Labor and Jobs

More stories

  • 75 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    How Full Employment Became Washington’s Creed

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Jobs CrisisCurrent Unemployment RateThe First Six MonthsPermanent LayoffsWhen a $600 Lifeline EndedAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyHow Full Employment Became Washington’s CreedPolicymakers are eager to return to the period of low unemployment that preceded the pandemic and are less concerned than in previous eras about sparking inflation and taking on debt.People wait in line to receive donations at a food pantry in New York City earlier this month. Policymakers agree that a return to a hot job market should be a central goal.Credit…Mohamed Sadek for The New York TimesJan. 18, 2021, 3:29 p.m. ETAs President-elect Joseph R. Biden, Jr. prepares to take office this week, his administration and the Federal Reserve are pointed toward a singular economic goal: Get the job market back to where it was before the pandemic hit.The humming labor backdrop that existed 11 months ago — with 3.5 percent unemployment, stable or rising work force participation and steadily climbing wages — turned out to be a recipe for lifting all boats, creating economic opportunities for long-disenfranchised groups and lowering poverty rates. And price gains remained manageable and even a touch on the low side. That contrasts with efforts to push the labor market’s limits in the 1960s, which are widely blamed for laying the groundwork for runaway inflation.Then the pandemic cut the test run short, and efforts to contain the virus prompted joblessness to skyrocket to levels not seen since the Great Depression. The recovery has since been interrupted by additional waves of contagion, keeping millions of workers sidelined and causing job losses to recommence.Policymakers across government agree that a return to that hot job market should be a central goal, a notable shift from the last economic expansion and one that could help shape the economic rebound.Mr. Biden has made clear that his administration will focus on workers and has chosen top officials with a job market focus. He has tapped Janet L. Yellen, a labor economist and the former Fed chair, as his Treasury secretary and Marty Walsh, a former union leader, as his Labor secretary.In the past, lawmakers and Fed officials tended to preach allegiance to full employment — the lowest jobless rate an economy can sustain without stoking high inflation or other instabilities — while pulling back fiscal and monetary support before hitting that target as they worried that a more patient approach would cause price spikes and other problems.That timidity appears less likely to rear its head this time around.Mr. Biden is set to take office as Democrats control the House and Senate and at a time when many politicians have become less worried about the government taking on debt thanks to historically low borrowing costs. And the Fed, which has a track record of lifting interest rates as unemployment falls and as Congress spends more than it collects in taxes, has committed to greater patience this time around.“Economic research confirms that with conditions like the crisis today, especially with such low interest rates, taking immediate action — even with deficit finance — is going to help the economy, long-term and short-term,” Mr. Biden said at a news conference on Jan. 8, highlighting that quick action would “reduce scarring in the work force.”Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said on Thursday that his institution is tightly focused on restoring rock-bottom unemployment rates.“That’s really the thing that we’re most focused on — is getting back to a strong labor market quickly enough that people’s lives can get back to where they want to be,” Mr. Powell said. “We were in a good place in February of 2020, and we think we can get back there, I would say, much sooner than we had feared.”The stage is set for a macroeconomic experiment, one that will test whether big government spending packages and growth-friendly central bank policies can work together to foster a fast rebound that includes a broad swath of Americans without incurring harmful side effects.“The thing about the Fed is that it really is the tide that lifts all boats,” said Nela Richardson, chief economist at the payroll processor ADP, explaining that the labor-focused central bank can set the groundwork for robust growth. “What fiscal policy can do is target specific communities in ways that the Fed can’t.”The government has spent readily to shore up the economy in the face of the pandemic, and analysts expect that more help is on the way. The Biden administration has suggested an ambitious $1.9 trillion spending package.President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. has appointed top officials with a job market focus.Credit…Amr Alfiky/The New York TimesWhile that probably won’t pass in its entirety, at least some more fiscal spending seems likely. Economists at Goldman Sachs expect Congress to actually pass another $1.1 trillion in relief during the first quarter of 2021, adding to the $2 trillion pandemic relief package passed in March and the $900 billion in additional aid passed in December.That would help to stoke a faster recovery this year. Goldman economists estimate that the spending could help to push the unemployment rate to 4.5 percent by the end of 2021. Joblessness stood at 6.7 percent in December, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said earlier this month.Such a government-aided rebound would come in stark contrast to what happened during the 2007 to 2009 recession. Back then, Congress’s biggest package to counter the fallout of the downturn was the $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed in 2009. It was exhausted long before the unemployment rate finally dipped below 5 percent, in early 2016.At the time, concern over the deficit helped to stem more aggressive fiscal policy responses. And concerns about economic overheating pushed the Fed to begin lifting interest rates — albeit very slowly — in late 2015. As the unemployment rate dropped, central bankers worried that wage and price inflation might wait around the corner and were eager to return policy to a more “normal” setting.But economic thinking has undergone a sea change since then. Fiscal authorities have become more confident running up the public debt at a time of very low interest rates, when it isn’t so costly to do so.Fed officials are now much more modest about judging whether or not the economy is at “full employment.” In the wake of the 2008 crisis, they thought that joblessness was testing its healthy limits, but unemployment went on to drop sharply without fueling runaway price increases.In August 2020, Mr. Powell said that he and his colleagues will now focus on “shortfalls” from full employment, rather than “deviations.” Unless inflation is actually picking up or financial risks