Labor and Jobs

More stories

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Why New York City’s Jobless Rate Is Double the Rest of the Country's

    by

    The city has regained fewer than 6 of every 10 jobs it lost since the pandemic began, while the nation as a whole has regained more than 90 percent of lost jobs.Since the start of the year, nearly six million jobs have been added in the United States. The unemployment rate has plummeted to 4.2 percent, close to where it stood before the pandemic. But in New York City, the economy appears to be in a rut.After gaining 350,000 jobs in the last months of 2020, employment has slowed considerably this year, with just 187,000 jobs added since March. The city’s unemployment rate of 9.4 percent is more than double the national average, and its decline in recent months was largely caused by people dropping out of the labor force.From the start of the pandemic, no other large American city has been hit as hard as New York, or has struggled as much to replenish its labor force. Nearly a million people lost their jobs in the early months of the pandemic, and thousands of businesses closed.As the city plunged into its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the unemployment rate skyrocketed, peaking in June 2020 at 20 percent. Nearly every industry — from construction to finance to social services — has fewer people employed now than before the pandemic swept into New York in March 2020.Nearly two years later, New York has added back a little more than half the jobs it lost, according to the state Labor Department, far less than the rest of the country, underscoring how the pandemic ravaged some of the city’s core economic engines like tourism, hospitality and retail.The protracted pandemic has shut out tourists and scared off the crush of suburbanites who filled office towers every weekday — a “double whammy,” said Andrew Rein, president of the Citizens Budget Commission, a nonprofit watchdog group. Just 8 percent of office workers were back at work five days a week in early November, according to a survey by the Partnership for New York City, a business group.Crowds are thinner at Pennsylvania Station in Midtown Manhattan with so many suburban office employees still working remotely.Yuvraj Khanna for The New York Times“Commuters and tourists consume a lot of the same stuff,” Mr. Rein said. “They consume, in a certain sense, the vibrancy of New York City.”Their absence has contributed to the loss of more than 100,000 jobs in the city’s restaurants, bars and hotels, plus nearly 60,000 additional jobs in retailing, performing arts, entertainment and recreation. The reopening of Broadway theaters and the high rate of vaccinations has provided a boost this fall that lowered the city’s official unemployment rate to 9.4 percent in October.But the rise of the Omicron variant could threaten the fledgling recovery just as the next mayor, Eric Adams, takes office in January. Mr. Adams has pledged to use the full resources of city government to reinvigorate the economy, creating a citywide jobs training and placement program.So far, the city has regained fewer than six of every 10 jobs it lost since the pandemic began in early 2020, while the nation as a whole has regained more than nine out of 10 lost jobs, said James Parrott, an economist with the Center for New York City Affairs. “It certainly looks to me like we’re going to have a much slower, much more drawn-out recovery,” Mr. Parrott said.The short but sharp pandemic recession was particularly painful for those in lower-paying service jobs: Positions in retail, restaurants and hotels help underpin the city’s economy and were the first to be cut in spring 2020. The jobs have been slow to reappear while a large share of their customers — office workers — have still not returned to the city’s business districts.The story is far different for one major industry and its employees, finance, which has thrived, with companies like JPMorgan Chase posting record revenues during the pandemic.In the two previous recessions — those that started in 2000 and 2008 — Wall Street shrank and the city lost tens of thousands of high-paying finance jobs. This time, the job losses on Wall Street have been minimal, helping tax collections to hold up as the city has continued to collect income tax from high-paid professionals who are working remotely.“Wall Street is having a banner year, and they did really well last year,” said Ana Champeny, deputy research director at the Citizens Budget Commission. “That has helped prop up the city’s income tax revenues and business tax revenues.”A strong employment rebound has yet to take hold despite an easing of pandemic-related business restrictions over the summer, the ending of expanded unemployment benefits in September and the reopening of international travel last month.An estimated 800,000 New York City residents, about 10 percent of the population, were receiving the benefits when they expired. Republican lawmakers and small business owners had blamed the benefits for discouraging people from working, though recent studies have shown that the extra payments most likely had little effect on labor shortages, which have