Some of those workers may have retired. Others may be waiting to come back when health risks from the virus are less pronounced, or may be struggling to find child care amid regular school shutdowns.

Still, there is plenty of evidence of momentum underlying the uneven economic recovery. A record number of Americans quit their jobs in November, as intense competition, especially in lower-wage sectors, has presented workers with opportunities to demand and seek higher wages and better working conditions.

“We’ve seen these subsequent waves,” Mr. Bunker said. “And then things have reverted to the underlying strength.”

Economic policymakers at the Federal Reserve are aware that many workers are still missing from the labor force, but they have increasingly signaled that they will not wait for workers to return to remove help for the economy. With wages rising and inflation at its highest in nearly 40 years, officials are trying to make sure that prices remain under control.

The figures released on Friday will probably confirm to them that the economy is closing on their full employment goal.

“A lot of the focus at the Fed will be on the lower unemployment rate,” said Gennadiy Goldberg, senior rates strategist at TD Securities, noting that markets actually increased their expectations of rate increases in 2022 after the data release.

Officials have signaled that they could raise interest rates several times this year in a bid to slow spending and cool off a fast-growing economy, and economists think those moves could start as soon as this spring. For now, Fed policymakers seem content to define “full employment” — their job-market goal — as low joblessness.

“I don’t think it’s a matter of some internal conflict between hiking and full employment,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan. When it comes to declaring victory on job-market progress, he said, “most of them are already there.”

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/business/economy/jobs-report-december-2021.html

“It makes sense to get going sooner rather than later,” James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said during a call with reporters on Thursday, suggesting that the moves could come very soon. “I think March would be a definite possibility.”

And officials have signaled that once rate increases start, they could promptly begin to shrink their balance sheet — where they hold the bonds they have purchased to stoke growth throughout the pandemic downturn. Doing that would help to lift longer-term interest rates, reinforcing rate increases and helping to further slow lending and spending.

Economists speculated following the jobs report that the new figures made an imminent rate increase even more likely, and that the central bank might even be prodded to remove its economic support more quickly as wages take off.

“We think that today’s report adds to the case for the Fed to kick off its hiking cycle in March,” researchers at Bank of America wrote following the release of the data. “The economy appears to be operating below maximum employment and inflation remains sticky-high.”

Krishna Guha, an economist at Evercore ISI, argued that the combination of rapidly declining unemployment and heady wages might even prompt central bankers to increase interest rates faster than once every three months — the fastest pace they increased in their last set of interest rate increases, which took place from 2015 to 2018.

“The Fed might end up having to hike at a pace faster than the baseline one hike per quarter,” Mr. Guha wrote.

Investors will get a chance to hear from key Fed officials themselves next week. Jerome H. Powell, whom President Biden has renominated as Fed chair, has a confirmation hearing on Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee. Lael Brainard, now a governor and Mr. Biden’s pick to be vice chair, has a hearing on Thursday.

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/business/economy/jobs-interest-rates-federal-reserve.html

That’s because Fed officials were actively rescuing a broad swath of markets in 2020: In March and April, they slashed rates to zero, bought mortgage-tied and government bonds in mass quantities, and rolled out rescue programs for corporate and municipal debt. Continuing to trade in affected securities for their own portfolios throughout the year could have given them room to profit from their privileged knowledge. At a minimum, it created an appearance problem, one that Mr. Powell himself has acknowledged.

Mr. Kaplan resigned in September, citing the scandal; Mr. Rosengren resigned simultaneously, citing health issues. Mr. Clarida’s term ends at the close of this month, which it was scheduled to do before news of the scandal broke.

Mr. Clarida’s trades, which Bloomberg reported earlier, also raised eyebrows among lawmakers, including Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who has demanded a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into Fed officials’ 2020 trading. But many ethics experts had seen the transaction as more benign, if poorly timed, because it happened in a broad-based index and the Fed had said it was part of a planned and longer-term investment strategy.

The new disclosure casts doubt on that explanation, given that Mr. Clarida sold out of stocks just days before moving back into them.

“It’s peculiar,” said Norman Eisen, an ethics official in the Obama White House who said he probably would not have approved such a trade. “It’s fair to ask — in what respect does this constitute a rebalancing?”

