Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    The Report Card on Guaranteed Income Is Still Incomplete

    A three-year analysis of unconditional cash stipends concluded that the initiative has had some success, but not the transformational impact its proponents hoped for.Silicon Valley billionaires and anti-poverty activists don’t have a lot in common, but in recent years they’ve joined forces around a shared enthusiasm: programs that guarantee a basic income.Tech entrepreneurs like Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, have promoted direct cash transfers to low-income Americans as a way to cushion them from what the entrepreneurs anticipate could be widespread job losses caused by artificial intelligence. Some local politicians and community leaders, concerned about growing wealth inequality, have also put their faith in these stipends, known as unconditional cash or, in their most ambitious form, a universal basic income.Dozens of small pilot projects testing unconditional cash transfers have popped up in communities around the country, from Alaska to Stockton, Calif. Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur, put the idea of $1,000 monthly payments for all adults at the center of his 2020 presidential campaign. The idea of cash transfers gained broader popularity during the pandemic, as the federal government introduced stimulus checks and child tax credits, and child poverty declined.While some pilot projects have shown encouraging results, they have been small scale. That changed this summer, when a research project involving several thousand people, backed by Mr. Altman and called OpenResearch, released findings from what is so far the country’s largest experiment with unconditional cash transfers.If proponents of unconditional cash hoped the findings of the OpenResearch study would prove its benefits once and for all, their hopes were at least partly dashed. People gained flexibility to spend on basic needs, but the cash didn’t transform their net worth or their mental or physical health. Some researchers and guaranteed income proponents argue that the study shows that cash transfers are only a small piece of the larger puzzle of how to improve the financial well-being of low-income people.“Cash transfers probably do less to improve people’s lives than the proponents of them thought that they would,” said Sarah Miller, an author of the study and economist at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. “The flip side is that they probably don’t have the harmful effects that detractors were concerned about.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Why Interest Rate Cuts Won’t Fix a Global Housing Affordability Crisis

    Central bankers are lowering borrowing costs, but that won’t be a cure-all for a widespread lack of affordable housing.To Moira Gallagher, 38, buying a house in Anchorage would be a step toward financial stability for her growing family. But even with a six-figure household income and stable jobs, she and her husband have struggled to make a purchase.High mortgage rates, limited housing supply and historically poor affordability have kept buying a home stubbornly out of reach for Ms. Gallagher, an economic researcher who is expecting her third child. Three- or four-bedroom homes in good school districts are both hard to come by and prohibitively expensive.“It makes it hard to feel secure,” she said. “It affects everything.”From Anchorage to Amsterdam, many developed and even emerging economies are confronting a similar problem: Housing supply is failing to meet demand, helping to push home prices to levels that are out of reach even for middle-income families.Affordability problems have been exacerbated by high central bank interest rates, which officials across the globe have been using to tackle rapid inflation. Those policy rates trickle through financial markets to elevate mortgage rates — making it even more expensive for borrowers to buy a home and for builders to finance construction for new houses and apartments.The second part of that equation is now poised to change. Central banks in many economies are lowering interest rates or preparing to do so imminently. The European Central Bank and Bank of England are already cutting borrowing costs, and the chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve signaled last week that it would start reductions in September.But those rate cuts are unlikely to be a panacea for housing affordability.While the shift in central bank stance is already translating into somewhat lower mortgage rates in many countries, borrowing costs are not expected to fall back to the levels that prevailed during the 2010s. Several economists said 30-year mortgage rates in the United States, for instance, could end up in the 5.5 to 6 percent range, down from their 7.5 percent peak last year but still up notably from the 4 percent that was normal before the pandemic.Home Prices Jump in Developed WorldHow inflation-adjusted home prices are shaping up across advanced economies.

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

    O.E.C.D. house price indexes, 2015=100
    Data reflects first quarter of each year.Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentBy The New York TimesWhat Share of Income Does a Typical Home Cost? Across metro areas in the United States, the cost of owning a typical home has been rising as a share of the local median income.

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

    Share of income that would go to owning standard home
    Source: The Atlanta Fed’s Home Ownership Affordability MonitorBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    The Fed’s preferred inflation indicator is out Friday. Here’s what to expect

    The Commerce Department at 8:30 a.m. ET Friday will release its personal consumption expenditures price index.
    For the July reading, the Dow Jones consensus sees little change in recent trends — 0.2% monthly increases in both headline and core prices, and respective gains of 2.5% and 2.7% annually.
    The report could influence the September rate decision even as policymakers appear to have their focus elsewhere these days.