continued after the payments ended.Before the pandemic, the tourism industry in New York City employed 283,000 people, with the majority of those jobs in Manhattan. By the end of 2020, roughly a third of those positions had been eliminated, according to the New York State comptroller’s office.Roughly a third of New York City’s 283,000 tourism positions had been eliminated by the end of 2020, though visitors have started to return in greater numbers in recent weeks.Gabby Jones for The New York TimesWhen the city locked down early last year, almost all of its tour guides were laid off, and most have not been rehired, said Patrick Casey, a board member of the Guides Association of New York City who is out of work himself.He had worked as a guide for New York Water Taxi, which operated a fleet of sightseeing boats, for more than 10 years before he was furloughed at the start of the pandemic. He had to fend for himself: Federal pandemic benefits have expired, and like many workers, he had exhausted his unemployment insurance.Mr. Casey said he had hoped to be rehired, but he gave up and started collecting Social Security when he turned 65 in early December. “It’s going to take a long time for my industry to come back,” he said.The pandemic has caused many workers to re-evaluate their own priorities, placing a greater importance on work-life balance, spending time with their families and protecting their health. It has led some workers to retire, while others are reluctant to rejoin the work force if it means taking a job that requires face-to-face interaction, economists say.Louisa Tatum, a career coach at the New York Public Library in the Bronx, said that more people with college degrees were seeking advice, and workers were more selective about what jobs they were willing to accept.While some businesses are hiring and some even have major staff shortages, many workers tell her that they are willing to wait to accept a position that pays well, has consistent hours and, in a reflection of how the pandemic has shifted priorities, offers greater flexibility for remote work.“There is a desire to work remotely and for opportunities that don’t put them at risk of anything,” Ms. Tatum said. The biggest barrier, she said, is the lack of desirable openings.For some industries in New York, the pandemic simply accelerated financial pressure that already existed. Retailers were already struggling with the rise of online shopping, and empty storefronts were adding up even on famed corridors like Madison Avenue.The apparel manufacturing business, a bedrock industry in New York a century ago that employed hundreds of thousands of people, shed more than 4,000 jobs during the pandemic, leaving just 6,100 employees in the city as of October.Taylor Grant moved back home to Alabama after being laid off from her clothing designing job and decided to stay after not being able to find a new job in New York.Julie Bennett for The New York TimesTaylor Grant was among those who lost a job in the apparel manufacturing trade. Ms. Grant, 25, accepted a job in early 2019 as a clothing designer at HMS Productions, a designer and manufacturer of women’s clothes sold at shops like TJ Maxx and Marshalls. Her office was in the garment district, the once booming textile neighborhood in Midtown Manhattan.Ms. Grant said she had survived rounds of layoffs in spring 2020 and had worked remotely for a couple of months in Dothan, Ala., her hometown. She lost her job that summer.Ms. Grant said she applied for a handful of jobs in the apparel business in New York through the rest of 2020, hoping to return while she still had an apartment in the city. Not one company responded, so she stopped looking. She now works as a manager at a women’s boutique started by her mother, Frou Frou Frocks in Dothan, and has helped increase its online sales and social media presence.“I definitely thought I would be with my company for at least five years,” Ms. Grant said. “Once I realized there were no job opportunities in New York, I decided to stay in Alabama.”The Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, a union that represents more than 30,000 hotel workers in New York, still has thousands of members who have been out of work for nearly two years. The outlook is so bleak that union officials have been counseling members on how to find work in other fields, even nonunion jobs. But replacing jobs that paid $35 an hour and provided free family health care is a tall order.“We have people waiting in line and anxious to go back to work,” said Rich Maroko, president of the union. “They’re having difficulty finding full-time work.”Kazi M. Hossain, 59, had served drinks at Bar Seine in the Hôtel Plaza Athénée in Manhattan for nearly 35 years when the pandemic forced the hotel to close in March 2020. It has never reopened, leaving Mr. Hossain without a full-time job for the first time since the mid-1970s.He has supported his family in Queens by taking on part-time work and borrowing $100,000 from his retirement savings. “If the hotel opens in the next three months, I could survive,” Mr. Hossain said. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    The Fed Meets Amid Faster Inflation and Prepares to React