loom large, they will view falling unemployment as a welcome development and not a risk to be averted.That means interest rates are likely to remain near zero for years. Top Fed officials have also signaled that they expect to continue buying vast sums of government-backed bonds, about $120 billion per month, for at least months to come.Fed support could help government spending kick demand into high gear. Households are expected to amass big savings stockpiles as they receive stimulus checks early in 2021, then draw them down as vaccines become widespread and normal economic life resumes. Low rates might make big investments — like houses — more attractive.Still, some analysts warn that today’s policies could result in future problems, like runaway inflation, financial market risk-taking or a damaging debt overhang.In the mid-to-late 1960s, Fed officials were tightly focused on chasing full employment. As they tested how far they could push the job market, they did not try to head inflation off as it crept up and saw higher prices as a trade off for lower joblessness. When America took its final steps away from the gold standard and an oil price shock hit in the early 1970s, price gains took off — and it took massive monetary belt-tightening by the Fed and years of serious economic pain to tame them.Many politicians have become less worried about government borrowing thanks to historically low interest rates.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesThere are reasons to believe that this time is different. Inflation has been low for decades and remains contained across the world. The link between unemployment and wages, and wages and prices, has been more tenuous than in decades past. From Japan to Europe, the problem of the era is weak price gains that trap economies in cycles of stagnation by eroding room to cut interest rates during time of trouble, not excessively fast inflation.And economists increasingly say that, while there may be costs from long periods of growth-friendly fiscal and monetary policy, there are also costs from being too cautious. Tapping the brakes on a labor market expansion earlier than is needed can leave workers who would have gotten a boost from a strong job market on the sidelines.The period before the pandemic showed just what an excessively cautious policy setting risks missing. By 2020, Black and Hispanic unemployment had dropped to record lows. Participation for prime-age workers, which was expected to remain permanently depressed, had actually picked up somewhat. Wages were climbing fastest for the lowest earners.It’s not clear whether 3.5 percent unemployment will be the exact level America will achieve again. What is clear is that many policymakers want to test what the economy is capable of, rather than guessing at a magic figure in advance.“There’s a danger in computing a number and saying, that means we are there,” Mary C. Daly, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said at an event earlier this month. “We’re going to learn about these things experientially, and that to me is the right risk management posture.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    A Look at What’s in Biden’s $1.9 Trillion Stimulus Plan

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesA Future With CoronavirusVaccine InformationF.A.Q.TimelineAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyA Look at What’s in Biden’s $1.9 Trillion Stimulus PlanThe president-elect is rolling out a large spending package aimed at helping battle the virus and alleviate the economic toll it has taken.President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. planned to lay out plans on Thursday for efforts to combat the coronavirus and address its economic toll.Credit…Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York TimesJan. 14, 2021Updated 7:24 p.m. ETThe incoming Biden administration unveiled a $1.9 trillion stimulus plan on Thursday that offered a wish list of spending measures meant to help both people and the economy recover from the coronavirus pandemic, from state and local aid and more generous unemployment benefits to mass vaccinations.Below, we run through a few of the biggest provisions, how they would work and what they might mean for the United States economy as it struggles through a winter of surging coronavirus cases and partial state and local lockdowns.Let’s put that headline number in context.That $1.9 trillion figure is a lot of money, to put it mildly. Congress passed a $900 billion relief program in December, and its package in March was also about $2 trillion. By way of comparison, the major financial crisis spending package — the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — clocked in around $800 billion.The administration is looking for $1,400 checks.President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. is trying to make good on Democrats’ promise to send more money to households in the form of one-time checks. Its proposal would send out $1,400 per person for those under certain income thresholds, topping off the $600 checks that came as part of the December relief package.It also wants an unemployment insurance supplement of $400 a week.Mr. Biden is asking Congress to extend emergency unemployment insurance programs through the end of September — they are set to expire in mid-March — while providing “a $400 per week unemployment insurance supplement to help hard-hit workers.”That amount is higher than what lawmakers included in the December stimulus, which provided a $300 supplement for 11 weeks, but it is lower than the $600 weekly benefit included in the first package in March.Schools could get money to reopen.The administration says it wants to make “the necessary investments to meet the president-elect’s goal of safely reopening a majority” of kindergarten-to-eighth-grade schools within Mr. Biden’s first 100 days in office.Administration officials are suggesting $170 billion for schools, supplemented by additional state and local funds. About $130 billion of that would go toward reopening, while much of the rest of the money would go to help colleges dealing with the shift to distance learning and other pandemic-tied problems.The minimum wage could rise.After holding steady at $7.25 for more than a decade, the federal minimum wage would rise to $15 per hour under the proposal, which would also end the tipped minimum wage and sub-minimum wage for people with disabilities. Many states and localities have already raised their own wage floors. It is not clear how quickly the higher wage would phase in.Research from the Congressional Budget Office in 2019 suggested that raising the wage to $15 nationally could increase pay for tens of millions of workers, though potentially at some cost to jobs — perhaps 1.3 million people who would otherwise work would not be, in part because employers would reduce payroll.The Coronavirus Outbreak More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Unemployment Claims Rise Sharply, Showing New Economic Pain

