Evelyn Reynolds

Wall Street expects the the consumer price index on Friday to reflect a 0.7% gain for November, which would translate into a 6.7% increase from a year ago.
If that is accurate, it will mark the highest year over year level since 1982.
Though markets expect a high reading, investors worry that the Fed might react aggressively to one that is even above consensus.

Gabriela Chirinos pumps gas into her vehicle at a Shell station on November 22, 2021 in Miami, Florida.
Joe Raedle | Getty Images

If the consensus is correct, the last time inflation was this high was in the early years of the Reagan administration – as the U.S. found itself amid a steep and persistent recession.
The Labor Department on Friday morning will release November’s consumer price index, a gauge that measures the cost of dozens of items. The index covers common goods including gasoline and ground beef, but extends into more detailed purchases such as frozen vegetables, indoor plants and flowers and pet supplies.

Wall Street expects the the index to reflect a 0.7% gain for the month, which would translate into a 6.7% increase from a year ago, according to Dow Jones estimates. Excluding food and energy, so-called core CPI is projected to rise 0.5% on a monthly basis and 4.9% on an annual basis.
If those estimates are correct, it would be the highest year-over-year reading for headline CPI since June 1982, when the index surpassed 7% after topping out at over 14% in both March and April 1980, a record that still stands. On core, the level would be the highest since June 1991.

The jump in inflation, though, is hardly news to the market. Investors have watched a variety of data points in recent months show their highest levels in decades. In fact, some economists think the headline increase could exceed 7%.
What the market will care about is just how hot the level is, and what reaction it might trigger from the Federal Reserve.
“I don’t think it would be good for stocks,” said Tom Graff, head of fixed income at Brown Advisory. “The most likely reason stocks would correct in the next several months would be that inflation is viewed as so problematic that the Fed is going to have to get aggressive much sooner.”

Fed reaction on tap

The Fed already is reacting to inflation and is soon to do more.
At its meeting next week, the central bank is expected to speed up the pace at which it is withdrawing economic support. In practice, that means likely doubling the taper in bond purchases to $30 billion a month.
That would bring a program that had seen $120 billion a month in purchases to an end by around March 2022. After that, the Fed could start raising interest rates if inflation is still a problem.

“Everybody knows the [inflation] number is going to be really hot, But I think [if] it comes in above consensus, especially on the core side, that’s going to further challenge the Fed to not only accelerate tapering, which is kind of a given at this point, but probably consider hiking in the early part of next year,” Graff said.
Current market pricing is for the Fed to enact its first 25-basis point rate hike in May or June. There’s about a 61% chance of three hikes coming by December, according to the CME’s Fed Watch tracker.
However, TS Lombard chief U.S. economist Steven Blitz thinks the Fed’s first hike likely will come as soon as March, the same month tapering likely will end.

Stock picks and investing trends from CNBC Pro:

“The timing is being pulled forward because the circumstances for starting a rate hike cycle that were anticipated a year ago are onrushing with unanticipated speed,” Blitz said in a note for clients. “To be clear, our call is not about the current shortage-related price spikes. It is about an inflationary process (wages and, soon enough, borrowing) taking hold and the [Federal Open Market Committee] belatedly recognizing they need to catch up.”
For its part, the Fed next week is unlikely to commit too much to rate hikes next year, though it will update its economic forecasts and probably pull forward the increases somewhat.
At the committee’s September meeting, forecasts indicated a slight tilt toward one increase in 2022. But with the timing of CPI coming just ahead of the Tuesday-Wednesday meeting, a hotter reading would make it difficult for policymakers to ignore the swelling inflation.
A stronger than expected print “could create an even greater sense of urgency for the Fed to react to high inflation through possibly earlier rate hikes,” Citigroup economist Veronica Clark wrote.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Employees at a Buffalo-area Starbucks store have voted to form a union, making it the only one of the nearly 9,000 company-owned stores in the United States to be organized and notching an important symbolic victory for labor at a time when workers across the country are expressing frustration with wages and working conditions.The result, announced on Thursday by the National Labor Relations Board, represents a major challenge to the labor model at the giant coffee retailer, which has argued that its workers enjoy some of the best wages and benefits in the retail and restaurant industry and don’t need a union.The union was leading in an election at another store, but by a margin smaller than the number of ballots the union was seeking to disqualify through challenges. The challenges must be resolved by the labor agency’s regional director in the coming days or weeks before there is a result. Workers at a third store voted against unionizing, according to the board, though a union lawyer contended that some ballots had been delivered to the agency and not counted.“Although it’s a small number of workers, the result has huge symbolic importance and symbols are important when it comes to union organizing,” John Logan, a labor studies professor at San Francisco State University, said in an email. “Workers who want to form a union in the United States are forced to take a considerable amount of risk, and it helps if they can see others who have taken that risk and it has paid off.”The unionized employees, who are joining Workers United, an affiliate of the giant Service Employees International Union, received inquiries throughout the campaign from Starbucks workers across the country who said they were paying close attention and were interested in unionizing as well.“I don’t think it will stop in Buffalo, whatsoever,” Alexis Rizzo, a worker at one of the stores and a leader in the organizing campaign, said at a news conference after the vote.Workers cited frustration over understaffing and insufficient training when they filed for union elections at the stores in late August, problems that have dogged the company for years but which appeared to worsen during the pandemic. Such problems are not unique to Starbucks and have been problems for workers across the restaurant and retail industries for many years.“We continue on as we did today, yesterday and the day before that,” Rossann Williams, Starbucks’s president of retail for North America, said in a letter to employees after the vote. “The vote outcomes will not change our shared purpose or how we will show up for each other.”The election occurred through mail ballots that were due Wednesday. In November, workers at three more Buffalo-area stores filed the paperwork needed to hold union elections, but it was unclear when votes would take place for those outlets.Starbucks responded to the union campaign with a sense of urgency. Throughout the fall, out-of-town managers and executives — even Ms. Williams — converged on stores in Buffalo, where they questioned employees about operational challenges and assisted in menial tasks like cleaning bathrooms.In a video of a meeting in September viewed by The New York Times, a district manager from Arizona told co-workers that the company had asked her to go to Buffalo to help “save it” from unionization.Several workers who support the union said they found the presence of these officials intimidating and, at times, surreal. They also complained that Starbucks had temporarily closed certain stores in the area, which they found disruptive, and said Starbucks had excessively added staff in at least one of the three stores that held elections. The workers said this had diluted support for unionization at the store.“As of today we’ve done it in spite of everything that the company has thrown at us and we all know it has been an extensive anti-union campaign by Starbucks corporate,” Michelle Eisen, a barista at the Buffalo location that unionized who also helped lead the campaign, said at the news conference.Former National Labor Relations Board officials have said that these actions by the company could be interpreted as undermining the “laboratory conditions” that are supposed to prevail during union elections and that they could serve as grounds for throwing out a result. Workers involved in the union campaign and a union lawyer indicated that they might challenge the result at the store where workers voted down the union.A regional director of the labor board recently overturned a union election at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama on similar grounds.Starbucks has said that it dispatched out-of-town officials and temporarily closed stores to help solve staffing and training problems and to remodel stores to make them more efficient. The company said that it added staff to deal with an increase in the number of workers calling in sick and that it had taken such steps across the country since the spring, when coronavirus infection rates dropped and stores became busier.Ms. Williams, the North America president, said in an interview on Wednesday from Buffalo that she did not feel that the run-up to the vote had been especially contentious and that she had spent much of her time there this fall listening to employees (partners, in the company’s words) and addressing “the conditions that partners had pointed out.”The key issue at the store whose vote was unresolved, near the Buffalo airport, was whether several workers who cast ballots were actually employed at the store. The union argues that they were employed at another store in the area and worked at the airport store for only a short period of time. The company said they were eligible to vote under the labor board’s rules.The outcome could be important for determining the union’s leverage when it seeks to negotiate a contract. Under the law, an employer is obligated to bargain with a union in good faith, but there is no requirement that it actually agree to a contract, and the consequences of failing to bargain in good faith are limited.“The incentives to resist bargaining are significant for the employer,” said Kate Andrias, a labor law expert at Columbia Law School. “If workers are able to win a good contract, it sets a precedent.”Professor Andrias said that the ability to win a contract in such situations often hinged on the amount of economic pressure the union can exert, and that having a second unionized store could help in this regard.Ms. Eisen, the worker at the store that unionized, said at the news conference that the workers would like to “offer the olive branch to the company and say, ‘Let’s put this behind us.’” She added: “Now is the time, let’s get to the bargaining table as quickly as possible.”Starbucks has faced other union campaigns over the years, including one in New York City in the 2000s and one in 2019 in Philadelphia, where it fired two employees involved in organizing, a move that a labor board judge found unlawful. The company appealed the ruling and a decision is still pending.Neither of those campaigns succeeded, but workers are unionized at Starbucks stores owned by other companies that operate them under licensing agreements. And workers at a company-owned store in Canada recently unionized.A handful of the company’s early stores in Seattle appear to have had a union and were represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers in the 1980s. The union was later decertified. More