    by

    The Federal Reserve could announce plans to cut economic support faster, and may signal 2022 rate increases, at its Dec. 14-15 meeting.Federal Reserve officials, worried about rising costs and buoyed by a healing labor market, are pivoting from bolstering the economic recovery to more quickly withdrawing the support that has aided the economy since the pandemic began.The policymakers, who meet this week for their final gathering of 2021, are widely expected to outline a faster end to their bond-buying campaign and will telegraph how aggressively they expect to raise rates from rock-bottom next year.The potential for major policy signals at the Fed’s meeting, which concludes at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, will make it one of the most closely watched of the pandemic era.Officials took their first step toward weaning the economy off the central bank’s support in November, when they said they would begin to slow a large-scale bond buying program that had been in place since early in the pandemic to keep money flowing around markets and support the economy. In the weeks since the Fed’s last meeting, fresh data has showed that consumer prices are climbing at the fastest pace in nearly 40 years and the unemployment rate has fallen to 4.2 percent, far below its pandemic peak.Given inflation and growth trends, Fed officials signaled clearly that they would discuss withdrawing support more quickly at this gathering, and economists think officials will signal a plan to taper off bond purchases so that the buying will stop altogether in March.Policymakers will also provide their latest thinking on the path for interest rates in their updated quarterly economic projections, and could pencil in two or three increases next year. When they last released the projections in September, officials were split on whether they would raise rates at all in 2022. Lifting the federal funds rate is arguably the Fed’s most powerful tool for pushing back on inflation, because it would slow demand and economic growth by percolating through the rest of the economy, lifting borrowing costs on mortgages, business loans and auto debt.In late November, Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, set the stage for the central bank’s shift from an economy-stoking stance to one that is more focused on keeping inflation under control.“At this point, the economy is very strong, and inflationary pressures are high, and it is therefore appropriate in my view to consider wrapping up the taper of our asset purchases, which we actually announced at our November meeting, perhaps a few months sooner,” Mr. Powell said during congressional testimony on Nov. 30.The Fed chair is expected to further explain during a post-meeting news conference on Wednesday how he is thinking about the central bank’s policy stance as it confronts rapid inflation and an uncertain economic path at a time when the virus shows no signs of abating and a new variant, Omicron, complicates the outlook.The Fed spent much of 2021 tiptoeing away from full-blast economic support, hoping to remove stimulus gradually enough that the job market would heal fully and quickly. But gradualism has given way to wariness in recent weeks, partly thanks to a new series of data points showing that inflation is still high and might stay elevated for some time.Central bankers knew that prices would climb quickly in early 2021 as the economy recovered from the depths of the pandemic, but the increases have been strikingly broad-based and long-lasting. The gains are broadening beyond pandemic-sensitive goods and into rent and some services, and both wages and inflation expectations are picking up. Policymakers have increasingly questioned the wisdom of adding juice to the economy with each passing month.“They’re realizing that they need to stop pouring gasoline on the fire,” said Gennadiy Goldberg, a rates strategist at T.D. Securities.The Fed has two key jobs: keeping prices stable and fostering maximum employment. Progress on the second goal has also been notable in recent months. The unemployment rate has dropped sharply, falling to 4.2 percent in November and improving faster than Fed officials or most economist expected.Even so, about four million jobs are still missing compared to before the pandemic. Some of those people may have retired, but others are expected to return to the job search once health concerns and pandemic-related child-care problems become less pronounced. Many Fed officials had been hoping to keep their policies very accommodative as those people came back.But inflation is forcing policymakers to balance their job market ambitions with their goal of keeping price gains under control. While an unhealed job market is bad for American households, so too are high and unpredictable price increases that chip away at paychecks and make it hard for businesses to plan. Plus, if the Fed waits too long to react to inflation, the fear is that they might have to lift rates sharply to bring it to heel, setting off a new recession.“We have to balance those two goals when they are in tension as they are right now,” Mr. Powell said in testimony on Dec. 1. “But I assure you we will use our tools to make sure that this high inflation that we are experiencing does not become entrenched.”Shoppers in New York last week. A burst in inflation has caught policymakers by surprise.George Etheredge for The New York TimesThe Biden administration announced in late November that it would reappoint Mr. Powell as Fed chair, which may have also given Mr. Powell a renewed mandate to lay out a plan to manage the risks around inflation and might explain the Fed’s sudden and notable pivot toward focusing more intently on inflation, said Krishna Guha, head of the global policy central bank strategy team at Evercore ISI.If Mr. Powell were leaving the central bank early next year when his term expires, it might have been tough for him to signal a plan for the future that his successor would have been stuck executing.Plus, “there is pressure from both sides of the aisle for the Fed to bring inflation under control,” Mr. Guha said. But he thinks the political element of the shift could be exaggerated; economic fundamentals also explain it.While many Fed officials say they still expect high inflation to fade, plenty of signs suggest it is at risk of remaining too high for too long. Businesses report that they are raising wages or setting aside money as they prepare to pay more. Companies — from dollar stores to pizza shops — are lifting prices and finding that consumers accept the change.Even companies taking a cautious approach to lifting prices express uncertainty about how long it will take to clear the supply chain snarls that are pushing up prices for inputs like food commodities and imported goods.“I think we’re living in elevated time of everything, right?” Randy Garutti, chief executive officer of Shake Shack, said at an investor conference early this month. “That will moderate. I can’t tell you when, I don’t know if it will be next year ’23 or ’24, or which product it will be? That’s unclear.”Fed officials are quick to acknowledge that the supply snarls seem likely to last into next year, and they seem to view the new coronavirus variant — about which much is still unknown — as something with the potential to prevent tortured supply routes from returning to normal.As they wrestle with the crosscurrents, Wall Street is debating how quickly the Fed might move to push rates higher next near, and will closely watch how many rate increases officials pencil into their fresh economic projections this week for any hint at the trajectory.“We think it’s a close call between two or three” estimated increases, J.P. Morgan economists wrote in a preview note, noting that they think three are more likely. They expect the Fed to first raise rates in June 2022, then lift them again every three months.The plan won’t necessarily be to try to constrain the economy by withdrawing support so rapidly that Fed policy becomes a big drag on growth — the equivalent of slamming the brakes. Instead, it will be to stop helping the economy so much, said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Grant Thornton LLP.“The Fed is going to take their foot off the gas pedal,” she said. The new development at this meeting is that the stimulus deceleration will be happening “even faster.” More

