Fed official explains why he stopped trying to predict the future
Fed official explains why he stopped trying to predict the future
JACKSON HOLE, WYO. -- The world's economic elite gathered here for an annual symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City last week to debate the strategies central banks should...
JACKSON HOLE, WYO. -- The world's economic elite gathered here for an annual symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City last week to debate the strategies central banks should employ to safeguard the global economy. We sat down with St. Louis Fed President James Bullard to chat about when he might be ready for a rate hike, the limits of his powers and why predicting the future is futile.
The transcript below has been edited for length and clarity.
Wonkblog: Let’s start with the question of the day: Which month looks good to you for a rate hike?
Bullard: Actually, I’m agnostic on this. Our new framework calls for one, and only one, and then we go on pause for a bit. It’s not critical to me exactly when we make that move, so we wouldn’t have to go at any particular meeting.
I do like to move on good news, so if we have good information, and we’re at a meeting, it might be a good opportunity to go ahead and make that move. But what’s different about what I’m saying is I’ve got a real flat interest rate path — much closer to the markets’ interest rate path. I don’t have this march upward of 200 or 250 basis points.
If only one more rate hike is really needed to get to the Fed’s neutral stance, why does it matter if you move in September, December or next year? You would be willing to wait until 2017?
Certainly, I just don’t feel that there’s any urgency when you’ve got the framework I’m talking about.
[The Federal Reserve is debating how to fight the next recession]
So explain your framework for us.
What we wanted to do is break down this idea that we’re really certain about where the economy is going in the medium- and long-run. What most models do is they have something called a steady state, which is really an average of all the variables in the past: You look at the unemployment rate, and you take the average unemployment rate. You look at interest rates and take the average past interest rate. You look at inflation, growth — you take averages of the past, and you call those your normal values.
As you go along, you expect all your variables to go back to their normal values. That’s what we’ve been doing. That’s the old framework. And what we’re saying is we don’t like that framework anymore because it suggests we have a lot more certainty about where the economy is going than we really do.
These averages of these variables from the past — they can sometimes be high and sometime be low. You can be in a configuration where these things are low, and then you can switch to another configuration when they’re high. Then they’re high for a while, and you switch back to low. What you have to do is make policy given whatever regime you’re in.
We think that the regime that is dominant right now is a slow-growth regime that is characterized by low productivity growth and very low real returns on short-term government debt around the world. We think these regimes are persistent. These things aren’t changing any time soon. And because of that, we just have to take them as given, for now anyway.
Given that in this framework, it’s difficult to tell when the regime is shifted, how do you know that you’re not setting monetary policy for a regime that’s already expired?
You’re gonna know when the regime switches. These very low real rates of return on government debt, if you look at the ex-post return on one-year Treasurys, it’s about -135 basis points right now. If that starts to go up rapidly, we’re gonna know and we’re going to take note of it. We’re gonna say, “Aha! Our regime has changed, and we’re going to have to change monetary policy accordingly.”
But for forecasting purposes, I wouldn’t say that I’m expecting that to happen all of a sudden. It’s been that way for at least the last three years, and if you look at real rates of return, they’ve declined for the last 30 years. It’s also very clear that we’re in a very low productivity environment.
It’s not that you go to sleep. You stay alert to the possibility that the regime can change in the future, and probably will change at some point in the future. It’s just not good to be predicting that it’s going to change.
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen's speech here laid out the argument that the Fed is not out of ammunition to fight the next recession. Do you agree with that?
I loved the speech. She made the case that we still have quite a bit of bandwidth to handle problems if they arise in the next couple of years, and I very much agree with that. But at the same time, it’s always good to be studying other possibilities. I actually have papers on nominal GDP targeting, so I think that’s an interesting topic. It's probably not ready for prime time, but I’m a believer in research.
What led you to the support for this regime-based framework. Can you talk about the evolution of your thinking?
Maybe some frustration with the dot plot. We were saying we were going to have to raise rates fairly aggressively over the forecast horizon in order to keep the economy on track, and that wasn’t materializing. We had that forecast for several years, and it wasn’t really working. For that reason, I wanted to get a different way to think about what we were doing.
