burden as a reason to refuse to raise the limit, risking default and financial crisis, unless Mr. Biden agreed to measures to reduce future deficits. But negotiators from the White House and House Republican leadership could only agree to find major savings from nondefense discretionary spending.That’s the part of the budget that funds Pell grants, federal law enforcement and a wide range of domestic programs. As a share of the economy, it is well within historical levels, and it is projected to fall in the coming years. Currently, base discretionary spending accounts for less than one-eighth of the $6.3 trillion the government spends annually.The deal included no major cuts to military spending, which is larger than base nondefense discretionary spending. Early in the talks, both parties ruled out changes to the two largest drivers of federal spending growth over the next decade: Social Security and Medicare. The cost of those programs is expected to soar within 10 years as retiring baby boomers qualify for benefits.While Republicans at first balked when Mr. Biden accused them of wanting to cut those politically popular programs, they quickly switched to blaming the president for taking them off the table.Asked on Fox News on Wednesday why Republicans had not targeted the entire budget for cuts, Speaker Kevin McCarthy replied, “Because the president walled off all the others.”“The majority driver of the budget is mandatory spending,” he said. “It’s Medicare, Social Security, interest on the debt.”Negotiators for Mr. McCarthy effectively walled off the other half of the debt equation: revenue. They rebuffed Mr. Biden’s pitch to raise trillions of dollars from new taxes on corporations and high earners, and both sides wound up agreeing to cut funding for the Internal Revenue Service that was expected to bring in more money by cracking down on tax cheats.Instead, Republicans attempted to frame mounting national debt as solely a spending problem, not a tax-revenue problem, even though tax cuts by both parties have added trillions to the debt since the turn of the century.Republican leaders now appear poised to introduce a new round of tax-cut proposals, which would likely be financed with borrowed money, a move Democrats decried during the floor debate over the debt-ceiling deal.“Before the ink is dry on this bill, you will be pushing for $3.5 trillion in business tax cuts,” Representative Gwen Moore, Democrat of Wisconsin, said shortly before the final vote on the Fiscal Responsibility Act, as it is called, on Wednesday.Those comments reflected a lesson Democrats took from 2011, when Washington leaders last made a big show of pretending to care about debt in a bipartisan deal to raise the borrowing limit. That agreement, between President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner, limited discretionary spending growth for a decade, helping to drive down budget deficits for years.Many Democrats now believe those lower deficits gave Republicans the fiscal and political space they needed to pass a tax-cut package in 2017 under President Donald J. Trump that the Congressional Budget Office estimated would add nearly $2 trillion to the national debt. They have come to believe that Republicans would happily do the same again with any future budget deals — putting aside deficit concerns and effectively turning budget savings into new tax breaks.At the same time, both parties have grown more wary of cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Obama was willing to reduce future growth of retirement benefits by changing how they were tied to inflation; Mr. Biden is not. Mr. Trump won the White House after promising to protect both programs, in a break from past Republicans, and is currently slamming his rivals over possible cuts to the programs as he seeks the presidency again.All the while, the total amount of federal debt has more than doubled, to $31.4 trillion from just below $15 trillion in 2011. That growth has had no discernible effect on the performance of the economy. But it is projected to continue growing in the next decade, as retiring baby boomers draw more government benefits. The budget office estimated last month that debt held by the public would be nearly 20 percent larger in 2033, as a share of the economy, than it is today.Even under a generous score of the new agreement, which assumes Congress will effectively lock in two years of spending cuts over the full course of a decade, that growth will only fall by a few percentage points.Groups promoting debt reduction in Washington have celebrated the deal as a first step toward a larger compromise to reduce America’s reliance on borrowed money. But neither Mr. McCarthy nor Mr. Biden has shown any interest in what those groups want: a mix of significant cuts to retirement programs and increases in tax revenues.Mr. McCarthy suggested this week that he would soon form a bipartisan commission to scour the full federal budget “so we can find the waste and we can make the real decisions to really take care of this debt.”The 2011 debt deal produced a similar sort of commission, which issued recommendations on politically painful steps to reduce debt. Lawmakers discarded them. There’s no evidence they’d do anything else today. More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Praises Debt-Ceiling Deal in Address to the Nation