Price gains have moved up sharply for months, but the fact that the trend is lasting and broadening has newly put policymakers on red alert.Aquan Brunson, 45 and from Brooklyn, used to buy three slices of cheese pizza from 99 Cents Pizza of Utica for lunch each day. But about three months ago, inflation ate away that third slice. The shop has pasted over its old sign to alert customers that it is now “$1.50 Hot Pizza.”“The dollar doesn’t take us far,” said Mr. Brunson, patting his greasy lunch down with paper napkins on a gray December afternoon. “The cost of everything is going up.”Consumers across the country can tell you that inflation has been high this year, evidenced by more expensive used cars, pricier furniture and the ongoing demise of New York City’s famous dollar slice. But until recently, policymakers in Washington responded to it with a common refrain: Rapid price increases were likely to be transitory.Last week, policymakers said it was time to retire the label “transitory,” and acknowledged that the price increases have been proving more persistent than expected.Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said that while his basic expectation is that price gains will cool off, there’s a growing threat that they won’t do so soon or sufficiently.“I think the risk of higher inflation has increased,” he said.A fresh report set for release on Friday is expected to reinforce that concern. The Consumer Price Index could show that inflation picked up by 6.8 percent over the past year, the fastest pace in nearly 40 years. More worrisome for the Fed is that inflation is broadening to many products and services, not just those directly affected by the supply chain woes that have driven up prices for cars and electronics.Here is a rundown about what to know about the price pops sweeping America and the world — and what to expect when new U.S. consumer price inflation figures are released on Friday.Inflation measures price increases.When economists and policymakers talk about “inflation,” they typically mean the increase in prices for the things that people buy out of pocket — tracked by the Consumer Price Index, or C.P.I. — or the change in the cost of things that people consume either out of pocket or through government payments and insurance, which is tracked by the less-timely Personal Consumption Expenditures index.Both measures are way up this year, and C.P.I. data set for release on Friday is expected to show that inflation picked up by the most since 1982. Back then, Paul Volcker was the Fed chair, and he was waging a war on years of rapid price gains by pushing interest rates to double digits to cripple business and consumer demand and cool off the economy. Today, interest rates are set at near-zero after policymakers slashed borrowing costs at the beginning of the pandemic.Price gains are becoming broader.There are plenty of differences between 1982 and today. Inflation had been low for years leading up to 2021, and pandemic-era lockdowns and the subsequent reopening are behind much of the current price pop.Consumer demand surged just as rolling factory shutdowns and a reshuffle in spending to goods from services caused manufacturing backlogs and overwhelmed ports. That’s why policymakers were comfortable dismissing high inflation for a while: It came from kinks that seemed likely to eventually work themselves out.But price gains are increasingly coming from sectors with a less clear-cut, obviously temporary pandemic tieback. Rents, which make up a big chunk of inflation, are rising at a solid clip.“Housing — that is the key broadening,” said Laura Rosner, an economist at MacroPolicy Perspectives.The potential for wider and more lasting price pressures have put Fed officials on edge. Policymakers at the central bank, who had been slowly tiptoeing away from supporting the economy, broadcast clearly last week that they are preparing to speed up the retreat.“They know this report is coming,” Ms. Rosner said of Friday’s anticipated number. “It’s going to confirm and explain why we’ve seen such a sharp shift.”Supply chain snarls are lasting.Abdul Batin, owner of 99 Cents Pizza of Utica, plans to rebrand his Brooklyn pizza store as “$1.50 Pizza of Utica.”Jeanna Smialek/The New York TimesDisruptions to the global flow of goods are not fading as quickly as policymakers had hoped. Additional virus waves have kept factories from running at full speed in Asia and elsewhere. Shipping routes are clogged, and consumers are still buying goods at a robust pace, adding to backlogs and making it hard for the situation to normalize.Households have some $2.5 trillion in excess savings, thanks in part to pandemic-era stimulus, which could help to keep them buying home gym equipment and new coffee tables well into next year.“The earliest we see things normalizing is really the end of 2022,” said Phil Levy, chief economist at the logistics firm FlexPort. When it comes to misunderstanding inflation, he said, “part of the problem is that we treated the supply chain like it was a special category, like food or energy.”But as 2021 has made inescapably clear, the global economy is a delicately balanced system. Take the car industry: Virus-spurred semiconductor factory shutdowns in Taiwan delayed new car production. Given the dearth of new autos, rental car companies had to compete with consumers for previously owned vehicles, leaving shortages on used car lots. The chain reaction pushed prices higher at every link along the way.Global snarls have also helped to push up food prices, as Abdul Batin, owner of 99 Cents Pizza of Utica, can attest. He plans to rebrand it as “$1.50 Pizza of Utica,” and explains that while some customers balked at the cost increase, he couldn’t help it.“Everything is going up right now — cheese, flour, even the soda price,” he said.Wages are also rising.A grocery store in Queens, N.Y. Global snarls have also helped to push up food prices.George Etheredge for The New York TimesAnother thing that could keep inflation high? Wages are climbing swiftly, and some companies have begun to talk about passing those rising expenses onto customers, who seem willing and able to pay more. The Employment Cost Index, a measure the Fed watches closely, picked up notably in the three-month period that ended in September.The risk is that this is an early, and still dim, echo of the kind of wage-and-price dynamic that helped to fuel higher prices in the 1970s and 1980s. Back then, unions were a much more powerful force, and they helped to make sure pay kept up with rising prices. Inflation and wage gains pushed each other into an upward spiral, to the point that price increases leapt out of control and demanded a Fed response.In the years since, workers have typically had less formalized bargaining power. But employers are contending with labor shortages as the virus keeps many would-be employees on the sidelines and as demand booms. That is giving workers the ability to command higher pay as they face climbing costs themselves, and it is prompting many employers to lift wages to compete for scarce talent. That could keep demand solid by bolstering peoples’ wherewithal to spend.“Looking ahead, businesses across all major sectors foresee continued widespread wage hikes,” the New York Fed reported in its section of the Fed’s Beige Book, an anecdotal survey of business and labor contacts carried out by regional Fed banks.In Atlanta’s region, the Beige Book noted, “several contacts mentioned that labor costs were already being passed along to consumers with little resistance, while others said plans were underway to do so.”Mr. Brunson — the pizza aficionado — works at a grocery store. They’ve raised his pay, he said, but it is not enough to keep up with climbing cost of food and other expenses.“They gave us an extra dollar, but that’s just to offset the inflation,” he said. He and his family, three adult children who live with him, are coping by cutting back. “No eating out, less food, less meat.” More

Weekly jobless claims totaled 184,000 for the week ended Dec. 4, the lowest going back to Sept. 6, 1969.
Continuing claims, which run a week behind the headline number, increased 38,000 to just shy of 2 million.

