Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts

Sunday, September 29, 2024

The Trump Family’s Long History With Immigration

 (By Tal Kopan and Curt Devine, CNN, 20 April 2017)

President Donald Trump has made overhauling the nation’s immigration system a central promise of his administration – and Tuesday he announced new efforts to get companies to “buy American (and) hire American.” But when it comes to hiring, he should know quite a bit about looking abroad.

The Trump family’s business ventures have made use of virtually every part of the US immigration system over time – including reported instances of illegal labor on two Trump-branded building projects.

Businesses run and owned by Trump and his adult children have been certified to legally hire 1,371 foreign visa workers since 2001, a CNN analysis of visa records shows. In addition, Trump-branded real estate has raised at least $50 million in foreign investor money through a program that gives foreign investors access to green cards, according to the company that did the development of the real estate.

Those permits have reflected the wide spectrum of the US immigration system.  The Trump enterprise has made use of low-skilled permits for vineyard seasonal workers, for example, and has used high-skilled visas to bring in models for its modeling agency.

Trump has telegraphed a hard-line position on immigration, and many of his administration’s hires have signaled a move to clamp down on the US immigration system. But Trump has not spoken at length about how his own business dealings influence his approach to the US immigration system. The White House has not responded to a request for comment about how Trump’s life experiences will influence his policy decisions.

Here’s a look at the ways Trump and his family have engaged with the US immigration system:

H-1B visas

How Trump businesses used it: In their business ventures, the Trumps’ businesses have received 283 H-1B visas since 2001. The high-skilled visas have been used for Trump’s modeling venture, Trump Model Management, Mar-A-Lago, the Trump Corporation and businesses associated with his hotels and resorts.

Melania Trump also used H-1B visas as a model to work in the US before she was granted a green card, according to a letter from her attorney released last year.

What it is: Often referred to as high-skilled visas, H-1Bs are “specialty occupation” permits, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services. They cover a variety of fields, including science and technology fields like computer programming, and most types require higher education degrees. Other specific categories include research related to the Department of Defense and modeling.

What the political fight looks like: H-1B visas are in high demand by powerful industries, including Silicon Valley, the medical field and academia. The demand far outstrips the supply, and powerful lawmakers like unlikely allies Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, have long sought to overhaul the program. Indian outsourcing companies are often accused of abusing the visas to take jobs away from other American employers.

Enter your email to sign up for CNN's "What Matters" Newsletter.

Bottom of Form

On Tuesday, Trump announced as part of his “Buy American, Hire American” initiative an executive order that calls for a review of the H-1B visa program, with the goal of reforming the program. Legislation on H-1Bs has long failed to advance on H-1Bs in Congress despite Grassley, Durbin and others’ efforts, but the administration this year took some steps to change the way the visas are distributed.

The Friday before the application cycle opened for 2017, USCIS and the Justice Department issued new guidance and policies to make it more difficult for computer programmers to gobble up the visas. While restrictionist immigration groups have sought to cut back the number of visas, as they have with virtually all forms of legal immigration, most lawmakers have sought reforms that would allow the US to attract top talent from around the world and encourage them to stay, especially in the STEM fields.

Asked about H-1B abuse during the primary, Trump said during a CNN debate in Miami: “I know the H1B very well. And it’s something that I frankly use and I shouldn’t be allowed to use it. We shouldn’t have it. Very, very bad for workers. And second of all, I think it’s very important to say, well, I’m a businessman and I have to do what I have to do.”

H-2B and H-2A visas

How Trump businesses used it: Trump businesses have received 1,024 H-2B visas since 2000, according to a CNN review of Labor records. Those visas have gone to Mar-A-Lago, Jupiter Gold Club, Lamington Farm and the Trump National Golf Club for jobs like cooks, waiters and waitresses and housekeepers. Trump Vineyards has received 64 H-2A permits since 2006, a CNN review found, for agricultural work.

What it is: H-2B visas are temporary authorizations to fill non-agricultural jobs with foreign workers. H-2A visas are specifically for temporary agriculture jobs. Employers are required to establish there are no qualified American workers to fill the positions and that hiring the workers will not affect American workers’ wages. The jobs can be either seasonal, one-time need, based on peak operations or intermittent.

What the political fight looks like: The H-2B programs are controversial but also necessary to many regional economies. The industries that use the H-2 visas, primarily agriculture and food service, also tend to draw heavily on undocumented labor when workers are unavailable legally or the system is perceived as too onerous. Employers in the H-2 program are usually required to provide certain wages, transportation and housing for workers, which can be a burden on businesses that feel they can use undocumented labor for cheaper pay. The program has also been found to be ripe for abuse, as the Government Accountability Office laid out in a 2015 report questioning the effectiveness of penalties built into the program – without which it is difficult to ensure the prevention of exploitation and abuse of workers.

Another concern for employers in the program is that the jobs must be temporary. But some agriculture industries like dairy farming require labor year round, making it difficult for them to use the program to import labor, which they have difficulty finding legally in the US.

Like other forms of immigration, several lawmakers on both sides of the aisle would like to boost the number of permits and make them easier for employers to use, in part to alleviate the demand for undocumented labor. Members of Congress, especially those from heavily agricultural districts, pay attention to the issue. But on the other side of the equation, restrictionist groups, who are represented in the administration by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, believe these guest worker programs take jobs away from Americans, and thus should be heavily curtailed.

Asked during the 2016 primary about his use of foreign workers during the 2016 primary, Trump defended his Mar-A-Lago property’s hiring to The New York Times, saying in an interview, “There are very few qualified people during the high season in the area.”

EB-5 visas

How Trump businesses used it: A project by the family company of Trump’s son-in-law and top White House adviser, Jared Kushner, called Trump Bay Street in Jersey City, New Jersey, raised $50 million, or one-quarter of its funding, from EB-5 investments, a company representative confirmed to CNN. The property uses the Trump name but was not a project managed by the Trump Organization. Kushner Companies has not otherwise made us of EB-5, the representative said, although new deals being pursued by the company have drawn scrutiny in recent weeks.

Because EB-5 investment does not require disclosure, it is also difficult to know fully how many Trump-branded properties could have benefited from it; Trump also licenses his name to properties that his company does not directly develop.

The Trump Organization did not respond to a request for comment on its use of EB-5.

What it is: The EB-5 program allows foreign businesspeople and their families to apply for green cards, eventually leading to citizenship. To qualify for the program, would-be applicants must make a qualifying investment in a US enterprise and demonstrate they plan to “create or preserve” 10 US jobs, according to USCIS. The Department of Homeland Security has proposed rule changes that would increase the investment threshold over $1 million.

What the political fight looks like: The program has drawn criticism from members of Congress on the left and right, who assail EB-5 as essentially selling citizenship to wealthy foreigners – many of whom are based in China – although they acknowledge it does have value as a way to spur investment in the US and job growth. Some rural lawmakers complain that the program unfairly benefits major cities that are already economically well off.