    President Biden hailed a rare example of bipartisan cooperation in Washington on Friday, saying in his first prime-time address from the Oval Office that this week’s legislative budget deal averts economic calamity from a default on the nation’s debt.The legislation, known as the Fiscal Responsibility Act, passed the Senate late Thursday after receiving broad support in the House earlier in the week. The bill suspends the debt ceiling for two years and cuts back on spending.Seated behind the Resolute Desk, Mr. Biden said he would soon sign the measure into law and sought to reassure Americans that robust job growth — the economy added 339,000 jobs in May alone — would not be sidetracked by global fears about whether the United States is willing to pay its bills.“Essential to all the progress we’ve made in the last few years is keeping full faith and credit of the United States,” Mr. Biden said, adding: “Passing this budget agreement was critical. The stakes could not have been higher.”The speech was designed to double down on Mr. Biden’s longtime brand as a political deal-maker who is able to reach compromise with his rivals. His advisers believe that reputation is critical to his ability to win a second term in the White House.But Mr. Biden also used his remarks, which lasted about 12 minutes, to highlight achievements by his administration that are fiercely opposed by Republicans, and vowed to continue pushing a Democratic agenda that includes higher taxes on the wealthy, more spending on climate change and veterans and no cuts to health care or the social safety net.“No one got everything they wanted, but the American people got what they needed,” he said. He added that “we protected important priorities from Social Security to Medicare to Medicaid to veterans to our transformational investments in infrastructure and clean energy.”Mr. Biden went out of his way to praise House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, his chief Republican rival.“He and I, we and our teams, we were able to get along, get things done,” Mr. Biden said. “We were straightforward with one another, completely honest with one another and respectful with one another. Both sides operated in good faith.”The president said he would sign the bill on Saturday, two days before the so-called X-date, when the Treasury secretary said the government would run out of cash to pay its bills, a situation that economists have predicted would cause global uncertainty and turmoil.Presidents often reserve the Oval Office for addresses to the nation about war, economic crises or natural disasters. President Ronald Reagan delivered somber remarks from there after the space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986. President Donald J. Trump announced pandemic restrictions from the Oval Office in early 2020.Mr. Biden’s decision to use the same venue on Friday underscores how close he believes the nation veered toward economic disaster.Mr. Biden and lawmakers had expressed optimism for weeks that they would reach an accord to avoid that outcome, but the deep disagreements between Democrats and Republicans kept the country — and the rest of the world — on edge until the votes were cast in both chambers.In the House, conservative Republicans initially revolted against Mr. McCarthy for failing to win more spending concessions from the president. Several threatened Mr. McCarthy’s speakership, but backed down amid robust support for the speaker from other Republicans.Some Democrats in the House and Senate also resisted the compromise, but the White House made the decision to largely keep quiet as the votes proceeded this week, hoping to avoid inflaming the conservative opposition and making Mr. McCarthy’s job harder.Mr. Biden has said on several occasions that he hoped to find a way to avoid a similar crisis over the debt ceiling in the future and has mentioned the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says the debt of the United States “shall not be questioned.”Some legal experts believe that a president could use that passage to ignore the statutory debt limit, thereby avoiding the regular clashes between the parties. Mr. Biden said last month that he hoped to “find a rationale to take it to the courts to see whether or not the 14th Amendment is, in fact, something that would be able to stop it.”On Sunday, he said, “That’s another day.”Before the Oval Office speech, Mr. Biden was faced with anger among some progressives in his party that he had agreed to too many Republican demands during the negotiations.Some Democratic lawmakers voted against the debt ceiling legislation because of new work requirements that it imposes on some recipients of food assistance. White House officials have argued that the legislation removes work requirements for others, including the homeless and veterans.The president also angered some environmentalists by agreeing to approve construction of a natural gas pipeline through West Virginia and Virginia. Critics say the 300-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline will hurt wildlife and the environment as it cuts across the Appalachian Trail.For Mr. Biden, the debt ceiling deal helps to avoid undercutting the strong economy, which is a key selling point for his campaign.But his political advisers also have to be concerned about maintaining support from the coalition of voters who put him in office in 2020, some of whom have been disappointed with his achievements in climate, criminal justice and other areas. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Added 339,000 Jobs in May Despite Economic Clouds

