Fed Raises Key Interest Rate, Citing Strengthening Economy
WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate Wednesday for just the second time since the...
WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate Wednesday for just the second time since the financial crisis of 2008, saying the American economy is expanding at a healthy pace and setting itself up as a counterweight to President-elect Donald J. Trump’s push for considerably faster growth.
The Fed cited the steady growth of employment and other economic measures, and signaled that it expects to raise rates more quickly next year to prevent the economy from growing too quickly.
“My colleagues and I are recognizing the considerable progress the economy has made,” Janet L. Yellen, the Fed’s chairwoman, said at a news conference after the announcement. “We expect the economy will continue to perform well.”
The widely expected decision moves the Fed’s benchmark rate to a range of 0.5 percent to 0.75 percent, still very low by historical standards. Low rates support economic growth by encouraging borrowing and risk-taking.
The American economy has expanded by about 2 percent a year over the last six years, and the unemployment rate has fallen to 4.6 percent. The Fed’s assessment that the economy is growing at a healthy pace — not too hot, not too cold — is starkly at odds with Mr. Trump, who has promised 4 percent growth and has described job creation as “terrible” and economic growth as anemic.
Already on Wednesday, one Republican member of the House Financial Services Committee, Representative Roger Williams of Texas, criticized the Fed’s move.
“Today’s decision by the Fed to raise the interest rate is entirely premature and will be burdensome to a nation already struggling to pull itself out of this slow-growth Obama economy,” Mr. Williams said in a statement. “By making rates even higher, the Fed is effectively making our hardships even harder.”
Mr. Williams did not object when the Fed raised rates last December.
In announcing the decision after a two-day meeting of the Fed’s policy-making committee, the central bank gave little indication that Mr. Trump’s election had altered its economic outlook. The Fed said it still expected a slow economic expansion and a steady march toward higher rates. In separate forecasts also published Wednesday, Fed officials predicted three rate increases in 2017.
Rising Rate
The Federal Reserve raised its target rate for only the second time in more than a decade.
Note: Graphic shows the Federal Funds Target Rate previous to the December 2008 rate change; since then it is the upper limit of the Federal Funds Target Range.
By The New York Times | Source: Federal Reserve
For the first time in recent years, however, there is a real possibility of significant changes in fiscal policy. Republicans will control the White House and both chambers of Congress, and Mr. Trump has promised to increase economic growth and job creation through tax cuts and infrastructure spending.
Those measures could spur faster growth after a presidential campaign in which Mr. Trump regularly disparaged the economy’s performance under President Obama. But the Fed reiterated Wednesday that the economy is already expanding at roughly the maximum sustainable pace.
Fed officials also see evidence that the labor market is tightening. Several Fed districts reported labor shortages in the central bank’s most recent compilation of economic reports. In the Philadelphia district, construction workers are hard to find. Atlanta reported a shortage of nurses; Kansas City, truck drivers; Dallas, tech workers.
Faster growth, in the Fed’s judgment, would probably lead to higher inflation. As a result, if Republicans succeed in invigorating growth, the Fed is likely to raise rates more quickly. The greater the stimulus, the faster interest rates are likely to rise.
“Your expectation should depend very little on what you think that the F.O.M.C. is thinking and very much on your view of Trump policies and their macro effects,” said Jon Faust, a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University and a former adviser to Ms. Yellen, referring to the Federal Open Market Committee. “Don’t focus on the Fed. As James Carville regularly reminded the other Clinton on the campaign trail: It’s the economy, stupid.”
Ms. Yellen emphasized that the Fed was not prejudging the likely course of events. She declined several times to comment on the merits of Mr. Trump’s plans or to predict their consequences for the economy.
“We’re operating under a cloud of uncertainty at the moment,” Ms. Yellen said.
Fed officials predicted that they would raise the Fed’s benchmark rate a little more quickly in the coming years, reaching 2.1 percent by the end of 2018. In September, they had predicted that it would reach 1.9 percent by the end of 2018. The new projections, however, reflect a significantly slower pace of increase than last December, when they expected the rate to reach 3.3 percent by 2018.
