17 Burst results for "Rachel Siegel"
Northwest Newsradio
"rachel siegel" Discussed on Northwest Newsradio
"In a very but the seasonable 45 degrees downtown FM 97 your .7 information station I'm with fansites in Seattle our editor O is 'Neill Bill and here's a scan of some of our top stories in the headlines the Israel and Hamas war now in its 40th Israeli military has raided the Gaza Strip's main hospital and said it's a targeted operation against Hamas the US confirming yesterday that Hamas uses hospitals and tunnels underneath them to hide and hold bon hostages voyage to the Coast Guard's only heavy icebreaker steaming out of its Seattle homeport this afternoon to Antarctica the Polar Star is on a resupply mission our Northwest NewsTime 216 interest rates remain high inventory low but still Americans continue to buy homes so who's responsible for keeping the housing market alive? Rachel Siegel from the Washington Post has the answer and spoke with Northwest News Radio's Taylor Van Cise so Rachel paint a picture for me of the average home buyer their age and their maybe stage in life this is a really interesting tidbit that I came across in looking at the housing market which as you described can be really difficult Association of Realtors that actually pointed to a lot of the reasons that home buyers are getting older Typically the median age for a repeat buyer so someone who has bought a house before was 58 that's down just a bit from last year's record of 59 but up significantly from closer to the mid 30s just a couple of decades ago and we can get into the reasons why well yeah I wonder because you know these would baby be boomers in their 60s and 70s then taking out maybe not so traditional mortgages anymore because I mean I would think a 30 -year mortgage at the age of 70 might be a little intimidating well even if they mortgage need a at all so there are a couple of reasons that older buyers are actually more in position to either buy homes with all cash or just not be as susceptible to the really high interest rates that are keeping younger buyers out of market the so for example an older buyer is likely to be selling a house at the same time that they're buying a new home and oftentimes they can take that fresh cash they can take that windfall and put it towards their new house oftentimes they're also downsizing they might have gotten more money from the house that they're selling that will be able to not only only cover the new house but be able to help them get around a mortgage rate clear other debt and just make them overall look like a much more attractive candidate if they're having to compete in a bidding war or just make the best case for why they should get that house when you look at how difficult it is for first -time buyers to get into the market what is that doing to the average age of a first home -time buyer yeah so first -time home buyers right now make up 32 % of the market and that's down quite a bit from more of an average of 38 % in 1981 people are also more likely to be in their mid -30s today when they make that first home purchase in contrast to their 20s a couple of decades ago and these are all somewhat one in the same it takes longer for people to either save up the amount of equity to buy a home or be able to stomach that high mortgage rate and increasingly that means that there are actually some advantages to older buyers that are still managing to do okay in this tight housing market you know it seems that every time we get you on the phone rachel there's always something over the last few years that we can tie back to the pandemic maybe throwing the economy for a loop or housing market for whatever so how much of can this we blame on the pandemic for the average age of home buyers going up so much well it's definitely difficult to disentangle some of these things but i think it all goes back to changing preferences this real shake up in where people want live to how they think about their lives at home if people want to be moving closer to family and now the huge jump in mortgage rates that have come from this push to get inflation under control the pandemic also exposed really the lack of housing supply made it clear that if people were clamoring to buy houses or find new places to rent even that there just wasn't that stock available and in that way that's also a big thing to be talking about. rachel siegel with us on northwest news radio reported for the washington post you can find more from rachel at .com washingtonpost in the interview there with northwest news radio's taylor van size the u .s. postal service is down six and a half billion dollars this year the service had hoped for a financial turnaround and predicted it would actually break even in the fiscal year ending september 30th postmaster general louis de joye blaming it on inflation upping the operation costs as well as skyrocketing printing prices and that pushed down among the junk that pushed down the amount of junk mail marketers the ceo of target claims customers are thankful for stores locking up certain merchandise while discussing the earnings with reporter ceo brian cornell said shopper response targets decision to lock up items such as toothpaste and deodorant has been positive target recently closed nine stores in new york city california's bay area seattle and portland citing violence and theft time for your stock charts dot com money updates it's welcome economic news help stocks add to their recent rally today the smp five hundred edged up seven points the the dow dow jones industrials added one hundred sixty three and the nasdaq composite tacked on nine the producer price index fell a half percent in october from september helping to further ease inflation worries and retail slipped one
Tech Path Crypto
"rachel siegel" Discussed on Tech Path Crypto
"So right now it's still an open question about sufficiently restrictive you're not saying today that we've reached this level we're not saying no no clearly we are just what we decided to do is maintain the policy rate and await further data. We want to see convincing evidence really that we have reached the appropriate level and then you know we're we're seeing progress and we welcome that but you know we need to see more progress before we'll be willing to to reach that conclusion. And just on the 2024 projections what's behind that shallower path for interest rate cuts and the need for real rates to be 50 basis points higher. Right so I would say it this way for first of all interest rates real interest rates are positive now they're meaningfully positive and that's a good thing we need a policy to be restrictive so that we can get inflation down to target okay and we need that we're going to need that to remain to be the case for some time. So I think you know remember that the of course the SEP is not a plan that is negotiated or discussed really as a plan it's accumulation really and what you see are the medians accumulation of individual forecasts from 19 people and then what you're seeing are the medians so I wouldn't want to you know bestow upon it the idea that it that's really a plan but what it reflects though is that economic activity has been stronger than we expected stronger than I think everyone expected and and so what what you're what you're seeing is this is what people believe as of now will be appropriate to achieve what we're looking to achieve which is progress toward our uh toward our inflation goal as you see in the SEP. Thanks let's go to Rachel. Hi Chair Powell Rachel Siegel from the Washington Post thanks for taking our questions. How would you characterize the debate around another hike or holding steady is it discussion around lag times fear of too much slowing too little slowing could you walk us through what this disagreement was about at the meeting? Yeah so the proposal at the meeting was to was to maintain our current policy stance and and I think there was obviously unanimous support for that but this of course is an SEP meeting and so people write down what they think and you've got you have some you saw I think seven wrote down no hike at this at this meeting or between now and the end of the year and I think 12 wrote down another single hike in one of the next two meetings that we have between the end of the year so it wasn't like we were arguing over that people just stating their positions and really what what people are saying is let's see how the data come in you know we want to see you know we want to see we want to see that that this this these good inflation readings that we've been seeing for the last three months we want to see that it's more than just three months right we want to see you know the the labor market report that we received the last one that received was a good example of we do what we do want to see it was a combination of of you know across a broad range of indicators continuing rebalancing of the labor market so those are the two things those are our two mandate variables and and that's that's the progress that we want to see but I think people they want to be convinced you know they want to be careful to not to jump to a conclusion really one way or the other but just be convinced that the data you know support that conclusion and that's why given how far we've come and how quickly we've come we're actually in a position to be able to proceed carefully as we assess the incoming data and the evolving outlooks and risks and make these decisions meeting by meeting and in your view what would I know nothing has been decided yet but what would one more hike at the end of the year due to the economy or to inflation on and on the other side what would no hike do if you could sort of game that out for us so you know you you can make the argument that one hike one where the other won't matter but for us we're trying we've obviously as a group it's a pretty tight cluster of of where we think that that policy stance might be but we're always going to be learning from data you know we've learned all through the course of the last year that actually we needed to go further than we had thought you go back a year and what we thought we'll grow it down it's actually gotten higher and higher so we don't really know until and that's why again we're in a position to proceed carefully at this point a year ago we proceeded pretty quickly to get rates up now now we're fairly close we think to where we need to get it's it's just a question of reaching the right stance I wouldn't attribute huge importance to one hike in macroeconomic terms nonetheless you know we need we need to get to a place where we're confident that we have a stance that will bring inflation down to two percent over time that's what we need to get to and we've been you know we've been moving toward it as we've gotten closer to it we slowed the pace at which we've moved I think that was appropriate and now that we're getting closer we we again we have the ability to proceed carefully. Let's go to Steve. Steve Leachman CNBC.