We’ve only moved once on the policy rate, and markets are saying maybe one more move this year. That would only be one move per year — that’s really not normalization. If you’re going to say it’s going to take 10 years to get back to a normal value, you’re really saying we’re not going back there. That’s way longer than any sort of business cycle than you can reasonably talk about.
How do you feel about the division between monetary and fiscal policy currently? Do you feel it’s time to pass the baton here?
I do think that. And I think the regime framework is good for laying that out for people. Part of the story is that the recession has been over for seven years. The unemployment rate has gone down below 5 percent. Inflation is low, but we don’t think it’s that low, and it’s kind of coming up to target.
So the cyclical dynamics are all done. The dust has settled, I guess is the way I would put it.
You might say the dust has settled, and I don’t like what I see. But for that, you can’t solve that with monetary policy. You’ve got to have things that are going to increase productivity in the economy. You’ve got to make the economy more efficient. New ideas, better technology, better diffusion of technology, better human capital, better skills match — I think it’s a lot of small things that you have to do right to get an economy humming. The story of let’s keep interest rates low and that will help us, that’s kind of over for now.
Related to that are the demonstrations by Fed Up and the Center for Popular Democracy that were held Thursday. Any additional thoughts on their point of view, that there’s still more that the Fed can do?
I love the people that come here. I think they’re a really great slice of the American workforce. It’s really nice that they’re willing to take time out of their lives to come out here and talk to us boring central bankers.
They want to talk about low nominal interest rates as solving difficult problems of how our labor markets operate and how our labor markets are unfair to many people. I would like them to think about the German labor market reforms that were done over the last decade. Germany had very high unemployment for a long time. It was an endemic problem, and then they did these reforms and got their unemployment rate cut in half — even though Europe went through a double-dip recession during that period.
It showed to me that there are ways to attack these problems, and I think we could do that in the U.S. I think they should refocus their efforts on the labor secretary, so we could get those kinds of reforms going. People aren’t even talking about that.
By Ylan Q. Mui
Source
In The Fight For Racial Justice, We Cannot Overlook The Climate Crisis
In The Fight For Racial Justice, We Cannot Overlook The Climate Crisis
"From increases in severe weather such as hurricanes and droughts, to the toxins that are poisoning our soil, air and water, the human impact of the worsening climate crisis is undeniable. Also...
"From increases in severe weather such as hurricanes and droughts, to the toxins that are poisoning our soil, air and water, the human impact of the worsening climate crisis is undeniable. Also undeniable is the disparate impact the effects of the climate crisis have on low income communities and communities of color. We know that the poisoned children and families of Flint, Michigan still have no clean water more than three years after the corrupt and willful negligence of their state government was exposed. A decade after Hurricane Katrina, the residents of the Gulf Coast are still trying to put their lives together. In California, farmers and farm workers alike have lost income and in some cases their entire livelihoods thanks to the drought that plagued the state for the past few years."
Read full article here.
Protester who confronted Sen. Flake about Kavanaugh vote: 'Everyone had an impact'
Protester who confronted Sen. Flake about Kavanaugh vote: 'Everyone had an impact'
Though the demonstrators who confronted Sen. Jeff Flake in an elevator over his support of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have found themselves in the spotlight for their emotional plea,...
Though the demonstrators who confronted Sen. Jeff Flake in an elevator over his support of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have found themselves in the spotlight for their emotional plea, they're crediting everybody who has spoken up with potentially changing Flake's mind.
Read the full article here.
Warren calls for diversity in Federal Reserve leadership - See more at: http://newbostonpost.com/2016/05/12/warren-calls-for-diversity-in-federal-reserve-leadership/#sthash.d6Uh56C5.dpuf
Warren calls for diversity in Federal Reserve leadership - See more at: http://newbostonpost.com/2016/05/12/warren-calls-for-diversity-in-federal-reserve-leadership/#sthash.d6Uh56C5.dpuf
WASHINGTON – The latest crusade in the name of diversity commenced on Thursday, this time aimed squarely at the makeup of the Federal Reserve’s leadership and spearheaded in part by Elizabeth...