Ms. Warren reacted to the news on Twitter, calling the situation “deeply troubling” and saying that stock trading should be banned among federal officials.

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/business/economy/richard-clarida-fed-stock-fund.html

The minutes showed that both considerations weighed on policymakers’ minds as they considered their future actions, but as the labor market has healed swiftly, they have begun turning their attention decisively toward the threat of too-high inflation. The Fed is tasked with two main jobs, fostering maximum employment and keeping prices relatively stable.

“Several participants remarked that they viewed labor market conditions as already largely consistent with maximum employment,” the minutes said. At the same time, some officials noted that it might be smart to raise rates even if the job market was not fully recovered if inflation showed signs of jumping out of control.

“It does cement that they’re definitely pivoting strongly toward rate hikes,” Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan, said after the release. Although it’s hard to pin down the timing, he said, “they are moving toward putting policy in a more restrictive setting.”

There’s a reason for the Fed’s active stance. Inflation has been alarmingly high for much longer than central bankers expected. Last year, policymakers expected prices to pop temporarily as pandemic-affected sectors like airlines and restaurants recovered, then return to normal.

Instead, prices through November climbed the most since 1982, and monthly gains remained brisk. Factory shutdowns and tangled shipping lines have made it hard for suppliers to catch up with booming consumer demand for goods, forcing costs up. Price gains have also begun to spread: Rents are increasing more quickly, which could make high inflation more persistent.

Inflation is broadly expected to fade this spring, as prices are measured against relatively high levels from a year earlier. Prices may also decelerate as producers catch up with demand, officials hope. But policymakers lack certainty about when that will happen.

Officials projected in their December economic estimates that inflation will ease to 2.6 percent by the end of 2022, but estimates ranged from 2 percent to 3.2 percent. To put those numbers into context, the Fed’s preferred price index climbed 5.7 percent through November, and the central bank targets 2 percent annual gains on average over time.

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/business/economy/federal-reserve-minutes-interest-rates.html

Called near-shoring, the move to Mexico is paralleled in Europe with factories opening in Eastern Europe to serve Western European markets like France and Germany.

“We’re starting to see it in Mexico as well as in the U.S.,” said Theresa Wagler, chief financial officer of Steel Dynamics, a steel maker based in Fort Wayne, Ind. “Many companies now prefer security of supply over cost.”

Mr. Knizek of EY-Parthenon expects industries with complex and more expensive products to lead the resurgence, including automobiles, semiconductors, defense and aviation and pharmaceuticals. Anything that requires large amounts of manual labor, or that is difficult to automate, is much less likely to return.

For items like shoes or furniture or holiday lights, for example, “the economics are daunting,” said Willy C. Shih, a professor at Harvard Business School. “It’s hard to beat wages of $2.50 an hour.”

Although trade tensions and shipping delays are making headlines, Professor Shih added, China retains huge advantages, like a mammoth work force, easy access to raw materials and low-cost factories. “For a lot of what American consumers buy, there aren’t a lot of good alternatives,” he added.

But as the moves by auto and tech companies show, the United States can attract more sophisticated manufacturing. That has been a goal shared by Republican and Democratic administrations, including President Biden’s, which supports $52 billion in subsidies for domestic chip manufacturing.

“Incentives to help level the playing field are a key piece,” said David Moore, chief strategy officer and senior vice president at Micron. “Building a leading-edge memory fabrication facility is a sizable investment; it’s not just a billion or two here and there. These are major decisions.”

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/business/economy/supply-chain-reshoring-us-manufacturing.html

Automakers are also contending with the transition to electric cars and trucks. Many companies are spending tens of billions of dollars designing battery-powered models and building plants to produce them. They are racing to catch up to Tesla, which sells a large majority of electric vehicles now.

But most established automakers are unlikely to gain ground in U.S. electric vehicle sales this year because they are not in a position to produce many tens of thousands of such cars for at least another year or two.

And Tesla, which was founded in 2003, is not standing still. After reporting a nearly 90 percent jump in global sales last year, to just shy of one million, the company plans to start mass production at two new factories this year, near Austin, Texas, and Berlin. It has been less affected by the chip shortage because it was able to switch to types of chips that are more readily available.