Northwest Newsradio
"rachel siegel" Discussed on Northwest Newsradio
"Level impacts your energy, libido, sleep, weight, hair loss, mood, and even ED? And right now, Revive Men's Health Seattle will check your testosterone for free. They've helped thousands of men since 2011 feel and perform better. They're so confident they can help you, they even guarantee it. Schedule your free testosterone test, exam, and consultation today. Call 206 529 -1111. That's 206 -529 -1111. Or visit ReviveMen'sHealth com. Employee retention tax credits are real and many businesses still qualify. Does yours? Learn more at seattletaxcredits .com. That's seattletaxcredits .com. Get organized today and save big with Creative Closets. Save 30 % off your entire project. Go to CreativeClosetOrganizers .com. Newsradio 1000 FM 9077, your information station. High demand and low supply in the housing market followed by pandemic supply chain issues, rising inflation, and higher interest rates produced a housing market recession. But that downturn appears to be coming to an end. Rachel Siegel is covering it for the Washington Post and spoke with Northwest News Radio's Taylor Van Zyce. Rachel, as the housing market recovers, is the nationwide housing age any closer to a resolution? Well, it sounds tricky that the answer to one of those could be yes and the other could be no, but it is still the case that even though the recession or the downturn that we've seen in the broader housing market and that we saw especially last year is getting better, there is still a tremendous shortfall of homes actually available in the country. There's a very, very wide range of estimates for how many houses we are short. Some people say it's 1 million, some people say it's as high as 5 million, but there is still a long very, way very to go to fully heal the housing market and also make sure there are enough homes to meet the demand. And at one point, you know, if you couldn't get the materials to build or the customers willing to take on a higher interest loan, a developer probably would want hold to off on breaking ground.
WTOP
"rachel siegel" Discussed on WTOP
"Electrical contractors come to grow. Good evening time to be tree selfless one Herrera is our producer, top stories we're following for you tonight. Convoy of buses carrying several hundred American citizens is now making a 500 mile journey from Sudan to port Sudan. This is the first organized effort by the U.S. to evacuate its citizens from the country as two warning generals fight for control, and again to clarify the journey is from Khartoum, the Sudanese capital to port Sudan. Let's hear more tonight from CBS News military analyst Jeff McCarthy. The Biden administration's cost approach reflects the deteriorating situation throughout the country. A Turkish evacuation aircraft was far upon as it departed Khartoum. Current estimates are that over 500 people have been killed and 4200 wounded in fighting in the capital alone. The shanky ceasefire and fit is in place, but it's not appeared to behold of a convoy of buses as being tracked by armed American drones that are hovering high overhead watching for threats. The U.S. Army is now grounding all aircraft except those taking part in critical missions after a deadly collision in Alaska last night. All aviators must now go through extra training, active duty troops are required to complete that training on May 1st. National Guard and reserve units have until the end of the month. The stand down was ordered after two apaches returning from gunnery practice to their base near Fairbanks Alaska, collided in midair. Each year carried a pilot and a gunner, three of them died. The loan survivor is listed in stable condition and may be able to tell investigators what went wrong. It's the army's third fatal helicopter crash this year. All of them during routine training, CBS David Martin reporting. Questions about Supreme Court Justices financial dealings are now reaching chief justice John Roberts. We're learning that his wife Jane Roberts was paid millions of dollars in recruiting commissions by some top law firms. The details of Jane Roberts work are laid out in a whistleblower complaint that was filed by a disgruntled former colleague. Insider was able to get its hands on the whistleblower complaint, filed in December of last year. Jane Roberts was paid $10.3 million over 8 years as a legal recruiter in order to place outgoing officials and high end lawyers and instant new jobs. And some of the firms that paid her this money as commission were also at the same time or later, arguing in front of the Supreme Court. And what's also quite troubling is that on chief justice John Roberts own disclosure forms, he does not say that this money came to his spouse as commission, he describes it as salary. That may sound like I'm nitpicking a little bit, but those two terms are quite distinct. Inside your senior correspondent mattathias Schwartz on WTO tonight. Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito says he has a pretty good idea of who was behind leaking the high court's draft opinion overturning roe V wade last year. In an interview published in The Wall Street Journal's opinion section, Alito dismissed the idea that draft was leaked by one of the 5 conservative justices saying it made them all targets of assassination, the high court has been unable to identify the source of the leak. The draft opinion was published by Politico last summer. It was the first time in the court's history that an entire opinion became available before the court was ready to announce it. Montana's Republican governor is now signed legislation banning gender affirming care for trans miners. Montana has joined more than a dozen states that are banning gender affirming medical care for transgender minors. Representative Zoe's efforts criticism of the bill led the transgender lawmaker to be silenced on Montana's house floor and then removed after she encouraged protesters on Monday. The ban is set to take effect on October 1st, the ACLU and lambda legal have vowed legal challenges. And that is Lisa dwyer reporting to Capitol Hill now the House democratic leader is charging tonight the Republicans are risking a dangerous U.S. default by linking the debt ceiling to major spending cuts Mitchell Miller today on the hill. House Republicans produced a ransom note. House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries discussing GOP legislation passed this week. That is what the default on America act is and that is wildly irresponsible. Jeffrey says the bill is going nowhere in the Senate. It proposes a wide range of budget cuts as well as extending the debt ceiling into next year. House speaker Kevin McCarthy charges its President Biden and Democrats who are putting the nation at risk. We're the only ones to lift the debt limit to make sure this economy is not in jeopardy. The deadline for raising the debt limit is expected to become clearer in the next week, but all agree it's fast approaching this summer. On Capitol Hill, Mitchell Miller, WTO P news. It's been more than a month since the collapse of Silicon Valley bank in California rocked the markets and caused widespread panic of a potential bank failure and potential recession as well. Today, the Federal Reserve released its much awaited report on what caused the bank failure. So who's to blame? On the one hand, it's pointing to Silicon Valley bank itself. We already knew that that bank was recklessly managed that its executives made very poor decisions about how to manage its growing risks, the fed is also pointing its fingers at rules that were put in place to loosen oversight of the banking system. Those were rules that were put in place in 2018 and 2019. And the fed is also saying that they failed here too that regulators were not aggressive in making sure that its warnings were heated, that there was a culture of lack supervision and that all of these things created a perfect storm that led to what we saw last month. Washington Post economics reporter Rachel Siegel on WTO. Also today shares in first republic bank have dropped by more than one third, and by 95% so far this year, first republic has been looking for a rescue partner after the California bank got caught on the crosswinds between rising interest rates and low cost loans. Coming up on WTO, the fresh farm farmers market network expands in our area. Stay with us. It's ten 36. If you want your employees to learn what it takes to make an impact, graduate school USA can train them in skills today, they can put into use tomorrow. From
WTOP
"rachel siegel" Discussed on WTOP
"Month since the collapse of Silicon Valley bank in California and it rocked the markets and caused widespread panic of a potential recession. Well, today the Federal Reserve released its much awaited report on what caused the bank failure. It's a 144 page report in the fed lays blame on the bank and on the fed supervisors as well charged with overseeing it. Rachel Siegel covers the Federal Reserve for The Washington Post and joins us live, great to have you with us, Rachel thanks. Thanks so much for having me. So what exactly did the fed say the cause of this bank failure was? Well, the fed is pointing its fingers in a couple of different places. On the one hand, it's pointing to Silicon Valley bank itself. We already knew that that bank was recklessly managed that its executives made very poor decisions about how to manage its growing risks, the fed is also pointing at fingers at rules that were put in place to loosen oversight of the banking system. Those were rules that were put in place in 2018 and 2019 by Congress and the fed itself. And the fed is also saying that they failed here too that regulators were not aggressive in making sure that its warnings were heated, that there was a culture of lack supervision and that all of these things created a perfect storm that led to what we saw last month. Did the fed propose anything here to try to alleviate these problems in the future? Yeah, so the overarching message was that this was going to be the launching point for a really aggressive set of new regulations that we're going to re strengthen banking rules that this was not going to be something that was just in response to SVB, but was going to become this sort of a broader mandate for the fed to say there are vulnerabilities here. We've seen the worst of what can happen and we need stricter rules in place to make sure that it doesn't happen again. So the FDIC also released a report of its own on the failure of signature bank in New York. What is that report say and how does it compare to the Federal Reserve's report on SVB? You know, it's interesting. Today we got these two reports really back to back first the feds and the FDIC's. The FDA fees was a little bit more contained. It really kept its findings specific to signature bank, which it has the authority to oversee. It didn't come with sweeping regulations or sweeping proposals for how to change bank policy. It said some of what we already knew that signature bank was also very poorly managed, that it made poor decisions, especially given its vulnerability to the crypto industry, and also that the FDIC had its own issues related to staffing, to make sure that these very important jobs to oversee banks were full that there wasn't serious turnover. And again, these things collided with what we saw with signature bank last month. Rachel, thanks for your help on this appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you. Washington Post economics reporter, Rachel Siegel
Tech Path Crypto
"rachel siegel" Discussed on Tech Path Crypto
"The stock market posted a solid game in January, does that make your job of combating inflation harder and could you see lifting rates higher than you otherwise would to offset the increase in or to offset the easing of financial conditions? So it is important that the overall financial conditions continue to reflect the policy restraint that we're putting in place in order to bring inflation down to 2%. And of course, financial conditions have tightened very significantly over the past year. I would say that our focus is not on short term moves, but on sustained changes to broader financial conditions. And it is our judgment that we're not yet at a sufficiently restrictive policy stance. Which is why we say that we expect ongoing hikes will be appropriate. Of course, many things affect financial conditions, not just our policy. And we will take into account overall financial conditions along with many other factors as we said policy. Rachel. Hi, chair Powell. Thank you for taking our questions. Rachel Siegel from The Washington Post. Over the last quarter, we've seen a deceleration in prices in wages and a fall in consumer spending all while the unemployment rate has been able to stay at a historic low does this at all change your view of how much the unemployment rate would need to go up if at all to see inflation come down to the levels you're looking for. So I would say it is a good thing that the disinflation that we have seen so far has not come at the expense of a weaker labor market. But I would also say that this inflationary process that you now see underway is really at an early stage. What you see is really in the goods sector, you see inflation now coming down because supply chains have been fixed, demand is shifting back to services and shortages or have been abated. So you see that in the other housing services sector, we expect inflation to continue moving up. For a while, but then to come down assuming that new leases continue to be lower. So in those two sectors, you've got a good story. The issue is that we have a large sector called non housing service core not housing services where we don't see disinflation yet. But I would say that so far, what we see is progress, but without any weakening in labor market conditions. Go ahead. How's your expectation for where the unemployment rate might go change since December? We're going to write down new forecasts at the March meeting and we'll see at that time. I will say that it is gratifying to see the disinflationary process now getting underway. And we continue to get strong labor market data. So we'll update those forecasts in March. Neil. I chair Powell Mueller one with axios. You and some of your colleagues have emphasized the possibility that job openings could come down and that would let some of the air out of the labor market without major job losses. We saw the opposite in the December jolts this morning, jog openings actually rising, that also was coincided with slowdown and wage inflation. Do you believe that openings are important indicator to be studying to understand where the labor market is and where wage inflation might be heading? So you're right about the data, of course, we did see, we've seen average hourly earnings and now the employment cost index abating a little bit still off of their highs of 6 months ago and more. But still at levels that are fairly elevated. The job openings number has been jolts has been quite volatile that recently. And I did see that it moved up back up this morning. I do think that it's probably an important indicator. The ratio, I guess, is back up to 1.9 job openings to unemployed people. People are looking for work. So it's an indicator, but nonetheless, you're right. We do see wages moving down. In across the rest of the labor market, you still see very high payroll job creation. And quits are still at an elevated level. So many, many, by many, many indicators, the job market is still very strong. But it called me in the house. Thank you, Colby smith with the Financial Times. Given the economic data since the December meeting is the trajectory for the fed funds rate in the most recent SEP still the best guidepost for the policy path forward or does ongoing now mean more than two rate rises now. So you're right at the December meeting we all wrote down our best estimates of what we thought the ultimate level would be. And that's obviously back in December. And the median for that was between 5 and 5 and a quarter percent. At the March meeting, we're going to update those assessments. We did not update them today. We did, however, continue to say that we believe ongoing rate hikes will be appropriate to attain a sufficiently restrictive stance of policy to bring inflation back down to 2%. We think we've covered a lot of ground and financial conditions have certainly tightened. I would say we still think there's work to do there. We haven't made a decision on exactly where that will be. I think we're going to be looking carefully at the incoming data between now and the March meeting and then the May meeting. I don't feel a lot of certainty about where that where that will be. It could certainly be higher than we're writing down right now. If we come to the view that we need to write down to move rates up beyond what we said in December, we would certainly do that. At the same time, if the data come in in the other direction, then we'll make data dependent decisions that come in meetings, of course. Follow-up, how are you viewing the kind of balance of risk between those two options of the likelihood of maybe falling short of that or going beyond that level? I guess I would say it this way. I continue to think that. It's very difficult to manage the risk of doing too little and finding out in 6 or 12 months that we actually work close but didn't get the job done and inflation springs back and we have to go back in. And now you really do worry about expectations getting unanchored and that kind of thing. This is a very difficult risk to manage. Whereas, of course, we have no incentive and no desire to over tighten, but if we feel like we've gone too far, we can certainly because it could certainly inflation is coming down faster than we expect, then we have tools that would work on that. So I do think that in this situation where we have still the highest inflation in 40 years, the job is not fully done. As I mentioned, I started to mention earlier. We have a sector that represents 56% of the core inflation index where we don't see disinflation yet. So we don't see it. It's not happening yet. Inflation in the core services X housing is still running at 4% on a 6 and 12 month basis. So there's not nothing happening there. In the other two sectors representing two less than 50%, you actually, I think now have a story that is credible that's coming together, although you don't actually put it in the private story that is correct. For the third sector, we very much. So I think the very premature to the clear history to think that we're really grateful we need to see that we get a goal, of course, is to bring inflation. There are many many factors that we get that done in that sector. There are many, many factors that have inflation, the disinflationary process again, they had a disinflation process so far we don't see that. And I think until we do, we see ourselves as having a lot of work left to do.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"rachel siegel" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"We said policy. Rachel. Hi, chair Powell. Thank you for taking our questions. Rachel Siegel from The Washington Post. Over the last quarter, we've seen a deceleration in prices in wages and a fall in consumer spending all while the unemployment rate has been able to stay at a historic low does this at all change your view of how much the unemployment rate would need to go up if at all to see inflation come down to the levels you're looking for. So I would say it is a good thing that the disinflation that we have seen so far has not come at the expense of a weaker labor market. But I would also say that that disinflationary process that you now see underway is really at an early stage. What you see is really in the good sector, you see inflation now coming down because supply chains have been fixed, demand is shifting back to services and shortages or have been abated. So you see that in the other housing services sector, we expect inflation to continue moving up. For a while, but then to come down assuming that new leases continue to be lower. So in those two sectors, you've got a good story. The issue is that we have a large sector called non housing service corps 9 housing services where we don't see disinflation yet. But I would say that so far, what we see is progress, but without any weakening in labor market conditions. Go ahead. How's your expectation for where the unemployment rate might go change since December? You know, we're going to write down new forecasts at the March meeting and we'll see at that time. I will say that it is gratifying to see the disinflationary process now getting underway. And we continue to get strong labor market data. So we'll update those forecasts in March. I check how Mueller went with axios. You and some of your colleagues have emphasized the possibility of the job openings could come down and that would let some of the air out of labor market without major job losses. We saw the opposite in the December jolts this morning, job openings actually rising, that also coincided with slowdown and wage inflation. Do you believe that openings are important indicator to be studying to understand where the labor market is and where wage inflation might be heading? So you're right about the data, of course. We did see, we've seen average hourly earnings and now the employment cost index abating a little bit still off of their highs of 6 months ago and more. But still at levels that are fairly elevated. The job openings number has been jolts has been quite volatile recently. I did see that it moved up back up this morning. I do think that it's probably an important indicator. The ratio, I guess, is back up to 1.9 job openings to unemployed people. People are looking for work. So it's an indicator, but nonetheless, you're right. We do see wages moving down. If you look across the rest of the labor market, you still see very high payroll job creation. And quits are still at an elevated level. So by many, many indicators, the job market is still very strong. The Colby and the house. Thank you, Colby smith with the Financial Times. Given the economic data since the December meeting is the trajectory for the fed funds rate in the most recent SEP, still the best guidepost for the policy path forward, or does ongoing now mean more than two rate rises now. So you're right at the December meeting we all wrote down our best estimates of what we thought the ultimate level would be. And that's obviously back in December. And the median for that was between 5 and 5 and a quarter percent. At the March meeting, we're going to update those assessments. We did not update them today. We did, however, continue to say that we believe ongoing rate hikes will be appropriate to attain a sufficiently restrictive stance of policy to bring inflation back down to 2%. We think we've covered a lot of ground and financial conditions have certainly tightened. I would say we still think there's work to do there. We haven't made a decision on exactly where that will be. I think we're going to be looking carefully at the incoming data between now and the March meeting and then the May meeting. I don't feel a lot of certainty about where that where that will be. It could certainly be higher than we're writing down right now. If we come to the view that we need to write down to move rates up beyond what we said in December, we would certainly do that at the same time if the data come in in the other direction and we'll make data dependent decisions at coming meetings, of course. Follow-up, how are you viewing the kind of balance of risk between those two options of the likelihood of maybe falling short of that or going beyond that level? I guess I would say it this way. I continue to think that It's. very difficult to manage the risk of doing two level and finding out in 6 or 12 months that we actually work close but didn't get the job done and inflation springs back and we have to go back in. And now you really do worry about expectations getting unanchored and that kind of thing. This is a very difficult risk to manage. Whereas, of course, we have no incentive and no desire to over tighten, but if we feel like we've gone too far, we can certainly could certain inflation is coming down faster than we expect, then we have tools that would work on that. So I do think that in this situation where we have still the highest inflation in 40 years, the job is not fully done. As I mentioned, I started to mention earlier. We have a sector that represents 56% of the core inflation index where we don't see disinflation yet. So we don't see it. It's not happening yet. Inflation in core services X housing is still running at 4% on a 6 and 12 month basis. So there's nothing happening there. In the other two sectors representing less than 50%, you actually, I think, now have a story that is credible that's coming together, although you don't actually see disinflation yet in housing services, but it's in the pipeline, right? So for the third sector, we don't see anything here. So I think it would be premature. We very premature to declare victory or to think that we've really got this. We need to see our goal, of course, is to bring inflation down. And how do we get that done? There are many, many factors driving inflation in that sector. And they should be coming into play, have inflation, the disinflationary process begin in that sector, but so far we don't see that. And I think until we do, we see ourselves as having a lot of work left to do.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"rachel siegel" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Hi, chip. How Rachel Siegel from Washington Post, thank you for taking our questions. The projections show the unemployment rate rising to 4.4% next year. And historically, that kind of rise in the employment rate would typically bring a recession with it. Should we interpret that to mean no soft landing and is that kind of rise necessary to get inflation down? Right, so you're right. In the SCP, there is what I would characterize as a relatively modest increase in the unemployment rate from a historical perspective given the expected decline inflation. Now, why is that? So really, that is what we generally expect. Because we see the current situation as outside of historical experience in a number of ways and I'll mention a couple of those. First, and you know these. But first job openings are incredibly high relative to the number of people looking for work. It's plausible. I'll say that job openings could come down significantly. And they need to without as much of an increase in unemployment as has happened in earlier historical episodes. So that's one thing. In addition, in this cycle, longer run inflation expectations have generally been fairly well anchored and as I've said, there's no basis for complacency there. But to the extent that continues to be the case, that should make it easier to restore price stability. And I guess the third thing I would point to that's different this time is that part of this inflation is caused by this series of supply shocks that we've had beginning with the pandemic and reeling really with the reopening of the economy and more recently amplified and added to by Russia's invasion of Ukraine have all contributed to the sharp increase in inflation. So these are the kinds of events that are not really seen in prior business cycles. And in principle, if those things start to get better and we do see some evidence of the beginnings of that, it's not much more than that, but it's good to see that. For example, commodity prices look like they may have peaked for now, supply chain disruptions are beginning to resolve. Those developments, if sustained could help ease the pressures on inflation. So let me just say how much these factors will turn out to really matter in this sequence of events it remains to be seen. We have always understood that restoring price stability while achieving a relatively modest decline or rather increase in unemployment and a soft landing would be very challenging. And we don't know. No one knows whether this process will lead to a recession, or if so, how significant that recession would be. That's going to depend on how quickly wage and price and inflation pressures come down, whether expectations remain anchored and whether also do we get more labor supply, which would help as well. In addition, the chances of a soft landing landing are likely to diminish to the extent that policy needs to be more restrictive. Or restrictive for longer. Nonetheless, we're committed to getting inflation back down to 2% because we think that a failure to restore price stability would mean far greater pain later on. Our vacancy is still at the top of your list in terms of understanding the labor market and how much room there is there. Yes, vacancies are still almost two to one ratio to unemployed people. That's that and quits are really very good ways to look at how tight the labor market is and how different it is from other cycles where the generally the unemployment rate itself is a single best indicator. We think those things have for quite a time now. Really added value in terms of understanding where the labor market is. Nick? Nick Tim ruffs at The Wall Street Journal. You said not too long ago in describing the policy destination. There's still a way to go. But I imagine you have to have some idea about how you're thinking about your destination, whether it's a stopping point or a pausing point. And so I was wondering if you could discuss how you are thinking about as the data come in where that destination is, how it's moving up if inflation doesn't perform as you expect. Do you want to have a policy rate that's above the underlying inflation rate, for example? And do you have an estimate for where you think the underlying inflation rate might be in the economy right now? Well, so again, we believe that we need to raise our policy stance overall to a level that is restrictive. And by that, I mean, is meaningfully putting meaningful downward pressure on inflation. That's what we need to see in the stance of policy. We also know that there are long and variable lengths, particularly as they relate to inflation. So it's a challenging assessment. So what do you look at? You look at broader financial conditions, as you know, you look at where rates are real and nominal in some cases, you look at credit spreads. You look at financial conditions and indexes. We also, I would think, and you see this is something we talked about today in the meeting and talk about in all of our meetings. And you see this, I think, in the committee forecast. You want to be at a place where real rates are positive across the entire yield curve. And I think that would be the case if you look at the numbers that we're writing down and think about, you measure those against some sort of forward looking assessment of inflation, inflation expectations. I think you would see at that time you'd see positive real rates across the yield curve. And that is also an important consideration. Howard
Bloomberg Radio New York
"rachel siegel" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Goals. Thank you. I look forward to your questions. Rachel. Hi, chair Powell. Thanks for taking our questions. Rachel Siegel from The Washington Post. I'm wondering if you can walk us through your thinking around the decision not to go for a full percentage point increase. We saw a ramp up after the May CPI report came in hotter than usual and then obviously the June figure did too. Was there any discussion of a stronger hike at this meeting? Thank you. Sure. So we did judge that a 75 basis point increase was the right magnitude and light of the data in the context of the ongoing increases in the policy rate that we've been making. I'd say that we wouldn't hesitate to make an even larger move than we did today. If the committee were to conclude that that were appropriate, that was not the case that this meeting, there was very broad support for the move that we made. You mentioned the June meeting. We had said many times that we were prepared to move aggressively more aggressively if inflation continued to disappoint. And that's why we did move to a more aggressive pace at the June meeting. As we said, we would do. At this meeting, we continued at that more aggressive pace as inflation has continued to disappoint in the form of the June CPI reading. Thank you so much for taking our questions, Colby Smith with the Financial Times. As the committee considers the policy path forward, how will it weigh the expected decline in headline inflation, which might come as a result of the drop in commodity prices against the fact that we are likely to see some persistence in core readings in particular. And given that potential tension and signs of any kind of activity weakening here, how is the committee's thinking changed on how far into restrictive territory rates might need to go? So I guess I'd start by saying we've been saying we move expeditiously to get to the range of neutral. And I think we've done that now. We're at two 25 to two and a half, and that's right in the range of what we think is neutral. So the question is, how are we thinking about the path forward? So one thing that hasn't changed is that it won't change is that our focus is continuing to is going to continue to be on using our tools to bring demand back into better balance with supply in order to bring inflation back down. That will continue to be our overarching focus. We also said that we expect ongoing rate hikes will be appropriate and that will make decisions meeting by meeting. So what are we going to be looking at? We'll be looking at the incoming data, as I mentioned, and that that'll start with economic activity. Are we seeing the slowdown that we slowed down in economic activity that we think we need and there are some evidence that we are at this time. Of course, we'll be looking at labor market conditions and asking whether we see of the alignment between supply and demand, getting better at getting closer. Of course, we'll be looking closely at inflation. You mentioned headline and core, our mandate is for headline, of course, it's not for core, but we look at core because core is actually a better indicator of headline and of all inflation going forward. So we'll be we'll be looking at both. And we'll be looking at them for those really for what they're saying about the outlook rather than just simply for what they say. But we'll be asking, do we see inflationary pressures declining? Do we see actual readings of inflation coming down? So in light of all that data, the question we'll be asking is whether the stance of policy we have is sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation back down to our 2% target. And it's also worth noting that these rate hikes have been large and they've come they've come quickly and it's likely that they're full effect has not been felt by the economy. So there's probably some additional tightening significant additional tightening in the pipeline. So where are we going with this? I think the best, I think the committee broadly feels that we need to get policy to at least to a moderately restrictive level. And maybe the best data point for that would be what we wrote down in our SAP at the June meeting. So I think the median for the end of this year, the median would have been between three and a quarter and three and a half. And then people wrote down 50 basis points higher than that for 2023. So that's even though that's now 6 weeks old, I guess. That's the most recent reading. Of course, we'll update that reading at the September meeting in 8 weeks. So that's how we're thinking about it. As I mentioned, as it relates to September, I said that another unusually large increase could be appropriate, but that's not a decision we're making now. It's one that will make based on the data we see. And we're going to be making decisions meeting by meeting. We think it's, we think it's time to just go to a meeting by meeting basis and not provide the kind of clear guidance that we had provided on the way to neutral.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"rachel siegel" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Thank you Chair Powell what are the economic conditions that would perhaps warn a faster pace of tapering And I'm wondering how you would also characterize the risks that the fed may actually need to accelerate that process eventually Thank you So I guess as I said in my opening remarks assuming the economy performs broadly as expected the committee judges that similar reductions in the pace of net asset purchases will likely be appropriate each month and we're prepared to deviate from that path if warranted by changes in the economic outlook So I'm not going to give you a lot more detail on what that might be Of course if we do see something like that happening if it becomes a question then we'll communicate very transparently and openly about that But I'm just going to leave it with the words that are in this statement So I was there a second part Yeah it's just on characterizing the risks that you might actually have to do so later on You know I would just leave you with the words we have here We are prepared to speed up or slow down the pace of reductions in asset purchases if it's warranted by changes in the economic outlook And again if we feel like something like that's happening then we'll be very transparent about we wouldn't want to surprise markets We'll say in light of this factor or these factors we are considering doing this and then we would either do it or not do it But so but I'm not going to start making up examples of what that might be today Thanks Thank you That's what a Rachel Siegel The Washington Post Hi drew Powell Thank you so much for taking our questions You mentioned at the beginning that the fed understands the difficulties that high inflation poses for individuals and families especially those with limited means what does your message to those families or consumers that are struggling with higher prices right now And do you feel that your expectations around transitory inflation is that message is reaching them Thank you Yeah so first of all it is our job to and we accept responsibility and accountability for inflation in the medium term We're accountable to Congress into the American people for maximum employment and price stability The level of inflation we have right now is not at all consistent with price stability By the way we're also not at maximum employment as I mentioned So I would want to assure people that we will use our tools as appropriate to get inflation under control we don't think it's a good time to raise interest rates though because we want to see the labor market heal further and we have very good reason to think that that will happen as the delta variant declines Which it's doing now As I mentioned so transitory is a word that people have had different understandings of For some it carries a sense of short lived And there's a real time component measured in months or let's say Really for us what transitory has meant is that if something is transitory it will not leave a behind it permanently or very persistently higher inflation So that's why we took a step back from transitory we said expected to be transitory First of all to show uncertainty around that we've always said that by the way in other contexts we just hadn't done it in a statement but also to acknowledge really that it means different things to different people And then we added some language to really explain more what we're talking about in paragraph two and paragraph Three We said that supply and demand imbalances related to the pandemic and the reopening of the economy have contributed to sizable price increases Then we said progress on vaccinations and an easing of supply constraints are expected to support continued gains in economic activity and employment as well as a reduction in inflation So we're trying to explain what we mean and also acknowledging more uncertainty about transitory So it's become a word that's attracted a lot of attention that maybe is distracting from our message which we want to be as clear as possible Ultimately the only other thing I would say is look we understand completely that it's particularly people who are living paycheck to paycheck or seeing higher grocery costs higher gasoline costs when the winter comes higher heating costs for their homes we understand completely What they're going through and we will use our tools over time to make sure that that doesn't become a permanent feature of life Really that's one of our principle jobs along with achieving maximum employment And that's our commitment Thank you We'll go to Chris rugby The Associated Press Brian thank you Michelle Thank you chair Powell Well I wonder if you could update us you talked about getting back to full employment And so could you update how you how you define that I mean you know a few months ago yourself and other fed officials talked about getting back to the pre COVID labor market There was even hints you might try to do something better than that Now we hear talk of you mentioned people retiring and there's talk of not being able to get back as all the jobs back because of that and other trends You did mention the prime age folks So can you give us some examples of things you're looking at specifically to measure full employment Will you be looking at prime age employment population ratio for example And if so do you need to see that get back to pre COVID levels to achieve maximum employment or is there something short of that that would work Thank you So thanks So maximum employment is a we say broad based and inclusive goal that's not directly measurable and changes over time due to various factors You can't specify specifically So it's taking into account quite a broad range of things Of course employment levels of employment participation are part of that But in addition there are other measures of what's going on in the labor market like wages is a key a key measure of how tight the labor market is The level of the level of quits the amount of job openings the flows in and out of various states So we look at so many different things And you make an overall judgment Now the temptation at the beginning of the recovery was to look at the data in February of 2020 and say well that's the goal because we didn't know any that's what we knew That we knew that was achievable in a context of low inflation I think we're in a we're learning that We have to be humble about what we know about this economy which is still very you know COVID affected by the way You know a lot of what we're seeing in the last 90 days is because of delta We were on a path to a very different place Delta put us on a different path And we see these things But so I think we're going to have to ideally we would have we would see further development of the labor market in a context where there isn't another COVID spike And then we would be able to see I think a lot We would see whether how does participation react in that world in that sort of post COVID world Right now people are staying out of the labor market to do because of caretaking Because of fear of COVID Insignificant to significant extent You know we thought that the schools reopening and elapsing unemployment benefits would produce some sort of additional labor supply That doesn't seem to have been the case Interestingly So I think there's room for a whole lot of humility here as we try to think about what maximum employment would be We're gonna have to see some time post COVID so that we know or post delta anyway to see what is possible And I think the learning from for those of us who live through the last cycle is that over time you can get to places that didn't look possible Now what we also have now though is we have high inflation So we would completely different situation now where we have high inflation and we have to balance that with what's going on in the employment market So it's a complicated situation but and I would say we will we hope to achieve significantly greater clarity about where this economy is going and what the characteristics of the post pandemic economy are over the first half of next year Thanks we'll go to Howard Schneider at Reuters Thanks and thanks for doing this So given that answer about employment I would like to get back to Steve's question a.
The Ben Shapiro Show
"rachel siegel" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show
"So when people say that the experts should run your life the the experts after all one thing. You should note here is that they will run your life. I mean they will come after you. Hold your including your kids. There's a great piece by abigail schreier city journal. Today which is journal of the manhattan institute about the rules in the city of seattle issues. Writes a story about this guy name. Alckmin pakistani emigrant faithful muslim until recently a financial consultants seattle's high tech sector. Apparently he in two thousand twenty. His wife had check their sixteen year old son in seattle children's hospital for credible threats of suicide and now occupied was worried that the white coats gently admitted his sons. They're care would refuse to return. They sent an email to us. You know you should take your daughter to the gender clinic. So apparently his kid sixteen had autism got depressed was suicidal so they checked him in cave lockdowns hit and this meant that he couldn't visit is on. The white coats started talking to this sixteen year old kid and the six year old autistic declared a suicidal to declared that he was gender dysphoric. Experts refused to release the kid to the parents. Almost the parents lied and said they were gonna take him to the gender clinic. This this is what happens when you let the experts run things. They don't know what they purport to know but they don't know what they don't know and so they continue to promote stuff that is not signs that is just garbage. Apparently acclimated shirt seattle's children's hospital. He would take us under gender clinic and commencing southern's transition from male to female instead. He took us on home. Quit his job and moved his family of four out of washington. It's a year later. It turns out that his son is not gender. dysphoric was just the state coming after his kid. By the way in the state of washington kids can start receiving gender dysphoric treatment at the age of thirteen without parental consent. The because the experts say so the experts based on nothing based on nothing. Why would you let these morons. run your life. Why would you let them make all the rules. It's dangerous to let them make all the rules. And what's amazing about. This is their stupidity is on display for all to see all the time he harris is probably going to end up as the successor to joe biden. Joe biden makes it through his first term. She's going to run in two thousand and twenty four if he doesn't make the first term she'll be president of the united states and she is terrible at this. She's an idiot. Hickama harris does not know things. She doesn't care about things somehow. she's been elevated position public our. We're we're supposed to believe that she knows how to run things. And so you'll remember just a couple of days ago. She was asked about going down to the border and she started cac like hyena for no reason at all. Well now it turns out. Even the cnn is even. The white house is disappointed in comal harris. Here is cnn explaining vice president. Khama harris back in the united states this morning after a trip to guatemala and mexico her first foreign trip as vice president. This morning we're told that some of what she said on the trip her answers to questions. Maybe even obvious questions. Those answers have white house insiders perplexed. I mean truly. It is an amazing amazing thing. But that but that more on is gonna run everything right. This is what people want. Apparently people want these morons to run the. I do not understand from life of me. I can watch dr anthony factors performance over the last year or andrew cuomo's performance over the last year or phil. Murphy's performance over the last year or gavin newsom performance over the last year and. Say to yourself. I need these people to have more power over my life. I don't know he watched the members of the media. Lie to you consistently and say. I definitely am that. I know i know what they're saying about. My industry is untrue. I know my industry. But probably if i switched three pages over they probably know more about that industry or maybe they don't or maybe they don't caitlyn again. They're showing you every day. Who they are. They're showing you everyday. How competent they are that. They are not experts in anything. They can't even operate like basic systems. Evidence more today okay. The prices have now jumped five percent. May he remembered that time when we were told that inflation would not kick in even if you just inject trillions of dollars into the economy and he will encourage people might stay home. Remember that time well now turns out that when you have more dollars chasing less product you end up with inflation. According to rachel siegel over the washington post prices were up by five percent in may compared with a year ago the largest increase since the great recession continuing steady climate inflation. Even policymakers insist on staying the course data released thursday by the bureau of labor statistics. Showed prices rose point six percents in the past month. Alone policymakers have predicted prices will rise over the coming months especially compared to a year ago when the economy was still reeling from the pandemic shutdowns. Now here's the problem. Inflation will continue if you continue to depress labor market by telling people not work now. It's possible that inflation levels off but you're still sucking so much money out of the that people don't have money to invest the your redistributing from people who know how to invest in how to create products to bunch of morons at the top of government. The same morons where declaring inflation's no problem for you. Is they devalue your savings. These are the same idiots. We're going to run the economy a.
KOMO
"rachel siegel" Discussed on KOMO
"Of burns that the prime packed foods facility shortly today afternoon in the town northeast of Atlanta. On the local scene. The city of Bellingham has started clearing a camp outside City Hall where people without permanent shelter had set up tents and we're living since mid November to protest the lack of housing in the area. Last Friday, protesters and advocates gathered in opposition to the city's plans to move that encampment. Well, just how bad is the economy? 2020 ended up being the worst year for economic growth since 1946 Rachel Siegel is taking a closer look for the Washington Post and talked with Cuomo's Taylor Vance ice as you report the economy actually shrank last year by 3.5%. How closely does that drop track with the increase of covert 19 infections was offset it all are pretty much on track. You know, it's a number that really gives us a snapshot of the entire year. So to talk a little bit more about what is behind that number. The shrinkage of 3.5%. We really have to take stock of the year that had a lot of economic chaos to it, which obviously does track with the public health crisis. That number captures the sharpest quarterly drop that we've ever seen in U. S history that was towards the beginning of the pandemic. Followed by the sharpest quarterly increase as parts of the economy reopened, so there are ways to track what is happening with the economy as really inextricable from what's happening with the public health crisis. That shrinkage of 3.5% is sort of an umbrella for a year. That really went to the whole bunch of different directions. And so many news outlets are saying, Okay, not this bad since World War two. How bad was it, though? Back in 1946 when we saw that contraction, right, so 1946, the economy shrank. 11.6% and to give some historical context for what was happening. Then that was the nation demobilized from its wartime footing. We're talking about the end of World War two. The other points of comparison for sharp contractions are the great recession. And now obviously the corona virus pandemic. So for the economy to shrink, there has to be, you know, for the for the year. Really monumental shake up of the economy, and that certainly qualified for the Corona virus pandemic Last year, as you mentioned, though, quarter four seemed to show some sort of improvement. What was leading the recovery so quarter for continued a lot of the games that we were seeing in Quarter three but a flowed level so investment in Home furnishings, durable goods, office equipment. Ah, lot of the stuff that Americans are buying tow either make work from home easier or to bring office spaces into their homes. That has continued, but the pace is slowing. And as you mentioned earlier, that really does have a lot to do with the Corona virus pandemic itself. Yesterday, the chair of the Federal Reserve, for example, pointed to a slowdown in employment and economic activity that does feel with this rise and coronavirus cases that we saw around the holiday. And I, you know, looking forward. That definitely reinforces the message that getting ahold of the pandemic is also a key tool toe, also getting the economy back on stable footing. Former President Donald Trump had hoped to the economy would kind of be a crown jewel in his legacy, and things were looking good before the pandemic. How does that change his place in economic history? Right? This last GDP report that we got this morning. Looking back on 2020 was the final GDP report from President Trump's time in office. Up until the pandemic, President Trump was on track for an economic record. Put him near the middle of the pack among recent presidents, and then obviously the Corona virus pandemic, you know, expected that quite a bit, so we still have about 18 million Americans who are still on unemployment benefits. Obviously, lawmakers in Washington are debating another stimulus packages, not two more to keep the economy going. So as far as this snapshot for 2020 were obviously still feeling a lot of appeals going into 2021 Rachel Siegel with US on coma News economics reporter for The Washington Post. You can always find Rachel's coverage online at Washington Post com. Thanks for joining us today. And that's cool. Most Taylor Band signs with the interview Bringing us to 5 20 time for your coma. Propel Insurance Money UPDATES Here's Jim Chess Code Box posted solid gains today, even though a midday rally faded over the course of the afternoon, the Dow Jones industrial average rebounded 300 points. The tech heavy NASDAQ composite gained 66, the S and P. 500, added 36. After a year in which a pandemic and politics posed challenges Unlike the US has ever seen theater Khanna me closed out in fairly good shape. Gross domestic product or the sum of all goods and services increased at a 4% pace in the fourth quarter, slightly below the 4.3% expectation. That's your money now. Get your money News on Co Mo A 2050 passed every hour. We'll have the latest on traffic and weather coming up, then stick around because Bill Swartz is kind of really great video music video that has to do with guns, arguments basketball, and there's kind of a Broadway connection to it as well. Stick around. Pandemic.
KOMO
"rachel siegel" Discussed on KOMO
"Now the headlines from the Come on 24 7 news Center that we're following today. The highly transmissible covert 19 variant from South Africa is now in the United States, South Carolina, confirming that it was found there. Those officials in South Carolina wouldn't identify who the people were who were infected, obviously, but they say they were adults who did not travel recently. There are three Corona virus variants of concern, making their way around the world. And with South Carolina's reports, that means all three are now in the United States in some form or another. The UK variant is here in Washington. At this point, there hasn't been a positive test or confirmation of the Brazilian variant or the South African variant and the White House. Defending President Biden's many executive orders made in his early days in office, the press secretary. Is holding a briefing right now. Jen Psaki, telling reporters that Biden promised to take steps quickly to address the pain and suffering the Americans are dealing with. Saki said that Biden is also lobbying many lawmakers on a variety of issues, including an aggressive new coronavirus stimulus bill. How bad is the economy while 2020 ended up being the worst year for economic growth since 1946 reporting on this in the Washington Post is Rachel Siegel, who joins us on the Come on news line, Rachel Hello. Hello. Thank you for having me as you report the economy actually shrank last year by 3.5%. How closely does that drop track with the increase of covert 19 infections was offset it all are pretty much on track. You know, it's a number that really gives us a snapshot of the entire year. So to talk a little bit more about what is behind that number. The shrinkage of 3.5%. We really have to take stock of the year that had a lot of economic chaos to it, which obviously does track with the public health crisis. That number captures the sharpest quarterly drop that we've ever seen in U. S history that was towards the beginning of the pandemic. Followed by the sharpest quarterly increase as parts of the economy reopened, so there are ways to track what is happening with the economy as really inextricable from what's happening with the public health crisis. That shrinkage of 3.5% is sort of an umbrella for a year. That really went to the whole bunch of different directions. And so many news outlets are saying, Okay, not this bad since World War two. How bad was it, though? Back in 1946 when we saw that contraction, right, so 1946, the economy shrank. 11.6% and to give some historical context for what was happening. Then that was the nation demobilized from its wartime footing. We're talking about the end of World War two. The other points of comparison for sharp contractions are the great recession. And now obviously the corona virus pandemic. So for the economy to shrink, there has to be, you know, for the for the year, a really monumental shake up of the economy. And that certainly qualified for the Corona virus pandemic last year, as you mentioned, though, quarter four seemed to show some sort of improvement. What was leading the recovery so quarter for continued a lot of the gains that we were seeing in Quarter three, but it a flowed level, so investment in home furnishings, durable goods. Office equipment. A lot of the stuff that Americans are buying tow either make work from home easier or to bring office spaces into their homes. That has continued, but the pace is slowing. And as you mentioned earlier, that really does have a lot to do with the Corona virus pandemic itself. Yesterday. The chair of the Federal Reserve, for example, pointed to a slowdown in employment and economic activity that does tailed with this rise and coronavirus cases that we saw around the holiday and I, you know, looking forward. That definitely reinforces the message that getting ahold of the pandemic is also a key tool to also getting the economy back on stable footing. Former President Donald Trump had hoped to the economy would kind of be a crown jewel in his legacy, and things were looking good before the pandemic. How does that change his place in economic history? Right? This last GDP report that we got this morning. Looking back on 2020 was the final GDP report from President Trump's time in office. Up until the pandemic, President Trump was on track for an economic record that put him near the middle of the talk among recent presidents. And then obviously the Corona virus pandemic, you know, affected that quite a bit. So we still have about 18 Million Americans who are still on unemployment benefits. Obviously lawmakers in Washington or debating another stimulus packages, not two more to keep the economy going. So as far as this snapshot for 2020 were obviously still feeling a lot of details. We need to 2021 Rachel Siegel with US on Coma, knows Economics reporter for The Washington Post. You can always find Rachel's coverage online at Washington post dot com. Thanks for joining us today Come on, Whose time 12 20 times for a PROPEL insurance business update. Toyota is now on top is the world's best selling car manufacturer. According to numbers released today. The Japanese companies sold 9.5 million vehicles globally in 2020, which therefore surpasses the previous leader, Volkswagen It's despite pandemic frustrations in their supply chain, with deliveries dropping more than 11%. More money news Here's Jim Tesco Weeks after a pro Trump mob organized the capital siege on Social Media. Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook is taking steps to turn down the temperature and downplayed divisive and inflammatory political discussions on its platforms. Ahead of the election, Facebook stopped recommending political and civic groups in the U. S. Now Facebook will stop recommending those groups to all users around the world. Zuckerberg says Facebook is exploring ways to avoid the many political brawls in people's news feeds. That's your money. Now, the markets a little bit lower than they were earlier into the day. The news about the South Carolina patients who seemed to have contracted the South African variant of covert 19 sort of line up with a little bit of a dip. We're seeing. Still, though, the Dow was up 444 points. That's 1.5% same idea. Therefore, the S and P 500 up by 57 points, or 1.5%, the NASDAQ also hired by a little over 1% 151 points. Money News a 2050 past the hour. A traffic update is next. Information.
KOMO
"rachel siegel" Discussed on KOMO
"Here are some of the stories we are following the number of confirmed US coronavirus cases has surpassed 20 million It's nearly twice as many as the number two country India and nearly a quarter of the more than 83 million cases worldwide during his health minister says that country has identified 15 people who carry a highly contagious Corona virus variant after it was discovered in the United Kingdom. In a statement earlier today, health, the health minister said the strain was founded travelers arriving from the United Kingdom We heard a lot of talk about the possibility of $2000 stimulus checks aimed at helping people through the covert pandemic. But all the political wrangling there's one very big question. How would those big old checks work and who would qualify? Economics reporter Rachel Siegel took a closer look for the Washington Post and spoke with Como's Bill O'Neill. Rachel, Let's say this does happen, and that's still a very open question. But if we were to see a $2000 stimulus one mine Americans expect that's right. So, as you mentioned there is still plenty of in the air about whether or not these $2000 checks would happen. To explain how they would work in case they did the stimulus bill that has already been signed by President Trump provides $600.2 adults with annual incomes of up to $75,000 and the payment amount essentially decreases by 5% for every dollar. On that point, so that basically means that checks under $600. Some of that would still go out to people who make up to $87,000 a year. There's currently a bill that's been passed by the House that's being debated in the Senate. It would increase the full amount to $2000 and keep the same phase out structure. So what That means is that because the check itself is larger people who make up to $115,000 would still end up getting something and that's ultimately cover millions more Americans who would still be able to expect at least some of now, Of course, those $600 checks are already going out with that amount be subtracted from the two grand If you qualify for that The Treasury Department is saying that even though the first round of $600 checks is already out the window they're being directed positive They're going in the mail. If there was another bill enacted to cover larger checks, the system will essentially top it off, so people might do, for example, qualify for the full amount. We'll just get another $1400 sent to their account. Of course, even moderate Republicans in the Senate. They're a little worried about the structure of this $2000 plan. If they're like the idea anyway, that's right. So there is sort of a divide within the Republican Party. On one side. You have President Trump. Who has pretty aggressively been advocating for $2000 checks. At one point, it was unclear if the stimulus package that was eventually signed into law. What hinge on this push for larger payments? We have a handful and grilling handful of Republican senators who are supportive of the larger payments. But there is still a majority of GOP leaders who say that the payments are too large. That would cost hundreds of billions dollars in addition to the package that was already passed, and because of the way the structure would be set up in still sending payments to people of higher incomes there, people who say Well, why are we necessarily sending Money to stay a family with an income of $300,000 and people who are just generally wary of signing off on larger checks for people who may still have higher incomes. And amid all of this, it's not to say it might not change with the new year in the new Congress as well. All of this could end up, not mattering, or it could mattering and a lot might binge on The results of the Georgia run off next week. But what we know so far is that yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell really seemed to nexus possibility, at least for the current Congress. He really sort of put the option off the table for Congress to move further in Revisiting the law that has already been passed by the House or finding some other means of directing these larger checks in the next couple of days, and that was, you know, definitely a break from what President Trump has been pushing for what congressional Democrats have been pushing for. But depending on the makeup of the Senate after the Georgia run off, we could be revisiting this question again. That's Rachel Siegel read. More online in Washington Post calm and that's Como's Bill O'Neill. Come on news time 11 20 time for your propel insurance Money Update facing the possibility of another two Years have divided government's Democrats and Republicans are eyeing a familiar topic as a possible area of bipartisan compromise. Under the Biden administration infrastructure efforts to craft a major bill repeatedly fell apart during the Trump administration. But a fresh push from the next White House could break the logjam is lawmakers see an infrastructure bill is a way to stimulate an economy while addressing an infrastructure system that experts say is deficient. Thea Merican Society of Civil Engineers gave the U. S is infrastructure a grade of D Plus in his last evaluation. Could this be the wave of the future and agriculture Singapore's converting industrial buildings into vertical farms? Outfitted with climate controlled rooms and special lighting. The projects are part of the city state's attempt to address it's near told dependence on the outside world. The government wants 30% of the island's nutritional requirements produced by Singapore by 2030. That's your money now. No.
KOMO
"rachel siegel" Discussed on KOMO
"Moh news 1000 FM 97 7 About the possibility of $2000 stimulus Jackson but helping people through the Corona virus pandemic. Amid all the political wrangling, there's one very big question. How would those bigger checks work? Who would qualify? Economics reporter Rachel Siegel as taking a closer look for the Washington Post. She spoke with Como's Bill O'Neill. Rachel, Let's say This does happen, and that's still a very open question. But if we were to see a $2000 stimulus one might Americans expect that's right. So, as you mentioned there is still plenty up in the air about whether or not these $2000 checks would happen, but to explain how they would work in case they did. The stimulus bill that has already been signed by President Trump provides $600.2 adults with annual incomes of up to $75,000 and the payment amount essentially decreases by 5% for every dollar. From that point, so that basically means that checks under $600. Some of that would still go out to people who make up to $87,000 a year. There's currently a bill that's been passed by the House that's being debated in the Senate. It would increase the full amount to $2000 and keep the same phase out structure. So what That means is that because the check itself is larger people who make up to $115,000 would still end up getting something and that's ultimately cover millions more Americans who would still be able to expect at least some of now, Of course, those $600 checks are already going out with that amount be subtracted from the two grand If you qualify for that The Treasury Department is saying that even though the first round of $600 checks is already out the window they're being directed positive They're going in the mail. If there was another bill enacted to cover larger checks, the system will essentially top it off, so people might do, for example, qualify for the full amount. We'll just get another $1400 sent to their account. Of course, even moderate Republicans in the Senate. They're a little worried about the structure of this $2000 plan. If they're like the idea anyway, that's right. So there is sort of a divide within the Republican Party. On one side. You have President Trump. Who has pretty aggressively been advocating for $2000 checks. At one point, it was unclear if the stimulus package that was eventually signed into law. What hinge on this push for larger payments? We have a handful and grilling handful of Republican senators who are supportive the larger payments. But there is still a majority of GOP leaders who say that the payments are too large that would cost hundreds of billions dollars. In addition to the package that was already passed, and because of the way the structure would be set up in still sending payments to people of higher incomes. There, people who say Well, why are we necessarily sending money to stay a family with an income of $300,000? And people who are just generally wary of signing off on larger checks for people who may still have higher incomes. And amid all of this, it's not to say it might not change with the new year in the new Congress as well. All of this could end up, not mattering, or it could mattering and a lot might pinch on the results of the Georgia run off next week. But what we know so far is that yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell really seemed to nexus possibility, at least for the current Congress. He really sort of put the option off the table for Congress to move further in Revisiting the law that has already been passed by the House or finding some other means of directing these larger checks in the next couple of days, and that was, you know, definitely a break from what President Trump has been pushing for what congressional Democrats have been pushing for. But depending on the makeup of the Senate after the Georgia run off, we could be revisiting this question again. That's Rachel Siegel read more online in Washington Post calm That's Como's Bill O'Neill. Your money at 20 and 50 past the hour on Co Moh news. Now you're Komal Money minute sponsored by Propel Insurance. The final stock market section of 2020 was a positive one enough so that both the Dow Jones industrial Average and S and P 500 arms fresh closing highs. The blue chip index, the Dow gained 196 points to 30,006 06. The S and P added 24 points. The NASDAQ was up just 18 today, but it was a little shy of its Monday closing high, though the tech heavy index did Sora whopping. 43% for the year is a hole for retailers that survived the catastrophe. That was 2020. Your head may still be a make or break year, Moody says retailers that may not make it to 2020 to include JC Penney Party City Right at Neiman Marcus, Macy's and bed bath and beyond. That's your money. Now nearly 4000 more Americans are dead from Corona virus. The Cova tracking project reports. Another 3900 people died Wednesday from the illness. That's a new record for daily death. Hospitalizations also broke another record with 125,000 Americans in Hospitals, nearly one in five or an icy used frontline workers of being honored during the New Year's Eve celebration in Times Square. But the pandemic is closed the area to the public My message to those ringing in the new year. Please stay at home, NYPD chief Terry Monahan. Anyone have stopped to gather. They're gonna be told to move along, except for the dozens of frontline workers and first responders will be honored for their service during the pandemic. Special guests include a Staten Island Very worker and the ER nurse, a teacher from Bethpage and a pizza delivery person for Montclair Health UPDATES Sara Lee Kessler, NBC news radio..
KOMO
"rachel siegel" Discussed on KOMO
"The Northwest's on Lee 24 hour News Station Co. Moh news 1000 FM 97 7 We've heard a lot of talk about the possibility of $2000 stimulus Jackson but helping people through the Corona virus pandemic. Amid all the political wrangling, there's one very big question. How would those bigger checks work and who would qualify? Economics reporter Rachel Siegel has taken a closer look for the Washington Post. She spoke with Como's Bill O'Neill. Rachel, Let's say this does happen, and that's still a very open question. But if we were to see a $2000 stimulus one might Americans expect that's right. So, as you mentioned there is still plenty of in the air about whether or not these $2000 checks would happen, but to explain how they would work in case they did the stimulus bill that has already been signed by President Trump provides $600 to adults. With annual incomes of up to $75,000 and the payment amount essentially decreases by 5% for every dollar from that point, so that basically means that checks under $600. Someone that would still go out to people who make up to $87,000 a year. There's currently a bill that's been passed by the House that's being debated in the Senate that would increase the full amount to $2000 and keep the same phase out structure. What That means is that because the check itself is larger people who make up to $115,000 would still end up getting something and that's ultimately cover millions more Americans who would still be able to expect at least some amount. Of course, those $600 checks are already going out with that amount be subtracted from the two grand If you qualify for that The Treasury Department is saying that even though the first round of $600 checks is already out the window they're being directed positive they're going in the mail. If there was another bill enacted to cover larger checks, the system will essentially top it off so people might do, for example, qualify for the full amount. We'll just get another $1400. Come to their account, Of course, even moderate Republicans in the Senate. They're a little worried about the structure of this $2000 plan. If they're like the idea anyway, that's right. So there is sort of a divide within the Republican Party. On one side. You have President Trump. Who has pretty aggressively been advocating for $2000 checks. At one point, it was unclear if the stimulus package that was eventually signed into law would hinge on this push for larger payments. We have a handful and grilling handful of Republican senators who are supportive the larger payments. But there is still a majority of GOP leaders who say that the payments are too large. That would cost hundreds of billions dollars. In addition to the package that was already passed, and because of the way the structure would be set up in still sending payments to people of higher incomes. People who say Well, why are we necessarily sending money to stay a family with an income of $300,000 and people who are just generally wary of signing off on larger checks for people who may still have higher incomes, And amid all of this, it's not to say it might not change with the new year in a new Congress as well, All of this could end up, not mattering, or it could mattering and a lot might pinch on The results of the Georgia run off next week. But what we know so far is that yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell really seemed to nexus possibility, at least for the current Congress. He really sort of put the option off the table for Congress to move further in Revisiting the law that has already been passed by the House or finding some other means of directing these larger checks in the next couple of days, and that was, you know, definitely a break from what President Trump has been pushing for what congressional Democrats have been pushing for. But depending on the makeup of the Senate after the Georgia run off, we could be revisiting this question again. That's Rachel Siegel read more online in Washington Post calm That's Como's Bill O'Neill. Your money at 20 and 50 past the hour on Co Moh news. Now you're Komal Money minute sponsored by Propel Insurance. The final stock market section of 2020 was a positive one enough so that both the Dow Jones industrial Average and S and P 500 arms fresh closing highs. The low chip index, the Dow gained 196 points to 30,006 06. The S and P added 24 points. The NASDAQ was up just 18 today, but there was a little shy of its Monday closing high, though the tech heavy index did Sora whopping. 43% for the year is a hole for retailers that survived the catastrophe. That was 2020. Your head may still be a make or break year, Moody says retailers that may not make it to 2020 to include JC Penney Party City Right at Neiman Marcus, Macy's and bed bath and beyond. That's your money now. Nearly 4000. More Americans are dead from Corona virus. The code, the tracking project reports. Another 3900 people died Wednesday from the illness. That's a new record for daily desk. Hospitalizations also broke another record with 125,000 Americans in hospitals, nearly one in five or an icy used frontline workers of being honored during the New Year's Eve celebration in Times Square, But the pandemic has closed the area to the popular My message to those ringing in the new year. Please stay at home, NYPD chief Terry Monahan. Anyone have stopped to gather. They're gonna be told to move along, except for the dozens of frontline workers and first responders who be honored for their service during the pandemic. Special guests include a Staten Island ferry worker and ER nurse, a teacher from Bethpage and a pizza delivery person for Montclair. Health. UPDATES Sara Lee Kessler, NBC NEWS radio..
KOMO
"rachel siegel" Discussed on KOMO
"5 24. And when it comes to the weather, we've got rain off again on again. Rain this evening, New Year's Eve and then again tomorrow late in the afternoon and Saturday and Sunday right now, 49 degrees in Seattle at 5 15. Stay connected. Stay informed. The Northwest's on Lee 24 hour News Station Co. Moh news 1000 FM 97 7, Thanks for being with us this evening, and Jeremy Greater is our editor. Stacey Black, Our technical director President Trump is extending visa restrictions into 2021. The White House is suspending issuing certain types of work visas. Until the end of March to help mitigate Corona virus spread. Trump originally signed the order in June, and it was set to expire New Year's Day. We've heard a lot of talk about the possibility of $2000 stimulus checks aimed at helping people through the Corona virus pandemic. Amid all of the political wrangling, there's one very big question. How would those bigger checks work and who would qualify? Economics reporter Rachel Siegel? Has taken a closer look for the Washington Post, and she spoke with come with Bill O'Neill. Rachel. Let's say this does happen, and that's still a very open question. But if we were to see a $2000 stimulus one might Americans expect that's right. So, as you mentioned there is still plenty of in the air about whether or not these $2000 checks would happen, but to explain how they would work in case they did the stimulus bill that has already been signed by President Trump provides $600 to adults. With annual incomes of up to $75,000 and the payment amount essentially decreases by 5% for every dollar from that point, so that basically means that checks under $600. Someone that would still go out to people who make up to $87,000 a year. There's currently a bill that's been passed by the House that's being debated in the Senate that would increase the full amount to $2000 and keep the same phase out structure. What That means is that because the check itself is larger people who make up to $115,000 would still end up getting something and that's ultimately cover millions more Americans who would still be able to expect at least some amount. Of course, those $600 checks are already going out with that amount be subtracted from the two grand If you qualify for that The Treasury Department is saying that even though the first round of $600 checks is already out the window they're being directed positive. They're going in the mail. If there was another bill enacted to cover larger checks, the system will essentially top it off. The people might do, for example, qualify for the full amount. We'll just get another $1400 sent to their account. Of course, even moderate Republicans in the Senate. They're a little worried about the structure of this $2000 plan. If there Like the idea anyway. That's right, So there is sort of a divide within the Republican Party. On one side. You have President Trump, who has pretty aggressively been advocating for $2000 checks. At one point, it was unclear if the stimulus package that was eventually signed into law would hinge on this push for larger payments. We have a handful and grilling handful of Republican senators who are supportive of the larger payments. But there is still a majority of GOP leaders who say that the payments are too large. That would cost hundreds of billions dollars in addition to the package that was already passed, and because of the way the structure would be set up. And still sending payments to people of higher incomes. There, People who say Well, why are we necessarily sending money to stay a family with an income of $300,000 and people who are just generally wary of signing off on larger checks for people who may still have higher incomes? And amid all of this, it's not to say it might not change with the new year in a new Congress as well, All of this could end up, not mattering, or it could mattering and a lot might pinch on The results of the Georgia run off next week. But what we know so far is that yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell really seemed to nexus possibility, at least for the current Congress. He really sort of put the option off the table for Congress to move further in Revisiting the law that has already been passed by the House or finding some other means of directing these larger checks in the next couple of days, and that was, you know, definitely a break from what President Trump has been pushing for what congressional Democrats have been pushing for. But depending on the makeup of the Senate after the Georgia run off, we could be revisiting this question again. That's Rachel Siegel read more online in Washington post dot com. And that is Como's Bill O'Neill Did It's 5 20 years. Jim Tesco with our propel insurance money update the stock market not very modest gains. In his final session of the year, the Dow Jones industrials adding 196 points to not just fresh closing high. It was a banner year for equities. The Dow rose 7.2% for the year,.