Poll Says Americans Want Fed To Focus On Jobs, Hold Off On Rate Increases
NEW YORK--As the Federal Reserve gets ready to debate its interest rate policy stance next week, a poll released Thursday finds a strong majority of the American voters surveyed...
NEW YORK--As the Federal Reserve gets ready to debate its interest rate policy stance next week, a poll released Thursday finds a strong majority of the American voters surveyed want central bankers to refrain from boosting short- term interest rates--and to instead concentrate on using monetary policy to further boost the job market.
The poll also found that respondents have inflation concerns, but even so, they still want the Fed to do what it can to create more jobs and spur the sort of wage gains that have eluded much of the nation. The poll of 716 registered voters also found respondents wanting greater public input into the central bank's decision making.
The survey was conducted in early September by Public Policy Polling under the direction of the left-leading Center for Popular Democracy. The group has been actively arguing against any move to raise short-term interest rates from current levels. Over recent months, its activists have been meeting with regional Fed bank president to press their case. The group also brought their case this year's high-profile central bank research conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo.
In the survey, 62% of respondents said high unemployment remains a "major problem," and 60% said low wages and weak incomes were also significant concerns. Half said the same thing about inflation. Just over half of respondents said the Fed should use its policy tools to prioritize job creation and stronger wage gains--versus 38% who want the central bank to direct its main focus to controlling inflation.
"There is no threat of inflation," said Connie Razza, Director of Strategic Research with the CDP. The poll shows Americans believe "the U.S. economy is not healthy enough to raise rates right now," she said in a conference call with reporters discussing the survey.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents believe the economy could benefit from maintaining low rates, and a similar amount want to see the current ultralow rates maintained.
The Fed is set to meet Wednesday and Thursday next week to decide what to do with its near-zero short-term interest rate target. Until only recently, there were fairly broad-based expectations that officials would raise rates at the meeting, ending an unprecedented era of ultralow rates that have prevailed since the end of 2008.
But a sharp rise in global uncertainty spurred by questions about growth in China, as well as the waves of market volatility this situation has unleashed, has undone any sense of certainty about what the Fed will do next week.
Steady if unspectacular growth coupled with a solid drop in the unemployment rate underpin the case to raise rates. Arguing against is persistently weak inflation and weak wage growth, with the Fed failing to achieve its price target for over three years. The Fed is legally charged with promoting job growth and stable inflation, and for many there is a conflict right now between the employment and inflation environments. That makes interest-rate decisions difficult for central bankers.
The poll also found dissatisfaction with the Fed's democratic accountability. Some 71% of respondents said the public doesn't have enough input into central-bank decision making. A majority of respondents believe the financial sector is overrepresented on regional Fed boards of directors.
The poll is unusual in that the public's attitude about the central bank is rarely measured. As important as the Fed is to the economy's performance, its mission and tools are often little understood by the broader public. For most of the Fed's history, its officials were happy operating in the shadows. But over recent years the Fed has become much more open about its aims and activities. Still, a Pew Research from last year found that only a quarter of Americans could even name Janet Yellen as chairwoman of the Fed.
"The focus on the Fed is extraordinary," Josh Bivens, director of Research and Policy at Economic Policy Institute, said on the conference call. The Fed "is the only engine we have for this recovery, and that's why it's getting all the attention," he said.
Source: Nasdaq
The public compact
It is always amusing to be the subject of a John McClaughry jeremiad. While I don’t mind being labeled as the “foremost defender” of public education, he insists on giving me full personal credit...
It is always amusing to be the subject of a John McClaughry jeremiad. While I don’t mind being labeled as the “foremost defender” of public education, he insists on giving me full personal credit for what is a state school board position.
In the instant case, John appears to be affronted by the suggestion that private (independent) schools that take public money must actually be held accountable for that money. This principle is at the core of the state board’s review of the independent school rules. Now this seems like a straightforward and fundamentally democratic concept that is generally accepted, but it has been a long-standing problem for some.
