More stories

  • in

    Senate Republicans Stall Crucial Vote on Fed Nominees

    President Biden’s plans to reshape the Federal Reserve suffered a setback on Tuesday as Republicans delayed a key vote on his five nominees for its Board of Governors.Republicans did not show up for a committee decision that would have advanced the nominees to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. Because a majority of the Senate Banking Committee’s members need to be physically present for such votes to count, their blockade effectively halted the process.The unusual maneuver, spearheaded by Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, was driven by Republican opposition to Mr. Biden’s pick for the nation’s top bank cop, Sarah Bloom Raskin.The president has renominated Jerome H. Powell as Fed chair and has tapped Lael Brainard, a current Fed governor, as vice chair. He has also nominated the economists Lisa D. Cook and Philip N. Jefferson as Fed governors. But Ms. Raskin — a longtime Washington policymaker and lawyer whom Mr. Biden has picked as vice chair for bank supervision — has garnered the most pushback.To prevent her nomination from advancing to the full Senate, Republicans held up the vote on all five nominees.Democrats and the White House criticized Republicans for engineering a boycott and scrambled for a solution that could get the nominees to a confirmation vote. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio and chair of the Banking Committee, on Tuesday shot down the idea that he would separate Ms. Raskin from the other nominees to allow the rest to advance. Ms. Raskin could face tough odds of passing, especially on her own.By nominating five of the Fed’s seven governors and all of its highest-ranking leaders, Mr. Biden had a chance to shake up the institution. While some of his picks — like Mr. Powell — represented continuity, together they would have made up the most racially and gender-diverse Fed leadership team ever.Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University who co-wrote a book on the politics of the Fed, said Democrats would need to come up with a strategy to overcome the Republican block or the nominees could get stuck in limbo.“It is really a delay — it might yet scupper Raskin,” she said. She noted that Democrats could break the nominations up or try to garner enough support among the full Senate to override the rules and get the nominees past the committee, though that might be a challenge.“It’s pretty uncharted, and they’re going to have to find a way,” Dr. Binder said.Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said that outside of trying to change Senate rules — which she called the “nuclear option” — Democrats’ clearest avenue was probably to negotiate with Republicans.“They just need a Republican to show up,” she noted, explaining that the senator would not even need to vote yes for the committee to secure a majority and move the candidates along.Tuesday’s maneuver was the latest step in Mr. Toomey’s opposition campaign against Ms. Raskin, who would serve as arguably the nation’s most important bank regulator if confirmed.Mr. Toomey has criticized Ms. Raskin for past comments on climate-related regulation, worrying that she would be too activist in bank oversight. More recently, he has pressed for more information about her interactions with the Fed while she was on the board of a financial technology company that was pushing for a potentially lucrative central bank account.“Until basic questions have been adequately addressed, I do not think the committee should proceed with a vote on Ms. Raskin,” Mr. Toomey said in the statement.White House officials criticized his move as inappropriate when the Fed is wrestling with rapidly rising prices and preparing to raise interest rates next month.“It’s totally irresponsible, in our view — it’s never been more important to have confirmed leadership at the Fed,” said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary. She added that the administration’s focus now was moving the nominees through the committee and called Mr. Toomey’s probing of Ms. Raskin’s background “false allegations.”The dispute centers on the revolving door between government regulators and the arcane world of financial technology.Mr. Toomey and his colleagues have said Ms. Raskin, a former Fed and Treasury official, had contacted the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City on behalf of Reserve Trust, a financial technology company. Reserve Trust secured a strategically important account at the Fed while she was on its board: To this day, it advertises that it is the only company of its kind with what’s known as a “master” account.Master accounts give companies access to the U.S. payment system infrastructure, allowing firms to move money without working with a bank, among other advantages.Republicans are blocking the process over concerns about one of the nominees, Sarah Bloom Raskin.Pool photo by Ken CedenoMs. Raskin said in written responses to Mr. Toomey’s questions early this month that she did “not recall any communications I made to help Reserve Trust obtain a master account.” But Mr. Toomey said in a subsequent letter that the president of the Kansas City Fed, Esther George, had told his staff that Ms. Raskin called her about the account in 2017.The Kansas City Fed has insisted that it followed its normal protocol in granting Reserve Trust’s master account and noted that talking with a firm’s board members was “routine.” But Mr. Toomey has continued to push for more information.“Important questions about Ms. Raskin’s use of the ‘revolving door’ remain unanswered largely because of her repeated disingenuousness with the committee,” Mr. Toomey said in his statement Tuesday.Democrats have emphasized that Ms. Raskin recently committed to a new set of ethics standards, agreeing not to work for financial services companies for four years after she leaves government — a pledge Ms. Cook and Mr. Jefferson also made, at the urging of Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts.Ms. Brainard agreed to a weaker version of that commitment that would bar her from working at bank holding companies and depository institutions outside of mission-driven exceptions like banks that target underserved communities, a spokesperson for Ms. Warren’s office said Tuesday.Mr. Powell declined to make a similar commitment, the spokesperson said. The Fed chair did signal that he would adhere to the administration’s ethics rules, which ban paid work related to government service for two years upon leaving office.On Tuesday, a dozen Republican chairs in the room where the committee met remained empty while Democrats occupied their seats across the room. Democrats took a vote to show support, though it was not binding, and Mr. Brown pledged to reschedule.“Few things we do as senators will do more to help address our country’s economic concerns more than to confirm this slate of nominees, the most diverse and most qualified slate of Fed nominees ever put forward,” Mr. Brown said, chiding Republicans for skipping the session.“They’re taking away probably the most important tool we have — and that’s the Federal Reserve — to combat inflation,” he later added.The Fed has four current governors, in addition to its 12 regional presidents, five of whom vote on monetary policy at any given time. Mr. Powell has already been serving as chair on an interim basis, since his leadership term officially expired this month. Even if the nominees advance, Ms. Raskin may struggle to pass the full Senate. Winning confirmation would require her to maintain full support from all 50 lawmakers who caucus with Democrats and for all those lawmakers to be present unless she can win Republican votes. Senator Ben Ray Luján, Democrat of New Mexico, has been absent as he recovers from a stroke.“The Republicans are playing hardball because they can,” said Ian Katz, the managing director at Capital Alpha Partners. “At the least, it delays her confirmation. It could have the ultimate effect of killing it.” More

  • in

    Vote on Biden Fed picks delayed as GOP presses for answers on Raskin's ties to firm

    A Republican boycott Tuesday held up a Senate committee vote on the appointment of a top banking regulator and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.
    Sen. Sherrod Brown, head of the Senate Banking Committee, said a formal vote couldn’t be held because the GOP absence meant a lack of a necessary quorum.
    The delay throws the confirmation of five Fed nominees, including Powell and would-be Vice Chair Lael Brainard, into question.

    Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) questions Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Federal Reserve Chairman Powell during a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on the CARES Act, at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, September 28, 2021.
    Kevin Dietsch | Pool | Reuters

    A Republican boycott Tuesday held up a Senate committee vote on the appointment of a top banking regulator and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.
    Sen. Sherrod Brown, head of the Senate Banking Committee, said the panel could not hold a formal vote because the GOP absence meant a lack of a necessary quorum. The vote was to send to the floor the names of Powell, Sarah Bloom Raskin, whom President Joe Biden nominated to be the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, and three other nominees.  

    “I will delay votes on these nominees. We will update you when we’ve rescheduled,” Brown said Tuesday afternoon. “Republicans have walked out on the American people.”
    After making the announcement, Brown held an unofficial vote to drive home the point that Democrats support the president’s nominees. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., clarified that she backs all nominees except for incumbent Fed Chair Powell.
    The delay throws the confirmation of five Fed nominees, including Powell and would-be Vice Chair Lael Brainard, into question. Democrats had hoped to vote for all five of them as a package, with Republican Powell balancing out original Democratic picks like Raskin. Biden chose the other two nominees, Lisa Cook and Philip Jefferson, for seats on the Fed’s board of governors.

