# data[].attributes.body
If everything goes as planned we wont be seeing a recession. The growth of the United states will boost others countries in the sense that they will begin to see and increase in the trading balance. He also points out that decrease in interest rates are only natural in comparison.

# data[].attributes.body
This article takes a different approach of the rising concerns of America leading towards a great recession due to the current administration. "I would say the bond markets are predicting ... a lowering of interest rates" Mnuchin said. With this statement we can see how we are lowering our interest to match the rest of the world. "We are somewhat concerned about what we see as a slowdown in Europe, China and other areas of the world,” he also said. Again bringing the attention away from the United states and comparing us to other parts of the world. Yet he does not reassure us that we are not headed towards a recession without the use of caparisons.

# data[].attributes.body
Ev_Rosenfeld. “The US Economy Is the World's 'Bright Spot,' and There's No Sign of a Recession: Treasury Secretary.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are no signs that the U.S. economy may be heading into a recession, according to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Speaking to CNBC on Sunday, the American official expressed nothing but optimism about the state of his country's economy. That analysis comes despite a May jobs figure that came in significantly below expectations and increasing expectations that the Federal Reserve could opt to cut interest rates multiple times this year.

"U.S. growth it still really the bright spot of the world," Mnuchin told CNBC's Nancy Hungerford.

"As it relates to the employment numbers, I wouldn't focus on any one number: There's plenty of volatility in these numbers," he added. "We still see the growth in the U.S. as really quite strong."

In fact, the Treasury secretary said his concerns are about economic falterings beyond American borders. "We are somewhat concerned about what we see as a slowdown in Europe, China and other areas of the world," he said.

And while markets may be forecasting that the U.S. central bank will initiate some easing, Mnuchin suggested that doesn't presage any economic downturn.

"I don't see any signs of a recession. I would say the bond markets are predicting ... a lowering of interest rates. We are in an environment where global interest rates are very low around the world, so I think that's what you're seeing in the U.S. bond markets," he said. "But, no, we see no signs of a recession. We see another strong quarter in the United States."

Mnuchin declined, citing the principle of central bank independence, to say whether he though the state of the U.S. economy warranted any interest rate cuts from the Fed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The US economy is the world's 'bright spot,' and there's no sign of a recession: Treasury secretary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are no signs that the U.S. economy may be heading into a recession, according to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. Speaking to CNBC on Sunday, the American official expressed nothing but optimism about the state of his country's economy.

# data[].attributes.body
The two privacy commissioners repeatedly said during the news conference that they need the power to issue orders to Facebook and other social media companies. Daniel Therrien says the two security workplaces will ask a Canadian bureaucratic court to arrange Facebook "To change its practices so it agrees to the law." The court, which

# data[].attributes.body
On April 25, 2019, Facebook's weak security shields kept it from maintaining the individual information of a huge number of clients, a genuine fizzling that the organization has recognized however would not fix.  An investigation by the protection chief of Canada and the data and security official for British Columbia found that Facebook disregarded national and nearby laws in permitting outsiders’ access to private client data. The organization has debated the watchdogs' discoveries and disregarded suggestions. Officials say that Canada needs stronger privacy laws and more authority to inspect and fine companies.

# data[].attributes.body
Hsu, Tiffany, and Ian Austen. “Canada Says Facebook Broke Privacy Laws With 'Superficial' Safeguards.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Apr. 2019,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Facebook's weak privacy protections exposed the personal data of millions of users, a serious failing that the company has acknowledged but refused to fix, Canadian regulators said on Thursday.

An investigation by the privacy commissioner of Canada and the information and privacy commissioner for British Columbia found that Facebook violated national and local laws in allowing third parties access to private user information through "superficial and ineffective safeguards and consent mechanisms."

But Facebook has disputed the watchdogs' findings, even after its chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, apologized last year for what he called a "major breach of trust" in the Cambridge Analytica data harvesting scandal, the regulators said. The company ignored recommendations, some issued a decade ago, for how to prevent future exposure, they said.

"There's a significant gap between what they say and what they do," said Daniel Therrien, who heads the federal privacy watchdog, at a news conference in Ottawa on Thursday.

The regulators, who have limited power to force Facebook's compliance, plan to take the company to a Canadian federal court. The court, which focuses on regulatory issues and lawsuits against the government, may impose fines.

But Mr. Therrien said that "historically there have been very small penalties - in the tens of thousands of dollars." He pushed for stronger privacy laws in Canada and more authority for regulators to inspect and penalize companies.

"They told us outright that they do not agree with our legal findings," Mr. Therrien said. "I find that absolutely untenable that a company can tell a regulator that it does not respect its findings."

Canada passed its first digital privacy legislation in 2000, later updating it with stricter consent rules, but regulators never adopted the stiff fines and investigative powers authorized by their European counterparts.

"The problem in Canada is that there is no deterrent whatsoever," said Michael McEvoy, who runs the privacy regulator in British Columbia.

Officials said Facebook refused to allow audits of its privacy procedures. But in a statement, the company said it had "proactively taken important steps towards tackling a number of issues raised in the report" and had offered to enter a compliance agreement with Mr. Therrien's office.

"After many months of good-faith cooperation and lengthy negotiations, we are disappointed" that regulators consider the issues raised in this report unresolved, the company said.

Pressure is increasing on Facebook from regulators in a number of countries.

On Thursday, Ireland's Data Protection Commission said it had opened an investigation into Facebook after the company told it that hundreds of millions of user passwords were stored in plain-text format on its internal servers. On Wednesday, Facebook said it expected to be fined up to $5 billion by the Federal Trade Commission for privacy violations.

In Canada, Mr. Therrien called for new laws that would allow his office to regularly examine the privacy practices of Facebook and other social media companies without waiting for a public complaint.

Other Canadian officials have complained about inaction from social media companies over election interference, although a federal election scheduled for October makes it unlikely that any new laws will appear until at least next year.

The complexity of Facebook's systems and the company's general opaqueness, Mr. Therrien said, make it likely that users are unaware that the company is violating their privacy or breaking Canadian laws.

The Canadian investigation began after reports last year that Cambridge Analytica, a political data firm hired by President Trump's 2016 election campaign, gained access to personal data on up to 87 million Facebook users. Some 622,000 Canadians may have been affected, according to the regulators.

The unauthorized access could have been avoided or alleviated if Facebook had followed recommendations issued in 2009 after a similar investigation by the federal privacy commissioner, the regulators said.

Facebook said in its statement that "there's no evidence that Canadians' data was shared with Cambridge Analytica, and we've made dramatic improvements to our platform to protect people's personal information."

In a symbolic gesture, Mr. Therrien said his office was closing its Facebook account.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Canada Says Facebook Broke Privacy Laws With 'Superficial' Safeguards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facebook's weak privacy protections exposed the personal data of millions of users, a serious failing that the company has acknowledged but refused to fix, Canadian regulators said on Thursday.

# data[].attributes.body
The convergence of attire brands regarding those players as they would athletic stars is attached to how worthwhile the expert gaming industry has progressed toward becoming. "A lot of the kids who grew up to play competitive video games probably played competitive sports at some point" Haag also said.

# data[].attributes.body
Professional gamers are more visible than ever, and the athletic apparel industry has taken notice. Today, Matt Haag, known as Nadeshot, is the chief executive of 100 Thieves, an esports organization that makes apparel for competitive gamers and their fans. The line has supported Mr. Haag's big name status in the gaming scene, in spite of his retirement from rivalry. That is somewhat in light of the fact that computer game culture is more noticeable than any time in recent memory; the spilling application Jerk's crowd has come to equal that of the biggest link news systems, with a huge number of simultaneous watchers.

# data[].attributes.body
Winkie, Luke. “The Rise of Live-Streamer Style.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Apr. 2019,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Professional gamers are more visible than ever, and the athletic apparel industry has taken notice.

Image

Matt Haag, the founder of the apparel and lifestyle company 100 Thieves, at his office in Culver City, Calif. As professional gaming has become more visible, so too has the way gamers dress. Credit Credit Rozette Rago for The New York Times

Matt Haag wasn't exactly dressing to impress during his teenage years on the competitive Call of Dutycircuit. The 26-year-old recalled, sheepishly, the basketball shorts and Payless kicks he wore on flights to tournaments around the country back in 2008. All of his gamer friends and teammates looked the same way: schlubby.