    A customer shops at a supermarket on August 14, 2024 in Arlington, Virginia. 
    Sha Hanting | China News Service | Getty Images

    Federal Reserve officials will get the latest look at their favorite inflation indicator Friday, a data snapshot that could influence the September rate decision even as policymakers appear to have their focus elsewhere these days.
    The Commerce Department at 8:30 a.m. ET will release its personal consumption expenditures price index, a sprawling measure of what consumers are paying for a variety of goods and services as well as their spending preferences.

    While the Fed uses a whole dashboard of indicators to measure inflation, the PCE index is its go-to data point and its sole forecasting tool when members release their quarterly projections. Policymakers especially hone in on the core PCE measure, which excludes food and energy, when making interest rate decisions.
    The Fed prefers the PCE over the Labor Department’s consumer price index as the former takes into account changes in consumer behavior such as substituting purchases, and is broader.
    For the July reading, the Dow Jones consensus sees little change in recent trends — 0.2% monthly increases in both headline and core prices, and respective gains of 2.5% and 2.7% annually. At the core level, the 12-month forecast actually indicates a slight bump up from June, while the all-items measure is the same.
    Should the readings roughly match the forecast, they should do little to dissuade Fed officials from following through with a much-anticipated interest rate cut at their Sept. 17-18 policy meeting.
    “To me, it’s going to be just one more piece of evidence to confirm that the Fed is seeing sustainable inflation readings at a sustainable pace,” said Beth Ann Bovino, chief economist at U.S. Bank. Any slight upticks are “really just base-effect kinds of things that aren’t going to change the Fed’s view.”

    Fed officials aren’t declaring victory over inflation yet, though recent statements indicate a more positive outlook. The central bank targets inflation at 2% annually.

    While the respective PCE readings haven’t been below that level since February 2022, Fed Chair Jerome Powell last week said that “my confidence has grown” that inflation is heading back to target. But Powell also expressed some reservations about the slowing labor market, and it appears the Fed now is tilting away from being an inflation fighter and focusing more on supporting the jobs picture.
    “The upside risks to inflation have diminished. And the downside risks to employment have increased,” Powell said.
    That view has been taken as an indication that policymakers will be focused more on preventing a labor market reversal and a broader slowdown in the economy. In turn, that could mean less of a focus on numbers such as Friday’s PCE reading and more on the Sept. 6 report on August nonfarm payrolls.
    “The focus on the Fed is going to be on the jobs front,” Bovino said. “They seem to be more attuned to whether the jobs side is getting a little weaker. I think that’s the focus of their monetary policy.”
    In addition to the inflation readings Friday, there will also be a look at personal income in July, which is expected to increase by 0.2%, and consumer spending, which is projected to rise 0.5%.

    Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Where Does Biden’s Student Loan Debt Plan Stand? Here’s What to Know.

    The Supreme Court refused to allow a key part of President Biden’s student debt plan to move forward. Here’s what’s left of it, and who could still benefit.President Biden’s latest effort to wipe out student loan debt for millions of Americans is in jeopardy.The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to allow a key component of the policy, known as the SAVE plan, to move forward after an emergency application by the Biden administration.Until Republican-led states sued to block the plan over the summer, SAVE had been the main way for borrowers to apply for loan forgiveness. The program allowed people to make payments based on income and family size; some borrowers ended up having their remaining debt canceled altogether.Other elements of Mr. Biden’s loan forgiveness plan remain in effect for now. And over the course of Mr. Biden’s presidency, his administration has canceled about $167 billion in loans for 4.75 million people, or roughly one in 10 federal loan holders.But Wednesday’s decision leaves millions of Americans in limbo.Here is a look at what the ruling means for borrowers and what happens next:Who was eligible for SAVE?Most people with federal undergraduate or graduate loans could apply for forgiveness under SAVE, which stands for Saving on a Valuable Education.But the amount of relief it provided varied depending on factors such as income and family size. More than eight million people enrolled in the program during the roughly 10 months that it was available, and about 400,000 of them got some amount of debt canceled.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    How Wall Street Learned About Last Week’s Labor Data Before the Public