    Employers added 339,000 workers in May, the Labor Department said, though the report also offered signs of shakiness.American employers added an unanticipated barrage of workers in May, reaffirming the labor market’s vigor.Defying expectations of a slowdown, payrolls grew by 339,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis, the Labor Department said on Friday. The increase, the largest since January, suggested that the job market was still piping hot despite a swirl of economic headwinds.But below the surface, the report also offered evidence of softening. The unemployment rate, while still historically low, jumped to 3.7 percent, the highest level since October. In a sign that the pressure to entice workers with pay increases is lifting, wage growth eased.The dissonance offered a somewhat muddled picture that complicates the calculus for the Federal Reserve, which has been raising interest rates for more than a year to temper the labor market’s momentum and rein in price increases. Fed officials have indicated that the jobs report will be an important factor as they decide whether to raise interest rates again.“We’re still seeing a labor market that’s gradually cooling,” said Sarah House, an economist at Wells Fargo. “But it’s at a glacial place.”President Biden hailed the report, saying in a statement that “today is a good day for the American economy and American workers.” The S&P 500 index rose more than 1.4 percent as the data portrayed an economic engine that was running strong but not overheating.Looming over the report is the debt ceiling deal approved by Congress, though economists largely expect the spending caps and cuts to have only marginal impact on the labor market going forward.The hiring numbers suggest that employers remain eager for workers even in the face of high interest rates and economic uncertainty. Many are still bringing on employees to meet consumer demand, especially for services. The only major sectors to lose jobs were manufacturing and information.A slight reversal for manufacturing in MayChange in jobs in May 2023, by sector More

  • 175 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Unemployment dropped among Hispanic men and women in May but rose for Black workers

    Overall, the unemployment rate among Latinos decreased in May.
    Meanwhile, unemployment for Black workers overall increased in May.
    The monthly jobs report is made up of two surveys: the payroll survey of employers and the household survey.

    Steve Debenport | E+ | Getty Images

    The U.S. unemployment rate rose in May, but declined for Hispanic workers, according to the latest nonfarm payrolls report.
    The overall unemployment rate last month was 3.7%, a gain of 0.3 percentage points from the prior month. However, Hispanic or Latina women saw their unemployment rate fall to 3.4% last month, down 0.7 percentage points from 4.1% in April, the U.S. Department of Labor reported Friday. The unemployment rate for Hispanic men ticked lower to 4% from 4.1% in April. Overall, the unemployment rate among Latinos decreased to 4% in May from 4.4% in the prior month.

    related investing news

    “This is a historic low,” said Carmen Sanchez Cumming, a research associate at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, of the overall decline in the Hispanic unemployment rate. “The only other time that it’s been this level was in November 2022 and September of 2019 … For both Hispanic workers and for Black workers, at least in the first half of 2023, this recovery has been especially strong.”
    Meanwhile, unemployment for Black workers overall rose 0.9 percentage points to 5.6% in May from 4.7% in April. Among Black men, the rate was 5.6% in May, compared to 4.5% in April. The unemployment rate also ticked higher for Black women, rising to 5.3% in May from April’s rate of 4.4%.

    “Economic research and empirical data shows that for Hispanic workers and for Black workers, their outcomes are much more sensitive to fluctuations in the business cycle,” Cumming said. “So, when the labor market is really strong, Latino workers and Black workers benefit disproportionately, but when the labor market is weak, Black and Latino workers [are] hurt disproportionately, too.”

    Monthly volatility vs. longer-term trends

    The monthly jobs report is made up of two surveys: the payroll survey of employers and the household survey. There is a lot of volatility on a monthly basis that comes into play when looking at smaller demographic groups in the household survey, Cumming warned.
    That volatility is the big story in the May jobs report, said Elise Gould, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

    “It’s important when we look at something like that to pay attention to the longer-term trend, because every month there can be a lot of movement,” Gould said.
    “The longer-term trend suggests that the Black unemployment rate has been coming down,” she added. “So it’s about where it was three months ago. Yes, it was lower last month. It ticked up, but I think that probably it will resolve down again next month.”

