Saturday, May 9, 2020

White Unemployment Rose More than Black Unemployment and No One Notices [feedly]

White Unemployment Rose More than Black Unemployment and No One Notices
https://cepr.net/white-unemployment-rose-more-than-black-unemployment-and-no-one-notices/

One of the most striking items in a very striking employment report yesterday is that white unemployment has actually risen slightly more than black unemployment in this crisis. White unemployment has risenfrom 3.1 percent in February to 14.2 percent in April, a rise of 11.1 percentage points. Black unemployment rose from 5.8 percent to 16.7 percent, an increase of 10.9 percentage points. 

While the difference is small and surely statistically insignificant, it does go opposite the usual pattern in a downturn, in which blacks see their unemployment rate rise by twice as much, or more, than the increase in white unemployment. Unfortunately, the difference is probably not for a good reason. Blacks are more likely to be working at jobs where they are classified as essential workers and therefore endangering their health by staying at work through this crisis. 

That is not a pretty picture, but one that deserves attention.

The post White Unemployment Rose More than Black Unemployment and No One Notices appeared first on Center for Economic and Policy Research.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Joe Biden calls for a 'swift, full, and transparent investigation' of the killing of Ahmaud Arbery after footage of the incident emerges [feedly]

Joe Biden calls for a 'swift, full, and transparent investigation' of the killing of Ahmaud Arbery after footage of the incident emerges
https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-calls-for-investigation-of-ahmaud-arbery-killing-2020-5?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds

  • Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden called for an investigation into the killing of Ahmaud Arbery. 
  • Arbery, a black man, was shot and killed in a wealthy coastal Georgia town in February by two white neighbors. 
  • Relatives and friends have said the incident was racially motivated and are concerned with their inability to protest and organize due to the coronavirus pandemic. 
  • A video of the alleged incident has gone viral on Twitter. 
  • Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Former Vice President and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden called for an investigation into the killing of Ahmaud Arbery after a video of the incident emerged.

Abery, a 25-year-old from Brunswick, Georgia, was killed in Februarywhile jogging in a coastal town. He ran past Gregory McMichael who called to his son Travis McMichael before grabbing their guns and following Arbery in a truck. 

The elder McMichael is a former police officer and told police, he said the duo was acting in self-defense and believed Arbery was tied to several break-ins in the area. 

Video of the alleged incident shows a truck driving behind Arbery jogging, before stopping. One man gets out to confront Arbery, there's an altercation, and two shots ring out.

 

In a tweet on Tuesday night, Biden wrote: "The video is clear: Ahmaud Arbery was killed in cold blood. My heart goes out to his family, who deserve justice and deserve it now. It is time for a swift, full, and transparent investigation into his murder."

According to CNN, A Georgia district attorney is recommending that the case goes to a grand jury. The coronavirus pandemic has prevented courts from using a grand jury but Tom Durden, the district attorney for the Atlantic Judicial Circuit said: "he expects to present the case to the next available grand jury in Glynn County to consider whether charges are merited for those involved in Arbery's death."

The family of Arbery says he was unarmed and most likely jogging for exercise. The police report also did not indicate whether Arbery was armed or not. 

No charges have been brought against either of the McMichaels. 

McMichael said Arbery was in the property of a house that was partially opened but under construction. Georgia's state's citizen's arrest law could justify the duo chasing Arbery because they suspected he was a criminal, George E. Barnhill, a prosecutor who previously worked the case before recusing himself over conflict of interest, said according to The New York Times. 

Barnhill said: "that he did not believe there was evidence of a crime, noting that Gregory McMichael and his son had been legally carrying their weapons under Georgia law."

Additionally, he wrote that the McMichaels had "solid firsthand probable cause," and were justified in chasing him because they thought he was a burglary suspect, under the state's citizen's arrest law, according to The Times.

S. Lee Merritt, an attorney for the Arbery family said: "at best" the men "had the authority to follow Arbery and send law enforcement to that location," according to CNN. 

He added that the McMichaels were unable to answer the 911 dispatcher's questions on what criminal activity Arbery was doing. 

Family and friends previously said they were concerned that social distancing, as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, was limiting their ability to protest and gather attention to the case. Their concerns is that the killing was racially motivated. 

"We can't do anything because of this corona stuff," Wanda Cooper, Arbery's mother told The Times. "We thought about walking out where the shooting occurred, just doing a little march, but we can't be out right now."


