More stories

  • in

    Grading Biden’s Big Law

    The climate-focused Inflation Reduction Act is popular with businesses. But its cost is expected to double over the next decade, and its outlook is uncertain.The Inflation Reduction Act is popular with business, and that’s adding to its cost.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThe costs, and the benefits, of the I.R.A.In the past 24 hours, President Biden has taken questions (and heat) on his age, memory and mental fitness. But the one economic issue that is most likely to generate scrutiny from the business community and beyond over the next several months is the biggest bill he has passed, the Inflation Reduction Act, which he hailed at his news conference last night.Big questions still hang over the law, which many Americans appear not to know exists. How much will it add to the federal deficit? And can the law survive a potential Trump second term?The I.R.A. is expected to cost more than $800 billion through 2033, the Congressional Budget Office said, up from the $391 billion price tag assessed when it was passed in 2022.One reason: There’s huge demand for the credits and subsidies created by the law for building solar, hydrogen and nuclear energy projects, as well as discounts for buying electric vehicles. (An analysis by Goldman Sachs last fall showed that the law led to about $282 billion in investment and roughly 175,000 jobs in its first year.)The green transition won’t come cheap. The I.R.A., which aims for steep emissions cuts, is expected to add $250 billion more to the deficit than initially forecast, according to the C.B.O., despite cost-saving promises by the White House.That said, the math isn’t set in stone. The Treasury Department forecast this week that additional tax-collection resources provided by the I.R.A. would help the I.R.S. gather up to $851 billion more in tax revenue over the next decade. That raises the question of whether this is actually a deficit-paring law.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    A Campaign to Finally Ban Asbestos

    Most Americans believe asbestos is already banned, but it’s still killing people, according to a disease awareness group with a new billboard in Times Square.Good morning. Today we’ll look at how a group pushing for a federal ban on asbestos teamed up with a firefighters’ union to promote its cause in an eye-catching way. We’ll also find out the results of a state audit of Kendra’s Law, a treatment program for mentally ill people at risk of becoming violent.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesIt is an unusually serious message for a giant screen in Times Square: “Ban asbestos now.”Those words are appearing four times an hour in an ad for the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, which says that most Americans believe asbestos has been banned for more than 30 years. In fact, a federal appeals court, in 1991, overturned the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to prohibit most uses of asbestos.Asbestos, long linked to lung cancer and mesothelioma, has been used less widely in recent years, in part because of liability concerns.But the disease awareness group says that more than 300 tons of it came into the country last year. The group has been campaigning for a federal ban on such imports and has joined with the International Association of Fire Fighters, the largest union of firefighters and paramedics in the United States, to create the billboard ads.“We’re hoping to spark curiosity, and, by raising awareness, prevent exposure to asbestos,” said Linda Reinstein, the president of the disease awareness group.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Banks Face a Growing Real Estate Crisis

    A year after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, investors are fearing for regional lenders saddled with a mountain of souring commercial mortgages.Concerns about New York Community Bancorp deepened on Wednesday after the lender was hit by a credit downgrade, and its stock fell further.Bing Guan/BloombergBanking crisis déjà vu? The sell-off in regional bank stocks looks set to worsen on Wednesday, after Moody’s cut New York Community Bancorp’s credit rating to junk status.Fears are now rising among investors over the United States’ distressed commercial real estate sector. This comes as a crucial lifeline created during last year’s banking crisis is set to expire.N.Y.C.B.’s shares plunged as much as 15 percent in premarket trading after the downgrade, before rebounding. The stock has plummeted roughly 60 percent in the past week after the lender reported dismal results, especially stemming from its exposure to souring commercial real estate loans.Last year, N.Y.C.B. won the bidding for assets tied to Signature Bank, which failed shortly after the demise of Silicon Valley Bank. That pushed its assets above $100 billion, putting it into a new regulatory category, and subjecting it to more stringent capital requirements.Bank jitters are spreading. The KBW Nasdaq Regional Banking Index, a collection of midsize bank stocks, has fallen nearly 12 percent in the past week as investors worry about lenders’ exposure to commercial real estate loan portfolios.Plunging office occupancy rates and high interest rates are a big reason. The shift in working practices after the height of the coronavirus pandemic has roiled the commercial real estate market and lenders could face a “maturity wall” of as much as $1.5 trillion in commercial real estate loans set to come this year and next. (U.S. regional banks provide the bulk of such loans, putting them at particular risk.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Adam Neumann Wants to Take Over WeWork