The law (16 VSA 166) provides a list of reporting requirements for independent schools if they want to chow down at the public trough. Unfortunately, as far back as the 1914 Carnegie Commission, we find evidence of the refusal of some independent schools to provide private school data even though it was the law of the land. (At that time, the Cubs were still basking in the glory of their World Series victory.)
The second paramount principle is that we have to educate all the children — regardless of needs and handicaps. That’s a necessity in a democracy. Denying a child admission on the basis of a handicap is, in most cases, illegal. Furthermore, it’s wrong. Public schools serve every child. The false fear John peddles is that the private school can’t afford to serve these children. That’s incorrect. It’s really quite simple. While great eruptions of umbrage are displayed, this problem has been solved for years. The private school contracts with (or hires) a specialist who bills the costs back to the public school. Approval in a given area requires that one sheet of paper be filed with the state. As simple as the solution actually is, some independent schools refuse to adopt an equal opportunity policy.
Instead, John proposes that Vermont “clone” Florida’s McKay Scholarship program where parents can choose the school for their handicapped child. That hasn’t worked out too well. If you think a “business management class” that sends students onto the street to panhandle is an acceptable education, then the McKay program may be just your thing. The Florida Department of Education has uncovered “substantial fraud,” including schools that don’t exist, non-existent students, and classes held in condemned buildings and public parks. And the state of Florida does not have the staff to adequately monitor the program. This is a recipe for abuse. Last May, the Center for Popular Democracy estimated that $216 million in charter school money went out the back door.
Finally, John raises the cost question and says private school scholarships would be “less expensive.” Yet he also criticizes the cost of the state’s excess public school capacity. Now let’s look at Vermont’s private independent school numbers. In 1998, there were 68 independent schools, and by 2016, the number had exploded to 93. In the decade 2004-14, independent school enrollments went down from 4,361 to 3,392. A 37 percent increase in schools with a 29 percent drop in students suggests somebody needs to revisit their business plan.
Taking it all together, (1) all who profit from the public treasury must be accountable for that money, (2) children have the right to be admitted to private schools, free of discrimination, on an equal opportunity basis, (3) private schools are a part of our system, (4) the public purse must be protected from fraud and abuse, and (5) directly or indirectly building and operating a parallel school system would be inordinately expensive and wasteful. Do these principles sound reasonable?
William J. Mathis is managing director of the National Education Policy Center and a member of the Vermont state Board of Education. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent the views of any group with which he is associated.
Source
From Seattle to St. Petersburg: Highlights of the Urban Resistance, Year 1
From Seattle to St. Petersburg: Highlights of the Urban Resistance, Year 1
Donald Trump’s first year in office will be remembered in this country as a nightmare of national debasement, a time during which the worst America has to offer was on open display: immigration...
Donald Trump’s first year in office will be remembered in this country as a nightmare of national debasement, a time during which the worst America has to offer was on open display: immigration roundups and white supremacist rallies, plutocratic tax policies and oil drilling in the Arctic, nuclear brinkmanship with North Korea, and a US-backed war against Yemen. The frightful headlines, the garbage hot takes, the nonstop onslaught of official lies are so consuming and absolute that they start to feel normal, which is the worst feeling of all.
Read the full article here.
Protesters Press Diversity Case as New York Fed Seeks New Chief
“Fed up, we can’t take it no more!” chanted a group of about 50 green shirt-clad members of Fed Up, a grass-roots advocacy campaign that has received backing from Facebook billionaire Dustin...
“Fed up, we can’t take it no more!” chanted a group of about 50 green shirt-clad members of Fed Up, a grass-roots advocacy campaign that has received backing from Facebook billionaire Dustin Moskovitz. Fed Up is pushing central bankers to keep focused on creating more jobs. America’s unemployment rate is at its lowest since late 2000. But when Fed Up’s members look at the labor market, they see the people that they say the central bank has overlooked. That’s why they and other progressives, including Democratic lawmakers, are pressing the New York Fed to consider a diverse slate of candidates as it weighs replacements for its president, William Dudley, who plans to step down this year.”
