Biden, Joseph R Jr

More stories

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Biden to Travel to Minnesota to Highlight Rural Investments

    by

    The president’s push to focus attention on the domestic economy comes as his administration has been dealing with events overseas after the terrorist attacks in Israel.The White House on Wednesday will announce more than $5 billion in funding for agriculture, broadband and clean energy needs in sparsely populated parts of the country as President Biden travels to Minnesota to kick off an administration-wide tour of rural communities.The president’s efforts to focus attention on the domestic economy ahead of next year’s campaign come after three weeks in which his administration has been seized by events overseas following the terrorist attacks in Israel and the state’s subsequent military action in Gaza.The trip will take place as Mr. Biden is urging Congress to quickly pass a $105 billion funding package that includes emergency aid to Israel and Ukraine, two conflicts he has described as threats to democracy around the globe.But the president and his aides are well aware that his hopes for a second term are likely to be determined closer to home. Rural voters like the ones he will address at a corn, soybean and hog farm south of Minneapolis are increasingly voting Republican. A recent poll showed that most voters had heard little or nothing about a health care and clean energy law that is the cornerstone of Mr. Biden’s economic agenda. And the president even faces a challenge within his own party, from Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota, who announced his long-shot presidential bid last week.Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, declined on Tuesday to speak about campaign issues, citing the Hatch Act, which limits political activity by federal officials, but said that Mr. Biden “loves Minnesota.” Administration officials have said Mr. Biden’s trip was planned before Mr. Phillips announced his candidacy.The White House has called the next two weeks of events the “Investing in Rural America Event Series.” It includes more than a dozen trips by Mr. Biden as well as cabinet secretaries and other senior administration officials. The White House said in a statement that the tour would highlight federal investments that “are bringing new revenue to farms, increased economic development in rural towns and communities, and more opportunity throughout the country.”Mr. Biden will be joined on Wednesday by Tom Vilsack, the agriculture secretary. Against the backdrop of a family farm that uses techniques to make crops more resilient to climate change, they will announce $1.7 billion for farmers nationwide to adopt so-called climate-smart agriculture practices.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will join President Biden in Minnesota and later travel to Indiana, Wyoming and Colorado.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesOther funding announcements include $1.1 billion in loans and grants to upgrade infrastructure in rural communities; $2 billion in investments as part of a program that helps rural governments work more closely with federal agencies on economic development projects; $274 million to expand high-speed internet infrastructure; and $145 million to expand access to wind, solar and other renewable energy, according to a White House fact sheet.“Young people in rural communities shouldn’t have to leave home to find opportunity,” Neera Tanden, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said Tuesday on a call with reporters.She said federal investments were creating “a pathway for the next generation to keep their roots in rural America.”Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, a Democrat, said he expected Mr. Biden to face serious headwinds in rural communities, in large part because of inflation levels.“It is a little challenging, there’s no denying, when prices go up,” Mr. Walz said. “The politics have gotten a little angrier. I think folks are feeling a little behind.”But Mr. Walz also praised Mr. Biden for spending time in rural communities. “Democrats need to show up,” he said.Kenan Fikri, the director of research at the Economic Innovation Group, a Washington think tank, said the Biden administration had made sizable investments over the past two and a half years in agriculture, broadband and other rural priorities.“The administration has a lot to show for its economic development efforts in rural communities,” he said, but “whether voters will credit Biden for a strong economic performance is another question.”Later in the week Mr. Vilsack will travel to Indiana, Wyoming and Colorado to speak with agricultural leaders and discuss land conservation. Deb Haaland, the interior secretary, will go to her home state of New Mexico to highlight water infrastructure investments.Energy Secretary Jennifer M. Granholm will be in Arizona to talk about the electricity grid and renewable energy investment in the rural Southwest.The veterans affairs secretary, Denis McDonough, plans to visit Iowa to discuss improving access to medical care for veterans in rural areas. Isabel Guzman, who leads the Small Business Administration, will travel to Georgia to talk about loans for rural small businesses.Miguel A. Cardona, the education secretary, will go to New Hampshire to promote how community colleges help students from rural areas. Xavier Becerra, the secretary of health and human services, will be in North Carolina to talk about health care access in rural areas. More

  • 175 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    A Push for Tech Hubs in Overlooked Places Picks 31 to Vie for Money