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Assails Kellogg’s Plan to Replace Striking Workers

    by

    President Biden on Friday waded into a strike involving 1,400 employees at four Kellogg plants, whom the company said it planned to permanently replace after workers voted down a proposed contract this week.“I am deeply troubled by reports of Kellogg’s plans to permanently replace striking workers,” Mr. Biden said in a statement, adding that “permanently replacing striking workers is an existential attack on the union and its members’ jobs and livelihoods.”The strike began on Oct. 5 and has largely focused on the company’s two-tier compensation system, in which employees hired after 2015 typically receive lower wages and less generous benefits than veteran workers. Many veteran Kellogg workers, who the company says earn about $35 per hour on average, believe that adding lower-paid workers puts downward pressure on their wages.Kellogg raised the possibility of hiring permanent replacements in November. The company and the union last week reached a tentative agreement in which the company would lift a cap on the number of workers in the lower tier, which was 30 percent under the previous contract. In exchange, the company agreed to move all workers with four or more years experience into the veteran tier, as well as an amount equivalent to 3 percent of workers at its plants in each of the five years of the contract.On Tuesday, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, which represents the workers, said its members had “overwhelmingly voted” against the deal. In response to the result, Kellogg said that it would “hire permanent replacement employees in positions vacated by striking workers.”A Kellogg spokeswoman, Kris Bahner, said Friday that the company had posted job listings for permanent replacement roles in each of its four locations and that its hiring process was “fully operational.” The statement added: “Interest in the roles has been strong at all four plants, as expected. We expect some of the new hires to start with the company very soon.”After Mr. Biden’s statement, Ms. Bahner said that the company was “ready, willing and able to negotiate with the union” and that it agreed with the president “that this needs to be solved at the bargaining table.” Ms. Bahner indicated that the company had moved ahead with permanent replacements out of an obligation to consumers and other employees.Permanently replacing workers who are striking over economic issues like wages and benefits is legal, but Democrats, including Mr. Biden, have sought to outlaw the practice through the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act. The House approved the bill in March but it has stalled in the Senate.“I have long opposed permanent striker replacements and I strongly support legislation that would ban that practice,” Mr. Biden said in his statement Friday. “Such action undermines the critical role collective bargaining plays in providing workers a voice and the opportunity to improve their lives.”The statement is not the first time Mr. Biden has appeared to weigh in on a prominent labor action. The president appeared in a video during a union campaign at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama this year warning that “there should be no intimidation, no coercion, no threats, no anti-union propaganda” — an unusual interjection by a president during a union election.Mr. Biden has made no secret of his support for unions over the years. He quickly ousted government officials disliked by unions, reversed Trump-era rules that softened worker protections and signed legislation that allocated tens of billions of dollars to stabilize union pension plans.His $2 trillion climate and social policy bill, pending in the Senate, includes numerous pro-labor measures, including incentives for employers to offer union-scale wages on wind and solar projects. More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    GM’s EV Efforts Reportedly Include a Bigger Michigan Presence

    by

    General Motors intends to spend several billion dollars to set up production of batteries and electric pickup trucks at two locations in Michigan, giving the company’s home state an economic boost, a person with knowledge of the plans said Friday.The automaker has started sketching out proposals to convert an electric car plant in Orion Township to produce electric pickups and to build a new battery plant with a partner, LG Electronics, near the existing Lansing Delta Township plant, this person said.The company, which has laid out ambitious goals for a shift to electric vehicles, was more circumspect about its plans in a statement issued Friday. “G.M. is developing business cases for potential future investments in Michigan,” it said. “As part of developing a competitive business case, we are having discussions with the appropriate local officials on available incentives.”G.M.’s prospective development of the Michigan sites was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.The total investment is likely to be more than $4 billion. G.M. previously spent $2 billion to convert a Detroit plant to electric vehicle production. Incentive applications filed to the City of Lansing on Friday showed that G.M. and LG envision investing $2.5 billion in the battery plant and creating 1,700 jobs there.Production of a high-volume pickup truck could significantly increase employment at the Orion Township plant, which has been used to make the Chevrolet Bolt, an electric compact car. Bolt output has been limited and is currently suspended because of a recall of the battery packs used in the car. When in operation, the factory has 1,100 workers on a single shift, and E.V. production would probably increase production to two or even three shifts.The investment would be a victory for Michigan as automakers race to begin making battery packs and electric vehicles in high volumes. Several factories are planned for Southern states. Toyota said this week that it would build a battery plant in North Carolina that is supposed to employ 1,750 people.Ford Motor is spending $11.4 billion to build two battery plants in Kentucky and a third battery plant and a new electric truck plant in Tennessee. G.M. has battery plants under construction in Ohio and Tennessee, and it plans to add others in Ontario and Mexico.The spate of investments and job commitments has caused concern among some economic development officials in Michigan that the state was not winning a significant portion of the jobs being created by the auto industry’s conversion to electric vehicles.G.M., Ford, Toyota and other traditional automakers are trying to catch up to Tesla, which leads in global sales of electric vehicles by a wide margin and has captured the imagination of investors. Tesla has a market value of about $1 trillion — more than G.M., Ford, Toyota and several other automakers combined.G.M. plans to introduce 20 electric vehicles in the United States by 2025. The first few include the GMC Hummer electric pickup and sport-utility models, and the Cadillac Lyriq, a luxury S.U.V. Those will be built at a plant in Detroit that G.M. now calls “Factory Zero.” A variety of other E.V.s are supposed to follow, including an electric version of the Chevrolet Silverado pickup that is supposed to go into production in early 2023.These models will use modular battery packs — produced in a joint venture with LG — that G.M. is counting on to help reduce the cost of electric vehicles.Ford is slightly ahead of G.M. in electric vehicles. It began selling the electric Mustang Mach-E S.U.V. nearly a year ago, and it plans to start making an electric pickup, the F-150 Lightning, in early 2022.Ford’s chief executive, Jim Farley, told CNBC on Thursday that his company had 200,000 reservations from customers for the truck and that it was scrambling to increase production capacity to meet demand. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Gig Worker Protections Get a Push in European Proposal

    by

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

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    The Achilles’ Heel of Biden’s Climate Plan? Coal Miners.