Lawmakers that represent major metropolitan areas, like the New York delegation, have often defended the program.  EB-5 is currently tied to government funding, which expires at the end of April. Despite years of reform efforts, lawmakers have repeatedly extended the program in continuing resolutions funding the government. At a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing on the topic, lawmakers signaled they would not allow another reauthorization without reform, but with five legislative days left this month before funding runs out, leadership has moved to avoid any controversies that might slow down passing funding.

Family visas

How the Trump family used it: Trump’s family also has a personal connection to immigration, with his grandfather, mother and two wives being immigrants themselves. Melania Trump is Slovenian, but began modeling in the US with H-1B visas and was given a green card in 2001, before she married Trump. Trump self-sponsored herself for residency, according to a letter by her attorney released during the campaign. She became a US citizen in 2006.

Trump’s grandfather was himself an immigrant to the US, joining his sister from Germany in the late 1800s. Trump’s mother was an immigrant from Scotland, coming to the US in her teens to work as a domestic servant. His first wife, Ivana, was also an immigrant, coming to the US via Canada from Czechoslovakia. Ivana became a US citizen in 1988, 11 years after she married Trump.

Melania’s sister, Ines Knauss, lives in New York, but neither she, family attorneys nor the White House answered an inquiry about whether she was sponsored for a visa or residency by her sister.

What it is: In addition to business-related visas, the US offers unlimited visas for “immediate relatives,” according to the State Department. That includes spouses of US citizens, unmarried children of US citizens under 21, orphans adopted by US citizens and parents of US citizens who are at least 21 years old. There are also limited numbers of visas for more extended family.

 What the political fight looks like: Proponents of immigration reform and restrictionists alike have sought to address “chain migration,” a term used to describe the practice of bringing immigrants to the US largely based on their familial connections as opposed to the merits of what they could offer the US. Restrictionists especially have viewed the US system as too lenient, and Trump himself spoke of the need for a “merit-based” immigration system in his joint address to Congress.

Illegal labor

How they used it: There have been two incidents in which Trump-related projects reportedly used undocumented immigrants as labor.

Trump faced a lawsuit in the 1980s that accused him and business partners of withholding wages from undocumented Polish immigrants and union workers hired by a contracting company called Kaszycki & Sons to demolish the building that would make room for Trump Tower. Trump testified he did not know the workers were undocumented and blamed the contractor for hiring them.

A judge ruled in 1991 that Trump and his associates owed the workers more than $300,000 plus interest. The ruling was appealed, and the case was eventually settled under a sealed agreement, according to a source familiar with the proceedings.

Separately, The Washington Post reported in 2015 that it interviewed workers on the construction of Trump’s hotel in the nation’s capital who said they entered the country illegally, several of whom were still lacking authorization to live and work in the US. Trump’s spokespeople at the time said the company requires its contractors to comply with hiring laws and check status of employees, and denied hiring any undocumented immigrants to build the hotel.

What it is: Non-citizens of the US are not allowed to live and work in the country without proper authorization. That could be a green card, or a particular type of visa, but foreigners who live and work in the US without proper authorization – including expired visas – are considered undocumented immigrants. There’s an estimated 11 million of them in the US.

What the political fight looks like: Illegal immigration has been arguably the most contentious fight of the landscape. Trump made cracking down on it the focal point of his campaign, pledging to vastly step up border security and deportations and detentions of undocumented immigrants.

Many Democrats and moderate Republicans agree with Trump’s stated objective to deport serious criminals here illegally. But they have also called for a compromise solution that allows undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for years, sometimes decades, raising families and contributing to their communities, to have a pathway to legalization and citizenship. Trump has said the “bad” ones need to be dealt with first.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/trump-family-immigration-visas/index.html

Saturday, December 9, 2023

The Biggest ‘Greedflation’ Study Yet Looked At 1,300 Corporations. Many Were Lying To You About Inflation.

 (Story by Ryan Hogg, Fortune.com, 8 December 2023)

As they rolled their eyes at the frustratingly familiar sight of price markups on grocery store aisles, the shopper of 2022 might have wondered whether corporations were doing everything they could to keep prices down as inflation hit generational highs. The answer now appears to be a resounding no. 

A joint study by the think tanks IPPR and Common Wealth found profiteering by some of the world’s biggest companies forced prices up significantly higher than costs during 2022.

Greedflation

Inflation soared across the globe last year, peaking near 11% in the Eurozone and above 9% in the U.S.

The source of that high inflation has become a well-trodden line. Analysts have typically laid the blame on supply chain bottlenecks created by excess demand during the COVID-19 pandemic and exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The war also increased energy prices, leading to further rises in inflation as suppliers factored in higher transport and running costs.

While this obviously contributed to rising prices, the report finds that company profits increased at a much faster rate than costs did, in a process often dubbed “greedflation.”

Profits for companies in some of the world’s largest economies rose by 30% between 2019 and 2022, significantly outpacing inflation, according to the group’s research of 1,350 firms across the U.S., the U.K., Europe, Brazil, and South Africa.

Inflation: What goes up doesn’t always come down

In the U.K., the research found that 90% of profit increases occurred among just 11% of publicly listed firms. Profiteering was more broad in the U.S., where a third of publicly listed firms were responsible for most of the increase in profits.

The biggest perpetrators were energy companies like Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron, who were able to enjoy massive profits last year as demand moved away from Russian oil and gas. 

Food producers including Kraft Heinz realized their own profit surges. The war in Ukraine rocked global grain supplies and fertilizer prices, significantly increasing the cost of food, which remains sticky. 

The findings add to a growing body of research seeking to highlight the role of major businesses in forcing up inflation last year. 

A June study by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found that 45% of Eurozone inflation in 2022 could be attributed to domestic profits. Companies in a position to benefit most from higher commodity prices and supply-demand mismatches raised their profits by the most, the study found.

CEOs of the world's biggest companies consistently sounded the alarm on inflation as a significant barrier to growth. Many blamed rising input costs on their own price hikes. However, lots of those CEOs appear to have instead used the panic of rising costs to pump up their balance sheet.

In April, Société Générale economist Albert Edwards released a scathing note saying he hadn’t seen anything like the current levels of corporate greed in his four decades working in finance. He said companies were using the war in Ukraine as an excuse to hike prices in search of profits.

“The end of Greedflation must surely come. Otherwise, we may be looking at the end of capitalism,” Edwards wrote. “This is a big issue for policymakers that simply cannot be ignored any longer.”

Prices coming down

Inflation is now beginning to regulate in most major economies and coming closer to most Central Banks’ targeted 2%. Some companies that previously passed rising costs onto customers to continue making a profit have now sought to repay them with price cuts.

Last week, Ikea stores owner Ingka’s deputy CEO said the company would be spending $1.1 billion to absorb inflation and bring down the prices of goods in its stores.

“People have thin wallets, but they still have needs, dreams, and frustrations,” Juvencio Maeztu told Fortune.