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesA Future With CoronavirusVaccine InformationF.A.Q.TimelineAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyUnemployment Claims Rise Sharply, Showing New Economic PainWeekly filings for jobless benefits hit the highest level since July as the pandemic’s resurgence batters the service industry.A closed restaurant in Santa Barbara, Calif. The winter coronavirus wave has pummeled the leisure and hospitality industries.Credit…Bryan Denton for The New York TimesJan. 14, 2021Updated 7:08 p.m. ETTen months after the coronavirus crisis decimated the labor market, the resurgent pandemic keeps sending shock waves through the American economy.Though more than half of the 22 million jobs lost last spring have been regained, a new surge of infections has prompted shutdowns and layoffs that have hit the leisure and hospitality industries especially hard, dealing a setback to the recovery.The latest evidence came on Thursday when the Labor Department reported that initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose sharply last week, exceeding one million for the first time since July.Just days earlier, the government announced that employers had shed 140,000 jobs in December, the first net decline in employment since last spring, with restaurants, bars and hotels recording steep losses.“We’re in a deep economic hole, and we’re digging in the wrong direction,” said Daniel Zhao, senior economist with the career site Glassdoor. “The report obviously shows that the rise in claims is worse than expected, and there is reason to think that things are going to get worse before they are going to get better.”That prospect is all the more troubling because a major element of the relief package signed by President Trump last month — a $300 weekly federal supplement to other unemployment benefits — is set to run out in mid-March.President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. has said he will push a new stimulus package through Congress to provide a lifeline for workers and employers until the pandemic can be brought under control. His plan will include direct payments to most households along with aid to small businesses and local and state governments.The recent economic data has brought a new sense of urgency to such efforts, with millions struggling to make ends meet even as more job losses could be in the offing.The Labor Department said on Thursday that 1.15 million workers filed initial claims for state unemployment benefits during the first full week of the new year. A further 284,000 claims were filed for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, an emergency federal program for freelancers, part-time workers and others normally ineligible for state jobless benefits. Neither figure is seasonally adjusted. On a seasonally adjusted basis, new state claims totaled 965,000.Before the pandemic, weekly filings typically totaled around 200,000.The holidays may have held down unemployment claims in previous weeks, with people waiting until the new year to submit claims. But several economists expressed skepticism that filing delays were a major driver of the uptick in claims last week.“I don’t think there’s any question that on the margin, there could be some unusual things going on,” said Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst at Bankrate.com. “But we have to think also about the fact that these are not our grandfather’s unemployment lines — meaning much of this is done digitally. I think if one just tries to understand human nature, it doesn’t make a lot of sense that someone would be delaying a request for financial assistance when they’re out of work.”More likely, economists say, is that the $300 federal supplement prompted an increase in demand for benefits.Confusion over the new federal aid — which Mr. Trump spent several days threatening not to sign — may also have temporarily slowed down claims for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, which fell during the week ending Jan. 2. The increase last week brought the numbers more in line with the previous elevated levels.Volunteers processing donations at a food pantry in Wichita, Kan. More than one million people filed new claims for unemployment benefits last week.Credit…Stephen Speranza for The New York TimesThose seeking new work have found diminishing prospects. Hiring slowed for five straight months before December’s outright reversal. In November, even before the recent surge in virus cases, the number of workers officially counted as unemployed outnumbered job openings by more than four million, according to the Labor Department.The Coronavirus Outbreak More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Bans All Cotton and Tomatoes From Xinjiang Region of China

    by

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyU.S. Bans All Cotton and Tomatoes From Xinjiang Region of ChinaThe sweeping ban, which was based on concerns about forced labor in the region, could compel companies to reorganize their multinational supply chains.Cotton fields in the Xinjiang region of China. A new ban on imports of cotton from the area could have sweeping implications for apparel makers.Credit…Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesJan. 13, 2021Updated 6:32 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Wednesday announced a ban on imports of cotton and tomatoes from the Xinjiang area of China, as well as all products made with those materials, citing human rights violations and the widespread use of forced labor in the region.The measure could have sweeping implications for makers of apparel and food products, many of whom have sought to distance themselves from atrocities in Xinjiang but have struggled to ensure their supply chains are free of all raw materials from the region. The area is a major source of cotton, coal, chemicals, sugar, tomatoes and polysilicon, a component in solar panels, that are then fed into factories around China and the world.The ban allows customs officials to stop imports that they suspect are made with raw materials from Xinjiang, regardless of whether they travel into the United States directly from China or through another country.China has carried out a vast crackdown on predominantly Muslim minority groups in the far west Xinjiang region, including detaining a million or more Uighurs, Kazakhs and other groups in camps and closely surveilling the rest of the population, human rights groups say.Forced labor also appears to be widespread in the region. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection said an investigation found numerous indicators of forced labor in Xinjiang, including debt bondage, restriction of movement, withheld wages, and abusive living and working conditions. The Chinese government denies the existence of forced labor in Xinjiang, saying all arrangements are voluntary.Scott Nova, the executive director of the Workers Rights Consortium, a labor rights group, called the ban “a high-decibel wake-up call to any apparel brand that continues to deny the prevalence and problem of forced-labor-produced cotton” in the region.