Recession and Depression

More stories

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    The Clash of Liberal Wonks That Could Shape the Economy, Explained

    by

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyUpshotSupported byContinue reading the main storyThe Clash of Liberal Wonks That Could Shape the Economy, ExplainedThey all agree pandemic aid is warranted, but the question is how big and how quickly.Feb. 8, 2021Updated 5:43 p.m. ETJoe Biden in an October 2009 meeting with economic advisers, including Larry Summers, second from right. Mr. Summers, then the director of the National Economic Council, is one of the economists now questioning the scale of the Biden administration’s pandemic stimulus plan.Credit…Mandel Ngan/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA fierce debate is underway among centrist and left-leaning economists, taking place in newspaper op-eds, heated exchanges on Twitter, and even at the White House lectern. Unlike most internecine battles within a narrow intellectual tribe, this one will shape the future of the American economy and the political fortunes of the Biden administration.The core question is whether the administration’s $1.9 trillion pandemic rescue plan is too big. Is action on that scale needed to contain the economic damage from the coronavirus and get the economy quickly on track to full health? Or is it far too big relative to the hole the economy’s in, thus setting the stage for a burst of inflation followed by a potential recession, as leading center-left economists including Larry Summers (the former Treasury secretary) and Olivier Blanchard (a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund) have argued in recent days?This clash of ideas is taking place at a crucial moment. With the Senate at a 50-50 partisan divide, a single Democratic senator who finds the arguments of Mr. Summers and Mr. Blanchard persuasive could require President Biden to trim his ambitions, with far-reaching consequences for his presidency and the economy.The substance of the debate touches on important macroeconomic concepts like economic speed limits, the risks of deficits and the origins of inflation. But it is impossible to separate the substance from the personal history of those involved.It has created stark divides among economic policy thinkers who for the most part know one another, have worked together in government, have spoken at the same think tank events, and share mostly similar political views.Hanging over it all is the legacy of the Clinton-era Democratic policy establishment, and a continuing debate about past policy decisions.What is in dispute?President Biden’s pandemic aid plan includes direct spending for Covid testing and vaccine rollout, expanded unemployment insurance, money for schools and child care, and $1,400 payments to most Americans. It comes on the heels of a $900 billion bipartisan pandemic aid act enacted in December.For weeks, policy veterans have been fretting among themselves over the scale of Mr. Biden’s proposal, in private emails and text chains. Mr. Summers made those concerns public with an op-ed in The Washington Post last week. Mr. Blanchard has backed him on Twitter, as has Jason Furman to some degree, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama.What is their argument?As Mr. Summers wrote, it is a good idea to spend whatever it takes to contain the virus and enable the economy to recover quickly from its pandemic-induced downturn. Provisions that strengthen the safety net for those who are suffering are worthwhile.The problem, he says, is that the plan’s total size reaches a scale that risks major future problems. In particular, the total money being proposed far exceeds most estimates of the “output gap.” (More on that below.) That implies that much of that spending will just slosh around the economy, causing prices to rise, potentially hindering the rest of Mr. Biden’s agenda and risking a new recession.This isn’t a conventional argument between doctrinaire deficit hawks and doves, but something more subtle. In the past, Mr. Summers in particular has repeatedly called for larger budget deficits to help combat “secular stagnation,” in which major world economies are mired in slow growth, and he has supported large pandemic aid packages.But Mr. Summers says any new spending package should pay out gradually over time and be devoted more substantially to long-term investments.“There is nothing wrong with targeting $1.9 trillion, and I could support a much larger figure in total stimulus,” he wrote in a follow-up article. “But a substantial part of the program should be directed at promoting sustainable and inclusive economic growth for the remainder of the decade and beyond, not simply supporting incomes this year and next.”What’s the output gap?Imagine a world in which the American economy is cranking at its full potential. Pretty much everyone who wants to work is able to find a job. Every factory is at its complete capacity. The output gap is, simply, how far away the economy is from that ideal state.A traditional approach to fiscal stimulus has been to estimate the size of that gap, apply some adjustments to account for the way federal spending circulates through the economy, and use that arithmetic to decide how big a stimulus action ought to be.In theory, if the government pumps too much money into the economy, it is trying to generate activity over and above potential output, which is impossible to sustain for long. Workers might put in overtime, and a factory might run extra hours for a while, but eventually the workers want a breather, and the machines need to shut down for maintenance. If there is more money floating around in the economy than there is supply of goods and services, the result won’t be increased prosperity, but rather higher prices as people bid up the things they want to buy.By that traditional thinking, Mr. Summers and other skeptics are on solid ground. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting an output gap for 2021 of only $420 billion, implying that $1.9 trillion in additional cash is much more than the economy needs to fill the gap. Even if you believe the C.B.O. is too pessimistic about America’s potential, we’re talking orders of magnitude of difference.There are problems with this argument, though. For one, potential output is a theoretical concept, not something we can ever know with precision. In fact, there is a solid case to be made that technocrats have underestimated the economy’s true potential for years, given the absence of inflation in 2018 and 2019 despite a hot job market.For another, it imagines the economy as a series of hydraulic tubes, in which a skilled engineer can push the right buttons to achieve a predictable outcome. In macroeconomics, especially in the era of a once-a-century pandemic, things might not be so simple.How is the Biden administration responding?Aggressively.Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and other top officials have taken to the airwaves in recent days to argue that their proposal is prudent and appropriately scaled.Administration officials have described the plan as “bottom-up,” meaning it was devised by starting with specific problems facing Americans — a lack of income for those out of work, bottlenecks in vaccine delivery, a lack of funds for school reopening — and then ending with forecasts of the sums necessary to solve those problems.Their argument is that the United States is in a do-whatever-it-takes moment, and that the most urgent goal is to try to ensure that the economy can fully reopen as quickly as possible while preventing potential lasting damage to families and businesses.“I think that the idea now is that we have to hit back hard; we have to hit back strong if we’re going to finally put this dual crisis of the pandemic and the economic pain that it has engendered behind us,” Jared Bernstein, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said in a news briefing Friday.They do not dismiss the possibility that there will be higher inflation down the road — but say it is a manageable risk.Inflation is “a risk that we have to consider,” Ms. Yellen said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, but “we have the tools to deal with that risk if it materializes” and “we have a huge economic challenge here and tremendous suffering in the country.”“That’s the biggest risk,” she said.In the logic that has prevailed within the administration and among other former officials who support the approach, it misses the point to theorize about output gaps and inflation risks. They say this relief should be thought of differently than traditional fiscal stimulus.“Relief payments are life support,” wrote Austan Goolsbee, another former Obama adviser. “To avoid permanent damage, they need to last as long as the virus does. Without them, the chance of deterioration and irrevocable harm soars.”So if this passes, is there really going to be a huge burst of inflation?Maybe.The economy is in uncharted territory. With potentially trillions of pandemic aid spending on the way — in addition to vast accumulated savings over the last year because of Americans’ pandemic-constrained spending and stimulus-boosted incomes — there is a lot of money poised to be spent.And some things may reduce the supply of goods and services, like disruptions to global supply chains resulting from the pandemic and business closures.Lots of money chasing finite supply is an Economics 101 recipe for surging prices.But for the medium term, the more important question is whether any inflation surge would be a temporary not-so-harmful phenomenon or the start of something more lasting.Why does that matter?The Federal Reserve will be inclined to mostly ignore a one-time shock of post-pandemic inflation. Chair Jerome Powell said so in a news conference last month.There is a possibility “that as the economy fully reopens, there’ll be a burst of spending because people will be enthusiastic that the pandemic is over,” Mr. Powell said. “We would see that as something likely to be transient and not to be very large.”In that case, he said, “the way we would react is we’re going to be patient.”It might even help rebalance the economy after years in which the United States has depended on low interest-rate policies from the Fed to keep growth afloat. Somewhat higher inflation would mean lower “real,” inflation-adjusted interest rates, and might gain the Fed some credibility that it will not permit inflation to be persistently too low. It could, plausibly, get back to above-zero interest rates sooner than it would otherwise, taking the air out of financial bubbles and giving it more room to combat the next downturn.However, if surging prices were to create a vicious cycle of higher prices and higher wages, the Fed would be inclined to raise interest rates enough to try to break that cycle — potentially driving the economy into another recession in the process. That is the last thing that American workers need, let alone Democrats seeking to hold Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024.So is this part of a wider philosophical divide among Democratic economists?There is no ideological chasm here.But there is a deeper division than just the technical question of the output gap’s size or what the risks are of too much versus too little pandemic aid. Rather, the Biden approach represents a rejection of the technocratic bent within the Democratic Party that many on the left believe has been deeply damaging to the country.President Bill Clinton and President Obama relied for economic advice on what might be called the Bob Rubin coaching tree. Mr. Rubin, who served as Treasury secretary in the 1990s, was a mentor to Mr. Summers, who was a mentor to Timothy Geithner, Mr. Obama’s first Treasury secretary, and so on.The policymakers in this tradition view themselves as rigorous, careful and pragmatic. Many liberals view them as excessively moderate, too deferential to Wall Street and clueless about the political dynamics that could make for durable policies to help the working class.The Biden administration includes many top officials from outside that tree, such as Ms. Yellen. And it is particularly seeking to correct what are seen as the mistakes of the early Obama administration, when Mr. Summers and Mr. Geithner were in top jobs.The new administration sees this as a moment of profound crisis, a time when it must act on a scale commensurate with the problem. It is betting that if it solves the problem, its political fortunes will be better rather than worse, and it can always deal with inflation or other side effects if they come.In a sense then, the debate over pandemic aid isn’t entirely about output gaps or risk trade-offs. It’s about which mode of policymaking ought to prevail in the Democratic Party.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    The Jobs Crisis Is Broader Than It Seemed