But in the last decade, something changed. "I just wanted to look better," Mr. Haag said. "I needed a girlfriend. I was trying to be cooler. It was as simple as that."

Today, Mr. Haag, known as Nadeshot, is the chief executive of 100 Thieves, an esports organization that makes apparel for competitive gamers and their fans. He has more than 1 million followers on Instagram and routinely uses the platform to model the latest in 100 Thieves merchandise: splashy graphic tees, athleisure hoodies and starchy camo pullovers, which pair nicely with Mr. Haag's vast collection of Creamsicle-colored sneakers.

The price point for 100 Thieves merchandise compares to many midpriced athleisure brands; shoppers can expect to pay $85 for a hoodie. Other gamers are spending much more on their looks. "The professional players have probably spent $500 to $1,000 on what they're wearing," Mr. Haag said. "They've got Gucci and Balenciaga. It's absolutely ridiculous."

And, he said, "as soon as the players started elevating their wardrobe, that's when all the fans started doing it too."

Since its founding in 2017, 100 Thieves has attracted high-profile investors. It's co-owners include Drake and Scooter Braun. The last time the company held a merch "drop," Mr. Haag said, the online storefront sold out in "about 18 minutes."

Image

Merchandise from 100 Thieves includes T-shirts, jerseys and sweats. Credit Rozette Rago for The New York Times

The line has boosted Mr. Haag's celebrity status in the gaming world, despite his retirement from competition. That's partly because video game culture is more visible than ever; the streaming app Twitch's audience has come to rival that of the largest cable news networks, with hundreds of thousands of concurrent viewers. And the gamers in those broadcasts want to look good.

At the same time, athletic brands are striving to make themselves relevant to young people through celebrity partnerships and brand collaborations. Cue the deals with pro gamers.

Adidas has inked deals with the pro FIFA Online4team Lyon EDG and the Portuguese esports organization Grow uP eSports. In February, Nike announced a four-year partnership with the entire Chinese professional League of Legendsleague, which encompasses 16 teams. John Fryer, the president of sports apparel and graphics for Champion, said the company spent two years researching the market before partnering with Dignitas, an esports team owned by the Philadelphia 76ers, last fall.

Esports organizations have outfitted players with custom jerseys since the early 2000s. But the influx of apparel brands treating those players as they would athletic stars is tied to how lucrative the pro gaming industry has become.

Emmalee Garrido, for example, has played for the all-women team Dignitas Female since 2017. When she started competing in esports tournaments in 2014, she made her own jerseys and ironed her name on the back. But in 2018, she was courted by a sports apparel company and asked how she'd like to be dressed.

Emmalee Garrido in a Dignitas Female jersey designed by Champion. Credit Rozette Rago for The New York Times

"We're competing onstage, we have all these lights shining on us, we can get really hot," she said. "The jerseys that we have now have airflow, so we're not sweating as much." Credit Rozette Rago for The New York Times

"Champion sat me and my team down, and they listened about how long we game for, and what we need fabric-wise," Ms. Garrido, 28, said. "We're competing onstage, we have all these lights shining on us, we can get really hot. The jerseys that we have now have airflow, so we're not sweating as much."

For most of her life, Ms. Garrido, who plays as EMUHLEET, would not have described herself as a particularly fashionable person. But after joining Dignitas, she became enamored with the style of the 76ers point guard and former rookie of the year Ben Simmons. "We follow him on Instagram and always try to wear what he's wearing," she said. "And he's always wearing Champion too!"

The N.B.A.'s style renaissance - think Russell Westbrook's denim suits, James Harden's floral prints or P.J. Tucker's trademark extra pair of shoes - gave many of the insurgent esports generation clear role models. "A lot of the kids who grew up to play competitive video games probably played competitive sports at some point," said Mr. Haag.

And some are betting that gaming will become just as much of a phenomenon. Collette Gangemi, a former executive at Converse and DC Shoes, now serves as the vice president of consumer products and merchandising for the Overwatch League team New York Excelsior, where she organizes pop-up shops that sell exclusive gear emblazoned with the Excelsior logo. (Like, for instance, this New York Excelsior Starter jacket.) Ms. Gangemi believes that the roots of esports style run a bit deeper, toward another movement orchestrated by young, talented outsiders.

"The best parallel is in late-'90s, mid-2000s skateboarding, where skateboarders started making seven-figure salaries, and started buying into the car culture, the jewelry culture and the apparel culture," she said. "They created some of the biggest brands in the world."

Mr. Haag cited Supreme as a company that benefited from the commodification of skate culture: "If you were skating you knew what it was, but if you weren't a part of it, you wouldn't understand it."

"Now," he said, "it's doing collaborations with Louis Vuitton."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Professional gamers are more visible than ever, and the athletic apparel industry has taken notice. Matt Haag wasn't exactly dressing to impress during his teenage years on the competitive Call of Dutycircuit. The 26-year-old recalled, sheepishly, the basketball shorts and Payless kicks he wore on flights to tournaments around the country back in 2008.

# data[].attributes.body
The good news though is that the average wage in the bottom third of the wage distribution - minimum-wage workers and others - has risen an average of 2.3 percent annually over the last three years after adjusting for inflation. The studies have found that jobs effects in these other studies is overstated, and that the rising minimum wages in the United States have had more of a net benefit for the overall.

# data[].attributes.body
Tedeschi, Ernie. “Americans Are Seeing Highest Minimum Wage in History (Without Federal Help).” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Apr. 2019,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Protestors called for higher wages near a Las Vegas McDonald's in 2016. Nevada's minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour for employees with health benefits and $8.25 for those without. Credit John Locher/Associated Press

The federal minimum wage rose to $7.25 an hour 10 years ago. It hasn't budged since.

For Americans living in the 21 states where the federal minimum wage is binding, inflation means that the minimum wage has lost 16 percent of its purchasing power.

But elsewhere, many workers and employers are experiencing a minimum wage well above 2009 levels. That's because state capitols and, to an unprecedented degree, city halls have become far more active in setting their own minimum wages.

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have state-level minimum hourly wages higher than the federal one. In Washington State and Massachusetts, for example, it's $12.

But the true sea change is in the surge of city and county governments setting minimums. New York City has a $15 minimum wage, while in SeaTac, Wash., it's $16.09.

Averaging across all of these federal, state and local minimum wage laws, the effectiveminimum wage in the United States - the average minimum wage binding each hour of minimum wage work - will be $11.80 an hour in 2019. Adjusted for inflation, this is probably the highest minimum wage in American history.

Growth in the Effective Minimum Has Taken Off in Recent Years
The effective minimum wage has not only outpaced inflation in recent years, but it has also grown faster than typical wages. We can see this from the Kaitz index, which compares the minimum wage with median overall wages.

To put the growth in perspective: It took the 19 years ending in 2013 for the Kaitz index to rise four percentage points. In the six years since 2013, it has risen 13 percentage points.

The Federal Minimum Affects Only a Small Share of Minimum Wage Workers
Minimum wage laws above the federal level used to be the exception. In 1998, there were about a million minimum-wage workers in states with a minimum higher than the federal level, and virtually none in localities with separate minimums. Two-thirds of minimum wage workers lived in areas where the federal minimum applied.

But today 89 percent of the nation's 6.8 million minimum-wage employees face a minimum that is higher than $7.25 an hour. Even five years ago, relatively few such workers lived in areas with separate local minimum wages.

One consequence is increasing regional variation. American minimum wages now range from New York State's effective $13.73, which is 62 percent of the state's median overall wage, down to New Hampshire's $7.25 federal peg, which is just 30 percent of the state median.

Higher Minimum Wages Have Boosted Wage Growth at the Bottom ...
The most important question, though, is how the extraordinary rise in the effective minimum wage has affected American workers.

First, the good news: The average wage in the bottom third of the wage distribution - minimum-wage workers and others - has risen an average of 2.3 percent annually over the last three years after adjusting for inflation. The growth pressure from the wages of workers at or just around the minimum wage can account for between a quarter to a third of this growth.