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

DHL: DELIVERY NOTICE

 

YOUR DELIVERY IS TODAY

 

 

 

 

Hello jcase4218.lightanddark@blogger.com;,

 

Your DHL EXPRESS shipment  is scheduled for delivery TODAY and we require

a confirmation of address  click here   to confirm your location 

 

DELIVERY INFORMATION

Waybill No.

Delivery Address

 

Thank you for using On Demand Delivery.

 

DHL Express - Excellence. Simply delivered.

 

 

DHL  Express | Contact DHL | Privacy Policy | Unsubscribe


2020 � DHL International GmbH. All rights reserved.

 


Tuesday, May 5, 2020

EPI: The extra $600 in unemployment insurance has been the best response yet to the economic shock of the coronavirus and should be extended [feedly]

The extra $600 in unemployment insurance has been the best response yet to the economic shock of the coronavirus and should be extended
https://www.epi.org/blog/the-extra-600-in-unemployment-insurance-has-been-the-best-response-yet-to-the-economic-shock-of-the-coronavirus-and-should-be-extended/

The CARES Act, the $2 trillion-plus package to provide economic relief and recovery from the coronavirus shock in early April was, for many reasons, deeply imperfect. But the modifications the CARES Act made to the nation's unemployment insurance (UI) system are an utterly crucial lifeline for tens of millions of American workers. Besides temporarily expanding the eligibility criteria for who qualifies for unemployment benefits through the end of the year and providing an additional 13 weeks of state UI benefits, the CARES Act also provided an extra $600 per week in UI payments through the end of July.

This $600 top-up has been fiercely criticized by some since the Act passed—e.g. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) stated that it would be extended past July only "over our dead bodies"—but the criticism is either ill-informed or in bad faith. The extra $600 has been by far the most effective part our economic policy response to the coronavirus shock. It is likely improving—not degrading—labor market efficiency, and we should build on this and make the nation's unemployment insurance system well-resourced and far more generous even in normal times.

The history of how a flat $600 in additional UI benefits was agreed upon by policymakers is straightforward, if depressing. In normal times, these benefits are stingy, typically replacing between one-third to one-half of a typical worker's weekly wage. For decades, too many economists and policymakers have labored under a number of wrong preconceptions about the labor market, and one of the most damaging was that decent jobs were plentiful and easy to get, and the only thing keeping potential workers out of these jobs for any stretch of time was workers' own motivation, which could be sapped if benefits were too generous. It was the old and dumb idea that the U.S. social safety net—despite being by far the stingiest in the advanced world—had become a too-comfortable "hammock." (For what it's worth, the evidence from the aftermath of the Great Recession reveals that extended UI benefits had little or no effect on whether a worker found a job—meaning it wasn't UI benefits that were keeping workers out of work—it was a lack of demand for workers.)

The economic shock of the coronavirus was an event so obviously unrelated to the motivations of individual workers that policymakers were willing to substantially (if temporarily) increase the generosity of unemployment benefits. Our preference would have been for a 100% replacement rate up to a quite generous maximum benefit. But decades of disinvestment in the administrative capacity of state UI offices left them incapable of flexibly calculating each new applicant's benefit amount with a 100% replacement rate. (Case in point: most offices are still using the 1970s-era programming language COBOL to run their computers). State offices are capable of administering a flat-rate increase, however. So, policymakers in Congress came up with a smart and compassionate second-best solution of picking a flat-rate boost to benefits that would leave the average worker (and most workers overall) with 100% of their pre-crisis earnings.

But the necessity of the one-size-fits-all approach means that workers who earned less than the average worker before the crises will receive benefits that are somewhat higher than 100% of their previous wage. Many conservatives claim this is somehow an economic disaster. They're wrong—it's actually great.

For the purpose of generating a rapid macroeconomic recovery from this shock, the more money getting into the pockets of low- and moderate-wage workers, the better. Without generous relief, these workers and their families would have had to run down meager savings and go into debt just to survive during the lockdown period. Besides causing avoidable human misery, this would severely hamper spending—and, by extension, the overall economic recovery—when the public health all-clear is eventually sounded.

The primary complaint waged against the extra $600 is that it will impede the otherwise efficient functioning of low-wage labor markets. Forgive our eye-roll. The labor market has been rigged against low and moderate-wage workers for decades, and pre-crisis earnings for these workers were far too low, on both moral and efficiency grounds. Plus, the economic argument against high UI replacement rates was that we'd sap workers' motivation to pound the pavement searching for jobs. But we're in the midst of legally enforced physical distancing to fight an epidemic – the less pavement-pounding the better. Further, the economy may have lost more than 30 million jobs in the last month. Even without the epidemic it would be stupid and cruel to use cutbacks to UI benefits that make them too stingy to live on as a cudgel to demand people somehow find a job quickly in an absolute nightmare of a job market.

