Small Business

More stories

  • 100 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Some Businesses Make ‘Woke Free’ a Selling Point

    by

    A number of companies — from clothing to pet care — are trying to appeal to customers who think corporate America is pushing a liberal agenda.Jonathan Isaac is a forward for the National Basketball Association’s Orlando Magic, but he is perhaps better known as someone who chose not to protest police brutality against Black Americans during a summer of widespread activism involving racial injustice.Mr. Isaac, who is Black, turned that singular moment in July 2020 — when he decided not to join many other N.B.A. players in kneeling during the national anthem as the league restarted in a Covid “bubble” setting in Orlando, Fla. — into a platform as a conservative political activist. In 2022, he spoke at a rally of Christian nationalists and anti-vaccine Americans and wrote a book about why he did not join the protest. This year, he started Unitus, an apparel company centered on “faith, family and freedom.”“I wanted my values to be represented in the marketplace, especially when it came to sports and leisure wear,” Mr. Isaac said in an interview.Most companies used to do everything they could to avoid political controversies and, by extension, risk alienating potential customers. No longer. Seemingly everything in the United States is political now, including where you shop for socks and leggings.Companies like Anheuser-Busch and Target have recently faced backlash from the right over marketing and advertising decisions that were seen as a liberal Trojan horse: Anheuser-Busch for a transgender influencer’s promotion of Bud Light and Target for its Pride Month displays.Bud Light faced fierce backlash after the transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney promoted the beer.Evan Agostini/Associated PressUnitus is one of a growing number of companies — from clothing retailers to pet care businesses — trying to appeal to those who have recoiled from what they see as corporate America pushing a progressive, liberal agenda. Unitus is featured on PublicSq., an online marketplace aimed at promoting companies it calls “pro-life,” “pro-family” and “pro-freedom.” PublicSq. began in July 2022 and now has more than 65,000 small businesses on its platform, noting a spike in numbers after the Bud Light and Target disputes.The platform offers “a nice, refreshing sort of break” from companies that have voiced more progressive views, said Michael Seifert, the founder and chief executive of PublicSq., mentioning businesses like Target, Ben & Jerry’s and Bank of America.Since Donald J. Trump was elected president in 2016, large corporations have faced heightened scrutiny — both from potential customers and their own employees — concerning their values. This includes everything from how companies publicly reacted to policies like Mr. Trump’s ban on immigration from several Muslim-majority countries to political donations by companies or their top executives.In turn, many companies made public declarations in support of diversity and inclusion. In 2018, Nike teamed up on an ad campaign with the former N.F.L. player Colin Kaepernick, who had started a movement of athletes kneeling to protest police brutality against Black Americans. After a Minneapolis police officer murdered George Floyd in 2020, many companies pledged financial support to and released statements of solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. In 2022, proposed legislation in Florida that opponents viewed as anti-L.G.B.T.Q. faced corporate resistance.Tracy Rank-Christman, a professor of marketing at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, said the more leftward turn of some major companies in the mainstream could be driving away those with more conservative views.“Some of these consumers are essentially having either a boycott or backlash to these brands that are engaging in behaviors that do not align with their values,” said Ms. Rank-Christman, who studies consumer psychology.Nike built an ad campaign around Colin Kaepernick in 2018, after he became known for his protests against police violence.Alba Vigaray/EPA, via ShutterstockTarget faced protests from some on the right this year for merchandise it included in its Pride Month displays.Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesWhat’s driving the backlash is nothing new. According to research from Ms. Rank-Christman and other academics, consumers with what are known as “stigmatized identities” often take collective action against a company that they feel is attacking that identity. It has happened in the past with companies like Chick-fil-A, which drew criticism from the left for its support of conservative causes. In this case, Ms. Rank-Christman said, that identity is on the political right.Those same views, however, are squarely within the mainstream on PublicSq. Mr. Seifert said that most businesses on the platform did not explicitly state their views, but that every business was required to check a box and sign a commitment to PublicSq.’s core principles. They include a belief in “the greatness of this nation,” a vow to protect “the family unit” and celebrate “the sanctity of life,” and a belief that “small businesses and the communities who support them are the backbone” of the economy.What’s most important, Mr. Seifert said, is that businesses on the platform don’t antagonize “traditional values” in the way he said some large corporations have.Still, some companies on the platform promote their conservative bona fides more emphatically than others.Kevin Jones is the manager of Tiny Dog, an e-commerce pet supply business that he runs with his wife, Myra, out of Kingsport, Tenn. Mr. Jones said in an interview that he had been planning to work with another pet supplier in the state to expand his business, but that he had balked after it asked him for his stance on “the whole woke agenda.” That experience persuaded him to join PublicSq., he said, and market pet products to people who shared his values.Tiny Dog features no political or social messaging on its website, but Mr. Jones said his company didn’t “cater to alternative lifestyles.” He also said Tiny Dog had received a significant uptick in interest since it joined PublicSq.Others on the platform don’t necessarily view themselves as being conservative or catering to a particular political ideology. Mike Ritland, who founded a company that offers goods and training for dogs and is on PublicSq., said he didn’t think of his company as “anti-woke,” even though the platform calls itself that. He said he just wanted a way to increase his business.But for the companies that cater to consumers who share their conservative values, it doesn’t matter if they turn away more liberal buyers, or ones who just don’t want to see “100% Woke-Free American Beer” when they crack open a cold one, as is the case with Ultra Right Beer.In the short run, these companies know they’re targeting a niche market, said CB Bhattacharya, a professor at the Katz Graduate School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh. They are concerned less about maximizing profit and more about standing by their values. For a company that’s genuinely concerned about catering to consumers who oppose abortion, for example, the bottom line may not be paramount.“Even if it is just reds versus blues, they’re already slicing the market in half, and they’re saying, ‘Well, we don’t even care about the blues,’” Mr. Bhattacharya said.But whether these companies are sustainable in the long run is a more complicated calculus. A company whose business model depends on politically disaffected consumers is subject to constantly shifting political winds, as much as it is to supply-chain issues.Ultra Right Beer is selling a limited edition can with former President Donald J. Trump’s mug shot.Ultra Right BeerSome on the left have boycotted Chick-fil-A because of its owners’ conservative views, but that hasn’t hurt the chain.Erik S. Lesser/European Pressphoto AgencyThe energy that fuels consumers to boycott offending companies, and seek alternatives, also tends to be fleeting. According to Mr. Bhattacharya’s research, the prominent boycotts of Chick-fil-A (by liberals) and Starbucks (by conservatives) in 2012 didn’t hurt those companies. In fact, sales increased, perhaps owing to the energizing of consumers who supported those companies’ stances.An issue driving consumers to seek alternatives may also lose political salience, forcing businesses that have made it part of their appeal to change their approach. Nooshin Warren, a professor of marketing at the University of Arizona, said that if L.G.B.T.Q. rights became less politicized and more accepted across the country, conservative companies would have to rethink their strategy.Another problem is that some issues important to conservative consumers, such as not buying goods made in China, run up against economic reality. Mr. Seifert said each business on PublicSq. is asked to make its products in the United States or to get as many of its products as possible from there, but he acknowledged that manufacturing in China is necessary for some.A spokeswoman for Unitus said in an email that it made its products in Peru and Bangladesh, but that it was “committed to never sourcing Unitus products from China.”For Mr. Isaac’s part, he hopes Unitus becomes a leader in producing sleek and comfortable apparel and champions his core values: “faith, family and freedom,” which, he said, are “under assault” by mainstream corporations.“Unitus is, for me, giving people that encouragement to say: ‘No, I stand for these values. These values are important to me. And now I can wear them in a stylish, high-quality way,’” Mr. Isaac said. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    For Many Small-Business Owners, a Necessary Shift to Digital Payments