Clearly state and local minimum-wage increases make a difference for workers who live and can find jobs in the places affected by them, even if this is not a complete explanation for the recent wage growth at the bottom nationally.

... But Like All Public Policies, Minimum Wage Increases Have Trade-Offs
Traditional textbook economics tells us that employers will cut jobs or hours for low-wage work if they're required to set the price of labor above the level consistent with market supply and demand. Therein lies one of the most contentious debates in economics right now.

In the real world, it's difficult to test this because of so many confounding factors.

For example, teenage employment rose about as much between 2013 and 2018 in states whose effective minimum wage didn't change as it did in states where it rose an average of 4 percent or greater each year.

The places that chose to raise their minimum wages may be different in important respects, both socioeconomic and demographic, from those that did not, like education; industry and occupation; and labor market health.

A sizable body of empirical research that adjusts for these issues concludes that while some workers are winners from minimum wage increases, many others lose out, particularly vulnerable workers like the young and those with less education. This calls into question whether raising the minimum wage is really the best way to help workers.

But beginning with David Card and Alan Krueger's landmark 1994 study of New Jersey's minimum wage increase, a growing economics literature is reaching a different conclusion: that the jobs effects found in these other studies is overstated, and that the rising minimum wages in the United States have had more of a net benefit.

For example, a huge study released this month analyzed 138 different state-level minimum wage increases since 1979. The authors found largely no net negative employment effects, though they did find some in sectors exposed to international trade. And University of Washington economists revised an initial study of Seattle's recent minimum wage increase that had showed significant negative effects on earnings for some workers. The new study found that the downsides were more muted.

Economists have several ideas for why negative jobs effects might be lower than expected. Employers may be less sensitive to minimum-wage increases because of long-term declines in national business competition and labor bargaining power, and the rise in profit rates and monopsony (in which a single buyer dominates a market).

The tightness of today's labor market may also help explain why it's hard to see much effect from recent increases. Perhaps minimum wages really "bite" only when they exceed a certain level. Or maybe employers have been reacting to them in ways not easily captured by wage data, such as by cutting benefits.

The push for higher state and local minimum wages shows no sign of abating, so no doubt we'll learn even more in coming years about their trade-offs, or lack thereof.

Methodology: The effective minimum wage is the binding federal, state or local minimum wage weighted by the usual labor hours of minimum wage workers at nonfarm wage and salary jobs paid hourly. It includes all federal and state laws as well as 32 localities with separate ordinances whose geography we can identify in the Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group. We exclude tipped occupations from this calculation using the definitions used by the Economic Policy Institute. We calculate median overall wages and average hourly earnings in the C.P.S. to be conceptually similar to average hourly earnings in the Current Employment Statistics survey. Inflation-adjusted series use the chained C.P.I.-U deflator, which is extended before 2000 using the deflator for personal consumption expenditures. This analysis uses data on local minimum wage ordinances from the U.C. Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education as well as from Kavya Vaghul and Ben Zipperer.

Ernie Tedeschi is an economist and head of fiscal analysis at Evercore ISI. He worked previously at the U.S. Treasury Department. The analysis here is solely his own. You can follow him on Twitter at@ernietedeschi.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A12 of the New York edition with the headline: Minimum Wage at Record High (Without Federal Help). Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Americans Are Seeing Highest Minimum Wage in History (Without Federal Help)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The federal minimum wage rose to $7.25 an hour 10 years ago. It hasn't budged since. For Americans living in the 21 states where the federal minimum wage is binding, inflation means that the minimum wage has lost 16 percent of its purchasing power.

# data[].attributes.body
For Americans living in the 21 states where the federal minimum wage is binding, inflation means that the minimum wage has lost 16 percent of its purchasing power. New York City has a $15 minimum wage, while in SeaTac, Wash., it's $16.09.Averaging across all of these federal, state and local minimum wage laws, the effective minimum wage in the United States.The effective minimum wage has not only outpaced inflation in recent years, but it has also grown faster than typical wages.

# data[].attributes.body
Eavis, Peter. “Tesla Posts Big Quarterly Loss as Its Electric-Car Sales Lag.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 Apr. 2019,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tesla's surprisingly weak electric-car deliveries in the first quarter took a heavy toll on its bottom line.

The company said on Wednesday that it lost $702 million in the first quarter, a sharp reversal from the profits it made in the second half of last year. The loss, equivalent to $4.10 per share, was far greater than the $1.81 per share that Wall Street analysts, surveyed by FactSet, had forecast. The quarter's revenue of $4.54 billion fell well short of expectations.

Tesla had $2.2 billion of cash at the end of the first quarter, a 40 percent decline from the figure at the end of last year. The company spent $920 million paying off a bond in March. Tesla's operations consumed $640 million of cash in the first quarter.

Investors had been bracing for the red ink after Tesla said it sold 31 percent fewer vehicles in the first quarter than in the fourth quarter of 2018. The company said logistical challenges had hindered deliveries of the Model 3 sedan to Europe and China. A reduction in a federal tax benefit for Tesla's buyers may have weighed on Model 3 sales in the United States.

Another weak spot for the company was its solar business, where sales dropped by more than 35 percent in the quarter.

"We expected weak results, but Tesla's revenue and profit misses were stunning," Vicki Bryan, chief executive of Bond Angle, a research firm, said in an email. "Revenue was soft, but spiking costs for obvious strategy missteps really drew blood at the bottom line."

The big question for Tesla is whether the drop in car sales in the first quarter was a temporary phenomenon or something more serious. Sales of Model 3 sedans could recover as the company delivers cars overseas. But demand for the higher-priced Model S and Model X vehicles plunged 56 percent in the first quarter from the fourth, even though the company cut the price of the cars at the end of February.

Tesla said on Wednesday that the reduction in the tax credit might have weakened demand for the Model X and the Model S. The company added that after the price cut, the increase in orders for high-end versions of those models exceeded the available supply. Tesla is also hoping that buyers flock to new versions of the S and X that can travel farther on a full charge.

In an investor call after the results were announced, a stock analyst asked why Tesla was cutting prices if demand was strong for its products. Tesla's chief executive, Elon Musk, responded that the goal was to make its cars "as affordable as possible."

Analysts had slashed their earnings estimates in recent weeks, and after the anemic delivery numbers, Tesla again faces doubts that it can achieve its goals and meet Wall Street's financial targets. Its stock was little changed in extended trading after the earnings announcement, but it is down over 30 percent from its most recent high.

Tesla said Wednesday that it expected to deliver 90,000 to 100,000 cars in the second quarter, up from 63,000 in the first three months of the year. It said it would lose money again in the second quarter, though less than in the first quarter, and would turn a profit in the third quarter.

Tesla's supporters are hoping that Model 3 sales will surge and enable the company to meet its target of delivering 360,000 to 400,000 vehicles this year. Tesla affirmed that goal on Wednesday, but said its vehicle production would be "significantly higher than deliveries," because of the time it takes to transport cars from California to other countries.

The company is now offering a $35,000 version of Model 3. The lower price may stir up demand for the car, but charging less could make it harder for Tesla to make a profit on the vehicle.

Tesla's cash position is crucial to the company's future. Mr. Musk intends to produce new vehicles in volume, including a large truck called the Semi, but setting up the new production facilities would consume large amounts of cash. Many analysts expect that Tesla will have to issue new shares to raise money.

Mr. Musk, who had previously said the company did not need more capital, indicated that he had changed his mind because Tesla was now in a position to use capital more efficiently. "There is merit to the idea of raising capital at this point," he told analysts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tesla Posts Big Quarterly Loss as Its Electric-Car Sales Lag

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tesla's surprisingly weak electric-car deliveries in the first quarter took a heavy toll on its bottom line. The company said on Wednesday that it lost $702 million in the first quarter, a sharp reversal from the profits it made in the second half of last year.

# data[].attributes.body
Tesla said on Wednesday that the decrease in the assessment credit may have debilitated interest for the Model X and the Model S. The organization included that after the cost cut, the expansion in requests for top of the line renditions of those models surpassed the accessible supply. Also its expected to convey 100,000 vehicles in the second quarter.