Conservatives have floated stories of businesses trying to re-open now that can't find workers because potential employees "make more collecting unemployment." Well, if businesses are really serious about re-opening (and many shouldn't be) there's an easy cure for this—offer wages that are high enough to entice potential workers to come to workPolicymakers could aid this effort and level out incentives in a couple of ways. First, they could let laid-off workers keep their extra $600 weekly payment (or at least some increment of it) even after they find a new job. Also, they could offer a universal wage credit (phased out above the median wage, say) that boosts workers' pay so long as the higher UI benefits persist. If the problem conservatives have with this $600 really is just the economics of incentives and not simply annoyance that lower-wage workers are finally getting some money in their pockets, this is an easy way to address it.

It is hardly a shock that many potential workers are leery about venturing into public to work these days. In an efficient labor market—where the playing field is level between workers and employers—the wage offers needed to get people to overcome their wariness and go to work in the face of coronavirus fears should be increasing. But U.S. labor markets are not efficient or balanced even in the best of times, and in the coronavirus-affected labor market with businesses shuttering right and left, it seems far from clear that competition between employers would push up wages for workers. In a sense, the extra $600 is helping labor markets reach a more reasonable equilibrium where workers are actually compensated appropriately if they are willing to shoulder the risk and excess burden of showing up to a job in the midst of an epidemic.

And this is something we can afford and constitutes exactly the sort of thing public debt should be spent on. Money spent on continuing crucial unemployment insurance provisions will help avoid a prolonged period of high unemployment that will do far more serious and persistent damage to the economy. In the last six weeks, close to 30 million workers have applied for unemployment insurance. It's worth noting as a point of comparison that those 30 million workers would need to be provided an extra $1,400 per week for a year to match the fiscal size of the 2017 tax cuts aimed at corporations and the rich.

Do we wish the U.S. social insurance system—and particularly the unemployment insurance system—was much better-resourced and able to respond to the current shock with something more nuanced than an across-the-board $600 increase in weekly benefits? We do. But you go into a generational economic crisis with the social insurance system you have, not the one you wish you had. Given the constraints, the extra $600 is smart and compassionate and policymakers should extend all (or at least most) of this extra boost well past July—at least until unemployment is falling rapidly and at a manageable level.

And we sure hope those bemoaning the smart and compassionate second-best response to an eroded UI system will join the rest of us in building up the system's capacity and generosity after the current crisis ends.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

How Many People Will Patent Monopolies Kill In This Pandemic? [feedly]

Baker can be eccentric, but I luv the 'class' zingers he comes up with regularly.

How Many People Will Patent Monopolies Kill In This Pandemic?

https://cepr.net/how-many-people-will-patent-monopolies-kill-in-this-pandemic/

No one wants to die, but hey, who wouldn't be willing to sacrifice their life to protect someone's patent monopoly? That is a question that is implicitly raised in this New York Times piece on the race to develop an effective vaccine against the coronavirus. Near the beginning the piece tells readers:

"In an era of intense nationalism, the geopolitics of the vaccine race are growing as complex as the medicine. The months of mutual vilification between the United States and China over the origins of the virus have poisoned most efforts at cooperation between them. The U.S. government is already warning that American innovations must be protected from theft — chiefly from Beijing."

Okay, what does "theft" by China, or anyone else, mean in this context? Would China be preventing U.S. scientists from moving ahead with the development of a vaccine? Would it be preventing drug companies from manufacturing and distributing the vaccine?

Of course, neither of these possibilities makes any sense. Nothing China might do with knowledge gained from U.S. researchers would obstruct our own development of a vaccine. The only "risk" here is that China might jump ahead and be able to vaccinate its own people, and possibly people in other countries (including the U.S.) before a U.S. produced vaccine is available. This could be an embarrassment to Donald Trump and may also reduce the potential profits of U.S. drug companies, but it could mean that hundreds of thousands of lives are saved.