    by

    A new federal program will be a test of whether spreading funds outside of big cities will result in economic gains, or in inefficiencies.The Biden administration said on Monday that it had chosen 31 regions as potential recipients of federal money that would seek to fund innovation in parts of the country that government investment overlooked in the past.The announcement was the first phase of a program that aims to establish so-called tech hubs around the country across a variety of cutting-edge industries, like quantum computing, precision medicine and clean energy. In the coming months, the regions will compete for a share of $500 million, with roughly five to 10 of the projects receiving up to about $75 million each, the administration said.The program will test a central idea of a bipartisan bill that lawmakers passed last year: that science and technology funding should not just be concentrated in Silicon Valley and a few thriving coastal regions but flow to parts of the country that are less populated or have historically received less government funding.Proponents of the program say these investments can tap into pools of workers and economic resources that are not reaching their full potential, and improve the American economy as well as its technological abilities.But it remains to be seen if dispatching money to more remote places, which struggle with issues like an outflow of young workers, will ultimately be the most efficient way to use government funding to promote technological gains.The 31 finalists were chosen from nearly 400 applicants, the Commerce Department said. They include proposals to manufacture semiconductors in New York and Oregon, design autonomous systems for transportation and agriculture in Oklahoma, research biotechnology in Indiana and process critical minerals in Missouri.In Washington on Monday, President Biden said these tech hubs would bring together private industry, educational institutions, state and local governments, tribes, and organized labor to produce “transformational” research.“We’re doing this from coast to coast, and in the heartland and red states and blue states, small towns, cities of all sizes,” Mr. Biden added. “All this is part of my strategy to invest in America and invest in Americans.”Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said in an interview on Monday that the tech hub program, which he had devised with Senator Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, had helped to secure bipartisan support for the CHIPS and Science Act last year.The legislation included $200 billion for basic scientific research, and more than $75 billion in grants and tax credits for semiconductor companies. It aimed to lower the country’s dependence on foreign manufacturers of computer chips and other critical technology.Mr. Schumer said “it was a very big selling point” for the overall bill that the funding was not just going to “three or four cities in blue states.”“There was such divisiveness in the country, the coasts and non-coasts, and a lot of it was because all these new tech and high-end industries were locating on the coasts,” he said. “And so we crafted the tech hub program to be spread throughout the middle of America.”Mr. Schumer was touring Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse on Monday to celebrate the inclusion of two New York proposals, one focused on semiconductor manufacturing and the other on battery technology.“There’s a lot of talent here that’s not used,” he added.Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program, described the tech hub program as “a grand experiment” in industrial policy.Mr. Muro said the United States had seen the incredible strength of concentrating technology investments in a few key places like Silicon Valley, where companies in related businesses can benefit by clustering together. But those investment patterns have also resulted in tremendous imbalances in the country’s economy, where “only a few places are truly prospering and much talent and much innovation is left on the table,” he said.“This is a whole different map,” Mr. Muro said, adding, “I think we need to make some experiments and some of them will probably be great investments.”The announcements tried to balance several competing goals of the tech hubs, including whether to invest in as many regions as possible — or whether to concentrate spending in a few areas in hopes of engineering radical economic improvement in those areas. They also reflected the high interest in the program from regional officials and their representatives in Congress.The administration is also trying to do as much as possible with initial funding for the program that remains well below the maximum levels lawmakers set in the CHIPS bill. While that bill authorized Congress to fund a variety of programs, lawmakers still need to greenlight actual money for many of the tech hub investments, as well as other programs.Given those financial constraints, some supporters of the program said on Monday that they hoped administration officials would ultimately focus most of the money on a small set of the announced hubs. Ideally, “you’d be extremely narrow about who gets funding,” said John Lettieri, president and chief executive of the Economic Innovation Group, a Washington think tank. “The more narrow the better.”The later round of funding announcements, he added, “is where we have to be pretty ruthless about shielding the process from politics as much as possible.”Madeleine Ngo More

  • 88 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Tightens China’s Access to A.I. Chips

    by

