More stories

  • in

    With $32 Billion in Aid, Native Americans Push Against History of Neglect

    Cortez, a Colorado town of about 9,000 people tucked near the San Juan Mountains, has the trappings of a humble but healthy small-town economy: bustling businesses, congenial single-family homes, a park with grassy fields, a public pool, playgrounds, a pond and skate ramps.A couple of hours southwest is Tuba City, Ariz., the largest community on Navajo Nation tribal lands. It has roughly the same population as Cortez, and it is surrounded by the same sandstone and mesa-filled terrain. But despite the area’s rich history of trade, and its proximity to thriving cities like Flagstaff and tourist sites like the Grand Canyon, widespread poverty and a lack of public services are notably entrenched — the stark reality across many reservations throughout the country.Gas stations, dollar stores and fast-food chains fill most of the skinny commercial strips. R.V. trailers and other mobile homes make up much of the housing stock. One in three Navajo households has income below the federal poverty line. Red dust whiffling in from desert winds tends to be more common than the dust stirred up by builders.Gas stations, dollar stores and fast-food chains fill most of Tuba City’s skinny commercial strips. Sharon Chischilly for The New York TimesAt the town’s center, though, is a recent exception: the construction of a 5,500-square-foot senior center, whose $5 million cost is partly financed with about $1 million from the American Rescue Plan Act, passed in 2021.That package, primarily meant to address the economic and public health crises caused by Covid-19, included $32 billion in short- and longer-term assistance for tribes and reservations: aid for households and tribal government coffers, community development grants, health services and infrastructure; as well as access to the $10 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative program, which previously excluded tribal nations.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

  • in

    The Pandemic Small Business Boom Is Still Helping to Fuel the Economy

    Hector Xu was on track for a career in academia when the pandemic upended his plans.Tired of endless Zoom meetings and feeling cooped up in his Boston apartment, Mr. Xu decamped for New Hampshire, where he began taking lessons to fly helicopters. That led to a business idea, converting traditional helicopters into remotely piloted drones.Mr. Xu’s company, Rotor Technologies, now has nearly 40 employees — including his former flying instructor — and about $1 million in revenue this year, a figure it expects to increase twentyfold next year. Gov. Chris Sununu was present for the first test flight of one of its drones.“Covid hit, and it really changed my perspective,” Mr. Xu said. “You ended up spending most of your time in front of your computer rather than in the lab, rather than interacting with people, going to conferences. And I think it made me really yearn to do something that was more impactful in the real world.”Mr. Xu, 30, is part of what may be one of the pandemic’s most unexpected economic legacies: an entrepreneurial boom. Stuck at home with time — and, in many cases, cash — to burn, Americans started businesses at the fastest rate in decades.Piloting a test flight of a Rotor drone.Ian MacLellan for The New York TimesThe company now has nearly 40 employees.Ian MacLellan for The New York TimesWhat happened next might be even less expected: Those businesses thrived, overcoming supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, rapid inflation and the highest interest rates in decades.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

  • in

    A.I. Is Helping to Launch New Businesses

    Entrepreneurs say use of artificial intelligence for a variety of tasks is accelerating the path to hiring and, ideally, profitability.Sean Ammirati has been teaching a class on entrepreneurship for more than a decade.A professor at Carnegie Mellon University, Mr. Ammirati has groups of mostly graduate students start businesses from scratch over the course of the spring semester. Some of the start-ups that his 49 students created this year were classic examples of the form: a dating app for couples in long-distance relationships, a personalized fitness app.But Mr. Ammirati also noticed something unusual.“I have a pretty good sense how fast the progress that students should make in a semester should be,” he said. “In 14 years, I’ve never seen students make the kind of progress that they made this year.”And he knew exactly why that was the case. For the first time, Mr. Ammirati had encouraged his students to use generative artificial intelligence as part of their process — “think of generative A.I as your co-founder,” he recalled telling them.The students began sharing their ideas for use cases on a dedicated Slack channel. They used generative A.I. tools such ChatGPT, GitHub Copilot and FlowiseAI to help them with tasks including marketing, coding, product development and recruitment of early customers.By the end of the class in May, venture capitalists were descending on Carnegie Mellon’s campus in Pittsburgh.“It felt to me like what I felt like in the mid-2000s, when cloud and mobile happened at the same time,” said Mr. Ammirati, who is himself an entrepreneur. Generative A.I., he believed, could similarly change innovation “by an order of magnitude.”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