    Adam Neumann, the co-working company’s onetime chief, has sought for months to buy the now-bankrupt business, but accuses its current leaders of stonewalling him.Lawyers for Adam Neumann accused WeWork of stonewalling his takeover approach.Shahar Azran/Getty ImagesWeWork’s founder is trying to buy it Adam Neumann shot to fame by turning WeWork into a cultural and business phenomenon, before being ousted from the work space operator in dramatic fashion.But for the past several months, he has been trying to buy the now-bankrupt business — with the help of the hedge fund mogul Dan Loeb, DealBook is the first to report.Neumann’s new real estate company Flow Global is pushing WeWork to consider its takeover approach, according to a letter his lawyers sent to WeWork’s advisers on Monday. Flow which has already raised $350 million from the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, disclosed in the letter that Loeb’s Third Point would help finance a transaction. (Read the letter.)Flow has sought to buy WeWork or its assets, as well as provide bankruptcy financing to keep it afloat.But Flow’s lawyers accused WeWork of stonewalling for months. “We write to express our dismay with WeWork’s lack of engagement even to provide information to my clients in what is intended to be a value-maximizing transaction for all stakeholders,” wrote the lawyers led by Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel, who also represents Elon Musk and Jay-Z.It’s the latest twist for WeWork, which over its 14-year history became a symbol of venture capital excess. The company grew rapidly, becoming the biggest tenant in many major cities and attaining a paper valuation of $47 billion. And Neumann — backed by billions from the Japanese tech giant SoftBank — increasingly pitched it as a way to “elevate the world’s consciousness.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    The Jobs Conundrum: Questions About Wages Persist

    The latest data on jobs and wages are positive on the surface, but a large group of voters are still downbeat about the state of the economy. Jobs seem plentiful, but a large group of voters are feeling downbeat about inflation and the economy.Spencer Platt/Getty Images‘The job’s not quite done’ The U.S. economy is a paradox. Official figures show that growth is solid, jobs are plentiful and wages are climbing, and yet voters are mostly feeling down and giving President Biden little credit.Friday’s jobs data is adding to that split-screen view, with economists pointing out red flags in an otherwise sterling report.The labor market seems to be performing strongly. Employers added 353,000 jobs last month, almost double economists’ forecasts, and an additional 100,000 via revisions in previous months. Average hourly wages rose, too.But that doesn’t necessarily mean workers are more prosperous. For a start, wintry weather shrank the average workweek to 34.1 hours in January. In particular, nonsalaried employees, especially those in retail, construction and the hospitality sectors, worked fewer hours, which probably ate into their pay, Bill Adams, an economist at Comerica Bank, said in a research note.And Goldman Sachs’s wage tracker for U.S. workers fell after Friday’s report on a quarterly annualized basis.Workers are increasingly anxious about changing jobs. Quit rates have fallen to a four-year low, suggesting employees are feeling less confident that they’ll find a better position elsewhere. If this trend persists, it could also put the chill on wage gains that soared during the so-called Great Resignation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    A.I. Promises Give Tech Earnings from Meta and Others a Jolt

    Companies like Meta that could tout their work in the fast-growing field saw a benefit in their fourth-quarter results — and won praise from eager investors.Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s C.E.O., spoke expansively to analysts about his company’s work on A.I.Carlos Barria/ReutersA.I. and cost cuts lift Big Tech Earlier this week, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta endured a grilling on Capitol Hill and publicly apologized to relatives of victims of online abuse. Little more than a day later, he had a lot to crow about, as his business delivered some of its best quarterly earnings in years.Meta’s results illustrate how the most recent earnings season has gone for Big Tech: a mostly positive period in which companies that could claim the benefits of artificial intelligence and cost-cutting were hailed the most on Wall Street.Meta shot the lights out. After years of facing questions about its ad business and its ability to cope with scandals, the parent of Facebook and Instagram reported that fourth-quarter profits tripled from a year ago. A.I. was credited for some of that, with the technology helping make its core ad business more effective. So too was cost-cutting, which included tens of thousands of layoffs as part of the company’s self-described “year of efficiency.”Meta’s profit was so good that the company will soon start paying stock dividends for the first time (which could total $700 million a year for Zuckerberg alone) and announced a $50 billion buyback. It’s a sign that the tech giant is “coming of age,” according to one analyst, joining Microsoft and Apple in making regular payouts to investors.Zuckerberg pledged more investment in A.I. — “Expect us to continue investing aggressively in this area,” he said on an earnings call — and the company said it had largely concluded its cost cuts. But some analysts said that Meta will eventually have to show a return on that spending.Amazon also touted its A.I. initiatives. Much of its earnings call was spent talking about Rufus, a new smart assistant intended to help shoppers find what they’re looking for. (It may also allow Amazon to reduce ad spending on Google and social media platforms.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Tech CEOs Got Grilled, but New Rules Are Still a Question