WASHINGTON – The latest crusade in the name of diversity commenced on Thursday, this time aimed squarely at the makeup of the Federal Reserve’s leadership and spearheaded in part by Elizabeth Warren, the senior U.S. senator from Massachusetts.
The Cambridge Democrat recently linked up with fellow Democrat, Michigan U.S. Rep. John Conyers, to send a letter to Janet Yellen, chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, asking the former Clinton administration adviser to take action. They cited a 1977 law that requires the bank regulator to reflect the nation’s diversity.
The progressive duo began their missive by praising her work under President Barack Obama before stating that they “remain deeply concerned that the Federal Reserve has not yet fulfilled its statutory and moral obligation to ensure that its leadership reflects the composition of our diverse nation.” Instead, they said, the central bank’s leadership “remains overwhelmingly and disproportionately white and male,” and is drawn mainly from major banks and corporations.
The letter cites a statistic reported in February by the left-leaning Center for Popular Democracy that indicates that “83 percent of Federal Reserve head office board members are white” while “men occupy nearly three-fourths of all regional bank directorships.”
The lawmakers assert that the discussions among Fed leaders regarding labor market conditions never once mentioned the situation confronting blacks in 2010, the most recent year for which full transcripts are available. The lawmakers point out that the unemployment rate for blacks that year never fell below 15.5 percent, while the nation’s average jobless rate hovered just below 10 percent during most of that post-recession period.
Fellow Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Ed Markey put his signature on the letter, alongside those of more than 120 other Democrats in Congress
Warren and Conyers later took to social media to rally the public around the cause:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, was also quick to throw her support behind the call for diversity:
“The Fed needs to be more representative of America as a whole,” Jesse Ferguson, a Clinton campaign spokesman, told the Associated Press Thursday, adding that Clinton also opposes the fact that three private-sector bankers currently sit on each regional Fed bank board.
The Fed is actively working to further diversify its ranks, bank spokesman Dave Skidmore said in a statement provided to AP.
“Minority representation on Reserve Bank and Branch boards has increased from 16 percent in 2010 to 24 percent in 2016,” Skidmore told AP. “The proportion of women directors has risen from 23 percent to 30 percent over the same period. Currently, 46 percent of all directors are diverse in terms of race and/or gender (with a director who is both female and a minority counted only one time).”
“We are striving to continue that progress.”
By BY EVAN LIPS
Source
Victoria's Secret on-call policy remains under wraps
In the face of a legal challenge in California and a probe by the New York State attorney general, underwear purveyor Victoria's Secret is said to have pulled the plug on a controversial labor...
In the face of a legal challenge in California and a probe by the New York State attorney general, underwear purveyor Victoria's Secret is said to have pulled the plug on a controversial labor practice known as on-call scheduling.
BuzzFeed reported the chain informed employees on Monday that it would no longer require its workers be available for shifts that could then be canceled with little notice and zero pay.
Victoria's Secret, one of five brands run by Columbus, Ohio-based L Brands (LB), on Tuesday said it was working on a response to the online publication's story but was not yet ready to do so seven hours after being called for comment.
In addition to Victoria's Secret, L Brands operates Bath and Body Works, La Senza, Victoria's Secret PINK and Henri Bendel. The company rang up $11.5 billion in sales in 2014 and runs nearly 3,000 specialty stores in the U.S.
"It feels like a safe bet to say that Victoria Secret's is feeling pressure," Elianne Farhat, deputy campaign director for the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy, said. "We've seen a growing demand across the country for fair schedules because of the extreme chaos it creates."
Workers and labor activists say on-call scheduling can create havoc for livelihoods and personal lives, with the unpredictable hours making tasks such as taking classes, working another part-time job and covering child care difficult.
The practice of having on-call shifts has historically involved professions including emergency and medical workers, "but they are fairly compensated," Farhat said. "Over the last 10 years, as the retail sector has become the source of many jobs in our economy. It has seen the increased use of on-call scheduling."