# data[].attributes.body
Tesla had $2.2 billion in cash toward the end of the primary quarter, a 40 percent decrease from the figure toward the finish of a year ago. Tesla's activities expended $640 million of money in the principal quarter. Financial specialists had been supporting for the red ink after Tesla said it sold 31 percent less vehicles in the first quarter rather than in the fourth quarter of 2018. A decrease in a government tax cut for Tesla's purchasers may have burdened Model 3 deals in the United States. The unavoidable issue for Tesla is whether the drop-in vehicle deals in the primary quarter was a brief wonder or something progressively genuine.

# data[].attributes.body
Bryan Passman, a longtime executive search consultant in Miami, prompts interviewees that on the off chance that they need to tell a planned cannabis business that they share in the organization's item, they ought to abstain from saying, "I like to smoke pot," and rather have a go at something like "I have an association with the plant."

# data[].attributes.body
MedMen, a cannabis retailer that has been classified "The Apple Store of weed." The opening was for a head advertising officer. Columbia Care, a restorative cannabis organization that is situated in New York and has 500 representatives, has indoor ranches and assembling plants in Massachusetts, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Arizona and the District of Columbia. Julia Pollak, a work financial specialist at ZipRecruiter, said the organization's information put the quantity of cannabis employments across the nation at 200,000 to 300,000. A half year back, Canada turned into the principal significant world economy to legitimize recreational marijuana use, and a few dozen cannabis stocks.

# data[].attributes.body
"Killer Weed Marijuana Grow Ops, Media, And Justice." Killer Weed, 2014, 1-2. doi:10.3138/9781442696587-003.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Credit Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

SAN FRANCISCO - David Dancer is a 48-year-old marketing executive who has worked for big brands like Charles Schwab and Teleflora. A year ago, he got a call from a recruiter for a different kind of company: MedMen, a cannabis retailer that has been called " the Apple Store of weed." The opening was for a chief marketing officer. He took it.

One of Mr. Dancer's early projects was a slick two-minute video by the director Spike Jonze that begins with an anecdote about George Washington as a hemp grower, a staple of dorm-room conversation. It concludes with a suburban couple coming home with a bright red bag of legally purchased pot, symbolizing "the new normal" - an ending that, like his own career twist, seemed improbable not long ago.

"It can and should be a part of anyone's everyday life," Mr. Dancer said in a recent interview, sounding very much like a man who has been hired to do marketing.

Although cannabis remains illegal on the federal level, 33 states now allow its sale at least for medical purposes. Ten of them, including California, have legalized recreational use. And as new markets open and capital continues to flood in, the cannabis industry has become, by some measures, one of the country's fastest-growing job sectors.

The jobs range from hourly work at farms and stores to executive positions. They also span the country. Columbia Care, a medical cannabis company that is based in New York and has 500 employees, has indoor farms and manufacturing plants in Massachusetts, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Arizona and the District of Columbia.

Image

Jobs in the industry include agricultural work, retail positions and roles for specialists like chemists, engineers and nurses. A ZipRecruiter economist put the number of cannabis jobs nationwide at 200,000 to 300,000. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

It's hard to know exactly how many jobs there are in the legal cannabis business. The United States Labor Department collects data from cannabis farms and retailers, but does not provide figures for the industry. Still, listings for cannabis-related positions have rocketed to the top echelon of the fastest-growing-job categories on sites like Indeed and ZipRecruiter.

Julia Pollak, a labor economist at ZipRecruiter, said the company's data put the number of cannabis jobs nationwide at 200,000 to 300,000. Most of those jobs are on the lower end of the pay scale, consisting of rote agricultural work like plant trimming ($10 to $15 an hour) and "budtenders" (about $25,000 a year), who help customers decide what kind of cannabis they want and then weigh and bag it.

But as the industry expands, there has also been a strong demand for better-paid positions like chemists, software engineers, and nurses who consult with patients about using cannabis for anxiety and other medical conditions.

"The early signs are that this will grow rapidly," Ms. Pollak said.

A few years ago, navigating the marijuana industry felt like a journey to the fringes of legitimacy. Cannabis-prescribing doctors set up shop in strip malls and record stores, or consulted with patients over brief video chats. Dispensaries were often in barred storefronts, and their employees had to engage in the charade of scolding their prescription-bearing customers if they talked about sharing purchases with friends.

A worker trimming marijuana flowers at Loving Kindness Farms in Gardena, Calif. Credit Richard Vogel/Associated Press

Now cannabis dispensaries occupy brightly lit spaces on prime retail strips that have showcase buds in glass cases and tinctures in small squeezer bottles, along with $80 pot lotions and $20 bars of pot soap. Six months ago, Canada became the first major world economy to legalize recreational marijuana use, and several dozen cannabis stocks - many for companies that are American in all but name but unable to list in the United States - now trade on the Canadian Securities Exchange.

Vivien Azer, a managing director at Cowen in New York, became the first major Wall Street analyst to follow the cannabis industry in 2016. She has since been joined by competitors at Jefferies and Piper Jaffray, and cannabis companies now attend investor events alongside big consumer products companies like Kellogg, Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble. Ms. Azer projects that the legal United States cannabis market will grow to $80 billion by 2030, a forecast that assumes federal legalization.

Ms. Azer tracked alcohol and tobacco companies, and cannabis seemed a natural extension. "I'm just talking about them as stocks like any other stock that I cover," she said.

For investors, it's a two-pronged thesis. The first is that many people like recreational use. The second is that as cannabis becomes more widely used, in particular the strains rich in cannabidiol, or CBD, it is increasingly a therapeutic remedy that people substitute for pain pills, sleep aids and other pharmaceuticals.

The pioneers who brought the industry out of the shadows are being joined by professional managers and executives - "talent," in corporate speak - who have had careers in other industries. For upper-level managers and executives, companies say they prefer candidates with a background in highly regulated industries like alcohol or pharmaceuticals.

Asha Manaktala, left, leads the sales team at Harborside, a cannabis dispensary and farming company in Oakland, Calif. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Steve DeAngelo's website calls him the "Father of the Cannabis Industry" and has a picture of him, smiling, in what pot enthusiasts know as his trademark look of a blue fedora atop graying Willie Nelson braids that rest on the shoulders of his jacket. And there he was in the same get-up on a recent Friday afternoon, standing by a pair of A.T.M.s watching the long line of customers waiting to buy cannabis at Harborside, a cannabis dispensary and farming company that he and a partner founded in 2006 in Oakland, Calif.

Mr. DeAngelo was there to introduce Menna Tesfatsion, his company's new chief operating officer. Whereas Mr. DeAngelo's background includes a history of radical politics, interviews in High Times and an arrest for marijuana possession, Mr. Tesfatsion is a lawyer who worked in real estate and property development before getting into the cannabis industry.

"It's a generational opportunity," said Mr. Tesfatsion, who was wearing a vest, as Bay Area executives do. "We're just beginning to scale."

Mr. DeAngelo said the ability to attract professional managers would go a long way toward determining how well cannabis companies did from here.

"We're the world's best experts in cannabis," he said of the early entrepreneurs. "But we didn't have much opportunity to learn mainstream business skill sets like finance and compliance and marketing and real estate."

Eager to shake the image of being high-end drug dealers, cannabis companies have become hypersensitive to anything that sounds unprofessional - hence the insistence on calling the substance cannabis instead of pot, weed or marijuana. Buds are "flower." Hash is "extract." Stoners are "high per-capita consumption consumers."

"It's a generational opportunity," said Menna Tesfatsion, Harborside's new chief operating officer, who previously worked in real estate and property development. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Bryan Passman, a longtime executive search consultant in Miami, recently started a cannabis-centric recruiting firm. It was originally called The Grass Is Greener Global (The GIGG), but he changed it to Hunter & Esquire because clients told him that they'd prefer he had a more professional-sounding name.

Mr. Passman advises interviewees that if they want to let a prospective cannabis employer know that they partake in the company's product, they should avoid saying, "I like to smoke pot," and instead try something like "I have a relationship with the plant."

The idea, he said, is to be "purposefully subtle."