    The labor force participation rate for the overall population held at 62.6% in May. This metric measures the percentage of people who are either working or actively seeking employment. For Black men, the labor force participation rate ticked up to 68.2%, an increase from 67.8% in April. For Black women, the rate held steady at 63.9%.
    Meanwhile, the labor force participation rate for Hispanic men was 79.5% in May, up from 78.9% in April. The rate stayed the same for Hispanic women at 61.2%. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    For Turkey, Erdogan Victory Brings More Risky Economic Policy

    The Turkish lira has hit a new low, and analysts see few improvements ahead as re-elected President Erdogan pursues unconventional economic policies.Since winning re-election, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey has publicly doubled down on his idiosyncratic economic policies.“If anyone can do this, I can do it,” he declared in a victory speech last Sunday, referring to his ability to solve the country’s calamitous economic problems.His brash confidence is not widely shared by most analysts and economists.The Turkish lira dropped to a record low against the dollar this week, and foreign investors have been disheartened by the president’s refusal to stray from what is widely considered to be an eccentric economic course.Instead of combating dizzying inflation by raising interest rates and making borrowing more expensive — as most economists recommend — Mr. Erdogan has repeatedly lowered rates. He argues that cheap credit will boost manufacturing and exports.But his strategy is also fueling inflation, now running at an annual rate of 44 percent, and eroding the value of the Turkish lira. Attempts by the government to prop up the faltering currency have drained the dwindling pool of foreign reserves.As the lira’s value drops, the price of imported goods — like medicine, energy, fertilizer and automobile parts — rises, making it more expensive for consumers to afford daily costs. And it raises the size of debt payments for businesses and households that have borrowed money from foreign lenders.The national budget is also coming under increasing strains. The destructive earthquakes in February that ripped up swaths of southern Turkey are estimated to have caused more than a billion dollars in damage, roughly 9 percent of the country’s annual economic output.At the same time, Mr. Erdogan went on a pre-election spending spree to attract voters, increasing salaries for public sector workers and payouts for retirees and offering households a month of free natural gas. The expenditures pushed up growth, but economists fear that such outlays will feed inflation.President Erdogan in Istanbul last month. Foreign investors have been disheartened by his refusal to stray from what is widely considered to be an eccentric economic course.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesAn effort to encourage Turks to keep their savings in lira by guaranteeing their balances against currency depreciations further adds to the government’s potential liabilities.Critics of the president’s economic approach were somewhat heartened by reports that Mr. Erdogan is expected this weekend to appoint Mehmet Simsek, a former finance minister and deputy prime minister, to the cabinet. Mr. Simsek is well thought of in financial circles and has previously supported a tighter monetary policy.“What Turkey really needs now is more exports and more foreign direct investment, and for that you have to send a signal,” said Henri Barkey, an international relations professor at Lehigh University. One signal could be Mr. Simsek’s appointment, he said.Mr. Barkey argues that Mr. Erdogan will have no choice but to make a U-turn on policy by winter, when energy import costs rise and some debt payments are due.Others are more skeptical that Mr. Erdogan will back down from his insistence that high interest rates fuel inflation. Kadri Tastan, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund, a public policy think tank based in Brussels, said that regardless of the cabinet’s makeup, he didn’t believe a policy turnaround was imminent.“I’m quite pessimistic about an enormous change, of course,” he said.To deal with the large external deficit and depleted central bank reserves, Mr. Erdogan has been relying on allies like Russia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to help bolster its reserves by depositing dollars with the central bank or extending payment deadlines and discounts for imported goods like natural gas.In a note to investors this week, Capital Economics wrote that any optimism about a policy shift is likely to be short-lived: “While policymakers like Simsek would probably pursue more restrained fiscal policy than we had envisaged, we doubt Erdogan would give the central bank license to hike policy rates to restore balance to the economy.”Turkey’s more than $900 billion economy makes it the eighth largest in Europe. And Mr. Erdogan’s efforts to position himself as a power broker between Russia and the European allies since the war in Ukraine began has further underscored Turkey’s geopolitical influence.Mr. Erdogan, who has been in power for two decades, built his electoral success on growth-oriented policies that lifted millions of Turks into the middle class. But the pumped-up expansion wasn’t sustainable.As the lira’s value drops, the price of imported goods rises.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesThe borrowing frenzy drove up prices, spurring a cost-of-living crisis. Still, Mr. Erdogan persisted in lowering interest rates and fired central bank chiefs who disagreed with him. The pandemic exacerbated problems by reducing demand for Turkish exports and limiting tourism, a large source of income.Mr. Erdogan is likely to keep up his expansionary policies until the next local elections take place next year. Until then, Hakan Kara, the former chief economist of the Central Bank of Turkey, said the country would probably just “muddle through.”“Turkish authorities will have to make tough decisions after the local elections, as something has to give in eventually,” Mr. Kara said. “Turkey has to either switch back to conventional policies, or further deviate from the free market economy where the central authority manages the economy through micro-control measures.”“In either case,” he added, “the adjustment is likely to be painful.” More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    New World Bank President Ajay Banga Leads at a Pivotal Moment

    The incoming president will be under pressure to juggle the global institution’s ambitions to combat climate change and fight poverty.Ajay Banga officially became the 14th president of the World Bank on Friday and urged staff to join him in developing a “new playbook” for a global institution whose relevance has come into question in recent years.The ascension of Mr. Banga to be the next leader of the bank comes at a pivotal moment in its 77-year history. The global pandemic reversed decades of progress in poverty reduction, Russia’s war in Ukraine continues to be a threat to economic stability and the World Bank is under new pressure to become a more ambitious player in the fight against climate change.“Making good on our ambition will require us to evolve to maximize resources and write a new playbook, to think creatively, take informed risks and forge new partnerships with civil society and multilateral institutions,” Mr. Banga wrote in a note to staff that was viewed by The New York Times.Mr. Banga was nominated by President Biden in February after the resignation of David Malpass, the outgoing World Bank president who had been selected by former President Donald J. Trump. The World Bank’s executive board approved Mr. Banga in May following an extensive listening tour that included visits to eight countries and dozens of meetings with government officials around the world.In his message to staff, Mr. Banga defined the bank’s mission as aspiring to “create a world free from poverty on a livable planet.”It is the second part of that mission by which Mr. Banga will be likely be judged.Mr. Malpass left the job a year early after failing to sufficiently demonstrate his commitment to combating global warming amid a renewed emphasis from the Biden administration broadening the bank’s focus on the environment.However, Mr. Banga, a former chief executive of Mastercard, does not bring extensive climate credentials to the job and will be under pressure to demonstrate progress on the bank’s environmental agenda. He has described the tasks of dealing with climate change and poverty as intertwined.“The World Bank’s challenge is clear: It must pursue both climate adaptation and mitigation; it must reach out to lower-income countries without turning its back on middle-income countries; it must think globally but recognize national and regional needs; it must embrace risk but do so prudently,” Mr. Banga wrote in a statement to World Bank’s executive board that accompanied his memo to staff.Activists protest during meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in April.Yuri Gripas for The New York TimesClimate activists plan to appear outside the World Bank on Friday and attempt to hand postcards to staff with demands that they want Mr. Banga to heed during his first 100 days on the job. They continue to be frustrated that the World Bank finances coal, oil and gas projects despite its pledges to prioritize clean energy projects.Mr. Banga is expected to use his expertise to amplify the resources of the World Bank and build new partnerships between the private and public sectors. The former finance executive added in his memo that accomplishing the World Bank’s many goals will require an annual global investment of trillions of dollars.Mr. Banga will also face a difficult diplomatic task as he seeks to satisfy the climate ambitions of the United States and Europe while facing skepticism from some developing countries. He will also confront the delicate task of urging China, a major World Bank shareholder and creditor, to allow poor countries that have borrowed huge sums from Beijing to restructure their debts.The World Bank president is traditionally chosen by the United States; the managing director of the International Monetary Fund is selected by the European Union.Mr. Banga met on Thursday with Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen. They discussed ways to refine how the bank operates and make it more agile and responsive, according to a summary of their conversation released by the Treasury Department. More