Finance

Credit card interest rates and debt are at all-time highs.
Consumers used their cards to make more purchases amid pandemic-era inflation.
With some exceptions, there’s currently no federal cap on credit card interest.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced the Capping Credit Card Interest Rates Act in September. It would impose a maximum 18% interest rate.

Luis Alvarez | Digitalvision | Getty Images

Some lawmakers and regulators are calling for interest rate caps and lower fees on credit cards as debt levels march higher.
Total credit card debt topped $1 trillion in the second quarter of 2023 for the first time ever.

The average interest rate for all cardholders jumped to more than 21% in August, the highest on record, according to Federal Reserve data. Some cards — retail store cards, in particular — charge more than 30%, said Ted Rossman, industry analyst for CreditCards.com.
More from Personal Finance:New Labor Department rules will likely target rollovers to IRAsWhat strikers need to know about unemployment benefits77-year-old widow lost $661,000 in a common tech scam
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced a bill in September to cap credit card rates — also known as the annual percentage rate, or APR — at 18%, citing “higher financial burdens” shouldered by working people.
The legislation, the Capping Credit Card Interest Rates Act, would also aim to prevent card companies from raising other fees to evade a cap.
Meanwhile, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau proposed a rule earlier this year to slash fees for late credit card payments. One prong of the rule would lower fees for a missed payment to $8 from as much as $41.

In June, four senators — Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; Roger Marshall, R-Kan.; J.D. Vance, R-Ohio; and Peter Welch, D-Vt. — introduced the Credit Card Competition Act. That act aims to reduce merchant card transaction fees that may get passed on to consumers.

“I think some of the [political] lines are starting to blur a little bit, at least on credit card issues,” Rossman said.
However, it’s unclear if these measures will succeed.
For example, Democrats are “likely to embrace” Hawley’s bill since progressives have long favored a federal interest rate cap, Jaret Seiberg, analyst at Cowen Washington Research Group, wrote in a recent research note. But it likely doesn’t have enough support to overcome a filibuster in the Senate and is almost a nonstarter in the Republican-controlled House, he said.
“We do not see a path forward for legislation to cap credit card interest rates,” Seiberg said.
The CFPB is also embroiled in a legal fight before the Supreme Court that, depending on the outcome, has the potential to erase all agency rulemakings from the books.  

There’s virtually no federal cap on card rates

Americans have leaned more on credit cards to pay their bills as pandemic-era inflation raised prices on food, housing and other consumer items at the fastest pace in four decades.
Credit cards are the “most prevalent form of household debt,” and their use continues to spread, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. There are 70 million more credit card accounts open now than in 2019, it said.
Rates have moved upward as the Federal Reserve has raised its benchmark interest rate to reduce inflation.
Credit card interest rates have predominantly remained below 36% due to “self-restraint” by banks, though that’s still “extremely high” for a credit card, said Lauren Saunders, associate director at the National Consumer Law Center.
However, current federal law generally doesn’t impose a ceiling on rates, she said.

I think some of the [political] lines are starting to blur a little bit, at least on credit card issues.

Ted Rossman
industry analyst for CreditCards.com

There are some exceptions: The Military Lending Act caps interest for active duty servicemembers and dependents at 36% for consumer credit. Federally chartered credit unions have an 18% limit.  
Past legislative proposals have also sought to slash interest rates. For example, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., introduced a measure in 2019 that would have capped rates at 15%.
Reps. Jesús “Chuy” García, D-Ill., and Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., proposed a 36% cap on consumer loans in 2021. Grothman plans to reintroduce the legislation next year, his office said.
“The 36% interest rate cap for active-duty servicemembers and their families has proven to be a highly effective measure in providing protection against predatory lending practices,” Grothman said in an email. “Why should we not extend these same protections to veterans and all Americans?”
The financial services industry remains largely opposed to imposing a ceiling.
Eight trade groups representing lenders such as banks and credit unions wrote a letter to Sen. Hawley in September, stating that his proposed cap would have adverse effects including restricting the availability of credit and eliminating or reducing popular card features such as cash back rewards.
Interest income accounts for 80% of company profits on credit cards, according to a 2022 study published by the Federal Reserve.