Read the full article here.
Lobbyists Know the Fed Has Political Power
Your editorial is exactly right about the lack of impartiality with “The Federal Reserve’s Politicians” (Aug. 29). While created by Congress, the Fed continues to act as though it is completely...
Your editorial is exactly right about the lack of impartiality with “The Federal Reserve’s Politicians” (Aug. 29). While created by Congress, the Fed continues to act as though it is completely unaccountable to the people’s representatives.
As I pointed out to Chairwoman Janet Yellen during a congressional hearing last year, her own calendar reflects weekly meetings with political figures and partisan special-interest groups. Even more troubling, there is a long history of Fed chairs or governors serving as partisan figures in the Treasury or the White House before their appointment. So while the Fed is quick to decry any attempts at congressional oversight, it cannot credibly claim to be politically independent.
We need a rules-based monetary policy that doesn’t leave the Fed with the potential to push an ideologically driven agenda. To make the Fed truly free from politics, the Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act of 2015, which my colleagues and I have passed through the House, should be signed into law. The American people deserve transparency at the Fed and market-driven monetary policy that can finally restore confidence in our economy.
Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.)
Glen Rock, N.J.
Your editorial accuses Fed Up, a group representing low-income black and brown communities, of politicizing the Fed, when big banks have always had undue access and influence over the Fed’s policies.
In fact, commercial banks literally own the Federal Reserve. Unlike nearly every other central bank in the world, the Fed isn’t a public institution but instead operates as a joint venture with the banking sector. It is not true that as long as this status quo of Wall Street domination continues, then the Fed is “independent,” but when the Fed Up campaign’s low-income people of color dare to join the monetary-policy conversation, then the Fed’s “independence” has been compromised.
You mention that retirees living off their retirement plans are suffering from a decade of near-zero interest rates. Presumably this refers to retirees who might have a hundred thousand or two tucked away for retirement. This is already far more than the low-wage workers who have joined our campaign will be able to accrue over a lifetime of working.
But let’s take the argument at face value. Even if the Fed were to raise interest rates up to 2%, that’s a mere $2,000 on $100,000 savings over a year. That won’t make much of a difference to how well a middle-class retiree lives, but hiking rates to that level prematurely could cut off struggling families—who are disproportionately people of color—from the added jobs and higher wages they so desperately need.
Shawn Sebastian
Fed Up Campaign
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Lobbying the Federal Reserve as if it is a legislature began with the Humphrey-Hawkins legislation and the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977. The chair of the Fed became politicized and conflicted as the act included mandated congressional grilling of the Fed chair, who is now required to stabilize prices, moderate long-term interest rates, while at the same time delivering low unemployment. These lofty goals can’t necessarily be simultaneously executed, as Paul Volcker showed so well when he attacked inflation, effectively saying that employment would rise with a solid economy that had price stability.
Mr. Volcker had the courage to take the abuse and address his critics as he followed a logical path and publicly explained it, but successive chairs have gradually focused more on pleasing the president who appointed them.
Rep. Kevin Brady’s idea for a commission to rethink the idea of the Fed is a good start. We now have about 40 years of increasing monetary, fiscal and employment messes, with a paralyzed Fed, unsustainable deficits and underemployment because politics tramples economic common sense.
Larry Stewart
Vienna, Va.
Source
The Activists Who Helped Shut Down Trump’s CEO Councils
The CEOs who made up two White House advisory councils have fled like rats on a sinking ship. Their exodus — a dramatic rebuke of Donald Trump — came within 48 hours of the incendiary August 15...
The CEOs who made up two White House advisory councils have fled like rats on a sinking ship. Their exodus — a dramatic rebuke of Donald Trump — came within 48 hours of the incendiary August 15 press conference where the President praised some of the participants of last week’s white supremacist rampage in Charlottesville, Virginia.
But many of the CEOs on these councils had been under heavy pressure to disavow Trump’s agenda of hate and racism even before Charlottesville. That pressure came from grassroots activists.