“This ban will redefine how the apparel industry — from Amazon to Nike to Zara — sources its materials and labor,” Mr. Nova said. “Any global apparel brand that is not either out of Xinjiang already or plotting a very swift exit is courting legal and reputational disaster.”The Workers Rights Consortium estimates that American brands and retailers import more than 1.5 billion garments that use Xinjiang materials every year, representing more than $20 billion in retail sales. China is also the world’s largest tomato producer, with Xinjiang accounting for most of that production, the group says.Independent researchers and media reports have linked dozens of the world’s most prominent multinational companies to workers or products from Xinjiang, including Apple, Nike, Kraft Heinz and Campbell Soup. Campbell said it no longer sources products from the Xinjiang region.Some textile and apparel companies that used cotton or yarn from Xinjiang have announced that they are severing ties, including Patagonia, Marks and Spencer and H&M. But many firms have found it difficult to trace the origins of all the products used by their Chinese suppliers, especially given the lack of access for independent auditors to facilities in Xinjiang.The order will “send a crystal-clear message to the trade community: know your supply chains,” said Mark Morgan, the acting commissioner for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Importers are required to ensure that their own supply chains are free from forced labor, he added. “It’s the law.”The Trump administration has added increasingly restrictive measures on Xinjiang, including placing sanctions on dozens of companies and individuals over alleged human rights violations.In December, customs officials announced a ban on cotton products made by the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, an economic and paramilitary group that produces much of the region’s cotton. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has already detained 43 shipments valued at more than $2 million under that ban, officials said Wednesday.Congress is also considering sweeping legislation that would block imports from Xinjiang, unless companies are able to prove that supply chains that run through the region are free of forced labor.While the United States has taken the most forceful action on this front, both Canada and Britain introduced rules this week to limit goods linked to Xinjiang from entering their countries.Despite growing concerns over Chinese practices in the region, exports from Xinjiang to the United States and Europe grew significantly from 2019 to 2020, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.But trade experts say the new measures will raise questions about whether customs officials are equipped to fully enforce such a wide ban, which will require tracing Xinjiang materials through supply chains around the world.A report published in October by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that customs suffered from staff shortages and other issues despite a new division and resources devoted to blocking goods made with forced labor.In a call with reporters on Wednesday, Brenda Smith, the executive assistant commissioner at Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Trade, said it was “a challenge to be able to link what we see arriving in a port of entry back to the raw materials produced in Xinjiang.” The department is applying new tracking methods to uncover products made with forced labor, she said.The department is increasingly making use of new technologies, like pollen analysis, to try to identify cotton and other materials from Xinjiang in foreign products, officials said.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 88 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Jobless, Selling Nudes Online and Still Struggling

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesA Future With CoronavirusVaccine InformationF.A.Q.TimelineSavannah Benavidez created an OnlyFans account after losing her job as a medical biller. Credit…Adria Malcolm for The New York TimesSkip to contentSkip to site indexJobless, Selling Nudes Online and Still StrugglingOnlyFans, a social media platform that allows people to sell explicit photos of themselves, has boomed during the pandemic. But competition on the site means many won’t earn much.Savannah Benavidez created an OnlyFans account after losing her job as a medical biller. Credit…Adria Malcolm for The New York TimesSupported byContinue reading the main storyJan. 13, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETSavannah Benavidez stopped working at her job as a medical biller in June to take care of her 2-year-old son after his day care shut down. Needing a way to pay her bills, she created an account on OnlyFans — a social media platform where users sell original content to monthly subscribers — and started posting photos of herself nude or in lingerie.Ms. Benavidez, 23, has made $64,000 since July, enough not just to take care of her own bills, but to help family and friends with rent and car payments.“It’s more money than I have ever made in any job,” she said. “I have more money than I know what to do with.”Lexi Eixenberger was hoping for a similar windfall when she started an OnlyFans account in November. A restaurant worker in Billings, Mont., Ms. Eixenberger, 22, has been laid off three times during the pandemic and was so in need of cash by October that she had to drop out of dental hygiene school. After donating plasma and doing odd jobs, she still didn’t have enough to pay her bills, so at the suggestion of some friends, she turned to OnlyFans. She has made only about $500 so far.Lexi Eixenberger lost her restaurant job three times and had to quit dental hygiene school. She became an OnlyFans creator, but hasn’t earned much so far.Credit…Janie Osborne for The New York TimesOnlyFans, founded in 2016 and based in Britain, has boomed in popularity during the pandemic. As of December, it had more than 90 million users and more than one million content creators, up from 120,000 in 2019. The company declined to comment for this article.With millions of Americans unemployed, some like Ms. Benavidez and Ms. Eixenberger are turning to OnlyFans in an attempt to provide for themselves and their families. The pandemic has taken a particularly devastating toll on women and mothers, wiping out parts of the economy where women dominate: retail businesses, restaurants and health care.“A lot of people are migrating to OnlyFans out of desperation,” said Angela Jones, an associate professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Farmingdale. “These are people who are worried about eating, they’re worried about keeping the lights on, they’re worried about not being evicted.”But for every person like Ms. Benavidez, who is able to use OnlyFans as her primary source of income, there are dozens more, like Ms. Eixenberger, who hope for a windfall and end up with little more than a few hundred dollars and worries that the photos will hinder their ability to get a job in the future.