United States

More stories

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    G.M.’s Electric Vehicle Sales Surge as Ford Loses Billions

    by

    Ford is struggling to make money on battery-powered models while General Motors, which started more slowly, says it is getting close to that goal.In the race to be second to Tesla in the U.S. electric vehicle market, Ford Motor leaped to an early lead four years ago over its crosstown rival, General Motors, with the Mustang Mach E, an electric sport utility vehicle with a design and a name that nodded to its classic sports car.But the contest looks much different today.Sales of G.M.’s battery-powered models are starting to surge as the company begins to reap its big investments in standardized batteries and new factories. Ford’s three electric models, including the F-150 Lightning pickup truck and a Transit van, are still selling well but are racking up billions of dollars of losses.The latest view into how Ford’s quick-start strategy has run into trouble came on Monday, when the company reported that its electric vehicle division lost $1.2 billion before interest and taxes from July to September. In the first nine months of the year, it lost $3.7 billion.Ford’s chief financial officer, John Lawler, said it was a “solid quarter,” noting that revenue had risen for the 10th quarter in a row, by 5 percent to $46.2 billion. But the company’s overall profit of $896 million in the third quarter was down 24 percent from a year earlier, largely because of problems with electric vehicles, warranty costs and other factors.“Our strategic advantages are not falling to the bottom line the way they should because of cost,” Mr. Lawler said.Ford made an early entry into the electric vehicle market compared to other established automakers with the Mustang Mach E.David Zalubowski/Associated PressWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    How Is the Economy for Black Voters? A Complex Question Takes Center Stage.

    by

    The 2024 election could be won or lost on the strength of the Black vote, which could in turn be won or lost based on the strength of the American economy. So it is no surprise that candidates are paying a lot of attention — and lip service — to which of the past two administrations did more to improve the lives of Black workers.Former President Donald J. Trump, the Republican candidate, makes big claims about the gains Black workers made under his watch, saying that he had the “lowest African American unemployment rate” and “the lowest African American poverty rate ever recorded.” But those measures improved even more under the Biden administration, with joblessness touching a record low and poverty falling even further.“Currently, Black workers are doing better than they were in 2019,” said Valerie Wilson, a labor economist whose work focuses on racial disparities at the liberal-leaning advocacy organization EPI Action.That may sound like an unambiguous victory for Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, especially when paired with a recent increase in homeownership rates for Black families and the fact that the Black unemployment rate dipped in September.But even with those notable wins, the economy has not been uniformly good for all Black Americans. Rapid inflation has been tough on many families, chipping away at solid wage growth. Although the labor market for Black workers was the strongest ever recorded for much of 2022 and 2023, the long shadow of big price increases may be keeping people from feeling like they are getting ahead.In fact, nearly three in four Black respondents rated the economy as fair or poor, a recent New York Times/Siena College poll of Black likely voters found. And that is notable, because Black voters do tend to prioritize economic issues — not just for themselves, but also for the overall welfare of Black people — when they are thinking about whether and how to vote.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 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Trump Brags About His Math Skills and Economic Plans. Experts Say Both Are Shaky.

    by

    In a combative interview, the former president hinted at even higher tariffs as an economic magic bullet.Former President Donald J. Trump has been offering up new tax cuts to nearly every group of voters that he meets in recent weeks, shaking the nerves of budget watchers and fiscal hawks who fear his expensive economic promises will explode the nation’s already bulging national debt.But on Tuesday, Mr. Trump made clear that he was unfazed by such concerns and offered a one-word solution: growth. Despite the doubts of economists from across the political spectrum, Mr. Trump said that he would just juice the economy by the force of his will and scoffed at suggestions that his pledges to abolish taxes on overtime, tips and Social Security benefits could cost as much as $15 trillion.“I was always very good at mathematics,” Mr. Trump told John Micklethwait, the editor in chief of Bloomberg News, in an interview at the Economic Club of Chicago.Faced with repeated questioning about how he could possibly grow the economy enough to pay for those tax cuts, Mr. Trump dismissed criticism of his ideas as misguided. He professed his love of tariffs and insisted that surging output would cover the cost of his plans.“We’re all about growth,” Mr. Trump said, adding that his mix of tax cuts and tariffs would force companies to invest in manufacturing in the United States.The national debt is approaching $36 trillion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected last week that Mr. Trump’s economic agenda could cost as much as $15 trillion over a decade. Economists from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan think tank, estimated last month that if Mr. Trump’s plans were enacted, the gross domestic product could be 9.7 percent lower than current forecasts, shrinking output and dampening consumer demand.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

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    E.V. Tax Credits Are a Plus, but Flaws Remain, Study Finds

    by

    The Inflation Reduction Act was a compromise between competing priorities. Evaluating the law on the effectiveness of the $7,500 tax credit for E.V.s is tricky.A team of economists has taken on a central component of the Inflation Reduction Act: the $7,500 tax credit for U.S.-made electric vehicles.The challenge in evaluating it is that the policy has sometimes conflicting goals. One is getting people to buy electric vehicles to lower carbon emissions and slow climate change. The other is strengthening U.S. auto manufacturing by denying subsidies to foreign companies, even for better or cheaper electric vehicles.That’s why totaling those pluses and minuses is complex, but overall the researchers found that Americans have seen a two-to-one return on their investment in the new electric vehicle subsidies. That includes environmental benefits, but mostly reflects a shift of profits to the United States. Before the climate law, tax credits were mainly used to buy foreign-made cars.“What the I.R.A. did was swing the pendulum the other way, and heavily subsidized American carmakers,” said Felix Tintelnot, an associate professor of economics at Duke University who was a co-author of the paper.Those benefits were undermined, however, by a loophole allowing dealers to apply the subsidy to leases of foreign-made electric vehicles. The provision sends profits to non-American companies, and since those foreign-made vehicles are on average heavier and less efficient, they impose more environmental and road-safety costs.Also, the researchers estimated that for every additional electric vehicle the new tax credits put on the road, about three other electric vehicle buyers would have made the purchases even without a $7,500 credit. That dilutes the effectiveness of the subsidies, which are forecast to cost as much as $390 billion through 2031. “The I.R.A. was worth the money invested,” said Jonathan Smoke, the chief economist at Cox Automotive, which provided some of the data used in the analysis. “But in essence, my conclusion is that we could do better.”How the Environmental and Safety Costs of Gas- and Electric-Powered Cars Stack UpMeasuring the cost to society of carbon emissions from driving and manufacturing, local air pollutants and the danger of crashes, a new economic analysis finds that some gas-powered vehicles are less damaging than electric and hybrid vehicles.

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

    The five least and most costly gas- and electric-powered vehicles
    Averages are weighted by the number of each model registered within each powertrain category. Total costs subtract fiscal benefits from gas taxes and electricity bills.Source: Hunt Allcott, Stanford; Joseph Shapiro, U.C. Berkeley; Reigner Kane and Max Maydanchik, University of Chicago; and Felix Tintelnot, Duke UniversityBy 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

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Hurricane Helene Deaths Will Continue for Years, Study Suggests

    by

    Research on hundreds of tropical storms finds that mortality keeps rising for more than a decade afterward, for reasons you might not expect.Over the past week, the official death toll from Hurricane Helene has surpassed 100 as the vortex creeping inland from Florida submerged homes and swept away cars. But the full weight of lost lives will be realized only years from now — and it could number in the thousands.A paper published in the journal Nature on Wednesday lays out the hidden toll of tropical storms in the continental United States. Looking at 501 events from 1930 to 2015, researchers found that the average tropical storm resulted in an additional 7,000 to 11,000 deaths over the 15 years that followed.Overall during the study period, tropical storms killed more people than automobile crashes, infectious diseases and combat for U.S. soldiers. It’s such a big number — especially compared with the 24 direct deaths caused by hurricanes on average, according to federal statistics — that the authors spent years checking the math to make sure they were right.“The scale of these results is dramatically different from what we expected,” said Solomon Hsiang, a professor of global environmental policy at the Doerr School of Sustainability at Stanford University, who conducted the study with Rachel Young, the Ciriacy-Wantrup postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, Berkeley.The pair used a technique that has also provided a more complete understanding of “excess deaths” caused by Covid-19 and heat waves. It works by looking at typical mortality patterns and isolating anomalies that could have been caused only by the variable under study — in this case, a sizable storm.Previously, researchers examined deaths and hospitalizations after hurricanes over much shorter periods. One study published in Nature found elevated hospitalizations among older Medicaid patients in the week after a storm. Another, in The Journal of the American Medical Association, associated higher death rates with U.S. counties hit by cyclones. A study in The Lancet found that across 14 countries, cyclones led to a 6 percent bump in mortality in the ensuing two weeks.Deaths from tropical storms in the U.S. have been spiking Fatalities connected to storms that struck as many as 15 years ago – measured as the number of deaths above what would otherwise be expected – are rising faster as storms increase in frequency.