    Tech leaders faced a grilling in the Senate, and one offered an apology. But skeptics fear little will change this time.Five tech C.E.O.s faced a grilling yesterday, but it’s unclear whether new laws to impose more safeguards for online children’s safety will pass.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesA lot of heat, but will there be regulation?Five technology C.E.O.s endured hours of grilling by senators on both sides of the aisle about their apparent failures to make their platforms safer for children, with some lawmakers accusing them of having “blood” on their hands.But for all of the drama, including Mark Zuckerberg of Meta apologizing to relatives of online child sex abuse victims, few observers believe that there’s much chance of concrete action.“Your product is killing people,” Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, flatly told Zuckerberg at Wednesday’s hearing. Over 3.5 hours, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee laid into the Meta chief and the heads of Discord, Snap, TikTok and X over their policies. (Before the hearing began, senators released internal Meta documents that showed that executives had rejected efforts to devote more resources to safeguard children.)But tech C.E.O.s offered only qualified support for legislative efforts. Those include the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, which would require tech platforms to take “reasonable measures” to prevent harm, and STOP CSAM and EARN IT, two bills that would curtail some of the liability shield given to those companies by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.Both Evan Spiegel of Snap and Linda Yaccarino of X backed KOSA, and Yaccarino also became the first tech C.E.O. to back the STOP CSAM Act. But neither endorsed EARN IT.Zuckerberg called for legislation to force Apple and Google — neither of which was asked to testify — to be held responsible for verifying app users’ ages. But he otherwise emphasized that Meta had already offered resources to keep children safe.Shou Chew of TikTok noted only that his company expected to invest over $2 billion in trust and safety measures this year.Jason Citron of Discord allowed that Section 230 “needs to be updated,” and his company later said that it supports “elements” of STOP CSAM.Experts worry that we’ve seen this play out before. Tech companies have zealously sought to defend Section 230, which protects them from liability for content users post on their platforms. Some lawmakers say altering it would be crucial to holding online platforms to account.Meanwhile, tech groups have fought efforts by states to tighten the use of their services by children. Such laws would lead to a patchwork of regulations that should instead be addressed by Congress, the industry has argued.Congress has failed to move meaningfully on such legislation. Absent a sea change in congressional will, Wednesday’s drama may have been just that.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    Technology Companies Are Cutting Jobs and Wall Street Likes It

    The sector is laying off workers after a hiring boom during the pandemic and their share prices are soaring. Tech giants like Microsoft have continued to cut jobs, even after carrying out a wave of layoffs last year.Caroline Brehman/EPA, via ShutterstockTech giants are set to report quarterly earnings, starting on Tuesday with Alphabet and Microsoft. Wall Street is expecting good news, including more progress on artificial intelligence.But the industry has also relied on another strategy to improve financials: layoffs. The cuts aren’t as widespread as last year, when hundreds of thousands of jobs were eliminated. But they’re a reminder that the tech sector is still trying to find its footing after a boom in hiring during the coronavirus pandemic and finding ways to preserve dizzying stock gains.About 100 companies have cut 25,000 positions this year, according to Layoffs.fyi. By comparison, more than 1,000 companies eliminated about 260,000 last year.So far this month: Microsoft announced 1,900 cuts in its video game division, including at its recently acquired Activision Blizzard; Google laid off hundreds of employees, including in its engineering ranks and its hardware division; and Amazon said it was laying off hundreds, including 35 percent of the work force at its Twitch unit.Not all layoffs are the same, The Times notes:For big tech companies, job cuts have been a way to reduce spending on noncore operations and extract the kind of cost savings that Wall Street loves. Now, those cuts are more targeted: In the case of Meta, that means reducing the number of middle managers at Instagram.For smaller tech businesses, it’s more a matter of survival. Start-ups have been finding it harder to raise capital as risk-averse venture capitalists keep their wallets closed. In the words of Nabeel Hyatt, a general partner at Spark Capital, these fledgling companies “are just trying to gain runway to survive.”The cuts will probably continue so long as investors love them. Wall Street has rewarded tech companies that laid off thousands with higher stock prices. Meta’s shares have soared since it embarked on a self-described “year of efficiency” last year that has made it a third slimmer employee-wise. Those cost savings, coupled with a redoubled bet on A.I., has helped push the tech giant’s market value to over $1 trillion.And venture capitalists have told DealBook that they’re ready to invest in start-ups — but that it helps if those companies have made themselves leaner. That, the investors say, will enable them to operate better in potentially difficult times.In other layoff news: Some tech workers are filming their layoffs and posting them on social media, in the name of catharsis and transparency.HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING Boeing withdraws efforts to expedite safety approval for a version of its 737 Max jet. The aircraft manufacturer revoked an application it made last year seeking an exemption from a safety standard for a version of its 737 Max 7. Separately, Boeing received some good news amid its latest crisis: The European airline Ryanair, one of its biggest customers, said it would buy more planes if U.S. carriers dropped their orders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More