    The postponement also comes at a tense time for the nation’s central bank, which is widely expected to start raising interest rates in March to quell inflation levels not seen since the 1980s.
    Committee ranking member Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., announced earlier in the day that the GOP would boycott the nomination vote due to concerns about Raskin’s prior work for Reserve Trust, a fintech firm she worked for shortly after leaving the Obama administration.

    The threat of a high-profile and protracted dispute over Fed nominees, who are supposed to be insulated from partisan politics, could theoretically push the White House to ditch Raskin. To date, the administration has supported its nominee and said there have been few choices better equipped to oversee the nation’s financial companies than Raskin.
    “Sarah Bloom Raskin is one of the most qualified people to ever be nominated to serve on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve,” the White House said in an emailed memo Tuesday morning. “Despite her qualifications, Senators Pat Toomey and Cynthia Lummis over the last several weeks have lobbed unfounded and unfair attacks at Raskin related to her time on the Board of Directors of Reserve Trust.”
    “If our Republican colleagues were as concerned about inflation as they claim to be, and as certainly we are, then they would come to the markup and make sure that the Fed has the personnel to ultimately have the monetary policy that can rein in inflation,” said Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey.
    Darin Miller, a spokesman for Lummis, said he found that criticism lacking. The Wyoming senator was first to question Raskin over her work for Reserve Trust during her nomination hearing earlier in February.
    “Dems attacking Banking Rs over inflation while trying to force a vote on hyper-political Raskin is laughable,” Miller wrote on Twitter as Democrats announced the delayed vote. “If they cared about inflation, a fight over Raskin would not be their top priority today – getting a vote on Powell, etc. would.”
    The Banking Committee’s Republicans have repeatedly criticized Raskin and her previous work for Reserve Trust.
    Late last week, Toomey said in a letter Raskin lobbied Kansas City Fed President Esther George in 2017 to advocate for the fintech company and its application for a special account at the central bank. The Fed previously denied Reserve Trust’s request for special access to the central bank’s payments system.
    At the time she placed the call, Raskin had just left her role as the Treasury Department’s deputy secretary, a role she served in after more than three years at the Fed as one of its governors.
    Following her personal intervention on the company’s behalf, the Kansas City Fed approved the company’s second request for an account in 2018. The Kansas City Fed claims that its reversal was not the result of Raskin’s call and that it followed all the usual protocols in evaluating Reserve Trust’s second application.
    Republicans, who say they want more time to vet Raskin, do not suggest her action is illegal but that it is a flagrant example of the “revolving door” between politics and corporate interests. The revolving door model suggests that former government officials use their connections and clout in government to later lobby on behalf of businesses for a payout.
    Toomey referenced those concerns in a statement Tuesday morning.
    “Important questions about Ms. Raskin’s use of the ‘revolving door’ remain unanswered largely because of her repeated disingenuousness with the Committee,” Toomey said in a statement Tuesday morning.
    “Committee Republicans aren’t seeking to delay her vote. We’re seeking answers,” he added.
    Raskin, who received stock in Reserve Trust when she joined its board, sold her financial stake upon her 2019 departure from the company for about $1.5 million.
    Reserve Trust’s exclusive master account remains the company’s single largest selling point to potential customers. It is the first thing the company says about itself on the homepage of its website.
    This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.

    CNBC Politics

    Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    U.S. Temporarily Bans Avocados From Mexico, Citing Threat

    The move is a blow to the Mexican state of Michoacán, which exports roughly $3 billion worth of the fruit annually.Whether smeared on toast, added to a salad or topping a burrito, the avocado has become a staple in the diets of many Americans.But the creamy fruit could become more difficult to find. The United States decided late last week to temporarily block all imports of avocados from Mexico after a verbal threat was made to U.S. safety inspectors working in the country.The suspension will “remain in place for as long as necessary to ensure the appropriate actions are taken, to secure the safety of APHIS personnel working in Mexico,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a statement, referring to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.In the United States, where 80 percent of the avocados consumed come from Mexico and the average price of $1.43 an avocado was already nearly 11 percent higher than a year ago, analysts said even a two-week ban could sharply reduce availability and further increase prices.The move is a blow to the western state of Michoacán in Mexico, the only region approved in Mexico to send avocados to the United States. There, the green fruit is a big business, with annual exports totaling nearly $3 billion. The bulk of those avocados go to the United States.While details of the threat to agency employees were not made public, the avocado industry has attracted interest in the past decade from the drug cartels in the region, which have become more fragmented and sought ways to diversify their illicit income streams.“I had an interview with a cartel leader 10 years ago who was bragging about how much money he was making from avocados,” said Falko Ernst, a Mexico analyst with the nonprofit International Crisis Group. “You’ve got a concentration of economic wealth in the region, and the possibility to siphon part of that off has acted as a magnet for these groups.”Mexican gangs are also being blamed for limiting lime production and shipments in order to drive up prices.In a statement, the Association of Avocado Exporting Producers and Packers of Mexico, which represents 29,000 avocado farmers and 65 packing houses, said its board of directors had met to review security plans and protocols in order to continue to collaborate with Mexican and U.S. authorities and to resume exporting as soon as possible.The U.S. ban came during one of the avocado’s biggest events, the Super Bowl. And depending on how long it lasts, it could affect one of the industry’s other big days, Cinco de Mayo.In 1997, the U.S. began lifting a longstanding ban against Mexican avocados after weevils, scabs and other pests entered U.S. orchards from imported products.Now, U.S. inspectors in Mexico play a crucial role in the expansion of Mexico’s avocado market because they watch each step of the process — from the orchards to transportation systems to shipping areas — to make sure that the fruit imported to the United States is free from pests, said David Orden, a professor in the department of agricultural and applied economics at Virginia Tech.“This was a nice story about how a group of agribusinessmen and farmers used scientific methods to reduce pest risk and allow trade to occur where there wouldn’t normally be an opportunity,” Mr. Orden said. “It was a nice story until the drug cartels got involved.”California, which supplies roughly 15 percent of the U.S. avocado market, simply cannot produce enough to meet demand from consumers nibbling on chips and guacamole and putting avocados in smoothies. The per capita annual consumption of avocados has grown to nine pounds, from four pounds in 2010, and could exceed 11 pounds in the next five years, according to analysts at RaboResearch.The average price of an avocado in the United States is around $1.43, and prices were rising even before the recent ban.Linda Xiao for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Monica PieriniThe avocado industry has long benefited from clever marketing campaigns. In the 1980s, ads by the California Avocado Commission showed the actress Angie Dickinson in a white leotard, her legs stretching on forever, eating and extolling the diet and health benefits of the avocado. “Would this body lie to you?” she cooed.But the big marketing push has come during the Super Bowl. Avocados From Mexico began airing quirky commercials in the past decade, one featuring the comedian Jon Lovitz’s floating head and another with the 1980s actress Molly Ringwald as an infomercial host hawking pricey gear for your avocado, like a personal carrier or a yurt.On Sunday, Avocados From Mexico aired its latest ad during the game. It featured ancient Roman tailgaters at the Colosseum noshing on guacamole and dancing. Reviews online were mixed.Avocado farmers in the Michoacán region said even a ban that lasted a couple of months could have a huge negative impact on the local economy.“The growing season basically ends in May, and if we lose a couple of months to sell, we’ll end up with too much fruit to sell in two month’s time,” said Jose Humberto Solorzano Mendoza, a third-generation avocado grower who has created a digital platform for producers to share pricing information to improve transparency. “The produce will be worthless, and it will fall off the trees after May.”And a collapse in prices, he said, could lead to increased immigration from the area into the United States. “There are people who are living here because of the avocado,” he said. “They make their living from that. If we don’t have the avocado, they’ll move on.”Mr. Ernst of the International Crisis Group said that if the “warning shot” of a temporary ban turned into something more long term, it would affect the economy and make it easier for the criminal enterprises to attract recruits.“You have tens of thousands of hardworking, law-abiding families that depend on this industry,” Mr. Ernst said. “If you take away their livelihoods, you play into the hands of the criminal groups.” More