In November, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon suggested the era of high inflation in the U.S. was over, and shoppers may soon begin to experience a contraction in prices—known as “deflation”—in company stores.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/the-biggest-study-of-greedflation-yet-looked-at-1-300-corporations-to-find-many-of-them-were-lying-to-you-about-inflation/ar-AA1lcmku?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=6fbb3fd382af417fa0e50f8798e3f4a6&ei=39

Sunday, January 30, 2022

Why Did Spotify Choose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young? Hint: It’s Not A Music Company

(By Travis M. Andrews, Washington Post, 28 January 2022)

 

Neil Young, left, and Joe Rogan. (AP)

In one corner was Joe Rogan, the stand-up comedian and former “Fear Factor” host turned provocative podcaster.  In the other stood Neil Young, the multi-Grammy-winning rock legend with a lifelong passion for progressive causes.  The battle lasted two days, and Rogan won without making a peep.

Young started the scuffle when he posted a letter to his website Monday, addressed to his manager and an executive at his record label, demanding that his music catalogue be removed from Spotify in response to “fake information about vaccines.”

Specifically, Young cited Joe Rogan — who hosts “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast — and has suggested healthy, young people shouldn’t get vaccinated. After catching the coronavirus, Rogan also praised ivermectin, a medicine used to kill parasites in animals and humans that has no proven anti-viral benefits. “I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform,” he wrote. “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both.”

Two days later, without a word from Rogan, Spotify began the process of removing the famed rocker’s music, including his best-known hits such as “Heart of Gold,” “Harvest Moon” and “Rockin’ in the Free World.”  The speed of Spotify’s decision to sideline Young was jarring. So why did the company do it?  The answer is simple: This isn’t really a story about Rogan or Young. It’s a story about Spotify. And, despite public perception, Spotify isn’t a music company. It’s a tech company looking to maximize profits.

Spotify’s quest to dominate the podcast space

The company hasn’t been shy about its desire — in 2019, Spotify announced it was planning to spend up to $500 million to acquire companies “in the emerging podcast marketplace.”  That year it purchased Gimlet Media, home of podcasts such as “Reply All,” “Homecoming” and “Where Should We Begin? With Esther Perel,” for an estimated $230 million. It also spent more than $100 million on Anchor, a platform that lets users create and share their own podcasts.

The next year, Spotify spent nearly $200 million to acquire the Ringer and its suite of popular podcasts, such as “Binge Mode,” “The Press Box” and its founder’s “The Bill Simmons Podcast.” And, of course, it reportedly spent more than $100 million to acquire exclusive rights to a single show: the extremely popular, rabble-rousing “Joe Rogan Experience.”  “I think it comes down to, just frankly, business,” said John Simson, the program director for the business and entertainment program at American University. “In the music side of things, [Spotify is] paying out roughly 70 percent of all the revenue that comes in. It goes right back out as royalties. They’re looking for other places where the revenue split isn’t that dramatic. … Podcasts were certainly their go-to.”

The plan seems to be working. Spotify reportedly overtook Apple Podcasts last year to become the largest podcast provider in the United States.

Spotify’s strained relationship with musicians

As Spotify built its podcasting empire, it has been increasingly criticized by the musicians who use the platform. In December, rapper T-Pain tweeted a breakdown of how many streams it takes for a musician to make $1 on various services, pointing out that on Spotify it takes 315 while on Apple Music it’s 128. Several months earlier, artists and music industry workers, organized by the Union of Musicians and Allied Workers, protested outside Spotify offices around the world — bringing petitions signed by more than 28,000 people that were demanding, among other things, higher payouts for artists.

“I don’t think of any of these platforms as being music companies that actually care about music. I think of them like technology companies,” said Gabriel Teodros, a Seattle-based hip-hop artist who wrote a viral Substack blog in December titled “There’s no money in streaming.”  Even so, Teodros said he was surprised at the “swiftness” with which Spotify decided to remove Young’s music, rather than Rogan’s podcast. “I thought it might be a long, drawn-out thing.”

Other big-name artists have also feuded with Spotify — Taylor Swift pulled her music from the platform until it met her demands — but none seemed to spark widespread change. That leaves Teodros wondering if Young’s protest is “going to be a moment where public perception of public streaming platforms are forever altered, or is it just a blip?”

Young has received an outpouring of support from across the political and social spectrum: “I’m with #NeilYoung,” tweeted Geraldo Rivera. “Waiting on all the musicians to step up and back Neil Young. Where are you?” tweeted author Don Winslow.  It’s not that dropping Young won’t inflict any pain on Spotify. Most of his music is more than 18 months old, and older tunes have become popular during the pandemic. 

So it should come as no surprise that the day after Spotify announced the removal of Young’s catalogue, SiriusXM said it would revive “Neil Young Radio,” a channel dedicated to Young’s music and storytelling, for a brief stint.  “When you have an opportunity to present an iconic artist still at the height of his creativity, you don’t hesitate to do it, again,” Steve Blatter, the company’s senior vice president and general manager of music programming, said in a pointedly cheeky statement. “Outspoken, brave, and a true music icon, Neil Young is in a rare class of artists, and we are honored to collaborate with him to create a special audio experience for his fans.”

Young’s plea to other musicians

“I sincerely hope that other artists and record companies will move off the SPOTIFY platform and stop supporting SPOTIFY’s deadly misinformation about COVID,” Young wrote on his blog on Wednesday.  Whether anyone will follow remains to be seen. Many of the artists who could take up his battle cry — elder statesmen of rock with large enough catalogues to hurt the streaming service — no longer own their own music.  In the past few years, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Tina Turner, Stevie Nicks, the David Bowie estate and many, many more have sold their entire catalogues for large sums. Younger artists, including John Legend and Ryan Tedder, have begun joining in.

In most of these cases, the artist sold both the publishing and the recording copyrights. That means, unless they have a special clause around how their music is used, they don’t have any power to dictate where their tunes appear. And Simson, the American University professor, said such clauses are rare. “The reason [these companies] are paying all that money is that these streaming services are driving up value” of those catalogues.

In his blog post, Young wrote that removing his music from Spotify will equate to “losing 60% of my world wide streaming income.”  So while other artists — particularly his contemporaries — rallying around the legend and pulling their music from the platform might sound like a nice rock-and-roll idea, it’s probably not going to happen.

Is losing one artist enough to force Spotify to change?

Then there’s the question of how much impact a single artist can have. The numbers look staggering. The Weeknd, an extreme outlier, currently garners 86.6 million monthly listeners. Adele has 60 million. Drake has about 53.6 million monthly listeners. Taylor Swift has about 54 million; BTS has 42.3 million.

If one or two of them pulled their music, how many of Spotify’s 172 million subscribers would actually delete their accounts? How many of its 381 million monthly users would stop listening?  “Spotify is probably counting on the inertia aspect. Once you’re on a particular streaming platform, you’re likely to stay there because you’ve got your playlists, you’re familiar with it,” Simson said. “It just feels scary to all of a sudden have to move.”

And those are just the top artists. What about everyone else? As Eve 6 frontman Max Collins sarcastically tweeted, “if spotify doesn’t take neil young seriously i bet they’ll heed the demands of eve6.”

Now consider that Rogan has an estimated 11 million listeners per episode. He usually posts four to five of them each week, and they frequently last longer than three hours.  When Spotify bought Rogan’s podcast, Stephanie Liu, an analyst with the research firm Forrester, told the New York Times, “This is part of Spotify’s bigger bet on podcasts. Spotify is buying not only Joe Rogan’s extensive and future content library, but also his loyal audience.”