  • in

    On Economic Policy, Harris Has Played Limited Role

    President Biden has not given his vice president an expansive economic portfolio. But she has engaged on issues of small-business lending, help for parents and more.Shortly after the Biden administration took office in 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris started calling the chief executives of large banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America.The federal government was making hundreds of billions of dollars available for banks to lend to small businesses to keep them afloat during the pandemic recession. Ms. Harris told the executives they needed to be lending more, faster, particularly to minority-owned businesses that data suggested were struggling to gain access to the money.The calls represented one of the earliest and most visible forays Ms. Harris made in devising and carrying out the Biden administration’s economic agenda, and illustrated the sort of economic policy niche that she has filled as vice president.Current and former administration officials, progressive leaders outside the White House and allies of Ms. Harris roundly agree that the vice president, who is now the leading candidate to secure the Democratic presidential nomination, did not play a major role in the creation of the sweeping economic legislation that has defined President Biden’s time in office.Ms. Harris was rarely a loud voice in major economic debates, like the ones over how to counter soaring inflation in 2021 and 2022. She did sometimes attend economic briefings, but was not always a big contributor in them. One attendee recalled her coming to an economic briefing, but simply listening to the presentation while Mr. Biden asked questions.Other officials say Ms. Harris largely focuses her questions for economists on how certain policies affect workers and families at a personal level — a trait she shares with the president.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

  • in

    Antitrust Regulator Tells Chains: Back Off Your Franchisees

    After a yearlong inquiry, the Federal Trade Commission warned brands not to gag their small business operators or charge them extra fees.In the long-simmering conflict between franchisers and franchisees, the federal government has weighed in on behalf of the smaller guys.In a business relationship that has become fundamental to American commerce, franchisers — brands like McDonald’s and Jiffy Lube — license the right to operate their concept to individual entrepreneurs, who provide start-up capital and may own one location or many.On Friday, the Federal Trade Commission issued a policy statement and staff guidance that cautioned franchisers not to restrict their franchisees’ ability to speak to government officials or to tack on fees that weren’t disclosed in documents provided to prospective franchise buyers.In a news release, the commission said it was acting amid “growing concern about unfair and deceptive practices by franchisers — to ensure that the franchise business model remains a ladder of opportunity to owning a business for honest small business owners.”The agency has been scrutinizing the industry, which includes 800,000 business establishments, since issuing a request for information early last year that asked several questions about the franchisee-franchiser relationship. Around the same time, the Government Accountability Office issued a report finding that franchisees lacked control over crucial business decisions and that they often did not understand all the risks they faced before purchasing a license.Across the more than 2,200 comments posted in response to the F.T.C. request, a central theme emerged: A majority of franchisees wanted changes to the rules that governed the industry, while a majority of franchisers did not.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

  • in

    Can A.I. Answer the Needs of Smaller Businesses? Some Push to Find Out.

    Artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT are finding widest use at big companies, but there is wide expectation that the impact will spread.The Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce has convened an annual meeting of local business leaders since the 1800s, but the most recent gathering had a decidedly modern theme: artificial intelligence.The goal was to demystify the technology for the chamber’s roughly 2,000 members, especially its small businesses.“My sense is not that people are wary,” said Ralph Schulz, the chamber’s chief executive. “They’re just unclear as to its potential use for them.”When generative A.I. surged into the public consciousness in late 2022, it captured the imagination of businesses and workers with its ability to answer questions, compose paragraphs, write code and create images. Analysts projected that the technology would transform the economy by driving a boom in productivity.Yet so far, the impact has been limited. Although adoption of A.I. is rising, only about 5 percent of companies nationwide are using the technology, according to a survey of businesses from the Census Bureau. Many economists predict that generative A.I. is years away from measurably affecting economic activity — but they say change will come.“To me, this is a story of five years, not five quarters,” said Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak, the global chief economist at Boston Consulting Group. “Over a five-year horizon, am I going to see something measurable? I think so.”Tell us how your workplace is using A.I.