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesSee Your Local RiskVaccine InformationWuhan, One Year LaterAdvertisementContinue reading the main storyUpshotSupported byContinue reading the main storyThe Jobs Crisis Is Broader Than It SeemedJanuary employment numbers suggest a stalling of progress toward a full recovery.Feb. 5, 2021Updated 1:09 p.m. ETCustomers at a taco restaurant in Manhattan this week. The past year has been brutal for the hospitality industry, but the most recent job figures suggest it’s far from the only sector suffering.Credit…Carlo Allegri/ReutersTo understand what is important about the new employment numbers released Friday, imagine two different varieties of economic downturn.In one, a handful of industries experience a near-shutdown for reasons beyond anyone’s control, driving millions of people out of their jobs. But most other industries carry on unfazed.In another, a broad contraction in spending causes job losses across the economy. The story is not so much about one or two industries being devastated, but lots of them experiencing moderate pain.Both would involve a lot of human suffering, and both would justify government help to the people affected. But they would have strikingly different implications for specific government action.In the first case, you would want very carefully targeted help to enable the people affected to stay on their feet until their industry can reopen. In the second, you would just want to pump money into the economy, to stimulate overall demand for goods and services.In the early phase of the coronavirus pandemic, we saw both types of downturns. Travel-related industries were most affected and experienced the worst job losses, and the pain was sufficiently widespread that there was a generalized crisis of inadequate demand.But as the year progressed, that changed. The federal government injected trillions of dollars into the economy, and the Federal Reserve’s actions to support the financial system generated a rally in markets. Industries that were less directly affected by the pandemic figured out how to get up and running safely. And there was a veritable boom in people who bought stuff — durable goods, to be precise, like furniture and exercise equipment — spending some of the money they couldn’t spend on services like restaurant meals.By the end of 2020, you could tell a story in which workers at hotels, airlines, restaurants and performance arenas desperately needed a hand, but most of the rest of the economy seemed comfortably on a path back to full health.The January employment numbers, however, undermine that story. They suggest a stalling, and in some areas a reversal, of progress toward a full recovery even in the segments of the economy not directly affected.There’s plenty of pain to be found in the leisure and hospitality sector, of course — it lost 61,000 additional jobs on top of a revised 536,000 lost in December. This is a brutal winter for the workers in restaurants, hotels and live entertainment venues. But if that were the extent of the pain, generous unemployment checks to the people affected might be enough to solve the problem. After all, we know what it will take to get those industries back to health: widespread vaccination and an easing of public health fears.The Coronavirus Outbreak More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    January 2021 Jobs Report: Outlook for Economic Recovery Dims

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesSee Your Local RiskVaccine InformationWuhan, One Year LaterAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAnemic Jobs Report Reaffirms Pandemic’s Grip on EconomyWith a gain of 49,000 jobs in January, and with few of those in the private sector, the labor market offers little relief to the nearly 10 million Americans who are unemployed. More

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    PPP Aid to Small Businesses: How Much Did $500 Billion Help?