Weekly jobless claims tumbled last week, reaching a fresh 52-year low as the U.S. jobs market climbs out of its pandemic-era hole, the Labor Department reported Thursday.
Initial filings for unemployment insurance totaled 184,000 for the week ended Dec. 4, the lowest going back to Sept. 6, 1969, which saw 182,000.

Initial claims for unemployment insurance were expected to total 211,000 for the week ended Dec. 4, according to a Dow Jones economist survey.
The total coincided with a large seasonal modification, as the unadjusted number was 280,665. But the move lower in claims, which fell from the 227,000 reported the week before, represents more progress for a labor market still struggling with a worker shortage and other pandemic-related fallout.
Continuing claims, which run a week behind the headline number, increased 38,000 to just shy of 2 million. However, the four-week moving average for continuing claims, which irons out weekly volatility, dropped to 2.03 million, a decline of 54,250.

“A correction next week seems likely, but the trend in claims clearly is falling rapidly, reflecting the extreme tightness of the labor market and the rebound in GDP growth now underway,” wrote Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “It’s very risky for firms to let go staff unless they have no other choice, because re-hiring people later will be difficult and likely expensive.”
The total of those receiving benefits under all programs plunged, falling by 350,527 to 1.95 million, according to data through Nov. 20. The number was about 10 times that level a year ago.

The trend in claims belies weaker-than-expected monthly payroll numbers. November showed hiring growth of just 210,000, even with the unemployment rate sliding to 4.2%.
Gauging the progress in jobs is critical now as the Federal Reserve changes gears on its ultra-easy monetary policy and prepares its first normalization steps after more than a year and a half of unprecedented accommodation.
The Fed next week is expected to accelerate the tapering of its bond-buying program, likely reducing its purchases by $30 billion a month. That in turn is seen as a precursor to rate hikes, which now could happen as soon as May 2022, according to current market pricing as gauged by the CME.
The policy pivot is in response to persistent inflation that is running well above the Fed’s 2% target.
Markets will get a fresh look at the inflation picture when the Labor Department releases November’s consumer price index reading on Friday. The CPI is expected to show growth of 6.7% year over year, which would be the highest level since the summer of 1982.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