    The Labor Department provided insight into a recent lapse in which revised payroll data was given out à la carte before it went online.Banks and research firms that serve hedge funds managed to confirm a closely watched economic data point last week as much as 20 minutes before the data was posted online, giving them a possible jump on financial market trading — the latest in a series of lapses at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Now, details into what happened are beginning to emerge.A technical issue prevented the data, which showed a large downward revision to job growth in 2023 and early 2024, from publishing on the agency’s website at 10 a.m. as scheduled last Wednesday, according to details provided by the Department of Labor.In response, agency technology staff began to load the data onto the site manually. At that point, starting a bit after 10:10 a.m., other bureau staff could see the update on the website — even though it wouldn’t be visible to the public until 10:32 a.m. And bureau staff began replying to people, including those at Wall Street firms, who called or emailed with questions. That enabled some to get access to key data before others.It isn’t clear how many investors got early access to the data, or whether anyone actually traded on the information. The revisions ultimately did not have a huge effect on stock markets. But the fact that Wall Street funds that make money by betting on every minor move in economic data — including reports like this one — managed to get the figures before the public has raised serious questions about what happened.Part of the problem, according to the information provided by the department, is that the payroll revision data was not considered a “news release” like the monthly jobs data and inflation numbers. That data is subject to strict to controls to avoid leaks. Instead, it was considered a “website release,” which has fewer guardrails.The bureau had no backup plan to make sure there was a way to quickly push a website update out to the broader public, such as with prepared social media posts of data highlights.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    What Across-the-Board Tariffs Could Mean for the Global Economy

    Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has floated the idea of a 10 percent tariff on all U.S. imports, a plan that economists say could badly damage trade.Former President Donald J. Trump blames the global trading system for inflicting a long list of ills on the American economy including lost jobs, closed foreign markets and an overvalued dollar.The remedy, he insists, is simple: tariffs. Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has repeatedly said he would raise tariffs if elected. China, a geopolitical and economic rival, would face an additional 50 or 60 percent tariff on its exports to the United States. He has also floated the idea of a 10 to 20 percent surcharge on exports from the rest of the world.Although smaller than the percentage proposed for Chinese exports, an across-the-board tariff has the potential to deliver a much more devastating jolt to world trade, many economists warn.Such a surcharge would not distinguish between rivals and allies, critical necessities and nonessentials, ailing industries and superstars, or countries adhering to trade treaties and those violating them. (Democrats have also embraced tariffs as a policy tool, but Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has criticized Mr. Trump’s universal approach as inflationary.)Here is what you need to know about the idea of a universal tariff on all imports.In 1971, President Richard M. Nixon levied a 10 percent surcharge on all taxable imports.Associated PressWhat are the historical precedents?Mr. Trump’s broad-brush tariffs frequently evoke comparisons with the destructive global trade war that the United States helped to initiate in the 1930s with the Smoot-Hawley tariffs passed by Congress. The Senate Historical Office has called that law “among the most catastrophic acts in congressional history.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 63 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Harris and Trump Embrace Tariffs

    Both Democrats and Republicans are expressing support for tariffs to protect American industry, reversing decades of trade thinking in Washington.When Donald J. Trump ran for president in 2016, there was not much love for tariffs in Washington. Many Republicans and Democrats believed that putting levies on imports created economic inefficiencies and that freer trade was the best recipe for growth.That view has largely fallen out of fashion in 2024. While Mr. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, differ greatly in their campaign proposals, both of their parties are increasingly embracing tariffs as an essential tool in protecting American manufacturers from Chinese and other global competitors.It has been a sharp reversal from previous decades, when most politicians fought to lower tariffs rather than raise them. But the loss of American manufacturing jobs as a result of globalization and China’s focus on churning out cheap exports have created a bipartisan backlash against more open trade. Given that Mr. Trump’s 2016 win capitalized on such sentiments, Democrats have been striving to avoid losing voters opposed to free trade.“On economic policy and trade issues, you have both major parties moving in the same direction,” said Nick Iacovella, a senior vice president at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, which advocates tariffs and domestic investments in industry.Mr. Iacovella said that Mr. Trump would most likely go further on tariffs than Ms. Harris would, but that no matter who won the election “it’s still going to be a tariffs administration, and an industrial policy one.”Ms. Harris has sought to differentiate herself from Mr. Trump’s trade proposals, which include tariffs of 10 percent to 20 percent on most imports, as well as levies of more than 60 percent on China. Many economists say that level of tariffs would drive up prices for consumers, since companies would be likely to pass on higher import costs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More