Evelyn Reynolds

Edwin Lopez sorts the money in the cash register at Frankie’s Pizza on January 12, 2022 in Miami, Florida.
Joe Raedle | Getty Images

As inflation continues to weigh on American households, people are plotting what they’ll cut from their budgets in the coming months to keep spending in check.

More than 50% of adults say they’ve already cut back on dining out and will consider reducing that further if inflation continues to surge, according to the CNBC + Acorns Invest in You survey, conducted by Momentive. The online survey of nearly 4,000 adults was conducted March 23-24.  

Arrows pointing outwards

People are also cutting back on driving and subscriptions and are even canceling vacations to keep up with inflation, the survey found.
“It’s been astounding,” said Tania Brown, an Atlanta-based certified financial planner and founder of FinanciallyConfidentMom.com.

Arrows pointing outwards

People are thinking about rising prices all the time
Inflation is at its highest level in 40 years and has pushed up the prices of most consumer goods and services, including housing, food and energy.
That means many Americans are suddenly spending more on essentials, making their budgets tighter without any change in habits. People are noticing these hikes and paying closer attention. Nearly half of all adults said they think about rising prices all the time, while 55% of those with annual household income of $50,000 or less are constantly checking costs, the survey found.

“Having your eyes focused on your spending is always a good strategy,” said Susan Greenhalgh, an accredited financial counselor who runs Mind Your Money LLC in Rhode Island. “You really can’t understand what’s happening with your money unless you’re really looking at it and measuring it.”
More from Invest in You:When to up your home-buying budget or stick to your original priceWhy you should start paying off debt now — and how to get startedInflation is costing U.S. households nearly $300 more a month
Keeping track of what you spend can also help you tailor where you can cut back, she said, as inflation hits everyone differently. If you’re someone who doesn’t eat out much but is getting pummeled by gas prices at the pump, reducing driving will probably help your budget more than skipping a few dinners at a restaurant.
It’s also important to be watching and comparing your spending month to month because prices are rising so quickly. You may have to adjust more frequently than you’ve had to in the past.
“The No. 1 goal is, no matter what, to protect the necessities, and that is food, shelter, basic transportation and basic medical,” said Brown.
What to do about inflation
Inflation is poised to continue to run hot, squeezing budgets even further. More than 75% of adults said they’re worried higher prices will force them to rethink their financial choices, the survey found.
The impact will be the harshest on those with the lowest incomes who may be pushed into survival mode, said Brown. For those struggling to cut spending even more, she also said to reach out to creditors and lenders to see if you can put off payments.
Some people may also qualify for programs to help with utility bills, which could help with monthly costs she said. It may also be time to dip into emergency savings to cover your essential costs, if you need to, she added.
Those with higher incomes will also have to adjust, especially if they want to keep saving at the same rate as they were before inflation ticked up, said Greenhalgh.
Of course, if your budget is stretched too thin, cutting back on savings may have to happen to avoid debt. If that’s the case, both Brown and Greenhalgh suggest putting away smaller amounts consistently to keep yourself in the habit of saving.
“As long as you’re taking things in the right direction, that’s great,” said Brown.
TUNE IN: Watch Sharon Epperson all day on CNBC discussing recession fears, consumer spending and financial literacy in schools.
SIGN UP: Money 101 is an 8-week learning course to financial freedom, delivered weekly to your inbox. For the Spanish version Dinero 101, click here.
Disclosure: NBCUniversal and Comcast Ventures are investors in Acorns. More