    by

    The pandemic accelerated a transition to cashless payments, forcing a reckoning among small-business owners. But there are benefits: One owner said the switch saved her $3,000 a month.“Making It Work” is a series about small-business owners striving to endure hard times.When Egypt Otis opened her business, Comma Bookstore and Social Hub, three years ago in Flint, Mich., the pandemic was full blown. But her neighbors welcomed the literature and art she sold in her store that celebrated people of color, as well as the community programs she hosted.Despite the warm reception, Ms. Otis quickly found that she had a sales problem: Her customers wanted to pay with their cellphones.“I realized that people were hardly keeping a wallet or a physical card, which limited my ability to sell and make money,” Ms. Otis said. So she upgraded her transactions platform to include tap-and-go purchases on mobile devices. “People are not carrying cash,” she said. “It’s becoming obsolete.”The number of Americans who say they are “cashless” has jumped in the last five years. Forty-one percent of Americans said they did not use cash for their purchases in a typical week in 2022, up from 29 percent in 2018, according to a Pew Research Center survey released last October.Small-business owners increasingly are making the switch to cashless payments for several reasons, including rising consumer demand, faster checkout, lower labor costs and increased security. Those who wait risk losing revenue, experts say.But there are drawbacks to going cash-free, including a learning curve for entrepreneurs who may not understand how to set up digital payments, a lack of accessibility to credit cards for low-income consumers, and privacy concerns.Signs at a pizza joint in New York indicating it takes multiple forms of cashless payments, a switch that accelerated in the pandemic.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesJuanny Romero was an early adopter of digital payments for her small business. Fifteen years ago, when she founded Mothership Coffee Roasters, a chain of coffee shops in Las Vegas, she began using Square, a low-cost digital payments system for small businesses.“​​I was a young businesswoman and not astute,” she said. But Square saved her $3,000 a month in merchant fees for credit card processing.As Ms. Romero expanded her businesses (to four locations in Las Vegas, with two more on the way), she added more payment options, including Apple Pay and Google Pay.But she noticed a shift during the pandemic: Her customers no longer wanted to use cash, and her employees did not want to handle it. “We didn’t know where Covid was coming from,” she said. “There were still people bringing in cash, but it was scary and dangerous.”When the coin shortage hit in 2020, she ran out of cash altogether, but Ms. Romero found it saved on labor costs. “My managers were standing in line for two hours to deposit the cash,” she said. “I can’t get an armored car service to pick up $100 in cash.”Even so, customer demand prompted her to return to cash sales, which Ms. Romero said are holding steady at about 11 percent of her overall revenue. She said she would go cashless if the share dipped below 10 percent.A digital transaction at Mothership Coffee Roasters in Las Vegas.Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesThe pressure to adapt is growing. More that 2.8 billion mobile wallets were in use at the end of 2020, and that is projected to increase nearly 74 percent to 4.8 billion — nearly 60 percent of the world’s population — by the end of 2025, according to a study released in 2021 by Boku, a fintech companyThe United States lags other countries in adopting cashless payments. Among the most cashless countries in the world is Britain, where the pound makes up only 1 percent of all transactions, according to a report from Merchant Machine, a payment research firm based in London. But in the United States, some small-business owners do not understand the complexities of digital payments.“Smaller merchants, they don’t always have the knowledge and resources to know what to do,” said Ginger Siegel, who leads the North America small-business segment at Mastercard, which offers training to business owners like Ms. Otis of Comma Bookstore.Ms. Otis said she noticed an increase in sales when she began offering mobile payments, which made the checkout process faster. “As a retailer, you want to make the experience as efficient as possible,” she said. “It is a matter of survival.”A veteran using a tap-and-go device to collect donations for the Royal British Legion in London in 2020.Guy Bell/AlamyBenefits include immediate payment, increased sales and the ability to sell to customers who might use other currencies. “You have to set it up, but it’s worth it,” said Kimberley A. Eddleston, a professor of entrepreneurship at Northeastern University.But some business owners say they are hesitant to move too quickly, worried that today’s technology could become obsolete tomorrow. And there are compatibility and cost issues to consider, said Wayne Read, the chief executive of Forged & Formed, an online jeweler with a physical store, Studio D Jewelers, in Woodstock, Ill. In his jewelry sales, where items can be pricey, he said a speedy transaction might not be suitable. “We don’t want people to feel they have rushed their decision,” he said.Despite advances in technology, many Americans still have little or no access to financial services like credit cards and mobile wallets, although that is slowly improving. An estimated 5.9 million households did not have a bank account in 2021, down from 7.1 million households in 2019, according to a survey by the Federal Reserve.Rewards points displayed on a checkout screen at Mothership. Mobile apps allow for cashless payments and can increase customer loyalty.Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesAnother obstacle to adoption is privacy concerns: Some people prefer the anonymity that cash provides. And cash is perceived as a way for consumers to remain aware of expenditures. Complicating the transition to the digital economy, the recent banking turmoil in the United States has made many depositors question the security of financial institutions.But experts agree that cash is unlikely to go away. Consumers in lower income households continue to rely on cash for payments, according to the Fed survey.And small-business owners say that despite the speed and efficiency that cashless payments offer, cash is still a viable option for their customers.“At the end of the day, I know the people I serve,” Ms. Romero said. “I would feel conflicted if I didn’t do the right thing.” More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Looming UPS Strike Spurs Some Companies to Rethink Supply Chains