The combination of steady growth and faster rate increases indicates that some Fed officials expect the central bank to end up offsetting a modest increase in fiscal stimulus. But Ms. Yellen said most Fed officials were reserving judgment.
“Changes in fiscal policy or other economic policies could affect the economic outlook,” she said. “Of course, it is far too early to know how those changes will unfold.”
What Happens When the Fed Raises Rates, in One Rube Goldberg Machine
Exactly seven years ago, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to almost zero in order to nurse the ailing economy back to health. Recently it changed direction. This is how it works.
The tensions between monetary and fiscal policy will develop slowly. Legislation takes time to write, and any economic impact would generally be felt in coming years. Political pressures, however, may build more quickly.
Mr. Trump has made clear in the past that he likes low interest rates — and some of his plans, like infrastructure investment, will be much easier to fund if rates remain low.
“The Fed is in a tricky place,” said Michael Feroli, chief United States economist at JPMorgan Chase. “They’re trying not to prejudge how Congress and the administration duke it out, but once they see that, I think they will respond.”
There is also uncertainty about the Fed’s leadership. Ms. Yellen’s term as chairwoman ends in February 2018, and Mr. Trump has said he would prefer a Republican.
Ms. Yellen could remain on the board, a possibility she said Wednesday she had not ruled out. But the Fed, under different leadership, might well choose a different path forward. Some conservative economists, notably John Taylor of Stanford University, argue that the bank should already have raised rates above 1 percent.
The economy, for now, keeps plodding along. Steady job growth has reduced the unemployment rate to a level the Fed considers healthy. A little unemployment is natural as people change jobs and businesses close. Ms. Yellen and other Fed officials have said they see some signs of stronger wage growth. Inflation, too, has picked up a little in recent months, although both wages and inflation continue to rise more slowly than the Fed would like to see.
Ms. Yellen described the rate increase as “a vote of confidence in the economy.”
The decision was made by a unanimous vote of the 10 members of the Federal Open Market Committee, the first time in recent months the Fed has acted by consensus.
Some economists argue that the Fed should wait until inflation strengthens before raising rates, to test whether a stronger economy would persuade some people sidelined during the downturn to start looking for jobs. That would expand the labor force. Unemployment remains particularly high among minorities.
That view, however, has found little support among Fed officials, who worry that interest rates will have to be raised more quickly if they wait too long, increasing the chances of pushing the economy into recession.
“Apparently, Fed officials think the economy is growing too quickly,” said Ady Barkan, the director of Fed Up, a coalition of liberal groups that has pressed the Fed to continue its stimulus campaign. “I doubt you can find many other Americans who share that opinion. And it’s a strange conclusion to draw in the wake of an election that was so heavily impacted by voters’ economic discontent.”
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
Source
Protesters ask Fed to delay at Jackson Hole summit
About 50 demonstrators gathered in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, holding signs reading "whose recovery is this" and "how many...
About 50 demonstrators gathered in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, holding signs reading "whose recovery is this" and "how many jobs do I have to work to be middle class?" Surrounded by the protesters, Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz also lent his voice, saying "this is not the time" to tighten policy.
"We are not algorithms in your computers. We are real people with real bills and real responsibilities," said Rod Adams, a protester who added that he makes $10.10 per hour.
The Fed's plans to abandon its yearslong near-zero interest rate policy have taken a turn recently amid stock market volatility fueled by concerns about the Chinese economy. The U.S central bank in recent months said it saw a strengthening labor market, describing job gains as "solid" after its July policy meeting.
Two former top Fed officials told CNBC that the central bank needs to evaluate how best to boost conditions for workers. Based on the last few years, easy policy may not necessarily fuel wage and job gains, noted former Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser.
"It's very important that we look beyond what's happening now and are looking to the long run," he told CNBC from Jackson Hole on Thursday.
While the central bank takes worker concerns "very seriously," it needs to evaluate how best to boost employment and wages, said Randall Kroszner, a former Fed governor. He added that it cannot base its decision on the fundamentals of another economy.
"You can't have Fed policy responding to every bump and wiggle that are coming out of the markets," he told CNBC from Jackson Hole.