The electric-car maker does not break out sales by country, but Cox Automotive estimated that it sold more than 330,000 in the United States, or roughly as many vehicles as Mercedes-Benz and BMW each sold here.

Ford is perhaps the only major automaker that could pose a serious competitive threat to Tesla this year. This spring, Ford plans to start selling an electric version of its F-150 pickup truck, the top-selling vehicle in the United States. The company has taken more than 200,000 reservations for that truck, the F-150 Lightning, and hopes to produce more than 50,000 this year. It is increasing production at a plant near Detroit to build 80,000 in 2023 and up to 150,000 in 2024.

“The F-150 is the most important franchise in our company,” Kumar Galhotra, president of Ford’s Americas and international markets group, said in an interview. “The F-150 Lightning shows how serious our commitment is to the E.V. market.”

Ford has been selling a popular electric sport-utility vehicle, the Mustang Mach E, for nearly a year. It said Tuesday that it aimed to increase production of the Mach E to 200,000 vehicles a year by 2023.

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/04/business/toyota-car-sales-2021.html

Americans are pessimistic about the economy. Only 21 percent of adults said their finances were better off than a year ago, according to a survey released Tuesday — down from 26 percent when the question was asked a year earlier, even though, by most measures, the economy had improved substantially during that period. The survey of 5,365 adults was conducted last month for The New York Times by Momentive, the online research firm formerly known as SurveyMonkey.

Overall consumer confidence is at the lowest level in the nearly five years Momentive has been conducting its survey. Republicans have been particularly pessimistic about the economy since President Biden took office a year ago, but in recent months, Democrats too have become more dour. Other surveys have found similar results.

Inflation appears to be a big reason for people’s dark outlook. Nearly nine in 10 Americans say they are at least “somewhat concerned” about inflation, and six in 10 are “very concerned,” the survey found. Worries about inflation cross generational, racial and even partisan lines: 95 percent of Republicans, 88 percent of independents and 82 percent of Democrats say they are concerned.

“Pretty much the only group of people who say they’re better off now than they were a year ago are people who’ve gotten a pay raise that matches or beats inflation,” said Laura Wronski, a research scientist at Momentive.

There aren’t many of them. Only 17 percent of workers say they have received raises that kept up with inflation over the past year. Most of the rest say either that they have received raises that lagged price increases or that they have received no raise at all; 8 percent of respondents said they had taken a pay cut.

Government data likewise shows that, in the aggregate, prices have risen faster than pay in recent months: The Consumer Price Index rose 6.8 percent in November, a nearly four-decade high; average hourly earnings rose 4.8 percent in November, and other measures likewise show pay gains lagging price increases.

Yet some workers are seeing much faster wage growth. Hourly earnings for leisure and hospitality workers were up 12.3 percent in November, much faster than inflation. Workers in other low-wage service sectors are also seeing strong gains.

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/04/business/economy/job-openings-coronavirus.html

The administration has limited power over prices: It is making tweaks around the edges to help to tamp them down, but keeping a lid on inflation is mostly the job of the Fed, which has signaled it expects to begin raising interest rates this year to help control it.

Still, as consumers feel the pinch of higher prices for food, gas and household goods, it’s creating a political messaging problem for Democrats. Lawmakers and the White House had initially argued that fast inflation was a sign that airfares and hotel rates were bouncing back and would fade quickly, but supply chain snarls and booming consumer demand for goods kept them elevated throughout 2021. More recently, price pressures have begun to broaden to service categories, like rent, in which increases tend to be long-lasting — and as wages climb swiftly, it raises the possibility that companies will keep lifting prices to cover their costs.

As inflation proves stubbornly sticky, administration officials and prominent lawmakers have refined their message to focus more blame on corporations, especially those in concentrated industries with a handful of powerful firms, like meat processing or gas.

Many companies — from car dealerships to beauty stores and beef sellers — are raking in bigger profits as they successfully raise their prices or discount less while still managing to sell as much or more. But economists have pointed out that in many cases, blaming big firms for worsening inflation is overly simplistic. Industries have been relatively concentrated for years, but businesses now have the wherewithal to charge more because consumers are spending strongly. That owes partly to government stimulus checks and other benefits that have put more money in shoppers’ pockets.

“It’s what you would fully expect when demand goes up,” said Jason Furman, a Harvard economist and a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration.