If Victoria's Secret is shelving the on-call practice, "they are probably doing it to err on the side of caution, and not spend the time or money litigating the issue," said Los Angeles attorney Laura Reathaford, a partner at Venable who specializes in management-side employment issues. "California is a very employee-friendly state -- it's a very litigious state too."
If the company is indeed discontinuing the system, it would be offering some of what is sought in a lawsuit pending against the retailer in California.
"We're suing to recoup wages, and we're also seeking to put an end to the practice," David Leimbach, an attorney at Marlin & Saltzman, said of the litigation filed on behalf of two former Victoria Secret workers.
The complaint was filed on July 9, 2014, and the proposed class includes all individuals who worked at Victoria's Secret in California from July 9, 2010, to the present. L Brands told the court the proposed class numbered around 20,000, Leimbach said.
The federal judge presiding over the case dismissed the workers' claim that they were entitled to compensation under the state's reporting-time-pay law for on-call shifts for which they did not have to show up for work. But he also granted the two the right to appeal, saying the question of on-call shifts presented a question of law that could go either way.
"I can see the judge's point, no one really showed up, no one took the bus only to turn around and go home," Reathaford said.
"The district court dismissed that one claim, but said it's something the 9th circuit should immediately consider," Leimbach said.
Beyond the pending suit, no-call scheduling is drawing the attention of the New York state attorney general's office, which in April sent letters to 13 retailers, including Victoria's Secret, seeking information about their scheduling practices. A spokesman on Tuesday said the AG's office had no further comment.
And San Francisco next week begins enforcing an ordinance that requires major retailers give at least 24 hours notice to workers when changing or canceling shifts, or give them at least two hours of pay. The measure, which took effect in January, applies to retailers with at least 20 stores worldwide and 20 or more employees in San Francisco.
Source: CBS News
Por fin la Fed toma en cuenta disparidades
Hace un año, la Reserva Federal, la institución económica más importante del país mantuvo la posición de que no había nada qué podría hacer sobre las disparidades económicas entre grupos étnicos....
Hace un año, la Reserva Federal, la institución económica más importante del país mantuvo la posición de que no había nada qué podría hacer sobre las disparidades económicas entre grupos étnicos. Recientemente, la Fed cambió por completo su posición. Durante la última audiencia Humphrey Hawkins Janet Yellen, Presidenta de la Fed, cambió su narrativa al reconocer las disparidades en el desempleo e ingresos de comunidades afroamericanas y latinas en comparación a las comunidades blancas. Esta fue la primera vez que la Presidenta Yellen incluyó estas estadísticas en su informe al Congreso.
A primera vista esto puede no parecer gran cosa, pero lo es. La Fed nunca antes ha abordado las disparidades raciales en el desempleo. Antes estas estadísticas no eran ni siquiera parte del informe o de la conversation. En la audiencia Humphrey Hawkins del año pasado Janet Yellen dijo que no había nada que pudiera hacer para cerrar las brechas raciales en el desempleo e ingresos.
Al incluir esas estadísticas Yellen está mostrando que por primera vez las disparidades raciales se tomarán en cuenta cuando la Fed tome decisiones sobre cómo manejar la economía. Esto realmente es un gran cambio. De acuerdo con el Wall Street Journal, hay “un reconocimiento creciente dentro de la Fed de que las disparidades raciales en la economía son cada vez más pronunciadas y que hay un papel para la política monetaria a la hora de disminuir esas brechas.”
Este gran cambio no se vino a dar solo, fue resultado en gran parte de críticas de activistas de la coalición Fed Up y miembros del Congreso. La coalición Fed Up es formada por miembros de la clase obrera a través de el país que unieron sus voces para elevar el tema de la desigualdad económica en comunidades de bajos ingresos y comunidades de color. El público asume que la Fed no se puede modificar, pero los activistas de la coalición Fed Up están demostrando que si es posible. Este cambio en la política y la práctica de la Fed no hubiera sido posible sin la presión constante del pueblo exigiendo ser escuchado y exigiendo que sus condiciones económicas no sean ignoradas. Este es un ejemplo tangible de que en verdad la unión hace la fuerza.