“It is already an incredibly saturated market,” Ms. Jones said of explicit content online. “The idea that people are just going to open up an OnlyFans account and start raking in the dough is really misguided.”The most successful content creators are often models, porn stars and celebrities who already have large social media followings. They can use their other online platforms to drive followers to their OnlyFans accounts, where they offer exclusive content to those willing to pay a monthly fee — even personalized content in exchange for tips. OnlyFans takes a 20 percent cut of any pay. Some creators receive tips through mobile payment apps, which aren’t subject to that cut; Ms. Benavidez earns most of her money this way.But many of the creators who have joined the platform out of dire financial need do not have large social media followings or any way to drum up consistent business.Elle Morocco posted this image to promote herself on her OnlyFans page.Credit…Elle MoroccoMs. Morocco said maintaining the account could feel like a full-time job.Credit…Elizabeth CraigElle Morocco of West Palm Beach, Fla., was laid off from her job as an office manager in July. Her unemployment checks don’t cover her $1,600 monthly rent, utility bills and food costs, so she joined OnlyFans in November.The Coronavirus Outbreak More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    It Could Be a Great Year, if Your Business Survives Winter

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesVaccination StrategiesVaccine InformationF.A.Q.TimelineAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyIt Could Be a Great Year, if Your Business Survives WinterTough sacrifices may still be required, but many see a post-pandemic resurgence in the year ahead.Maria Rodriguez mopped the front entry at the Hampton Inn & Suites Herndon-Reston in Herndon, Va., which has seen a significant decrease in guests since the pandemic began.Credit…Alyssa Schukar for The New York TimesNelson D. Schwartz and Jan. 11, 2021, 10:46 a.m. ETFor Ashlie Ordonez, owner of the Bare Bar Studio, a spa in Denver, vaccinations for the coronavirus can’t come soon enough. While she anticipates better days later this year, surviving until then will be a struggle, and she knows the next few months will be lean ones.“I sold my wedding ring so we could pay the bills and keep the doors open,” she said. “I’m sacrificing everything to make it through this pandemic.”Vinay Patel, who manages a chain of nine hotels in Maryland and Virginia, is looking even further out for a recovery: “2022 is when we’ll see the real true potential of the vaccine.” Mr. Patel added that his biggest hope for the coming year is a measure of stability, if not prosperity.As 2021 begins, business owners big and small confront a rapidly shifting landscape. An end to the pandemic is in sight as inoculations begin, but the slow pace of vaccinations has delayed the turnaround they were counting on. Hanging on is the chief goal for many, even as others look ahead to what they consider to be an inevitable rebound.This year “is not going to be a walk through the park, but I’m optimistic,” said Jimmy Etheredge, chief executive for North America at Accenture, the strategy and consulting company. “The eggs are in the vaccine basket.”Even as he anticipates a turnaround, Mr. Etheredge emphasized that many of the changes wrought by the pandemic, such as working remotely and a shift to cloud technology by companies, are here to stay.“Ten months of pandemic has accelerated technological change by 10 years,” he said. “We’re never going to go back to the way things were before.”In the meantime, it’s clear that there will be winners and losers this year. Restaurateurs, leisure and hospitality businesses and the travel industry will continue to struggle as a surge in Covid-19 cases prompts renewed lockdowns in many parts of the country. Few expect imminent salvation.The biggest companies, on the other hand, are positioning themselves for what could be a surge in consumption when the pandemic recedes. Technology, manufacturing, health care and some other industries are booming.Indeed, the contrast was evident last week as major stock indexes notched new highs even as the Labor Department reported that the economy lost 140,000 jobs in December. It was the first decline in months, with the leisure and hospitality sector alone losing half a million positions as lockdowns are enacted.“There is light at the end of the tunnel,” said Brian Moynihan, chief executive of Bank of America. “But there’s a side of the economy that’s still in trouble. There’s a group of Americans who want to go to work but can’t because work isn’t open.”Mr. Moynihan said he was pleased that the $900 billion pandemic relief package was passed and signed into law after many fits and starts, and he favors more stimulus if necessary. Roughly 19 million workers are collecting unemployment benefits, and the employment picture remains bleak for many lower-wage workers in the service economy.Ashlie Ordonez, owner of the Bare Bar Studio, a spa in Denver.Credit…Benjamin Rasmussen for The New York Times“I sold my wedding ring so we could pay the bills and keep the doors open,” she said.Credit…Benjamin Rasmussen for The New York TimesPresident-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. signaled Friday that trillions of dollars’ worth of fresh stimulus could be on the way, and the imminent Democratic control of the Senate makes that much more likely.As trying as the next few months seem, the economy is in better shape than in the months after Covid-19 first struck, when unemployment soared to 14.8 percent. The jobless rate in December stood at 6.7 percent.Holiday spending by Bank of America customers was 2.5 percent higher than last year, and account holders actually have more in savings than they did before the pandemic. “There’s a bunch of sectors that are doing very well in terms of profits,” Mr. Moynihan added.Even so, these remain times of limbo for many executives and business owners, when the old rules no longer apply but the post-pandemic reality has yet to materialize.The Coronavirus Outbreak More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    The Most Important Thing Biden Can Learn From the Trump Economy

    by