Jobs in the industry come with a few caveats. Because cannabis is still illegal from the federal perspective, noncitizens should probably stay away for now, lest they risk their immigration status, Mr. Passman advises. If you're collecting a federal pension, you should consult a financial adviser to see if it's at risk. Also: Be realistic about the stigma you might face from employers in other industries.

After a decade in pharmaceutical marketing at companies including Gilead Sciences, Julie Raque recently became the vice president for marketing at Cannabistry Labs, a cannabis research and testing company in Chicago. She was intrigued by the industry and eager to join a start-up, but had to take a pay cut in exchange for company stock - and to accept that her decision might be a one-way door.

"I highly doubt companies would want to hire me back," she said. "I knew I was about to do something big, and since then I've not looked back, because I'm having so much fun."

Thomas Fuller contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page BU1 of the New York edition with the headline: Cannabis Industry Produces Sweet Fruit: Jobs. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cannabis, Marijuana, Weed, Pot? Just Call It a Job Machine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SAN FRANCISCO - David Dancer is a 48-year-old marketing executive who has worked for big brands like Charles Schwab and Teleflora. A year ago, he got a call from a recruiter for a different kind of company: MedMen, a cannabis retailer that has been called " the Apple Store of weed."

# data[].attributes.body
The general economy has developed by almost 9 percent since Yellen took office four years prior. The S&P 500 has soared up 55 percent since Yellen took over at the Fed multiple times the rate of progress for the general economy. Yellen didn't care for the tax break and said to such an extent. The Fed is already aiming for higher unemployment by raising interest rates, and any deficit-financed counter-measures, by Yellen's logic, would just create more supposedly dangerous government debt.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article the Huffington post talks about Janet Yellen, who is an American economist who served as the Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Nominated Janet Yellen to the most powerful economic post on the planet in October 2013, Republican Party leaders, backed by much of the economics establishment, warned of looming economic ruin. As Federal Reserve chair, Yellen would lead the country into a hyperinflation calamity on part with Weimar Germany or, at least, a return to the misery and malaise of the Jimmy Carter years.

# data[].attributes.body
"Figure 2f From: Irimia R, Gottschling M (2016) Taxonomic Revision of Rochefortia Sw. (Ehretiaceae, Boraginales). Biodiversity Data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When President nominated Barack Obama reluctantly Janet Yellen to the most powerful economic post on the planet in October 2013, Republican Party leaders, backed by much of the economics establishment, warned of looming economic ruin. As Federal Reserve chair, Yellen would lead the country into a hyperinflation calamity on par with Weimar Germany or, at least, a return to the misery and malaise of the Jimmy Carter years.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) he had "serious concerns" about Yellen's interest in "maintaining the purchasing power of the dollar." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) Yellen "thought that the best way to handle to our nation's fiscal challenges is to throw more money at them." Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) envisioned "massive price increases on every single product that Americans buy." Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): "For an example of what Main Street could be in store for, one need look no further than the late 1970s." Economist Kevin Hassett, now in the Trump administration: "Inflation could spin out of control."

And yet these predictions of horror (generously by Sam Bell, an adviser to the progressive economic advocacy group ) never materialized. Consumer prices rose by just 1.9 percent a year during Yellen's tenure ― and only 1.3 percent if you include fuel and food in the calculations. The overall economy, meanwhile, has grown by nearly 9 percent since Yellen took office four years ago (adjusted for that barely existent inflation), while the unemployment rate has steadily declined from 6.6 percent to 4.1 percent and the interest rate on government debt is about where it was when Yellen was confirmed. The man President Donald Trump has selected to succeed her, Jerome Powell, has stated that he plans to continue her policymaking legacy, which of course makes one wonder why, exactly, the president felt compelled to replace her.

Republicans have spent all year trying to take credit for the condition of the economy, as if a roaring stock market and low unemployment were all happening without any central bank activity at all.

By any conventional metric of central bank success, Yellen's tenure at the Fed has been a smash hit. Indeed, Republicans have spent all year trying to take credit for the condition of the economy, as if a roaring stock market and low unemployment were all happening without any central bank activity at all.

And that's the problem. Because the current economy isn't a smash hit. It is, at best, a mess. In important respects, it is in crisis. Inequality remains at or near record highs , an ongoing disaster that can't be captured by monetary statistics ― American life expectancy has for two consecutive years. Our bridges , our airports and our trains ― though we have both the financial means and the technological know-how to prevent all of these debacles.

Even the reality surrounding money and prices is more complicated than the stubbornly low inflation figures suggest. Food might be fine, but the price of Bitcoin ― something with literally no intrinsic value ― suggests that at least some people have too much money on their hands and not enough productive economic activities to invest in. The stock market seems disconnected from the economic world most people experience day to day. The S&P 500 has rocketed up 55 percent since Yellen took over at the Fed ― the rate of improvement for the overall economy. At least of that has to be the result of irrational overvaluation resulting from Fed policy.

Yellen didn't miss any of this. The Fed has been raising interest rates in a deliberate attempt to arrest the increase of financial asset prices and fend off any serious asset bubbles. This may well be the responsible thing for a Fed chief to do at the moment. But if so, the implications are rather grim. Because a predictable consequence of raising interest rates ― increasing the cost of credit and restricting its availability ― is higher unemployment.

Congress, working with a different set of priorities, has decided to boost stock prices by providing a massive corporate tax cut, and accompanied this with much more modest short-term tax cuts for (most) working people, hoping to keep downward pressure on unemployment.

Yellen didn't like the tax cut and said as much. She was particularly upset over the fact that it creates bigger deficits for the federal government in the face of a significant existing debt load. "I am personally concerned about the U.S. debt situation," Yellen said at her final press conference, warning that "as population continues to age and the baby boomers retire" government debt "will continue to rise in an unsustainable fashion. ... And I think it does suggest that in some future downturn, which could occur for whatever reason, the amount of fiscal space that could exist for fiscal policy to play an active role will be limited."

This was an extraordinary statement. It implied that economic conditions, at present, are about as good as we can ever hope for them to be. The Fed is already aiming for higher unemployment by raising interest rates, and any deficit-financed counter-measures, by Yellen's logic, would just create more supposedly dangerous government debt.

Yellen is surely wrong to suggest that any additional deficits today will inevitably make things worse tomorrow. With interest rates and consumer price inflation near historic lows, now would be a great time to borrow money to rebuild American infrastructure or tackle poverty head-on. It wasn't the price tag that made the Republican tax cut a bad idea ― putting a great deal of money in the hands of people who are already playing with Bitcoin by the billions, without directly addressing other pressing needs, just isn't very smart. It offers timid economic expansion, but only by generating still higher inequality and creating greater financial market instability.

And this is the central dilemma of Yellen's tenure at the Fed. Everything central bankers traditionally rely on to combat economic problems are much more likely to fuel dangerous asset bubbles under conditions of severe inequality. Yellen's quantitative easing agenda was never going to create the hyperinflationary calamity Republicans predicted ― but giving stock prices a lift, whatever its other benefits, padded the portfolios of the already wealthy. You can't use it to fix everything .

It is not obvious what exactly Yellen was supposed to do amid the steadfast refusal of a Republican Congress ― and, at times, President Obama ― to address inequality. Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan can attest that other Fed chairs have performed far, far worse.

But our deepest economic problems are concerned not merely with creating wealth, but its distribution. Absent direct action on inequality, no Fed chair can hope to perform better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Janet Yellen Was A Great Fed Chair. So Why Is The Economy Still Broken?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When President nominated Barack Obama reluctantly Janet Yellen to the most powerful economic post on the planet in October 2013, Republican Party leaders, backed by much of the economics establishment, warned of looming economic ruin.

# data[].attributes.body
Rajan step by step rethinks the third column from "Networks whose individuals live in nearness" to simply majority rule government or the "Casting a ballot open." A profitable and nearby establishment hardens into a homogeneous device for guaranteeing that the market and state carry on. Having demonstrated how the state has debilitated network by catching the job of wellbeing net, he by the by needs to go further toward that path.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, “An Economist’s Argument for Preserving Communities” the author talks about Raghuram Rajan who is a professor University of Chicago and former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund and how he wants his new book THE THIRD PILLAR. As a previous national broker, Rajan gives unique perspective regarding the network's job in money related markets and ventures to such an extreme as to safeguard long-prior forbiddances on usury. While still portraying how both a developing business sector and a developing state have disintegrated the network's importance.