  • in

    The Age of Anti-Ambition

    Listen to This ArticleAudio Recording by AudmTo hear more audio stories from publications like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android.I used to think of my job as existing in its own little Busytown — as in the Richard Scarry books, where there’s a small, bright village of workers, each focused on a single job, whose paths all cross in the course of one busy, busy day. In my neighborhood in Brooklyn, I would see the same person at the Myrtle Avenue bus stop several days a week and imagine where he was going with his Dell laptop bag and black sneakers. I’d buy coffee from a rotating cast of the same baristas at the cafe on the third floor of my office building, where I worked as an editor at a magazine. I’d stop to chat with another editor, whose office was on the other side of the wall from mine; sometimes, she would motion for me to shut the door, and we would say what we really thought about some piece of minor professional gossip, important to at most about 3.5 people in the world. I would watch my boss walk toward a meeting with his boss and wonder whether their chat would wind up affecting my job.We all mostly worked on computers, typing in documents and sending emails to the person on the other side of a cubicle wall, but there was a bustle to the whole endeavor. It was a little terrarium where we all spent 50 hours a week, and we filled it with office snacks and bathroom outfit compliments and after-work drinks. Even on a day when nothing much happened professionally, there was the feeling of having worked, of playing your part in an ecosystem.Every job had its own Busytown. Although no one in the broader world wanted to talk about, say, cost-cutting strategies for a potential new client, you could find someone in your Busytown who was just as preoccupied about it as you were. In Scarry’s actual Busytown, meanwhile, the world is populated by people (OK, animals) who find it very easy to explain their jobs. They’re policemen and grocers and postmen and doctors and nurses. When the pandemic hit, the people with those Scarry-style jobs had to keep going to work. Their Busytowns rolled on. And actually, those jobs got harder.Everyone else has lost all touch with theirs. They log on to Slack and Zoom, where their co-workers are two-dimensional or avatars, and every day is just like the last one. Depending on what’s happening with the virus, their children might be there again, just as in March 2020, demanding attention and sapping mental energy. The internet is definitely there, always, demanding attention and sapping mental energy. A job feels like just one more incursion, demanding attention and sapping mental energy.And it didn’t help that, early in the pandemic, all jobs were pointedly rebranded: essential or nonessential. Neither label feels good. There is still plenty of purpose to be found in a job that isn’t in one of the helper professions, of course. But “nonessential” is a word that invites creeping nihilism. This thing we filled at least eight to 10 hours of the day with, five days a week, for years and decades, missed family dinners for … was it just busy work? Perhaps that’s what it was all along.For the obviously essential workers — I.C.U. nurses, pulmonologists — the burden of being needed is a costly one. The word “burnout,” promiscuously applied these days, was in fact coined to diagnose exhaustion in medical workers (in a more quaint time, when we weren’t heading into the third year of a multiwave global pandemic). And meanwhile, a vast majority of people deemed essential have jobs like Amazon warehouse worker or cashier. To be told that society can’t function without you, and that you must risk your health to come in, while other people push around marketing reports from home — often for much more money — it becomes difficult not to wonder if “essential” is cynical, a polite way of classing humans as “expendable” or “nonexpendable.”Teachers, who happen to be both highly unionized and college-educated, haven’t taken kindly to being on the expendable end of the equation, asked to work in person with tiny people who aren’t good at distancing and masking and have spent the past years cooped up. In early January, I read an article in The Times about the drama between the Chicago teachers’ union and the city over in-person instruction. When classes were abruptly canceled, a mother who worked as a bank teller had taken her child in for day care, provided by nonunionized school employees. (Day care workers: even further down the ugly new caste lines than teachers.) “I understand they want to be safe, but I have to work,” the bank teller said of her child’s teachers. “I don’t understand why they are so special.” This kind of comparison can curdle people’s relationships to one another — and to their own jobs.Essential or nonessential, remote or in person, almost no one I know likes work very much at the moment. The primary emotion that a job elicits right now is the determination to endure: If we can just get through the next set of months, maybe things will get better.The act of working has been stripped bare. You don’t have little outfits to put on, and lunches to go to, and coffee breaks to linger over and clients to schmooze. The office is where it shouldn’t be — at home, in our intimate spaces — and all that’s left now is the job itself, naked and alone. And a lot of people don’t like what they see.There are two kinds of stories being told about work right now. One is a labor-market story, and because that’s a little dull and quite confusing, it’s mixed up with the second one, which is about the emotional relationship of American workers to their jobs and to their employers. The Great Resignation is the phrase that has been used, a little incorrectly, to describe each story.The Future of WorkDive into the magazine’s annual exploration of the ways in which work, and our lives with it, is changing.The Age of Anti-Ambition: When 25 million people leave their jobs, it’s about more than just burnout.Calling All Job Haters: Inside the rise and fall of r/Antiwork — the Reddit community that made it OK to quit, but couldn’t quite spark a labor movement.Nurse Shortages: As the coronavirus spread, demand for nurses came from every corner. Some jobs for those willing to travel  paid more than $10,000 a week. Is this a permanent shift?It’s true that we’re in the midst of a “quitagion,” as this paper has jauntily termed it, citing the record number of people (4.5 million) who gave notice in November alone. An estimated 25 million people left their jobs in the second half of 2021; it’s all but certain that this is the highest U.S. quit rate since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking those numbers in 2000.The labor market, as economists like to say, is tight: Employment statistics are strong and getting stronger. Despite inflation, real income is up across all income levels. It’s a remarkable turnaround, following the early pandemic’s horrific job losses, which disproportionately affected the lowest earners and those with little job security. Many of the recent quitters have been on the lower part of the income ladder. They’re getting or seeking better work, for more money, because they can. And that kind of labor market means at least some lower-income workers get to think about their jobs the way the white-collar class more traditionally has, as something that needs to work for them, rather than the other way around.But those top-line numbers obscure a muddier truth. After the latest employment numbers were released in February (which seemed to show remarkable job growth and an unemployment rate of 4 percent), one B.L.S. economist took to his Substack to call it the “most complicated job report ever.” In addition to those workers trying to trade their way into objectively better jobs, millions of others have simply left the work force — because they’re sick, or taking care of children, or retiring, or just plain miserable.The precise reasons are a little mysterious. The jobs recovery isn’t spread evenly across industries, nor is the quit rate. Staffing levels in the leisure and hospitality sectors are still 10 percent lower than they were prepandemic, and according to December’s job report, people who work in hotels and restaurants are the most likely to have quit. Eight percent of all jobs in health care are open right now. There are almost 400,000 fewer health care workers now than there were before the pandemic. As LinkedIn’s chief economist put it to CBS News, “It may not just be worth it for some folks.”Even among the people who were technically employed, a sizable number were unable to work because of child care issues or sick leave. Add to that the fact that many people who would prefer full-time work with benefits are still working on employers’ terms, which means part-time, unstable employment, as The Times’s Noam Scheiber recently reported. And if you dig into the quit numbers for higher-wage workers, it’s still hardly about people going on “Eat, Pray, Love” journeys. The full picture just isn’t that rosy.It’s also not entirely a fluke of this moment. For decades, job productivity has been increasing while real wages haven’t. People were already stretched thin. The writer Anne Helen Petersen, who has made a specialty of truffle-hunting for the millennial internet’s preoccupations, recently wrote a book about professional-class burnout based on a viral 2019 BuzzFeed article she wrote on the same subject. (Her lead personal example involved not getting around to having her knives sharpened.) I was in a particularly stressful moment of a management job at the time and would Google the symptoms of burnout late at night, on a private browser screen. But I was allergic to people talking ostentatiously about it, and I was embarrassed by the indulgence of the language, or, maybe, what I saw as the self-importance of it.Now, though, it’s as if our whole society is burned out. The pandemic may have alerted new swaths of people to their distaste for their jobs — or exhausted them past the point where there’s anything to enjoy about jobs they used to like.Perhaps that’s why the press is filled with stories about widespread employee dissatisfaction; last month a Business Insider article declared that companies “are actively driving their white-collar workers away by presuming that employees are still thinking the way they did before the pandemic: that their jobs are the most important things in their lives,” and pointed to a Gallup poll that showed that last year only a third of American workers said they were engaged in their jobs.At Amazon, in its managerial ranks, employee departures have reached what is being seen as a “crisis” level, according to Bloomberg’s Brad Stone. (A source told him that the turnover rate was as high as 50 percent in some groups, although Amazon disputes this.) One woman, leaving her job, posted in an internal listserv she started called Momazonian, which has more than 5,000 members. “While it has been an incredibly rewarding place to work, the pressure often feels relentless and at times, unnecessary,” she wrote, in a Jerry Maguire screed for the careful networker set; she also copied senior vice presidents and some board members.It’s not an accident that it was the moms’ affinity group where she aired that feeling. A McKinsey study from last year showed that 42 percent of women feel burned out, compared with 32 percent in 2020. (For men, it jumped to 35 percent from 28 percent.) At the beginning of the pandemic, the working world lost more than 3.5 million mothers, according to the Census Bureau; and the National Women’s Law Center found that in early 2021, women’s labor-force participation was at a 33-year-low, returning us all the way back to the era when “Working Girl” was revolutionary. Many of those women haven’t come back.Illustration by María Jesús ContrerasSo the numbers are bad enough. But then there’s the way the hard facts of the economy interact with our emotions. Consider this theory: that the current office ennui was simply the inevitable backlash to the punishing culture of the previous decade’s #ThankGodItsMonday culture. And furthermore, sometime around the rise of #MeToo (and after Donald Trump’s election), ambition began to seem like a mug’s game. The enormous personal costs