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyUpshotSupported byContinue reading the main storyThe Most Important Thing Biden Can Learn From the Trump EconomyA “hot” economy with high deficits didn’t cause runaway inflation.President Trump at a campaign rally in Dalton, Ga., this month.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesJan. 11, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETFor all the problems that President Trump’s disdain of elite expertise has caused over the last four years, his willingness to ignore economic orthodoxy in one crucial area has been vindicated, offering a lesson for the Biden years and beyond.During Mr. Trump’s time in office, it has become clear that the United States economy can surpass what technocrats once thought were its limits: Specifically, the jobless rate can fall lower and government budget deficits can run higher than was once widely believed without setting off an inflationary spiral.Some leading liberal economists warned that Mr. Trump’s deficit-financed tax cuts would create a mere “sugar high” of a short-lived boost to growth. The Congressional Budget Office forecast that economic benefits of the president’s signature tax law would be partly offset by higher interest rates that would discourage private investment.And the Federal Reserve in 2017 and 2018 tightened the money supply to prevent the economy from getting too hot — driven by models suggesting that an improving labor market would eventually cause excessive inflation.These warnings did not come true.Before the pandemic took hold, the jobless rate was below 4 percent, inflation was low, and wages were rising at a steady clip, especially for low and middle earners. The inflation-adjusted income of the median American household rose 9 percent from 2016 to 2019.The higher interest rates from unfunded tax cuts that had been forecast did not materialize; the C.B.O. in spring 2018 had expected the 10-year Treasury bond yield to average 3.5 percent in 2019. In fact, it averaged a mere 2.1 percent, making federal borrowing more manageable.And the Fed cut interest rates starting in 2019 despite a very low jobless rate, implicitly accepting the premise that it had moved too aggressively with rate increases to prevent inflation that never arrived.Mr. Trump has sent plenty of mixed signals on both deficits and interest rate policies over the years. He has intermittently promised to eliminate the national debt, even as his policies expanded it; he supported rate increases in 2015, accusing the Fed of keeping them low to help President Obama; and some of his Federal Reserve appointees were monetary hawks (though not those who managed to win Senate confirmation).But the experience of his presidency — particularly the buoyant economy before the pandemic began — shows what is possible. It may not have been the best economy ever, as he has repeatedly claimed, but it was easily the strongest since the late 1990s, and before that you have to go back to the late 1960s to find similar conditions.If Mr. Trump was able to ignore economic orthodoxy and achieve the best economic outcomes in years, it’s worth asking how much value that orthodoxy held to begin with.Just maybe, does the success of Trumponomics tell us that we’ve been doing something wrong for decades?The not-so-great moderationAlan Blinder in 1994, the year his speech at a symposium of central bankers was criticized for being too weak on inflation.Credit…Cynthia Johnson/Getty ImagesTo understand how deeply entrenched the centrist conventional wisdom around economic policy has been over the last generation, consider a curious incident from August 1994. Alan Blinder, the newly named vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, gave a speech at an annual symposium of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyo., in which he described trying to reduce unemployment as an important role for the Fed.Some huffing and puffing ensued. There was talk in the hallways about Mr. Blinder’s focus on unemployment rather than on inflation prevention, which central bankers viewed as their main goal. It made its way into the news media, including some scathing attacks.“Put simply, Blinder is ‘soft’ on inflation,” wrote the Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson. Without adequate anti-inflation conviction, “Blinder lacks the moral or intellectual qualities needed to lead the Fed.”“I was pilloried for suggesting that we might get below 6 percent on the unemployment rate,” Mr. Blinder, a Princeton economist, said recently.A widespread view among economic policy elites, after the runaway inflation in the 1970s and early 1980s, was that elevated unemployment was a necessary cost of keeping prices stable. Also, that the government can’t spend much more money than it takes in without crowding out private investment — leaving the economy weaker over time — and that policymakers should act pre-emptively to ward off these risks.That intellectual consensus lurked beneath many momentous decisions. Among them: the deficit-reduction agenda of the Bill Clinton administration; the interest rate increases of the Alan Greenspan Fed during George W. Bush’s second term; and the Obama administration’s determination not to increase the deficit in devising its signature health care law.This view was shaped by a reliance on the “Phillips Curve,” which describes the relationship between the jobless rate and inflation. As applied by a generation of central bankers, it was treated as a useful guide to setting policy. If the unemployment rate went too low, the logic went, inflation was inevitable, so central bankers needed to prevent that from happening.When Fed leaders raised interest rates in December 2015, for example, their consensus view was that the long-run unemployment rate — the goal they were ultimately seeking — was 4.9 percent.If the job market kept improving, then-Fed Chair Janet Yellen said at the meeting where that interest rate increase was decided, “we would want to check the pace of employment growth somewhat to reduce the risk of overheating.”Yet from spring of 2018 to the onset of the pandemic, the United States experienced a jobless rate of 4 percent or lower, with no obvious sign of inflation and many signs that less advantaged workers were able to find work. Reality turned out better than the 2015 officials thought possible.Since the 1980s, recessions have been rarer than they were in the immediate post-World War II era, but they have been followed by long, “jobless” recoveries. Much of that time has featured weak growth in workers’ wages.It turns out that when you try to choke off the economy whenever it is starting to get hot, American workers suffer. The Fed has been like a driver who aspires to cruise at the speed limit, but starts tapping the brakes whenever the car gets anywhere close to that limit — and therefore rarely attains it.From 1948 to 1969, the unemployment rate was at or below 4 percent 39 percent of the time. Since 1980, that has been the case less than 8 percent of the time.Economists have referred to the period from the early 1980s through the 2008 financial crisis as “the great moderation,” because recessions were rare and mild. But with more years of hindsight, that period looks less like a success.