To retain that audience, they need Rogan. Plus — and this is key — he’s exclusive to Spotify. Very few musical artists are. Neil Young’s albums are on Amazon, Apple and several other services. Rogan’s library is only on Spotify. You don’t need Spotify to listen to Young, but you do need it to listen to Rogan.

The power of Joe Rogan

“If podcasting is Spotify’s biggest strategic bet, then Joe Rogan is the biggest piece of that,” said Tatiana Cirisano, a music industry analyst and consultant at MIDiA Research. “Other podcasters might be looking at this and wondering, ‘Is Spotify safe for what I want to say?’ ”  She added that while Rogan’s audience may be large, it’s also narrow. His audience skews young and male. He plays the role of provocateur, beholden to no political belief system. While that obviously appeals to his fans, it’s unlikely those who don’t agree with him are tuning in.

“It’s a lot easier to serve a huge audience of music fans than it is to serve a huge audience of podcast listeners. [A] music genre isn’t a polarizing thing,” Cirisano said, adding that while people may listen to various genres of music, they’re much less likely to listen to podcasts across the political spectrum.  Losing an artist doesn’t necessarily mean losing all the fans of that artist. But lose Rogan, and his listeners aren’t likely to switch to Michelle Obama’s podcast, which is also on Spotify.

Joe Rogan is using his wildly popular podcast to question vaccines. Experts are fighting back.

Cirisano said this could be a “crucial moment” for Spotify, and that Young had forced them to choose between two influential talents.  She is, however, doubtful that Young’s move will persuade many people to quit Spotify.  “I think it takes a lot for people to switch platforms,” Cirisano said. “I’m not sure if anyone aside from the top 1 percent of Neil Young stans are going to do that.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2022/01/28/spotify-joe-rogan-neil-young/

Sunday, September 5, 2021

COVID Effects On Businesses

How The Pandemic Pushed Restaurant Workers Over The Edge

(By Eli Rosenberg, Washington Post, 24 May 2021)

 Jim Conway started working in restaurants in 1982, making $2.13 an hour, plus tips.  And though the world has changed significantly in the nearly 40 years since then, his hourly wage has not. At the Olive Garden outside of Pittsburgh where he worked when the pandemic hit last year, he was making $2.83 an hour, the minimum wage for tipped workers in Pennsylvania, plus tips. So after being furloughed for months last spring, Conway, 64, decided to retire.

Being paid the rough equivalent of a chocolate bar an hour from the chain was little incentive for him to stick it out longer in the industry after so many years, especially with tips no longer a reliable source of income and lingering health concerns about covid-19.  “The main issue for me was safety,” Conway said. “There are lots of people who don’t want to participate in the old ways.”

Conway is one of the millions of workers who left the restaurant industry during the pandemic and haven’t come back. The industry has 1.7 million fewer jobs filled than before the pandemic, despite posting almost a million job openings in March, along with hotels, and raising pay 3.6 percent, an average of 58 cents an hour, in the first three months of 2021.


Restaurant chains and industry groups say a shortage of workers like Conway is slowing their recovery, as the sector tries to get back on its feet amid sinking covid cases, falling restrictions and resurgent demand in many areas around the country.

The issue has quickly become political, with Republicans blaming the labor crunch on the Biden administration’s move to boost federal unemployment insurance supplement, which has been a central part of the government’s response to the pandemic for most of the past year. GOP leaders and business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say the extra unemployment insurance is a disincentive for some workers to return to work.

In interviews with The Washington Post, 10 current and former workers expressed a wide range of reasons they are or were reluctant to return to work. Some, like Conway, have left the industry or changed careers, saying they felt like the industry was no longer worth the stress and volatility.  Others said jobs that didn’t pay enough for them to make ends meet no longer felt appropriate to them. Others left after disputes with managers — over issues around safety and pay — and other flash points that have emerged in the past year.

All described the pandemic as an awakening — realizing that long-held concerns about the industry were valid, and compounded by the new health concerns. And forced to stop working or look for other jobs early on in the pandemic, many realized they had other options.  “The staffing issue has actually a lot more to do with the conditions that the industry was in before covid and people not wanting to go back to that, knowing what they would be facing with a pandemic on top of it,” said Crystal Maher, 36, a restaurant worker in Austin, who’s become more active on the industry’s labor issues in the past year. “People are forgetting that restaurant workers have actually experienced decades of abuse and trauma. The pandemic is just the final straw.”

Tonya Breslow, the owner of Mis en Place, a restaurant staffing firm, said a huge number of restaurants she works with are dealing with shortages.  The firm recently surveyed 2,000 line cooks and back-of-the-house restaurant workers nationally and found just over a quarter, 26 percent, reported leaving the industry, while 41 percent of workers said they were still employed in the industry. That left about a third of respondents who had not gone back to work.  Of that group, most workers said they were not yet back, because they were either looking for the right opportunity, they had concerns about safety during the pandemic, or they did not plan to return to the industry.

A turbulent industry

The restaurant industry is famously volatile, home to strong personalities, tense workplaces, grinding hours and unpredictable scheduling. Issues like tip and wage theft, sexual harassment, and drug and alcohol abuse can be widespread, and there is often little in the way of formal job benefits such as health care, vacation time, sick pay or a livable minimum wage, though many workers do well in tips during flush times.

Turnover is a way of life; the average job tenure for hourly food service workers is less than two months, according to data compiled by Mis en Place.  This constant churn was affecting Jazz Salm’s life even before the pandemic.  The 37-year-old had worked for Carrabba’s Italian Grill, a Florida-headquartered chain, at different locations for more than 15 years, but said she had to find another job after one of the restaurants’ outposts, near Miami, burned down.  She got a job at a Chili’s in that area in early March of last year, but was furloughed when the pandemic shuttered the business after her first week.

It took her months to get approved for unemployment insurance in Florida, as the state’s system struggled to process the flood of applications in the early months of the crisis.  By the end of summer, Salm found a job at a Walmart, after moving back in with her mother in Sarasota. But shortly after starting work there, she registered a fever during the screening the store administered to workers before they clocked in, and was sent home to quarantine. The company required a two-week, quarantine, she said, even though she had tested negative days a few days before developing the fever.

Walmart pays employees if they’re sent home for failing a health screening, but Salm said she was unaware of the benefit, and thought she’d have to go two weeks without a paycheck.  She decided to quit the job and drive up the coast to go stay with a friend who had invited her to come live at her house in Upstate New York. She slept in her car along the way.  She said she tried to find a job at a restaurant but couldn’t. So she started taking care of her friend’s 81-year-old father-in-law, who had just returned from the hospital after receiving chemotherapy for throat cancer. The money takes care of her rent, groceries and some spending money.

She said she may return eventually to the food service industry in Florida, where restaurant owners have complained vociferously about the worker shortage, but it will take her time. She won’t be fully vaccinated until mid-June, for starters. And she wonders about getting trained and going into medical caregiving full time.  “I’m trying to trust the process and hope that this all works out and there’s not another spike or anything else,” she said. “The restaurant industry really doesn’t guarantee the money that I used to make, with this pandemic. Because if it flares up again, or God forbid something happens in the restaurant, you have to close it down, you’re out of work for weeks and there’s nothing you can do to make money. Other than find another job.”