There is little sign that a recession is imminent. But sky-high demand and supply shortages are testing the economy’s limits.Employers are adding hundreds of thousands of jobs a month, and would hire even more people if they could find them. Consumers are spending, businesses are investing, and wages are rising at their fastest pace in decades.So naturally, economists are warning of a possible recession.Rapid inflation, soaring oil prices and global instability have led forecasters to sharply lower their estimates of economic growth this year, and to raise their probabilities of an outright contraction. Investors share that concern: The bond market last week flashed a warning signal that has often — though not always — foreshadowed a downturn.Such predictions may seem confusing when the economy, by many measures, is booming. The United States has regained more than 90 percent of the jobs lost in the early weeks of the pandemic, and employers are continuing to hire at a breakneck pace, adding 431,000 jobs in March alone. The unemployment rate has fallen to 3.6 percent, barely above the prepandemic level, which was itself a half-century low.But to the doomsayers, the recovery’s remarkable strength carries the seeds of its own destruction. Demand — for cars, for homes, for restaurant meals and for the workers to provide them — has outstripped supply, leading to the fastest inflation in 40 years. Policymakers at the Federal Reserve argue they can cool off the economy and bring down inflation without driving up unemployment and causing a recession. But many economists are skeptical that the Fed can engineer such a “soft landing,” especially in a moment of such extreme global uncertainty.“It’s like trying to land during an earthquake,” said Tara Sinclair, a professor of economics at George Washington University.William Dudley, a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, called a recession “virtually inevitable.” He is among the economists arguing that if the Fed had begun raising interest rates last year, it might have been able to rein in inflation merely by tapping the brakes on the economy. Now, they say, the economy is growing so rapidly — and prices are rising so quickly — that the only way for the Fed to get control is to slam on the brakes and cause a recession.Still, a majority of forecasters say a recession remains unlikely in the next year. High oil prices, rising interest rates and waning government aid will all drag down growth this year, said Aneta Markowska, chief economist for Jefferies, an investment bank. But corporate profits are strong, households have trillions in savings, and debt loads are low — all of which should provide a cushion against any slowdown.“It’s easy to construct a very negative narrative, but when you actually look at the magnitude of all those impacts, I don’t think they’re significant enough to push us into a recession in the next 12 months,” she said. Recessions, almost by definition, involve job losses and unemployment; right now, companies are doing practically anything they can to retain workers.“I just don’t see what would cause businesses to do a complete 180 and go from ‘We need to hire all these people and we can’t find them’ to ‘We have to lay people off,’” Ms. Markowska said. Economists, however, are notoriously terrible at predicting recessions. So it makes sense to focus instead on where the recovery is right now, and on the forces that are threatening to knock it off course.The State of Jobs in the United StatesJob openings and the number of workers voluntarily leaving their positions in the United States remained near record levels in March.March Jobs Report: U.S. employers added 431,000 jobs and the unemployment rate fell to 3.6 percent ​​in the third month of 2022.A Strong Job Market: Data from the Labor Department showed that job openings remained near record levels in February.Wages and Inflation: Economists hoped that as households shifted spending back to services, price gains would cool. Rapid wage growth could make that story more complicated.New Career Paths: For some, the Covid-19 crisis presented an opportunity to change course. Here is how these six people pivoted professionally.Return to the Office: Many companies are loosening Covid safety rules, leaving people to navigate social distancing on their own. Some workers are concerned.Unionization Efforts: The pandemic has fueled enthusiasm for organized labor. But the pushback has been brutal, especially in the private sector.Growth will slow. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.Last year was the best year for economic growth since the mid-1980s, and the best for job growth on record. Those kinds of explosive gains — enabled by vaccines and fueled by trillions of dollars in government aid — were not likely to be repeated this year.In fact, some slowdown is probably desirable. The rapid rebound in consumer spending, especially on cars, furniture and other goods, has overwhelmed supply chains, driving up prices. Demand for workers is so strong that jobs are going unfilled despite rising wages. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said recently that the labor market had gotten “tight to an unhealthy level.”Some economists, particularly on the left, took issue with that claim, arguing that the hot labor market was good for workers. But even most of them said the recent pace of job growth was unsustainable for long.“We have torn back toward normal at a really fast pace, and it would be unrealistic to think that could continue,” said Josh Bivens, the director of research at the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank. Even slower wage growth, he said, wouldn’t worry him, as long as pay increases didn’t fall further behind inflation.But some economists cautioned against rooting for a slowdown in a rare moment when low-wage workers were seeing substantial pay increases, and unemployment was falling for vulnerable groups. The unemployment rate among Black Americans fell to 6.2 percent in March, but was still nearly double that of white Americans.