    by

    Businesses around the country are facing what could be the latest disruption to how they get their goods to their customers in a timely and affordable fashion.Kathryn Keeler and her husband, Stuart de Haaff, own an olive oil company in the hills of central California. The couple spend their days harvesting olives, bottling the oil, labeling the glass bottles and shipping them out, relying primarily on UPS to get their product to kitchens throughout the United States. They are far from alone. UPS handles about a fourth of packages shipped each day in the United States, according to the Pitney Bowes Parcel Shipping Index, many of them for small businesses like Ms. Keeler’s company, Rancho Azul y Oro.But with the labor contract between UPS and 325,000 of its workers expiring at the end of the month and a potential strike looming, business owners around the country are facing what could be the latest in a series of supply chain disruptions they have confronted since the start of the pandemic.Some are pre-emptively turning to FedEx, the next largest private carrier in the United States, or the Postal Service. Others are calling their third-party shippers — firms that work with the likes of UPS, FedEx and DHL to handle their clients’ shipping needs — to ensure that their packages can still get to their final destinations even if there is a strike.The logistical challenge is just one more burden on businesses that have been stretched thin over the past few years.“Maybe a larger business can withstand those types of situations,” Ms. Keeler said. But as small-business owners, she and her husband “don’t have a lot of extra time in our day to be on the phone with the post office or FedEx.”Since 2020, the pandemic has strained the global supply chain in a number of ways. E-commerce reached record levels as stuck-at-home Americans bought clothes, furniture, workout equipment and groceries online. Companies had to navigate Covid-related shutdowns at factories in China and Vietnam. There were worldwide delays when a large container ship got stuck in the Suez Canal, leading to containers piling up at the Port of Los Angeles. Those situations affected the way goods came into the United States.A UPS strike could hobble the way brands move their wares domestically.“This is something that affects us on our home turf, and how do we solve for that?” said Ron Robinson, the chief executive of BeautyStat Cosmetics, which uses UPS to ship its skin care products to retailers like Ulta and Macy’s.One strategy that his team will lean on is trying to bundle packages, sending as many as it can out at once, he said.Switching to another carrier is going to cost some companies.Ryan Culver, the chief executive of Platterful, a monthly charcuterie board subscription service, also uses UPS. Switching over to FedEx Express — necessary to ensure that the meats in his packages reach consumers in time — would cost about $5 to $10 more per delivery.Using FedEx to ship goods can sometimes be more costly for small businesses.Hunter Kerhart for The New York TimesTeri Johnson, the founder of Harlem Candle Company, received an email on June 26 from her third-party shipper about a potential UPS strike. It suggested she switch to FedEx. That will cost her about $2 extra for each candle shipped in the greater New York area. Sending her candles to California will cost even more.“We don’t really have a choice right now,” Ms. Johnson said.FedEx said it was accepting additional volume for a limited time and would assess how much capacity its network could accommodate. “Shippers who are considering shifting volume to FedEx, or are currently in discussions with the company to open a new account, are encouraged to begin shipping with FedEx now,” the company said in a post on its website on Thursday.The Postal Service said in an emailed statement that it “has a strong network, and we have the capacity to deliver what is tendered to us.”Larger companies are relying on sophisticated backup plans that have been tested over the past few years. The pandemic and previous tariff trade wars pushed many major retailers with global supply chains to diversify the countries where their vendors are and the parcel carriers they use.“We’ve been focused on investing in a lot of transportation solutions that allow us to more nimbly move freight between carriers,” said Alexis DePree, the chief supply chain officer at Nordstrom. “We can do that with a lot more flexibility and speed than we were able to in the past.”Some third-party carriers are seeing a boost in their businesses as the possibility of a UPS strike comes into focus for their clients. Stord, a third-party logistics and technology provider based in Atlanta whose clients include apparel makers and consumer-package companies, has been sending emails out telling its clients not to worry. Stord uses a cloud-based platform to offer services like warehousing and fulfillment and handles tens of thousands of their packages a day.By combining the volume of its broad portfolio of client brands and using software to make decisions, Stord has the leverage to better negotiate prices with the large parcel carriers, said Sean Henry, the company’s chief executive.“We’ve been negotiating with FedEx and U.S.P.S. about rates around UPS so our customers don’t have to do that,” he said.Stord said more of its clients had asked it to negotiate with carriers on their behalf. He said that equated to “tens of millions of dollars of annual revenue” for his business.Still, some business owners are not letting the possibility of a UPS strike stress them out just yet.Bill McHenry, president of Widgeteer, which sells cookware to large retailers, said he felt “kind of numb” after navigating the pandemic-related challenges. “I’ve seen a lot of stuff and the stories that I’ve heard and things we’ve had to go through and survive — not just the pricing but the upheaval of thinking you have a container but don’t,” he said.He said the potential rail strike last December had been a bigger concern for him.In the meantime, the possibility that a deal could be reached between UPS and the union that represents its workers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, remains. The union announced on Wednesday that negotiations had broken down, after previously saying the sides had reached a tentative agreement. If an agreement is not reached, a strike could happen as early as Aug. 1.If that occurs, “we would be collateral damage,” Ms. Keeler said. More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Oregon Town’s Marijuana Boom Yields Envy in Idaho

    by

    Tax revenue has surged since cannabis stores opened in Ontario, Ore., fueling a push in neighboring Idaho to legalize sales and get in on the action.For John Leeds, the hour-and-a-half commute to and from his job as assistant manager at Treasure Valley Cannabis Company is exhausting, but logistically unavoidable.Like nearly half of the other employees, Mr. Leeds, 39, lives in Idaho and travels along Interstate 84, past sprawling alfalfa and onion fields, to the marijuana shop just across the Oregon state line, where cannabis is legal.“It’s really two different worlds,” Mr. Leeds said. “A lot of whiplash on this issue just in a car ride up and down the highway.”Every day, hundreds of customers and workers like Mr. Leeds make the pilgrimage from Idaho to Ontario, Ore., a small city nestled along the Snake River that is home to 11 dispensaries — roughly one for every 1,000 residents. They can compare the aromas of various strains of marijuana and gather the staff’s insights on THC levels in edibles.The cannabis boom is helping to drive a thriving local economy — and tax revenues that have paid for new police positions, emergency response vehicles, and park and trail improvements.Missing out on the action has become increasingly frustrating to some politicians and longtime residents in Idaho, where the population and living costs have surged in recent years.Because the sale or possession of marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, many states — and in this case neighboring ones — have landed on drastically different approaches for whether and how to decriminalize, regulate and tax cannabis. Since 2012, 23 states have legalized it for recreational use, and more than three dozen allow medical marijuana.Eleven states, mostly conservative-leaning, have enacted extremely limited medical marijuana laws. Aside from cannabis-derived drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for limited medical use, Idaho has not legalized any cannabis sales — a prohibition that has helped its more progressive neighbors.“Our cannabis market caters almost exclusively to Idaho residents,” said Ontario’s mayor, Debbie Folden. “This has been an economic boom unlike any this city has seen.”The patchwork of laws, which vary by state and often by county, have created similar commuter-propelled booms in other parts of the country as well, said Mason Tvert, a partner at VS Strategies, a national cannabis policy and public affairs firm in Denver.Texans travel to Colorado to stock up on their favorite strains or edibles, and Indiana residents make the trek to Michigan, he said. “Demand will be met by either the illegal market or by a legal market in another state,” Mr. Tvert said.That proposition, and the larger economic equation, are not lost on officials in Idaho.Last year, the state approached two million residents, a swell attributed largely to people moving from California and looking for overall cheaper costs of living. Only Florida grew faster.At the same time, property taxes have increased 20 percent since 2018, according to a report from the Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy, a nonpartisan group. And the state’s budget — currently showing a surplus — is expected to come under strain, the group noted, citing legislation that cut income taxes by roughly $500 million over three years even as population growth put new demands on health care, education and transportation.Some longtime residents of the state are tired of seeing the marijuana tax dollars go elsewhere as prices increase from the newer residents arriving.Legalizing and taxing cannabis sales could bring in revenue and help offset any budgetary concerns, said Joe Evans, a lead organizer for Kind Idaho, a group pushing to legalize medical marijuana.“That money should not be leaving the state of Idaho,” said Joe Evans, who supports the legalization of medical marijuana in the state.Ellen Hansen for The New York Times“That money should not be leaving the state of Idaho,” said Mr. Evans, who noted the entrepreneurial spirit of the region, home to Joe Albertson, who started a local grocery store chain, Albertsons, and laid the foundation for a multibillion-dollar national business.But for Mr. Evans, who served with the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan and knows fellow veterans who use cannabis for pain relief, legalization is also about something bigger than money. It is long past time, he said, for his state to legalize a substance that can offer relief for some medical conditions.Patients who use marijuana, especially older or chronically ill Idahoans, shouldn’t have to drive an hour or more to Oregon, he said.“This is about patient advocacy,” said Mr. Evans, who hopes the state will next year consider a measure to legalize cannabis for medicinal use.It would not be the first try.Initiatives to legalize cannabis for medicinal use failed to qualify for the ballot in 2012, 2014 and 2016. In 2020, supporters of a ballot measure suspended efforts to gather signatures because of the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the next year a bipartisan group of state lawmakers introduced a medical marijuana bill that failed to get out of committee.As those efforts foundered, customers in Idaho increasingly made the trek to Oregon, where voters legalized cannabis for medical use in 1998 and for recreational use in 2014.Ontario, Ore., is home to 11 dispensaries — roughly one for every 1,000 residents.Ellen Hansen for The New York TimesFew areas in the state have benefited as much as Malheur County, home to Ontario.The city, which voted to legalize local recreational sales of marijuana in 2018, is the only part of the county with dispensaries. Even so, Malheur County racked up roughly $104 million in total cannabis sales last year, outpacing each of the state’s 35 other counties except Multnomah, which includes Portland.In 2020, the first full year in which Ontario allowed cannabis sales, the city took in $1.8 million in resulting tax revenue. The next year, the revenue increased 65 percent.The area is a conservative pocket in a progressive state — a movement called “Greater Idaho” wants the region to secede from Oregon and become part of Idaho — and Mayor Folden, an Ontario native, calls herself a conservative Republican.That hasn’t blocked the city’s emergence as a cannabis capital. The tax revenues, the mayor said, have been a municipal lifeline. But the city is stockpiling its reserves, Ms. Folden said, because she expects that within five years, Idaho will move ahead with some form of legalization.Treasure Valley Cannabis is one of the businesses that have led to a surge in tax revenue for Malheur County.Ellen Hansen for The New York Times“We know that this will not last forever, so we’re being prudent,” Ms. Folden said. “We know the economic winds, as they say, might shift.”In the fall, a poll for The Idaho Statesman, a Boise newspaper, found that 68 percent of residents backed legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes. For recreational use, 48 percent supported legalization, while 41 percent were opposed.Gov. Brad Little of Idaho, who is in his second term, staunchly opposes marijuana legalization. In an emailed statement, Mr. Little, a Republican, said that “legalization of marijuana triggers numerous unintended consequences.”But some local politicians in Idaho have begun to consider the economics of the issue.Patrick Bageant, a Boise councilman, said the need for alternative forms of tax revenue was increasingly urgent.“Legalizing marijuana can help bring in different forms of cash,” Mr. Bageant said. “Just look around the country — we as a state should be more forward-looking.”Adam Watkins, a software engineer and a constituent of Mr. Bageant’s, has lived in the city’s West End neighborhood for the past decade. His home value has doubled since 2018, when he paid $3,200 in property taxes; now he pays close to $4,200.“You look around at other states that have legalized marijuana decades ago, when it comes to medical marijuana, and you just cannot help but think, why are we so backward on this issue?” said Mr. Watkins, who supports legalization for philosophical and fiscal reasons.“This is a drug with proven health effects, and we are just leaving this issue to other states to solve,” he added. “We are turning blindly, like this is not an issue, when it clearly is.”Back in Ontario on a recent afternoon, red, white and blue license plates emblazoned with the phrase “Scenic Idaho” lined the parking lot of Treasure Valley Cannabis. (A federal law prohibits transporting marijuana between states.)John Leeds commutes an hour and a half to and from his job at Treasure Valley Cannabis, where he manages a staff of 45.Ellen Hansen for The New York TimesMr. Leeds manages a staff of 45 employees four days a week. He used to work five days, but made a deal with the owner, Jeremy Archie, to work four to cut back on his commute.That day, Mr. Leeds and Mr. Archie walked the floor past vape pens, various strains of cannabis, and sweatshirts acclaiming the company and the state.They greeted customers and shared stories of patients battling health issues like cancer, who use their products to ease pain. On one wall hung a poster board proclaiming a 25 percent discount for customers car-pooling with at least three people.A small gesture of thanks, Mr. Archie said, for their Idaho customers.“The Idaho market has made this a very successful business,” he said. More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Restaurant Chain Franchises Face Scrutiny From the FTC