How to reduce your personal card rate to 0%

 Rossman’s general advice to consumers: Make your personal credit card rate 0%.
That means paying your bill in full and on time each month. Such customers don’t get charged interest, while those who carry a balance from month to month generally accrue interest charges.
That advice wouldn’t change, even if the rate were capped at 15% or 18%, for example, he said.
“[Such rates] would be better, but no picnic in my estimation,” Rossman said.

The average credit card balance is almost $6,000, according to TransUnion.
At 18% interest, cardholders with an average balance who make only the minimum monthly payment would be in debt for 206 months and make $7,575 in total interest expenses, according to Rossman. The latter figure doesn’t include payments toward principal.
“Minimum-payment math is brutal,” he said. “Your debt can drag on for decades.”
Join CNBC’s Financial Advisor Summit on Oct. 12, where we’ll talk with top advisors, investors, market experts, technologists and economists about what advisors can do now to position their clients for the best possible outcomes as we head into the last quarter of 2023 and face the unknown in 2024. Learn more and get your ticket today. More

A pedestrian walks past a display of Skechers shoes.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Check out the companies making headlines in midday trading.
Skechers — The shoe company gained 1.6% after UBS reiterated its buy rating on shares. UBS said Skechers’ brand and products “continue to resonate with global customers.”

Palantir Technologies — Shares of Palantir Technologies gained more than 1% after the data analytics and software company won a $250 million contract with the U.S. Army, working to develop artificial intelligence and machine-learning capabilities through 2026.
PepsiCo — The beverage giant gained nearly 2% after posting a third-quarter earnings beat Tuesday. The company reported an adjusted $2.25 per share on $23.45 billion in revenue, while analysts polled by LSEG, formerly known as Refinitiv, forecast earnings of $2.15 per share and revenue of $23.39 billion.
Solar companies — Shares of solar companies rallied Tuesday, putting the Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) on pace for its best day since March 21. SolarEdge added 4.8% and First Solar rose 5.4%. Sustainability-focused real estate investment trust Hannon Armstrong advanced 9.8%, bolstered by Baird saying the stock could have 81% upside.
Electronic Arts — Shares of the video game publisher rose 2.8% after Bank of America upgraded Electronic Arts to buy from neutral. The investment firm said the rebrand of EA’s FIFA franchise is going well, creating upside for the stock.
Defense stocks — L3Harris Technologies and Northrop Grumman both pulled back greater than 1% Tuesday. The defense and aerospace companies rose Monday after the Israel-Hamas war began over the weekend. 

Rivian — Shares of the electric vehicle manufacturer rose 4.5% after UBS upgraded the stock to buy from neutral. Analyst Joseph Spak said a recent sell-off has opened up an attractive entry point for investors.
Truist Financial — Shares jumped more than 6%. Late Monday, Semafor, citing people familiar, reported that Truist is in talks to sell its insurance brokerage business to private equity firm Stone Point in a $10 billion deal.
Block — Shares added 5.2% after Bank of America reiterated its buy rating on the payments stock. Analyst Jason Kupferberg cited the stock’s currently cheap valuation and strong fundamentals as catalysts for potential upside.
Akero Therapeutics — Shares of the biotechnology company tumbled 62.6% after its cirrhosis drug efruxifermin failed to meet a primary benchmark during its Phase 2B study.
Unity Software — The video game software company added nearly 1.1%. Late Monday, the company announced that John Riccitiello is retiring as CEO of Unity and will no longer be on its board. The move follows a controversial pricing change Unity announced in September. James Whitehurst will become Unity’s interim CEO.
Arm Holdings — Shares added 2.7% a day after several bullish calls on the stock. Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan were among the firms that initiated coverage of Arm Holdings with buy ratings Monday. The firms were positive on the semiconductor’s revenue growth.
Ameris Bancorp — Shares of Ameris rose 2.3% after D.A. Davidson upgraded the stock to buy from neutral. The firm said capital levels are healthy and appear well-shielded from unrealized losses tied to rising rates. D.A. Davidson also hiked its price target by $1 to $44 per share, implying about 15% upside from Monday’s close.
— CNBC’s Pia Singh, Tanaya Macheel, Jesse Pound, Michelle Fox, Lisa Kailai Han and Samantha Subin contributed reporting. More

“Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production,” Adam Smith pointed out. But his “perfectly self-evident” maxim has never held much sway in China. Earlier this year the country’s statisticians revealed that household consumption accounted for only 37% of China’s gdp in 2022, its lowest since 2014.Although removing strict covid-19 controls should have helped lift that percentage a bit, improvements in Chinese data analysis could lift it rather more. China’s headline statistics may understate both household income and consumption. Look closer and both appear higher than often reported—and both have risen faster.For almost two decades, Chinese policymakers have sought to “rebalance” the economy from exports and investment towards spending on more immediate gratifications. “We will work to restore and expand consumption…and increase personal income through multiple channels,” the finance ministry declared in this year’s budget, for example. Yet progress has been slow. In recent years, the imf has graded China’s efforts on a colour-coded “rebalancing scorecard”. The latest card, published in February, was mostly red.Advocates of rebalancing typically identify two problems. First, Chinese households save a lot of their income; second, their income is too small a slice of the national cake. The second problem features prominently in the arguments of Michael Pettis, an influential professor at Peking University. In the West, he has noted, household income typically represents 70-80% of gdp. In China, by contrast, it is only 55%. Rebalancing, he has argued, will necessarily involve shifting wealth and therefore power to ordinary people.Indeed, some analysts now wonder if Xi Jinping, China’s leader, has soured on the goal altogether. For him, the end and purpose of Chinese production is not limited to consumption—it includes aims like making China a resilient power, less dependent on “chokehold” technologies dominated by the West. As a young man, he was “repulsed by the all-encompassing commercialisation of Chinese society”, according to the leaked account of a professor who knew him in the 1970s and 1980s.But although Mr Xi is no fervent champion of rebalancing, his scorecard may be better than commonly thought. Economists have long believed that China’s figures understate household earning and spending. Surveys probably fail to capture the unreported “grey” income of the wealthy. And the national accounts probably still underestimate the implicit “rent” that homeowners pay themselves when they live in property they own.Less well known are the struggles of China’s statisticians to account for goods and services that governments provide to individuals at little or no cost. These transfers include education and health care, such as reimbursements for medicines. They also encompass cultural amenities and subsidised food. Zhu Hongshen of the University of Virginia has highlighted community canteens, often housed in state-owned buildings but operated by private contractors, which provide tasty dishes, such as oyster mushroom or spicy cucumber, at heavily discounted prices.According to international standards, these goodies should appear in the official statistics as “social transfers in kind” (sometimes abbreviated to stik). They can then be added to household income and consumption to provide a fuller “adjusted” picture. “In principle, social transfers should be included in a complete definition of income”, argued an international team of experts known as the Canberra Group in 2001, although they recognised it is not straightforward to do in practice.image: The EconomistChina in particular has struggled. In the past, it has not reported them cleanly or separately, shovelling them into other parts of the national accounts, including government consumption. If these transfers are ignored, then the disposable income of China’s households was only 62% of national income in 2020 (and as low as 56% in 2010). This seems strikingly low, as Mr Pettis has argued. But that is partly because of everything it leaves out. If social transfers in kind are also stripped out of the disposable income of other countries, their numbers look more like China’s. The figure for the euro area would be less than 64% in 2020 (see chart 1). By this measure, a dozen European countries had a smaller income share than China.Fortunately, China’s statisticians can now do better. In the past few years, they have begun publishing figures for social transfers in kind in their annual statistical yearbooks, Mr Zhu has pointed out. They amounted to 6.8trn yuan ($1trn, or almost 7% of national income) in 2020, larger, as a share of gdp, than America’s. That has allowed China’s National Bureau of Statistics to publish an “adjusted” figure for disposable income that makes international comparisons with oecd countries easier.image: The EconomistAdding these social transfers in kind raises China’s share of household income to 69% of national income, placing it near the bottom of the pack, but not at the very bottom. Moreover, since they have grown faster than the economy over the past decade, they make Mr Xi’s rebalancing record more promising. Household consumption, including these transfers, increased from 39% of gdp in 2010 to 45% in 2019 before the pandemic struck (see chart 2).These revisions do make government consumption look weaker. And China’s social transfers in kind, as a share of national income, are still not high compared with the oecd average. There is thus scope to raise them. If Mr Xi objects to the commercialisation of Chinese society or idleness-breeding cash handouts, the state could instead provide more of the things that he thinks his citizens should be consuming. That would be a way for Mr Xi to rebalance towards consumption without reconciling himself to consumerism. ■ More

The National Association of Home Builders, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National Association of Realtors wrote to the Fed “to convey profound concern” about the industry.
The groups ask the Fed not to “contemplate further rate hikes” and not to actively sell its holdings of mortgage securities.