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/business/economy/inflation-democrats-corporations.html

That didn’t happen. Polls found the public roughly divided over whether the program should be extended, with opinions splitting along partisan and generational lines. And the expanded tax credit failed to win over the individual whose opinion mattered most: Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, who cited concerns over the cost and structure of the program in his decision to oppose Mr. Biden’s climate, tax and social policy bill. The bill, known as the Build Back Better Act, cannot proceed in the evenly divided Senate without Mr. Manchin’s support.

To supporters of the child benefit, the failure to extend it is especially frustrating because, according to most analyses, the program itself has been a remarkable success. Researchers at Columbia University estimate that the payments kept 3.8 million children out of poverty in November, a nearly 30 percent reduction in the child poverty rate. Other studies have found that the benefit reduced hunger, lowered financial stress among recipients and increased overall consumer spending, especially in rural states that received the most money per capita.

Congress last spring expanded the existing child tax credit in three ways. First, it made the benefit more generous, providing as much as $3,600 per child, up from $2,000. Second, it began paying the credit in monthly installments, usually deposited directly into recipients’ bank accounts, turning the once-yearly windfall into something closer to the children’s allowances common in Europe.

Finally, the bill made the full benefit available to millions who had previously been unable to take full advantage of the credit because they earned too little to qualify. Poverty experts say that change, known in tax jargon as “full refundability,” was particularly significant because without it, a third of children — including half of all Black and Hispanic children, and 70 percent of children being raised by single mothers — did not receive the full credit. Mr. Biden’s plan would have made that provision permanent.

“What we’ve seen with the child tax credit is a policy success story that was unfolding, but it’s a success story that we risk stoping in its tracks just as it was getting started,” said Megan Curran, director of policy at Columbia’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy. “The weight of the evidence is clear here in terms of what the policy is doing. It’s reducing child poverty and food insufficiency.”

But the expanded tax credit doesn’t just go to the poor. Couples earning as much as $150,000 a year could receive the full $3,600 benefit — $3,000 for children 6 and older — and even wealthier families qualify for the original $2,000 credit. Critics of the policy, including Mr. Manchin, have argued that it makes little sense to provide aid to relatively well-off families. Many supporters of the credit say they’d happily limit its availability to wealthier households in return for maintaining it for poorer ones.

Mr. Manchin has also publicly questioned the wisdom of unconditional cash payments, and has privately voiced concerns that recipients could spend the money on opioids, comments that were first reported by The Wall Street Journal and confirmed by a person familiar with the discussion. But a survey conducted by the Census Bureau found that most recipients used the money to buy food, clothing or other necessities, and many saved some of the money or paid down debt. Other surveys have found similar results.

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/02/business/economy/child-tax-credit.html

More power for workers doesn’t necessarily make workers happy

The tension between soaring demand and pandemic-limited supply showed up in the labor market in 2021 as well. The result was that workers were in command to a degree not seen in at least two decades.

This showed up across multiple dimensions. Wages have been rising rapidly. Companies have been forced to be more creative, flexible and aggressive in attracting a work force. The rate of people quitting their jobs soared. After two decades in which employers were mostly able to have their pick of workers, the tables had turned.

And people hated it.

That’s an exaggeration, of course. The Great Resignation is real, and plenty of people have taken advantage of this moment to secure a better, more rewarding employment arrangement. But in the aggregate, people view the state of the economy as horrendous.

In a Gallup poll in early December, 67 percent of adults said the economy was getting worse. Overall economic confidence matched its lowest levels from the early days of the pandemic and was lower than it was in the very weak economy of 2010 and 2011.

Some of this is surely tied to the fact that prices are rising more quickly than average wages, which means an average worker’s purchasing power is declining. Wage gains have been highest, in percentage terms, in lower-paying industries. In effect, hourly workers have been securing raises, while middle-managers and white collar workers are, on average, losing significant ground.

Moreover, while labor shortages are empowering for many workers, they also cause their share of hassles. For every worker who quits for a higher-paying job, there are workers asked to cover the shift and a middle manager struggling to find a replacement.

People like having more agency, sure, but labor shortages have also made their lives worse in their roles as managers and consumers — and it shows in the public opinion data about the economy.

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/31/upshot/economy-inflation-2021-review.html