“The recovery from my perspective is fairly robust, and so why not enjoy this right now?” said Michelle Holder, president of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a progressive think tank. She said that while economists were right to be concerned about high inflation, “I don’t think similar voices were this bent out of shape about high unemployment.”A slowdown doesn’t have to mean a recession. (In theory.)Rush-hour commuters are returning to New York City’s subways. The United States has regained more than 90 percent of the jobs lost in the early weeks of the pandemic.Gabby Jones for The New York TimesThe key question for policymakers is whether they can cool the economy without putting it into deep freeze. Mr. Powell argues that they can, though he acknowledges that it won’t be easy.His argument goes something like this: There are 11 million open jobs and fewer than six million unemployed workers. There are more would-be home buyers than there are homes to buy, and more would-be car buyers than available cars. By gradually raising interest rates and making it more expensive to borrow, the Fed is hoping to curb demand for workers and homes and cars, but not by so much that employers start cutting jobs.That is a tricky balance, and historically the Fed has failed to achieve it more often than not. But unlike after the last recession, when the grindingly slow recovery seemed at constant risk of stalling out, the current rebound is fast enough that it could lose substantial momentum without going into reverse. Employers could slash hiring plans, for example, and still have jobs for practically anyone who wanted one.Some economists also remain hopeful that supply constraints will ease as the pandemic recedes, which would allow inflation to cool without the Fed’s needing to do as much to reduce demand. There are some signs of that happening: More than 400,000 people rejoined the labor force in March, as falling coronavirus cases and more reliable school schedules allowed more people to return to work.Aaron Sojourner, an economist at the University of Minnesota, said policymakers shouldn’t think of the economy as “overheating” so much as “fevered,” its capacity limited by the pandemic.“When you have a fever, you can’t perform at the level that you can perform at when you’re healthy, and you break a sweat even when you’re doing less than what you used to be able to do,” he said. Improvements in the public health crisis, he said, should allow the fever to break.A lot could go wrong.For much of last year, Fed officials shared Mr. Sojourner’s view, seeing inflation as a result of pandemic-related disruptions that would soon dissipate. When those disruptions proved more persistent than expected, policymakers changed course, but too late to prevent inflation from accelerating beyond what they intended to allow.The challenge is that central bankers must make decisions before all the data is available.It is possible, for example, that the imbalances that led to rapid inflation are beginning to dissipate, largely on their own. Federal aid programs created early in the pandemic have mostly ended, and many families have drawn down their savings. That could bring down demand just as supply is starting to catch up. In that scenario, the Fed could short-circuit the recovery if it acts too aggressively.But it is also possible that strong job growth and rising wages will keep consumer demand high, while supply-chain disruptions and labor shortages linger. In that case, if the Fed is too cautious, it runs the risk of letting inflation spiral further out of control. The last time that happened, the Fed under Paul A. Volcker had to induce a crippling recession in the early 1980s to bring inflation to heel.Mr. Powell has argued it is not too late to prevent such a “hard landing.” But even if a recession is inevitable, it isn’t likely to happen overnight.“I don’t think we’re going to go into a recession in the next 12 months,” said Megan Greene, a senior fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School and global chief economist for the Kroll Institute. “I think it’s possible in the 12 months after that.”Global turmoil makes everything more complicated. Soaring oil prices and global instability have led forecasters to lower their estimates of economic growth this year.Gabby Jones for The New York TimesWhen this year began, forecasters pegged February or March as the moment when major inflation indexes would hit their peak and begin to fall. But the war in Ukraine, and the resulting spike in oil prices, dashed those hopes. The year-over-year rate of inflation hit a 40-year high in February, and almost certainly accelerated further in March as gas prices topped $4 a gallon in much of the country.The pandemic itself also remains a wild card. China in recent weeks has imposed strict lockdowns in parts of the country in an effort to stop the spread of coronavirus cases there, and a new subvariant has led to a rise in cases in Europe. That could prolong supply-chain disruptions globally, even if the United States itself avoided another coronavirus wave.“The biggest unknown is global supply chains and how we manage all of those because it’s contingent on Chinese Covid policy and a war in Europe,” Ms. Greene said.There is little sign so far that rising gas prices, stock market volatility or fear of Covid has damped consumers’ willingness to spend, or businesses’ willingness to hire. But those factors are adding to uncertainty, making it harder for policymakers to discern where the economy is headed, and to decide how to react. More