Yo he estado involucrado en la campaña FED Up desde el inicio porque nuestra comunidades, comunidades de color y de bajos ingresos, necesitan un mejor estándar de vida con más y mejores oportunidades de empleo. A través de nuestros esfuerzos la conversación por fin nos incluye.
Pero el hecho de que la Presidenta Yellen haya reconocido y mencionado la desigualdad económica entre grupos étnicos no es suficiente. Si es un buen primer paso, pero no la meta. Comunidades de color y de bajos ingresos por todo el país necesita más que palabras, necesitan acción!
Durante la audiencia Janet Yellen habló de programas de empleo diseñadas para minorías, y eso es importante, pero no dio el sentido de que estos programas podrían implementarse a una escala que tendría un impacto significativo sobre las disparidades económicas para millones de afroamericanos y latinos.
La mejor y más importante forma en que Janet Yellen puede cumplir con su compromiso de cerrar las disparidades económicas entre grupos étnicos es simple, implementar políticas monetarias que mantengan el mercado de trabajo lo más abierto posible. Esto le dará una oportunidad a comunidades afroamericanas y latinas de tener más puestos de trabajo y mejores salarios.
Es el resultado de años de lucha por la campaña Fed Up que la Fed se ha comprometido a abordar las disparidades raciales en el desempleo e ingresos. Ahora nos toca a todos nosotros asegurarnos que Janet Yellen se haga responsable de mantener los mercados laborales abiertos para darnos la oportunidad de conseguir más puestos de trabajo y salarios con los cuáles podríamos mantener a nuestras familias!
(Amador Rivas es miembro de Se Hace Camino Nueva York, socio del Centro para la Democracia Popular)
Source
Has Starbucks Broken a Promise to Its Employees?
Baristas are among the 10 job titles that received the biggest pay hikes this...
Baristas are among the 10 job titles that received the biggest pay hikes this year, but CBS MoneyWatch reports that some Starbucks baristas may be getting shortchanged in another way.
Last year, Starbucks promised to start posting employees’ work schedules at least 10 days in advance after a New York Times article titled “Working Anything but 9 to 5” detailed the burdens employees faced because they were receiving only a few days’ notice about their schedules.
But by some accounts, Starbucks’ promise has yet to become a reality.
One student tells CBS that “wild inconsistency” plagues his Starbucks work schedules and that lack of advance notice forced him to pay a co-worker to cover one shift so he could take an exam.
A report released this month by the nonprofit Center for Popular Democracy — “The Grind: Striving for Scheduling Fairness at Starbucks” — questions six facets of Starbucks’ scheduling practices:
Unpredictable workweeks.
Inconsistency in days, times and amounts of work.
Insufficient rest due to working “clopen” shifts (when employees are scheduled to close one night and to open the store early the next morning).
Obstacles to taking sick leave.
Understaffing and insufficient hours.
Failure to honor employees’ availability.
Carrie Gleason, director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy and a co-author of the organization’s report, tells CBS that even though Starbucks “has the values and wants to do right by their employees,” many troubling issues persist.
CBS reports that Starbucks did not respond to its requests for comment. In an internal memo later published by Time, Starbucks executive Cliff Burrows wrote that the company couldn’t validate the survey, but noted that:
“The findings suggest, contrary to the expectations we have in place, that some partners are receiving their schedules less than one week in advance and that there is a continuing issue with some partners working a close and then an opening shift the following morning.”
Burrows also asked store managers “to go the extra mile to ensure partners have a consistent schedule.”
Source: MoneyTalks News
Minimum wage going up
Voters have decided it’s time to give Colorado’s minimum-wage workers a long-overdue raise.
Amendment 70, a measure that would increase Colorado’s minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020, was...
Voters have decided it’s time to give Colorado’s minimum-wage workers a long-overdue raise.
Amendment 70, a measure that would increase Colorado’s minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020, was passing by a 10-percent margin. Minimum wage in the state is now $8.31 an hour.
With 25 of 64 counties reporting, the vote-count as of this posting was 55 percent yes to 45 percent no.