of getting to the top became clear, and the potential warping effects of being in charge also did. It wasn’t just the bad sexually harassing bosses who were fired but the toxic ones, too, and soon enough we began to question the whole way power in the office worked. What started out as a hopeful moment turned depressing fast. Power structures were interrogated but rarely dismantled, a middle ground that left everyone feeling pretty bad about the ways of the world. It became harder to trust anyone who was your boss and harder to imagine wanting to become one. Covid was an accelerant, but the match was already lit.Recently, I stumbled across the latest data on happiness from the General Social Survey, a gold-standard poll that has been tracking Americans’ attitudes since 1972. It’s shocking. Since the pandemic began, Americans’ happiness has cratered. The graph looks like the heart rate has plunged and they’re paging everyone on the floor to revive the patient. For the first time since the survey began, more people say they’re not too happy than say they’re very happy.The plague, the death, the supply chain, long lines at the post office, the collapse of many aspects of civil society might all play a role in that statistic. But in his classic 1951 study of the office-working middle class, the sociologist C. Wright Mills observed that “while the modern white-collar worker has no articulate philosophy of work, his feelings about it and his experiences of it influence his satisfactions and frustrations, the whole tone of his life.” I remember a friend once saying that although her husband wasn’t depressed, he hated his job, and it was effectively like living with a depressed person.After the latest job report, the economist and Times columnist Paul Krugman estimated that people’s confidence in the economy was about 12 points lower than it ought to have been, given that wages were up. As the pandemic drags on, either the numbers aren’t able to quantify how bad things have become or people seem to have persuaded themselves that things are worse than they actually are.It’s not in just the data where the words “job satisfaction” seem to have become a paradox. It’s also present in the cultural mood about work. Not long ago, a young editor I follow on Instagram posted a response to a question someone posed to her: What’s your dream job? Her reply, a snappy internet-screwball comeback, was that she did not “dream of labor.” I suspect that she is ambitious. I know that she is excellent at understanding the zeitgeist.It is in the air, this anti-ambition. These days, it’s easy to go viral by appealing to a generally presumed lethargy, especially if you can come up with the kind of languorous, wry aphorisms that have become this generation’s answer to the computer-smashing scene in “Office Space.” (The film was released in 1999, in the middle of another hot labor market, when the unemployment rate was the lowest it had been in 30 years.) “Sex is great, but have you ever quit a job that was ruining your mental health?” went one tweet, which has more than 300,000 likes. Or: “I hope this email doesn’t find you. I hope you’ve escaped, that you’re free.” (168,000 likes.) If the tight labor market is giving low-wage workers a taste of upward mobility, a lot of office workers (or “office,” these days) seem to be thinking about our jobs more like the way many working-class people have forever. As just a job, a paycheck to take care of the bills! Not the sum total of us, not an identity.Even elite lawyers seem to be losing their taste for workplace gunning. Last year, Reuters reported an unusual wave of attrition at big firms in New York City — noting that many of the lawyers had decided to take a pay cut to work fewer hours or move to a cheaper area or work in tech. It’s happening in finance, too: At Citi, according to New York magazine, an analyst typed “I hate this job, I hate this bank, I want to jump out the window” in a chat, prompting human resources to check on his mental health. “This is a consensus opinion,” he explained to H.R. “This is how everyone feels.”Things get weird when employers try to address this discontent. Amazon’s warehouse workers have, for the past year, been asked to participate in a wellness program aimed at reducing on-the-job injuries. The company recently came under fire for the reporting that some of its drivers are pushed so hard to perform that they’ve taken to urinating in bottles, and warehouse employees, for whom every move is tracked, live in fear of being fired for working too slowly. But now, for those warehouse workers, Amazon has introduced a program called AmaZen: “Employees can visit AmaZen stations and watch short videos featuring easy-to-follow well-being activities, including guided meditations [and] positive affirmations.” It’s self-care with a dystopian bent, in which the solution for blue-collar job burnout is … screen time.The cultural mood toward the office even appears in the television shows that knowledge workers obsessed over. Consider “Mad Men,” a show set during the peaking economy of the late 1960s. It was a show that found work romantic. I don’t mean the office affairs. I mean that the characters were in love with their work (or angrily sometimes out of love, but that’s a passion of its own). More than that, their careers and the little dramas of their daily work — the presentations to clients, the office politics — gave their lives a sense of purpose. (At the show’s end, Don Draper went to a resort that looks an awful lot like Esalen to find out the meaning of life, and meditated his way into a transformative … Coke ad campaign.)Peggy Olson, the striving adwoman on the make, has recently been taken up as the patron saint of quitters. An image of her shows up frequently illustrating articles about people leaving their jobs, sometimes in GIF form. In it, Olson is wearing sunglasses, carrying a box of office stuff. She has a cigarette dangling from her mouth, off to the side for maximum self-assurance. But she isn’t actually quitting in that scene. Instead, she’s walking into a new, better job at a different agency. The swagger she has comes from ambition, not from opting out.That show was on the air from 2007 to 2015, at the peak of what sometimes gets called hustle culture (and Obama-era optimism). Back then — just before, during and after a psyche-shattering global recession — work had betrayed large swaths of the population, but many (at least those who were better off, for whom the economy recovered much more quickly) took that as inspiration to work harder, to short-circuit the problems of employment with entrepreneurship, or the dreams of it. Start a company! Build a brand! Become a girlboss! (A word that used to be a compliment, not an insult.)Now, Sunday nights are for “Succession,” the beloved pitch-black workplace drama of the post-Trump nihilistic years. On that show, whose third season recently came to a close, work is a corrupting force. The Roy family is ruined not by their money but by their collective desire to run a conglomerate. Ambition perverts the love between parent and child, husband and wife, brother and sister. Even the from-nothing strivers on the show are ruined by their jobs. It’s a Greek tragedy filtered through the present moment, in which every bit of labor is said to happen under late capitalism, and all the jobs are burnout jobs.When “Succession” was over, the office workers of America got up off the couch, and they turned off the TV. They dozed off thinking about the psychological abuse the Roys heap on one another and their Waystar Royco underlings, then sat on the same couch Monday morning.It’s important to acknowledge that some people have reacted to this moment by becoming less cynical about the possibilities of work. The broader world is getting darker — climate change, crumbling democracy. It feels impossible to change it. But work? Work could change. An idealistic generation has set about demanding a utopian world, on a local scale, in their own little Busytowns. More diversity, more attention to structural racism, better hours, better boundaries, better leave policies, better bosses.At some companies, it finally feels as if the old hierarchies are being upended, and the top-paid people are running a little scared of their underlings, rather than the other way around. (No one has much sympathy for managers, and it’s true, as Don Draper once told Peggy Olson, that’s what the money is for. But steering a company through the past few years has been its own particular challenge.)Confronted with this world, many young people with professional options want to be in solidarity with their colleagues instead of climbing the ladder above them. The meaning that they once found in work is now found in trying to make the workplace itself better. At Authentic, a Democratic consulting firm, some members of the unionized staff are refusing to work a contract serving Senator Kyrsten Sinema. Unionized think-tankers at the Center for American Progress, which tends to serve as a pipeline to coveted roles in Democratic presidential administrations, threatened to strike in mid-February over their wages. Some congressional staff members have begun the process of forming a union.I’m now on staff at a digital news site that is unionized; I marvel at the fact that I can have a job with a title like “editor at large” and all the benefits that come from union membership. At Google, home of plush offices and free meals, the company formally recognized a union in early 2021 composed of 400 of its highly paid engineers. The professional managerial classes — as Bernie Sanders supporters called that slice of the white-collar work force pejoratively — are in the middle of developing a class consciousness.So some of the most prestigious offices are organizing, and the college-educated make up a larger slice of the union pie than ever, thanks largely to growth among teachers’ unions. But union membership, more broadly, is at an all-time low. Those warehouse employees at Amazon voted against unionization in Alabama last year. (A federal review board found that Amazon had improperly pressured staff members against forming a union, and ordered a revote, which will take place in five weeks.) Amazon workers might end up voting to join a union. Starbucks employees are starting the process, too. But somehow, workplace protections still seem in danger of becoming one more luxury item that accrues to the privileged.Perhaps there’s no better example of this than what happened at Goldman Sachs last year. Junior bankers in San Francisco felt alienated over their long hours, what they considered low pay and lack of Seamless stipends while working from home. They made a formal presentation to their office’s top executives, relying on survey data they gathered that showed, for instance, that three-quarters of them felt they had been victims of workplace abuse. It was something a little like collective action by America’s future elite.One lead organizer of that action was, as Bloomberg reported, the son of the vice chairman of TPG Capital, a private-equity firm. His father, a creature of a previous zeitgeist, got his start working for Michael Milken at Drexel Burnham Lambert, the famously competitive (and corrupt) investment bank.The son’s hostile takeover worked. The Goldman analysts got their base pay raised by nearly 30 percent. New York magazine reported that while at least five of the 13 analysts from the protest cohort in San Francisco had already left Goldman (four of whom were women of color), the bank was having no trouble recruiting college students to join the next class of analysts.The Goldman raise is a reminder of a cold, hard fact. One that is explained in the very first sentence of Richard Scarry’s “What Do People Do All Day?”: “We all live in Busytown and we are all workers. We work hard so that there will be enough food and houses and clothing for our families.” Work is mainly, really, about making money to live. And then trying to make some more. A boring, ancient story. The future of work might be more like its past than anyone admits.Noreen Malone is an editor at large for Slate Magazine. In 2015, she won a George Polk Award and a Newswomen’s Club award for her reporting in New York magazine on the women who accused Bill Cosby of rape and sexual assault. More