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon identified three forces that are likely to shape the world over the next several decades: a U.S. economy rebounding from the Covid pandemic; high inflation that will usher in an era of rising rates, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting humanitarian crisis.  
“They present completely different circumstances than what we’ve experienced in the past – and their confluence may dramatically increase the risks ahead,” he wrote.
“The war in Ukraine and the sanctions on Russia, at a minimum, will slow the global economy — and it could easily get worse,” Dimon wrote. That’s because of the uncertainty about how the conflict will conclude and its impact on supply chains, especially for those involving energy supplies.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase speaks to the Economic Club of New York in New York, January 16, 2019.
Carlo Allegri | Reuters

Jamie Dimon, CEO and chairman of the biggest U.S. bank by assets, pointed to a potentially unprecedented combination of risks facing the country in his annual shareholder letter.
Three forces are likely to shape the world over the next several decades: a U.S. economy rebounding from the Covid pandemic; high inflation that will usher in an era of rising rates, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting humanitarian crisis now underway, according to Dimon.

“Each of these three factors mentioned above is unique in its own right: The dramatic stimulus-fueled recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, the likely need for rapidly raising rates and the required reversal of QE, and the war in Ukraine and the sanctions on Russia,” Dimon wrote.
“They present completely different circumstances than what we’ve experienced in the past – and their confluence may dramatically increase the risks ahead,” he wrote. “While it is possible, and hopeful, that all of these events will have peaceful resolutions, we should prepare for the potential negative outcomes.”

Dimon’s letter, read widely in business circles because of the JPMorgan CEO’s status as his industry’s most prominent spokesman, took a more downcast tone from his missive just last year. While he wrote extensively about challenges facing the country, including economic inequality and political dysfunction, that letter broadcast his belief that the U.S. was in the midst of a boom that could “easily” run into 2023.
Now, however, the outbreak of the biggest European conflict since World War II has changed things, roiling markets, realigning alliances and restructuring global trade patterns, he wrote. That introduces both risks and opportunities for the U.S. and other democracies, according to Dimon.
“The war in Ukraine and the sanctions on Russia, at a minimum, will slow the global economy — and it could easily get worse,” Dimon wrote. That’s because of the uncertainty about how the conflict will conclude and its impact on supply chains, especially for those involving energy supplies.