“There’s nothing particularly moderate or particularly great about the great moderation,” said Larry Summers, the Harvard economist and former Treasury secretary.In effect, the last four years at the Fed have made clear both how much things have changed and how much they needed to. Ms. Yellen (now President-elect Biden’s Treasury secretary nominee) started the first of a series of interest rate increases in late 2015, and the current chair, Jerome Powell, continued them.But the logic kept breaking down. Inflation kept coming in below the 2 percent target the central bank aims for, even as the jobless rate kept falling. It’s not terribly clear what was necessary about the rate increases, as President Trump’s harangues against Mr. Powell expressed vividly. Arguably, they reflected a reliance on old economic models and the same inflation-fighting muscle memory that caused the backlash against Mr. Blinder a quarter-century earlier.Mr. Trump violated decades of precedent under which presidents don’t jawbone the Fed, which seeks to maintain political independence. But that didn’t make him wrong about interest rates.Macro or micro?On March 18, 2019, a group of Mr. Trump’s economic advisers gathered in the Oval Office to show him the annual “Economic Report of the President,” a 700-page document that amounts to an official statement of the administration’s economic achievements, analysis and goals.He was particularly excited about one page of charts, said Casey Mulligan, one of the advisers. They showed that the economy had created far more jobs and had a much lower jobless rate than the C.B.O. had projected just before the 2016 election. The president called in Dan Scavino, his social media director, and fired off a tweet about the results.A central question for Mr. Biden will be: To what degree is the Trump-era economic success a result of policies that liberals disagree with, to what degree is it a result of policies that Mr. Biden might embrace, and to what degree is it just luck?Mr. Mulligan and other allies of the president emphasize the role of deregulating major industries and lowering taxes on business investment — microeconomic strategies — as crucial to the economy’s success.“The forecasts systematically overpredicted the Obama economy every year, and throughout the Trump administration, they underpredicted,” said Mr. Mulligan, an economics professor at the University of Chicago. “What nobody in the intelligentsia was paying attention to was the regulations that were holding us back.”The Biden administration and Democratic Congress will view more aggressive regulation as a core goal, aimed at preventing corporate misbehavior, protecting the environment, and more. Indeed, left-leaning economists would argue that the very policies Mr. Mulligan credits with the boom are the least durable parts of the Trump-era expansion.“It is true that the corporate giveaway aspect of the policies, cutting taxes and scaling back regulation and so forth, coincided with an unequal prosperity that lasted longer prior to Covid than I would have guessed it would,” said Mr. Summers, a prominent proponent of the “sugar high” theory of the Trump economy. “But I don’t think it had any particularly strong foundation in terms of increasing productivity or capital investment.”If you believe Mr. Mulligan and other Trump allies, the macroeconomic lessons of the Trump years — those having to do with things like deficits, inflation and interest rates — won’t be enough for the Biden administration to recreate the 2019 economy. In this view, the microeconomic details of how the president has governed will be crucial, and the policies that Mr. Biden has advocated — in areas as varied as tighter restrictions on carbon emissions and more aggressive regulation of banks — will prove counterproductive to the cause.Lessons for the next administrationJanet Yellen, former Fed chair and now the nominee for Treasury Secretary, said, “Allowing the labor market to run hot could bring substantial benefits.”Credit…Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York TimesThe people who will shape economic policy in the new administration seem eager to push for a post-pandemic economic surge reflecting the (macroeconomic) lessons of the last four years.Ms. Yellen has a background as a labor economist, and in the 1990s, as a Fed official, she urged Mr. Greenspan to raise rates pre-emptively based on the inflation risks that the Phillips Curve predicted. At that fateful meeting to increase rates in 2015, she raised an intriguing possibility. If inflation were to remain persistently low, she said, “a more radical rethinking of the economy’s productive potential would surely be in order.”That radical rethinking is now very much underway — including by Ms. Yellen.“Allowing the labor market to run hot could bring substantial benefits,” Ms. Yellen said in a speech at the Brookings Institution in 2019. She said that a high-pressure economy — one where unemployment is low and employers have to compete for workers — improves upward mobility. She added: “We’re seeing that in the current expansion. Those who are least advantaged in the labor market — those with less education and minorities — are experiencing the largest gains in wages and declines in unemployment.”Mr. Powell, who will lead the Fed for roughly the first year of Mr. Biden’s term and then will be either reappointed or replaced in February 2022, has also become a vocal enthusiast for avoiding these mistakes of the past.In the strong pre-pandemic labor market, he said in an August speech on the Fed’s new policy framework, “many who had been left behind for too long were finding jobs, benefiting their families and communities, and increasing the productive capacity of our economy.”“It is hard to overstate the benefits of sustaining a strong labor market,” he said, and the central bank’s new policy language “reflects our view that a robust job market can be sustained without causing an outbreak of inflation.”In recent years, the C.B.O., which plays a crucial role forecasting the fiscal and economic effects of different policies, has re-examined its view of future interest rates in ways that have lowered the projected cost of public debt.In early 2017 when Mr. Trump took office, for example, the C.B.O. projected that by 2020 the government would need to pay at a 3.2 percent rate to borrow money for a decade. The actual rate is now just over 1 percent, even after a surge over the past week. While that reflects the pandemic-induced downturn, even at the start of 2020 the rate was 2 percent. The C.B.O.’s most recent forecast is that it will remain below 3 percent through 2029.President-elect Biden has embraced these lessons in shaping his agenda, as he made clear in a news conference Friday where he confirmed that his plans will add up to trillions of dollars when one includes both pandemic response money and longer-term plans.“With interest rates as low as they are,” Mr. Biden said, “every major economist thinks we should be investing in deficit spending to generate economic growth.”One of the big plot twists of this era is that Mr. Biden’s plan to make the American economy great again seems to rest on applying the macroeconomic lessons of the Trump era.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    The Business Rules the Trump Administration Is Racing to Finish