# data[].attributes.body
Cass, O. (2019, February 27). An Economist's Argument for Preserving Communities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
THE THIRD PILLAR
How Markets and the State Leave the Community Behind
By Raghuram Rajan

Raghuram Rajan comes both to praise community and to bury it. This University of Chicago professor and former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund wants his new book to "reintroduce into the debate" the titular and neglected "third pillar" of community alongside the pillars of market and state that dominate modern society. Rajan says he is seeking "the right balance between them so that society prospers." But he lacks the courage of his convictions. What begins as an incisive critique of how economists and policymakers abandoned community ends as a dismaying illustration of the problem.

The prospect tantalizes: a voice from within some of our most market-focused institutions arguing that "community matters" and so "it is not enough for a country to experience strong economic growth." The opening chapters of "The Third Pillar" sparkle with concrete illustrations of how vibrant local communities contribute to human flourishing in ways typically overlooked. Rajan describes how ranchers benefit by handling livestock trespass cooperatively. Because the community is more attuned to individual circumstance, he observes, "given any quantity of available resources, it can offer a far-higher level of benefit to the truly needy."

Image

As a former central banker, Rajan gives special attention to the community's role in financial markets and goes so far as to defend long-ago prohibitions on usury. Neighbors helping neighbors represents a form of saving, creating a reciprocal obligation to be repaid when the tables inevitably turn. Small, young firms tend to get more and better loans when fewer banks are present, perhaps because less competition means a higher likelihood of retaining a firm's business as it grows. This leads to a crucial, more generalizable point: "Relationships seem to be stronger when the members of the community have fewer alternatives, for it gives the members confidence that they will stay mutually committed." The modern market's greater abundance of choice is not without trade-offs.

These threads dissolve in the hundreds of pages of vaguely sketched economic history that follow. While ably describing how both a growing market and a growing state have eroded the community's relevance and vitality over time, Rajan gradually redefines the third pillar from "communities whose members live in proximity" to merely democracy or the "voting public." An intrinsically valuable and varied local institution congeals into a homogeneous tool for ensuring that the market and state behave.

When genuine community does make a return in the book's section on prescriptions, Rajan sacrifices it willingly. Having shown how the state has weakened community by seizing the role of safety net, he nevertheless wants to go further in that direction. America's variety of antipoverty programs, "strung together with the help of the state government, the local government, private efforts and charitable funds" (in other words, "community"), are "inadequate," he says, calling instead for "a basic level of unconditional federal economic support" along with universal health care. On one page, Rajan recommends that "powers should stay at the most decentralized level consistent with their effective use," but on the next he declares that "when inclusiveness goes up against localism, inclusiveness should always triumph."

Rajan's real aim seems to be movement "toward one borderless world," with stronger communities a perhaps helpful means to that end. "A central concern in this book," he writes, "is about the passions that are unleashed when an imagined community like the nation fulfills the need for belonging that the neighborhood can no longer meet." He recalls wistfully the days when "technocrats ... did not have to spell out these arguments to the wider public." Sure, "the elite did not engage" in any debate "as they abandoned the integrated community," but he finds it "hard to fault their choice." After all, "the meritocratic markets now demanded it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Economist's Argument for Preserving Communities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
THE THIRD PILLAR How Markets and the State Leave the Community Behind By Raghuram Rajan Raghuram Rajan comes both to praise community and to bury it. This University of Chicago professor and former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund wants his new book to "reintroduce into the debate" the titular and neglected "third pillar" of community alongside the pillars of market and state that dominate modern society.

# data[].attributes.body
The 10-year U.S. Treasuries yield rose to as high as 2.885% on Monday, its most noteworthy in four years and 47 premise focuses over the 2.411% in 2017. An enormous fall in offer costs provoked an about-turn, and in Asian exchange on Tuesday, it fell back to as low as 2.662%. The yen, is regularly utilized as a place of refuge cash in view of Japan's strong current record overflow, the dollar slipped 0.2 percent to 108.86 yen, in the wake of having lost one percent on Monday.

# data[].attributes.body
S&P small scale prospects fell as much as 3.0% to four-month lows, expanding their misfortunes from the record more than seven days prior to 12%.  The U.S. benchmark S&P 500 drooped 4.1% and the Dow 4.6% on Monday, their greatest rate drops since August 2011. The pain is seen wrapping European offers, with spread-betters anticipating that Germany's Dax should sink 6.6% to five-month lows France's Cac 6.1% to conceivably 11-month lows and Britain's FTSE 4.8 percent to 14-month lows. Taiwan shares lost 5.0%, its greatest since in 2011 and Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index dropped 4.2%.

# data[].attributes.body
Reuters. (2019, February 06). Asian Markets Take A Tumble After U.S. Stocks Decline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TOKYO (Reuters) - A rout in global equities deepened in Asia on Tuesday as inflation worries gripped financial markets, sending U.S. stock futures sinking further into the red after Wall Street suffered its biggest decline since 2011.

S&P mini futures fell as much as 3.0 percent to four-month lows, extending their losses from the record peak hit just over a week ago to 12 percent, abruptly ending their smooth bull run of recent years. They last stood down 1.1 percent.

The U.S. benchmark S&P 500 slumped 4.1 percent and the Dow 4.6 percent on Monday, suffering their biggest percentage drops since August 2011.

Before Monday's fall, the index had not seen a pullback of more than 5 percent for more than 400 sessions, which analysts said was the longest such streak in history.

"Since last autumn, investors had been betting on the Goldilocks economy - solid economic expansion, improving corporate earnings and stable inflation. But the tide seems to have changed," said Norihiro Fujito, senior investment strategist at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities.

The gloom is seen enveloping European shares, with spread-betters expecting Germany's Dax to sink 6.6 percent to five-month lows, France's Cac 6.1 percent to possibly 11-month lows and Britain's FTSE 4.8 percent to 14-month lows.

In Asia, MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan slid 3.4 percent. Taiwan shares lost 5.0 percent, its biggest since in 2011 and Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index dropped 4.2 percent.

Japan's Nikkei dived 4.7 percent, its worst fall since November 2016, to four-month lows.

The trigger for the sell-off was a sharp rise in U.S. bond yields following Friday's data that showed U.S. wages increasing at the fastest pace since 2009, raising the alarm about higher inflation and with it potentially higher interest rates.

That could be painful for markets that have been propped up by central banks' stimulus for many years.

Some analysts also say markets tend to get edgy when the U.S. Federal Reserve has a new leadership.

The new Fed chief Jerome Powell, who succeeded Janet Yellen this month, is expected to continue Yellen's stance of gradual tightening. Still, some investors regard a change in the Fed leadership as a source of policy uncertainty.

The 10-year U.S. Treasuries yield rose to as high as 2.885 percent on Monday, its highest in four years and 47 basis points above the 2.411 percent seen at the end of 2017.

But a massive fall in share prices prompted an about-turn, and in Asian trade on Tuesday, it fell back to as low as 2.662 percent.

Fed fund futures are now pricing in only two rate hikes this year, a sea change from only a few days ago when they priced in about 80 percent chance of three increases with the market even rife with talk of four hikes.

The CBOE Volatility index, the closely followed "fear-index" measure of expected near-term stock market volatility jumped 20 points to 30.71, its highest since August 2015.

That left some popular exchange-traded products that investors use to benefit from calm market conditions facing potential liquidation.

"There is weakness across various equity sectors, but none so large the market is likely to fall through them. My money remains on equities - but rotating (and buying on weakness) into 'value' areas of the market that have lagged in the recent momentum-driven rally," said James Bateman, chief investment officer for multi-asset at Fidelity International.

"I'd also be avoiding stocks where dividend yields aren't backed up by strong free cash flow and a solid balance sheet," he added.

But Yoshinori Shigemi, market strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management, said the specter of inflation will gradually undermine the attraction of equities even though the markets could rebound in the short term.

"In the end, the Fed will have to hike rates. And if it doesn't, long-dated bonds will be sold off on worries about inflation. Either way, that is going to slow down the economy. Rising wages also mean corporate profit margins will be squeezed gradually down the road," he said.

Keen to avoid further risk, investors are closing their positions in other assets, including the currency market where a popular strategy has been to sell the dollar against the euro and other currencies seen as benefiting from higher interest rates in the future.

The euro eased to $1.2371, not far from last week's low of $1.2335, a break of which could usher in a further correction after its rally to a 3-year high of $1.2538 late last month.

Against the yen, which is often used as a safe-haven currency because of Japan's solid current account surplus, the dollar slipped 0.2 percent to 108.86 yen, after having lost one percent on Monday.

Bitcoin was not spared from the selling either, falling more than 10 percent to a 12-week low of $6,116. That represented a 69 percent fall from its record high of $19,666, touched on Dec. 17.

Investors also dumped junk bonds, with the yield of Merrill Lynch U.S. high yield index rising to 6.017 percent from 5.964 percent at the end of last week.

Still, it was far below its 2016 peak just above 10 percent, when low oil prices hurt energy firms.

Oil prices also dropped, with international benchmark Brent futures hitting a one-month low. It last stood at $66.97 per barrel, down 1.0 percent on the day.

U.S. crude futures traded at $63.53 per barrel, down 1.0 percent in Asia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Asian Markets Take A Tumble After U.S. Stocks Decline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TOKYO (Reuters) - A rout in global equities deepened in Asia on Tuesday as inflation worries gripped financial markets, sending U.S. stock futures sinking further into the red after Wall Street suffered its biggest decline since 2011.

# data[].attributes.body
The expression "Social financial matters," for the investigation of mental elements of how individuals settle on monetary choices, had not yet come in when the United States presented charges. The term "Behavioral economics," for the study of how people make economic decisions, had not yet come into use when the United States introduced tax withholding during World War II. In the language of behavioral economics, this reflects the "Prospect theory value function," in which receiving a large check from the government at tax time is very pleasurable, and writing a large check to the government very painful.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article the author talks about taxes. The assessment law that President Trump marked toward the finish of 2017 diminished the normal American family unit's 2018 normal government pay charge commitment by about $1,600, as indicated by Tax Policy Center. In a perfect world, the lower holding and lower charge bill would be about proportional to each other, and people archiving their obligations.

# data[].attributes.body
Irwin, N. (2019, February 27). Why People Are Outraged at Lower Tax Refunds (but Probably Shouldn't Be

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rationally, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar next year. Today, we offer further proof that humans are not always rational.

Image

Which would you rather have: an extra $50 in each biweekly paycheck, or a $1,300 refund payment in a single lump sum in April of the following year? Credit Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Both these things are true: Most Americans received a tax cut in 2018. But many will see a smaller tax refund than they are used to when they file their 2018 returns.

Unpacking this seeming contradiction reveals a lot about the psychology and politics of taxes - and has big implications for anyone who wants to reform the way the government raises revenue.

We aren't always rational in how we think about money.

The tax law that President Trump signed at the end of 2017 reduced the average American household's 2018 average federal income tax obligation by about $1,600, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center.

To reflect those lower taxes, the I.R.S. published new tables to determine how much employers should withhold from each of their workers' paychecks and send to the government. This meant most people saw larger paychecks immediately.

But that also meant that over the course of the year, workers prepaid less tax. In a perfect world, the lower withholding and lower tax bill would be about equal to each other, and people filing their taxes would be no better or worse off than before in terms of their refunds.

In reality, though, not everybody's tax situation is the same. The details mean that some people received much more benefit from the changes than others.

The average tax refund filed through mid-February was down 17 percent, or more than $500, from the equivalent period last year, according to I.R.S. data. (Early filers aren't necessarily typical, so the numbers will most likely change as more Americans file.)

Still, some people have seen even larger reductions in their refund, or found that they now owe the I.R.S. money. And plenty of those people are irate about this, as evidenced on Twitter and in news coverage.

But Economics 101 would suggest that this trade - getting the money early and receiving a smaller refund or owing money to the I.R.S. at tax time - is the better deal.

Which would you rather have: an extra $50 in each biweekly paycheck, or a $1,300 refund payment in a single lump sum in April of the following year? The simple idea of the time value of money - that a dollar today is more valuable than a dollar tomorrow - suggests you should want the higher weekly paycheck.

When you withhold more in taxes than you ultimately owe, you are giving the United States government an interest-free loan. You're better off calibrating your withholding so that you have no refund, or owe a little when you complete your tax form (although you want to keep that obligation low enough to avoid I.R.S. penalties).

But as the discontent over smaller refunds shows, actual humans - as opposed to the rational automatons of economics textbooks - don't view it that way.

"The question that befuddles traditional economists is why people want these refunds," said Richard Thaler, a Nobel-winning economist at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. "Why do they want to make interest-free loans to the government? If they just went out and met a noneconomist, they would find that people like" refunds.

Essentially, the Trump administration chose to set withholding tables that created a short-term political talking point (your paycheck went up!) but that are likely to make people less happy over the medium term (your refund shrank!).

The term "behavioral economics," for the study of psychological dimensions of how people make economic decisions, had not yet come into use when the United States introduced tax withholding during World War II. But the creators of that system showed keen intuition about behavioral economics lessons that would become more formalized decades later.

At the time, the government needed to raise a lot of money fast for the war effort. If it had simply increased tax rates and expected everyone to write the government a large check at the start of the ensuing year, there would have been popular outrage.

But by compelling employers to deduct taxes from each paycheck as prepayment, the pain of filing taxes could be turned on its head. When most people end up receiving a refund from the government when they file their taxes, it becomes an occasion on which they receive a large lump sum, a form of forced, zero-interest savings.

In the language of behavioral economics, this reflects the " prospect theory value function," in which receiving a large check from the government at tax time is very pleasurable, and writing a large check to the government very painful. But a modest reduction to each paycheck is hardly painful at all.

As governor of California in the late 1960s, Ronald Reagan understood this, and resisted introducing a system of withholding state income taxes. "Taxes should hurt," he said, in opposing proposals that he believed would make the paying of taxes less noticeable - and therefore less painful.

His view was that anti-tax sentiment would be stronger if paying taxes meant actively writing a check to the government every year. (Eventually, in a 1971 budget crisis, he relented.)

So the anger of people faced with smaller refunds or new tax liabilities may prove damaging to President Trump and Republicans in Congress who face voters next year. But if Reagan's intuition was correct, over time it may make those voters more hostile to taxes - a win in the long run for anti-tax conservatives.

Neil Irwin is a senior economics correspondent for The Upshot. He previously wrote for The Washington Post and is the author of "The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and a World on Fire." @Neil_Irwin * Facebook

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page B3 of the New York edition with the headline: Lower Tax Refunds May Spark Outrage, But Maybe Shouldn't. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why People Are Outraged at Lower Tax Refunds (but Probably Shouldn't Be)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rationally, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar next year. Today, we offer further proof that humans are not always rational. Both these things are true: Most Americans received a tax cut in 2018. But many will see a smaller tax refund than they are used to when they file their 2018 returns.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion the The Federal Reserve has a lot of components that are very complexed.

# data[].attributes.body
During the month of February, the CPI rose 1.5 percent, the littlest addition since September of 2016. The CPI expanded 1.6 percent on a year-on-year premise in January. Barring the unpredictable  parts, the CPI edged up 0.1 percent, the littlest increment since August 2018. The center CPI had expanded by 0.2 percent for five straight months. Also within the month of February, the center CPI rose 2.1 percent and the center CPI had expanded by 2.2 percent for three months in a row on a yearly premise. Financial analysts surveyed by Reuters had estimated the CPI and the center CPI edging up 0.2 percent in February.

The Federal Reserve, which has a 2 percent expansion target, tracks an alternate measure, the center  uses value list, for the money approach. The center PCE cost file expanded 1.9 percent on a year-on-year premise in December after a comparable increase in November.

# data[].attributes.body
Cnbc. (2019, March 12). US consumer prices rise for the first time in 4 months.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S. consumer prices rose for the first time in four months in February, but the pace of the increase was modest, resulting in the smallest annual gain in nearly 2-1/2 years.

The Labor Department said on Tuesday its Consumer Price Index increased 0.2 percent, lifted by gains in the costs of food, gasoline and rents. The CPI had been unchanged for three straight months.

In the 12 months through February, the CPI rose 1.5 percent, the smallest gain since September 2016. The CPI increased 1.6 percent on a year-on-year basis in January.

Excluding the volatile food and energy components, the CPI edged up 0.1 percent, the smallest increase since August 2018. The so-called core CPI had increased by 0.2 percent for five straight months.

In the 12 months through February, the core CPI rose 2.1 percent. The core CPI had increased by 2.2 percent for three consecutive months on an annual basis. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the CPI and the core CPI edging up 0.2 percent in February.

The Federal Reserve, which has a 2 percent inflation target, tracks a different measure, the core personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, for monetary policy.

The core PCE price index increased 1.9 percent on a year-on-year basis in December after a similar gain in November. It hit the U.S. central bank's 2 percent inflation target in March last year for the first time since April 2012.

Slowing domestic and global growth are keeping inflation in check even as a tight labor market is driving up wages. Annual wage growth jumped 3.4 percent in February, the biggest increase since April 2009, from 3.1 percent in January.

A New York Fed survey of consumer expectations published on Monday showed a drop in inflation expectations in February.

In a wide-ranging interview with CBS's 60 Minutes news program, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell on Sunday reiterated the U.S. central bank's wait-and-see approach to further monetary policy tightening this year. Powell said the Fed did "not feel any hurry" to change the level of interest rates again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US consumer prices rise for the first time in 4 months

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. consumer prices rose for the first time in four months in February, but the pace of the increase was modest, resulting in the smallest annual gain in nearly 2-1/2 years. The Labor Department said on Tuesday its Consumer Price Index increased 0.2 percent, lifted by gains in the costs of food, gasoline and rents.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion I agree with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez because theres no need to be overly rich. Once you reach a certain type of wealth and riches all you can do is give out your money anyway. I feel like these tax increase would benefit the economy positively if managed properly

# data[].attributes.body
The article starts of by stating that the  behavior of some people are being affected by the fact that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will a member of Congress. Moreover, the article talks about the 70-80 percent, tax rate Alexandria wants to implement which would affect those who have very high incomes. In addition the article talked about diminishing marginal utility which refers to the notion of the extra dollar and how it is less appreciated by people who have higher incomes in comparison to those with higher incomes. To conclude the article suggested we should not care about a rule that only affects the super rich. Then after it also talked about how if the tax percentage was any higher the economy would be effected because then there would be no incentive to be that rich.

# data[].attributes.body
Krugman, Paul. “The Economics of Soaking the Rich.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Jan. 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know about tax policy? A lot.

Image

Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Jahana Hayes of Connecticut on the House floor in Washington on Thursday. Credit Credit Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press

I have no idea how well Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will perform as a member of Congress. But her election is already serving a valuable purpose. You see, the mere thought of having a young, articulate, telegenic nonwhite woman serve is driving many on the right mad - and in their madness they're inadvertently revealing their true selves.

Some of the revelations are cultural: The hysteria over a video of AOC dancing in college says volumes, not about her, but about the hysterics. But in some ways the more important revelations are intellectual: The right's denunciation of AOC's "insane" policy ideas serves as a very good reminder of who is actually insane.

The controversy of the moment involves AOC's advocacy of a tax rate of 70-80 percent on very high incomes, which is obviously crazy, right? I mean, who thinks that makes sense? Only ignorant people like ... um, Peter Diamond, Nobel laureate in economics and arguably the world's leading expert on public finance. (Although Republicans blocked him from an appointment to the Federal Reserve Board with claims that he was unqualified. Really.) And it's a policy nobody has ever implemented, aside from ... the United States, for 35 years after World War II - including the most successful period of economic growth in our history.

To be more specific, Diamond, in work with Emmanuel Saez - one of our leading experts on inequality - estimated the optimal top tax rate to be 73 percent. Some put it higher: Christina Romer, top macroeconomist and former head of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, estimates it at more than 80 percent.

[Never be uninteresting. Read the most thought-provoking, funny, delightful and raw stories from The New York Times Opinion section.]
Where do these numbers come from? Underlying the Diamond-Saez analysis are two propositions: Diminishing marginal utility and competitive markets.

Diminishing marginal utility is the common-sense notion that an extra dollar is worth a lot less in satisfaction to people with very high incomes than to those with low incomes. Give a family with an annual income of $20,000 an extra $1,000 and it will make a big difference to their lives. Give a guy who makes $1 million an extra thousand and he'll barely notice it.

What this implies for economic policy is that we shouldn't care what a policy does to the incomes of the very rich. A policy that makes the rich a bit poorer will affect only a handful of people, and will barely affect their life satisfaction, since they will still be able to buy whatever they want.

So why not tax them at 100 percent? The answer is that this would eliminate any incentive to do whatever it is they do to earn that much money, which would hurt the economy. In other words, tax policy toward the rich should have nothing to do with the interests of the rich, per se, but should only be concerned with how incentive effects change the behavior of the rich, and how this affects the rest of the population.

But here's where competitive markets come in. In a perfectly competitive economy, with no monopoly power or other distortions - which is the kind of economy conservatives want us to believe we have - everyone gets paid his or her marginal product. That is, if you get paid $1000 an hour, it's because each extra hour you work adds $1000 worth to the economy's output.

In that case, however, why do we care how hard the rich work? If a rich man works an extra hour, adding $1000 to the economy, but gets paid $1000 for his efforts, the combined income of everyone else doesn't change, does it? Ah, but it does - because he pays taxes on that extra $1000. So the social benefit from getting high-income individuals to work a bit harder is the tax revenue generated by that extra effort - and conversely the cost of their working less is the reduction in the taxes they pay.

Or to put it a bit more succinctly, when taxing the rich, all we should care about is how much revenue we raise. The optimal tax rate on people with very high incomes is the rate that raises the maximum possible revenue.

And that's something we can estimate, given evidence on how responsive the pre-tax income of the wealthy actually is to tax rates. As I said, Diamond and Saez put the optimal rate at 73 percent, Romer at over 80 percent - which is consistent with what AOC said.

An aside: What if we take into account the reality that markets aren't perfectly competitive, that there's a lot of monopoly power out there? The answer is that this almost surely makes the case for even higher tax rates, since high-income people presumably get a lot of those monopoly rents.

So AOC, far from showing her craziness, is fully in line with serious economic research. (I hear that she's been talking to some very good economists.) Her critics, on the other hand, do indeed have crazy policy ideas - and tax policy is at the heart of the crazy.

You see, Republicans almost universally advocate low taxes on the wealthy, based on the claim that tax cuts at the top will have huge beneficial effects on the economy. This claim rests on research by ... well, nobody. There isn't any body of serious work supporting G.O.P. tax ideas, because the evidence is overwhelmingly against those ideas.

Look at the history of top marginal income tax rates (left) versus growth in real GDP per capita (right, measured over 10 years, to smooth out short-run fluctuations.):

Image

Top tax rates and growth Credit Tax Policy Center, BEA

What we see is that America used to have very high tax rates on the rich - higher even than those AOC is proposing - and did just fine. Since then tax rates have come way down, and if anything the economy has done less well.

Why do Republicans adhere to a tax theory that has no support from nonpartisan economists and is refuted by all available data? Well, ask who benefits from low taxes on the rich, and it's obvious.

And because the party's coffers demand adherence to nonsense economics, the party prefers "economists" who are obvious frauds and can't even fake their numbers effectively.

Which brings me back to AOC, and the constant effort to portray her as flaky and ignorant. Well, on the tax issue she's just saying what good economists say; and she definitely knows more economics than almost everyone in the G.O.P. caucus, not least because she doesn't "know" things that aren't true.

Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | The Economics of Soaking the Rich

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know about tax policy? A lot. I have no idea how well Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will perform as a member of Congress. But her election is already serving a valuable purpose. You see, the mere thought of having a young, articulate, telegenic nonwhite woman serve is driving many on the right mad - and in their madness they're inadvertently revealing their true selves.