    The further limits on shipments could cripple Beijing’s A.I. ambitions and dampen revenues for U.S. chip makers, analysts said.The Biden administration on Tuesday announced additional limits on the kinds of advanced semiconductors that American firms can sell to China, shoring up restrictions issued last October to limit China’s progress on artificial intelligence.The rules appear likely to bring to a halt most shipments of advanced semiconductors from the United States to Chinese data centers, which use them to produce models capable of artificial intelligence. More U.S. companies seeking to sell China advanced chips, or the machinery used to make them, will be required to notify the government of their plans, or obtain a special license.To prevent the risk that advanced U.S. chips travel to China through third countries, the United States will also require chip makers to obtain licenses to ship to dozens of other countries that are subject to U.S. arms embargoes.The Biden administration argues that China’s access to such advanced technology is dangerous because it could aid the country’s military in tasks like guiding hypersonic missiles, setting up advanced surveillance systems or cracking top-secret U.S. codes.But artificial intelligence also has commercial applications, and the tougher restrictions may affect Chinese companies that have been trying to develop A.I. chatbots like ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, or the internet giant Baidu, industry analysts said. In the longer run, the limits could also weaken China’s economy, given that A.I. is transforming industries ranging from retail to health care.The limits also appear likely to cut into the money that U.S. chip makers such as Nvidia, AMD and Intel earn from selling advanced chips to China. Some chip makers earn as much as a third of their revenue from Chinese buyers and spent recent months lobbying against tighter restrictions.U.S. officials said the rules would exempt chips that were purely for use in commercial applications, like smartphones, electric vehicles and gaming systems. Most of the rules will take effect in 30 days, though some will become effective sooner.In a statement, the Semiconductor Industry Association, which represents major chip makers, said it was evaluating the impact of the updated rules.“We recognize the need to protect national security and believe maintaining a healthy U.S. semiconductor industry is an essential component to achieving that goal,” the group said. “Overly broad, unilateral controls risk harming the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem without advancing national security as they encourage overseas customers to look elsewhere.” In a call with reporters on Monday, a senior administration official said that the United States had seen people try to work around the earlier rules, and that recent breakthroughs in generative A.I. had given regulators more insight into how the so-called large language models behind it were being developed and used.Gina M. Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, said the changes had been made “to ensure that these rules are as effective as possible.”Referring to the People’s Republic of China, she said, “The goal is the same goal that it’s always been, which is to limit P.R.C. access to advanced semiconductors that could fuel breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and sophisticated computers that are critical to P.R.C. military applications.”She added, “Controlling technology is more important than ever as it relates to national security.”The tougher rules could anger Chinese officials when the Biden administration is trying to improve relations and prepare for a potential meeting between President Biden and China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, in California next month.The Biden administration has been trying to counter China’s growing mastery of many cutting-edge technologies by pumping money into new chip factories in the United States. It has simultaneously been trying to set tough but narrow restrictions on exports of technology to China that could have military uses, while allowing other trade to flow freely. U.S. officials describe the strategy as protecting American technology with “a small yard and high fence.”But determining which technologies really pose a threat to national security has been a contentious task. Major semiconductor companies like Intel, Qualcomm and Nvidia have argued that overly restrictive trade bans can sap them of the revenue they need to invest in new plants and research facilities in the United States.Some critics say the limits could also fuel China’s efforts to develop alternative technologies, ultimately weakening U.S. influence globally.The changes announced Tuesday appear to have particularly significant implications for Nvidia, the biggest beneficiary of the artificial intelligence boom.In response to the Biden administration’s first major restrictions on artificial intelligence chips a year ago, Nvidia designed new chips, the A800 and H800, for the Chinese market that worked at slower speeds but could still be used by Chinese firms to train A.I. models. A senior administration official said the new rules would restrict those sales.In addition to those expanded restrictions, the United States will create a “gray list” that requires makers of certain less advanced chips to notify the government if they are selling them to China, Iran or other countries subject to a U.S. arms embargo.In a note to clients last week, Julian Evans-Pritchard, the head of China economics at the research firm Capital Economics, said the effects of the controls would become more apparent as non-Chinese companies rolled out more advanced versions of their current products and the amount of computing power needed to train A.I. models rose as their data sets grew larger.“The upshot is that China’s ability to reach the technological frontier in the development of large-scale A.I. models will be hampered by U.S. export controls,” Mr. Evans-Pritchard wrote. That could have broader implications for the Chinese economy, he added, since “we think A.I. has the potential to be a game changer for productivity growth over the next couple decades.” More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Scales Back Hopes for Ambitious Climate Trade Deal With Europe