    by

    For years, environmentalists have sought compromises with labor unions in industries reliant on fossil fuels, aware that one of the biggest obstacles to cutting carbon emissions is opposition from the unions’ members.States like Washington, New York and Illinois have enacted renewable-energy laws that were backed by unions representing workers who build and maintain traditional power plants. And unions for electricians and steelworkers are rallying behind President Biden’s climate and social policy legislation, now in the Senate’s hands.But at least one group of workers appears far less enthusiastic about the deal-making: coal workers, who continue to regard clean-energy jobs as a major risk to their standard of living.“It’s definitely going to pay less, not have our insurance,” Gary Campbell, a heavy-equipment operator at a coal mine in West Virginia, said of wind and solar jobs. “We see windmills around us everywhere. They’re up, then everybody disappears. It’s not consistent.”Mr. Biden has sought to address the concerns about pay with subsidies that provide incentives for wind and solar projects to offer union-scale wages. His bill includes billions in aid, training money and redevelopment funds that will help coal communities.But Phil Smith, the top lobbyist for the United Mine Workers of America, said a general skepticism toward promises of economic relief was nonetheless widespread among his members. “We’ve heard the same things over and over and over again going back to J.F.K.,” Mr. Smith said. The union has been pointedly mum on the current version of Mr. Biden’s bill, which the president is calling Build Back Better.Unfortunately for Mr. Biden, this skepticism has threatened to undermine his efforts on climate change. While there are fewer than 50,000 unionized coal miners in the country, compared with the millions of industrial and construction workers who belong to unions, miners have long punched above their weight thanks to their concentration in election battleground states like Pennsylvania or states with powerful senators, like Joe Manchin III of West Virginia.When Mr. Manchin, a Democrat and one of the chamber’s swing votes, came out against Mr. Biden’s $150 billion clean electricity program in October, his move effectively killed what many environmentalists considered the most critical component of the president’s climate agenda. The miners’ union applauded.And Mr. Manchin and his constituents will continue to exert outsize influence over climate policy. Mr. Biden’s roughly $2 trillion bill includes about $550 billion in spending on green technology and infrastructure. Even if the bill passes largely intact, most experts say future government action will be necessary to stave off the catastrophic effects of global warming.All of that has raised the stakes for courting coal miners.“Our guiding principle is the belief that we don’t have to choose between good jobs and a clean environment,” said Jason Walsh, the executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, which has united labor and environmental groups to marshal support for initiatives like Mr. Biden’s. “But our ability to continue to articulate that belief with a straight face depends on the policy choices we make.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-1kpebx{margin:0 auto;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1kpebx{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1gtxqqv{margin-bottom:0;}.css-1g3vlj0{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1g3vlj0{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-1g3vlj0 strong{font-weight:600;}.css-1g3vlj0 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1g3vlj0{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0.25rem;}.css-19zsuqr{display:block;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}“Coal miners,” he added, “are at the center of that.”It is impossible to explain mine workers’ jaundiced view of Mr. Biden’s agenda without appreciating their heightened economic vulnerability: Unlike the carpenters and electricians who work at power plants but could apply their skills to renewable-energy projects, many miners are unlikely to find jobs on wind and solar farms that resemble their current work. (Some, like equipment operators, have more transferable skills.)It is also difficult to overstate the political gamesmanship that has shaped the discourse on miners. In her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton proposed spending $30 billion on economic aid for coal country. But a verbal miscue — “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” she said while discussing her proposal at a town hall — allowed opponents to portray her as waging a “war on coal.”“It is a politicized situation in which one political party that’s increasingly captured by industry benefits from the status quo by perpetuating this rhetoric,” said Matto Mildenberger, a political scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who studies the politics of climate policy.And then there is Mr. Manchin, a complicated political figure who is among the Senate’s leading recipients of campaign money from the fossil fuel industry.Mr. Manchin has sometimes resisted provisions favored by the miners’ union, such as wage-replacement payments to coal workers who must accept a lower-paying job. “At the end of the day, it wasn’t something he was interested in doing,” said Mr. Smith, the union’s lobbyist. A spokeswoman for Mr. Manchin declined to comment.Yet in other ways Mr. Manchin has channeled his constituents’ feelings well, suggesting that he might be more enthusiastic about renewable-energy legislation if they were.At a forum in the spring, he talked about the tendency to forget coal miners — “We feel like the returning Vietnam veteran,” he said — and questioned the proposed trade of “the traditional jobs we’re about to lose, for the transitional jobs that I’m not sure are going to be there.”In interviews, coal workers said they were skeptical that Mr. Biden’s spending plan would ultimately benefit them. Mr. Campbell, a recording secretary for his union local, said he would be pleased if an electric-vehicle battery plant opened in West Virginia under a manufacturing tax credit pending in Congress.