New homes under construction in Miami, Florida, Sept. 22, 2023.
Joe Raedle | Getty Images

Top real estate and banking officials are calling on the Federal Reserve to stop raising interest rates as the industry suffers through surging housing costs and a “historic shortage” of available homes for sale.
In a letter Monday addressed to the Fed Board of Governors and Chair Jerome Powell, the officials voiced their worries about the direction of monetary policy and the impact it is having on the beleaguered real estate market.

The National Association of Home Builders, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National Association of Realtors said they wrote the letter “to convey profound concern sharedamong our collective memberships that ongoing market uncertainty about the Fed’s rate path is contributing to recent interest rate hikes and volatility.”
The groups ask the Fed not to “contemplate further rate hikes” and not to actively sell its holdings of mortgage securities at least until the housing market has stabilized.
“We urge the Fed to take these simple steps to ensure that this sector does not precipitate the hard landing the Fed has tried so hard to avoid,” the group said.
The letter comes as the Fed is weighing how it should proceed with monetary policy after raising its key borrowing rate 11 times since March 2022.

In recent days, several officials have noted that the central bank could be in a position to hold off on further increases as it assesses the impact the previous ones have had on various parts of the economy. However, there appears to be little appetite for easing, with the benchmark fed funds rate now pegged in a range between 5.25%-5.5%, its highest in some 22 years.

At the same time, the housing market is suffering through constrained inventory levels, prices that have jumped nearly 30% since the early days of the Covid pandemic and sales volumes that are off more than 15% from a year ago.
The letter notes that the rate hikes have “exacerbated housing affordability and created additional disruptions for a real estate market that is already straining to adjust to a dramatic pullback in both mortgage origination and home sale volume. These market challenges occur amidst a historic shortage of attainable housing.”
At recent meetings, Powell has acknowledged dislocations in the housing market. During his July news conference, the chair noted “this will take some time to work through. Hopefully, more supply comes on line.”
The average 30-year mortgage rate is now just shy of 8%, according to Bankrate, while the average home price has climbed to $407,100, with available inventory at the equivalent of 3.3 months. NAR officials estimate that inventory would need to double to bring down prices.
“The speed and magnitude of these rate increases, and resulting dislocation in our industry, is painful and unprecedented in the absence of larger economic turmoil,” the letter said.
The groups also point out that spreads between the 30-year mortgage rate and the 10-year Treasury yield are at historically high levels, while shelter costs are a principal driver for increases in the consumer price index inflation gauge.
As part of an effort to reduce its bond holdings, the Fed has reduced its mortgage holdings by nearly $230 billion since June 2022. However, it has done so through passively allowing maturing bonds to roll off its balance sheet, rather than reinvesting. There has been some concern that the Fed might get more aggressive and start actively selling its mortgage-backed securities holdings into the market, though no plans to do so have been announced. More

Paul Tudor Jones said it’s an extremely tough time to be an investor in risk assets amid escalating geopolitical tensions and the dire fiscal position in the U.S.
The founder and chief investment officer of Tudor Investment said the Israel-Hamas war brought on a challenging geopolitical environment, which would create a significant risk-off market environment.
Also, he said, a surge in interest rates has deteriorated the fiscal health of the U.S. as the country continues to take on more debt.

Paul Tudor Jones speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 21, 2020.
Adam Galica | CNBC

Billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones said Tuesday it’s an extremely tough time to be an investor in risk assets amid escalating geopolitical tensions and the dire fiscal position in the U.S.
“It’s a really challenging time to want to be an equity investor and in U.S. stocks right now,” Jones said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “You’ve got the geopolitical uncertainty… the United States is probably in its weakest fiscal position since certainly World War II with debt-to-GDP at 122%.”