Apparently the New York Times didn't think it was worth mentioning that the Trump administration's policies might lead to massive loss of life to protect his ego and industry profits, but that is the unavoidable implication of the information in the article.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Friday, May 1, 2020

Enlighten Radio:Talking Socialism Podcasts: May Day, Plague Year, Edition

The Red Caboose has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Enlighten Radio
Post: Talking Socialism Podcasts: May Day, Plague Year, Edition
Link: https://www.enlightenradio.org/2020/05/talking-socialism-podcasts-may-day.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

Thursday, April 30, 2020

To Keep the Economy Afloat, the Fed Turns to North Dakota [feedly]

The fed borrows from our only socialist bank :)

To Keep the Economy Afloat, the Fed Turns to North Dakota

https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2020/04/29/coronavirus-economy-public-banking

Bankers generally don't like surprises. But as CEO at the Bank of North Dakota, the only state-owned bank in the country, Eric Hardmeyer was pleasantly surprised to see the Federal Reserve taking a page out of his institution's playbook to help deal with the unprecedented economic disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic.

"The Fed seems to be thinking of everything we were thinking about two or three weeks ago," Hardmeyer said.

To help small business stay afloat through the pandemic, banks and credit unions have been already tasked with putting out more federally backed loans to small businesses in a few weeks than they typically do in a year. The Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program was part of Congress' bailout bill provided $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses.

That alone is about 14 times what the agency typically guarantees a year. But that was far from enough; the loan program was exhausted within two weeks after the SBA started accepting loan applications. The most recent relief bill authorized an added $310 billion for the program, which again could be used up in less than two weeks, because more lenders have been signing up to make the loans.

Add to all that, on April 9, the Federal Reserve announced it would back $600 billion in loans to midsize and potentially smaller businesses through its new Main Street Lending Program. 

But every lender has an upper limit on the amount of new loans it can add to its balance sheet in a short period of time before running out of cash on hand or tripping the wires with banking regulators. Ramping up lending quickly during an emergency is especially challenging for community banks and credit unions that handle most small businesses' needs. And it would be impossible for those small lenders to do so at a sufficient scale to counteract a massive, rapid economic shutdown like this.

To help small business stay afloat through the pandemic, banks and credit unions have been already tasked with putting out more federally backed loans to small businesses.

To overcome those balance-sheet constraints, the Main Street Lending Program is expected to work through what's known as loan participations. Eligible businesses apply for the Main Street loans through private banks or credit unions, and the Federal Reserve comes in behind the scenes to supply 95% of the borrowed amount.

That means local banks and credit unions can use their expertise and familiarity with borrowers and local market conditions to make loans under the terms of the program, but they only have to hold 5% of the value of those loans on their balance sheets. It frees up the local lenders to make more loans by reducing the risk associated with a large volume of new loans. Meanwhile, the borrower only ever deals with the bank or credit union that originates their loan.

To the rest of the country, a public entity doing loan participations will seem totally out of left field. But in North Dakota, they are an everyday occurrence. Other than student loans, the Bank of North Dakota rarely makes its own loans directly. Instead, the vast majority of the state-owned bank's lending happens through loan participations with local banks and credit unions in North Dakota. The Bank of North Dakota had $4.5 billion in active loans in its portfolio as of the end of 2019. That included 1,156 active small business loans for $1 million or less, including 352 for less than $100,000.

"These are absolutely unusual times, so I'm sure that [at the Fed] they're breaking up the old paradigms and saying we've got to think differently now," Hardmeyer said.

No one at the Fed called the Bank of North Dakota to talk about doing loan participations as a public institution, Hardmeyer said.

The key with any loan participation is making sure the originator has some incentives to carefully evaluate borrowers. Keeping 5% of the value of a loan on a private lender's balance sheet isn't a huge risk, but it could be enough that lenders will look through each loan application with appropriate due diligence, but not too slowly, given the urgency of the situation.

These are absolutely unusual times, so I'm sure that [at the Fed] they're breaking up the old paradigms.

The typical way in which public entities support private lending is by guaranteeing loans. That's the case with the Paycheck Protection Program, whose loans are 100% guaranteed by the Small Business Administration. With a few exceptions, however, those loans are not available to businesses with more than 500 employees. The Fed also created a new program to support Paycheck Protection Program lenders by offering them a dollar in near-zero interest loans for every dollar in Paycheck Protection Program loans on their balance sheet—it helps make sure those lenders have cash on hand to make more loans, but it still means they have to keep those loans on their balance sheet.

The Bank of North Dakota is buying Paycheck Protection Program loans from lenders in that state, supporting that segment of businesses, but the state-owned bank also wanted to bridge what it saw as a gap in coverage. "We thought we had an opportunity here to carve out a niche that wasn't being met, and all of a sudden the Fed comes out and says we gotta start dealing with these companies over 500 employees," Hardmeyer said. "We were going to move in if they didn't, so we'll see how that all plays out now."

