United States Economy

More stories

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Why Low Layoff Numbers Don’t Mean the Labor Market Is Strong

    by

    Past economic cycles show that unemployment starts to tick up ahead of a recession, with wide-scale layoffs coming only later.As job growth has slowed and unemployment has crept up, some economists have pointed to a sign of confidence among employers: They are, for the most part, holding on to their existing workers.Despite headline-grabbing job cuts at a few big companies, overall layoffs remain below their levels during the strong economy before the pandemic. Applications for unemployment benefits, which drifted up in the spring and summer, have recently been falling.But past recessions suggest that layoff data alone should not offer much comfort about the labor market. Historically, job cuts have come only once an economic downturn was well underway.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Layoffs per month
    Data is seasonally adjusted.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesThe Great Recession, for example, officially began at the end of 2007, after the bursting of the housing bubble and the ensuing mortgage crisis. The unemployment rate began rising in early 2008. But it was not until late 2008 — after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the onset of a global financial crisis — that employers began cutting jobs in earnest.The milder recession in 2001 offers an even clearer example. The unemployment rate rose steadily from 4.3 percent in May to 5.7 percent at the end of the year. But apart from a brief spike in the fall, layoffs hardly rose.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Trump and Democrats Agree: U.S. Needs a National Wealth Fund for Investments

    by

    Donald Trump has suggested he wants one, and the White House indicated that it has been quietly working on a proposal to set one up.Former President Donald J. Trump said a sovereign wealth fund would generate so much profit that it would help pay down the national debt.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesA Biden-Harris administration fund would be focused on supply chain resilience, technological pre-eminence and energy security, a White House official said.Eric Lee/The New York TimesFormer President Donald J. Trump and the Biden-Harris administration have little common ground on the policy front, but one unexpected area of agreement is the idea that the United States might be ready for a sovereign wealth fund.Such government investment vehicles are popular in Asia and the Middle East. They allow countries like China and Saudi Arabia to direct their budget surpluses toward a wide range of investments and wield their financial influence around the world.While some individual states have their own versions of wealth funds, the United States, which runs large budget deficits, has never pursued one.Last week, Mr. Trump suggested during a speech at the Economic Club of New York that, if elected, he would like to create an American sovereign wealth fund that could be used “to invest in great national endeavors for the benefit of all of the American people.” After Mr. Trump’s remarks, the White House indicated that senior officials had been quietly working for months on a proposal for a sovereign wealth fund that Mr. Biden and his cabinet could review.Despite the newly bipartisan appeal of a national sovereign wealth fund, creating one might not be so simple. It would need the approval of Congress, where lawmakers are likely to be skeptical about authorizing the creation of a fund that could essentially circumvent its own powers to approve federal spending. And then there is the matter of how a nation with perpetual deficits would fund such an investment vehicle.“Establishing a U.S. S.W.F. would raise highly complex technical and conceptual questions and on its face would appear to be a dubious value proposition for America,” said Mark Sobel, a former Treasury official who is now the U.S. chairman of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum. “None of the tough questions has been answered so far.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Harris Economic Plan Focuses on Prices, a Key Vulnerability

    by

    Vice President Kamala Harris has been balancing the challenges of defending “Bidenomics” and charting her own course on the economy.As Vice President Kamala Harris unveiled her economic plans in recent weeks, former President Donald J. Trump has accused her of being a Marxist, a communist and a socialist.When they meet on Tuesday night for their only scheduled presidential debate, Ms. Harris will have the opportunity to rebut those claims and confront Mr. Trump about his record of managing the U.S. economy.She will also lay out her vision, which has been challenging as she tries to defend “Bidenomics” and demonstrate that she has a plan to chart a new course amid widespread economic discontent among many Americans who are struggling with high prices and other affordability issues.In a compressed presidential campaign, Ms. Harris indicated that she would continue many of President Biden’s policies, which aim to raise taxes on companies and punish them for price gouging, while also trying to strike a more business-friendly tone. In some cases, such as her embrace of ending taxation of tips, the vice president has even shown a willingness to adopt the policies put forward by Mr. Trump.How Ms. Harris would ultimately govern if elected will depend largely on the makeup of Congress, but her initial suite of proposals — from taxes to trade to child care — suggests that she would take the economy in a vastly different direction than her Republican opponent.Cost of LivingPerhaps Ms. Harris’s biggest political vulnerability is the run-up in prices that occurred during the Biden administration. Mr. Trump has repeatedly blamed the vice president for causing inflation to surge after the coronavirus pandemic, a phenomenon that stemmed from a mix of factors such as supply chain issues, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and repeated bursts of fiscal stimulus to keep families and businesses afloat. The higher cost of goods initially hurt Mr. Biden when he was running against Mr. Trump, and Ms. Harris is now facing many of the same concerns from Americans who are feeling negative about a relatively strong economy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Poverty Increased in 2023 as Prices Rose and Pandemic Aid Programs Expired