The high-profile investor said the Israel-Hamas war brought on the most threatening and challenging geopolitical environment, which would create a significant risk-off market environment. Meanwhile, a surge in interest rates has deteriorated the fiscal health of the U.S. as the country continues to take on more debt.
“As interest costs go up in the United States, you get in this vicious circle, where higher interest rates cause higher funding costs, cause higher debt issuance, which cause further bond liquidation, which cause higher rates, which put us in an untenable fiscal position,” Jones said.
Jones is founder and chief investment officer of Tudor Investment. He shot to fame after he predicted and profited from the 1987 stock market crash.
He said he would personally wait for a resolution and evaluate the potential impact of the Israel-Hamas conflict before he jumps into risk assets again. Jones said he hasn’t ruled out the possibility of a nuclear war.
“From a personal standpoint, would I be investing in risk assets now and stocks until I saw what the resolution was with Israel, Iran?” Jones said. “Israel is going to respond in some way, shape or form. The determination of whether Iran was actually responsible is enormous because again, it has the possibility to really escalate into something terrible.”
Jones is also the chairman of nonprofit Just Capital, which ranks public U.S. companies based on social and environmental metrics. More

Palantir headquarters in Palo Alto, California, May 10, 2023.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Check out the companies making headlines in premarket trading.
Palantir Technologies — Shares of the data analytics company added 2.3% on news that the U.S. Army awarded the company a $250 million contract to test and develop artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Unity Software — The game engine stock surged nearly 6% after the company said CEO John Riccitiello would retire. Unity said James M. Whitehurst would assume the interim chief role.
Rivian Automotive — Shares of the electric truck company rose 3% in premarket trading after UBS upgraded Rivian to buy from neutral. The investment firm said Rivian’s fundamentals are improving and that the stock has upside after a recent $1.5 billion capital raise sparked a sell-off.
PepsiCo — Shares of the beverage giant added roughly 1% after a third-quarter earnings beat. The company reported an adjusted $2.25 per share on $23.45 billion in revenue, while analysts polled by LSEG forecast an adjusted $2.15 and $23.39 billion.
Ameris Bancorp — Shares rose about 1% after DA Davidson upgraded Ameris Bancorp to buy from neutral, saying the company is “uniquely insulated” from unrealized losses connected to higher interest rates.
Arm Holdings — The semiconductor stock climbed about 2% a day after several analysts initiated bullish coverage of the stock, including JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs.

Akero Therapeutics — The biotech company’s shares plummeted more than 63% after it reported initial trial data related to a Phase 2B study of cirrhosis drug efruxifermin.
— CNBC’s Jesse Pound and Sarah Min contributed reporting. More

Fast Money Podcast
Full Episodes

The draw of bargains may be fading.
As three of the nation’s biggest retailers kick off a key sales week, former Walmart U.S. CEO Bill Simon warns consumers are starting to buckle for the first time in a decade.

He’s blaming a list of headwinds weighing on consumers including inflation, higher interest rates, federal budget wrangling, polarized politics and student loan repayments — and now new global tensions connected to violence in Israel.
“That sort of pileup wears on the consumer and makes them wary,” the former Walmart U.S. CEO told CNBC’s “Fast Money” on Monday. “For the first time in a long time, there’s a reason for the consumer to pause.”
The timing comes as Amazon begins its two-day Prime Big Deal Days sale on Tuesday. Walmart and Target are trying to compete with their own sales events to get an early jump on the holiday- shopping season.
Simon observes the retailers have a glaring thing in common: The bargains are not as deep.

‘You’re not real proud of your price point’

“They usually say 50-inch TV [is] $199 or something like that. And now, they say 50-inch TV [is] 40% off,” said Simon. “You use percentages when you’re not real proud of your price point. I think you’ve got inflation pushing the relative price points up.”

Shares of Amazon, Walmart and Target are under pressure over the past two months. Target is performing the worst of the three — off 19%.
Simon, who sits on the Darden Restaurants and HanesBrands boards, believes Walmart does have a big advantage over its competitors right now.
“It’s solely because of the food business,” Simon said. “They’re going to have both the eyeballs and the food traffic to probably have a better Christmas than maybe their competitors.”
Disclaimer More