The Center for Popular Democracy, Make The Road New York, New York Communities for Change, and several other immigrant and worker advocates had led that activist campaign, targeting the leaders of nine major corporations affiliated with the Trump administration. The campaign, working through a web site called Corporate Backers of Hate, detailed the connections between the nine companies and the Trump administration and encouraged people to send emails to both the CEOs involved and members of their corporate boards.
Read the full article here.
Critics of Fed on Left and Right Prepare to Head to Jackson Hole
At least two groups—one on the right and one from the left—are expected to show up in some fashion to press the Fed to change its policies.
The conference, ...
At least two groups—one on the right and one from the left—are expected to show up in some fashion to press the Fed to change its policies.
The conference, Aug. 27-29, will draw Fed officials, foreign central bankers, academic economists, reporters and others to talk about inflation and monetary policy in view of Grand Teton mountain range.
Just a short-drive away from the conference, the conservative American Principles Project has scheduled another conference to discuss how the group believes the Fed has failed to defend the dollar and promote prosperity. This gathering is titled, “Central Banks: The Problem or the Solution?”
Liberal-leaning activists from the Fed Up Coalition–representing unions, community activists and policy advocates–are also expected to gather in Jackson Hole, much as they did last year, to urge the Fed to change its structure to become more open and democratic.
The group opposes raising short-term interest rates from near zero now. The members want the Fed to maintain its ultra-easy policy to spur the economy and lift more of the nation’s workers out of troubled economic conditions. Members of the group have been meeting with Fed officials lately to voice their concerns.
The Kansas City Fed conference in Jackson Hole gives central bank officials a chance to socialize, hike, debate major issues facing the global economy and occasionally make major policy speeches. Attendance is strictly by invitation-only.
APP monetary-policy director Steven Lonegan said the aim of his event is to refocus the Fed on defending the dollar. “We are really challenging the Fed toe to toe on their own turf” by coming to Jackson Hole, he said.
The broader mission of the conference, Mr. Lonegan said, was to engage the nation’s political candidates to speak about the Fed. He said all known candidates have been asked to appear at the event, although none have so far accepted.
The APP event includes representatives from the Heritage Foundation, economists, Fox Business Network personality John Stossel, and a member of the British Parliament, according to the conference program.
Source: Wall Street Journal
When Lawsuits Protect Hardhats
New York Daily News - April 17, 2014, by Errol Louis - New York is about to embark on a historic building boom — and that has touched off a furious new round in a long-running battle about how to...
New York Daily News - April 17, 2014, by Errol Louis - New York is about to embark on a historic building boom — and that has touched off a furious new round in a long-running battle about how to protect the health and safety of the workers who create the city’s glittering skyline. This month alone, two men have fallen to their deaths while working on midtown buildings under construction — a grim reminder that the skyscrapers we boast about come at a high cost, and sometimes a tragic one.
We’ll see many more projects get off the ground in the months ahead. The de Blasio administration is set to announce plans this week to rebuild areas devastated by Hurricane Sandy, and in early May will unveil a larger plan for building or maintaining 200,000 units of housing.
That’s a lot of work to be done — and thousands of men and women needed to engage in one of the most dangerous professions in America.
In 2011 and 2012, a staggering 1,513 construction workers died on the job nationwide, more than in any other industry, according to Public Citizen, a national think tank. Thirty-six of them were in New York City.
“You literally see people who are not making a ton of money losing their lives to grow the economy of this city,” says Jose Duffy, a policy advocate at the Center for Popular Democracy, a Brooklyn-based nonprofit group.
“These are people literally dying because employers aren’t putting in basic safety regulations.”
At the center of the current fight is Local Law 240, also known as the Scaffold Law, which allows construction workers who get injured or killed on the job to sue the companies that hired them. The law was passed in the 1880s as New York began constructing the world’s first skyscrapers — and losing workers maimed or killed as the structures went up.
The construction industry has been trying for more than a century to shrink or repeal the law, and allow firms to avoid or limit liability if they can prove that an accident was the fault of the dead or injured worker. Industry lobbyists duly prowled the halls of the statehouse this year.