Dimon added that for JPMorgan, management isn’t worried about its direct exposure to Russia, though the bank could “still lose about $1 billion over time.”
Here are excerpts from Dimon’s letter.

On the war’s economic impact

“We expect the fallout from the war and resulting sanctions to reduce Russia’s GDP by 12.5% by midyear (a decline worse than the 10% drop after the 1998 default). Our economists currently think that the euro area, highly dependent on Russia for oil and gas, will see GDP growth of roughly 2% in 2022, instead of the elevated 4.5% pace we had expected just six weeks ago. By contrast, they expect the U.S. economy to advance roughly 2.5% versus a previously estimated 3%. But I caution that these estimates are based upon a fairly static view of the war in Ukraine and the sanctions now in place.”

On Russian sanctions

“Many more sanctions could be added — which could dramatically, and unpredictably, increase their effect. Along with the unpredictability of war itself and the uncertainty surrounding global commodity supply chains, this makes for a potentially explosive situation. I speak later about the precarious nature of the global energy supply, but for now, simply, that supply is easy to disrupt.”

A ‘wake up call’ for democracies

“America must be ready for the possibility of an extended war in Ukraine with unpredictable outcomes. … We must look at this as a wake-up call. We need to pursue short-term and long-term strategies with the goal of not only solving the current crisis but also maintaining the long-term unity of the newly strengthened democratic alliances. We need to make this a permanent, long-lasting stand for democratic ideals and against all forms of evil.”

Implications beyond Russia

“Russian aggression is having another dramatic and important result: It is coalescing the democratic, Western world — across Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries to Australia, Japan and Korea. […] The outcome of these two issues will transcend Russia and likely will affect geopolitics for decades, potentially leading to both a realignment of alliances and a restructuring of global trade.  How the West comports itself, and whether the West can maintain its unity, will likely determine the future global order and shape America’s (and its allies’) important relationship with China.”

On the need to reorder supply chains

“It also is clear that trade and supply chains, where they affect matters of national security, need to be restructured. You simply cannot rely on countries with different strategic interests for critical goods and services. Such reorganization does not need to be a disaster or decoupling. With thoughtful analysis and execution, it should be rational and orderly. This is in everyone’s best interest.”

Specifically…

“For any products or materials that are essential for national security (think rare earths, 5G and semiconductors), the U.S. supply chain must either be domestic or open only to completely friendly allies. We cannot and should not ever be reliant on processes that can and will be used against us, especially when we are most vulnerable. For similar national security reasons, activities (including investment activities) that help create a national security risk — i.e., sharing critical technology with potential adversaries — should be restricted.”

Brazil, Canada and Mexico to benefit

“This restructuring will likely take place over time and does not need to be extraordinarily disruptive. There will be winners and losers — some of the main beneficiaries will be Brazil, Canada, Mexico and friendly Southeast Asian nations. Along with reconfiguring our supply chains, we must create new trading systems with our allies. As mentioned above, my preference would be to rejoin the TPP — it is the best geostrategic and trade arrangement possible with allied nations.”

On the Fed

“The Federal Reserve and the government did the right thing by taking bold dramatic actions following the misfortune unleashed by the pandemic. In hindsight, it worked. But also in hindsight, the medicine (fiscal spending and QE) was probably too much and lasted too long.”

‘Very volatile markets’

“I do not envy the Fed for what it must do next: The stronger the recovery, the higher the rates that follow (I believe that this could be significantly higher than the markets expect) and the stronger the quantitative tightening (QT). If the Fed gets it just right, we can have years of growth, and inflation will eventually start to recede. In any event, this process will cause lots of consternation and very volatile markets. The Fed should not worry about volatile markets unless they affect the actual economy. A strong economy trumps market volatility.”

Fed flexibility

“One thing the Fed should do, and seems to have done, is to exempt themselves — give themselves ultimate flexibility — from the pattern of raising rates by only 25 basis points and doing so on a regular schedule. And while they may announce how they intend to reduce the Fed balance sheet, they should be free to change this plan on a moment’s notice in order to deal with actual events in the economy and the markets. A Fed that reacts strongly to data and events in real time will ultimately create more confidence. In any case, rates will need to go up substantially. The Fed has a hard job to do so let’s all wish them the best.”

On JPMorgan’s surging spending

“This year, we announced that the expenses related to investments would increase from $11.5 billion to $15 billion. I am going to try to describe the ‘incremental investments’ of $3.5 billion, though I can’t review them all (and for competitive reasons I wouldn’t). But we hope a few examples will give you comfort in our decision-making process.
Some investments have a fairly predictable time to cash flow positive and a good and predictable return on investment (ROI) however you measure it. These investments include branches and bankers, around the world, across all our businesses. They also include certain marketing expenses, which have a known and quantifiable return. This category combined will add $1 billion to our expenses in 2022.

On acquisitions

“Over the last 18 months, we spent nearly $5 billion on acquisitions, which will increase ‘incremental investment’ expenses by approximately $700 million in 2022. We expect most of these acquisitions to produce positive returns and strong earnings within a few years, fully justifying their cost. In a few cases, these acquisitions earn money — plus, we believe, help stave off erosion in other parts of our business.”

Global expansion

“Our international consumer expansion is an investment of a different nature. We believe the digital world gives us an opportunity to build a consumer bank outside the United States that, over time, can become very competitive — an option that does not exist in the physical world. We start with several advantages that we believe will get stronger over time. … We have the talent and know-how to deliver these through cutting-edge technology, allowing us to harness the full range of these capabilities from all our businesses. We can apply what we have learned in our leading U.S. franchise and vice versa. We may be wrong on this one, but I like our hand.”

On JPMorgan’s diversity push

“Despite the pandemic and talent retention challenges, we continue to boost our representation among women and people of color. … More women were promoted to the position of managing director in 2021 than ever before; similarly, a record number of women were promoted to executive director. By year’s end, based on employees that self-identified, women represented 49% of the firm’s total workforce. Overall Hispanic representation was 20%, Asian representation grew to 17% and Black representation increased to 14%.”

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

The Russian leader has stabilized the ruble and kept Europe’s leaders guessing by threatening to cut off energy. But he has left the country financially isolated.LONDON — In the five weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States, the European Union and their allies began an economic counteroffensive that has cut off Russia’s access to hundreds of billions of dollars of its own money and halted a large chunk of its international commerce. More than 1,000 companies, organizations and individuals, including members of President Vladimir V. Putin’s inner circle, have been sanctioned and relegated to a financial limbo.But Mr. Putin reminded the world this past week that he has economic weapons of his own that he could use to inflict some pain or fend off attacks.Through a series of aggressive measures taken by the Russian government and its central bank, the ruble, which had lost nearly half of its value, clawed its way back to near where it was before the invasion.And then there was the threat to stop the flow of gas from Russia to Europe — which was set off by Mr. Putin’s demand that 48 “unfriendly countries” violate their own sanctions and pay for natural gas in rubles. It sent leaders in the capitals of Germany, Italy and other allied nations scrambling and showcased in the most visible way since the war began how much they need Russian energy to power their economies.It was that dependency that caused the United States and Europe to exempt fuel purchases from the stringent sanctions they imposed on Russia at the start of the war. The European Union gets 40 percent of its gas and a quarter of its oil from Russia. A cutoff from one day to the next, Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany warned this past week, would plunge “our country and the whole of Europe into a recession.”President Vladimir V. Putin has taken steps to insulate Russia’s economy from the impact of sanctions and to prop up the ruble.Pool photo by Mikhail KlimentyevFor the time being, it appears that the prospect of an imminent stoppage of gas has been averted. But Mr. Putin’s sudden demand for rubles helped prompt Germany and Austria to prepare their citizens for what might come. They took the first official steps toward rationing, with Berlin starting the “early warning” phase of planning for a natural gas emergency.Although President Biden has announced plans to release 180 million barrels of oil from the U.S. reserve supply over the next six months and diverted more liquefied natural gas to Europe, that still would not be enough to replace all of what Russia supplies. Russian oil exports normally represent more than one of every 10 barrels the world consumes.Europe’s ongoing energy purchases send as much as $850 million each day into Russia’s coffers, according to Bruegel, an economics institute in Brussels. That money helps Russia to fund its war efforts and blunts the impact of sanctions. Because of soaring energy prices, gas export revenues from Gazprom, the Russian energy giant, injected $9.3 billion into the country’s economy in March alone, according an estimate by Oxford Economics, a global advisory firm.“The lesson for the West is that the effectiveness of financial sanctions can only go so far absent trade sanctions,” the firm said in a research briefing.Mr. Putin’s feints and jabs — at one point this past week he promised to stop and continue gas deliveries in the same statement — have also kept European leaders off-balance as they try to divine his strategy and motivations.The war has prompted democracies to move away from relying on Russian exports. They’ve proposed cutting natural gas deliveries by two-thirds before next winter and to end them altogether by 2027. Those goals may be overly ambitious, experts say.In any case, the transition to other suppliers and eventually to more renewable energy sources will be expensive and painful. On the whole, Europeans may be poorer and colder at least for a few years because of spiraling prices and dampened economic activity caused by energy shortages.And unlike in Russia, governments in these countries have to answer to voters.“Putin has already demonstrated he’s willing to sacrifice civilians — his and Ukrainians — to score a win,” said Meg Jacobs, a historian at Princeton University. For European democracies, turning down thermostats, reducing speed limits and driving less is a choice, she said. “It only works with mass cooperation.”A liquefied natural gas facility in Italy. President Biden has diverted more gas to Europe, but that will still not be enough to replace what Russia supplies.Clara Vannucci for The New York TimesBut leverage, like gas, is a limited resource. And Mr. Putin’s willingness to use it now means that he will have less of it in the future. It will not be an easy transition for Russia either. Most analysts believe that Europe’s aggressive moves to reduce its reliance on Russian energy will have far-reaching consequences, however.“They are done with Russian gas,” David L. Goldwyn, who served as a State Department special envoy on energy in the Obama administration, said of Europe. “I think even if this war would end, and even if you had a new government in Russia, I think there’s no going back.”The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said as much when she announced the new energy plan last month: “We simply cannot rely on a supplier who explicitly threatens us.”Security concerns aren’t the only development that has undermined Russia’s standing as a long-term energy supplier. What seemed surprising to economists, lawyers and policymakers about Mr. Putin’s demand to be paid in rubles was that it would have violated sacrosanct negotiated contracts and revealed Russia’s willingness to be an unreliable business partner.As he has tried to wield his energy clout externally, Mr. Putin has taken steps to insulate Russia’s economy from the impact of sanctions and to prop up the ruble. Few things can undermine a country as systemically as an abruptly weakened currency.The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

It was a union organizing campaign that few expected to have a chance. A handful of employees at Amazon’s massive warehouse on Staten Island, operating without support from national labor organizations, took on one of the most powerful companies in the world.And, somehow, they won.Workers at the facility voted by a wide margin to form a union, according to results released on Friday, in one of the biggest victories for organized labor in a generation.Employees cast 2,654 votes to be represented by Amazon Labor Union and 2,131 against, giving the union a win by more than 10 percentage points, according to the National Labor Relations Board. More than 8,300 workers at the warehouse, which is the only Amazon fulfillment center in New York City, were eligible to vote.The win on Staten Island comes at a perilous moment for labor unions in the United States, which saw the portion of workers in unions drop last year to 10.3 percent, the lowest rate in decades, despite high demand for workers, pockets of successful labor activity and rising public approval.Critics — including some labor officials — say that traditional unions haven’t spent enough money or shown enough imagination in organizing campaigns and that they have often bet on the wrong fights. Some point to tawdry corruption scandals.The union victory at Amazon, the first at the company in the United States after years of worker activism there, offers an enormous opportunity to change that trajectory and build on recent wins. Many union leaders regard Amazon as an existential threat to labor standards because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them.Amazon employees waited to vote in the parking lot of the JFK8 fulfillment center last week.DeSean McClinton-Holland for The New York TimesBut the win by a little-known, independent union with few ties to existing groups appears to raise as many questions for the labor movement as it answers: not least, whether there is something fundamentally broken with the traditional bureaucratic union model that can be solved only by replacing it with grass-roots organizations like the one on Staten Island.Amazon is likely to aggressively contest the union’s win. An unsigned statement on its corporate blog said, “We’re disappointed with the outcome of the election in Staten Island because we believe having a direct relationship with the company is best for our employees.”The Staten Island outcome followed what appears likely to be a narrow loss by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union at a large Amazon warehouse in Alabama. The vote is close enough that the results will not be known for several weeks as contested ballots are litigated.The surprising strength shown by unions in both locations most likely means that Amazon will face years of pressure at other company facilities from labor groups and progressive activists working with them. As a recent string of union victories at Starbucks have shown, wins at one location can provide encouragement at others.Amazon hired voraciously over the past two years and now has 1.6 million employees globally. But it has been plagued by high turnover, and the pandemic gave employees a growing sense of power while fueling worries about workplace safety. The Staten Island warehouse, known as JFK8, was the subject of a New York Times investigation last year, which found that it was emblematic of the stresses — including inadvertent firings and sky-high attrition — on workers caused by Amazon’s employment model.“The pandemic has fundamentally changed the labor landscape” by giving workers more leverage with their employers, said John Logan, a professor of labor studies at San Francisco State University. “It’s just a question of whether unions can take advantage of the opportunity that transformation has opened up.”Standing outside the N.L.R.B. office in Brooklyn, where the ballots were tallied, Christian Smalls, a former Amazon employee who started the union, popped a bottle of champagne before a crowd of supporters and press. “To the first Amazon union in American history,” he cheered.Christian Smalls, a former Amazon worker who led union efforts on Staten Island, popped a bottle of champagne before a crowd of supporters and press on Friday.DeSean McClinton-Holland for The New York TimesAmazon said it was evaluating its options, including potentially filing an objection to “inappropriate and undue influence” by the N.L.R.B. for suing Amazon in federal court last month.In that case, the N.L.R.B. asked a judge to force Amazon to swiftly rectify “flagrant unfair labor practices” it said took place when Amazon fired a worker who became involved with the union. Amazon argued in court that the labor board abandoned “the neutrality of their office” by filing the injunction just before the election.Amazon would need to prove that any claims of undue influence undermined the so-called laboratory conditions necessary for a fair election, said Wilma B. Liebman, the chair of the N.L.R.B. under President Barack Obama.President Biden was “glad to see workers ensure their voices are heard” at the Amazon facility, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters. “He believes firmly that every worker in every state must have a free and fair choice to join a union,” she said.The near-term question facing the labor movement and other progressive groups is the extent to which they will help the upstart Amazon Labor Union withstand potential challenges to the result and negotiate a first contract, such as by providing resources and legal talent.“The company will appeal, drag it out — it’s going to be an ongoing fight,” said Gene Bruskin, a longtime organizer who helped notch one of labor’s last victories on this scale, at a Smithfield meat-processing plant in 2008, and has informally advised the Staten Island workers. “The labor movement has to figure out how to support them.”Sean O’Brien, the new president of the 1.3 million-member International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said in an interview on Thursday that the union was prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars unionizing Amazon and to collaborate with a variety of other unions and progressive groups.“We’ve got a lot of partners in labor,” Mr. O’Brien said. “We’ve got community groups. It’s going to be a large coalition.”A culture of fear created by intense productivity monitoring that was documented by The Times at JFK8 has been a key motivator for the unionization drive, which started in earnest almost a year ago. The Amazon facility offered a lifeline to laid-off workers during the pandemic but burned through staff and had such poor communication and technology that workers inadvertently were fired or lost benefits.For some employees, the stress of working at the warehouse during Covid outbreaks was a radicalizing experience that led them to take action. Mr. Smalls, the president of the Amazon Labor Union, said he became alarmed in March 2020 after encountering a co-worker who was clearly ill. He pleaded with management to close the facility for two weeks. The company fired him after he helped lead a walkout over safety conditions in late March that year.Amazon said at the time that it had taken “extreme measures” to keep workers safe, including deep cleaning and social distancing. It said it had fired Mr. Smalls for violating social distancing guidelines and attending the walkout even though he had been placed in a quarantine.After workers at Amazon’s warehouse in Bessemer, Ala., overwhelmingly rejected the retail workers union in its first election last spring, Mr. Smalls and Derrick Palmer, an Amazon employee who is his friend, decided to form a new union, called Amazon Labor Union.While the organizing in Alabama included high-profile tactics, with progressive supporters like Senator Bernie Sanders visiting the area, the organizers at JFK8 benefited from being insiders. For months, they set up shop at the bus stop outside the warehouse, grilling meat at barbecues and at one point even passing out pot. (The retail workers said they were hamstrung by Covid during their initial election in Alabama.)They also filed numerous unfair-labor-practice charges with the N.L.R.B. when they believed Amazon had infringed on their rights. The labor agency found merit in several of the cases, some of which Amazon settled in a nationwide agreement to allow workers more access to organize on-site.At times the Amazon Labor Union stumbled. The labor board determined this fall that the fledgling union, which spent months collecting signatures from workers requesting a vote, had not demonstrated sufficient support to warrant an election. But the organizers kept trying, and by late January they had finally gathered enough signatures.Amazon played up its minimum wage of $15 an hour in advertising and other public relations efforts. The company also waged a full-throated campaign against the union, texting employees and mandating attendance at anti-union meetings. It spent $4.3 million on anti-union consultants nationwide last year, according to annual disclosures filed on Thursday with the Labor Department.In February, Mr. Smalls was arrested at the facility after managers said he was trespassing while delivering food to co-workers and called the police. Two current employees were also arrested during the incident, which appeared to galvanize interest in the union.The difference in outcomes in Bessemer and Staten Island may reflect a difference in receptiveness toward unions in the two states — roughly 6 percent of workers in Alabama are union members, versus 22 percent in New York — as well as the difference between a mail-in election and one conducted in person.But it may also suggest the advantages of organizing through an independent, worker-led union. In Alabama, union officials and professional organizers were still barred from the facility under the settlement with the labor board. But at the Staten Island site, a larger portion of the union leadership and organizers were current employees.“What we were trying to say all along is that having workers on the inside is the most powerful tool,” said Mr. Palmer, who makes $21.50 an hour. “People didn’t believe it, but you can’t beat workers organizing other workers.”The independence of the Amazon Labor Union also appeared to undermine Amazon’s anti-union talking points, which cast the union as an interloping “third party.” On March 25, workers at JFK8 started lining up outside a tent in the parking lot to vote. And over five voting days, they cast their ballots to form what could become the first union at Amazon’s operations in the United States.Another election, brought also by Amazon Labor Union at a neighboring Staten Island facility, is scheduled for late April.Jodi Kantor More