“It’s definitely going to pay less, not have our insurance,” Gary Campbell, a heavy-equipment operator at the Loveridge mine, said of wind and solar work.Kristian Thacker for The New York TimesBut he doubted it would happen. “Until something gets done, I don’t want to jump on anyone’s coattail,” he said. “We’ve had a lot of promises, that’s about it.”Dustin Tingley, an expert on public opinion on climate policy at Harvard University, said that while investments in green technology were popular among the general public, many coal country residents simply didn’t believe these investments would produce jobs in their communities over the long term.“If you’re some 35-year-old, 40-year-old worker in fossil fuels thinking about transitioning to some new industry, you need to have the expectation that the jobs will actually be around,” Dr. Tingley said.The clean-energy bill that Illinois passed in September illustrates the tension. The legislation allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and ensures that construction workers will receive union-scale wages on most nonresidential projects. It also includes tens of millions of dollars for worker training.But Doris Turner, a Democratic state senator from central Illinois whose district includes a coal-powered plant and mine workers, said she had voted “present” rather than “yea” on the bill because of lingering concerns about workers.Ms. Turner, a first-term senator who helped win a concession to extend the life of the local coal plant, said she sometimes felt like the Joe Manchin of Illinois. “I’m trying to build relationships with new colleagues, and all of a sudden here we are with this energy legislation and I’m like, ‘I can’t do that,’” Ms. Turner said. “Nobody was very rude, but I could hear sighs.”Pat Devaney, the secretary-treasurer of the Illinois A.F.L.-C.I.O., who was involved in negotiating the bill, said coal workers presented the most vexing policy dilemma.“That one is a little bit tougher of a nut to crack,” he said, adding that the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and other labor groups would continue to push for proposals like health benefits and lost-wage compensation for displaced workers, programs that didn’t make it into the recently enacted Illinois law.Such delays in economic relief are typical and have heightened miners’ opposition to clean-energy legislation, said Heidi Binko, executive director of the Just Transition Fund, a nonprofit group focused on growing local economies hit hard by the decline of fossil fuels.Ms. Binko cited the example of the Obama administration, which in 2014 proposed an ambitious regulatory effort to reduce carbon emissions that appeared likely to accelerate the closing of coal-fired plants. The administration later unveiled an economic development package for coal country — after voters there had already become alarmed.“It would have been received so differently if first the administration had done something to help the people left behind,” Ms. Binko said.Private philanthropists have often reinforced the problem, Ms. Binko said, by spending millions on campaigns to shut down coal plants, but little on economic development that would ease the political opposition to renewable energy in states like West Virginia.Carrie Doyle, a senior fellow in the environment program of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which makes grants to organizations working on climate change, said philanthropists were only beginning to address the shortfall in funding for economic development.“It feels like it should have been put into place a while ago,” Ms. Doyle said. “Some of that funding is happening now, but it needs to scale.”While such efforts will come too late to ease the passage of Mr. Biden’s climate legislation, they could be essential to ensuring that renewable energy remains politically viable.Some scholars point to international trade as a cautionary tale. In the 1990s and 2000s, Congress approved multiple trade deals. Economists argued, as they do on renewable energy today, that the benefits to the country would far outweigh the costs, which would be concentrated among a small group of workers who could be compensated for their losses, or find new jobs for similar pay.But the failure to ease the economic blow to manufacturing workers, who many economists now concede were devastated by greater trade with China, helped unravel political support for free trade. In 2016, both major presidential nominees campaigned against the 12-nation trade pact that the Obama administration had spent years negotiating.If displaced fossil fuel workers go through a comparable experience, these scholars say, the political effects could be similar, unraveling support for climate policies.“There are lessons to be learned from that experience,” said Dr. Tingley, speaking of the fallout from trade. Among them, he added, “was just recognizing how hard it is to pivot, given where people are in life.” More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    As Omicron Threat Looms, Inflation Limits Fed’s Room to Maneuver