    by

    More faced hardship in the United States last year, the Census Bureau said, as inflation and the end of subsidies outweighed higher incomes.The nation’s poverty rate rose last year even as incomes improved, the government reported on Tuesday, reflecting higher prices and the expiration of the last pandemic relief programs.The share of Americans living in poverty as defined by the Census Bureau’s “supplemental” measure, which takes into account a broader range of benefits and expenses than the official poverty rate, rose to 12.9 percent in 2023, from 12.4 percent in 2022. The median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose to $80,610, finally regaining its prepandemic level.Poverty levels have risen anew in recent years after a wave of pandemic relief aid — and an exceptionally strong labor market that lifted the wages of many at the bottom of the pay spectrum — collided with the most rapid inflation in a generation.Stimulus checks, extra unemployment insurance and expanded tax credits for low-income families cut child poverty in half in 2021, to the lowest rate since record keeping began, in 1967. But the expiration of those supports, along with the jump in prices for food and other necessities, reversed the gains in 2022.“You need two kinds of strategies to keep poverty down: One is the economic strategy, and one is the investments in core programs and the safety net,” said Olivia Golden, interim executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy, a progressive advocacy group. “To me, the idea that policies have high stakes in terms of the lives of families and their material hardship is very vivid as you look over the last few years.”The income gains were particularly pronounced for low-wage households, rural households and men, with the gap between male and female earnings rising for the first time since 2003. Census officials say that may have been because of an increase in the labor force participation of Hispanic women, who tend to earn less.Poverty Rebounded Sharply in 2022 and 2023As pandemic aid expired and prices rose, the share of Americans living below the poverty threshold went back up.

    Data is the “supplemental” poverty rate, which accounts for taxes and subsidies. Gaps in data are due to changes in Census Bureau methodology.Source: Columbia Center on Poverty and Social Policy analysis of U.S. Census Bureau dataBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Promises to Cut Inflation Are Unrealistic, Many Economists Say

    by

    Economists and analysts are dubious of Trump’s promises to slash gas prices or prod interest rates lower.As he seeks to return to the White House, former President Donald J. Trump has pledged to cut Americans’ energy costs in half in the span of a year, part of a plan to reduce inflation and drive mortgage rates back toward record lows.But economists and analysts — and Mr. Trump’s own record from his first term — suggest that it is unlikely that Mr. Trump can deliver on those promises.Mr. Trump’s vow to dramatically reduce Americans’ cost of living hinges in part on his plans to quickly expand oil and gas drilling and reduce government impediments to power plant construction, which he says would slash energy bills by “more than half.” As prices fall, he regularly states, interest rates will come down, along with mortgage rates.But Mr. Trump has not cited modeling or other economic analysis to support his assertions. Economic research and historical experience suggest that presidents have only a limited effect on locally regulated electric utilities or on the cost of oil, which is a globally traded commodity.“He doesn’t really have the tools to lower oil prices enough to cut gasoline prices in half,” said Steven Kamin, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and former Federal Reserve economist.In all, experts and past evidence suggest that Mr. Trump is over-promising on key economic issues related to prices and interest rates. And that fits with a pattern he established during his earlier campaigns — one in which he emphasizes big, catchy outcomes with little attention to costs or how he might make good on his pledges.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    For Trump, Tariffs Are the Solution to Almost Any Problem