Losing the city’s best

Allan Creasy, 39, had worked in restaurants and bars for more than two decades, most recently as a bartender at Celtic Crossing, an Irish bar in Memphis, where he was voted the city’s best bartender three times over the years by readers of the city’s alt-weekly newspaper, the Memphis Flyer.  Like others, Creasy said the pandemic proved to be the tipping point for him, exacerbating long-standing labor issues in the industry and drawing attention to how low his wages were: $2.13 an hour before tips — the minimum wage for tipped positions in Tennessee and at the federal level. 

After three months back at the bar after the initial lockdown, Creasy decided to quit and pursue a career change.  “I didn’t come back to the same job I left previously,” he said. “It was very difficult to constantly have to police people about mask-wearing. It was very difficult to try to bartend and run out to the back parking lot to deliver to-go food, and to deal with Uber Eats drivers and the like, while making significantly less money than I’d been making previously.”

And the pay had gotten worse — with his income dropping from about $60,000 a year around 2011 to less than $40,000 before the pandemic, he said.  “I’ve seen the number of people who are passionate about the restaurant industry slowly ebb away over the last 20 years,” he said. “In my opinion, it’s because the server’s minimum wage hasn’t changed. There is this belief that servers and bartenders are interchangeable.”  Creasy, who has a bachelor’s degree in history, has been doing fundraising and social media work for a local political action committee since. He’s making about the same amount of money he did at the bar but doing something that feels closer to his heart with less risk.  “You had so many folks working in the industry because they loved it, but now so many folks found a job in a warehouse making $15 an hour, or making as much money driving for Uber Eats, all these different businesses,” he said. “It’s not that we’re on unemployment. We did our unemployment stint, and we found something else.”

Nathaniel Santiago, 20, who works at a McDonald’s in the Fort Lauderdale area in Florida, said he believes the industry’s low wages are playing a role.  He had to move back in with his parents last year after losing his job at a manufacturing facility, before finding work at the fast-food chain, where he said he’s making $11 an hour — just $1,760 per month for full-time work, with no health care. That’s about $4 an hour below what is estimated to be a living wage for a single person with no children in that area — the minimum amount calculated for a person to be able to meet basic standards of living.

He also believes unemployment insurance is playing a role in the shortage, saying he’s heard from some friends and family members who say they are happy getting by with support from the government in the meantime.  “We need to pay workers $15 an hour at the moment,” he said. “People want to talk about inflation or that if you pay everybody $15 an hour, everything is going to get more expensive, but it already is. Food, clothing, gasoline, rent — you name it.”  Peter DeQuattro, 36, a line cook in Memphis who recently left a job because it paid less than $15 an hour, said he thinks the pandemic has changed the paradigm for low-wage workers — giving people more confidence to demand better wages.  “There is a growing movement of people, including myself, that just flat out refuse to work for somebody that isn’t willing to pay a living wage,” he said.

Companies dangle bonuses, incentives, appetizers

There are signs that businesses are reacting to the shortage.  Companies that pay less than $15 an hour — the amount many liberal economists and labor advocates say should be a baseline to provide people with something closer to a living wage in many areas of the country — are increasingly dangling incentives, bonuses and pay raises in front of workers in the hopes of staffing up. Pay is increasing in the industry as well: The median wage for nonmanagement restaurant and bar workers rose 70 cents an hour, to $14.50, in the past three months — a significant 5.1 percent jump.

Costco, Chipotle and McDonald’s are among the publicly traded companies that have announced wage increases in recent weeks, and others, like Target, raised their wages in 2020 as the pandemic drew more attention to the plight of workers.  Local media outlets have been flooded with tales of the worker shortage, written mostly from the perspective of businesses, from Santa Fe to Connecticut. A brewery in Albuquerque is offering workers a free 64-ounce growler of beer after every shift; Applebees is offering free appetizers to people who apply to jobs, as it seeks to hire thousands of workers across the country.

Breslow, the owner of the staffing firm Mis en Place, knows restaurant owners who are offering bonuses as high as $3,000 to new hires, and others who are adding health insurance and 401(k) benefits to employee incentive packages.  “The country is scrambling to get that 33 percent,” Breslow said, referring to those workers who have not returned to the industry. “The leverage is unreal.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/05/24/restaurant-workers-shortage-pay/

 

 

The Perfect Storm Making Everything You Need More Expensive

(By Hanna Ziady, CNN Business, 9 June 2021)

 Steel, lumber, plastic and fuel. Corn, soybeans, sugar and sunflower oil. Houses, cars, diapers and toilet paper. Prices are rising almost everywhere you look.  The post-pandemic recovery is in full swing and the global economy is struggling to keep up. Following a collapse at the start of the pandemic as businesses closed and millions of workers lost jobs, demand has rebounded with a vengeance, spurred by government stimulus and consumers flush with savings.

But companies that idled factories or put workers on furlough during lockdowns are now unable to secure enough raw materials to build the houses, make the cars or assemble the appliances that are suddenly in high demand.  Companies are furiously trying to restock inventories following last year's global recession, straining supply chains already reeling from the pandemic to breaking point. A shortage of shipping containers and bottlenecks at ports have made matters worse and increased the cost of moving products around the world. Throw in accidents, cyberattacks, extreme weather and the huge disruption caused by the desperate hunt for cleaner sources of energy, and you have a perfect storm.

There's no telling how long demand will outpace supply, especially as the pandemic continues to rampage through some of the world's biggest economies. But there have already been shortages of everything from microchips and chicken to chlorine and cheese, and prices are spiking.

The big question is whether shortages and price hikes are temporary byproducts of the pandemic, or if the global economy is changing in ways that could permanently hike the cost of doing business and usher in a new era of inflation. The answer has huge implications for workers, investors, companies and governments. 

What is certain is that, for now at least, inflation is back and it's widespread.  Inflation in countries that belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development surged in April to the highest level since 2008. Energy price hikes boosted average annual inflation across OECD countries to 3.3%. But prices are rising even when volatile food and energy costs are excluded.

How did we get here?

With US gasoline prices at a seven-year high, it's easy to forget that oil futures crashed last year. Brent crude, the global benchmark, briefly plunged below $20 a barrel last April, as coronavirus lockdowns cratered demand from airlines, motorists and manufacturers.  Brent has since shot up to over $70 a barrel on a dramatic turnaround in demand. US oil hit $70 a barrel on Sunday for the first time in nearly three years. A similar phenomenon is playing out across a host of commodities, industries and products.  "We've never really had anything quite that violent and rapid, both in terms of the change down and the change back up," said George Calhoun, director of the quantitative finance program at the Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey. "It's clear that [the economic rebound] created a lot of disruptions, not just in supply chains, but in business models."