    by

    The central bank has spent years guarding against economic blows. Now it is in inflation-fighting mode, even as a potential risk emerges.The Omicron variant of the coronavirus comes at a challenging moment for the Federal Reserve, as officials try to pivot from containing the pandemic’s economic fallout toward addressing worryingly persistent inflation.The central bank has spent the past two years trying to support a still-incomplete labor market recovery, keeping interest rates at rock bottom and buying trillions of dollars’ worth of government-backed bonds since March 2020. But now that inflation has shot higher, and as price gains increasingly threaten to remain too quick for comfort, its policymakers are having to balance their efforts to support the economy with the need to keep price trends from leaping out of control.That newfound focus on inflation may limit the central bank’s ability to cushion any blow Omicron might deal to America’s growth and the labor market. And in an unexpected twist, the new variant could even speed up the Fed’s withdrawal of economic support if it intensifies the factors that are causing inflation to run at its fastest pace in 31 years.“In every one of the previous waves of the virus, the Fed was able to react by effectively focusing on downside risks to growth, and trying to mitigate them,” said Aneta Markowska, chief financial economist at Jefferies. “They’re no longer able to do that, because of inflation.”The Fed’s attention to price increases, even as a threat to growth looms, is a turning point.Inflation, and especially measures of it that strip out volatile food and fuel prices, had been slow for years. The Fed has two goals — achieving maximum employment and containing price increases — and quiescent inflation meant it could focus on supporting growth and bolstering the labor market, as it did during the earlier stages of the pandemic. But the sharp rise in prices this year has put the Fed’s two goals in tension as it sets policy.The Omicron variant is in its infancy, and what it will mean for public health and the economy is unclear. But if it does shut down factories and other businesses and keep workers at home, it could keep supply chains out of whack, spelling more trouble for the Fed.There is a risk that Omicron “will continue that excess demand in the areas that don’t have capacity and will stall the recovery in the areas where we actually have the capacity,” John C. Williams, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said in an interview last week..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-1kpebx{margin:0 auto;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1kpebx{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1gtxqqv{margin-bottom:0;}.css-1g3vlj0{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1g3vlj0{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-1g3vlj0 strong{font-weight:600;}.css-1g3vlj0 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1g3vlj0{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0.25rem;}.css-19zsuqr{display:block;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Janet L. Yellen, the Treasury secretary and a former Fed chair, made similar remarks at an event on Thursday.“The pandemic could be with us for quite some time and, hopefully, not completely stifling economic activity but affecting our behavior in ways that contribute to inflation,” she said of the new variant.They made their comments just after Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, signaled greater concern around inflation.“Generally, the higher prices we’re seeing are related to the supply-and-demand imbalances that can be traced directly back to the pandemic and the reopening of the economy, but it’s also the case that price increases have spread much more broadly in the recent few months,” Mr. Powell said during congressional testimony last week. “I think the risk of higher inflation has increased.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-1kpebx{margin:0 auto;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1kpebx{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1gtxqqv{margin-bottom:0;}.css-19zsuqr{display:block;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}Fed officials initially expected a 2021 price pop to fade quickly as supply chains unsnarled and factories worked through backlogs. Instead, inflation has been climbing at its fastest pace in more than three decades, and fresh data set for release on Friday are expected to show that the ascent continued as a broad swath of products — like streaming services, rental housing and food — had higher prices.Given that, Mr. Powell and his colleagues have pivoted to inflation-fighting mode, trying to ensure that they are poised to respond decisively should price pressures persist.Mr. Powell said last week that officials would discuss speeding up their plans to taper off their bond-buying program — prompting many economists to expect them to announce a plan after their December meeting that would allow them to stop buying bonds by mid-March. The Fed announced early in November that it would slow purchases from $120 billion a month, making the possible acceleration a notable change.Ending bond-buying early would put officials in a position to raise their policy interest rate, which is their more traditional and more powerful tool.A faster taper “could set the stage for a rate hike at the March 15-16 meeting, although this may be too early from a labor market perspective even if the pace of improvement does remain rapid,” Jan Hatzius, chief economist at Goldman Sachs, wrote in a research note on Monday. Because he and his team think March would be premature, they expect an initial rate increase in June, though they say May is “very possible.”A coronavirus testing site in New York City this week. The newfound focus on inflation may limit the Fed’s ability to cushion any blow Omicron might deal to America’s growth and the labor market.Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesBond purchases help juice markets and keep money flowing to borrowers, so slowing them makes for less additional support each month. A higher Fed interest rate would matter even more, denting asset prices and making many types of borrowing more expensive, like car loans, mortgages and business credit. By raising borrowing costs, the Fed could cool demand, allowing supplies to catch up and lowering prices over time.Raising rates earlier would be a trade-off. Unemployment has fallen swiftly, dropping to 4.2 percent in November, but nearly four million people are still missing from the labor market compared with just before the pandemic began. Some have most likely retired, but surveys and anecdotes suggest that many are lingering on the sidelines because they lack adequate child care or are afraid of contracting or passing along the coronavirus.If the Fed begins to remove its support for the economy, slowing business expansion and hiring, the labor market could rebound more slowly and haltingly when and if those factors fade.But the balancing act is different from what it was in previous business cycles. The factors keeping employees on the sidelines right now are mostly unrelated to labor demand, the side of the equation that the Fed can influence. Employers appear desperate to hire, and job openings have shot up. People are leaving their jobs at historically high rates, such a trend that job-quitting TikTok videos have become a cultural phenomenon.In fact, the at-least-temporarily-tight labor market is one reason inflation might last. As they compete for workers and as employees demand more pay to keep up with ballooning consumption costs, companies are raising wages rapidly. The Employment Cost Index, which the Fed watches closely because it is less affected by many of the pandemic-tied problems that have muddied other wage gauges, rose sharply in its latest reading — catching policymakers’ attention.If companies continue to increase pay, they may raise prices to cover their costs. That could keep inflation high, and anecdotal signs that such a trend is developing have already cropped up in the Fed’s survey of regional business contacts, called the Beige Book.“Several contacts mentioned that labor costs were already being passed along to consumers with little resistance, while others said plans were underway to do so,” the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta reported in the latest edition, released last week.Still, some believe that inflation will fade headed into 2022 as the world adjusts to changing shopping patterns or as holiday demand that has run up against constrained supply fades. That could leave the Fed with room to be patient on rate increases, even if it has positioned itself to be nimble.Lifting rates “before those people come back is a little bit like throwing in the towel,” Ms. Markowska said. “I have a hard time believing that the Fed would throw in the towel that easily.” More