  • in

    A new inflation reading shows the small business tipping point has been reached

    Inflation has taken hold of Main Street, with an increasing number of small business owners saying it will not relent over the next six months and raising prices to offset increases in the costs of supplies, according to the latest CNBC|SurveyMonkey Small Business Survey.
    President Biden’s approval rating is underwater, and though the small business community skews conservative and the vast majority of liberals surveyed continue to support Biden, support among Democrats ticked down this quarter, and confidence in the Federal Reserve’s ability to control inflation is low.
    The overall CNBC|SurveyMonkey Small Business Confidence Index score continues to hover around all-time lows, though it remained unchanged from Q4 2021.

    Joe Raedle | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    The latest Consumer Price Index reading, the highest in four decades, isn’t the only sign that inflation is extending rather than giving up its hold over the U.S. economy in 2022. An increasing number of American small businesses say they are now passing on higher costs to customers, or soon will be forced to make that decision.
    While the 74% of small business owners who say they are experiencing rising costs of supplies is virtually unchanged from Q4 2021, according to a new CNBC/SurveyMonkey Small Business Survey, the number of businesses passing on costs to customers has risen to 47% in the first quarter, up from 39% in Q4 2021. And another 32% indicate they will have to raise prices soon if inflation persists. Sticky inflation is their expectation. Over eighty percent of small business owners expect inflation to still be a problem six months from now (55% say that is “very likely”), according to the CNBC|SurveyMonkey data.

    The Main Street concerns about inflation are connected to the small business outlook on the supply chain, with 75% saying these issues are likely to be a problem six months from now. And there is a lack of faith in policymakers, with 71% of small business owners not confident in the Federal Reserve’s ability to control inflation.
    The CNBC/SurveyMonkey online poll was conducted January 24-30, 2022 among a national sample of 2,227 self-identified small business owners.
    “The underlying problem with inflation is that there’s no end in sight,” said Laura Wronski, senior manager of research science at Momentive, which conducts the survey for CNBC. “We’ve become accustomed to rising and falling Covid waves, and businesses have had the time to rewrite their playbooks to accommodate. But no one knows how quickly or to what degree inflation will continue to rise, so that unpredictability is inducing some unease,” she said, with the lack of faith in the Fed adding to the uncertainty.
    “I don’t think it is getting better. It has gotten worse,” said Michelle Pusateri, owner of San Francisco-based Nana Joes Granola.
    Nana Joes Granola witnessed a boom in business during Covid as demand for packaged goods skyrocketed, but the business situation has flipped, with the hyper-growth from earlier in the pandemic now overwhelmed by supply chain and pricing issues and its profit margins being squeezed.

    Nana Joes Granola stocked up on ingredients and bought them at higher volumes to get lower pricing as demand outstripped supply and logistics issues worsened. The loading up on inventory is “more of a stopgap right now,” Pusateri said, but she expects it will probably become a long-term business issue. Her firm held $94,000 of inventory at the end of 2019, but by the end of last year, that had risen to $327,000.
    “I think more and more businesses will have to sit on more inventory,” Pusateri said.

    Losing leverage as buyers in a broken supply chain

    In multiple ways, small business owners have lost leverage with suppliers. Large buyers are favored in transactions, and smaller buyers are no longer able to order in smaller batches (e.g. half-pallets) or rely on contract pricing.
    “Lots of ingredients are in high demand, meaning farmers and vendors and brokers can name their price. They can wait until the last highest bidder,” said Pusateri, who is a member of the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Businesses Voices community. Among that Main Street sample, 84% indicated in a recent survey that inflation has gotten worse for them since September, and only 13% see supply chain issues subsiding over the first half of 2022.
    Nana Joes Granola’s main ingredient, oats, has seen a huge spike in price, and Pusateri does not expect any downward pricing pressure given the current level of supply and demand.
    It’s not just an increase in input costs, but the magnitude of the increase which is walloping smaller companies. Eric Groves, co-founder and CEO at online small business platform Alignable, which has been tracking the impact of inflation, pointed to the percentage of businesses that indicate they are seeing the highest level of cost increases. Overall, 78% of small businesses say their costs are above pre-pandemic levels, but the largest block of small businesses (29%) say they are seeing price hikes of 25% or more for their business inputs.
    All of the headlines about inflation will make it easier for small business owners to increase costs and not have customers react as negatively as they might expect, but while over 50% of businesses are passing along the cost increases to customers, only 9% tell Alignable they can do this at a level where it is above breakeven for them.
    “Costs have gone up more than their ability to pass it on down, and that’s what is critical to recovery,” Groves said. “That’s where the feeling of stress is coming from. It’s the squeezing of margins, not just revenue … what’s going in their pocket,” he added.
    It is a fraught situation for small businesses trying to figure out how much they can afford to charge without risking a decline in customer numbers and loss of recurring revenue, with many small businesses still not all the way back from Covid’s shock. Alignable’s data finds roughly 35%-37% of businesses saying that 90% or more of their customers from the pre-Covid period have returned.
    Small business owners tend to be optimistic by nature, but Alignable’s data shows them more pessimistic now about their own recovery timelines. Last June, small business owners expected revenue to be back at pre-Covid levels midway through 2022. Now that has been pushed back by a full year to mid-2023.
    Pusateri says inflation is beginning to eat into demand for her company’s granola, which is priced at the premium end of the product category. “People are starting to look at what they are spending on. For us, it’s more of people starting to really look at pocketbooks,” she said.

