Mediaboss Marketing

The U.S. labor market cooled in April, but continues to resist the impact of high inflation and rising interest rates, with the unemployment rate dipping to 3.4%, a 50-year low. The reasons behind the labor markets astounding recovery from the pandemic are still unclear, but the latest data may give the Federal Reserve good reason to believe its rate-hiking campaign isnt doing as much damage as once feared, according to Jason Furman, one of the Obama administrations top economic advisors.

More from Fortune: 5 side hustles where you may earn over $20,000 per yearall while working from home Looking to make extra cash? This CD has a 5.15% APY right now Buying a house? Here's how much to save This is how much money you need to earn annually to comfortably buy a $600,000 home

Were now well into the era of the mystery of the extra workers, Furman, who is currently an economics professor at Harvard University, tweeted Friday about the unprecedented rebound, adding that the recovery is exceeding pre-pandemic forecasts, which is especially amazing given that the population is smaller than they expected due to premature deaths and missing immigrants.

The U.S. added 253,000 jobs last month, according to the latest jobs report released Friday, higher than the 180,000 gain economists had projected, according to a Wall Street Journal poll. The labor market has recovered at historic speeds from the blow received during the pandemic, when unemployment peaked at 14.7% in April 2020.

The fast recovery might be best represented in the employment rate for prime-age workers, the percent of adults aged 25 to 54 who are employed. It took only three years for that rate to exceed pre-pandemic numbers, in contrast to the 2008 recessions fallout, when it required over a decade to normalize.

Average hourly earnings also climbed higher than expected, to 4.4% over the 12 months ending in April, in a good sign for workers but bad news for the Fed, as Chair Jerome Powell has often said over the past year that rising worker wages are a key cause of persistent inflation. But among the three messages Furman saw in the latest labor market data, he took comfort in the knowledge that even if the central bank does decide to push forward with more interest rate hikes, the strong labor market could be spared.

Story continues

Furmans first lesson from the latest jobs report, and other similarly strong ones in recent months, is that todays labor market is not consistent with the Feds inflation reduction goals. The Fed wants unemployment to rise so that inflation declines. But the labor market is cooling from its huge gains earlier this year. The big unknown looking forward, Furman noted in his second takeaway, is how much the labor market will contract as the economy slows.

Contraction in the pipeline from the credit crunch, question is how much, he wrote, referring to the economic pressures caused by turmoil in the banking sector that reared its head again last week when First Republic Bank filed for bankruptcy and most of its assets were bought by JPMorgan Chase.

The Fed hiked rates another quarter of a percentage point this week to the highest level in 16 years, while signaling it will likely pause for the short term to see what happens next. But with the labor market still as strong as ever, the Fed might be more likely to move forward with more interest rate hikes because the risk of sparking a big jump in unemployment is smaller, Furman wrote.

Overall Fed has a bit less reason to worry about rate hikes, I'll bet more coming, he wrote in his third takeaway from the report, suggesting that more rate hikes in 2023 might not cause a severe recession as many investors feared last year.

Other economists, like the University of Michigans Justin Wolfers, agreed with Furmans assessment that the latest labor data is positive. Other commenters have said that the Fed should not cut interest rates anytime soon in light of the jobs report.

Here's the first big data point we received since the Fed meeting, and it shows us that the Fed is killing the situation where it's not forced to raise rates more aggressively, but it's not in a situation where it has to cut rates either more aggressively, Art Sarhan, chief executive of 50 Park Investments, told Reuters Friday.

Economists at Moodys also expressed a positive view of labor market dynamics moving forward in a note Friday. The imbalance between demand for and supply of labor is beginning to ease across G20 advanced economies including the U.S., analysts wrote. They added that the labor market will likely loosen and stabilize later this year as the economy slows and, especially in the U.S., immigration flows return to pre-pandemic levels, easing wage pressures and the risk of more entrenched inflationary dynamics.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

More from Fortune: 5 side hustles where you may earn over $20,000 per yearall while working from homeLooking to make extra cash? This CD has a 5.15% APY right nowBuying a house? Here's how much to saveThis is how much money you need to earn annually to comfortably buy a $600,000 home

Originally posted here:
Top Obama economist draws 3 conclusions from the jobs report and the mystery of extra workers - Yahoo Finance

A famed Birmingham photographer who shot the cover art for the bestselling books Becoming by Michelle Obama and Greenlights by Matthew McConaughey plans to open a steak and martini restaurant on Highland Avenue between Rojo and Bottega.

Miller Mobley presented plans for Georges, a city tavern, to the Birmingham City Council on Tuesday. It would be within walking distance of the Virginia Samford Theatre at Caldwell Park.

The council approved rezoning for the proposed restaurant at 2614 Highland Avenue, about three blocks east of Bottega, and three blocks west of Rojo.

What we are trying to do is create kind of Birminghams first and only city tavern, Mobley said. It kind of goes back to the nostalgic age of dining. I call it the gilded age, where theres those historic cities like Boston, New York and Chicago that have those old-school establishments where you might get a martini and a steak, have a night of theatre, and dinner at the same time. Thats kind of the heart of this concept and what were trying to bring to the area.