In a crowded, jubilant second-floor conference room at the Westin Downtown, a group of minimum wage earners, business owners and advocates celebrated.
“Amendment is going to help our local economy,” said Edwin Zoe, proprietor of restaurant Zoe Ma Ma. “When low income workers do well, we all do well.”
The amendment alters the state constitution to increase the minimum wage by yearly 90-cent increments until it reaches $12 in 2020. In 2020, it will be fixed at $12, except for yearly adjustments to account for inflation.
Who pushed it over the finish line?
Supporters of the increase coalesced in mid-2016 into a group called Colorado Families for a Fair Wage, a coalition of unions, economic justice advocates and progressive policy analysts. Many of them had been part of an informal consortium of anti-poverty groups called The Everyone Economy that came together to strategize about raising the minimum wage back in February 2014. Partnering with Democratic legislators, they advocated for a pair of bills in the 2015 legislative session to help low-wage workers. One would have allowed municipalities to set their own minimums, and the other would have created a ballot measure to reach a $12.50 per hour minimum by 2020. Republicans killed both bills in the Senate.
Democrats floated another bill in 2016 to allow cities to set their own minimum wages, which met the same fate as its predecessors. After that, Everyone Economy members decided they had no recourse but to pursue a ballot measure themselves and formed Colorado Families for a Fair Wage.
What does it mean that it passed?
The work is just beginning for Colorado labor unions and low-wage worker advocates. Most CFFW members acknowledge that $12 per hour is not in fact a living wage for workers with families in some parts of Colorado. Most estimates put a living wage for a single parent of two children in Denver at around $30 per hour. But advocates also believe that the current $8.31 per hour is inexcusable, and any more than $12 was not politically viable this time around.
But for some, the increase means a change in their lives. April Medina currently makes $11 per hour in assisted living. She works 60-70 hours per week, leaving very little time to spend with her four children. She brought her 9-year-old daughter, Jasmine, to the Westin Downtown to celebrate Amendment 70’s passage.
Medina said she was thrilled by the news.
“I’m excited to go to some basketball games,” Medina said.
How much firepower was against it?
Keep Colorado Working had a slower start raising funds, but raised $1.7 million in the last reporting period. It has spent just under $1.4 million as of the most recent campaign finance filings, primarily on television advertising and consultants. About half of its funds ($650,000) come from the Alexandria, Virginia-based Workforce Fairness Institute. It has also gotten $525,000 from Colorado Citizens Protecting Our Constitution, a committee that has donated hefty sums to pro-fracking campaigns and to a 2013 effort to recall legislators who had passed gun-control legislation.
CCFW outraised its rivals almost 3 to 1, raising about $5.3 million in donations, much of it from out-of-state groups like its largest donor, the Center for Popular Democracy, which has kicked in over $1 million. Its second-largest donor is the Palo Alto-based Fairness Project, which has contributed over $960,000 to CFFW and is also supporting minimum wage ballot measures in Maine, Arizona and Washington, D.C.
Keep Colorado Working wants to make sure you know that some of CFFW’s donors are not from Colorado. Virtually all of its communications use the terms “wealthy out of state special interests” liberally.
According to the most recent campaign finance filings, CFFW has spent $4.6 million on television and digital advertising, outreach efforts like canvassing and hosting events, mailers, polling and research.
By Eliza Carter
Source
Investment Banks Doubled Down on Immigration Detention Amidst Family Separation
Investment Banks Doubled Down on Immigration Detention Amidst Family Separation
CoreCivic and Geo Group are highly reliant on loans to function and expand, according to a report from Make The Road, The Center for Popular Democracy and Enlace, a group that advocates for...
CoreCivic and Geo Group are highly reliant on loans to function and expand, according to a report from Make The Road, The Center for Popular Democracy and Enlace, a group that advocates for private prison divestment. In 2017, nine out of ten dollars CoreCivic had on hand were borrowed from banks, while 19 out of 20 dollars Geo Group had on hand were also borrowed according to the report. J.P. Morgan is the largest lender for both companies, holding $167.5 million in debt, which is 62 percent more than the next lender.