Lawsuits are a less-than-perfect way to force the industry to take safety seriously, but there aren’t many alternatives. Public Citizen estimates it would take the Occupational Safety and Health Administration more than 100 years to inspect every New York State construction site even once.
So workers sue when they get hurt on unsafe job sites, and insurance companies charge building companies hefty premiums in exchange for paying the claims of those killed or injured workers. A recent report by pro-industry researchers at SUNY’s Rockefeller Institute estimates that the law costs New York $150 million in economic output and 12,000 jobs — expenses imposed by insurance companies, which charge construction firms.
Duffy’s group, in turn, issued its own report this week attacking the methods and motives of the Rockefeller Institute study.
While the political battle goes on in Albany, people like Walter Cabrera are caught in the middle. Speaking through a translator, Cabrera, who came here from Peru a decade ago, told me how his supervisor had him work on a defective scaffold at 240 West Broadway in 2011.
The rig didn’t have hand rails, and Cabrera ended up falling and injuring his knee, wrist and elbow. Three years and two surgeries later, he remains unable to work and is in the process of suing the company that hired him.
While Cabrera waits out the legal process in his Jackson Heights apartment, the building he helped construct — a swank Tribeca condo now called 1 North Moore — has a penthouse that listed at $8 million and units that sold for $5 and $6 million, according to curbed.com.
It would be unthinkably immoral to build the city on the injured backs of disabled immigrant workers. Until there’s a better alternative, it looks like the Scaffold Law is here to stay.
Source
Trump expected to nominate Powell for Fed chair
Most on Wall Street welcomed the news that Powell is the likely nominee. Investment bank Deutsche Bank put out a note last week to clients saying Powell would be the best choice if Trump did not...
Most on Wall Street welcomed the news that Powell is the likely nominee. Investment bank Deutsche Bank put out a note last week to clients saying Powell would be the best choice if Trump did not want to keep Yellen on. But some liberal groups, including Fed Up, were disappointed and see the selection of Powell as an attempt to make the Fed more favorable to big banks. "Jerome Powell's most important qualification is that he served with Janet Yellen. His confirmation should depend on his willingness to follow in Yellen's footsteps on both monetary and regulatory policy," said Shawn Sebastian, co-director of Fed Up, a campaign from the Center for Popular Democracy.
Read the full article here.
Stitched with Prejudice: Zara USA’s Corporate Culture of Favoritism
This paper reports the findings of our original survey aimed at understanding whether retail workers’ experiences of their opportunities at New York City Zara stores was different based on skin...
This paper reports the findings of our original survey aimed at understanding whether retail workers’ experiences of their opportunities at New York City Zara stores was different based on skin color or race. Zara, the world’s largest fashion retailer, has faced several complaints about racially insensitive designs over the years.This report finds that employees of color in Zara’s New York City stores face unequal conditions within the company:
Black employees are more than twice as dissatisfied with their hours as white employees. Darker-skinned employees report that they are least likely to be promoted. Employees of color state that they are reviewed with harsher scrutiny from management than white American and European employees. Of workers in the lower prestige back-of-store roles, 68 percent have darker skin.While Zara employees report experiencing discrimination in the workplace, they have also witnesseddiscriminatory practices against Zara customers of color.
According to surveys across Zara’s New York City workforce, Black customers are 7 times more likely to be targeted as potential thieves than white customers.In order to address problems of discrimination, this report recommends that Zara recommits itself to non-discrimination in employment, promotion, and service in New York City.
We recommend the following steps:
Institute a practice for workers to have access to a neutral, third-party arbiter to address their grievances, particularly relative to color and race discrimination. Recognize and respect workers’ basic labor rights, including regular and reliable schedules regardless of race, equal opportunity to be promoted, and a living wage. Allow New York City Zara employees to choose to represent themselves in grievances through real bargaining agents, such as labor unions, without interference.Down the full report here:
10 hours ago
7 days ago