Council members expressed concerns about parking, but Mobley said it will be valet parking-oriented, similar to Bottega, and will have a lease contract with a nearby office building that has 60 parking spaces it can use at night as a valet lot.

The restaurant will be in the Hanover Circle Historic District of Highland Park.

To me, atmosphere and place-making is just as important as the restaurant itself, Mobley said. You kind of want to put it in a neighborhood that has the fabric that adds to the overall environment and I think Highland Park is one of the gem neighborhoods in Birmingham and just has the historic beauty that sometimes these new neighborhoods lack.

Mobley, who is also the owner of Slims Pizzeria in Mountain Brook, did not mention any cost estimates on the renovation project for Georges.

It just felt the neighborhood was speaking to me and the building was speaking to me, Mobley said. You know, its been a pretty desolate building for the past decade. So, were coming there to restore it and add some vibrancy to the neighborhood.

The restaurant would have seating for up to 125 people, including outdoor seating, white tablecloth interior tables and seating at the bar.

Its very dark and cinematic, Mobley said of the interior design. Its dramatic.

He described the menu as classic white tablecloth offerings.

Were not trying to re-invent food here, he said. Were doing something thats very classic: oysters Rockefeller, steaks, great fish, that kind of fare.

Mobley, who is from Birmingham, moved to New York City to establish his photography business. His portraits have included studio sessions with Anthony Bourdain, Tom Hanks, Robert DeNiro, Jennifer Lopez, Taylor Swift, Dolly Parton, George Clooney, Ariana Grande, Natalie Portman, Mel Gibson, Lady Gaga, Pharrell Williams, Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Lawrence, Brad Pitt, Al Pacino, Channing Tatum, Jamie Foxx, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Christopher Walken, Lupita Nyongo, Ben Stiller, and other celebrity subjects. He did a photo shoot of President Barack Obama for Parade magazine in 2014.

Hes been commissioned by Disney, Netflix, HBO, AMC, Random House, Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, National Geographic, Elle, Rolling Stone, Harpers Bazaar, Esquire and Time.

The restaurant would be his love letter to Birmingham, he said.

When I think of this restaurant I think of it as a love letter to Birmingham, using materials that are native to Birmingham, such as the brick on the outside of the restaurant, which is a Clinker brick which is made here historically, and kind of infusing some English vibes into the restaurant, but just creating a really classy establishment.

Mobley later told AL.com he did not have a timeline for renovations or when the restaurant would open. Although the name Georges was in the documents presented to the city, its a working title and the restaurant has not officially been named yet, he said.

The building targeted for renovation was formerly the medical office of Dr. Claude Orian Truss, a Birmingham native and author of the 1983 book The Missing Diagnosis, who attracted clients from around the world due to his pioneering treatment of yeast infections. Truss, 86, a graduate of Birmingham-Southern College and Cornell University Medical College and former chief of cardiology at U.S. Air Force Hospital at Maxwell Field, died on Sept. 10, 2009.

See also: Matthew McConaugheys new book cover shot by Alabama photographer

Michelle Obama shares new book cover shot by Alabama photographer

Taj India restaurant must move to make way for Highland Avenue apartments

Remember the Weird Western? Ex-supermarket on Highland Avenue approved for apartments

Read the original:
Famed Obama photographer plans steak and martini restaurant on Highland in Birmingham - AL.com

Former US president Barack Obama, film director Steven Spielberg and singer Bruce Springsteen surprised a Barcelona restaurant with a last-minute dinner reservation on Thursday.

Obama, former first lady Michelle, Spielberg and his wife Kate Capshaw came to the Catalan capital for Springsteens concert on Friday night.

Pol Perello, an employee at the Palace Hotels Amar restaurant posted a picture on his Instagram of the stars posing with the staff after they enjoyed a seafood meal.

Pleasures that this job brings you, Perello wrote.

Amar chef Rafa Zafra told Spanish radio network Cadena SER that Spanish-American chef Jos Andrs, who has a close relationship with the Obamas, recommended the restaurant only a few hours before the famous guests arrived.

The security people told us to please not ask them for photos, but just before leaving, Obama entered the kitchen and told us that this had been one of their best meals and if they could take a photo with the whole team, Zafra said.

We gave them oysters, shellfish, and fish from Roses, my classic the caviar bikini a little bit of everything, he stated, adding the group also drank a little.

The one who behaved best was the one who had to work today, he said, in reference to Springsteens concert.

Obama met Springsteen when the singer backed him for president in 2008, and the two have since become friends. The former president has also been longtime friends with the acclaimed film director and honored him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2015.

The rest is here:
Obama, Spielberg and Springsteen dazzle Barcelona restaurant - The Times of Israel

As U.S.-China relations transition from an era of engagement to one of strategic competition, some in the Biden and former Trump administrations have claimed to be abandoning four decades of naive American assumptions about Beijing. Past U.S. policy, they say, was based on a futile view that engagement would lead to a democratic and cooperative China. This, however, is not only a misreading of past U.S. policies but also dangerous analytical ground upon which to build a new national security strategy.