    by

    A negotiating deadline is quickly approaching, and the United States has lowered its expectations for a groundbreaking trade deal.For the past two years, the United States and the European Union have been working toward a deal that would encourage trade in steel and aluminum made in more environmentally friendly ways to combat climate change.But longstanding differences on the way governments should treat trade and regulation have cropped up, preventing the allies from coming to a compromise. With an Oct. 31 deadline to reach a deal approaching, the United States has significantly narrowed its ambition for the pact, at least in its initial iteration.The outcome has been deeply disappointing for American negotiators, including Katherine Tai, the United States trade representative in charge of the talks, according to people familiar with the negotiations. In speeches last year, Ms. Tai described the potential deal as “historic” and “a paradigm-shifting model” that would reduce carbon produced by heavy industries, while also limiting unfair trade competition from countries like China, which has been pumping out cheap steel that is not manufactured in an environmentally friendly way.U.S. negotiators had envisioned setting up a club of nations committed to cleaner production, initially with Europe and later with other countries, that together would act to block dirtier steel, aluminum and other products from their markets. Steel and aluminum production is incredibly carbon intensive, with the industries together accounting for about a 10th of global carbon emissions. But Europeans raised a variety of objections to the approach, including arguing that it violated global trade rules for treating countries fairly.Now, the Biden administration is trying to salvage the talks by pushing for a narrower deal in the coming weeks. The more limited U.S. proposal currently includes an immediate agreement for countries to take steps to combat a flood of dirtier steel from countries like China, as well as a commitment to keep negotiating in the coming years for a framework that would discourage trade in products made with more carbon emissions, the people familiar with the negotiations said.Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, has been seeking a far-reaching deal with the Europe Union.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesThe agreement is expected to be a point of discussion at a summit planned for Oct. 20, when President Biden will meet the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, at the White House.The stakes are high: The United States is poised to bring back Trump-era tariffs on European steel and aluminum on Jan. 1, unless the sides reach an agreement, or American negotiators issue a special reprieve. Mr. Biden paused those tariffs for two years in 2021, when negotiations began with Europe.Restoring cooperation between the United States and Europe after years of rocky relations during the Trump presidency has been a key objective for Mr. Biden and his deputies.But the talks faced a basic obstacle: the United States and Europe have fundamental differences in how they are addressing climate change, trade and competition from China, and neither side is yet willing to significantly depart from its own policies.The Biden administration has largely dispensed with traditional trade negotiations focused on opening international markets, arguing that past trade deals that lowered global barriers to trade helped multinational corporations, rather than American workers, while supercharging the Chinese economy.Instead, the Biden administration has embraced tariffs, subsidies and trade arrangements that protect industries in the United States and allied countries, while blocking cheaper products made in China. It has done so in lock step with U.S. labor unions, which are opposed to removing tariffs and other policies that protect their industries.The European Union has criticized the American tariffs and subsidy programs as protectionist policies that threaten to undermine international trade rules.“This administration is trying to significantly retool the way we go about global economic engagement,” said Emily Benson, the director of Project on Trade and Technology at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. “What’s unclear is the degree to which our allies buy into that agenda.”For their part, European officials are putting their efforts into an ambitious new carbon pricing scheme, that would tax companies across a range of industries in Europe and elsewhere for the greenhouse gases emitted during manufacturing. European officials have urged the United States to adopt a similar approach but American officials argue such a system is not viable in the United States, where Congress would be unlikely to impose new carbon taxes on American companies.The two governments also differ in how to approach China, which makes more than half of the world’s steel, often by burning coal. American steel makers say their Chinese counterparts receive generous government subsidies that allow Chinese steel to be sold at artificially low prices, unfairly undercutting competitors.European officials have been more reluctant to target China specifically. While the E.U. government has begun to take a more skeptical look at Chinese exports, many European nations still regard the country more as a vital business partner than a geopolitical rival.Given the close alignment between the United States and Europe on many issues, the history of trade negotiations between the governments is surprisingly bleak.The Obama administration pursued a trade deal with Europe that ultimately crumbled as a result of irreconcilable differences over regulation and agriculture. After lobbing both criticism and tariffs at Europe, the Trump administration tried for a more limited agreement, with similarly unimpressive results.The Biden administration successfully de-escalated some of those trade fights. But fundamental differences remain in how the United States and Europe view the role of government and regulation.“It’s incredibly complicated, largely because we have markedly different priorities,” said William Alan Reinsch, the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I can see a path but the path involves both sides making concessions that they really don’t want to make.”Miriam Garcia Ferrer, a spokeswoman for the European Commission, said the countries were “fully committed to achieving an ambitious outcome” by October.Valdis Dombrovskis, the European commissioner for trade, has warm relations with the American trade representative but that has not yet resulted in an agreement.Andy Wong/Associated PressThe European Union is seeking a permanent solution to U.S. tariffs and “re-establish normal and undistorted trans-Atlantic trade” while also driving decarbonization and addressing the challenge of global steel overproduction, Ms. Garcia Ferrer said.Sam Michel, a spokesperson for the U.S. trade representative, said that the Biden administration had “been fully committed to these negotiations over the last two years and we are hopeful both sides can reach an agreement that demonstrates the close partnership between the United States and the European Union.”People close to the talks say the outcome has been particularly disappointing given the close alignment and warm relations between Mr. Biden and Ms. von der Leyen, and Ms. Tai and her counterpart, Valdis Dombrovskis, the European commissioner for trade.Ms. Tai and Mr. Dombrovskis committed earlier this year to meeting every month. Mr. Dombrovskis, the former prime minister of Latvia, hosted Ms. Tai at a seaside dinner in the Latvian capital in June, and she brought him to the White House on July 4 to watch fireworks from the lawn.U.S. officials initially thought those meetings might mark a turning point for the negotiations. In a trip to Brussels in July, Ms. Tai told her counterparts that time was running out and that they needed to get something done.But that top-level commitment did not fuel momentum at lower levels of the bureaucracy, and progress fizzled as European negotiators left for summer holidays.The pace of talks has accelerated over the past month, but for a much more limited agreement.Jennifer Harris, a former senior director for international economics at the National Security Council who played a key role in starting negotiations, expressed optimism that progress could be made in the final days and weeks of the negotiations, especially given the upcoming meeting between Mr. Biden and Ms. von der Leyen.The talks now need “the kind of swift injection of tailwind that only leaders can provide,” she said. “I don’t think either leader is going to let this thing fail.” More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Strike Is a High-Stakes Gamble for Autoworkers and the Labor Movement