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesSee Your Local RiskVaccine InformationWuhan, One Year LaterAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story$500 Billion in Aid to Small Businesses: How Much Did It Help?Some economists say the Paycheck Protection Program has not proved as useful as other aid. The debate could sway the new administration’s plans.Small businesses line a street in Westwood, N.J. A $900 billion federal relief package included $325 billion in small business aid, most of it for the Paycheck Protection Program.Credit…Mohamed Sadek for The New York TimesBen Casselman and Feb. 1, 2021, 3:00 a.m. ETAs Democrats and Republicans spent months last fall arguing over how to rescue the economy, one provision drew widespread support from lawmakers: reviving the Paycheck Protection Program, the government’s marquee effort to help small businesses weather the pandemic.The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, called the lending program “a bipartisan slam dunk.” House Democrats included an extension and expansion of the program in aid packages in the summer and the fall. And Treasury economists said in December that the program might have saved nearly 19 million jobs.Yet there is dissent from one notable contingent: Academic economists who have studied the program have concluded that it has saved relatively few jobs and that, at a cost of more than half a trillion dollars, it has been far less efficient than other government efforts to help the economy.“A very large chunk of the benefit went to a very small share of the firms, and those were probably the firms least in need,” said David Autor, an M.I.T. economist who led one study.The divergence in views over the program’s economic payoff stems in part from ambiguity about its goals: saving jobs or saving businesses.Using different methodology than the Treasury economists, Mr. Autor says the Paycheck Protection Program saved 1.4 million to 3.2 million jobs. Other researchers have offered broadly similar estimates.Given the program’s cost, saving jobs on that scale doesn’t necessarily qualify as a success. Unemployment benefits also provide income, at far less expense, and programs like food assistance and aid to state and local governments pack a larger economic punch, according to many assessments.And because the paycheck program was designed to reach as many businesses as possible, much of the money went to companies that were at little risk of laying off workers, or that would have brought them back quickly even without the help.“It’s just a really inefficient use of funds,” said Eric Zwick, an economist at the University of Chicago’s business school who has studied the program.Many policy experts on Wall Street and in Washington — as well as businesses and banks on Main Streets across the country — say the program’s merits should be assessed instead on what it did to save businesses. On that basis, they say, it helped prevent a greater calamity and fostered economic healing.“A major goal was to keep these businesses alive so that when the economy started to recover and then the economy reopened, there would be businesses around to hire unemployed workers,” said Michael R. Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Preliminary evidence suggests that the program has succeeded by that metric, he said.In the short term, the program’s proponents are winning the argument. When Congress approved a $900 billion relief package in December, most of the $325 billion in small-business assistance was for a slightly modified version of the Paycheck Protection Program. Businesses began applying for the aid last month.But the debate over the program’s merits could shape the next round of aid. President Biden’s $1.9 trillion pandemic relief plan includes billions for small businesses, but no new money for the program. His aides are weighing what to do about funds already allocated.Mr. Biden’s proposal includes direct grants for the hardest-hit small businesses and a request for Congress to find new ways to help restaurants struggling with consumer pullbacks and state and local restrictions.Many Democrats on Capitol Hill, along with some advocates for small-business relief in think tanks and lobbying shops around Washington, say lawmakers should move on to a more focused and efficient method for supporting small businesses until widespread vaccination fully reopens the economy.Congress created the Paycheck Protection Program in March as businesses shut down early in the pandemic. The program sought to stem layoffs by providing forgivable, low-interest loans to help pay employees even if they weren’t working.The Coronavirus Outbreak More

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    America’s Next Great Economic Experiment: What if We Run It Hot?

