Prices (Fares, Fees and Rates)

Latest story

150 Shares64 Views

Has the Spread of Tipping Reached Its Limit? Don’t Count on It.

by

Americans are being asked to tip more often and in more places than ever before: at fast food counters and corner stores, at auto garages and carwashes, even at self-checkout kiosks. That has rankled many customers and divided both employers and tipped workers.It may soon get worse. Both major-party presidential candidates have embraced proposals to eliminate income taxes on tips, a move that would, in effect, subsidize tipping and prompt more businesses to rely on it.Economists across the political spectrum have panned the tax idea, arguing that it is unfair — favoring one set of low-wage workers over others — and could have unintended consequences. Even some tipped workers and groups that represent them are skeptical, worrying that over the long term the policy could result in lower pay.But the debate alone underscores how service-sector workers have emerged from the pandemic as an economically and politically potent force. The spread of tipping in recent years was, in part, a result of the intense demand for workers, and the leverage it gave them. The presidential candidates’ dueling proposals signal that they see the nation’s roughly four million tipped workers as a constituency worth wooing.“I do think it’s a reflection of this change in which people are finally hearing and recognizing that these workers matter,” said Saru Jayaraman, president of One Fair Wage, an advocacy organization. “Tipped workers had never seen their needs named in any way by any presidential candidate, ever.”Ms. Jayaraman isn’t a fan of the tax exemption idea, though she is optimistic that the attention being paid to the issue could lead to policies she considers more important. One is the elimination of the subminimum wage, which allows businesses in some states to pay workers as little as $2.13 an hour as long as they receive enough in tips to bring them up to the full minimum wage.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 63 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Harris and Trump Embrace Tariffs

    by

    Both Democrats and Republicans are expressing support for tariffs to protect American industry, reversing decades of trade thinking in Washington.When Donald J. Trump ran for president in 2016, there was not much love for tariffs in Washington. Many Republicans and Democrats believed that putting levies on imports created economic inefficiencies and that freer trade was the best recipe for growth.That view has largely fallen out of fashion in 2024. While Mr. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, differ greatly in their campaign proposals, both of their parties are increasingly embracing tariffs as an essential tool in protecting American manufacturers from Chinese and other global competitors.It has been a sharp reversal from previous decades, when most politicians fought to lower tariffs rather than raise them. But the loss of American manufacturing jobs as a result of globalization and China’s focus on churning out cheap exports have created a bipartisan backlash against more open trade. Given that Mr. Trump’s 2016 win capitalized on such sentiments, Democrats have been striving to avoid losing voters opposed to free trade.“On economic policy and trade issues, you have both major parties moving in the same direction,” said Nick Iacovella, a senior vice president at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, which advocates tariffs and domestic investments in industry.Mr. Iacovella said that Mr. Trump would most likely go further on tariffs than Ms. Harris would, but that no matter who won the election “it’s still going to be a tariffs administration, and an industrial policy one.”Ms. Harris has sought to differentiate herself from Mr. Trump’s trade proposals, which include tariffs of 10 percent to 20 percent on most imports, as well as levies of more than 60 percent on China. Many economists say that level of tariffs would drive up prices for consumers, since companies would be likely to pass on higher import costs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Kroger and Albertsons Confront a Skeptical F.T.C. in federal court

    by

    The Federal Trade Commission, which is trying to block Kroger’s plan to acquire Albertsons, said in court that the merger of grocery giants would also hurt workers’ pay and benefits.A trial that could determine whether the two largest supermarket chains in the United States can merge opened in Portland, Ore., on Monday, pitting the grocery giant Kroger against regulators who argue that its takeover of Albertsons would eliminate competition at the expense of consumers and workers.Before Judge Adrienne Nelson of U.S. District Court, the Federal Trade Commission and the supermarket chains laid out their arguments in court for the first time, as union representatives and workers protested the deal on the courthouse steps. Less competition, the agency’s lawyers said, would give Kroger more leverage to raise prices on millions of consumers.The highly anticipated proceedings, set to last three weeks, come as high food prices have become a critical focus in the presidential race. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has backed a federal ban on price-gouging in the food and grocery industries to combat high grocery costs.Kroger and Albertsons defended the $24.6 billion deal, which would be the biggest supermarket merger in U.S. history, saying it would bolster their leverage with suppliers and improve competition against major retailers like Costco, Amazon and Walmart. But the F.T.C. — backed by a chorus of unions, consumer advocates, politicians and independent grocery chains — reiterated its position that the merger would probably result in higher prices for groceries and worse conditions for workers.The deal “would eliminate the competition that shoppers and workers depend on in one fell swoop,” Susan Musser, the F.T.C.’s chief trial counsel, said in her opening statement. “This lawsuit is part of an effort aimed at helping Americans feed their families.”In bringing the case, the F.T.C. has been joined by the attorneys general of eight states, including California and Illinois, as well as the District of Columbia. It’s part of a regulatory push under the Biden administration to rein in corporate consolidation in an array of industries, including airlines, Big Tech, book publishing and pharmaceuticals.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares91 Views