He added that a rate liftoff in September of December of this year could make sense without a "negative downward shock" to inflation.
Activists urge Harvard to stop investing in Boston hedge fund that holds Puerto Rico debt
Activists urge Harvard to stop investing in Boston hedge fund that holds Puerto Rico debt
“As one of Baupost’s most significant outside investors, Harvard can exercise some influence on the hedge fund’s...
“As one of Baupost’s most significant outside investors, Harvard can exercise some influence on the hedge fund’s operations," said Julio López Varona, a member of Hedge Clippers. “They have a big endowment; their investment sets a tone.”
Read the full article here.
Activists Counter Federal Reserve Gathering With Push Against Interest Rate Hikes
The two-day event, ...
The two-day event, Whose Recovery: A National Convening on Inequality, Race, and the Federal Reserve, is organized by the Fed Up campaign, a coalition of groups led by the nonprofit Center for Popular Democracy. It serves as a counter-conference to the annual Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City symposium, where Fed officials come together to discuss monetary policy -- and which is currently taking place at the same resort as the Fed Up gathering.
Fed Up’s member organizations brought over 100 primarily low-income grassroots activists from across the country for the gathering. It's a dramatic increase from its inaugural visit to Jackson Hole last year, when the campaign brought a group of 10 activists.
The size of Fed Up’s delegation of activists and presence of prominent economists -- including Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz -- attests to the rapid growth of a once-unlikely campaign that began just a year ago. Fed Up has managed to turn the esoteric issue of central bank interest rates into a key element of the progressive agenda -- and a rallying cry for low-income workers.
Rod Adams, a recent college graduate from Minneapolis, said he was attending the convention because he was disappointed in the job market. Despite his college degree, he currently makes $10.10 an hour working at the Mall of America.
“I have seen Wall Street’s recovery and corporate America’s recovery -- where is ours?” Adams demanded, eliciting cheers at a spirited press conference outside the Jackson Lake Lodge on Thursday.
The activists oppose the Federal Reserve increasing interest rates before the economy creates enough jobs to generate substantial wage growth for all workers. They believe that a premature interest rate hike would be especially harmful to workers in communities of color, who continue to suffer higher rates of unemployment than the overall population. Activists say this is partly the result of discrimination in the job market. Fed Up released a report on Thursday that uses original data to show that if there was the same low unemployment rate in every community in America, African-Americans and American Indians would experience the largest income gains.
The delegation plans to present officials attending the exclusive Fed symposium with an online petition opposing an interest rate hike that bears 110,000 signatures. The petition effort was the result of Fed Up's collaboration earlier this month with online progressive heavyweights including CREDO Action, Daily Kos, the Working Families Organization and Demand Progress. Robert Reich, former secretary of labor and an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, gave the petition drive a high-profile boost with a popular video promoting the effort.
A similar petition that Fed Up brought last year had 10,000 signatures.
The Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, which convenes the annual Jackson Hole symposium for Fed officials, declined to comment on this year's parallel protest conference.
Kansas City Fed President Esther George met with Fed Up activists during last year's symposium.
Janet Yellen, chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, is not attending this year's symposium, precluding even the possibility of an impromptu encounter with protesters.
“Janet Yellen is missing a great opportunity to see what real people look like,” Adams said. “We are not data on a spreadsheet.”
Proponents of a Federal Reserve interest rate hike in the near future argue that the Fed should begin raising rates to prevent excessive price and asset inflation. The Fed has a dual mandate to maintain full employment and stable price inflation.
William Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, signaled on Wednesday that they would postpone an interest rate hike that Fed officials had previously indicated would occur in September. Dudley said turmoil in China and other emerging market economies that sparked massive swings in the U.S. stock market earlier in the week made a September rate hike “less compelling.”
Josh Bivens, the progressive Economic Policy Institute’s research and policy director, applauded the Fed’s move away from an interest rate hike, but said the reason for the Fed’s decision confirmed the need for more grassroots activism.
“A week ago the case against raising rates for the labor market was clear as day, but all of a sudden when wealthy people lost money in the stock market the tide turned against a rate increase,” Bivens said at Thursday's press conference. “I’m happy rates are less likely to go up because of that, but it is a terrible reason.”