    by

    Experts on unions and the industry said the U.A.W. strike could accelerate a wave of worker actions, or stifle labor’s recent momentum.Since the start of the pandemic, labor unions have enjoyed something of a renaissance. They have made inroads into previously nonunion companies like Starbucks and Amazon, and won unusually strong contracts for hundreds of thousands of workers. Last year, public approval for unions reached its highest level since the Lyndon Johnson presidency.What unions haven’t had during that stretch is a true gut-check moment on a national scale. Strikes by railroad workers and UPS employees, which had the potential to rattle the U.S. economy, were averted at the last minute. The fallout from the continuing writers’ and actors’ strikes has been heavily concentrated in Southern California.The strike by the United Automobile Workers, whose members walked off the job at three plants on Friday, is shaping up to be such a test. A contract with substantial wage increases and other concessions from the three automakers could announce organized labor as an economic force to be reckoned with and accelerate a recent wave of organizing.But there are also real pitfalls. A prolonged strike could undermine the three established U.S. automakers — General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, which owns Chrysler, Jeep and Ram — and send the politically crucial Midwest into recession. If the union is seen as overreaching, or if it settles for a weak deal after a costly stoppage, public support could sour.“Right now, unions are cool,” said Michael Lotito, a lawyer at Littler Mendelson, a firm representing management.“But unions have a risk of not being very cool if you have five-month strike in L.A and an X-month strike in how many other states,” he added.If the stakes seem high for the U.A.W., that’s partly because the union’s new president, Shawn Fain, has gone out of his way to elevate them. During frequent video meetings with members before the strike, Mr. Fain has portrayed the negotiations as a broader struggle pitting ordinary workers against corporate titans.“I know that we’re on the right side in this battle,” he said in a recent video appearance. “It’s a battle of the working class against the rich, the haves versus the have-nots, the billionaire class against everybody else.”Mr. Fain’s framing of the contract campaign in class terms appears to be resonating with his members, thousands of whom have watched the online sessions.Shunte Sanders-Beasley, a U.A.W. member said, “If we can win back some of the concessions we took, I’m hoping that it’ll be a trickle-down effect.”Cydni Elledge for The New York TimesShunte Sanders-Beasley, a U.A.W. member in Michigan who started working at a Chrysler plant in Indiana in 1999, said she saw the fight similarly.“If you follow history, autoworkers tend to set the tone,” said Ms. Sanders-Beasley, who has served as vice president of her local and backed Mr. Fain’s campaign for the union’s presidency last year. “If we can win back some of the concessions we took, I’m hoping that it’ll be a trickle-down effect.”A successful autoworker strike in 1937, which led G.M. to recognize the U.A.W. for the first time, helped set in motion a wave of union organizing across a variety of industries like steel, oil, textiles and newspapers over the next few years.Labor activists agreed that the current strike could also reverberate across other industries, where workers appear to be paying close attention to the labor actions of the past year. “In organizing meetings, they say, ‘If they can do it, we can do it,’” said Jaz Brisack, an organizer with Workers United who had played a key role in the Starbucks campaign.But the flip side is that the strike could inflict collateral damage that creates frustration and hardship among tens of thousands of nonunion workers and their communities.“The small and medium-sized manufacturers across the country that make up the automotive sector’s integrated supply chain will feel the brunt of this work stoppage, whether they are a union shop or not,” Jay Timmons, the chief executive of the National Association of Manufacturers, said in a statement Friday.Higher wages and gains for rank-and-file workers can be good for the economy. But some argue that Mr. Fain’s and other labor leaders’ aggressive demands could discourage businesses from investing in the United States or render them uncompetitive with foreign rivals.“Mr. Fain has to think about this, too — the long-term financial viability of these three companies,” said John Drake, vice president of transportation, infrastructure and supply chain policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.Even those who welcome the union’s aggressive stance say it is fraught with risk. Gene Bruskin, a longtime union official who helped workers at a Smithfield meat-processing plant in North Carolina achieve, in 2008, one of the biggest organizing victories in decades, said a long strike could disillusion workers if the union came up short on key demands.“If the U.A.W. fails to make any significant gains, particularly on the two-tier stuff, their future could be seriously harmed,” said Mr. Bruskin, referring to a system in which newer workers are paid far less than veteran workers who perform similar jobs.Mr. Bruskin also worried that the union could effectively win the battle and lose the war if the auto companies respond by shifting more production to Mexico, where they already have a significant presence. Shawn Fain, president of the U.A.W., said, “It’s a battle of the working class against the rich, the haves versus the have-nots, the billionaire class against everybody else.”Cydni Elledge for The New York TimesThe tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies for domestic production of electric vehicles that President Biden has helped secure should limit that shift and help keep manufacturing jobs at home. Many automakers are already locating new plants in the United States to take advantage of the funds.Still, Willy Shih, an expert on manufacturing at Harvard Business School, said the automakers could adjust their operations in ways that undercut the U.A.W. while continuing to produce cars domestically. Automation is one option, he said, as is locating new plants in lightly unionized Southern states.The Detroit automakers have created joint ventures with foreign battery makers outside the reach of the U.A.W.’s national contracts and have sought to locate some of those plants in states like Tennessee and Kentucky. The union is seeking to bring workers at those plants up to the same pay and labor standards that direct employees of the Big Three enjoy, but it has not succeeded so far.Given those threats, the union may feel justified in taking a more ambitious posture toward the automakers. The primary check on shifting work to other states will be the U.A.W.’s ability to organize new plants, especially in the South, where it has struggled to gain traction for years. Experts argued that the union would likely increase its chances of attracting members there if it could point to large concrete gains.“The answer is winning a strong contact here and using it to organize huge groups of autoworkers who are currently nonunion,” said Barry Eidlin, a sociologist at McGill University in Montreal who studies labor.And there are other ways in which being too cautious may be a bigger risk to the union than being too aggressive. Organizers point out that workers are often demoralized when union leaders talk tough and then quickly settle for a subpar deal.Critics of the previous U.A.W. administration accused it of doing just that before Mr. Fain took over this year. “We’d be trying to make sense of how certain things passed in the first place,” Shana Shaw, another longtime U.A.W. member who backed Mr. Fain, said of the concessionary contracts autoworkers were asked to accept over the years.Even Mr. Fain’s habit of framing the fight in broad class terms may prove to be a strategic advantage. A recent Gallup poll found that 75 percent of the public backed the autoworkers in the showdown, compared with 19 percent who were more sympathetic to the companies.The widespread public support suggests that the autoworkers may be operating in a different context from workers in another strike that famously contributed to a loss of power for labor: air traffic controllers’ unsuccessful fight against the Reagan administration in the early 1980s, after which private-sector employers appeared to become more comfortable firing and replacing striking employees.Dr. Eidlin said that while the air traffic controllers failed to court allies in the labor movement, “the fact that Fain and the U.A.W. are messaging more broadly, really trying to build that broad coalition, speaks to the possibility of a different outcome.” More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. National Debt Tops $33 Trillion for First Time

    by

    The fiscal milestone comes as Congress is facing a new spending fight with a government shutdown looming.America’s gross national debt exceeded $33 trillion for the first time on Monday, providing a stark reminder of the country’s shaky fiscal trajectory at a moment when Washington faces the prospect of a government shutdown this month amid another fight over federal spending.The Treasury Department noted the milestone in its daily report detailing the nation’s balance sheet. It came as Congress appeared to be faltering in its efforts to fund the government ahead of a Sept. 30 deadline. Unless Congress can pass a dozen appropriations bills or agree to a short-term extension of federal funding at existing levels, the United States will face its first government shutdown since 2019.Over the weekend, House Republicans considered a short-term proposal that would slash spending for most federal agencies and resurrect tough Trump-era border initiatives to extend funding through the end of October. But the plan had little hope of breaking the impasse on Capitol Hill, with Republicans still divided on their demands and Democrats unlikely to support whatever compromise they reach among themselves.The debate over the debt has grown louder this year, punctuated by an extended standoff over raising the nation’s borrowing cap.That fight ended with a bipartisan agreement to suspend the debt limit for two years and cut federal spending by $1.5 trillion over a decade by essentially freezing some funding that had been projected to increase next year and then limiting spending to 1 percent growth in 2025. But the debt is on track to top $50 trillion by the end of the decade, even after newly passed spending cuts are taken into account, as interest on the debt mounts and the cost of the nation’s social safety net programs keeps growing.But slowing the growth of the national debt continues to be daunting.Some federal spending programs that passed during the Biden administration are expected to be more costly than previously projected. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was previously estimated to cost about $400 billion over a decade, but according to estimates by the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model it could cost more than $1 trillion thanks to strong demand for the law’s generous clean energy tax credits.Pandemic-era relief programs are still costing the federal government money. The Internal Revenue Service said last week that claims for the Employee Retention Credit, a tax benefit that was originally projected to cost about $55 billion, have so far cost the federal government $230 billion. The I.R.S. is freezing the program because of fears about fraud and abuse.At the same time, several of President Biden’s attempts to raise more revenue through tax changes have been met with resistance.In late 2022, the I.R.S. delayed by one year a new tax policy that would require users of digital wallets and e-commerce platforms to start reporting small transactions to the agency. The policy was projected to raise about $8 billion in additional tax revenue over a decade.Last month, the I.R.S. delayed by two years a new provision that will stop high earners from being able to funnel extra money into their 401(k) retirement accounts. The agency described the delay as an “administrative transition period.”Meanwhile, lobbyists are pressing for loopholes in new taxes that have been enacted. The 15 percent corporate alternative minimum tax was devised to ensure that rich companies could no longer get away with paying single-digit tax rates because of creative use of deductions. However, many of these companies have been pushing the Treasury Department, which is currently writing the rules that will govern the tax, to create exceptions to preserve their most prized deductions. That tax is different from the global minimum tax that most countries, except the United States, are working to adopt.The pushback against efforts to raise revenue and cut spending has heightened the sense of alarm among budget watchdog groups that fear that a fiscal crisis is approaching.“As we have seen with recent growth in inflation and interest rates, the cost of debt can mount suddenly and rapidly,” said Michael A. Peterson, the chief executive of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which promotes fiscal restraint. “With more than $10 trillion of interest costs over the next decade, this compounding fiscal cycle will only continue to do damage to our kids and grandkids.”Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate continue to be divided on a path forward to avoid the near-term problem of a shutdown, and lawmakers have started pressing for leaders to begin focusing on a stopgap bill to keep the government operating past Sept. 30.But the red ink continues to mount.A Treasury Department report last week showed that the deficit — the gap between what the United States spends and what it collects through taxes and other revenue — was $1.5 trillion for the first 11 months of the fiscal year, a 61 percent increase from the same period a year ago.In an interview with CNBC on Monday, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said she was comfortable with the nation’s fiscal course because interest costs as a share of the economy remained manageable. However, she suggested that it was important to be mindful of future spending.“The president has proposed a series of measures that would reduce our deficits over time while investing in the economy,” Ms. Yellen said, “and this is something we need to do going forward.” More

  • 113 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Battle Over Electric Vehicles Is Central to Auto Strike

    by

    Carmakers are anxious to keep costs down as they ramp up electric vehicle manufacturing, while striking workers want to preserve jobs as the industry shifts to batteries.A battle between Detroit carmakers and the United Auto Workers union, which escalated on Friday with targeted strikes in three locations, is unfolding amid a once-in-a-century technological upheaval that poses huge risks for both the companies and the union.The strike has come as the traditional automakers invest billions to develop electric vehicles while still making most of their money from gasoline-driven cars. The negotiations will determine the balance of power between workers and management, possibly for years to come. That makes the strike as much a struggle for the industry’s future as it is about wages, benefits and working conditions.The established carmakers — General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis, which owns Chrysler, Jeep and Ram — are trying to defend their profits and their place in the market in the face of stiff competition from Tesla and foreign automakers. Some executives and analysts have characterized what is happening in the industry as the biggest technological transformation since Henry Ford’s moving assembly line started up at the beginning of the 20th century.Nearly 13,000 U.A.W. workers walked off the job at three plants in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri on Friday after talks between the unions and the companies in three separate negotiations failed to result in agreements before a Thursday deadline. Pay is one of the biggest sticking points: The union is demanding a 40 percent pay increase over four years but the automakers have offered roughly half as much.But the talks are about more than pay. Workers are trying to defend jobs as manufacturing shifts from internal combustion engines to batteries. Because they have fewer parts, electric cars can be made with fewer workers than gasoline vehicles. A favorable outcome for the U.A.W. would also give the union a strong calling card if, as some expect, it then tries to organize employees at Tesla and other nonunion carmakers like Hyundai, which is planning to manufacture electric vehicles at a massive new factory in Georgia.“The transition to E.V.s is dominating every bit of this discussion,” said John Casesa, senior managing director at the investment firm Guggenheim Partners who previously headed strategy at Ford Motor.“It’s unspoken,” Mr. Casesa added. “But really, it’s all about positioning the union to have a central role in the new electric industry.”Under pressure from government officials and changing consumer demand, Ford, G.M. and Stellantis are investing billions to retool their sprawling operations to build electric vehicles, which are critical to addressing climate change. But they are making little if any profit on those vehicles while Tesla, which dominates electric car sales, is profitable and growing fast.Ford said in July that its electric vehicle business would lose $4.5 billion this year. If the union got all the increases in pay, pensions and other benefits it is seeking, the company said, its workers’ total compensation would be twice as much as Tesla’s employees.Union demands would force Ford to scrap its investments in electric vehicles, Jim Farley, the company’s chief executive, said in an interview on Friday. “We want to actually have a conversation about a sustainable future,” he said, “not one that forces us to choose between going out of business and rewarding our workers.”Attendees at the Detroit Auto Show looking at a 2024 Chevy Silverado EV in Detroit this past week. Talk of the autoworkers’ strike loomed over the show.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesFor workers, the biggest concern is that electric vehicles have far fewer parts than gasoline models and will render many jobs obsolete. Plants that make mufflers, catalytic converters, fuel injectors and other components that electric cars don’t need will have to be overhauled or shut down.Many new battery and electric vehicle factories are springing up and could employ workers from the plants that have shut down. But automakers are building most aggressively in the South where labor laws are tilted against union organizers, rather than in the Midwest, where the U.A.W. has more clout. One of the union’s demands is that workers in the new factories be covered by the automakers’ national labor contracts — a demand that the automakers have said they can’t meet because those plants are owned by joint ventures. The union also wants to regain the right to strike to block plant shutdowns.“We are at the dawn of another industrial revolution and the way we’re going is the way we went in the last industrial revolution — a lot of profit for a few and misery and not good jobs for the many,” said Madeline Janis, executive director of Jobs to Move America, an advocacy group that works closely with the U.A.W. and other unions.“The U.A.W. is really taking a stand for communities across the country to make sure this transition benefits everybody,” Ms. Janis added.Automakers have been racking up record profits during the last decade, but they cannot afford to lose time from work stoppages in their race to compete with Tesla and foreign automakers.The three companies are already struggling to get their electric vehicle business going. A new G.M. battery factory in Ohio has been slow to produce batteries, delaying electric versions of the Chevrolet Silverado pickup and other vehicles. Ford this year had to suspend production of its electric F-150 Lightning in February after a battery caught fire in one of the pickups that was parked near the factory for a quality check. And Stellantis won’t even begin selling any fully electric vehicles in the United States until next year.Those problems and Tesla’s growing sales could put the union in a strong position to extract a good deal.On Thursday, in a sign that automakers are willing to go much further than they had previously, G.M. offered a 20 percent pay raise over four years. That is half of what the union is seeking but far more than workers received in recent contracts. President Biden on Friday strongly supported the union in remarks at the White House. The administration has been pouring billions into programs to promote electric vehicles and does not want a strike to delay a centerpiece of its climate policy.Despite all the money that automakers have made in recent years, their executives express a profound unease about the growth of electric vehicles, which account for 7 percent of the U.S. new car market so far this year and are on track to surpass sales of one million this year. Managers are acutely aware that traditional companies like theirs have a poor track record of retaining dominance after a big change in technology. Witness the way that Apple sidelined Nokia and Motorola as cellphones became smartphones.Auto company executives and most industry analysts underestimated how quickly electric vehicles would catch on and cannot confidently forecast how sales, which have been bumpy lately, will grow in the future. “I don’t think anyone can perfectly predict what the adoption will be,” Mary T. Barra, the chief executive of General Motors, said in an interview with The New York Times last month.Speaking to “CBS Mornings” on Friday, Ms. Barra said an excessive pay raise would undermine G.M.’s ability to continue producing vehicles with internal combustion engines while also developing electric vehicles. “This is a critical juncture where investing is very important,” she said.Still, unions and their supporters are unlikely to express much sympathy for auto executives. Ms. Barra and the leaders of Ford (Jim Farley) and Stellantis (Carlos Tavares) have gotten tens of millions of dollars in compensation packages in recent years. The companies’ shareholders have been rewarded with dividends and share buybacks.Unions “are not going to have a lot of patience for sob stories,” said Karl Brauer, executive analyst at iSeeCars.com, an online marketplace.Adjusted for inflation, wages for autoworkers in the United States have fallen 19 percent since 2008, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning research group.At the same time, union officials are aware of the changes in the industry and have said they do not want to handicap G.M., Ford and Stellantis as the companies try to recover ground they have lost to Tesla, which has aggressively resisted attempts to unionize its factories. The Detroit carmakers also face challengers like Rivian, a start-up that makes electric pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles in Illinois, as well as foreign-owned rivals like Mercedes-Benz and Toyota, whose U.S. factories, mostly in the South, are not unionized.“That’s the biggest challenge here,” Mr. Brauer added, “trying to commit to a long-term contract in an industry that is very uncertain and unpredictable over the next five years.”Union supporters say it would be wrong to blame workers if the traditional carmakers cannot compete with Tesla and other rivals.“If you look at the breakdown at what it costs to build an E.V., labor is a very small part of the equation. Batteries are the most,” Ms. Janis of Jobs to Move America said. “This idea that the U.A.W. is going to price Ford, G.M. and Stellantis out of the market is not true.”But other analysts said that a long work stoppage could help Tesla and foreign automakers gain ground on G.M., Ford and Stellantis.“If something happens to disrupt their business, does that give a leg up to the emerging electric vehicle makers?” said Steve Patton, who overseas the consulting firm EY’s work with auto companies. “Who stands to benefit if there is a protracted strike?” More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    U.A.W. Starts Strike Small, but Repercussions Could Prove Far-Reaching