    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

  • in

    Montana Has More Cows Than People. Why Are Locals Eating Beef From Brazil?

    Cole Mannix, of Old Salt Co-op, is trying to change local appetites and upend an industry controlled by multibillion-dollar meatpackers.“Making It Work” is a series is about small-business owners striving to endure hard times.While many people can conjure up romantic visions of a Montana ranch — vast valleys, cold streams, snow-capped mountains — few understand what happens when the cattle leave those pastures. Most of them, it turns out, don’t stay in Montana.Even here, in a state with nearly twice as many cows as people, only around 1 percent of the beef purchased by Montana households is raised and processed locally, according to estimates from Highland Economics, a consulting firm. As is true in the rest of the country, many Montanans instead eat beef from as far away as Brazil. Here’s a common fate of a cow that starts out on Montana grass: It will be bought by one of the four dominant meatpackers — JBS, Tyson Foods, Cargill and Marfrig — which process 85 percent of the country’s beef; transported by a company like Sysco or US Foods, distributors with a combined value of over $50 billion; and sold at a Walmart or Costco, which together take in roughly half of America’s food dollars. Any ranchers who want to break out from this system — and, say, sell their beef locally, instead of as anonymous commodities crisscrossing the country — are Davids in a swarm of Goliaths.“The beef packers have a lot of control,” said Neva Hassanein, a University of Montana professor who studies sustainable food systems. “They tend to influence a tremendous amount throughout the supply chain.” For the nation’s ranchers, whose profits have shrunk over time, she said, “It’s kind of a trap.” Cole Mannix is trying to escape that trap.Mr. Mannix, 40, has a tendency to wax philosophical. (He once thought about becoming a Jesuit priest.) Like members of his family have since 1882, he grew up ranching: baling hay, helping to birth calves, guiding cattle into the high country on horseback. He wants to make sure the next generation, the sixth, has the same opportunity.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

  • in

    California $20 Fast-Food Minimum Wage Is Coming April 1

    The nation’s highest state minimum wage for fast-food workers takes effect on Monday. Owners and employees are sizing up the potential impact.A decade ago, Jamie Bynum poured his life savings into a barbecue restaurant now tucked between a Thai eatery and a nutrition store in a Southern California strip mall.As a franchise owner of a Dickey’s Barbecue Pit, Mr. Bynum is pridefully particular about the details of his establishment — the size of the hickory wood pile on display near the entrance, the positioning of paper towel rolls on each table, the careful calibration it takes to keep his restaurant staffed 10 hours a day with a small crew.The staffing, he said, has become harder in recent years, as the state’s minimum wage has steadily increased since 2017, often rising by a dollar per year. Today, it’s $16 an hour.But on Monday, it will jump to $20 an hour for most fast-food workers in California, propelling them to the top of what minimum-wage earners make anywhere in the country. (Only Tukwila, Wash., a small city outside Seattle, sets the bar higher, with a minimum wage of $20.29 for many employees.)The ambitious law, which supporters hope to see replicated nationwide, has been characterized by opposing sides in stark terms. To backers, it is a step toward fair compensation for low-wage workers who faced significant risk during the pandemic. To opponents, it is a cataclysmic move that will raise food prices, lead to job losses and force some franchisees to consider closing.“People don’t understand that when wages rise, so do the prices,” Mr. Bynum said.Mr. Bynum has, in recent years, raised prices to try to maintain profit margins — and each time, he said, he has noticed a drop in customers. That, in turn, forced painful decisions about cutting staffing and trimming hours.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