    in Economy

    Stocks Rise as Fed Chair Powell Signals Rate Cuts in Jackson Hole Speech

    by

    Jerome H. Powell made it clear that the Federal Reserve will cut rates on Sept. 18, as the central bank turns the corner in its fight against inflation.Speaking in his most closely watched speech of the year, Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, clearly signaled on Friday that the central bank was poised to cut interest rates in September.And while Mr. Powell stopped short of giving a clear hint at just how large that move might be, he forcefully underscored that the central bank stands prepared to adjust policy to protect the job market from weakening further and to keep the economy on a path for a soft landing.“The time has come for policy to adjust,” Mr. Powell said during the Kansas City Fed’s annual conference at Jackson Hole in Wyoming. “The direction of travel is clear, and the timing and pace of rate cuts will depend on incoming data, the evolving outlook and the balance of risks.”He then added: “We will do everything we can to support a strong labor market as we make further progress toward price stability.”Mr. Powell’s speech was his firmest declaration yet that the Fed is turning a corner in its fight against inflation. After more than a year of holding interest rates at 5.3 percent, the highest level in more than two decades, officials finally have enough confidence to change their stance by cutting rates at their Sept. 17-18 meeting.Policymakers have been using those high rates to try to cool the economy and, by doing so, wrestle down rapid inflation. But as price increases slow substantially and the job market shows signs of wobbling, officials no longer need to hit the brakes quite so hard.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares137 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Plans to Accuse RealPage of Enabling Collusion on Rents

    by

    The Justice Department is set to file an antitrust suit against the real estate company RealPage alleging illegal price-fixing facilitated by algorithms.The Justice Department plans to file an antitrust lawsuit as soon as Friday against the real estate software company RealPage, claiming its software enabled landlords to collude to raise rents, two people with knowledge of the lawsuit said.The suit, which will be joined by California, Colorado, Minnesota, North Carolina, Washington and other states, was expected to accuse RealPage of facilitating a price-fixing conspiracy that boosted rents beyond market forces, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.The suit would escalate the government’s efforts to regulate what it sees as misuse of technology. Officials have sued Google, Amazon, Meta and Apple over what they said were monopolistic behaviors that harm consumers.RealPage’s YieldStar product, which gathers confidential real estate information, has been at the heart of the government’s concerns. Landlords, who pay for the software, share information about rents and occupancy rates that is otherwise confidential. Based on that data, an algorithm generates suggestions for what landlords should charge renters, and those figures are often higher than they would be in a competitive market, according to allegations in prior lawsuits against RealPage by state attorneys general.A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment.Owned by the private equity firm Thoma Bravo, RealPage has advertised its software to landlords as a tool that can help them outperform the market by 3 percent to 7 percent. It says its software is used in metro areas around the country.RealPage did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Thoma Bravo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares91 Views

    in Economy

    Why the Fed’s Jackson Hole Confab Matters for Wall St. and the Economy

    by

    The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s annual conference in Wyoming gets a lot of buzz. Here’s why it matters for Wall Street and the economy.Anyone who has flipped through newspapers or business television channels this week might have noticed two words on repeat: Jackson Hole.They refer to the premier central banking conference of the year, which is held late each August at the Jackson Lake Lodge in Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. This year’s conference kicks off Thursday and runs through Saturday.To the uninitiated, it might seem weird that what is arguably the most important economic event in the world is held in remote Wyoming, two time zones away from the Federal Reserve’s Washington-based Board of Governors and 1,047 miles from its host, the Kansas City Fed. And the symposium itself is hardly your average conference. Loafers cede to cowboy boots. Attendees snack on huckleberry pastries (or swill huckleberry drinks) while discussing the latest economic papers.But if Jackson Hole is a little bit incongruous, it is also unquestionably important, an invite-only gathering where paradigm-shaping research is presented and momentous policy shifts are announced. The event has long been an obsession on Wall Street.This year will be no exception. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, is scheduled to speak Friday morning, and markets are waiting anxiously to parse his remarks for even the slightest hint about how much the Fed might cut interest rates at its meeting next month — and how quickly central bankers will reduce borrowing costs after that.Wondering how a monetary policy conference held at the tail end of August became such a big deal and why it has stayed that way? Curious whether this year’s Jackson Hole conference will matter for mortgage rates or job prospects?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares95 Views