    by

    Troubles at the restaurant chain Burgerim highlight concerns about whether franchisees need more protection in their contracts with franchisers.“Making It Work” is a series about small-business owners striving to endure hard times.When Kenneth Laskin flew to California to meet with executives at Burgerim, a start-up chain of restaurants, he was made to feel not just like another prospective franchisee, but like part of a family.The company’s executives, he said, made a point one evening of highlighting their common Jewish faith by praying with him in Hebrew.At the time, in 2017, Mr. Laskin believed he was being offered a plum deal. He paid $50,000 for the right to open up as many Burgerim franchised restaurants as he wanted in Oregon. “I got an entire state,” Mr. Laskin recalled.Today, Burgerim has run into trouble, leaving a trail of financial problems, a lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission and broader regulatory scrutiny of whether protections for franchisees like Mr. Laskin are adequate.The challenges highlighted by Burgerim come as franchising continues to grow as a way that people are choosing to start small businesses.There has been rising concern about whether franchisees need more protection in their contracts with franchisers. That concern has found a sympathetic ear in the Biden administration and in several state legislatures, and has resulted in multiple proposed limits on franchisers’ powers.In the end, Mr. Laskin opened only one Burgerim restaurant, in Eugene, Ore., which closed in 2020 during the pandemic. Since then, Mr. Laskin has been depleting his savings to pay the bills.Burgerim, which boasted of having inventive high-quality burgers, has been criticized by former franchisees for making grand promises and poor disclosure about business risks. Of the more than 1,500 franchises Burgerim sold, most never opened, the commission said in a lawsuit that the agency filed last year against the company and its founder in U.S. District Court in California.Peter Bronstein, a lawyer for Oren Loni, who was the company’s principal executive in the United States, said that Burgerim made some business mistakes but that it was often trying to help its franchisees succeed. The two sides have been in mediation, according to the court file. Kenneth Laskin believed he got a plum deal to start as many Burgerim franchised restaurants as he wanted in Oregon. He ended up opening only one, which closed during the pandemic.Zack Wittman for The New York TimesEven as the pandemic was still bearing down, the number of franchised establishments in the country grew 2.8 percent in 2021 and 2 percent in 2022. That number is expected to increase an additional 2 percent this year, bringing the total to 805,436 franchises, according to the latest data released by the International Franchise Association, an industry group.As the franchising network expands, so does its contribution to the broader economy. Franchises employed 8.4 million people last year, a 3 percent increase from 2021.There is historical evidence, according to the International Franchise Association, that the first U.S. franchise dates back to Ben Franklin, who created a network of printing partnerships.Franchising took root in the American business landscape in the decades following World War II, with the growth of franchised brands like Howard Johnson’s hotels.Sam Falk/The New York TimesToday a fundamental symbiosis drives the business model: Franchisees pay an upfront fee to an franchiser like Dunkin’ Donuts or Applebee’s, which gets them access to all of that brand’s suppliers, advertising and technology. The franchisee can lean on these established systems to get their business up and running quickly rather than having to start from scratch. And the franchiser, in turn, receives the franchising fee, typically tens of thousands of dollars, in addition to a regular royalty payment from the franchisee.“Franchising has always been an on-ramp for the middle class to open their own business,” said Charlie Chase, the chief executive of FirstService Brands, a franchiser of home renovation and painting services.Over the years, Mr. Chase, who has served on the board of directors of the International Franchise Association, said he had helped hundreds of successful franchisees get their start. “We have created a lot of millionaires,” he said.Still, Mr. Chase said he was concerned about how some franchisees were being pushed into businesses without understanding all of the risks.He blames aggressive internet advertising for some of this (Mr. Laskin learned about Burgerim from a Facebook advertisement, for example), and also a network of third-party brokers that often push prospective franchisees to buy multiple franchises at a time.The Federal Trade Commission, under the leadership of Lina Khan, is looking broadly at industry practices including disclosure and issues such as franchisers’ unilaterally changing the terms of an agreement with a franchisee.“Franchising can be a good business model, but it can also lead to a lot of harm,” Elizabeth Wilkins, the director of the commission’s Office of Policy and Planning, said. “We are concerned about instances where the promise does not match with reality. We believe there is a significant gap that is worth our investigation.”In the case against Burgerim,  federal officials said that the company executives told franchisees they would refund their franchise fees if their business did not open, but that many people never got their money back. Mr. Bronstein, the lawyer for Mr. Loni, said offering refunds “was not the best way to run a business.”In the years since the 2008 financial crisis and mortgage meltdown, regulators have bolstered protections for consumers by improving disclosure by banks and banning certain fees they can charge. But small businesses, including franchisees, have not benefited from the same extensive regulatory scrutiny.“There is a view in the consumer protection world that small businesses do not get the same level of protections as other consumers,” Samuel Levine, the director of the F.T.C.’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said. “Yet, consumers and small businesses, including franchisees, face many of the same challenges. That is something we are trying to address.”The F.T.C., under the leadership of Lina Khan, above, is looking broadly at industry practices at franchises including disclosure about business risks. Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse, via Getty ImagesAs part of that effort, the Federal Trade Commission is looking at how to apply laws like the Robinson-Patman Act, an antitrust law that prevents large corporations from using discriminatory pricing to take advantage of small businesses. The agency also has proposed a rule banning noncompete clauses in employment contracts and may consider limiting the use of noncompete clauses in franchise agreements.When Mr. Laskin bought a franchise, he was not looking to become a millionaire, but rather to build a stable middle-class life.He opened his sole Burgerim store in Oregon in September 2019.But the problems started soon after his grand opening, Mr. Laskin said. Burgerim had not established a reliable food distribution system in Oregon, he said, forcing Mr. Laskin to fend for himself to supply his restaurant. In trying to help new locations get off the ground, the company never collected royalties from the franchisees, which limited its ability to support its restaurant network over the long term, Mr. Bronstein said. Still, he added, there are many Burgerim restaurants that operated successfully.Mr. Laskin kept the business going during the pandemic by offering take out. But he couldn’t find people to work during the lockdowns, which meant he and his wife ran the entire operation themselves.Mr. Laskin, who has severe back pain from years of restaurant work, hoped a franchise would offer him the chance to delegate work to employees and spare his back.But some days, Mr. Laskin would return from the burger restaurant at night unable to walk the final few yards up his driveway because of the pain from standing on his feet all day.The Burgerim leadership, Mr. Laskin said, provided no support during the pandemic.A Burgerim restaurant in Walnut Creek, Calif., last year.Gado/Getty ImagesHe closed his restaurant in May 2020 and moved to Florida. Mr. Laskin, 57, said that his back problems limited the type of work he can do and that it had been difficult finding work after his burger business closed.The struggles of the former Burgerim franchisees were brought to light in 2020 by the publication Restaurant Business, which focuses on the food service industry, in a series of articles.Some franchisees say improving disclosure or increasing regulations on fee structures will not be a panacea in rooting out the industry’s troubled actors.“Transparency is a great thing, but I am not sure more disclosure is going to change any outcomes,” said Greg Flynn, the founder and chief executive of Flynn Restaurant Group, the largest franchisee in the country with 2,400 locations and 73,000 employees, operating brands like Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and Panera.“There are a lot of stories of franchisees buying into a system and then it goes badly for them,” he added. “I would just suggest that they might have had a similar experience outside of a franchise system.”Mr. Laskin says it is not just bad timing or circumstances that were to blame. “The system is fundamentally crippled,’’ he said. “There is too much secrecy. It shouldn’t be this difficult.” More

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Franchisers, Facing Challenges to Business Model, Punch Back