The pace of hiring remained strong last month.Monthly change in jobs More

Wages climbed at a rapid pace in the year through March and the unemployment rate dropped notably last month, signs of a hot labor market that could keep pressure on the Federal Reserve as it contemplates how much and how quickly to cool down the economy.The central bank is trying to slow demand to a more sustainable pace at a moment when inflation is running at its fastest pace in 40 years. Fed officials began raising interest rates in March and have suggested that they may increase rates by half a percentage point in May — twice as much as usual. Making money more expensive to borrow and spend can slow consumption and eventually hiring, tempering wage and price growth.Friday’s employment report could bolster the case for at least one half-point increase.Wages have picked up by 5.6 percent over the past year, the report showed, a far quicker pace than the 2 to 3 percent annual pay gains that were typical during the 2010s. At the same time, the jobless rate fell, to 3.6 percent in March from 3.8 percent in February. Unemployment is now just slightly above the half-century lows it had reached before the pandemic.The unemployment rate continued to fall in March.The share of people who have looked for work in the past four weeks or are temporarily laid off, which does not capture everyone who lost work because of the pandemic. More

PARIS — Soaring energy and food prices driven by Russia’s continued aggression against Ukraine pushed inflation in Europe last month to levels not seen in four decades, with prices in the 19 countries that use the euro soaring 7.5 percent, according to data released Friday by Europe’s statistics agency.The unprecedented run-up in prices from already record levels was the latest marker of just how rapidly the impact of the war in Ukraine is coursing through Europe’s economy, putting pressure on the European Central Bank to begin raising interest rates, possibly before the end of the year.“The rate of inflation has once again come in considerably higher than we expected,” Joachim Nagel, the president of Germany’s Bundesbank, said on Twitter. “Monetary policy should not pass up the opportunity for timely countermeasures.”Surging energy costs have posed the biggest threat, causing a sharp spike in costs for European businesses and households and lashing Europe’s economic rebound from the Covid-19 pandemic. Energy prices rocketed nearly 45 percent in March from a year earlier, as the conflict has caused​​ dizzying jumps in natural gas, electricity and oil prices.Europe and the United States are making ambitious plans to reduce reliance on Russian energy to offset the threat to the European economy and energy security. Last week, the United States agreed to increase shipments of natural gas to help wean Europe off Russian energy.Germany, the biggest user of Russian energy in Europe, is also aiming to slash in half its imports of Russian oil and coal this year, and end its dependence on Russian natural gas by the middle of 2024. Europe’s largest economy, Germany is already suffering an economic blow from the crisis. The German Council of Economic Experts, which advises the government in Berlin, this week slashed its forecast for growth in 2022 by more than half, to 1.8 percent.Adding to the economic strain on Europe are surging food costs, as supplies of wheat, corn and barley remained trapped in Russia and Ukraine, which produce a major portion of those crops for world consumption.Prices for unprocessed food rose at an annual rate of 7.8 percent last month, Eurostat said. Since the invasion, global wheat prices have increased 21 percent, barley 33 percent and some fertilizers 40 percent, threatening a food crisis.Even without food and energy, core inflation in the eurozone also continued to rise as inflation in goods and services accelerated.The biggest overall increases were recorded in Lithuania (15.6 percent), Estonia (14.8 percent) and the Netherlands (11.9 percent). Consumer prices in Germany leaped 7.6 percent compared with last year, and 9.8 percent in Spain.Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, expects food and energy prices to stabilize at high levels.Iakovos Hatzistavrou/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOn Wednesday, the central bank’s president, Christine Lagarde, said she expected food and energy prices in the eurozone to stabilize at high levels, allowing the area to avoid falling into a quagmire of high inflation and stagnant growth. The bank recently announced plans to scale back some of its bond-buying stimulus measures.But analysts say much more pain lies ahead, as the war keeps upward pressure on prices and persistently high energy costs reverberate through the economy. The Kremlin’s threat to cut off European supplies of Russian oil and gas unless payments are made in rubles has raised the specter of even higher energy costs.Claus Vistesen, chief eurozone economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said in a note to clients that should Russia cut off gas to Europe, prices would soar, although Moscow was unlikely to take this step. A cease-fire agreement between Russia and Ukraine, if one is reached, would send energy prices tumbling.But governments around Europe are taking no chances, pledging billions of euros in subsidies to shield businesses and households from the pain of surging energy bills that have hurt consumer purchasing power.“Households are becoming more pessimistic and could cut back on spending,” Ms. Lagarde said in a speech in Cyprus on Wednesday. “The longer the war lasts, the higher the economic costs will be and the greater the likelihood we end up in more adverse scenarios.”Denmark is earmarking 2 billion Danish crowns ($299 million) to spend on “heat checks” for over 400,000 hard-hit households. France is capping an increase on regulated electricity costs at 4 percent and is spending a total of 26 billion euros to help companies and households offset higher gas and power bills.In Germany, where the war in Ukraine and inflation have also put significant pressure on consumer sentiment, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government has approved €4.5 billion in tax relief measures.The war has also added to the strain on supply chains that were already stretched by the pandemic, continuing to press on producer prices and the cost of goods for consumers.“The question is whether the worst is behind us now, and that seems doubtful,” Bert Colijn, a senior eurozone economist at ING Bank, wrote in a note to clients, adding that the prospect of double-digit inflation “cannot be ruled out at this point.” More