Take the auto industry, a prime example of how the events of the past year have upended supply chains, changed consumer behavior and are now fueling price pressures.  The pandemic temporarily shuttered car factories last year, while the recession that followed torpedoed sales. When automakers responded by cutting back vehicle production and thus orders for microchips, semiconductor manufacturers reassigned spare capacity to companies making smartphones, laptops and gaming devices — products in high demand from housebound consumers.

Then, when car sales bounced back faster than expected, manufacturers found themselves at the back of the line for chips. Widespread shortages have forced the likes of Ford (F), Volkswagen (VLKAF), Fiat Chrysler (FCAU) and Nissan (NSANF) to slash production and idle plants in some cases.  That has pushed the price of new cars higher and boosted demand for used vehicles, which are now one of the main sources of inflation in the United States.  Rental car companies, which sold thousands of vehicles early on in the pandemic to shore up their finances, are adding to the crush of demand and holding on to stock that would otherwise have been put up for sale.  At the same time, stimulus checks and low interest rates have made vehicle purchases more accessible to households, many of which want to avoid public transportation and carpooling during the pandemic.

The price of used cars and trucks in the United States jumped 10% over the previous month in April — the biggest increase since 1953, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Prices were up 21% compared with a year earlier, making used cars the primary driver of April's surge in US consumer prices.  "Demand continues to exceed supply for new vehicles and we expect this to continue through 2021, in part due to the production disruption," Mike Jackson, the CEO of AutoNation (AN), one of America's biggest car dealers, said on an earnings call with analysts in April.  "More important though, interest rates and consumer preference for vehicle ownership versus ride share and public transportation are supporting demand," he added. "Americans want individual transportation."

Commodity prices surge

As the pandemic recovery takes hold, the cost of raw materials needed to produce consumer goods and power vast infrastructure spending in China is soaring. US President Joe Biden's infrastructure proposal would only increase demand if approved by Congress.  Booming investment into green technologies is also adding to strong demand for metals such as aluminum and copper, which are used in electric vehicles. Tesla (TSLA) recently added $2,000 to the price of its Model 3. CEO Elon Musk blamed rising raw materials costs.  Iron ore, copper and steel, used to make cars, houses and electrical appliances, have hit record price levels in recent weeks. The Bloomberg Commodity Spot Index, which tracks price changes across a range of metals and agricultural commodities, has jumped roughly 60% over the past year.

In Shanghai, the price of rebar, a type of steel used to reinforce concrete, has fallen from record levels in May but is still 16% more expensive than at the end of last year.  Rising costs have pushed producer price inflation in China to its highest level in nearly 13 years. The country's producer price index — which measures the cost of goods sold to businesses — soared 9% in May from a year ago, according to government data released Wednesday.  In the United States, lumber shortages tied to sawmill shutdowns earlier on in the pandemic have spiked prices, adding nearly $36,000 to the price of an average new home, according to an analysis by the National Association of Home Builders Association.

It's not just the construction sector that's feeling the heat. The rising costs of resin and pulp, for example, are prompting Procter & Gamble (PG) and Kimberly-Clark (KMB) to increase the prices of household staples such as tampons, diapers and toilet paper.  A growing list of crises on the supply side has exacerbated the commodities crunch. The Suez Canal blockage delayed goods shipments in March. Drought in South America has weighed on corn and sugar output. A deep freeze in Texas and the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack tightened the market for plastic and fuel, while India's Covid-19 outbreak disrupted ports and supply chains.  "It's really been a perfect storm," said Warren Patterson, head of commodities strategy at ING.

The latest problem: JBS Meat, a major beef and pork producer, suffered a cyberattack that forced the company to shut down plants in North America and Australia last week. Factories have since come back online but the disruption could cause wholesale meat prices to jump, analysts said.  Food prices are already rising due to a surge in demand for agricultural commodities such as corn and soybeans driven by China, where demand for animal feed is soaring as hog herds recover from an African swine fever outbreak, according to Patterson. The government has also been rebuilding depleted domestic corn reserves, he added.

On the supply side, dry weather in Brazil, Thailand and Europe has weighed on crop yields, while Russia, the world's leading wheat exporter, has implemented an export tax to bolster domestic supplies and cool prices.  Global food prices rose for a twelfth consecutive month in May and at their fastest monthly rate in more than a decade, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. The FAO Food Price Index, which tracks a wide range of products, was nearly 40% higher last month than its level a year ago.

While the cost of raw ingredients accounts for a small portion of the price that consumers pay for goods in supermarkets and restaurants, food companies such as Nestlé (NSRGY) and Unilever (UL) have already announced price increases on certain product lines in response to commodity inflation.  An increase in supply could ease prices gains, particularly because at these levels there is strong incentive for farmers to plant more crops, Patterson said. In other words, the trend could be temporary.  "The move we've seen across most commodities is part of the usual recovery, a cyclical uplift," he added. "As we see the global economy normalize, once we've recovered, demand will ease off and I expect prices to. I'm not of the view that we're in a commodities super cycle."

Logistics and labor costs climb

Commodities are not the only factor driving prices higher, however.  Logistics and labor costs have also increased and a shortage of workers in some industries could intensify pressure on companies to raise wages even further.  "When it comes to the economy we're building, rising wages aren't a bug; they're a feature," Biden said in a speech during a recent visit to Cleveland, Ohio.  Labor shortages, which have also become a problem in Europe, are partly related to the speed at which economies reopened and are likely to normalize once welfare payments dry up, stimulus checks have been spent and workers in sectors such as hospitality and travel feel more confident that businesses won't be forced to shut again, said Andrew Kenningham, chief Europe economist at Capital Economics.

But that's little consolation to companies trying to get products out the door. For Whirlpool (WHR), which makes washing machines, fridges and ovens, the rising cost of commodities, labor and logistics has led to several rounds of price increases.  "That's the only way to mitigate significant cost inflation," CEO Marc Bitzer said in an interview with Bloomberg Television last month. "There is talk or hope that this is a temporary blip. We see it elevated for a sustained period," he added.  Supply chain constraints have forced the company to make products based on the goods it has available rather than on customer orders. "That is anything but efficient or normal but that's how you have to run it right now," Bitzer said. "The supply chain is pretty much upside down."

In Germany, the industrial heart of Europe, supply chain disruptions exacerbated by the Suez Canal blockage offer one possible explanation for an unexpected drop in industrial orders in April, according to Carsten Brzeski, head of research at ING.  A growing list of companies around the world have flagged higher supply chain costs — from engine manufacturer Cummins (CMI) to exercise equipment maker Peloton (PTON) — partly driven by soaring shipping charges, which have made it much more expensive to move goods. If demand remains elevated, more firms may opt to pass these costs on to customers.

The Logistics Managers' Index, a US economic indicator, attests to rising cost pressures in supply chains. The monthly gauge asks corporate supply chiefs where they see future expenses relating to inventory, transportation and warehousing.  In May, respondents predicted that over the next 12 months costs across all three categories would experience their highest increase in the nearly 5-year history of the index.

The end of easy choices

With price hikes apparent on store shelves and in official data, inflation expectations among businesses and consumers are rising, according to various surveys. That in itself poses a challenge. If businesses and consumers think that higher prices are here to stay, they may change their behaviors in ways that cause price pressures to persist.  For example, workers might demand higher wages, forcing companies to increase the price of their goods and placing additional upward pressure on salaries.