Read the full article here.
White Male Bankers Dominate New Crop of Federal Reserve Directors and Presidents
02/08/16
Today, the Fed Up campaign released...
02/08/16
Today, the Fed Up campaign released a report showing that the January 1 appointments to the 12 Federal Reserve boards across the country have exacerbated the system’s skewed leadership structure and resulted in economic policy choices that privilege the needs of the wealthy over the welfare of low-income communities of color. The report, “To Represent the Public”: The Federal Reserve’s Continued Failure to Represent the American People, is being released as Chair Janet Yellen begins two days of testimony before Congress and three weeks before the expiration of the five-year terms of all 12 regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents, who are all expected to be reappointed by the regional boards through a completely opaque process.
Among the 19 board members appointed at the beginning of 2016, 16 are white, three are black, and none are Latino or Asian. Twelve come from either banks or corporations, while three are from academia, one represents a labor union, and the remaining three come from the non-profit world. This year’s new appointees mirror society in terms of gender with 10 women and nine men, although the boards remain dominated by men.
The report is being released as approximately 80 community leaders and organizers from around the country converge on Washington DC today and tomorrow for Yellen’s “Humphrey-Hawkins” hearings in front of the House Financial Services and Senate Banking committees. For over a year, the Fed Up campaign have been warning the Fed not to intentionally slow down the economy while it remains fragile, with 0.7 percent growth in the fourth quarter of 2015 and a slack labor market with low wage growth. Nevertheless, Fed officials raised rates in December, sending international markets into a tailspin on fears of a global slowdown and even a new recession.“To Represent the Public” shows that its decision to slow down the economy – which reduces aggregate demand, slows job creation, undercuts workers’ bargaining power, and leads to lower wages – is the result of a leadership dominated by bank executives who profit from higher interest rates and corporate executives who profit from lower labor costs.
The report reveals that, despite the legal requirement that Federal Reserve Bank directors “represent the public” with “due consideration” to a wide array of constituencies across the economy, directorships at Fed Banks are occupied disproportionately by white men, almost entirely from the corporate and financial sectors. 83 percent of Federal Reserve board members are white and nearly 75 percent are men. By comparison, 63 percent of the country is white and 49 percent is male. Banking and commercial sectors dominate the board seats, with representatives from community and labor organizations representing less than five percent of all seats.
On top of the lack of diversity, the report casts a spotlight on the revolving door between the banking industry and the Federal Reserve. The majority of Federal Reserve Bank presidents spend their entire careers either in the federal government or in the banking sector before taking a job at the Fed. One fourth of current Fed presidents have strong ties to Goldman Sachs.
The report makes a set of recommendations, calling on the Fed to ensure that community, labor, academic, and alternative banking voices have a strong presence within the system’s governance.
Shawn Sebastian, the Fed Up campaign’s Field Director, released the following statement:
“When a policy-making body that looks like this evaluates whether lower unemployment and higher wages would be a good thing for America, whose perspectives are they taking into consideration? When no regional president is African-American, how do they weigh the importance of Black unemployment?
“When the vast majority who represent banking and financial interests debate with the few labor representatives over whether we have a strong labor market, who wins? The answers are obvious.
“The Federal Reserve intentionally slowed down the economy in December, ignoring the voices of working people around the country. The Fed needs to prioritize strong job and wage growth for everybody. But its leadership continues to represent America’s one percent and to advance policies that help the wealthiest, rather than the rest of us. That needs to change.”
# # #
www.whatrecovery.com
Fed Up is a coalition of community organizations and labor unions across the country calling on the Federal Reserve to reform its governance and adopt policies that build a strong economy for the American public. The Fed can keep interest rates low, give the economy a fair chance to recover, and prioritize genuine full employment and rising wages.
# # #
www.populardemocracy.org
The Center for Popular Democracy promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda.
Press Contact:
Anita Jain, ajain@populardemocracy.org, 347-636-9761
Sofie Tholl, stholl@populardemocracy.org, 646-509-5558
12 hours ago
3 days ago