    by

    Discontented franchisees have found allies among state legislators and federal regulators in pushing for new laws and rules, but change has been slow.When you visit a McDonald’s, a Jiffy Lube or a Hilton Garden Inn, you may assume you’re visiting one business. More likely, you’re actually visiting two: the operator of that particular location, known as the franchisee, and the larger company that owns the intellectual property behind it, or the franchiser.Conflict is inherent in that relationship, but it has hit a boil in recent months, as franchisees say they’re being squeezed out of the profits their business generates through new fees, required vendors and constraints on their ability to sell.On Monday, the Government Accountability Office released a report finding that franchisees “do not enjoy the full benefit of the risks they bear,” citing interviews with dozens of small-business owners who said they lacked control over basic operations that determined their ability to earn a profit.They’ve found a sympathetic ear in the Biden administration and in several state legislatures, giving rise to a growing wave of proposals to limit the power of franchisers.Franchisers have been largely successful in heading off new laws and rules, which the chief executive of McDonald’s, Chris Kempczinski, has described as an existential threat.“The reality is that our business model is under attack,” he said in February at the convention of the International Franchise Association, a trade group for franchisers, franchisees and franchise suppliers. “If you’re not paying attention to these pieces of legislation because you think they don’t impact you, think again.”The chief executive of McDonald’s says the franchising industry’s business model is “under attack” because of a push for new laws and rules.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesFranchising has been a feature of American capitalism for decades, allowing brands to grow quickly using investment from entrepreneurs who commit their own capital in exchange for a business plan and a logo that consumers might recognize. The Federal Trade Commission requires franchisers to disclose factors including start-up costs and the company’s financial performance to those considering buying a franchise, and some state laws govern considerations like transfer rights.But much of the relationship is largely unregulated — changes a franchiser can make to contracts, for example, and which vendors can be required.Keith Miller, a Subway franchisee in California who has become an advocate for franchisee rights, said the lack of oversight had given rise to an increasing number of disputes. “There’s more of a squeeze on the franchisees than ever,” he said. Franchisees’ royalty payments used to cover things like marketing, new menus and sales tools, he added, but “now you seem to have to pay for your services.”The franchise industry says that its business model remains beneficial to individual owners, and that additional regulation would protect substandard franchisees at everyone else’s expense. Matthew Haller, chief executive of the International Franchise Association, cited a 2021 survey by the market research firm Franchise Business Review in which 82 percent of franchisees said they supported their corporate leadership.But legislative battles at the state level reflect rising tension.Hotel franchisees, squeezed by lost revenue during pandemic lockdowns, say they have also been hurt by the hotel brands’ loyalty programs, which require the hotelier to rent rooms at a reduced rate. A bill in New Jersey that would limit those loyalty programs, as well as rebates that brands can collect from vendors that franchisees are required to use, faces fierce opposition from the American Hotel and Lodging Association. In a statement, the association’s chief executive, Chip Rogers, said the bill would “completely undermine the foundation of hotel franchising by limiting a brand’s ability to enforce brand standards.”Laura Lee Blake, the chief executive of the 20,000-member Asian American Hotel Owners Association, said hoteliers had reached desperation. “There comes a point when you’ve tried and tried to meet with the franchisers to ask for changes, and they refuse to listen,” she said.In Arizona, legislation introduced to enhance franchisees’ ability to sell their businesses and prevent retaliation from franchisers if they band together in associations has also faced resistance. The bill was approved by two committees in February and March, but the International Franchise Association hired two lobbying firms to fight it. In a Republican caucus meeting, opponents attacked the legislation as a “sledgehammer” that would bring the government into private business relationships. The bill’s sponsor, Representative Anastasia Travers, a freshman Democrat, said she was taken aback by how quickly opposition snowballed, and ultimately gave up on it for the 2023 session.“Time has not been my friend,” Ms. Travers said.A similar bill in Arkansas, which the International Franchise Association initially said would be “the most extreme franchise regulation of any state,” was amended to strip entire sections, including one that would have prevented franchisers from imposing any requirement that “unreasonably changes” the financial terms of the relationship as a condition of renewal or sale.After the bill was slimmed down — leaving provisions such as one restoring the existing statute, which had been rendered ineffective by a subsequent law, and another requiring the franchiser to establish material cause before terminating the franchise — the industry group withdrew its opposition, allowing swift passage.A Subway location in New York. “There’s more of a squeeze on the franchisees than ever,” said Keith Miller, a Subway franchise owner in California.Carlo Allegri/ReutersIn an email to supporters before the votes, the franchise association’s vice president for state and local government relations, Jeff Hanscom, credited the Arkansas agribusiness giant Tyson Foods for being “instrumental in negotiating this outcome.” Tyson Foods did not respond to a request for comment.At the federal level, franchisers may face greater challenges.The Biden administration is moving on two fronts. One is the Federal Trade Commission, which issued a request in March for information about the ways in which franchisers control franchisees. The initiative could result in additional guidance or rules — putting the industry on high alert.The second front is the National Labor Relations Board, which has proposed making it easier for franchisers to be designated as “joint employers” that would be liable for the labor law violations of franchisees if they exerted significant control over working conditions. Franchisers maintain that this would “destroy” the business model, because it would subject them to unacceptable risks.Franchisers attribute the flurry of activity to union influence. The Service Employees International Union, in particular, has long fought to get McDonald’s designated as a joint employer so it would be easier to mount an organizing effort across the chain, rather than store by store.Robert Zarco, a Miami lawyer retained by an association of 1,000 McDonald’s owners, said that to avoid the joint-employer designation, and the extra liability it would bring, franchisers could choose to weaken their grip on franchisee operations.“If the company wants to not be considered a joint employer, it’s very simple to fix,” he said. “Unwind all those excessive controls that they have implemented that are outside of protecting the brand and the product and service quality.”The franchise association’s federal lobbying spending hit a high of $1.24 million in 2022, alongside millions more spent in recent years on federal elections, and doesn’t include money spent by the individual franchise brands.The high stakes are evident in other ways, as well.The Franchise Times, a 30-year-old independent trade publication with six editorial employees, writes about day-to-day events in the industry: acquisitions, executive leadership changes, technology trends. When strife arises, such as lawsuits and bankruptcies, it writes about those, too.The publication’s legal columnist, Beth Ewen, wrote several stories this year about Unleashed Brands, a portfolio of franchises that has drawn lawsuits from franchisees. In response, the company published a markup of one of Ms. Ewen’s stories in red pen font with “DEBUNKED” stamped across the top. (The organization had given similar treatment to an article about the company by The New York Times. Both publications stand by their reporting, and Unleashed did not ask for corrections.)In March, a new website popped up at the address “NoFranchiseTimes.com.” Its front page was devoted to an attack on what it called “editorial bias,” “denigrating the businesses that support their publication.”It called for the publication’s advertisers — which include law firms, vendors and brands — to cancel their purchases.Michael Browning Jr., the chief executive of Unleashed Brands and a member of the International Franchise Association’s board, emailed the trade group’s membership saying that while he had not created the website, he supported its message and thought the group should revoke The Franchise Times’s membership. Mr. Browning did not respond to a request for further comment.The association declined to revoke the membership, and the publication says its advertising revenue is up from last year. But to Ms. Ewen, a 35-year veteran of business reporting, the episode shows that the industry is trying to divert attention from real problems — and that some members are playing hardball.“They’re trying to hit at our business model and our ability to keep going,” she said. “There’s a lot of people spending a lot of time trying to get us and others to stop doing these stories.” More

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Banking Crisis Hangs Over Economy, Rekindling Recession Fear