At least for now, central bankers are of the view that price hikes will prove transient and are unlikely to lead to persistently higher inflation — even as some economists including former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and former Bank of England governor Mervyn King sound the alarm.  "Neglecting inflation leaves global economies sitting on a time bomb," Deutsche Bank economists warned in a research note this week. If central banks wait too long to raise interest rates they will be forced into "abrupt" policy changes, causing significant disruption to markets and the economy, they argued.

Yet Federal Reserve officials remain sanguine. "Although continued vigilance is warranted, the inflation and employment data thus far appear to reflect a temporary misalignment of supply and demand that should fade over time as the demand surge normalizes, reopening is completed, and supply adapts to the post-pandemic new normal," Lael Brainard, a Federal Reserve governor said in a speech last week.  Policymakers in the United States and Europe are "looking through" upward pressure on prices and "basing monetary policy decisions on where they think inflation will be in two years' time rather than in the next six to 12 months," said Kenningham of Capital Economics.

Still, whereas a year ago concerns centered on deflation, the risks now are "much more balanced and possibly tilted to the upside in some cases," Kenningham told CNN Business.  "The risks of inflation rising on a sustained basis are much higher in the United States than in Europe," he added, pointing to far more generous financial support for US households, which has propped up income and helped boost savings to levels not seen in more than 70 years.  "In brief," wrote the Deutsche Bank economists, "the easy policy decisions of the disinflationary 1980-2020 period appear to be behind us."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/09/business/rising-prices-inventories-post-pandemic/index.html

Saturday, March 28, 2020

Why Do The Airlines Need A Bailout? They Made A Fortune Over The Past Decade. Now They’re Demanding $50 Billion To Stay In Business.


(By Henry Grabar, Slate, 17 March 2020)

If Washington doesn’t do something, all U.S. airlines are going under.   That was the message that industry lobby Airlines for America delivered on Monday, arguing that under the most likely  scenario, all seven major U.S. passenger carriers would run out of money between July and December. The group asked for $50 billion in assistance from the federal government, divided evenly between grants (free money) and low-interest loans.   


That’s a lot. For comparison, the feds spent $50 billion to bail out General Motors during the financial crisis—most of which was repaid.   It has been a little more than two years since American Airlines CEO Doug Parker told investors, in an instant business school cautionary tale, “I don’t think we’re ever going to lose money again.” How time flies when a viral pandemic ravages the earth.

Help is on the way, President Donald Trump said on Monday. The coronavirus outbreak and the sudden decline in air travel is “not their fault,” the president observed, “they were having record seasons.”   Fact check: true. Airlines are coming off a remarkable 10-year run. Delta’s profits for each of the past five years, back from 2019 to 2015, were $4.8 billion, $3.9 billion, $3.2 billion, $4.2 billion, and $4.5 billion. Mergers have given the big four (Delta, United, American, and Southwest) about 80 percent of the U.S. market. With oil prices low and the economy humming along, it has been a great time to run an airline.

So now that the lean times are here—admittedly, a surprising turn of events for us all—where did all that money go? Why are multibillion-dollar airlines held to a budgeting standard that, if it were adopted by a typical American household, would seem totally irresponsible? And why, if they blew through all that cash, should we help them now?

The last question is the easiest to answer: because we have no choice, if we want to maintain our national travel infrastructure.   The first question—where’s the money?—is also not so complicated. Over the past decade, according to Bloomberg, U.S. airlines spent 96 percent of their cash profits on stock buybacks to enrich investors and their own executives, whose positions often come with stock holdings.*  As for why airlines behave with relatively little foresight, that’s more complicated.

Investors see little reason for airline companies—or any other companies—to have cash on hand. In 2017, analysts at McKinsey concluded that the 500 largest companies in the U.S. (excluding banks) had about 20 percent of their revenues in cash. That was too much, they thought. “While companies do need to hold some cash to do business,” they wrote, “in the past we’ve found that companies can typically do with cash balances of less than 2 percent of revenues.” (This cash is mostly held off shore, but that’s another story.)

By keeping cash in the bank, executives weren’t just depressing their own salaries. They were also making their companies look bad. They risked the ire of activist investors who saw cash as “unproductive capital,” workers who saw cash reserves as raises that hadn’t been paid, and even savvy consumers, who would protest stingy service and aging equipment.   And so at the end of a record decade in profits, according to Bloomberg, American had $7 billion on hand, United $4.9 billion, and Delta $2.9 billion.

Those rainy-day funds still sound like a lot of money, but there’s another problem with airlines. Historically, they were considered a bad investment prone to bankruptcies. In 2007, Warren Buffett wrote, “if a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down.”* (Even Buffett came around and bought stock in the big four in 2016.) Despite this recent merger-driven boomlet, they are low-margin, capital intensive  businesses.  Low margins mean your savings don’t get you far. At the rate it’s going now, United’s blockbuster 2019 profits will be spent down in less than 90 days. The company says it’s losing $1.5 billion a month.  Capital-intensive means it’s hard to tighten your belt. You can save some money on fuel and food, but not on labor or rent. You still have to pay banks or leasing companies for your planes. You can’t save those seats for later, or fly twice as many flights when business picks up again. There is no factory to shut down. Even if you ground flights, many costs are fixed.

Which brings us to the current pandemic-induced crisis, and the fifth reason—after the unprecedented disruption, shareholder capitalism, low margins, and a capital-intensive business—that airlines do not have enough money sitting around: moral hazard. America won’t let the airlines fail, and the people who run the airlines know it.   Nobody wants to bail out executives and shareholders who spent years lining their pockets as hundreds of thousands of owner-operated restaurants go out of business. But letting the planes go down would put nearly a million people out of work and deprive the country of nearly all its long-distance travel infrastructure.

The mergers that helped the companies throw off such big profits have left us with corporations so fundamental to American life they are basically utilities. Let McDonald’s go under and you still have Burger King. Let American Airlines shutter and Dallas will be as distant as Timbuktu.  The question for Congress, then, is not whether to save the airlines—but how to redraw corporate governance to fix its bad incentives.

After Sept. 11, Congress passed an airline bailout of grants and loans. It was designed to help airlines obtain insurance again, but it also included caps on CEO pay and “golden parachutes” for departing executives. In a bigger bailout, the public can demand more significant oversight. “We won’t let this look like the bank bailout of 2008, nor can you compare the two,” Sara Nelson, the president of the flight attendants’ union, said on Twitter. “The airline industry didn’t cause the pandemic and money should come with significant conditions to help workers and keep planes flying, not enrich shareholders or pad executive bonuses. Airlines must commit to maintaining payroll. It means no bonuses, no buybacks, & no breaking union contracts in bankruptcy. Companies should commit to pay a min $15 wage and board seats for workers.”