    by

    The former president has proposed using tariffs to fund child care, boost manufacturing, quell immigration and encourage use of the dollar. Economists are skeptical.It has been more than five years since former President Donald J. Trump called himself a “Tariff Man,” but since then, his enthusiasm for tariffs seems only to have grown.Mr. Trump has long maintained that imposing tariffs on foreign products can protect American factories, narrow the gap between what the United States exports and what it imports, and bring uncooperative foreign governments to heel. While in office, Mr. Trump used the threat of tariffs to try to convince Mexico to stop the flow of undocumented immigrants across the U.S. border, and to sway China to enter into a trade deal with the United States.But in recent weeks, Mr. Trump has made even more expansive claims about the power of tariffs, including that they will help pay for child care, combat inflation, finance a U.S. sovereign wealth fund and help preserve the dollar’s pre-eminent role in the global economy.Economists have been skeptical of many of these assertions. While tariffs generate some level of revenue, in many cases they could create only a small amount of the funding needed to pursue some of the goals that Mr. Trump has outlined. In other cases, they say, tariffs could actually backfire on the U.S. economy, by inviting retaliation from foreign governments and raising costs for consumers.“Trump seems drawn to trade tariffs as a bargaining tool with other countries because tariffs have powerful domestic political symbolism, are much easier to turn on and off than financial sanctions and can be tweaked with shifting circumstances,” said Eswar Prasad, a trade economist at Cornell University.“The irony is that using tariffs to punish countries that use unfair trade practices or are trying to reduce their dependence on the dollar is likely to end up hurting the U.S. economy and consumers,” he said.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

  • 175 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    For the Fed, a Sign That the Job Market Is Cooling but Not Cracking

    by

    Federal Reserve officials are moving toward their first rate cut since the 2020 pandemic downturn as they try to keep the economy from cooling too much. Friday’s fresh jobs data gave them reasons for both comfort and concern.Unemployment eased slightly to 4.2 percent in August, from 4.3 percent in July — a sign that joblessness has not started a relentless march upward, which is welcome news for both American workers and Fed officials. But hiring was weaker than economists had expected, with 142,000 jobs added in August.Altogether, the report suggested that the job market was slowing, but not imploding, more than two years into the Fed’s campaign to slow the economy with higher interest rates. That has kept Fed officials noncommittal and investors guessing about just how much the Fed will cut rates this month.Fed policymakers raised interest rates starting in 2022 to tap the brakes on a hot economy. At the time, hiring was rapid and wage growth robust, and officials worried that a burst of rapid inflation would not fade on its own against that backdrop. They ultimately lifted borrowing costs to a more-than-two-decade high of 5.3 percent, where they remain.But inflation has been cooling notably and wage gains have been steadily moderating, so Fed officials have become increasingly wary of overdoing it. They wanted to return the job market and economy to a sustainable pace, but they do not want to cause either to crash.That is why the Fed is poised to lower interest rates. The question has been whether policymakers will cut rates by a quarter percentage point or a half percentage point at their Sept. 17-18 gathering. That was one reason that Wall Street was intently focused on Friday’s jobs report: If it showed clear cracks in the labor market, investors expected it to prod the Fed toward a bigger rate cut.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

  • 88 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Job Market Shifts to Lower Gear

    by

    Employers added 142,000 jobs in August, fewer than economists had expected, and previous months were revised downward.The labor market appears to be treading water, with employers’ desire to hire staying just ahead of the supply of workers looking for jobs.That’s the picture that emerges from the August jobs report, released on Friday, which offered evidence that while softer than it has been in years, the landscape for employment remains healthy, with wages still growing and Americans still eager to work.“This report does not indicate that we’re taking another step toward a recession, but we’re still seeing further signs of cooling,” said Sam Kuhn, an economist with the recruitment software company Appcast. “We’re trending more closely to a 2019 labor market, than the labor market in 2010 or 2011.”Employers added 142,000 positions last month, the Labor Department reported. That was somewhat fewer than forecast, bringing the three-month average to 116,000 jobs after the two prior summer months were revised down significantly. Over the year before June, the monthly average was 220,000, although that number is expected to shrink when annual revisions are finalized next year.The unemployment rate edged down to 4.2 percent, alleviating concerns that it was on a steep upward trajectory after July’s jump to 4.3 percent, which appears to have been driven by weather-related temporary layoffs.In other signs of stability, the average workweek ticked up to 34.3 hours and wages grew 0.4 percent over the month, slightly more than economists had expected but not enough to add significant fuel to inflation.Wages Are Outpacing InflationYear-over-year percentage change in earnings vs. inflation More