    by

    Borrowing could become tougher, a particular blow to small businesses — and a threat to the recovery’s staying power.The U.S. economic recovery has repeatedly defied predictions of an impending recession, withstanding supply-chain backlogs, labor shortages, global conflicts and the fastest increase in interest rates in decades.That resilience now faces a new test: a banking crisis that, at times over the past week, seemed poised to turn into a full-blown financial meltdown as oil prices plunged and investors poured money into U.S. government debt and other assets perceived as safe.Markets remained volatile on Friday — stocks had their worst day of the week — as leaders in Washington and on Wall Street sought to keep the crisis contained.Even if those efforts succeed — and veterans of previous crises cautioned that was a big “if” — economists said the episode would inevitably take a toll on hiring and investments as banks pulled back on lending, and businesses struggled to borrow money as a result. Some forecasters said the turmoil had already made a recession more likely.“There will be real and lasting economic repercussions from this, even if all the dust settles well,” said Jay Bryson, chief economist at Wells Fargo. “I would raise the probability of a recession given what’s happened in the last week.”At a minimum, the crisis has complicated the already delicate task facing officials at the Federal Reserve, who have been trying to slow the economy gradually in order to bring inflation to heel. That task is as urgent as ever: Government data on Tuesday showed that prices continued to rise at a rapid clip in February. But now policymakers must grapple with the risk that the Fed’s efforts to fight inflation could be destabilizing the financial system.They don’t have long to weigh their options: Fed officials will hold their next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday amid unusual uncertainty about what they will do. As recently as 10 days ago, investors expected the central bank to reaccelerate its campaign of interest rate increases in response to stronger-than-expected economic data. Now, Fed watchers are debating whether the meeting will end with rates unchanged.The failure of Silicon Valley Bank, the midsize California institution, set the latest turmoil in motion.Ian C. Bates for The New York TimesThe notion that the rapid increase in interest rates could threaten financial stability is hardly new. In recent months, economists have remarked often that it is surprising that the Fed has been able to raise rates so much, so fast without severe disruptions to a marketplace that has grown used to rock-bottom borrowing costs.What was less expected is where the first crack showed: small and midsize U.S. banks, in theory among the most closely monitored and tightly regulated pieces of the global financial system.“I was surprised where the problem came, but I wasn’t surprised there was a problem,” Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard professor and leading scholar of financial crises, said in an interview. In an essay in early January, he warned of the risk of a “looming financial contagion” as governments and businesses struggled to adjust to an era of higher interest rates.He said he did not expect a repeat of 2008, when the collapse of the U.S. mortgage market quickly engulfed virtually the entire global financial system. Banks around the world are better capitalized and better regulated than they were back then, and the economy itself is stronger.“Usually to have a more systemic financial crisis, you need more than one shoe to drop,” Professor Rogoff said. “Think of higher real interest rates as one shoe, but you need another.”Still, he and other experts said it was alarming that such severe problems could go undetected so long at Silicon Valley Bank, the midsize California institution whose failure set in motion the latest turmoil. That raises questions about what other threats could be lurking, perhaps in less regulated corners of finance such as real estate or private equity.“If we’re not on top of that, then what about some of these other, more shadowy parts of the financial system?” said Anil Kashyap, a University of Chicago economist who studies financial crises. Already, there are hints that the crisis may not be limited to the United States. Credit Suisse said on Thursday that it would borrow up to $54 billion from the Swiss National Bank after investors dumped its stock as fears arose about its financial health. The 166-year-old lender has faced a long series of scandals and missteps, and its problems aren’t directly related to those of Silicon Valley Bank and other U.S. institutions. But economists said the violent market reaction was a sign that investors were growing concerned about the stability of the broader system.Tougher lending standards could be a blow to small businesses and affect overall supply in the economy.Casey Steffens for The New York TimesThe turmoil in the financial world comes just as the economic recovery, at least in the United States, seemed to be gaining momentum. Consumer spending, which fell in late 2022, rebounded early this year. The housing market, which slumped in 2022 as mortgage rates rose, had shown signs of stabilizing. And despite high-profile layoffs at large tech companies, job growth has stayed strong or even accelerated in recent months. By early March, forecasters were raising their estimates of economic growth and marking down the risks of a recession, at least this year.‌Now, many of them are reversing course. Mr. Bryson, of Wells Fargo, said he now put the probability of a recession this year at about 65 percent, up from about 55 percent before the recent bank failures. Even Goldman Sachs, among the most optimistic forecasters on Wall Street in recent months, said Thursday that the chances of a recession had risen ‌10 percentage points, to 35 percent, as a result of the crisis and the resulting uncertainty.The most immediate impact is likely to be on lending. Small and midsize banks could tighten their lending standards and issue fewer loans, either in a voluntary effort to shore up their finances or in response to heightened scrutiny from regulators. That could be a blow to residential and commercial developers, manufacturers and other businesses that rely on debt to finance their day-to-day operations.Janet L. Yellen, the Treasury secretary, said Thursday that the federal government was “monitoring very carefully” the health of the banking system and of credit conditions more broadly.“A more general problem that concerns us is the possibility that if banks are under stress, they might be reluctant to lend,” she told members of the Senate Finance Committee. That, she added, “could turn this into a source of significant downside economic risk.”Tighter credit is likely to be a particular challenge for small businesses, which typically don’t have ready access to other sources of financing, such as the corporate debt market, and which often rely on relationships with bankers who know their specific industry or local community. Some may be able to get loans from big banks, which have so far seemed largely immune from the problems facing smaller institutions. But they will almost certainly pay more to do so, and many businesses may not be able to obtain credit at all, forcing them to cut back on hiring, investing and spending.The housing market, which slumped in 2022 as mortgage rates rose, had shown signs of stabilizing before the banking crisis arose.Jennifer Pottheiser for The New York Times“It may be hard to replace those small and medium-size banks with other sources of capital,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan. “That, in turn, could hinder growth.”Slower growth, of course, is exactly what the Fed has been trying to achieve by raising interest rates — and tighter credit is one of the main channels through which monetary policy is believed to work. If businesses and consumers pull back activity, either because borrowing becomes more expensive or because they are nervous about the economy, that could, in theory, help the Fed bring inflation under control.But Philipp Schnabl, a New York University economist who has studied the recent banking problems, said policymakers had been trying to rein in the economy by crimping demand for goods and services. A financial upheaval, by contrast, could result in a sudden loss of access to credit. That tighter bank lending could also affect overall supply in the economy, which is hard to address through Fed policy.“We have been raising rates to affect aggregate demand,” he said. “Now, you get this credit crunch, but that’s coming from financial stability concerns.”Still, the U.S. economy retains sources of strength that could help cushion the latest blows. Households, in the aggregate, have ample savings and rising incomes. Businesses, after years of strong profits, have relatively little debt. And despite the struggles of their smaller peers, the biggest U.S. banks are on much firmer financial footing than they were in 2008.“I still believe — not just hope — that the damage to the real economy from this is going to be pretty limited,” said Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “I can tell a very compelling story of why this is scary, but it should be OK.”Alan Rappeport More

  • 125 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Even a Soft Landing for the Economy May Be Uneven