    Small business says ‘stuck with inflation’

    NFIB’s most recent quarterly survey found the percentage of small business owners having to increase prices rising to over 60%, the highest reading in the NFIB data since Q4 1974.
    “They are getting squeezed by supply chain disruptions and inflation and workforce shortages and already had to reinvent themselves a few times over in the past few years, and are running out of options,” said Kevin Kuhlmann, who leads the NFIB’s government relations team. “They are continuing to adapt … but you can only increase prices so much before you might see a loss,” he said. 
    Nana Joes Granola accessed a Covid economic injury disaster loan from the Small Business Administration to fund its higher level of inventory buying, but that financing program ended in 2021, and there is no indication the federal government will reinstate it. Pusateri said she is now being forced to contemplate business loans or taking on investors, a move she has not had to make previously.
    “There aren’t many policy options for issues like inflation and the supply chain,” Kuhlmann said. And even if inflation is tamed, that does not mean prices will go down. “It’s sort of a new normal,” he said. “You want to slow down price increases. It’s frustrating business owners.”
    Small business does tend to be a lagging rather than a leading indicator for the economy, but the growing worries on Main Street are “a worrisome indication that inflation will be more persistent,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics.
    “Their pricing decisions tend to lag their bigger competitors, so if small businesses are raising prices more aggressively it could signal inflation becoming more endemic,” Zandi said. And since small businesses do not tend to think of themselves as having pricing power over the long-term, if they are “becoming more emboldened” it is an indication that inflationary pressures are broader-based, he added.

    Main Street confidence and support for Biden

    The CNBC/SurveyMonkey Small Business Confidence Index score continues to hover around all-time lows, holding at 44 out of 100, which was unchanged from Q4 2021 and nearly identical to the all-time low score of 43 from a year ago. Overall, the business outlook is mixed, with 46% of Main Street businesses saying they expect revenue to increase in the next 12 months, according to the CNBC|SurveyMonkey data.
    Politics is a factor, with only 33% of business owners saying conditions are “good,” equal to the 33% of business owners who say they support President Biden.
    The percentage of Democrats who expressed support for Biden remains very high, at 83%, but did decline this quarter by six percentage points. Just under half (49%) of Democratic small business owners described conditions as good. A majority of Democrats expect inflation to still be a problem six months from now (67%) but that is considerably less than the 92% of Republicans who see inflation sticking around. And Democrats are much more likely to believe the Fed can control inflation, at 61%, versus 11% of Republicans surveyed.

    Certain sectors within the small business community that are more exposed to the global supply chain are facing greater pressures, and there are positive indicators across the business landscape. As a whole, companies are doing a good job of passing through costs to customers with corporate profit margins as wide as they’ve ever been back to World War II, but the benefits of pricing power are accruing more to the largest corporations.
    Small businesses do not typically have high cash reserve levels — according to Alignable it is on average 34 days of cash on hand — leading to a situation in which any kind of financial hit is very difficult to recover from. “So as they are trying to build back to recovery from Covid, every little bit of extra margin they can eke out is critical, and with cost increases and the inability to pass along, we will see more and more businesses struggling with that,” Groves said.
    A key measure of business health, business-to-business payment transactions, isn’t showing any signs of stress, with even companies of 500 employees or less paying bills on time. “At least so far, they are managing,” Zandi said.
    Small businesses sentiment, similar to consumer sentiment, tends to be reactive and based on the most recent information or anecdote rather than longer-term forecasting, which means that current gas and fuel prices, which can be major inputs for small businesses, can lead to a sharper shift in sentiment in the short-term. On Monday, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released an inflation survey that showed the first decline among Americans’ inflation expectations in over a year, though still near a record level.
    But Zandi said if nothing else, the latest data from Main Street is “proof positive we have a problem.”
    Pusateri described herself as “a lot less confident now” after having made it through Covid, and even having seen hyper-growth during the earlier part of the pandemic. “I thought getting through 2020, ‘oh my god, we did it.’ We were still profitable. And then, all of a sudden, I couldn’t find ingredients.”
    Nana Joes Granola went from 135% profit growth during the packaged foods boom to currently operating at less than breakeven in a pricing environment hitting it from all sides. In addition to the supply issues, wage inflation and lack of leverage as a buyer, freight charges across the country have risen and the company has had to change its free shipping policy for its direct consumer business. “We’re getting steamrolled over. Everywhere I look getting price increases,” Pusateri said. 
    The financial market and economists including Zandi expect inflation will moderate later in 2022, but if it doesn’t happen soon, he said, “the small business owners will be right.”
    “I don’t think inflation is going away any time soon,” Pusateri said. “We will be stuck in this.”

    Arrows pointing outwards

    To learn more and to sign up for CNBC’s Small Business Playbook event, click here. More