    in Economy

    Powell Faces Economic Crossroads as He Prepares to Speak at Jackson Hole

    by

    Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, will deliver remarks as inflation cools and growth holds up — but as labor market weakening threatens to interrupt the soft landing.Two years ago, Jerome H. Powell took the podium at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s annual conference at Jackson Hole in Wyoming and warned America that lowering inflation would require some pain.On Friday, Mr. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, will again deliver his most important policy speech of the year from that closely watched stage. But this time, he is much more likely to focus on how the Fed is trying to pull off what many onlookers once thought was unlikely, and maybe even impossible: a relatively painless soft landing.Both the Fed and the American economy are approaching a crossroads. Inflation has come down sharply since its 2022 peak of 9.1 percent, with the year-over-year increase in the Consumer Price Index falling to 2.9 percent in July. Given the progress, the critical question facing Fed officials is no longer how much economic damage it will take to wrestle price increases back under control. It is whether they can finish the job without inflicting much damage at all.That remains a big if.Consumer spending and overall economic growth have held up in the face of high interest rates, which are meant to cool demand and eventually weigh down inflation. But the job market is beginning to weaken. Revisions released this week showed that employers hired fewer workers in 2023 and early 2024 than was previously reported. The unemployment rate rose to 4.3 percent in July, up from 4.1 percent in June and 3.5 percent a year earlier. The latest jump could be a fluke — a hurricane messed with the data — but it could also be an early warning that the economy is hurtling toward the brink of a recession.That makes this a critical moment for the Fed. Officials have held interest rates at a two-decade high of 5.3 percent for a full year. Now, as they try to secure a soft and gentle economic landing, they are preparing to take their foot off the brake. Policymakers are widely expected to begin lowering rates at their meeting in September.Mr. Powell could use his speech to confirm that a rate cut is imminent. But most economists think that he will avoid detailing just how much and how quickly rates are likely to drop. Fed officials will receive a fresh jobs report on Sept. 6, providing a clearer idea of how the economy is shaping up before their Sept. 17-18 meeting.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares135 Views

    in Economy

    What Kalamazoo (Yes, Kalamazoo) Reveals About the Nation’s Housing Crisis

    by

    A decade ago, the city — and all of Michigan — had too many houses. Now it has a shortage. The shift there explains today’s costly housing market in the rest of the country.For years, when Michigan politicians talked about the state’s housing problem, they were referring to a surplus: too many run-down houses, stripped of valuable copper, sitting empty and blighting neighborhoods. Now the message has flipped. In her State of the State address this year, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer lamented the housing shortage and landed one of her biggest applause lines with, “The rent is too damn high, and we don’t have enough damn housing. So our response is simple: ‘Build, baby, build!”If you want to know what the housing crisis for middle-income Americans looks like in 2024, spend some time in Michigan. The surplus-to-shortage whipsaw here is a mitten-shaped miniature of what the entire country has gone through.I’ve been writing about housing and the economy for two decades, and have watched as the nation’s housing market has made the journey from boom to bust to deficit, seemingly without pausing for a normal middle. There are lots of reasons this happened, but they center on a big one: the late-2000s housing bust, which the country has never fully recovered from. Or as Ali Wolf, chief economist at Zonda, a data and consulting firm, put it: “The Great Recession broke the U.S. housing market.”At first, rapidly rising housing costs seemed like a regional problem. It made sense that places like San Francisco, which was already expensive, filled with well-paid tech workers and hamstrung by stringent building regulations, would be in crisis. Much of the rest of the country was still affordable, however, so high-cost “superstar cities” were seen as an exception instead of a warning.Now California’s problem is everywhere. Double-income couples with good jobs are priced out of homeownership in Spokane, Wash. Homeless encampments sprawl in Phoenix. The rent is too damn high in Kalamazoo.The housing crisis has moved from blue states to red states, and large metro areas to rural towns. In a time of extreme polarization, the too-high cost of housing and its attendant social problems are among the few things Americans truly share. That and a growing rage about the country’s inability to fix it.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares123 Views

    in Economy

    Harris’s Price-Gouging Ban: Price Controls or No Quick Effect?

    by

    The plan does not appear to amount to government price controls. It also might not bring down grocery bills anytime soon.Vice President Kamala Harris threw her support behind a federal ban on price-gouging in the food and grocery industries last week. It was the first official economic policy proposal of her presidential campaign, and it was pitched as a direct response to the high price of putting food on the table in America today.“To combat high grocery costs, VP Harris to call for first-ever federal ban on corporate price-gouging,” the Harris campaign proclaimed in the subject line of a news release last week, ahead of a speech laying out the first planks of her economic agenda.It is still impossible to say, from publicly available details, what exactly the ban would do. Republicans have denounced the proposal as “communist,” warning that it would lead to the federal government setting prices in the marketplace. Former President Donald J. Trump has mocked the plan on social media as “SOVIET Style Price Controls.”Progressives have cheered the announcement as a crucial check on corporate greed, saying it could immediately benefit shoppers who have been stunned by a 20 percent rise in food costs since President Biden took office.But people familiar with Ms. Harris’s thinking on the ban now say it might not resemble either of those characterizations. The ban, they also suggest, might actually not do anything to bring down grocery prices right now. Those who spoke about the strategy behind the emerging policy did so on the condition of anonymity.Ms. Harris’s campaign has created the space for multiple interpretations, by declining to specify how that ban would work, when it would apply or what behaviors it would prohibit.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More