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Presidential TransitionLatest UpdatesHouse Moves to Remove TrumpHow Impeachment Might WorkBiden Focuses on CrisesCabinet PicksAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyThe Business Rules the Trump Administration Is Racing to FinishFrom tariffs and trade to the status of Uber drivers, regulators are trying to install new rules or reduce regulations before President-elect Joe Biden takes over.President Trump is rushing to put into effect new economic regulations and executive orders before his term comes to a close.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesJan. 11, 2021, 3:00 a.m. ETIn the remaining days of his administration, President Trump is rushing to put into effect a raft of new regulations and executive orders that are intended to put his stamp on business, trade and the economy.Previous presidents in their final term have used the period between the election and the inauguration to take last-minute actions to extend and seal their agendas. Some of the changes are clearly aimed at making it harder, at least for a time, for the next administration to pursue its goals.Of course, President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. could issue new executive orders to overturn Mr. Trump’s. And Democrats in Congress, who will control the House and the Senate, could use the Congressional Review Act to quickly reverse regulatory actions from as far back as late August.Here are some of the things that Mr. Trump and his appointees have done or are trying to do before Mr. Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20. — Peter EavisProhibiting Chinese apps and other products. Mr. Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday banning transactions with eight Chinese software applications, including Alipay. It was the latest escalation of the president’s economic war with China. Details and the start of the ban will fall to Mr. Biden, who could decide not to follow through on the idea. Separately, the Trump administration has also banned the import of some cotton from the Xinjiang region, where China has detained vast numbers of people who are members of ethnic minorities and forced them to work in fields and factories. In another move, the administration prohibited several Chinese companies, including the chip maker SMIC and the drone maker DJI, from buying American products. The administration is weighing further restrictions on China in its final days, including adding Alibaba and Tencent to a list of companies with ties to the Chinese military, a designation that would prevent Americans from investing in those businesses. — Ana SwansonDefining gig workers as contractors. The Labor Department on Wednesday released the final version of a rule that could classify millions of workers in industries like construction, cleaning and the gig economy as contractors rather than employees, another step toward endorsing the business practices of companies like Uber and Lyft. — Noam ScheiberTrimming social media’s legal shield. The Trump administration recently filed a petition asking the Federal Communications Commission to narrow its interpretation of a powerful legal shield for social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube. If the commission doesn’t act before Inauguration Day, the matter will land in the desk of whomever Mr. Biden picks to lead the agency. — David McCabeTaking the tech giants to court. The Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust suit against Facebook in December, two months after the Justice Department sued Google. Mr. Biden’s appointees will have to decide how best to move forward with the cases. — David McCabeAdding new cryptocurrency disclosure requirements. The Treasury Department late last month proposed new reporting requirements that it said were intended to prevent money laundering for certain cryptocurrency transactions. It gave only 15 days — over the holidays — for public comment. Lawmakers and digital currency enthusiasts wrote to the Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, to protest and won a short extension. But opponents of the proposed rule say the process and substance are flawed, arguing that the requirement would hinder innovation, and are likely to challenge it in court. — Ephrat LivniLimiting banks on social and environmental issues. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is rushing a proposed rule that would ban banks from not lending to certain kinds of businesses, like those in the fossil fuel industry, on environmental or social grounds. The regulator unveiled the proposal on Nov. 20 and limited the time it would accept comments to six weeks despite the interruptions of the holidays. — Emily FlitterOverhauling rules on banks and underserved communities. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is also proposing new guidelines on how banks can measure their activities to get credit for fulfilling their obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act, an anti-redlining law that forces them to do business in poor and minority communities. The agency rewrote some of the rules in May, but other regulators — the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation — did not sign on. — Emily FlitterInsuring “hot money” deposits. On Dec. 15, the F.D.I.C. expanded the eligibility of brokered deposits for insurance coverage. These deposits are infusions of cash into a bank in exchange for a high interest rate, but are known as “hot money” because the clients can move the deposits from bank to bank for higher returns. Critics say the change could put the insurance fund at risk. F.D.I.C. officials said the new rule was needed to “modernize” the brokered deposits system. — Emily FlitterNarrowing regulatory authority over airlines. The Department of Transportation in December authorized a rule, sought by airlines and travel agents, that limits the department’s authority over the industry by defining what constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice. Consumer groups widely opposed the rule. Airlines argued that the rule would limit regulatory overreach. And the department said the definitions it used were in line with its past practice. — Niraj ChokshiRolling back a light bulb rule. The Department of Energy has moved to block a rule that would phase out incandescent light bulbs, which people and businesses have increasingly been replacing with much more efficient LED and compact fluorescent bulbs. The energy secretary, Dan Brouillette, a former auto industry lobbyist, said in December that the Trump administration did not want to limit consumer choice. The rule had been slated to go into effect on Jan. 1 and was required by a law passed in 2007. — Ivan PennAdvertisementContinue reading the main story More