    by

    Autoworkers walked off the job on Friday at three factories that produce some of the Detroit carmakers’ most popular vehicles, the opening salvos in what could become a protracted strike that hurts the U.S. economy and has an impact on the 2024 presidential election.Nearly 13,000 members of the United Auto Workers at plants in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri joined early Friday in what the union described as a targeted strike that could expand to more plants if its demands for pay raises of up to 40 percent and other gains were not met.The union’s four-year contracts with three automakers — General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis, which owns Chrysler, Jeep and Ram — expired Thursday, and the companies and the union remained far from striking new deals.The U.A.W.’s president, Shawn Fain, used sweeping language on Thursday to describe why his members were going on strike against all three automakers at the same time — something the union had never done in its nearly 90-year history.“This is our generation’s defining moment,” Mr. Fain, the union’s first leader elected directly by members, said in an online video. “The money is there, the cause is righteous, the world is watching, and the U.A.W. is ready to stand up.”The union and the companies did not negotiate on Friday, but the U.A.W. said it planned to resume bargaining on Saturday. President Biden dispatched two senior administration officials to Detroit on Friday to encourage the companies and union to reach agreements.At a Ford plant in Wayne, Mich., west of Detroit, strikers waved placards — one read, “Record Profits; Record Contracts” — and gave thumbs-up to honking vehicles. A metal sign on a chain-link fence read, “Absolutely NO foreign cars allowed.” The protesters were assigned to a six-hour shift on the picket line. If the strike continues, they will be called to one shift per week.While first and foremost a battle between autoworkers and automakers, the conflict could have far-reaching consequences. A lengthy strike would reduce the number of new cars available for sale, which could fuel inflation and force the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates high.The U.A.W.’s president, Shawn Fain, center, at the walkout early Friday at Ford Motor’s assembly plant in Wayne, Mich.Cydni Elledge for The New York TimesA strike also presents a quandary for Mr. Biden, who has called for rising incomes but must also be mindful of the strike’s economic impact and his goal to promote electric vehicles as a solution to climate change.Speaking at the White House on Friday, the president strongly supported the union. “Over the past decade, auto companies have seen record profits, including in the last few years, because of the extraordinary skill and sacrifices of U.A.W. workers,” he said. “But those record profits have not been shared fairly.”The U.A.W. says its pay demands roughly correspond to the increases in the compensation of the top executives at Ford, G.M. and Stellantis. The raises are also meant to help compensate workers for the ground they have lost to inflation and big concessions the union made to the automakers after the 2007-8 financial crisis, when G.M. and Chrysler were forced to restructure themselves in bankruptcy court.But auto executives say they already pay production workers substantially more than rivals, like Tesla and Toyota, whose U.S. workers are not unionized. The companies also contend that such big raises would undermine their efforts to develop electric vehicles and remain relevant as the industry makes a difficult and costly shift from gasoline cars and trucks to electric vehicles.If unions got all that they were asking for, “we would have to cancel our E.V. investments,” Jim Farley, the chief executive of Ford, said in an interview on Friday. Instead, Ford would need to concentrate on large sport utility vehicles and pickups that generate the most profit, he said.Ford, which employs the most union members, reported a profit of $1.9 billion in the second quarter, equal to 4 percent of its sales. Tesla made $2.7 billion in the same period, about 11 percent of its sales.Mr. Farley sounded pessimistic about the chances of agreeing on a contract soon. “They are not negotiating in good faith if they are proposing deals that they know are going to crater our investments,” he said.Mr. Fain’s decision to shut down just three factories is a departure for the union, which in previous strikes typically walked out of all the factories of a single automaker. By interrupting production of some of the most profitable vehicles, while allowing most plants to keep operating, the union hopes to inflict pain on the carmakers while allowing most of its members to continue collecting paychecks.But it may be difficult for the union to limit the damage to its members’ incomes. Ford told workers at a facility in Michigan, who were not on strike, to stay home Friday because of parts shortages caused by the strike. G.M. said it would probably lay off 2,000 workers at a factory in Kansas next week because of a lack of parts produced at the factory near St. Louis that is on strike.Fewer than 10 percent of the nearly 150,000 U.A.W. members at the three companies are on strike. Limited strikes could allow the union to maintain the pressure longer by preserving its strike fund of $825 million. The union will pay striking workers $500 a week and cover their health insurance premiums.Automakers have been earning record profits “because of the extraordinary skill and sacrifices of U.A.W. workers,” President Biden said at the White House on Friday.Anna Rose Layden for The New York TimesIn addition to the Ford plant in Michigan, which makes the Bronco and the Ranger pickup truck, and the G.M. plant in Wentzville, Mo., which makes the GMC Canyon and the Chevrolet Colorado, workers shut down a Stellantis complex in Toledo, Ohio, that makes the Jeep Gladiator and Jeep Wrangler. If no agreement is reached, the union is expected to target additional factories in weeks to come.The union is also seeking cost-of-living adjustments that would protect workers if inflation flares up again. And it wants to reinstate pensions that the union agreed to do away with for newer workers after the financial crisis, improved retiree benefits and shorter work hours. The union also wants to eliminate a wage system that starts new hires at much lower wages than the top U.A.W. pay of $32 an hour.As of Friday last week, the companies had offered to raise pay by around 14.5 percent to 20 percent over four years. Their offers include lump-sum payments to help offset the effects of inflation, and policy changes that would lift the pay of recent hires and temporary workers, who typically earn about a third less than veteran union members.In a last-minute attempt to keep assembly lines running, G.M. offered its employees a 20 percent raise late Thursday and said it was willing to pay cost-of-living adjustments to veteran workers. The 20 percent increase would be far more than employees had received in decades. But the union rejected the offer, which it says would barely compensate for inflation.Autoworkers striking at the G.M. factory in Wentzville, Mo.Neeta Satam for The New York TimesLeaders of the automakers have criticized the U.A.W.’s tactics, focusing on Mr. Fain, who became president in March and declared an end to what he said were overly friendly relations between union leaders and auto executives. He took office after a federal corruption investigation resulted in prison terms for two former U.A.W. presidents.Carlos Tavares, the chief executive of Stellantis, has called Mr. Fain’s strategy “posturing.” Mr. Farley of Ford said the two sides should be negotiating instead of “planning strikes and P.R. events.” And Mary T. Barra, the G.M. chief executive, said that “every negotiation takes on the personality of its leader.”If the autoworkers are successful, they could inspire workers in other industries. Union activism is on the rise: Hollywood screenwriters and actors have been on strike for months, and in August, United Parcel Service employees won their biggest raises ever in a contract negotiated by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.“Workers have been squeezed for too long and now are realizing they can do something about it,” said Mijin Cha, an assistant professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who studies the relationship between labor’s interests and the fight against climate change. “People see there is a pathway to more economic security and workers do have power together.”Late on Friday, at an outdoor rally in downtown Detroit attended by several hundred U.A.W. members, Mr. Fain introduced Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, who told the crowd: “The fight you are waging here is not just about decent wages and working conditions and pensions in the auto industry. It’s a fight to take on corporate greed.”The strikes come as auto production is still recovering from the effects of the pandemic, which caused shortages of semiconductors and other components. Car prices and wait times have come down, but dealer inventories remain low and a lengthy strike could eventually make it hard to find popular U.S.-made models.“We’re not back to speed inventory-wise,” said Wes Lutz, the owner of Extreme Dodge, a car dealership in Jackson, Mich.Wes Lutz, the owner of Extreme Dodge in Michigan said, “We’re not back to speed inventory wise.”Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesScarcity is not always bad for carmakers. It allowed them to earn higher profit margins during the pandemic. And it would benefit any carmakers that were having trouble moving some models. Pat Ryan, chief executive of the car-shopping app Co-Pilot, said that Stellantis had at least 100 days of inventory for brands like Dodge and Chrysler, and that a strike could help it clear many dealers’ lots.Still, if prices for popular models rise, that will be yet another speed bump in the Federal Reserve’s road to lowering inflation, and a political liability for Mr. Biden. The president, who has no formal role in the negotiations, said Friday that he had been in touch with union leaders and auto executives, in addition to dispatching the two administration officials to Detroit.Reporting was contributed by More