Source: Huffington Post
Grupos cívicos piden a Harvard desvincularse de la deuda de Puerto Rico
Grupos cívicos piden a Harvard desvincularse de la deuda de Puerto Rico
Los grupos que participan de la convocatoria están comandadas por el “Center for Popular Democracy”, e incluyen a...
Los grupos que participan de la convocatoria están comandadas por el “Center for Popular Democracy”, e incluyen a organizaciones de estudiantes de esas universidades, así como “Make the Road New York”, “Make the Road Pennsylvania”, “Make the Road Connecticut”, “New York Communities for Change”, and “Organize Florida.”
Lea el artículo completo aquí.
Parents as Decision Makers
All the time, parents are making decisions about what happens in their children’s lives. The same needs to be true when...
All the time, parents are making decisions about what happens in their children’s lives. The same needs to be true when it comes to choosing what happens with their child’s academic education. It is more than just choosing a school but also what happens in the school building. With the sustainable community school model, parents are very much part of the decision-making process. This goes beyond the realm of engagement but views them as collaborators in the achievements of the school. The Community Schools Toolkit created by The Center for Popular Democracy signifies the importance of this involvement by stating, “parent engagement is promoted so the full community actively participates in planning and decision-making.” It is important to consider parents in the same manner as teachers and administrators although they provide a different perspective. It is like pieces to a puzzle, each one has a part to contribute which must be done for it to be whole. Parents must be at the table with equal input regarding the daily activities that happen in the school building from academics to after-school programming and other aspects such as community events.
It is quite understood, parents are not formally trained as educators; however, they are the first teachers of children. This is a shared experience we all have as adults. Yes, some were better than others but it was those things our parents taught us which have a lasting impact. As a result, parents possess the necessary qualities to be involved with the process of choosing curriculum, managing the budget, and identifying staff, teachers, and administrators who are a good fit with the school’s climate. The parents have a particular perspective when it comes to their involvement and their inclusion and embracement would create a cohesive culture for success. They need not be considered an option but one of the main individuals in building the school’s environment conducive to learning.
This role of parent involvement is different and separate from PTAs or PTOs. These organizations are representative of an existing institution within the school. It may not necessarily project the sole interests of parents since it is also an organization comprised of other members. Additionally, the groups are connected to a national organization where the interests may align with corporations. Parents as decision-makers bring a different viewpoint as a result of their concern for children and the community and not institutions or corporations.
The relationship between the school and parents needs to be one of partnership instead of a dichotomous one. They both are involved with developing the child to become a successful adult who can function as a productive member of society. One thing a parent is free to do when compared to those who work for the school district is aggressively advocate. There is every reason to take the risk where the answer may be no for others. They aren’t at risk of losing their job, adverse disciplinary action, or retaliation. So, parents can do what the others can’t which is lobby elected officials, make demands with the central office leadership and Superintendent, speak out against the unequal and unfair treatment, and actively galvanize all stakeholders to be involved in the process of making not only the school better but the overall community.
Since parents possess a variety of resources, it’s proper for them to assist with the development of the school. Some of these assets which can be contributed are time, talents, knowledge, and skills. For example, I am a Social Worker by profession and I can be utilized to provide a range of services to the school community. A benefit with having a parent involved is their existing relationship with the school along with their knowledge of the community, and their vested interest of the best possible outcome for the children, the school, and neighborhood.
There are times when parents are regarded as an after-thought and advisors. Ultimately, the successful outcome of the school is comprised of the necessary ingredient which is parent engagement. But, parents as decision makers goes beyond the realm of engagement to the extent of involvement in every aspect of the school’s functioning. Recently, there was reporting of lead levels above the EPA threshold in Newark, NJ public schools. Although this was an ongoing problem for some years and known to Newark Public School officials, this information wasn’t disclosed to the parents or the community. It is important for parents to be provided with the necessary information so they can determine how to proceed with it. Also, their inclusion recognizes the link between the overall success of the school and the progressive development of the community. When all of us embrace the inclusion of the children’s first teachers in the process of academic development, we will understand the essential impact of parents as decision-makers.
By Viva White
Source
Commentary: Emeryville action could change working world
Like many people, when the alarm goes off, I hit snooze a few times and wish for more sleep. But what gets me out of...
Like many people, when the alarm goes off, I hit snooze a few times and wish for more sleep. But what gets me out of bed is that precious hour I have with my young son. We eat breakfast together, we race to see who can get dressed first, and then I walk him to school.
I’m lucky– as a salaried employee at an organization that values flexibility and family, I can arrange my schedule around my son if need be. But for people working low-wage hourly jobs, that kind of control over their scheduling is virtually unheard of.
Today, corporations that pay low wages rarely provide their employees with full-time work or reliable hours. Take Manuel, who works at one of Emeryville’s many retail chains. He had his hours cut from 20 a week down to four, and then nothing for two weeks — throwing his family into massive debt.
Emeryville may be the first city in the East Bay to change that, where the City Council is voting on a Fair Workweek policy on Oct. 18. This is part of a simple set of standards needed to ensure that working people can afford to stay in the East Bay region.
What is a Fair Workweek? It means employers must provide reliable, predictable hours so their employees can budget. Workers get schedules two weeks in advance so they can plan childcare, second jobs, family time, and even rest. And when more hours are available, current employees get priority so they can get closer to full-time work.
In Emeryville, the policy would only apply to large companies with more than 12 locations worldwide. These simple improvements would cost employers almost nothing if they follow the law and have a huge impact on the lives of thousands of Emeryville workers. Hundreds of thousands more working people would benefit if other East Bay cities follow suit.
Emeryville’s own Economic Development Advisory Committee – the city’s business advisory group – said even they agree that increasing stability of schedules, reducing employee turnover, and decreasing underemployment in Emeryville is important. And that’s what a Fair Workweek policy would do.
Many companies are already doing the right thing. This policy would reinforce that good behavior and target companies that are bad actors. However, global, multi-billion dollar corporations and their lobbyists are coming out against this low-cost policy, claiming it will kill the economic climate. But I wonder: how exactly would reliable schedules hurt companies like IKEA, The Gap or Home Depot?
Before the recession, big business painted doomsday scenarios saying that raising wages would force them to close shop. During the Great Recession, working people bore the brunt of tough times in the form of reduced pay, slashed benefits, and a cutback to part-time hours. And now that big business has not only recovered but is booming, companies are back to the mantra that improving standards for their workers will hurt them.
Common sense tells us that business — especially big business — is doing fine. Look at quarterly earning reports of Emeryville’s global retail chains. Sales tax revenue in Emeryville was up 2.4 percent in 2015 compared to the previous year according to the city’s Finance Department. Retail vacancies in the region are at a post-recession low of 6 percent. And of course, there are growing lines of cars and customers coming in and out of Emeryville’s shopping centers.
While business is thriving, working people have waited long enough for something so very basic: a single job that pays enough with enough hours to allow folks to meet their basic needs.
Raising the minimum wage helped struggling workers. Now we must finish the job by providing reliable, predictable hours. This economic boom shouldn’t just be a boon for shareholders. It should also lift the working people who are the backbone of our economy.
By Jennifer Lin
Source
Report: Women unduly harmed by unpredictable scheduling
Al Jazeera - 05-12-2015 - Irregular hours and just-in-time scheduling are pervasive throughout the low-wage...
Al Jazeera - 05-12-2015 - Irregular hours and just-in-time scheduling are pervasive throughout the low-wage economy, but they do particular harm to working women, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Center for Popular Democracy.
Women still disproportionately shoulder responsibility for child care and other family obligations, and more than 6 million women have cited those constraints as the primary reasons they are not employed full time, according to the report.
The Center for Popular Democracy argues that juggling family responsibilities with the unsteady work hours that often come with part-time employment leads to additional challenges for women.
“Women working more hours are likely to experience the stressful effects of overwork and may often have no choice but to work overtime hours or lose their job,” the report says. “However, the over 12 million women working part time in hourly jobs are at greatest risk of both highly erratic schedules and of extreme income fluctuation."
Women were found to be slightly more likely to work jobs paid on an hourly basis: 61 percent compared with 56 percent of men. As a result, their income is more likely to fluctuate based on how many hours they are assigned to work per week or month. Additionally, their off time can be difficult to control or predict because of last-minute scheduling.
Erratic hours can be particularly hard on women, who tend to spend more time than men performing household chores and caring for children. A 2014 Bureau of Labor Statistics survey found women in households with children under the age of 6 spent roughly an hour a day attending to their physical needs, whereas men spent roughly half an hour.
On a conference call with reporters to discuss the report, Albuquerque, New Mexico, activist Kris Buchmann said she has been “treated like my life outside of work didn’t matter” while working hourly jobs in retail.
“I can’t tell you how many times I was asked to close and then turn around and come back in after five or six hours off,” she said. “It’s not enough for a full night’s sleep or showering or anything else I have to do."
Other times, “they would call me into work, I would show up, and they would say, ‘Oh, never mind. We don’t need you,’” she said. Such unpredictability made it difficult for her to know when she would need to find child care for her son.
University of Massachusetts at Amherst sociologist Naomi Gerstel, who wrote the book “Unequal Time: Gender, Class and Family in Employment Schedules” with Dan Clawson, said erratic scheduling exists “across the entire class spectrum” but falls especially hard on low-wage workers.
If you’re in a stable, full-time position, “you’re more likely to be able to say no or find substitutes” such as baby sitters and other care workers, she said. Additionally, some higher-paying workplaces are “changing occupations to make it possible for especially women workers to take on what’s defined as flexibility."
But perks such as maternity leave have not filtered down the income ladder. And long-term changes in family structure have created a “double-edged sword” for some workers, said Gerstel. Births to unmarried women have risen steadily since the 1940s, according the U.S. Census Bureau, so more single mothers have been forced to negotiate child care on top of their work schedules.
That’s beginning to change in some parts of the country. Carrie Gleason, the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fair Workweek Initiative director, told reporters on a conference call that 11 states “have introduced some form of work hours legislation, and this is an issue that was basically not on the map last year.”
Buchmann is part of a campaign to get predictable scheduling legislation passed in New Mexico. In November, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors approved a legislative package known as the Retail Worker Bill of Rights, which is, in part, intended to enforce more predictable scheduling for retail workers.
Source: Al Jazeera
A Campaign for Full Employment, and the Federal Reserve
Fed Up Field Director Shawn Sebastian with the Center for Popular Democracy joins us to talk about their campaign...
Fed Up Field Director Shawn Sebastian with the Center for Popular Democracy joins us to talk about their campaign pushing the Federal Reserve to adopt pro-worker policies, keeping interest rates low, and how they re getting public support to build a better economy.
CHARLES SHOWALTER AND SHAWN SEBASTIAN
Source
NYTimes Letter to the Editor: Deportations for Minor Offenses
New York Times - April 13, 2014 To the Editor: Re “...
New York Times - April 13, 2014
To the Editor:
Re “More Deportations Follow Minor Crimes, Data Shows” (front page, April 7):
It’s a mistake to focus the debate about immigration enforcement on the question of which immigrants are sufficiently “criminal” to deserve deportation. When the Obama administration talks about deporting people with convictions, they are talking about people who have already served their sentences for those convictions.
If you are a citizen who commits an offense, you pay the penalty issued by the criminal legal system, and then you are free to try to rebuild your life. If you are a noncitizen who commits that same offense and pays that same penalty, you can be subjected to the double punishment of permanent exile from your home and family.
This two-tiered system of justice is morally abhorrent regardless of how serious the underlying offense may have been. It’s an unfairness compounded by the well-documented unfairness of the criminal legal system itself, which disproportionately targets poor people and minorities.
Let’s not rely on our corrupt criminal justice system to justify the operations of our corrupt immigration system.
EMILY TUCKER Brooklyn, April 7, 2014
The writer is staff attorney for immigrant rights and racial justice at the Center for Popular Democracy.
Source
2 days ago
2 days ago