On the morning of October 9th the National Bureau of Economic Research circulated a working paper to economists around the world entitled “Why Women Won”. In the paper, Claudia Goldin of Harvard University documents how women achieved equal rights in American workplaces and families. Rather fittingly, a few hours later, Ms Goldin was announced as the winner of this year’s economics Nobel prize for advancing “our understanding of women’s labour-market outcomes”.Having been the first woman to be granted tenure at Harvard’s economics department, Ms Goldin is now the third woman to have won the subject’s Nobel prize. Taken together, her research provides a comprehensive history of gender labour-market inequality over the past 200 years. In telling this history, she has overturned a number of assumptions about both historical gender relations and what is required to achieve greater equality in the present day.Before Ms Goldin’s work, economists had thought that economic growth led to a more level playing field. In fact, Ms Goldin has shown, the Industrial Revolution drove married women out of the labour force, as production moved from home to factory. In research published in 1990 she demonstrated that it was only in the 20th century, when service-sector jobs proliferated and high-school education developed, that the more familiar pattern emerged. The relationship between the size of Western economies and female-labour-force participation is U-shaped—a classic Goldin result.Ms Goldin’s research has busted other myths, too. By employing time-use surveys and industrial data she has painstakingly filled in gaps in the historical record about women’s wages and employment. Straightforward statistics, such as the female employment rate, were mismeasured because women who, say, worked on a family farm were simply recorded as “wife”. For example, Ms Goldin found that the employment rate for white married women was 12.5% in 1890, nearly five times greater than previously thought.Her calculations also showed that the gender wage gap narrowed in bursts. First, a drop from 1820 to 1850, then another from 1890 to 1930 and finally a collapse, from 40% in 1980 to 20% in 2005. What drove these bursts? The initial two came well before the equal-pay movement and were caused by changes in the labour market: first, during the Industrial Revolution; second, during a surge in white-collar employment for occupations like clerical work.For the third and most substantial drop, in the late 20th century, Ms Goldin emphasised the role of expectations. If a young woman has more control over when and whether she will have a child, and more certainty about what types of jobs will be available, she can make more informed choices about the future and change her behaviour accordingly, such as by staying in school for longer. In work published in 2002 Ms Goldin and Lawrence Katz, her colleague and husband, detailed the example of the contraceptive pill, which was approved in 1960, and allowed women to have greater say over when and whether to have children. Between 1967 and 1979 the share of 20- and 21-year-old women who expected to be employed at the age of 35 jumped from 35% to 80%.Expectations also matter for employers. Although the pay gap narrowed in the early 20th century, the portion of the gap that was driven by discrimination, rather than occupation, grew markedly. One important factor, according to Ms Goldin, was a change in how people were paid. Wages used to be based on contracts tied to tangible output—how many clothes were knitted, for instance. But after industrialisation, they were increasingly paid on a periodic basis, in part because measuring an individual’s output became trickier. As a result, other more ambiguous factors grew in importance, such as expectations of how long a worker would stay on the job. This penalised women, who were expected to quit when they had children.Since around 2005 the wage gap has hardly budged. Here Ms Goldin’s work questions popular narratives that continue to blame wage discrimination. Instead, in a book published in 2021, called “Career and Family: Women’s Century-Long Journey Toward Equity”, Ms Goldin blames “greedy” jobs, such as being a lawyer or consultant, which offer increasing returns to long (and uncertain) hours.She explains how such work interacts with the so-called parenthood penalty. Women spend more time raising children, which is why the gender pay gap tends to open up right after the first child arrives. The gap continues to widen even for women and men with the same education and in the same profession. Work by Ms Goldin in 2014 finds that the gender earnings gap within jobs has grown to be twice as important as the gap caused by men and women holding different jobs.Ms Goldin’s research holds lessons for economists and policymakers. For the former group, it shows the importance of history. Her first book was about urban slavery in America’s South during the mid-1800s. In other well-known work, with Mr Katz, she has shown how the relationship between tech and education can explain inequality across the 20th century. Before Ms Goldin, many academics considered questions about historical gender pay gaps unanswerable owing to a paucity of data. She has demonstrated—again and again—that digging through historical archives allows researchers to credibly answer big questions previously thought beyond their reach.For policymakers, her research shows that fixes for gender inequality vary depending on time and place. In early 20th-century America, firms barred married women from obtaining or retaining employment. A policy response came with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned such behaviour. Today, wage gaps persist because of greedy jobs and parental norms, rather than because of employer discrimination. In the past, Ms Goldin has suggested more flexibility in the workplace could be a solution. Perhaps working out how to achieve that will be her next act. ■ More