    by

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyUpshotSupported byContinue reading the main storyAmerica’s Next Great Economic Experiment: What if We Run It Hot?Supporters of aggressive stimulus see an opportunity to finally correct the mistakes of the last recession and achieve boom times quickly.Credit…Thomas White/ReutersJan. 29, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETPresident Biden’s proposed $1.9 trillion pandemic rescue package includes money for many goals: expediting the rollout of coronavirus vaccines; reopening schools; expanding unemployment benefits; sending more cash payments to most Americans.But when you skip the line-by-line details and look at the overall numbers, something striking becomes evident. The administration’s proposal, when combined with the $900 billion in pandemic aid agreed to in December, would amount to a bigger surge of spending, both in absolute terms and relative to the depth of the nation’s economic hole, than has been attempted in modern American history.Mr. Biden’s proposal — or even more limited versions of it that appear to have a better shot of winning congressional approval — would pump enough money into the economy to, in effect, intentionally overheat it. Or at minimum it would push the limits of how fast the American economy can rev.Supporters of aggressive stimulus aid view that as a positive thing, a means to finally correct the mistakes of the last recession and achieve a boom-time economy quickly, rather than muddle along with millions out of work for years.Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics, whose work on the impact of fiscal stimulus President Biden has frequently cited, estimates that the United States currently has an “output gap” — a gap between actual activity and economic potential — of 4 percent to 5 percent of G.D.P., and that the Biden proposal would amount to 8 percent to 9 percent of this year’s G.D.P.Even if scaled back somewhat to gain moderates’ support, the Biden plan implies enough fuel to get the economy burning hot.“It’s better to err on the side of too much rather than too little,” Mr. Zandi said. “Interest rates are at zero, inflation is low, unemployment is high. You don’t need a textbook to know this is when you push on the fiscal accelerator. Let’s go.”To skeptics, it would be a risky use of the power of the Treasury, with far-reaching implications for inflation, financial bubbles and the sustainability of the national debt.“We’re already in uncharted territory,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office who has advised Republicans. He noted that fourth-quarter G.D.P. was only about $119 billion below its level of a year earlier: “Do we need another $1.9 trillion to deal with that problem? I have an arithmetic problem with where we are.”Traditional fiscal policy to address a recession goes something like this. First make your best projection of how the economy will perform in the months ahead. Then make your best guess at how much smaller that is compared with the economy’s potential if healthy — for example, the value of G.D.P. if everyone who wanted a job was working and factories were running at full capacity.At that point, try to analyze the “fiscal multipliers” of policies under consideration: how much economic activity each dollar of spending is likely to trigger. Then size your fiscal stimulus package accordingly, essentially using federal dollars to replace the economic activity that has evaporated because of the recession.In practice, of course, it’s never that simple. It includes a lot of estimates and projections, and congressional politics will ultimately determine the size and content of stimulus legislation. Constrained by Congress, President Barack Obama’s signature fiscal stimulus program, enacted in early 2009, was a poor match for the economic crisis at hand. It pumped an average of $240 billion into the economy each of its first three years, at a time the “output gap” approached $1 trillion per year.The approach of both parties in fighting the pandemic-induced downturn has focused less on the big picture. It has been more about assembling provisions to help individuals and businesses weather the crisis, whatever the price tag. Under that approach, large bipartisan majorities enacted the $2 trillion CARES Act in the spring and several smaller provisions, including the $900 billion package a month ago.These efforts are less fiscal stimulus in the traditional sense — using government money to replace missing demand in the economy — and more an effort to directly alleviate the problems the pandemic has caused.“This package is sized not simply to fill the hole,” said Wendy Edelberg, director of the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution. “It’s trying to do somewhat different things. A lot of people and businesses are desperately hurting right now, so this money is relief aimed at those people, and in order to be really confident you’re reaching them all, you need to send a lot of money.”But that doesn’t change the fact that the aggregate money the government is pumping out adds up to more than the missing economic activity, which could have meaningful consequences for the years ahead. And that is before accounting for other expected proposals from the Biden administration, such as large-scale funding of new infrastructure.“There are pros and cons,” she said. “Running the economy hot might be a good thing, but there also might be a painful adjustment with a period of slow growth on the other side of the mountain.”In an economy running hot, employers face shortages of workers and must bid up their wages to attract staff. This, along with potential shortages of various commodities, can, in theory, fuel a vicious cycle of rising prices.For the last 13 years, arguably longer, the United States has had the opposite problem. Large numbers of Americans of prime working age — 25 to 54 — have been either unemployed or outside the labor force altogether. Wage growth has been weak most of that time, and inflation persistently below the levels the Federal Reserve aims for.Some argue that estimates of potential output by the C.B.O. and private economists are too pessimistic — that Americans should dare to dream bigger. “We don’t really know what the G.D.P. output gap truly is,” said Mark Paul, an economist at New College of Florida. “Economists for decades have erred and been too cautious, thinking that full production is significantly lower than it actually is. We’ve been consistently running a cold economy, creating massive problems for social cohesion.”In a paper published in December, he said a pandemic aid package of more than $3 trillion would be justified based on the scale of job losses that have been endured. The output gap looks worse based on employment than it does when you look at G.D.P., in part because job losses have disproportionately occurred in sectors that generate relatively low economic output per worker, such as restaurants.Still, the scale of the pandemic aid already in train helps explain why Mr. Biden faces a tricky road toward finding a Senate majority for the next bill, even among Republicans who are not dead set against stimulus spending conceptually.“It’s hard for me to see, when we just passed $900 billion of assistance, why we would have a package that big,” Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican, said recently. “Maybe a couple of months from now, the needs will be evident and we will need to do something significant, but I’m not seeing it now.”A key case for going large revolves around risk management. With the economy mired in a cycle of weak labor markets and low inflation, a little overheating might be welcome. If, for example, the Federal Reserve needed to raise interest rates down the road to keep inflation from taking off, it could be a positive thing for creating a more balanced economy less reliant on monetary policy and booming asset prices.Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, has said that ensuring the long-term productive capacity of the economy is a more urgent priority than tamping down inflation.“I’m much more worried about falling short of a complete recovery, and losing people’s careers and lives that they built, because they don’t get back to work in time,” Mr. Powell said in a news conference Wednesday. “I’m more concerned about that than about the possibility which exists of higher inflation. Frankly, we welcome slightly higher inflation.”Put differently: It’s hard to worry too much about getting burned after a decade-long winter out in the cold.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Who Owns Stocks? Explaining the Rise in Inequality During the Pandemic