    by

    Small businesses and lower-income families could feel pinched in the months ahead whether or not a recession is avoided this year.One of the defining economic stories of the past year was the complex debate over whether the U.S. economy was going into a recession or merely descending, with some altitude sickness, from a peak in growth after pandemic lows.This year, those questions and contentions are likely to continue. The Federal Reserve has been steeply increasing borrowing costs for consumers and businesses in a bid to curb spending and slow down inflation, with the effects still making their way through the veins of commercial activity and household budgeting. So most banks and large credit agencies expect a recession in 2023.At the same time, a budding crop of economists and major market investors see a firm chance that the economy will avoid a recession, or scrape by with a brief stall in growth, as cooled consumer spending and the easing of pandemic-era disruptions help inflation gingerly trend toward more tolerable levels — a hopeful outcome widely called a soft landing.“The possibility of getting a soft landing is greater than the market believes,” said Jason Draho, an economist and the head of Americas asset allocation for UBS Global Wealth Management. “Inflation has now come down faster than some recently expected, and the labor market has held up better than expected.”What seems most likely is that even if a soft landing is achieved, it will be smoother for some households and businesses and rockier for others.In late 2020 and early 2021, talk of a “K-shaped recovery” took root, inspired by the early pandemic economy’s split between secure remote workers — whose savings, house prices and portfolios surged — and the millions more navigating hazardous or tenuous in-person jobs or depending on a large-yet-porous unemployment aid system.Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said: “I wish there were a completely painless way to restore price stability. There isn’t. And this is the best we can do.”Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesIn 2023, if there’s a soft landing, it could be K-shaped, too. The downside is likely to be felt most by cash-starved small businesses and by workers no longer buoyed by the savings and labor bargaining power they built up during the pandemic.In any case, more turbulence lies ahead as fairly low unemployment, high inflation and shaky growth continue to queasily coexist.Generally healthy corporate balance sheets and consumer credit could be bulwarks against the forces of volatile prices, global instability and the withdrawal of emergency-era federal aid. Chief executives of companies that cater to financially sound middle-class and affluent households remain confident in their outlook. Al Kelly, the chief executive of Visa, the credit card company, said recently that “we are seeing nothing but stability.”The State of Jobs in the United StatesEconomists have been surprised by recent strength in the labor market, as the Federal Reserve tries to engineer a slowdown and tame inflation.Retirees: About 3.5 million people are missing from the U.S. labor force. A large number of them, roughly two million, have simply retired.Switching Jobs: A hallmark of the pandemic era has been the surge in employee turnover. The wave of job-switching may be taking a toll on productivity.Delivery Workers: Food app services are warning that a proposed wage increase for New York City workers could mean higher delivery costs.A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?: Employees seeking wage increases to cover their costs of living amid rising prices could set off a cycle in which fast inflation today begets fast inflation tomorrow.But the Fed’s projections indicate that 1.6 million people could lose jobs by late this year — and that the unemployment rate will rise at a magnitude that in recent history has always been accompanied by a recession.“There will be some softening in labor market conditions,” Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said at his most recent news conference, explaining the rationale for the central bank’s recent persistence in raising rates. “And I wish there were a completely painless way to restore price stability. There isn’t. And this is the best we can do.”Will the bottom 50 percent backslide?Over the past two years, researchers have frequently noted that, on average, lower-wage workers have reaped the greatest pay gains, with bumps in compensation that often outpaced inflation, especially for those who switched jobs. But those gains are relative and were often upticks from low baselines.Consumer spending accounts for roughly 70 percent of economic activity.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesAccording to the Realtime Inequality tracker, created by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, inflation-adjusted disposable income for the bottom 50 percent of working-age adults grew 4.2 percent from January 2019 to September 2022. Among the top 50 percent, income lagged behind inflation. But that comparison leaves out the context that the average income for the bottom 50 percent in 2022 was $25,500 — roughly a $13 hourly pay rate.“As we look ahead, I think it is entirely possible that the households and the people we usually worry about at the bottom of the income distribution are going to run into some kind of combination of job loss and softer wage gains, right as whatever savings they had from the pandemic gets depleted,” said Karen Dynan, a former chief economist at the Treasury Department and a professor at Harvard University. “And it’s going to be tough on them.”Consumer spending accounts for roughly 70 percent of economic activity. The widespread resilience of overall consumption in the past year despite high inflation and sour business sentiment was largely attributed to the savings that households of all kinds accumulated during the pandemic: a $2.3 trillion gumbo of government aid, reduced spending on in-person services, windfalls from mortgage refinancing and cashed-out stock gains.What’s left of those stockpiles is concentrated among wealthier households.After spiking during the pandemic, the overall rate of saving among Americans has quickly plunged amid inflation.The personal saving rate — a monthly measure of the percentage of after-tax income that households save overall — has dropped precipitously in recent months. 

    Note: The personal saving rate is also referred to as “personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income.” Personal saving is defined as overall income minus spending and taxes paid.Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic AnalysisBy The New York TimesMost major U.S. banks have reported that checking balances are above prepandemic levels across all income groups. Yet the cost of living is higher than it was in 2019 throughout the country. And depleted savings among the bottom third of earners could continue to ebb while rent and everyday prices still rise, albeit more slowly.Most key economic measures are reported in “real” terms, subtracting inflation from changes in individual income (real wage growth) and total output (real gross domestic product, or G.D.P.). If government calculations of inflation continue to abate as quickly as markets expect, inflation-adjusted numbers could become more positive, making the decelerating economy sound healthier.That wonky dynamic could form a deep tension between resilient-looking official data and the sentiment of consumers who may again find themselves with little financial cushion.Does small business risk falling behind?Another potential factor for a K-shaped landing could be the growing pressure on small businesses, which have less wiggle room than bigger companies in managing costs. Small employers are also more likely to be affected by the tightening of credit as lenders become far pickier and pricier than just a year ago.In a December survey of 3,252 small-business owners by Alignable, a Boston-based small business network with seven million members, 38 percent said they had only one month or less of cash reserves, up 12 percentage points from a year earlier. Many landlords who were lenient about payments at the height of the pandemic have stiffened, asking for back rent in addition to raising current rents.Many landlords who were lenient about payments at the height of the pandemic have stiffened, asking for back rent in addition to raising current rents.Gabby Jones for The New York TimesUnlike many large-scale employers that have locked in cheap long-term funding by selling corporate bonds, small businesses tend to fund their operations and payrolls with a mix of cash on hand, business credit cards and loans from commercial banks. Higher interest rates have made the latter two funding sources far more expensive — spelling trouble for companies that may need a fresh line of credit in the coming months. And incoming cash flows depend on sales remaining strong, a deep uncertainty for most.A Bank of America survey of small-business owners in November found that “more than half of respondents expect a recession in 2023 and plan to reduce spending accordingly.” For a number of entrepreneurs, decisions to maintain profitability may lead to reductions in staff.Some businesses wrestling with labor shortages, increased costs and a tapering off in customers have already decided to close.Susan Dayton, a co-owner of Hamilton Street Cafe in Albany, N.Y., closed her business in the fall once she felt the rising costs of key ingredients and staff turnover were no longer sustainable.She said the labor shortage for small shops like hers could not be solved by simply offering more pay. “What I have found is that offering people more money just means you’re paying more for the same people,” Ms. Dayton said.That tension among profitability, staffing and customer growth will be especially stark for smaller businesses. But it exists in corporate America, too. Some industry analysts say company earnings, which ripped higher for two years, could weaken but not plunge, with input costs leveling off, while businesses manage to keep prices elevated even if sales slow.That could limit the bulk of layoffs to less-valued workers during corporate downsizing and to certain sectors that are sensitive to interest rates, like real estate or tech — creating another potential route for a soft, if unequal, landing.The biggest challenge to overcome is that the income of one person or business is the spending of another. Those who feel that inflation can be tamed without a collapse in the labor market hope that spending slows just enough to cool off price increases, but not so much that it leads employers to lay off workers — who could pull back further on spending, setting off a vicious circle.Those who feel that inflation can be tamed without a collapse in the labor market hope that spending slows just enough to cool off price increases.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesWhat are the chances of a soft landing?If the strained U.S. economy is going to unwind rather than unravel, it will need multiple double-edged realities to be favorably resolved.For instance, many retail industry analysts think the holiday season may have been the last hurrah for the pandemic-era burst in purchases of goods. Some consumers may be sated from recent spending, while others become more selective in their purchases, balking at higher prices.That could sharply reduce companies’ “pricing power” and slow inflation associated with goods. Service-oriented businesses may be somewhat affected, too. But the same phenomenon could lead to layoffs, as slowdowns in demand reduce staffing needs.In the coming months, the U.S. economy will be influenced in part by geopolitics in Europe and the coronavirus in China. Volatile shifts in what some researchers call “systemically significant prices,” like those for gas, utilities and food, could materialize. People preparing for a downturn by cutting back on investments or spending could, in turn, create one. And it is not clear how far the Fed will go in raising interest rates.Then again, those risk factors could end up relatively benign.“It’s 50-50, but I have to take a side, right? So I take the side of no recession,” said Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “I can make the case on either side of this pretty easily, but I think with a little bit of luck and some tough policymaking, we can make our way through.” More