  • in

    For China, Hosting the Olympics Is Worth Every Billion

    For many cities, the Games make no economic sense. National pride and an enthusiasm for building transportation infrastructure change the equation for Beijing.ZHANGJIAKOU, China — To make an Olympic ski jump, China clad a hillside in steel and blanketed it with artificial snow. To construct a high-speed rail line linking the venues and Beijing, engineers blasted tunnels through the surrounding mountains. And to keep the coronavirus at bay, workers are conducting tens of thousands of P.C.R. tests on Games participants every day.Hosting the Winter Olympics is costing China billions of dollars, a scale of expenditure that has made the event less appealing to many cities around the world in recent years. More and more of them have concluded that the Games are not worth being left with a hefty bill, white elephant stadiums and fewer benefits from tourism than they had hoped.But China looks at the Games with a different calculus. Beijing has long relied on heavy investments in building railway lines, highways and other infrastructure to provide millions of jobs to its citizens and reduce transportation costs. With the 2022 Games, it also hopes to nurture an abiding interest in skiing, curling, ice hockey and other winter sports that could increase consumer spending, particularly in the country’s chilly and economically struggling northeast.The Zhangjiakou National Ski Jumping Center for the 2022 Winter Olympics. Beijing hopes the Games will nurture interest in skiing and other winter sports that could boost consumer spending.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesPerhaps most important of all to China’s leader, Xi Jinping, the Olympics are a chance to demonstrate to the world his country’s unity and confidence under his leadership.“For China’s international image, prestige, and face, as the Chinese would say, nothing is too expensive,” said Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a political scientist at Hong Kong Baptist University.Still, with China’s economy already slowing, and a dimming outlook for global growth, as well as concerns that the Omicron variant of the coronavirus would lead to more shutdowns and choking of global supply chains, Beijing has been wary of spiraling costs. Even Mr. Xi acknowledged the event had to be streamlined, saying last year that the aim was to hold a “simple, safe, splendid” event.Making hockey skates at Hongwei Sports Goods Company’s facilities in Zhangjiakou.Kevin Frayer/Getty ImagesPractically every Olympic Games in recent years has triggered disputes over cost overruns. A study at Oxford University had found that the operating costs of Olympics held since 1960 have averaged nearly three times what the host cities originally bid.The city of Sochi in Russia, which hosted the Winter Olympics in 2014, spent and invested more than $50 billion — half of which was on infrastructure. When Beijing hosted the Summer Olympics in 2008, it said it had spent $6.8 billion, but that did not include the tens of billions more it used to build roads, stadiums, subway lines and an airport terminal.Names to WatchKamila Valieva: The doping case surrounding the Russian figure skater, who will be allowed to compete but won’t be able to receive medals, echoes another dark Olympic era.Kaillie Humphries: The bobsledder, who left Canada after accusing her coach of mental abuse, won gold for the U.S. in monobob.Erin Jackson: The speedskater’s gold ended a U.S. drought and made her the first African American to medal in the sport.Chris Corning: The American snowboarder, who is more calculating and quiet than his competitors, thinks his sport has an image problem. He wants to fix it.This time, China has set a budget of about $3 billion, a figure that includes the building of competition venues, but not projects like a $1 billion high-speed rail line and a $5 billion expressway.Yang Qian, an Olympic sport shooter, during the Winter Olympics torch relay at the Badaling Great Wall on Feb. 3 in Beijing. One way China saved money was by shortening the torch relay.Kevin Frayer/Getty ImagesThe pandemic is making the Games even more expensive. The bill for last summer’s Olympics in Tokyo included $2.8 billion in coronavirus prevention costs alone. China’s “zero Covid” strategy, which focuses on eradicating outbreaks, has meant infection control measures are much more elaborate.China’s concerns about the pandemic have dashed hopes that the Games would draw tourists. Organizers said last autumn that they would not sell tickets to foreign spectators. Then they announced last month that most Chinese residents would not get to go, either, prompting a last-minute rush by hotel managers in Beijing to cut drastically the high room rates they had set for February.Despite these difficulties, Chinese authorities have insisted that they have stayed within the operating budget.Officials have said the lack of spectators has meant fewer employees are needed at the Games. China also saved money by canceling a welcoming ceremony for foreign visitors and shortening the torch relay to just three days, the Beijing organizing committee said in an emailed reply to questions. Beijing has also been able to reuse competition venues, a giant media center and other facilities built for the 2008 Summer Olympics.The National Stadium, also known as the Bird’s Nest. Hosting the Winter Olympics is costing China billions of dollars, a scale of expenditure that has made the event less appealing to many cities.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesAt $3.1 billion, China’s operating budget is comparable to the average, inflation-adjusted cost of hosting previous Winter Olympics, according to the University of Oxford researchers.“Judging by the cost of previous Winter Olympics, that should be enough to cover the cost, especially when you consider that many of the facilities have already been built,” said one of the experts, Bent Flyvbjerg, a professor of major program management at Oxford.But it is hard to assess what portion of the coronavirus prevention costs, if any, is being included in the budget, Mr. Flyvbjerg said. Chinese accounting is often opaque, and there are many budgets in which health spending can be counted, he said.The government has also pressed businesses to take on more of the cost of hosting the Games. Other host cities of previous Olympics spent heavily to build lodging for athletes and journalists and a media center. China has taken a different approach.In Zhangjiakou, an area near Beijing where some competitions are being held, the Chinese authorities have temporarily taken over the Malaysian-owned Genting Secret Garden ski resort. The resort expanded its capacity to 3,800 rooms and vacation apartments, up from 380 before China won its Olympic bid. Lim Chee Wah, the founder and a co-owner of the resort, said in an interview that he had not been told how much the government would compensate him for the use of the resort for most of the winter season, but that he trusted it would be fair.Apartments at the Genting Secret Garden ski resort in 2019. The resort is near the venue for some of the events at the 2022 Games.Greg Baker/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“We said, fine, thank you, but we’ll negotiate how to do the compensation — that will be done later,” he said.China also doesn’t count long-term infrastructure investments made in the years before the Games.The national government spent $2 billion building an expressway from northwest Beijing to Yanqing, where Olympic sliding and Alpine skiing events are being held, and an additional $3.6 billion to extend the expressway to the Taizicheng valley, where the ski resorts are.Before Beijing won its bid to host the 2022 Olympics, the government began spending $8.4 billion on a high-speed rail line that whisks travelers from Beijing toward Inner Mongolia at speeds of up to 217 miles per hour. After winning the Olympics, Beijing added $1 billion to that project to build an extra segment that peels off the main line and goes up into the mountains to Taizicheng.“The Chinese are not counting any of that — they say they would have built that anyway,” said Andrew Zimbalist, a professor at Smith College who has published three books about the economics of the Olympics. “I question whether they were going to do it anyway, and if they were going to do it anyway, why do they have to host the Olympics.”Big Air Shougang, the location of the freestyle skiing and snowboarding events.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesResort owners like Mr. Lim of Genting hope the new infrastructure will help develop the industry. In expanding the resort 10-fold ahead of the Olympics, he said, he had been told to expect that the national rail service would run 15 or 20 trains a day to the Taizicheng valley.In an email reply to questions, China’s national railway said it ran 15 bullet trains daily in each direction when the line opened at the end of 2019. But the schedule was cut drastically just a month later when the pandemic began, to five trains on most days, and an extra five on peak travel days.China regards the Olympics as transforming Beijing, which gets only a foot of natural snow most winters, into a global destination for winter sports.“The success in opening the Winter Olympics has brought positive economic benefits and created new sources of growth for the local economy,” said the top spokesman for the city of Beijing, Xu Hejian.Liu Yi More

  • in

    Fed's Bullard says the central bank's 'credibility is on the line,' needs to 'front-load' rate hikes

    St. Louis Fed President James Bullard told CNBC on Monday that he thinks the Fed needs to push interest rates up quickly.
    “Our credibility is on the line here,” he said as he advocated for a rapid interest rate increase of a full percentage point.
    Markets have begun pricing in seven rate hikes this year since Bullard first made his hawkish position known last week.

    St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard made his case for a rapid move higher in interest rates, saying Monday that the central bank needs to react to accelerating inflation.
    “I do think we need to front-load more of our planned removal of accommodation than we would have previously. We’ve been surprised to the upside on inflation. This is a lot of inflation,” Bullard told CNBC’s Steve Liesman during a “Squawk Box” interview.

    “Our credibility is on the line here and we do have to react to the data,” he added. “However, I do think we can do it in a way that’s organized and not disruptive to markets.”
    Those comments came after Bullard rattled markets last week by saying he thinks the Fed should raise its benchmark short-term borrowing rate a full percentage point by July. The position, in a Bloomberg News interview, sent stocks on a volatile ride and caused futures markets to price in as many as seven quarter-percentage point hikes by the end of 2022.
    Along with that, markets are now tilting to a 50 basis point, or 0.5 percentage point, increase at the March meeting.
    “I think my position is a good one, and I’ll try to convince my colleagues that it’s a good one,” Bullard told CNBC.
    Stock market futures were mildly lower Monday morning as he spoke, rising from previous levels on some encouraging news out of the Russia-Ukraine hostilities.

    While virtually all officials on the Federal Open Market Committee have expressed the desire to start raising rates in March, Bullard has been perhaps the most hawkish. Several other officials have said they think a quarter-point move at the upcoming meeting would suffice.
    “History tells us with Fed policy that abrupt and aggressive action can actually have a destabilizing effect on the very growth and price stability we’re trying to achieve,” San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “So, what I would favor is moving in March and then watching, measuring, being very careful about what we see ahead of us and then taking the next interest rate increase when it seems the best place to do that.”
    But Bullard insisted that inflation has been running hot for months and the Fed needs to be forceful in using its tools to control price increases.