It’s a good template for how Washington should approach the crisis: With an open mind toward fixing corporate America’s problems. In the New York Times, the antitrust advocate Tim Wu writes that we should force airlines to cap or abolish fees and take steps to undo industry consolidation. Over in Europe, Italy has announced it will nationalize Alitalia, and other European airlines will not be far behind.  Whatever we decide to do with the airlines will be just an appetizer to the considerably more fraught negotiation that’s just around the bend, over the future of death-plane producer Boeing, whose departing CEO Dennis Muilenburg walked away with more than $60 million earlier this year.

One thing is for sure: The central condition of any assistance has got to require airlines keep their profits in the bank for the next time this happens (as was required for automakers after the 2008 crash—Ford has $37 billion in reserve). This pandemic is a surprise. The next one won’t be. If you’re expected to keep your savings on hand, so should American, United, Southwest, and Delta.


https://slate.com/business/2020/03/airlines-bailout-coronavirus.html

Stock Buybacks Enriched Companies And Their Leaders — At Everyone Else’s Expense.


(Gary Rivlin, Washington Post, 27 March)

The titanic coronavirus stimulus package, if it passes, comes with a condition for the businesses it bailed out: They can’t use taxpayer money to buy back shares of their own stock. Companies such as American Airlines, which spent $15 billion on buybacks in the past half-dozen years, and Boeing, which initiated $43 billion over the past decade, have earned notoriety for depleting their cash reserves through these moves and then telling the government they are broke and need help.

The prohibition is a popular one. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) calls this practice a “sugar high for corporations” that “boosts [stock] prices in the short run” but destroys value over the long run. Other critics call it an “accounting trick” for corporate chieftains to enrich themselves and their shareholders at the expense of workers. Even President Trump offered this admonition: “I don’t want to give a bailout to a company and then have somebody go out and use that money to buy back stock in the company,” he said Sunday. “. . . So I may be Republican, but I don’t like that.”

Even businesses not participating in the bailout will be less likely to initiate stock buybacks in the coming months. In a depression, many simply won’t have the cash. And if they do, they’ll recognize the wisdom of building their reserves in an uncertain time. AT&T, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and McDonalds are among the corporations that since the outbreak have announced they are suspending their buyback programs.

Yet that means only a temporary pause in a practice that has flourished in corporate America: U.S. companies spent $1.09 trillion on buybacks in 2018, according to Winston Chua at TrimTabs, an asset management company. That was the highest on record, Chua said. The $900 billion companies spent in 2019 was the second-highest.

And unfortunately, the practice is toxic for working Americans. Between 2003 and 2012, companies in the S&P 500 devoted 54 percent of their earnings to buying their own shares (and an additional 37 percent to paying out dividends), according to a study by William Lazonick, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. That left less than 10 percent for research and development, plant modernization, raises for workers, and other more productive uses of profits. It used to be that workers did well at corporations that did well. That’s no longer true, and buybacks are a big part of the reason.

For decades, stock buybacks were considered market manipulation and, if not quite outlawed, were strongly discouraged, says Lenore Palladino, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. That changed in the deregulation sweep of the 1980s under Ronald Reagan. In 1982, the Securities and Exchange Commission loosened its definition of stock manipulation, opening the floodgates. What had been a frowned-upon activity that put a company at risk of an SEC investigation soon became standard practice.

Today, shareholders love buybacks, in which a company spends its profits to purchase more control of itself. The maneuver pushes up share prices — not because a company is killing it in the marketplace but because there are fewer shares to trade (less supply, higher cost). It also helps a company look better: A key measure used by analysts and investors is “earnings per share.” Dividing the same revenue by fewer shares makes this metric magically rise.

Chief executives love buybacks as well. The vast majority of their pay comes in the form of stock options and stock grants. Buybacks increase the value of the shares they’ve already earned and help them earn more. And CEO compensation is tied to share price, so they have good reason to push the value up any way they can.

But buybacks have become a major driver of income inequality and help explain why members of the top 0.1 percent (which includes most high-ranking corporate executives) “reap almost all the income gains, good jobs keep disappearing, and new employment opportunities tend to be insecure and underpaid,” as Lazonick put it in a 2014 Harvard Business Review study called “Profits Without Prosperity.” He argued that American workers were no longer prospering because companies no longer shared wealth with them.

Corporate executives are twice as likely to sell their own stock during scheduled buyback periods, according to research by Palladino. Some companies even borrow money to cover the costs of a buyback. “They really are the tip of the spear of how large corporations have operated for the benefit of the wealthiest shareholders and corporate insiders at the expense of everyone else,” Palladino says.
The Trump tax cut only accelerated the practice. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the corporate tax rate fell 40 percent, from 35 percent to 21 percent. That meant a lot more cash in the coffers of the country’s biggest companies. When top executives and their political allies were selling the cut, they promised new investments in America and its people. Instead, stock buybacks reached a crescendo. Some companies didn’t even wait for Trump to sign the bill. The board of directors at Pfizer, which had already approved $6.4 billion in buybacks before the tax cut, authorized an additional $10 billion pre-signing. Also jumping the gun were Home Depot, which announced a $15 billion buyback, and Bank of America, which committed to a $5 billion buyback.

As they bought up stock, many companies failed to deliver on their promises to workers. By the end of 2018, Senate Democrats had assembled a list of companies that had put some of their tax savings toward buybacks while initiating layoffs. They included General Motors, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase, which laid off hundreds of workers that year despite a $3.7 billion windfall from the tax cut. The company committed to more than $50 billion in buybacks in 2018 and 2019 before announcing that it was temporarily abandoning its repurchasing plan.

Still, it wasn’t until the country’s airlines fell on hard times this month that buybacks ignited a major public debate. The same day the news broke that the airlines had asked the federal government for more than $50 billion in loans, guarantees and cash grants, Bloomberg News reported that the major air carriers had spent 96 percent of their cash over the past decade on stock buybacks. American, for instance, went deep into debt while spending $15 billion on buybacks. All told, six of the country’s largest airlines approved roughly $47 billion in buybacks over the past decade, spurring outrage.

Members of Congress have offered a number of solutions to this problem. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Bernie Sanders have been touting an idea to bar buybacks unless companies pay their workers at least $15 an hour, provide seven days of paid sick leave, and offer health-care and retirement benefits. Another bill (the Reward Work Act, introduced by Sen. Tammy Baldwin last March) and its House companion (introduced by Reps. Jesús García and Ro Khanna) would ban open-market stock buybacks and require public companies to allow their workers to elect one-third of their board members. Sen. Sherrod Brown’s proposal would have companies give their workers $1 for every $1 million spent on buybacks.

For the moment, though, there’s only a temporary freeze in buybacks. American workers are about to suffer the effects of an economic depression. The eventual recovery should help them, too, not just their bosses.


This essay is published in partnership with the nonprofit newsroom Type Investigations. Nina Zweig provided research assistance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/stock-buybacks-gouged-workers-the-measure-stopping-them-comes-too-late/2020/03/27/d6170752-6fcb-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_todays_headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_headlines Subscriber sign in

We noticed you’re blocking ads!

Keep supporting great journalism by turning off your ad blocker. Or purchase a subscription for unlimited access to real news you can count on.

Try 1 month for $1

Unblock ads

Questions about why you are seeing this?Contact us