CPD IN THE NEWS

Over the course of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton hasn’t had a whole lot to say about the Federal Reserve or monetary policy in general, which is why it was all the more interesting to see the Democratic frontrunner’s campaign yesterday endorse a change long sought by progressive activists. The Washington Post reported:

The Fed is led by a seven-member board of governors based in Washington and a dozen regional bank presidents based across the country, from New York to Kansas City to San Francisco. The governors are nominated by the White House and approved by the Senate, but regional bank presidents are selected by their boards of directors, whose occupants are chosen by the banking industry and by the Fed governors in Washington.

In a statement to The Washington Post, Clinton’s campaign said she supports removing bankers from the boards of directors and increasing diversity within the Fed.

In a written statement, a campaign spokesperson told the Post, “The Federal Reserve is a vital institution for our economy and the well-being of our middle class, and the American people should have no doubt that the Fed is serving the public interest. That’s why Secretary Clinton believes that the Fed needs to be more representative of America as a whole and that commonsense reforms – like getting bankers off the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks – are long overdue.”

This brings Clinton in line with Bernie Sanders, who endorsed this policy late last year, saying he wants a system in which “the foxes would no longer guard the henhouse.”

The statement also came the same day Clinton wrote an op-ed for the Washington Informer, an African-American newspaper, vowing to be a “vocal champion” for D.C. statehood.

“In the case of our nation’s capital, we have an entire populace that is routinely denied a voice in its own democracy,” Clinton wrote, adding, “Washingtonians serve in the military, serve on juries, and pay taxes just like everyone else. And yet, they don’t even have a vote in Congress.”

Earlier this week, Clinton also emphasized her support for a “public option” in health care coverage, including a possible Medicare buy-in policy.

The broader pattern matters, and it’s not altogether expected.

When Clinton’s campaign got underway nearly a year ago, the former Secretary of State started laying out her platform, and on a variety of issues – immigration, criminal-justice reform, expanding voting rights, etc. – the Democrat not only endorsed progressive ideas, she endorsed an agenda that was even more ambitious and further to the left than many expected.

At the time, of course, the question that loomed over the race dealt with motivation: was Clinton throwing her support behind a series of bold proposals because she was worried about Bernie Sanders, or was she serious about these plans? It’s one thing to make appeals to the left as the Democratic race gets underway, but would Clinton follow through when she shifts her attention to the general election?

The answer to these questions is coming into sharper focus. While the Democratic race still has some primaries to go, the delegate math suggests Clinton is well positioned to prevail, and she’s already begun shifting her attention to Donald Trump and the fall election. If the cynics were correct, this would be about the time we’d expect to see Clinton move gradually towards the center, eschewing some of her more progressive goals.

Except this week, we’re seeing the opposite, with Clinton backing Sanders-endorsed changes to the financial industry and touting her support for a public option.

Maybe Clinton is hoping to win over Sanders’ ardent fans who aren’t yet ready to back her candidacy in the fall. Maybe she believes these progressive goals are popular enough with the American mainstream that she’s not really taking much of a risk. Maybe she actually believes what she’s saying and none of this is calculated in any meaningful way.

Whatever the motivation, Clinton may be focusing her attention on the general election, but many of her key progressive ideals, at least for now, remain very much intact.

By Steve Benen

Source

For more than two decades, workers in the retail and restaurant industries have struggled to balance family life and other obligations with jobs that demand they be “on call.” Now, under legal pressure and in a tightening labor market, some employers are changing their approach.

On Tuesday, the New York Attorney General’s office announced that six retailers – Aeropostale, Carter’s, David’s Tea, Disney, PacSun, and Zumiez – have agreed to end “on-call” scheduling. From now on, their employees will not need to check each day whether they should come to work, nor do they risk being sent home early without pay when the store is quiet. Four of the companies also committed to giving employees their schedules one week in advance.

Ending “on-call” scheduling will make a big difference for employees, increasing the predictability of work schedules and making it easier to plan other activities. But they aren’t the only ones who will benefit from the change, observers say: It could also bring long-term benefits for businesses and society.

“It’s a pretty significant move,” Carrie Gleason, director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy, tells The Christian Science Monitor in a phone interview. “Retail companies ... are really starting to recognize that they need to invest in their workforce.”

In the past, workers’ wages were considered a fixed cost, wrote Robert Reich, who served as Labor secretary during Bill Clinton’s presidency and is now a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley. In the 1990s, however, wages became a variable cost: Many businesses used on-call scheduling to trim costs by having as few workers as possible. Some even deployed software systems that highlighted the times when employees were least needed.

That kind of scheduling takes a substantial toll on workers, explains Lonnie Golden, a professor of economics and labor-employment relations at Penn State University-Abington, in a phone interview with the Monitor. Professor Golden was the primary author of an April report for the Economic Policy Institute about the consequences of irregular work scheduling.

Uncertain hours make it hard for workers to plan their daily lives, says Golden. Holding down a second job becomes more difficult, uncertain paychecks mean incomes often fall short, and childcare is an increased challenge.

These employees are most likely to experience “work-life conflict” and be stressed at work, Golden notes.

That also puts businesses with “on-call” scheduling on the wrong side of some state and federal labor laws. In April, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and the attorneys general of seven other states and the District of Columbia sent a letter to the six retailers asking them to end the practice, as they have now agreed to do.

Ms. Gleason points to that April letter and other, similar investigations as the "single most influential factor" in moving businesses away from these scheduling practices. Seven other businesses announced that they would end "on-call" scheduling in 2015.

But with a new presidential administration kicking off in a few weeks, the future of these investigations is uncertain.

“The incoming Labor Secretary is [at] the complete opposite end of the spectrum,” Gleason says, making it “incumbent now on states” to continue pushing for these standards.

Worker-friendly policies are becoming bipartisan causes in many states, the Monitor’s Schuyler Velasco wrote in October – and New York is one of several states working toward a legislative ban on “on-call” scheduling. In September, Seattle's city council unanimously passed a “secure scheduling” law, which requires employers to schedule their workers 14 days in advance, and includes a "right to rest" provision that allows workers to decline closing and opening shifts that are less than 10 hours apart.

Businesses themselves may have incentives to end on-call scheduling. In a tightening labor market, employers want to hang on to their workers, notes Golden, who is also a senior research analyst at the Project for Middle Class Renewal at the University of Illinois. And businesses that offer better hours – and more consistent hours – are more appealing to workers, leading to better retention.

The more businesses sign on to these measures, the more workers’ wages are taken out of the cost-cutting equation. More than 300,000 workers have been impacted so far, says Gleason.

Greater certainty about schedules has benefits beyond individual workers, she says. If people know when they’re working, they can also schedule time to be with their children, or attend college and grad school classes.

“Employees are going to be better off, and maybe even society,” she says.

By Ellen Powell

Source

Source: Bloomberg Business

A tool Congress gave the Federal Reserve to control interest rates has become a hammer for lawmakers to bash the central bank.

Fed Chair Janet Yellen withstood bipartisan criticism at a congressional hearing on Wednesday over the policy of paying the largest financial institutions to keep more funds than required on deposit at the central bank. The Fed doled out $1.7 billion in interest on excess reserves -- known as IOER for short -- to banks in the third quarter.

Congress, which gave the Fed authority in 2008 to pay interest on excess reserves, may be having second thoughts. While the tool helps the Fed raise its benchmark interest rate and simultaneously maintain a $4.5 trillion balance sheet that policy makers say supports the economy, several lawmakers complained to Yellen that IOER is enriching Wall Street.

California Representative Maxine Waters, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, labeled the IOER payments a “massive transfer of wealth from the Federal Reserve to private-sector banks.” Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, called it a “subsidy.”

In a election year, Yellen was grilled on campaign issues ranging from income inequality to high rates of minority unemployment. Candidates such as Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist from Vermont who won the New Hampshire Democratic primary Tuesday, are finding that Wall Street-bashing resonates with voters struggling with slow wage increases.

The Center for Popular Democracy, part of a coalition known as Fed Up, said it met with Waters in September and discussed why paying banks interest on excess reserves is troublesome.

“It was a tool that was given to the Fed without ever envisioning an environment of multi-trillion dollar excess reserves,” said Jordan Haedtler, campaign manager for the group. “It’s a pretty crude, anti-consumer tool that rewards big banks.”  

Yellen defended the tool, noting that the flip side of the excess reserves are the Fed’s large asset holdings, which generated many more billions of dollars in remittances to the Treasury. She also warned that extinguishing reserves through asset sales could cause more volatility in financial markets and hurt growth.

“The Federal Reserve has transferred, since 2008 through 2015, roughly $615 billion back to Congress, to the taxpayers, to the Treasury, funds that have contributed importantly to financing the government,” Yellen said.

The Fed created hundreds of billions of excess reserves in the financial crisis as it began to rescue financial institutions such as Bear Stearns Cos. and conduct quantitative easing through direct bond purchases.

Normally, banks would try to dump some of the $2.3 trillion in excess reserves they now hold into overnight lending markets to try earning a return. That would swamp attempts by the Fed to control the federal funds rate and make raising rates difficult.

By paying a rate above its target rate for federal funds, the Fed can keep those funds out of the market and exert more control over its policy rate. To mop up other excess cash coming from sources other than commercial banks, the Fed uses another tool called reverse repurchase agreements where it uses securities as collateral for short-term loans of cash, thus removing it from the money markets.

The political liability of paying large sums of interest to private banks hasn’t been lost on Fed officials. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard said in August that the strategy would benefit from bipartisan support.

“It’s going to mean fairly large payments to the largest banks in the U.S. and to some foreign banks,” Bullard said in an August interview with Wharton Business Radio’s ”Behind the Markets” program on Sirius XM Radio. “If Congress is not comfortable with that, they should definitely tell us right now.”

Addressing Yellen during the hearing, Waters said, "It looks like we’re about to have some bipartisan concern on this issue."

The Fed chief responded, "I hear that."

Dustin Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, have become billionaires since he started the behemoth social networking site with his former Harvard University roommate Mark Zuckerberg. (Moskovitz left the company in 2008 to found Asana, which streamlines task management). The couple is bringing Silicon Valley-style analytics to the world of philanthropy through their fund, Good Ventures.

The goal is to find and incubate projects with the potential to create the most change for every dollar of funding. Many of the fund’s initiatives tread traditional charitable ground. Good Ventures has backed research on the connection between crime, cannabis and incarceration and helped stop the spread of drug-resistant malarial parasites in Myanmar.

But the group is also broadening its reach into public policy issues, including macroeconomics. It has granted $850,000 to the Center for Popular Democracy over the past year to fund a campaign urging the Fed not to raise its target interest rate until the economy is much stronger. Good Ventures is the single largest backer of the campaign -- dubbed Fed Up -- whose budget this year is about $1 million.

“The central reason we believe that marginally more dovish Fed policy relative to the current baseline would carry net benefits is that, at roughly their current rates, we see unemployment as more costly in humanitarian terms than inflation,” Good Ventures wrote explaining its decision to fund the project. “Dovish” policy generally supports lower interest rates, while a “hawkish” stance would raise them.

The funding has helped the group expand its presence at an annual symposium of economic elite that kicked off Thursday here in the foothills of the Grand Tetons and sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. The group arrived at the conference last year with a handful of workersholding up signs and wearing green T-shirts.

This year, Fed Up held “teach-ins” in a meeting room at the same hotel as the Fed’s conference and drew prominent economists such as Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, University of California-Berkeley professor Brad DeLong and Center for Economic and Policy Research Co-Director Dean Baker.

The campaign also flew in dozens of workers to underscore the disparity in the nation’s economic recovery. Wage growth has remained stagnant for years, and unemployment among black and Hispanic workers is significantly higher than that of whites.

“An economy that doesn’t deliver for most of its citizens is a failed economy,” Stiglitz said in a press conference in Jackson Hole.

Monetary policy has not traditionally been subject to populist activism, and Good Ventures acknowledges that the success of the campaign is uncertain at best. Fed Up is also working to increase public input in the selection of regional Fed presidents, an effort that Good Ventures rates as more unequivocably positive and, at the very least, easier to measure.

But, the funders note, if the campaign works -- and if easy money is indeed the way to go -- the payoff could be massive:

Our best guess is that the campaign is unlikely to have an impact on the Fed's monetary policy, but that if it does, the benefits from a tighter labor market would be very large; we think this small chance of a large positive impact is sufficient to justify the grant.

However, this is an unusually complex policy area, and we could be mistaken.

Source: Washington Post