    Inflation is ‘very bad’ for lower-income groups

    The consumer price index for January showed a 12-month increase of 7.5%, even more than Wall Street estimates and continuing a pattern that began in the back half of 2021.
    “My interpretation was not so much that report alone, but the last four reports taken in tandem have indicated that inflation is broadening and possibly accelerating in the U.S. economy,” Bullard said.
    Even with strong inflation gains, real incomes have been mostly declining as inflation is outpacing the rise in average hourly earnings.
    “The inflation that we’re seeing is very bad for low- and moderate-income households,” he said. “People are unhappy, consumer confidence is declining. This is not a good situation. We have to reassure people that we’re going to defend our inflation target and we’re going to get back to 2%.”
    Markets will get a look later this week into Fed thinking when the FOMC releases minutes from its January meeting. One area of interest will be in how the central bank will begin reducing the nearly $9 trillion in asset holdings, which doubled during the coronavirus pandemic as the Fed bought up trillions in Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities.
    Despite the inflation surge, the Fed intends to buy $20 billion more of Treasurys over the next month along with nearly $28 billion in MBS, before ending the program in March.
    Bullard said he’d like to see a reduction in the bond holdings to begin in the second quarter with “some plan B in our pocket” where the Fed might actually sell the assets outright rather than letting proceeds run off passively.Correction: San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly spoke on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” An earlier version misstated the network.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Glimpses of Northern India’s Vanishing Nomads

    Fitting a small stone into a sling made of yak wool, Tsering Stobdan whipped his wrist and let the object fly, sending it soaring across the arid landscape. This, he told me, was how he protects his flock from predators and convinces straggling goats to return — just one of the countless skills he has learned in the last 60 years that allow him to rear his animals in such an unforgiving landscape.Meanwhile, some 15,000 feet above sea level, I was simply trying to breathe. Here on the Changthang plateau, in a remote region of the Indian Himalayas, the altitude had left me lightheaded and gasping for air.The settlement of Kharnakling, outside Leh, the capital of the Ladakh region of India. Around 120 families of Kharnak nomads have moved into the settlement over the past 20 years.Tsering Stobdan is a member of a nomadic community known as the Kharnak, who for centuries have raised yaks, sheep and goats in the high plains of Ladakh, in northern India, one of the most hauntingly beautiful — if harsh and inhospitable — places on earth.I first visited the area in​ 2016, in the middle of a long overland journey from Cambodia to Berlin. While passing through Nagaland, in northeastern India, I met a man from Himachal Pradesh, a neighboring state of Ladakh, who told me about the beauty of the Himalayas and the nomadic ways of the people who lived there. Based on his stories, I rented a motorcycle and headed to Leh, Ladakh’s capital.In Leh I was connected with a young member of the Kharnak community who took me to meet his family on the Changthang plateau. There I explained my interest in their culture and my intentions of documenting their daily life. During my monthlong stay, they welcomed me graciously and allowed me to participate in nearly every aspect of their lives.In 2019 I returned to Ladakh to visit with the families I’d met three years earlier. This time, I stayed for more than six weeks, moving between the community’s nomadic camps and a small town on the outskirts of Leh.A young Kharnak rider named Rinchen looks over his shoulder during a horse festival near the settlement of Yagang.Once a flourishing tribe, the Kharnak community is now dwindling. Younger generations are being sent to nearby cities, where they can find better health care and educational opportunities. And while pashmina, the lightweight wool sheared from the bellies of Himalayan mountain goats, is a profitable product, life in the mountains is extraordinarily difficult, especially in the winter.Today, fewer than 20 families are left to care for nearly 7,000 sheep and goats, along with several hundred yaks. And, like Tsering Stobdan, many of those who remain are growing older and are less able to cope with the daily demands of their work.Mipham Shakya, 61, prepares butter tea at her home in the nomadic settlement of Yagang.Climate change has also had a profound effect on the Kharnak’s way of life. Weather has become more difficult to predict, rain patterns in particular. Because of warming temperatures and the overuse of certain pastures, areas once thick with vegetation now lie barren. Small glaciers, which for centuries provided a reliable source of water, are receding.As a result, Kharnak shepherds are forced to shuffle their flocks around more frequently and with less certainty.Jigmet Lamo breastfeeds her baby, who was born just days earlier in Yagang, one of the Kharnak’s nomadic settlements. The baby was born one month ahead of schedule, which is why the mother gave birth in the highlands, and not at a hospital in Leh.A Kharnak teenager sits on the grounds of a Buddhist temple overlooking Kharnakling.Among these nomadic communities, families and animals live in strict interdependency. The milk from the sheep, goats and yaks — made into cheese, yogurt and butter — forms the foundation of the dairy-based diet.Life for the Kharnak is difficult year-round. During the longer days of spring and summer, the shepherds milk and shear their animals in the early-morning hours before taking them out to graze, often walking more than 12 miles a day at altitude. Another round of milking and shearing takes place in the evening.But the work doesn’t end there. Food must be cooked, sheds maintained, carpets woven, ropes fabricated, manure collected for fuel.The real challenges, though, come in winter, when the temperatures drop to below -30 degrees Fahrenheit. Roadways are often blocked, and food becomes scarce. During these long months, from November to April, the livestock are enclosed in shelters and fed animal feed that’s provided by the government.Tashi Namgyal, who is 30, organizes stacks of dung cakes and goat manure, which will be used fuel for heating and cooking during the winter. During the winter, most of the Kharnak move temporarily to a town called Kharnakling, on the outskirts of Leh, some 90 miles from their highland pastures. While away, they leave their livestock in the hands of a few family members and paid shepherds, who care for the animals during the harshest months of the year.To afford their homes in Kharnakling, many of the nomads had to sell their animals and leave behind their traditional stone houses and tents in the mountains. And with more frequency, members of the community are remaining in Kharnakling year-round, having given up on their old way of life.Gatuck Sonam, a Buddhist storyteller known as a “manipa,” tunes his kogpo, a horse-headed Tibetan lute, as he prepares to perform a ritual in the nomadic settlement of Zara.At their home in Kharnakling, I talked with a Kharnak elder and one of his grandsons. Dawa Tundup, who was 83 when I met him, had left behind his nomadic life to settle near the city, where he could live more comfortably and with better access to health care. He reminisced about his days in the highlands and dreamed of returning, he said, but acknowledged that life there had become untenable for most younger people, given the lack of proper schools.Karma Tsiring, his grandson, had studied in Chandighar, a city some 250 miles south. While he acknowledged that his life is in many respects easier than that of his grandfather, he also spoke about new forms of pressure that, in the past, his family members never had to deal with.Everything in the city is about money, he lamented, adding that many urban values, centered on consumerism, were very different from the value system taught by his ancestors at home.A boy looks into the camera during a Buddhist ritual taking place in a goat corral in the nomadic settlement of Zara.Later, while attending a series of traditional festivals held in the mountains, I watched as young men performed ancestral herding skills, including flinging stones on horseback. Here, the interest among younger generations in the culture of their elders was palpable, as most of them had come all the way from the city for this one event.There were no winners or losers during the festivities. Instead, the riders were given a shot of chhang, a local Ladakh beer, and a khata, a traditional Tibetan scarf, every time they hit their targets.Among the Kharnak, younger generations are now often sent to nearby cities, where they attend schools and grow accustomed to a more modern lifestyle.It was a heartwarming scene: tribal elders instilling hard-earned wisdom among their enthusiastic descendants.Still, one of the greatest concerns among the Kharnak is that their vast store of nomadic wisdom — the specific types of grass that certain animals need to survive, how meat is dried and preserved, how temporary shelters can be built with meager materials, among thousands of other examples — will be lost in the coming years.Facing a generational exodus and the threats of a changing climate, their rich culture, amassed over centuries, may vanish in what amounts to the blink of an eye.A Kharnak family tent sits below the Milky Way in the nomadic settlement of Zara.Ronald Patrick is a documentary photographer based in Portugal. You can follow his work on Instagram.Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. And sign up for our weekly Travel Dispatch newsletter to receive expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation. Dreaming up a future getaway or just armchair traveling? Check out our 52 Places list for 2022. More