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesVaccine InformationTimelineWuhan, One Year LaterAdvertisementContinue reading the main storyUpshotSupported byContinue reading the main storyWho Owns Stocks? Explaining the Rise in Inequality During the PandemicBad economies usually hurt both workers and investors. Only the first part has been true this time.Jan. 26, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETLast year featured a devastating public health crisis, an imploding job market, a heavy dose of political tumult and — surprisingly — a roaring stock market.Add it all up, and a major consequence was an expansion of inequality in a nation where economic disparity was already on the rise.It boils down to which groups were hurt most by the sinking parts of the economy and which ones benefited most from the rising share prices.In the brick-and-mortar part of the economy, lower-wage workers were disproportionately affected by the job losses. At the same time, Americans benefited from gains in share prices: both people who own individual stocks in brokerage accounts and those who own stocks in personal retirement accounts, like mutual fund IRAs, or in those offered by employers, such as 401(k)s.Yet that’s where even more disparity kicked in, an analysis of data from the Federal Reserve’s 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances shows. Although the distribution of income is unequal in the United States, ownership of financial assets in general and stocks in particular is even more so.
    [embedded content]The survey, conducted every three years, collects exhaustively detailed financial information from a sample of American “economic units” — we’ll call them families — including income, the types of assets they own and what those assets are worth.An analysis of this data shows that in 2019, the top 1 percent of Americans in wealth controlled about 38 percent of the value of financial accounts holding stocks. Widen the focus to include the top 10 percent, and you’ve found 84 percent of all of Wall Street portfolios’ value.Using the broadest definition of Wall Street involvement, which includes everything from workplace 401(k)s to mutual funds, just over half of American families have at least one financial account tied to the market, while just one in six report direct ownership of stock shares. Wealthier people are far more likely to have these accounts than middle-class families, who in turn are far more likely to be in the market than working-class or poor families.And the wealthy, not surprisingly, are more likely to have larger portfolios.A paper-napkin calculation that assumes all market participants averaged last year’s 16 percent gain in the S&P 500 would mean that American families fattened their portfolios by $4 trillion over all last year. But $3.4 trillion of that would have gone to just 10 percent of families, leaving the other 90 percent to split $600 billion.Beyond the gap in holdings between the very rich and the merely affluent, there is also a gap between the affluent and the middle class. Only half of households in the 40th-to-49th percentiles of net worth have any brokerage or retirement accounts that include stocks. But among households in the 80th-to-89th percentiles, 84 percent are invested in at least one holding.Wealth and the Role of Stock PricesWhen the market surged last year, wealthier families benefited more. Not only do they have larger portfolios than middle-class and poorer investors, but they also are far more likely to be invested in the market in the first place.Percent of families with investments by net worth percentile:
    [embedded content] Poorest group includes unsuccessful or highly leveraged investors with low net worth.Source: The New York TimesMoreover, the median portfolio size for households in that middle group was $13,000 in 2019, and so would have gained about $2,000 in last year’s market. The typical family in the wealthier group had $170,000 in the market and would have gained about $27,000 with a similar portfolio.These wealth differences are far starker than the inequality we usually talk about on the income ladder.The Coronavirus Outbreak More

  • 75 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    How Our Unemployment Benefits System Failed

    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 the American Unemployment System FailedA decline in funding and changes in the workplace — and how long people are out of work — have left a program unequal to the 21st-century economy. More

  • 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