  • 125 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Why the November Jobs Report Is Better Than It Looks

    by

    The number of jobs added was below expectations, but otherwise the report shows an economy on the right track.Everything in the November jobs numbers Friday was good except for the number that usually gets the most attention.The 210,000 jobs that U.S. employers added last month was far below analyst expectations. But most of the other evidence in the report points to a job market that is humming. An open question a few months ago — is this a tight labor market or a loose one? — is quickly being settled in favor of “tight.”Most notably, the jobless rate fell to 4.2 percent from 4.6 percent, a remarkable swing in a single month. The speed with which unemployment has gone from a grave crisis to a benign situation is astounding. Unemployment was 6.7 percent last December. In one year, we’ve experienced an improvement that took three and a half years in the last economic cycle (March 2014 to September 2017).Sometimes a falling unemployment rate is driven by a pernicious trend: People drop out of the labor force. The opposite was true in November. The survey of American households on which the data is based showed uniformly positive signs. The number of people working was up by 1.1 million while the number of adults not in the labor force — neither working nor looking for work — fell by 473,000.Among people in their prime working years, those 25 to 54, the share of people employed rose by a whopping half a percentage point. It was 78.8 percent in November, rapidly approaching its pre-Covid level of 80.4 percent. By early in 2022, it’s easy to imagine that people in that age bracket will be employed at prepandemic rates.Even the disappointing number on job creation, derived from a separate survey of employers, has some silver linings. For one, it was accompanied by positive revisions to September and October job growth numbers, amounting to a combined 82,000, which takes some of the sting away. Revisions have been uncommonly large, and mostly in a positive direction, in recent months, reflecting challenges collecting data in a pandemic economy.For another, soft job creation numbers may also be evidence of a tight labor market. Employers may want to add jobs in larger numbers, but are constrained by the number of workers they’re able to find. That story is certainly consistent with many business surveys and anecdotes about labor shortage issues.A tight job market — one in which workers are scarce and employers have to compete to attract workers — is generally the goal of economic policy. Compensation tends to rise, and workers are confident in their ability to find a new job. The new numbers are just the latest evidence that this is the world American workers are living in right now. (Among the other evidence: The rate of people voluntarily quitting their jobs is at record levels.)That’s not to say everything is perfect. The share of adults in the labor force remains significantly below prepandemic levels — 61.8 percent in November, compared with 63.3 percent in February 2020. That reflects in part the decisions of people to retire early. And it remains unclear how many of those people might return to work as the economy and public health conditions improve.But in terms of policy, this increasingly looks like an economy on the right track. The work of macroeconomic stabilization appears to be pretty much complete. At its coming policy meeting, the Federal Reserve will seriously consider winding down its program of bond-buying faster than planned, Chair Jerome Powell said this week.Despite the soft job creation numbers, the overall November employment report appears to support those plans. Fed officials would like to see a stronger rebound in labor force participation, but that measure was at least heading in the right direction in November. And ultimately it isn’t Fed policy that will decide whether, for example, a 62-year-old who left his job during the pandemic decides to start working again.If anything, the new numbers support the idea that the Fed has found itself out of position, with a monetary policy that is looser than it should be at a time when the labor market is quite healthy and with inflation far above its target.Consider this: In the last economic cycle, the Fed began tapering its bond purchases in December 2013, when the unemployment rate was 6.7 percent and inflation was coming in below the Fed’s 2 percent goal. This time, it began when the jobless rate was 4.2 percent and inflation was in the ballpark of 6 percent (November inflation numbers have not yet been released).Even if you believe the Fed was too quick to tighten monetary policy in 2013 — and the sluggish recovery of the 2010s is evidence that it was — the contrast is striking. In that sense, a more aggressive tapering plan from the Fed will be an effort to adjust its policy stance with the facts on the ground without causing too much disruption to markets or the economy.If the Fed succeeds, the economy will keep growing steadily and the labor market will continue its gradual improvement. But it’s worth noting just how rapid the improvement has already been. In February, the Congressional Budget Office was forecasting the unemployment rate would be 5.3 percent in the current quarter. It has ended up a full percentage point below that level.Ultimately, this has been a speedy labor market recovery, and one that appears to have more room to run. Policymakers have every reason to take the win and continue adjusting to that reality. More