    Source: Solomon Hsiang and Rachel YoungBy 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 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Gaza Debate Reopens Divisions Between Left-Wing Workers and Union Leaders

    by

    Last week’s Democratic National Convention surfaced differences over the war in Gaza that could widen fissures between labor activists and union officials.When members of the Chicago Teachers Union showed up to march at the Democratic National Convention last week, many expressed two distinct frustrations.The first was over the war in Gaza, which they blamed for chewing up billions of dollars in aid to Israel that they said could be better spent on students, in addition to a staggering loss of life. The second was disappointment with their parent union, the American Federation of Teachers, which they felt should go further in pressuring the Biden administration to rein in Israel’s military campaign.“I was disappointed in the resolution on Israel and Palestine because it didn’t call for an end to armed shipments,” said Kirstin Roberts, a preschool teacher who attended the protest, alluding to a statement that the parent union endorsed at its convention in July.Since last fall, many rank-and-file union members have been outspoken in their criticism of Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attacks, in which Hamas-led militants killed more than 1,000 people and took about 250 hostages. The leaders of many national unions have appeared more cautious, at times emphasizing the precipitating role of Hamas.“We were very careful about what a moral stance was and also what the implications of every word we wrote was,” the president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, said of the resolution her union recently adopted.In some ways, this divide reflects tensions over Israel and Gaza that exist within many institutions — like academia, the media and government.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 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    What Across-the-Board Tariffs Could Mean for the Global Economy

    by

    Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has floated the idea of a 10 percent tariff on all U.S. imports, a plan that economists say could badly damage trade.Former President Donald J. Trump blames the global trading system for inflicting a long list of ills on the American economy including lost jobs, closed foreign markets and an overvalued dollar.The remedy, he insists, is simple: tariffs. Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has repeatedly said he would raise tariffs if elected. China, a geopolitical and economic rival, would face an additional 50 or 60 percent tariff on its exports to the United States. He has also floated the idea of a 10 to 20 percent surcharge on exports from the rest of the world.Although smaller than the percentage proposed for Chinese exports, an across-the-board tariff has the potential to deliver a much more devastating jolt to world trade, many economists warn.Such a surcharge would not distinguish between rivals and allies, critical necessities and nonessentials, ailing industries and superstars, or countries adhering to trade treaties and those violating them. (Democrats have also embraced tariffs as a policy tool, but Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has criticized Mr. Trump’s universal approach as inflationary.)Here is what you need to know about the idea of a universal tariff on all imports.In 1971, President Richard M. Nixon levied a 10 percent surcharge on all taxable imports.Associated PressWhat are the historical precedents?Mr. Trump’s broad-brush tariffs frequently evoke comparisons with the destructive global trade war that the United States helped to initiate in the 1930s with the Smoot-Hawley tariffs passed by Congress. The Senate Historical Office has called that law “among the most catastrophic acts in congressional history.”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 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Tightens Technology Controls to Target Russian War Machine

    by

    The Biden administration announced new penalties on shell companies and suppliers that were feeding Russia’s war against Ukraine.The Biden administration said on Friday that it would add more than 100 companies and organizations in Russia, China and several other countries to a restricted trade list and take other measures, as it widens its net to try to capture more advanced technology that is flowing to the Russian military.The new rules aim to disrupt the procurement networks that are funneling semiconductors and other technology to Russian forces, who then use them to wage war against Ukraine. They will give the U.S. government expanded authority to prevent products made with U.S. technology from being shipped to Russia, even if those products are manufactured in countries outside of the United States.The penalties also included the addition of 123 entities in Russia, Crimea, China, Turkey, Iran and Cyprus to a so-called entity list. Suppliers are barred from sending companies on the entity list certain products without first obtaining a government license.The government also added certain addresses in Hong Kong and Turkey to the list that were known to set up shell companies, meaning any further shell companies registered to those addresses would face trade restrictions.The entity list additions include several uncovered in a recent investigation by The New York Times, including an office at 135 Bonham Strand in Hong Kong’s financial district that specialized in setting up shell companies. The office was the place of registration for at least four companies that funneled millions of restricted chips and sensors to military technology companies in Russia, the investigation found.The additions bring the number of organizations that the Biden administration has added to the entity list in relation to Russia’s war in Ukraine to more than 1,000.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