Final details and documentation still need to be worked out, but businesses with up to 10,000 employees will soon be able to apply for a Main Street Loan through any bank or credit union that is willing to make them. Right now, the application deadline is Sept. 30, but the program could be extended beyond that date if the Federal Reserve decides it's necessary. Borrowers won't have to make any payments for at least one year after receiving their loan, and they'll have four years to pay back the loan.

The Main Street loan terms also contain stipulations meant to put limits on executive compensation, ensure borrowers use the loan proceeds to retain employees, and prevent them from buying back their own stock or pay off other debts.

That's also something the Bank of North Dakota has some experience with. Its Partnerships in Assisting Community Expansion program provides subsidized loans for businesses through private lenders, with loan participation from the state-owned bank. Each PACE loan comes with predetermined job creation goals and annual reporting requirements. Hardmeyer says there have been occasions when goals weren't met, and subsidies had to be at least partially clawed back.

"With accountability measures, as long as you know on the front end what those are and how those are enforced, it's always easier to do that on the front end rather than come in later and say, 'by the way, you guys didn't look at the fine print,'" Hardmeyer says.

The Main Street Lending program initially appears geared toward businesses at the larger end of the eligibility spectrum, though the Fed could change the terms of the program with approval from the Treasury Department. Right now, the minimum Main Street loan size is $1 million, and according to the loan terms, to qualify for a loan of that amount, a business would already need to be making around $300,000 in (pre-pandemic) annual profits before taxes.

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors has said, as part of supporting the economy, it wanted to target support specifically to businesses too large for the Paycheck Protection Program but not large enough to access corporate bond markets or stock markets.

Some think there is definitely broader need for something like the Main Street lending program to reach smaller businesses.

"The new [Main Street] facility from the Fed missed the mark in terms of where are most of the small businesses that were hit in the first wave—restaurants, retailers," said Jeannine Jacokes, executive director at Partners for the Common Good, a community development financial institution.

Private lenders commonly participate in loans with each other. Partners for the Common Good participates in loans alongside banks, credit unions, and other lenders across the country. The organization now has 80 active loan participations in its portfolio, financing projects for affordable housing, federally qualified health centers, youth centers, or other facilities serving low-income communities. The average amount of borrowed capital per loan supplied by Partners for the Common Good is about $534,000.

Partners for the Common Good also runs the Community Development Bankers Association, a trade association with around 80 members. Through the association, Jacokes says, she continues to talk with the Federal Reserve to see if they could tweak the Main Street Lending Program, or create another facility, to meet the needs of smaller businesses who will need more help than the Paycheck Protection Program or other existing programs can provide.

The Federal Reserve has not at this point ruled out the possibility of lowering or eliminating the Main Street Lending program minimum later, if the need persists beyond the Paycheck Protection Program. Banks are naturally inclined to make larger loans anyway, because it costs a bank the same amount of time and effort to make a $1 million loan as it does to make a $100,000 loan—so the Main Street Lending Program's minimum is more about targeting resources to firms that might not otherwise be getting support.

If anyone is concerned that small business lending is riskier and could potentially be a money loser for the Fed, consider that the Bank of North Dakota's annual reports show net positive income for every year going back to 1966, and 2019 was the 16th straight year it has set a new record for net income.

The Small Business Administration also has a good track record. From 2010 to present, the agency's standard loan program guaranteed 226,308 loans with an average size of $778,000, and just 2% of those loans defaulted. Meanwhile, the agency's small loan express program guaranteed 269,492 loans at an average loan size of $79,000, and the default rate was just 3%.

That doesn't mean there's no risk in making loans to small businesses in the middle of a pandemic, but that's a risk affecting businesses of all sizes, not just small businesses.

"Some businesses no doubt are going to fail because of this pandemic," Hardmeyer said. "We don't know how long this is going to be. Travel is going to be curtailed, big conventions curtailed for months, people not gathering in large groups, it's going to impact businesses in so many ways, it's hard to really tell at this point. But it's going to be a permanent shift to a new normal."

This story was co-published with Next City, a nonprofit organization with a mission to inspire social, economic and environmental change in cities through journalism and events around the world.

The post To Keep the Economy Afloat, the Fed Turns to North Dakotaappeared first on Yes! Magazine.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed