KKR, Bain Create $20 Million Fund for Toys ‘R’ Us Workers
Toys “R” Us shuttered its last stores at the end of June and its liquidation left more than 30,000 workers without...
Toys “R” Us shuttered its last stores at the end of June and its liquidation left more than 30,000 workers without expected severance payouts. That prompted months of lobbying by the employees, organized in part by advocacy groups linked to the Center for Popular Democracy. Those groups estimate that workers are owed $75 million in severance pay and they have pressed Toys “R” Us creditors Angelo Gordon and Solus Alternative Asset Management to contribute to the fund, but the hedge funds have so far declined.
Read the full article here.
Why retailers are moving away from ‘on-call’ shift scheduling
Why retailers are moving away from ‘on-call’ shift scheduling
For more than two decades, workers in the retail and restaurant industries have struggled to balance family life and...
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
"Fed Up" to Bankers in Jackson Hole: Help Working People
"Fed Up" to Bankers in Jackson Hole: Help Working People
JACKSON HOLE, Wyo. – The nation's most powerful bankers are descending on Jackson Hole this week for the Federal...
JACKSON HOLE, Wyo. – The nation's most powerful bankers are descending on Jackson Hole this week for the Federal Reserve's annual economic symposium, and they'll be met by a coalition of labor and policy groups who want a say in how the economy is mapped out.
Shawn Sebastian, co-director of the Fed Up Campaign, says the biggest decision facing the Trump administration is who to pick for Fed chair.
Read the full article here.
Here Are the City Policies That Democrats Need to be Talking About
Here Are the City Policies That Democrats Need to be Talking About
This has been an incredibly disturbing election year: to a degree unprecedented in our lifetimes, hatred and xenophobia...
This has been an incredibly disturbing election year: to a degree unprecedented in our lifetimes, hatred and xenophobia are being marshalled to support a reactionary nationalistic agenda. As leaders of Local Progress, a network of more than 500 progressive elected officials from cities and towns across the country, we stand together in support of a positive vision to make America great: economic inclusion, racial and gender equity, sustainable communities, and good government that serves the public interest.
This week, as Republicans and Democrats gather for their national conventions, Local Progress is releasing a national platform of our own. We adopted the platform on July 9 in Pittsburgh at our Fifth Annual Convening, which was attended by over 100 local elected officials from around the country and hosted by Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto.
Our platform lays out a series of practical and transformational steps that the federal government can take to promote strong, equitable cities. On an array of issues – from affordable housing and environmental protection to workers’ rights and police reform – we’ve identified strategies Congress and the executive branch can take to support, incentivize, and collaborate with local government officials like us who are trying to help our constituents build dignified and secure lives. You can read our full platform here.
With conservatives in control of Congress and a large majority of statehouses, many of the most important policy developments in recent years have come from the local level. In our cities of Minneapolis and New York, for example, we’ve passed paid sick days laws that guarantee workers time off to care for themselves and their loved ones. Earned sick time is a worker rights issue, but it’s also about gender and racial equity, because those previously lacking paid sick days are overwhelmingly women and people of color. Our cities are also confronting the affordable housing crisis with inclusionary housing laws; pushing for reform of our police departments to eliminate discriminatory policing and keep our communities safe; and shifting budget priorities to invest in the infrastructure, programs and services that help all of our constituents thrive.
These city policies have transformed the national discourse. Hillary Clinton’s support for a higher federal minimum wage is a testament to the power of the workers, community-based organizations, and policy advocates who set such a worthy goal and to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who did so much to build momentum for the issue and pull her along. But it’s also a testament to Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington DC, and other cities that have actually passed $15 minimum wages and are shifting the boundaries of mainstream discourse. The members of Local Progress have been at the frontlines of these fights in cities around the country, and we are proud to stand in the trenches with constituents who are working so bravely to build a more just society.
But the fact is that we cannot do it alone. The devastation wrought by the water crisis in Flint brought national attention to a reality being felt across the country: localities are starved of the resources they need to provide crucial services for their residents, particularly for low-income families and communities of color. As public servants, we believe in the power of government to improve the lives of our constituents. However, too often federal and state governments are an obstacle, not an aid, to advancing local policies that address these urgent issues.
In too many states, cities do not receive the financial resources they need to build strong schools, run proper public transit systems, or keep parks clean and safe. And we are often prohibited from passing laws to raise the revenue we need. Beyond financial constraints, many states are preempting cities’ ability to pass common sense regulations: smart gun safety laws, livable wages for workers (a limitation that affects New York City), and a just transition to a clean energy economy.
In short, we need the federal government to help us. Here are a few examples, drawn from our platform, that show how the next Congress and Administration can help city governments make a huge difference in our constituents’ lives:
The Department of Education can double down on investments in community schools that have been proven to reduce inequities, as well as restorative justice programs to help end the school-to-prison pipeline. And it can evaluate for-profit charter schools to determine whether they are exacerbating segregation and adhering to basic standards of accountability.
Congress can support the creation and preservation of affordable housing with a significant expansion of the Section 8 voucher program and public housing, as well as a stronger commitment to programs that prevent homelessness. And the Department of Housing and Urban Development can ensure the distressed mortgages it sells help the community – rather than Wall Street speculators.
The Department of Transportation can partner with cities to strengthen Vision Zero and “complete streets” initiatives that improve access to public transit and prioritize safety, sustainability, and racial and economic equity.
The Department of Labor can collaborate with cities to enforce labor standards and respond to the challenges created by the on-demand economy.
And, of course, the federal government must help eliminate the racially disparate impact of local policing and criminal justice systems. The Department of Justice should strengthen its oversight of local police departments, ensure that special prosecutors conduct investigations of alleged police misconduct, and curtail the transfers of military equipment to local departments. And it should incentivize the creation of alternatives to incarceration such as mental health and addiction services in both states and localities.
More than ever, we need strong cities and strong city leaders. The truth is that, right now, Congress is not working for the American people. Cities are leading the way, and will continue to do so. We hope that next year, with a new Congress and a President committed to inclusion, equity, and shared prosperity, Washington DC will give our nation’s cities the support we need to promote genuine social justice for America.
By RITCHIE TORRES AND LISA BENDER
Source
Lawmakers' Vision for the Fed: More Diversity, More Congressional Sway
Lawmakers' Vision for the Fed: More Diversity, More Congressional Sway
Democrat and Republican lawmakers on Wednesday took issue with the current structure of regional Federal Reserve Bank...
Democrat and Republican lawmakers on Wednesday took issue with the current structure of regional Federal Reserve Bank boards, though they couldn't agree on how to reform the quazi-private-public firms.
The twelve regional Fed banks have come under increased scrutiny in recent months after Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton issued a statement in May saying she supports removing bankers from regional Fed boards and increasing director diversity. Her comments heightened the public profile of an issue that otherwise hasn't received much focus.
A key point of debate was concerns by consumer groups that having bankers on regional Fed boards creates a conflict of interest since reserve bank staff supervise big and small commercial banks in their districts. This contrasts to the central bank in Washington, which is a government agency with governors that are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
For example, among the nine directors who serve on the New York Fed board are Morgan Stanley (MS) CEO James Gorman and two community bank chief executives.
House Republicans indicated during a subcommittee hearing of the House Financial Services Committee that they weren't overly concerned by bank CEOs serving on such quasi-private boards while Democrats questioned the diversity of the panels.
"I don't object to bankers being on the boards," Gwen Moore, D-Wisc., told reporters after the hearing. "I'm concerned about the voice of other directors who are there and their efficacy to participate fully and about mobilizing and empowering them once they are there."
Moore, the top Democrat on the Monetary Policy and Trade subcommittee, said she the boards need more diversity, noting that none of them have hired a Latino or African American as president of the regional Fed banks where they serve.
Meanwhile, demonstrators from a consortium of consumer groups calling itself "Fed Up" attended the hearing, dressed in green shirts with slogans such as "16 of 17 Fed leaders are white."
The group also took issue with bankers on the regional Fed boards and, in their view, a lack of board diversity.
"When these voices are excluded from the conversation, then our interests are excluded," Ruben Lucio, a representative from the Center for Popular Democracy and a member of Fed Up, told reporters outside of the hearing.
According to current rules, regional boards have nine directors divided into three classes. Three banking directors are elected by member banks, another three are designated by the same banks to represent the public and interests of commerce, industry, labor and consumers, and the final class is appointed by Fed governors to represent the public.
Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., said he wanted to delve more deeply into bank executives serving on the boards but noted that the Kansas City Fed, which covers the district he represents, appears to be quite diverse based on a variety of metrics.
It "has a diverse board ethnically, gender wise, labor wise, regional within the Fed and that was the template I'm using," Perlmutter said.
Two regional Fed presidents, meanwhile, pushed back against concerns about conflicts of interest during their testimony.
Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker noted that strict rules govern their conduct. "They simply have no avenue through which they can influence supervisory matters," Lacker said.
And Esther George, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pointed out that bankers who serve on reserve bank boards are prohibited from participating in the selection of bank presidents.
Republicans, meanwhile, focused much of their attention on whether too much influence over monetary policy is wielded by the East Coast, particularly the New York Fed.
Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., and chairman of the monetary policy subcommittee, argued that lawmakers should back legislation he sponsored, the Federal Oversight Reform and Modernization Act, or FORM, which includes a provision that would reduce the influence of the New York bank.
The Federal Open Market Committee, the branch of the central bank that determines monetary policy, has 12 voting members made up of seven members of the Fed board of governors and five of the regional Fed banks.
The president of the New York Fed, which supervises Wall Street firms from JPMorgan Chase (JPM) to Goldman Sachs (GS) and Citigroup (C) , is a permanent voting member but the other regional bank presidents serve rotating one-year terms. Huizenga's legislation would put the New York Fed president into the voting rotation along with all the other regional bank chiefs.
"For crying out loud, the San Francisco bank has a tremendously important area," Huizenga told reporters after the hearing. "Silicon Valley, that stretches from LA to Seattle, has tremendously valuable input and to have them only be a voting member every two or three years doesn't make a lot of sense to me."
Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah, said she was concerned that the Western states weren't well represented by the regional Fed bank structure.
"You have members on both sides of the aisle expressing concerns and I would like to know what might be done to rebalance the Fed to ensure that all Americans are represented in monetary policy decisions," she said.
Don Lamson, of counsel at Squire Patton Boggs in Washington and a former regulator at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, suggested that if the goal is to create greater accountability to Congress, legislators should require the Fed regional bank system to be funded through congressional appropriations instead of the self-funding that exists now.
With that structure, legislators could remove the regional Fed boards, transforming the quazi-private-public entities into government agencies.
An appropriations process, however, would destroy the independence of the Fed, which is vital to setting interest rates and supervising banks appropriately, Moore argued.
Expanding legislative influence would also open Federal Reserve funding to unrelated policy measures that might be attached in an attempt to get them passed. "Come meet with me I'm the chairman of the Fed's appropriations committee," Moore said facetiously.
By Ronald Orol
Source
300+ Arrested in Mass Civil Disobedience Protests at the Nation's Capitol
300+ Arrested in Mass Civil Disobedience Protests at the Nation's Capitol
By Greenpeace In the final day of a record-setting week of civil disobedience at the Capitol, more than 300 people were...
By Greenpeace
In the final day of a record-setting week of civil disobedience at the Capitol, more than 300 people were arrested Monday as they demanded democracy reforms.
Yesterday's arrests came on the third and final day of Democracy Awakening. Combined with arrests made during the recent Democracy Spring, the protests constituted what organizers believe is a record for civil disobedience over democracy issues during this century.
The message: On voting rights, money in politics and the recent vacancy on U.S. Supreme Court, Congress is failing to do its job and ignoring the will of the people. Democracy Awakening isn't the end of something, but the beginning of a new phase in the movement for democracy, organizers said.
Those who planned to risk arrest included NAACP president and CEO Cornell William Brooks; the Rev. William Barber II, pastor and Moral Monday architect; radio commentator Jim Hightower; Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, co-founders of Ben and Jerry's; Greenpeace Executive Director Annie Leonard; and Sierra Club President Aaron Mair.
Here's what they had to say about why they risked arrest at our nation's Capitol:
"I'm willing to risk arrest, arm in arm with partners from the civil rights and the labor movements, in order to help fix our democracy," Leonard said. "We will never get the kind of political progress needed to challenge climate change and systemic racism if corporate cash continues to mean more to politicians than the voices of the people."
"Democracy is supposed to be for all of us, but right now we have an out-of-balance system favoring the interests of big money," Cohen said. "This can't go on. I'm prepared to risk arrest to send a message that democracy should truly be of, by, and for the people."
"At a certain point, you have to say enough is enough," Greenfield said. "I have decided to risk arrest because we can't continue to have a political system where ordinary people are shut out of the process. It's not what our founders envisioned, and it's not what democracy is supposed to be about."
"We cannot sit by and watch obstructionists push an agenda of inequity, injustice and inaction -- and I'm willing to risk being arrested in order to make my voice heard in in the fight to ensure that every voice can be heard in our democracy," Mair said. "All too often, the costs of these assaults on our democracy fall on low-income communities and communities of color that already face disproportionate effects from pollution and the climate crisis. A zip code should never dictate the destiny of any American citizen."
Thousands of activists from around the country streamed into the nation's capital April 16-18 for Democracy Awakening, which featured teach-ins, a rally, a march and lobbying as well as the civil disobedience. The aim: to fight back against business as usual in Washington, DC.
More than 300 organizations endorsed Democracy Awakening. Democracy Awakening is part of a broad movement aimed at advancing democracy reforms. The mobilization began April 2, with Democracy Spring, an event that featured a march from Philadelphia to Washington D.C., followed by six days of sit-ins at the Capitol.
Others who planned to risk arrest included top leaders of the AFL-CIO, All Souls Unitarian Church, the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Postal Workers Union, Campaign for America's Future, Democracy Initiative, Center for Popular Democracy, Communications Workers of America, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Every Voice, Food & Water Watch, Franciscan Action Network, Free Speech for People, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Jobs With Justice, the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church; the NAACP, Oil Change International, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, the United Church of Christ, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, We Are Casa, the Yes Men and 350.org.
Source
Will Maria response energize CT Puerto Rican voters?
A year after Hurricane Maria ravaged Puerto Rico, there is a debate about whether the storm has created political winds...
A year after Hurricane Maria ravaged Puerto Rico, there is a debate about whether the storm has created political winds that will prompt Connecticut’s Puerto Ricans to shed their reputation as unlikely voters.
Read the full article here.
New York City's Undocumented Immigrants Will Get Municipal IDs, Says Mayor De Blasio
Huffington Post - February 10, 2014 - New York City's undocumented immigrants will soon be able to obtain municipal ID...
Huffington Post - February 10, 2014 - New York City's undocumented immigrants will soon be able to obtain municipal ID cards, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced Monday.
"We will protect the almost half-million undocumented New Yorkers, whose voices too often go unheard," the mayor said during his first State of the City speech. "We will reach out to all New Yorkers, regardless of immigration status -- issuing municipal ID cards available to all New Yorkers this year -- so that no daughter or son of our city goes without bank accounts, leases, library cards… simply because they lack identification. To all of my fellow New Yorkers who are undocumented, I say: New York City is your home too, and we will not force ANY of our residents to live their lives in the shadows."
"La ciudad de Nueva York es el hogar de todos los que vivimos aqui. No dejaremos que ninguno de nuestros residentes viva en las sombras," de Blasio repeated in Spanish, a nod to the city's large Latino population.
A source in the mayor's office told Spanish-language El Diario la Prensa on Monday that de Blasio will officially submit the proposal soon.
The city ID card would not operate as a driver's license, nor would it be accepted as a form of identification by federal agencies.
It does fulfill one of de Blasio's many campaign promises. "These identification cards will also help foster better relations between the police and undocumented people, who often choose not to report crimes out of fear they may be deported," reads a section of de Blasio's campaign website from last year. "In New Haven, Connecticut -- which offers a municipal ID to undocumented people -- crime in the largely-immigrant Fair Haven community declined 20 percent in the two years after the IDs were introduced, even as crime-reporting increased."
City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito told Politicker she has “full confidence” that “a universal ID will become a reality as soon as possible.”
Ten other cities across the country including San Francisco, Trenton, and Washington, D.C. have already created their own municipal ID programs.
New York State Senators Adriano Espaillat (D) and Jose Peralta (D), both of New York City, expressed support for de Blasio's proposal in a joint statement. They also took the opportunity to advance another cause: allowing immigrants to apply for drivers licenses. From the statement:
"...it is unacceptable that hardworking immigrants are made to break the law in order to commute to work or take their kids to school," they wrote. "Providing undocumented immigrants the opportunity to obtain drivers licenses will ensure that all New York drivers are properly credentialed, educated and operating registered, inspected and insured vehicles, making our roads safer and benefiting all New Yorkers."
De Blasio himself has previously supported allowing undocumented immigrants in New York to apply for driver's licenses.
Source
Left-Wing Group is Investing $7 Million in Grassroots for November General Election
Left-Wing Group is Investing $7 Million in Grassroots for November General Election
What is the GOP and the conservative Right doing in response? A leading left-wing community organizing group is...
What is the GOP and the conservative Right doing in response?
A leading left-wing community organizing group is building a massive grassroots advocacy and voter turnout operation in battleground states that could decide November’s presidential and Senate elections, documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon reveal.
The Center for Popular Democracy is working to raise more than $7 million to support local and state-level organizing work that it hopes will translate issue-oriented advocacy into political power in November.
Documents detailing those efforts shed new light on how the left’s organizing apparatus is collaborating with prominent progressive groups such as MoveOn.org, labor unions, and foundations to build a campaign apparatus that can win short-term policy victories and translate those victories into a lasting political operation.
By Spencer Irvine
Source
Fed Leaves Interest Rates Unchanged
WASHINGTON — One of the longest economic expansions in American history remains so fragile that the ...
WASHINGTON — One of the longest economic expansions in American history remains so fragile that the Federal Reserve said on Thursday it would postpone any retreat from its stimulus campaign.
Janet L. Yellen, the Fed’s chairwoman, described the decision as a close call and said the central bank still expected to raise interest rates later this year. The Fed has kept its benchmark interest rate close to zero since late 2008, when the nation’s economy was at the depths of crisis.
“The recovery from the Great Recession has advanced sufficiently far and domestic spending has been sufficiently robust that an argument can be made for a rise in interest rates at this time,” Ms. Yellen said at a news conference.
But, she said, “heightened uncertainties abroad,” including the Chinese economy’s weakness, had persuaded the bank to wait at least a few more weeks for fresh data that might “bolster its confidence” in continued growth.
The Fed’s decision, announced after a two-day meeting of its policy-making committee, had been widely expected by investors in recent weeks.
Fed officials spent most of the summer suggesting that they wanted to raise rates in September, only to lose confidence as signs of slowing global growth weighed on markets.
The 10-year Treasury note yield fell 0.11 percentage points to 2.189 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index dropped 0.26 percent to 1,990.20.
There were signs, however, that the Fed might hesitate only briefly. It separately released economic projections showing 13 of the 17 officials on the Federal Open Market Committee still expected to raise the benchmark rate this year.
The Fed has said it is moving toward raising rates because it expects economic growth to continue, reducing unemployment and eventually raising inflation; on Thursday, Ms. Yellen said that outlook had not changed.
“There’s a tendency among some to think that they’re always going to get cold feet, and I thought Yellen really as much as possible discouraged that kind of thinking,” said John L. Bellows, a portfolio manager at Western Asset Management.
The policy-making committee still has scheduled meetings in October and December, and Ms. Yellen said a rate increase was possible at either meeting.
One official, Jeffrey M. Lacker, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, in Virginia, voted to raise rates at the September meeting, the first dissent this year. The economic projections suggest that Ms. Yellen faces more disagreements at the Fed’s October meeting, given that six officials predicted the Fed would raise rates at least two times this year, while four said that they expected no increases.
The latest postponement was welcomed by liberal activists and economists who argue that the recovery remains incomplete. Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, introduced legislation on Thursday directing the Fed to push the unemployment rate below 4 percent. While the bill has no chance of winning approval in the Republican-controlled Congress, Mr. Conyers addressed a rally organized by the Center for Popular Democracy outside an office building where Ms. Yellen spoke, joining in a chant of “Don’t raise interest rates.”
Critics expressed concern that the Fed has adopted increasingly ambitious goals for its stimulus campaign. “There is always a reason to chicken out,” said Dean Croushore, a professor of economics at the University of Richmond. “The Fed will lose credibility over time, as it fails to follow its own prior announcements about when it will increase rates.”
Ms. Yellen, asked about the efforts to put public pressure on the Fed, which have mounted in recent months, dryly observed, “We have been receiving advice from a large number of economists and interested groups.”
She denied that outside pressure had influenced the Fed’s decision. She also said it had not been influenced by concerns about a potential government shutdown, which could disrupt growth, though she said that it “would be more than unfortunate.”
The Fed’s decision is probably a “mixed blessing” for the global economy,” Eswar S. Prasad, an economics professor at Cornell, said in an email. Instead of new pressures, investors must deal with continued uncertainty.
A Fed increase, for example, might have prompted investors to pull money out of countries like Turkey or Brazil, damaging their economies, and reduced demand for imports from Europe and other developed countries. But the decision to stand pat also could weigh on Europe in the short term if it causes the euro to rise against the dollar, making things harder for exporters.
The American economy is outpacing the rest of the world, and Ms. Yellen said on Thursday that the Fed did not yet see evidence that growth was slowing.
Fed officials say they believe that labor market conditions have nearly returned to normal. In the new round of economic projections, officials estimated unemployment would stabilize next year at 4.8 percent, just below the August level of 5.1 percent.
Officials also remain confident that inflation will rebound, although perhaps a little slowly because of the recent downturn in the prices of oil and other commodities. Since the financial crisis, inflation has remained consistently below the central bank’s 2 percent annual target, lately rising just 0.3 percent over the previous year.
Fed officials argue that a tighter labor market will lead to higher inflation as employers are finally prodded to pay higher wages. But, Ms. Yellen said on Thursday, that will happen more slowly than the unemployment rate might suggest, because people not counted among the unemployed — like those who have stopped looking for work or have taken part-time jobs — may start looking again as conditions improve.
James A. Wilcox, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, said that it was difficult to find evidence for a strong connection between inflation and employment, particularly over the last decade. Inflation fell less than expected during the recession, and it has increased less than expected in the aftermath.
“The events of the last 10 years have caused a lot of rethinking and stomach acid within the Federal Reserve and the research community,” Dr. Wilcox said.
Recent history has reinforced the more basic point that it takes a lot to change the underlying pace of inflation. That stability has allowed the Fed to press its stimulus campaign, but Dr. Wilcox said it also provided a good reason for the Fed to be wary of allowing inflation to climb, because reversing the trend could be very painful.
“If the heat builds slowly, and it can only be turned down slowly, then you have to move ahead of time,” he said. “That’s why there’s sympathy for the idea of starting to raise rates relatively soon.”
Given the weakness of economic growth, however, Ms. Yellen reiterated on Thursday that the Fed planned to raise rates more slowly than its past practice. Fed officials expect the benchmark rate to reach 2.6 percent by the end of 2017.
In June, they predicted the rate would reach 2.9 percent. Officials also expect the rate to reach a new plateau of about 3.5 percent, less than the June prediction of 3.8 percent and significantly below the level once regarded as normal. Such a low plateau would limit the Fed’s ability to respond to economic downturns.
The Fed has already held its benchmark rate near zero much longer than it once expected. It announced in 2012 that it would keep rates near zero at least until the unemployment rate fell below 6.5 percent. That threshold was crossed in April 2014.
Last winter, when the Fed ended its bond-buying campaign, officials pointed to June as the most likely moment for “liftoff” from the so-called zero bound.
Some officials have made clear they are not inclined to wait much longer.
Stanley Fischer, vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned in late August that officials would not be able to postpone a decision until all doubts were resolved. “When the case is overwhelming,” he said, “if you wait that long, then you’ve waited too long.”
Ms. Yellen echoed that warning on Thursday. “We don’t want to wait until we’ve fully met both of our objectives to tighten monetary policy,” she said.
The Fed’s hesitation on Thursday echoed events of two years ago, when investors expected the central bank to announce at its September 2013 meeting that it was tapering its bond purchases. The Fed demurred, citing uncertainty about economic conditions.
Instead of September, it acted in December.
Source: New York Times
4 days ago
4 days ago