A proposal with widespread political support would entitle drivers and couriers for companies like Uber to a minimum wage and legal protections.LONDON — In one of the biggest challenges yet to the labor practices at popular ride-hailing and food-delivery services, the European Commission took a major step on Thursday toward requiring companies like Uber to consider their drivers and couriers as employees entitled to a minimum wage and legal protections.The commission proposed rules that, if enacted, would affect up to an estimated 4.1 million people and give the European Union some of the world’s strictest rules for the so-called gig economy. The policy would remake the relationship that ride services, food delivery companies and other platforms have with workers in the 27-nation bloc.Labor unions and other supporters hailed the proposal, which has strong political support, as a breakthrough in the global effort to change the business practices of companies that they say depend on exploiting workers with low pay and weak labor protections.Uber and other companies are expected to lobby against the rules, which must go through several legislative steps before becoming law. The companies have long classified workers as independent contractors to hold down costs and limit legal liabilities. The model provided new conveniences for traveling across town and ordering takeout, and gave millions of people a flexible new way to work when they want.A courier in Paris last year, when lockdown measures highlighted the fragile nature of gig work.Dmitry Kostyukov for The New York TimesBut in Europe, where worker protection laws are traditionally more robust than in the United States, there has been growing momentum for change, particularly as the pandemic highlighted the fragile nature of gig work when food couriers and others continued to work even amid lockdowns and rising Covid-19 cases.While there have been some important legal victories and laws passed in some countries targeting Uber and others, the policy released by the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, is the most far-reaching legislative attempt to regulate companies to date.The rules would affect drivers, couriers, home cleaners, home health care aides, fitness coaches and others who use apps and online platforms to find work. As employees, they would be entitled to a minimum wage, holiday pay, unemployment and health benefits, and other legal protections depending on the country where they worked.“New forms of work organization do not automatically translate into quality jobs,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s commissioner for trade, said as he presented the new rules. “People involved in platform work can sometimes find themselves exposed to unsafe living and working conditions.” The European Union estimates that 28 million people work through digital labor platforms in the bloc, with their number expected to grow to 43 million by 2025. The commission said on Thursday that 5.5 million workers were at risk of what it called misclassification, and that up to 4.1 million of them could be reclassified as employees through the directive.“This is not just bike riders in big cities,” said Johanna Wenckebach, a lawyer and scientific director at the Hugo Sinzheimer Institute for Labor and Social Security Law in Germany. “This is a phenomenon with millions of workers and many more ahead.”The rules are part of a broader digital agenda that European Union leaders hope to pass in the coming year. Proposals include tougher antitrust regulations targeting the largest tech companies, stricter content moderation rules for Facebook and other internet services to combat illicit material, and new regulations for the use of artificial intelligence.The new labor rules follow a landmark case in February, when Britain’s top court ruled that Uber drivers should be classified as workers entitled to a minimum wage and holiday pay. In the Netherlands, a court ruled in September that Uber drivers should be paid under collective rules in place for taxi drivers.Dutch Uber drivers calling for expanded workers’ rights outside a court in June that would later rule in their favor.Koen Van Weel/EPA, via ShutterstockSupporters of the new worker regulations said companies like Uber behave like employers by controlling workers through software that sets wages, assigns jobs and measures performance — a practice the commission called “algorithmic management.”The new European rules would require companies to disclose more about how their software systems made decisions affecting workers. For those who may remain independent, the new rules would also require companies to grant more autonomy that self-employment entails.The policy threatens the business models of Uber and other platforms, like the food delivery service Deliveroo, that already struggle to turn a profit. The E.U. law could result in billions of dollars in new costs, which are likely to be passed on to customers, potentially reducing use of the apps.Uber opposes the E.U. proposal, saying it would result in higher costs for customers. The company said roughly 250,000 couriers and 135,000 drivers across Europe would lose work under the proposal.Rather than help workers, Uber said the proposal “would have the opposite effect — putting thousands of jobs at risk, crippling small businesses in the wake of the pandemic and damaging vital services that consumers across Europe rely on.”Just Eat, the largest food-delivery service in Europe, said it supported the policy. Jitse Groen, the company’s chief executive, said on Twitter that it would “improve conditions for workers and help them access social protections.”The E.U. rules are being closely watched as a potential model for other governments around the world. Negotiations could last through 2022 or longer as policymakers negotiate a compromise among different European countries and members of the European Parliament who disagree about how aggressive the regulations should be. The law is unlikely to take effect until 2024 or later.Enforcement would be left to the countries where the companies operated. The policy contrasts Europe with the United States, where efforts to regulate app-based ride and delivery services have not gained as much momentum except in a few states and cities.A protest in Bakersfield, Calif., against Proposition 22, a 2020 state ballot question backed by gig economy companies.Tag Christof for The New York TimesLast year, gig economy companies staged a successful referendum campaign in California to keep drivers classified as independent contractors while giving them limited benefits. Although a judge ruled in August that the result violated California’s Constitution, his decision is being appealed, and the companies are pursuing similar legislation in Massachusetts.The Biden administration has suggested that gig workers should be treated as employees, but it has not taken significant steps to change employment laws. In May, the Labor Department reversed a Trump-era rule that would have made it more difficult to reclassify gig workers in the country as employees.In Europe, Spain offers a preview of the potential effects of the E.U. proposal. The country’s so-called Riders Law, enacted in August, required food delivery services such as Uber and Deliveroo to reclassify workers as employees, covering an estimated 30,000 workers.Uber responded by hiring several staffing agencies to hire a fleet of drivers for Uber Eats, a strategy to comply with the law but avoid responsibility for managing thousands of people directly. Deliveroo, which is partly owned by Amazon, abandoned the Spanish market.The companies prefer policies like those in France, where the government has proposed allowing workers to elect union representation that could negotiate with companies on issues like wages and benefits. Uber also pointed to Italy, where a major union and food delivery companies struck a deal that guarantees a minimum wage, insurance and safety equipment, but does not classify the workers as employees.Kim van Sparrentak, a Green lawmaker in the European Parliament who helped draft a report on platform workers that was published this year, praised the commission’s proposal as “quite radical.”“It can set a new standard for workers’ rights,” Ms. Van Sparrentak said.Adam Satariano More

Job quitters declined by 4.7%, falling to 4.16 million from 4.36 million, according to the Labor Department.
Job openings accelerated to just below their all-time high, totaling 11.03 million, an increase of 4.1% as the rate rose to 6.9% from 6.7%.
Economists have used the term “The Great Resignation” to describe the large number of quits in recent months.

A help wanted sign is posted in the window of hardware store on September 16, 2021 in San Francisco, California.
Justin Sullivan | Getty Images

The so-called Great Resignation lost some steam in October, with the total number of workers leaving their jobs either due to dissatisfaction or better opportunities elsewhere declining, the Labor Department reported Wednesday.
Job quitters fell by 4.7%, falling to 4.16 million from 4.36 million, the department said in its Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. The rate as a share of the workforce fell from 3% to 2.8%.

The JOLTS report is closely watched at the Federal Reserve and elsewhere for signs of labor market tightness.
While the quits rate dropped, the level of job openings accelerated to just below its all-time high. That number totaled 11.03 million, an increase of 4.1% as the rate rose to 6.9% from 6.7%.
The number of openings exceeded those looking for jobs by 3.6 million in October. JOLTS data runs a month behind the more closely followed nonfarm payrolls report, which showed a gain of 546,000 for the month.
The coronavirus pandemic has seen quits surge to what had been record highs. Even with October’s decline, the level is still 24% above where it was a year ago.
Economists generally see the exodus as greater opportunity in the pandemic-era jobs market spurred by many workers still reluctant to come off the sidelines either because of child-care issues or health concerns.

Through November, the labor force was still about 2.4 million smaller than what it had been in February 2020. The total employment level was more than 3.5 million down.
In October, total hires edged lower from their level in the previous month, while separations also were down.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Sanctions, like aiming to cut oil exports, could also hurt European allies. “It’s a limited toolbox,” one expert said.LONDON — When Russian soldiers crossed into Ukraine and seized Crimea in 2014, the Obama administration responded with a slate of economic penalties that ultimately imposed sanctions on hundreds of Russian officials and businesses and restricted investments and trade in the nation’s crucial finance, oil and military sectors.Now, with Russian troops massing on Ukraine’s border, the White House national security adviser has declared that President Biden looked Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, in the eye this week “and told him things we didn’t do in 2014 we are prepared to do now.”Whether harsher measures would persuade Russia to stay out of Ukraine, however, is far from clear. Historically, economic sanctions have a decidedly mixed track record, with more failures than successes. And actions that would take the biggest bite out of the Russian economy — like trying to severely curb oil exports — would also be hard on America’s allies in Europe.“We’ve seen that over and over again, that sanctions have a hard time really coercing changes in major policies” said Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who has spent decades researching the topic. “It’s a limited toolbox.”President Biden is looking at the options available to ratchet up economic penalties against Russia.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesThe best chances of success are when one country has significant economic leverage over the other and the policy goal is limited, Mr. Schott said — yet neither of those conditions really applies in this case. Mr. Putin has made clear that he considers Russia’s actions in Ukraine a matter of national security. And outside of the oil industry, Russia’s international trade and investments are limited, especially in the United States.With direct military intervention essentially off the table, Biden administration officials have listed a series of options that include financially punishing Mr. Putin’s closest friends and supporters, blocking the conversion of rubles into dollars, and pressuring Germany to block a new gas pipeline between Russia and Northern Europe from opening.Work on that pipeline — called Nord Stream 2 — has been completed, but it is waiting for approval from Germany’s energy regulator before it can begin operating.Any request from Washington would coincide with a leadership change in Berlin. The new chancellor, Olaf Scholz, and his cabinet were sworn into office on Wednesday. He has not yet made any definitive statements on the pipeline. Gas reserves are unusually low in Europe now, however, and there are worries about shortages and soaring prices as winter approaches.Russia supplies more than a third of Europe’s gas through the existing Nord Stream pipeline and has already been accused of withholding supplies as a way of pressuring Germany to approve Nord Stream 2.Washington could impose much more sweeping sanctions on particular companies and banks in Russia that would more severely curtail investment and production in the energy sector. The risk of tough sanctions on a company like Gazprom, which supplies natural gas, is that Russia could retaliate by cutting its deliveries to Europe.“That would hurt Russia a lot but also hurt Europe,” Mr. Schott said.In terms of ratcheting up the pressure, James Nixey, the director of the Russia-Eurasia program at the Chatham House think tank, suggested that financially squeezing the oligarchs who help Mr. Putin maintain power could be one way of bringing more targeted pressure.“I would place a great premium on going after the inner and outer circle around Putin, which have connections back to the regime,” he said.At the moment, the swirl of ambiguity about possible United States actions is useful, he added: “It’s quite good if the Russians are kept guessing.”Russia, the United States and the European Union — which on Wednesday proposed expanding its power to use economic sanctions — are all playing something of a guessing game in order to pursue their policy goals. Russia is deploying troops on the border and at the same time is insisting on a guarantee that Ukraine won’t join NATO, while the West is warning there will be painful economic consequences if an invasion occurs.Ukrainian soldiers patrolling along the Kalmius River, which divides Ukrainian government-controlled territory from non-government-controlled areas, in November.Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesOne of the most extreme measures would be to cut off Russia from the system of international payments known as SWIFT that moves money around the world, as was done to Iran.In 2019, the Russian prime minister at the time, Dmitri A. Medvedev, labeled such a threat as tantamount to “a declaration of war.”Maria Shagina argued in a report for the Carnegie Moscow Center that such a move would be devastating to Russia, at least in the short term. “The cutoff would terminate all international transactions, trigger currency volatility, and cause massive capital outflows,” she wrote this year.The SWIFT system, which is based in Belgium, handles international payments among thousands of banks in more than 200 countries.Since 2014, Moscow has taken steps to blunt the threat by developing its own system to process domestic credit card transactions, she noted. But it is another measure that would affect European countries more than the United States because they do so much more business with Russia.Several economic and political analysts have said restricting access to SWIFT would be a last resort.Arie W. Kruglanski, a psychology professor at the University of Maryland, said that in assessing the impact of sanctions, economists too often overlook the crucial psychological aspect.“Sanctions can work when leaders are concerned about economic issues more than anything else,” he said, but he doesn’t think the Russian leader falls into that category. To Mr. Kruglanski, strongman authoritarians like Mr. Putin are motivated by a sense of their own significance, and threats are more likely to stiffen opposition rather than encourage compromise.When it comes to Ukraine-related sanctions so far, the impact has been negligible, Mr. Nixey of Chatham House said.“A lot of these things the Russians have learned to live with, partly because implementation has been slow or poor and effects on the Russian economy are manageable,” he added.Success can be defined in various ways. Mr. Nixey said that the 2014 measures most likely deterred the Kremlin from further military interventions in Ukraine. A report for the Atlantic Council, a think tank that focuses on international relations, released this spring came to the same that conclusion.Sanctions certainly did not compel Russia to reverse its annexation of Crimea, Mr. Nixey said, but they may have persuaded Mr. Putin from taking more aggressive actions — at least until now. More

Even as the government expanded aid programs, many people faced barriers to using them. That problem is now being addressed with apps and streamlined websites.WASHINGTON — In making his case that safety net programs should be easier to use, Jimmy Chen, a tech entrepreneur, recalled visiting a welfare office where people on food stamps endured long waits to submit routine paperwork.They passed the time as people in lines do, staring at their phones — which had the potential to do the work online with greater convenience, accuracy and speed.The image of aid-seekers wasting time with a solution literally in hand captures what critics call an overlooked challenge for people in poverty: Administrative burdens make benefits hard to obtain and tax the time and emotional resources of those who need help.“Too much bureaucracy prevents people from getting the help they need,” said Mr. Chen, whose start-up, Propel, offers a free app that five million households now use to manage their food stamp benefits.Barriers to aid are as old as aid itself, and they exist for reasons as varied as concerns about fraud, the bureaucratic tension between accuracy and speed, and hostility toward people in need. But the perils of red tape have drawn new attention since the coronavirus pandemic left millions of Americans seeking government help, many for the first time.The government approved vast increases in spending but often struggled to deliver the assistance. While some programs reached most households quickly (stimulus checks), others buckled under soaring demand (unemployment benefits) or daunting complexity (emergency rental aid).“The pandemic highlighted how difficult these programs can be to access,” said Pamela Herd, a professor at Georgetown and an author, with Donald P. Moynihan, of “Administrative Burden,” which argues that excessive bureaucracy deepens poverty and inequality.The share of eligible people receiving benefits varies greatly by program: It is about 82 percent for food stamps, 78 percent for the earned-income tax credit and 24 percent for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or cash welfare, according to government estimates. That means billions of dollars go unclaimed.On his first day in office, President Biden issued an executive order asking agencies to identify “systemic barriers in accessing benefits,” with the results due in January.Shaped by forces as diverse as the tech revolution, welfare rights and behavioral psychology, the movement to create a more user-friendly safety net was underway before the pandemic underscored the perils of bureaucracy.Code for America, a nonprofit group, spent years devising a portal that makes it easier for Californians to apply for food stamps. Civilla, a Detroit-based nonprofit, helped Michigan shrink its 42-page application by 60 percent.In an age of ambitious social movements, the cry of civic tech — power to the portals — may seem obscure, but Mr. Chen, 34, says democratizing technology’s rewards is essential to social justice.“For someone like me, a phone is like a magic wand,” he said. “If I want to call a cab, there’s an app; if I want to book a hotel, there’s an app; if I want to get a date, there’s an app. It’s just incredibly unfair that we don’t apply more of this sophisticated knowledge to the problems of lower-income Americans.”Among those drawn to the app — recently renamed Providers, from Fresh EBT — is Kimberly Wilson, a single mother in Spindale, N.C., who has a 7-year-old son and cleans vacation rental homes. With her work interrupted by the pandemic, she turned to food stamps, which is also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.Kimberly Wilson, a single mother in Spindale, N.C., said the app’s most appealing feature is that it gives her the ability to check her food stamp balance.Mike Belleme for The New York TimesWhat Ms. Wilson said she likes most about the SNAP app is the ability to instantly check her balance, which she does almost daily. “It’s a comfort knowing I’m going to be able to feed my kid,” she said.The app also explains the timing and amounts of her payments better than the state, she said, and it steered her to a broadband subsidy that saved $50 a month.But the app’s rewards transcend the particulars, Ms. Wilson said: It leaves her feeling respected.“It makes you feel like it’s normal to need help,” she said, which is especially welcome because she has relatives who post memes depicting people on SNAP as lazy and overfed. “It’s like somebody behind the screen is looking out for us. You feel like they care.”Andrea Young, a Providers user in Charlotte, N.C., goes as far as to say the app “makes us feel like we’re Americans, too.”Propel offers an account that can also receive paychecks and other government benefits with the same balance-checking features, in recognition that most low-income households have multiple sources of income and need stable banking.PropelWith 42 million Americans receiving SNAP, many conservatives dispute the notion that aid is elusive. They see dependency as a greater concern than red tape and argue that administrative contact serves important goals, like deterring people who do not really need help or letting caseworkers encourage the jobless to find work.“The system should be striving to help individuals achieve self-sufficiency through employment” rather than maximize benefits, said Jason Turner, who runs the Secretaries Innovation Group, which advises conservative states on aid policy. “When you pile benefit on top of benefit, you make it harder to break free.”Poverty has long been linked to oppressive bureaucracy. “Little Dorrit,” the 1857 novel by Charles Dickens, lampoons the omnipotent “Department of Circumlocution,” whose stupefying procedures keep the heroine down. The 1975 documentary film “Welfare” offers a modern parallel with footage that one critic called “unbearable in its depictions of frustration and anger” among caseworkers and clients.Sometimes barriers to aid are created deliberately. When Florida’s unemployment system proved unresponsive at the start of the pandemic, Gov. Ron DeSantis told CBS Miami last year that his predecessor’s administration devised it to drive people away. “It was, ‘Let’s put as many kind of pointless roadblocks along the way, so people just say, oh, the hell with it, I’m not going to do that,’” he said. (Mr. DeSantis and his predecessor, Rick Scott, are both Republicans.)Other programs are hindered by inadequate staffing and technology simply because the poor people they serve lack political clout. Historically, administrative hurdles have been tools of racial discrimination. And federal oversight can instill caution because states risk greater penalties for aiding the ineligible than failing to help those who qualify.To show that Michigan’s application was overly complex, Civilla essentially turned to theater, walking officials through an exhibit with fake clients and piped-in office sounds meant to trace an application’s bureaucratic journey. Working with the state, the company created a new application with 80 percent fewer words; the firm is now working in Missouri.Michael Brennan, Civilla’s co-founder, emphasized that the Michigan work was bipartisan — it began under a Republican governor and continued under a Democrat — and saves time for the client and the state.“Change is possible,” he said.With its California portal, Code for America cut the time it took to apply for food stamps by three-quarters or more. The portal was optimized for mobile phones, which is how many poor people use the internet, and it offers chat functions in English, Spanish and Chinese. In counties with the technology, applications increased by 11 percent, while elsewhere the number fell slightly.During the pandemic, Code for America built portals to help poor households claim stimulus checks and the expanded child tax credit. The latter alone delivered nearly $400 million. David Newville, who oversaw the work, quoted a colleague to explain why web design matters: “Implementation is justice.”Mr. Chen, right, and Propel’s chief operating officer, Jeff Kaiser, at the company’s office in Brooklyn. Propel has landed investments from the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and the sports stars Kevin Durant and Serena Williams.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesAs the son of struggling immigrants from China, Mr. Chen, the founder of Propel, understood hardship before he understood technology. “There wasn’t always enough to eat” in an otherwise happy Kansas City childhood, he said. (The family did not receive SNAP, though Mr. Chen does not know why.) He graduated from Stanford, worked at Facebook and left at 26 for a fellowship in New York, hoping to produce software for people in poverty.Mr. Chen founded Propel in 2014 with $11,000 from a Kickstarter campaign, pitched about 60 investors without success and went two years without a salary. After planning to work on SNAP applications, he shifted to focus on people who were already enrolled and developed the balance display.The existing technology did allow people to check their balances, but it did not work well on mobile phones, and a phone line required a 16-digit number. While studying how poor people shop, Mr. Chen saw them buy cheap items — often a banana — to check the balance on their receipts. It struck him as “disrespectful,” one more hassle that they did not need.In tech terms, a balance display was no special feat, but reaching SNAP recipients was. Mr. Chen said the app’s users checked it on average 17 times a month. Ms. Young, 54, said she checked it more frequently than that.“I check it all day, every day,” she said. “It makes me reassured, knowing that I’m going to have food.” Ms. Young, who gets by on a disability payment of about $800 a month after injuring her back, said she had run out of funds at the register; discarding items while others watched “makes you feel like you’re just pitiful.”Ms. Wilson said the app created a sense of belonging among people used to feeling stigmatized.Mike Belleme for The New York TimesMs. Wilson is so concerned about her balance that she keeps it in her head: It was $14.02 the other day.While the app does not let users talk to each other, she said it still created a sense of belonging among those who felt stigmatized. “It just made me see there were a whole group of people out there in the same circumstance,” she said.The app also tells people how much they have spent and where they spent it; offers recipes and budgeting tools; and provides news about other benefits. It generates revenue by selling ads, often to grocers offering discounts or employers offering jobs; Mr. Chen said the goal was to align the company’s financial interests with those of its users.In early 2016, the app had a few thousand users. A year later, it had about 200,000. Propel landed investments from Andreessen Horowitz, a top venture capital firm, and the sports stars Kevin Durant and Serena Williams. Forbes estimated that the company was worth $100 million, a sum that Mr. Chen called “not far off.”Partnering with a charity, Give Directly, during the pandemic, Propel distributed $180 million to randomly selected app users, offering them $1,000 each. It also moved into advocacy, adding a feature that lets users ask their members of Congress to extend the temporary child tax credit expansion. The app now offers an account that can receive paychecks and other government benefits, prompted in part by the difficulties that the poorest households experienced in collecting stimulus checks, because they often lack stable bank accounts.However they make ends meet, Mr. Chen said, poor people should know where they stand without having to buy a banana.“We pay hundreds of billions of dollars to fund these programs,” he said. “Why not make them work well?” More