As U.S.-China relations transition from an era of engagement to one of strategic competition, some in the Biden and former Trump administrations have claimed to be abandoning four decades of naive American assumptions about Beijing. Past U.S. policy, they say, was based on a futile view that engagement would lead to a democratic and cooperative China. This, however, is not only a misreading of past U.S. policies but also dangerous analytical ground upon which to build a new national security strategy.

The fact is that no administration since that of Richard Nixon has made U.S. security dependent on Chinese democratization. Every administration has combined engagement with strategies to counterbalance China through alliances, trade agreements, and U.S. military power. Throwing out all previous U.S. approaches to China would mean throwing out some of the most important tools the current administration relies on to compete with China. And the Biden administration will not get its China strategy right until it is clear about what has worked in the past.

Hand-Off: The Foreign Policy George W. Bush Passed to Barack Obama; Stephen J. Hadley, Peter D. Feaver, William C. Inboden, and Meghan L. OSullivan (eds.); Brookings Institution Press, 774 pp., $39, February 2023

Perhaps the most valuable peek inside what previous U.S. administrations really thought is the newly declassified set of transition memoranda prepared by the outgoing George W. Bush administration for the incoming Obama administration in late 2008 and early 2009. Recently declassified by former President Bush and edited by former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, the collected analysis of the world as seen by the Bush National Security Council is available to the public from the Brookings Institution Press in Hand-Off: The Foreign Policy George W. Bush Passed to Barack Obama. (Note: We both served in the National Security Council during the Bush administration and co-wrote one of the chapters in the book.)

The transition memoranda on China and Asia knock down the assertion that Bush had a naive set of assumptions about China. Even at a time when China was materially weaker than the United States or even Japan, the White House was actively preparing the toolkit that might be needed should China turn in a more aggressive direction. The administration had already seen this possibility with the crisis caused by a Chinese Air Force collision with an EP-3 U.S. surveillance aircraft within the first months of the new Bush teams arrival. To be sure, there was less urgency to the China challenge than today. In the early 2000s, China still had a smaller economy and navy than Japan, whereas today, the Chinese economy and military power have eclipsed those of Japan and are challenging the United States. Nor were Chinese leaders Jiang Zemin or Hu Jintao anywhere near as aggressive as current leader Xi Jinping.

But the question of how China would use its growing power was still open to shaping, and not just because China had less material power at the time. Chinese leaders Jiang and Hu did not rebuff Bushs entreaties on human rights, religious freedom, or trade the way Xi and his officials do today. When Washington urged the release of political dissidents at summits in the early 2000s, Beijing often complied. When Bush spoke to Jiang or Hu about religious freedom, they listened and engaged, even if they did not agree. When the United States called for improvements in enforcing intellectual property rights or transparency about the SARS epidemic, there were small but positive changes. And Bush pulled no punches: He told Jiang and Hu that the United States would pursue a comprehensive, constructive, and candid dialogue, accompanied by regular meetings with the Dalai Lama, engagement with Chinese political dissidents, and frequent public references to the priority the United States gave to its democratic allies and its commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act. Chinese leaders would have preferred the more accommodating strategic partnership they had pursued with the Clinton administration, but that was no longer on offer.

Instead, the strategic partnerships that mattered to Bush administration were the same ones that form the basis of the Biden administrations approach to China today. Bush elevated Japans standing in U.S. diplomacy to a level it had not enjoyed since the Reagan presidency, with Bush counting Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi among his closest international confidants and friends. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, joining Australia, India, Japan, and the United States was launched in response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. And the Bush administration went through the painstaking bureaucratic work of clearing obstaclesmainly having to do with nuclear nonproliferationto a new strategic partnership with India. All of these were part of what Bushs Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called a balance of power that favors freedom. While the engagement side of U.S. policy is in disrepute today, Bush-era investments in alliances and new strategic partnerships like India have paid off for the Biden administration as it faces a more menacing China.

Economic statecraft backed the geopolitics. Progress with Beijing on Chinas predatory trade practices was modest, and the Bush administration and its allies knew that real progress would require the full leverage of the most powerful economies in the world. It was against this backdrop that the administration negotiated bilateral trade agreements with Australia, Singapore, and South Korea and began negotiations on what became the Trans-Pacific Partnership and discussions on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. These agreements combined would have brought the weight of almost two-thirds of the world economy to the table in demanding reciprocal agreements from China. Significant actors within the Chinese economy were ready to use that pressure to move away from an economic model dominated by state-owned enterprise to create dynamism that would benefit Chinese consumers and the private sector at home and abroad based on rules shaped by the United States and its major allies.

That obviously did not happen. One reason was the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, which Beijing wrongly interpreted as proof that the West was declining and the East is rising, as Chinas propagandists now put it. Perhaps more significant was the emergence of Xi, whose own penchant for autocratic rule, ideological struggle, and Chinese coercive dominance of the region signaled a shift that was not predicted even by Chinas own leading experts, many of whom are now living in fear of his rule. The global financial crisis also broke the political formula in Washington that had allowed successful trade agreements to underpin U.S. grand strategy. President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the TPP in 2017, and his successor, President Joe Biden, has made it clear he will never return.

The transition memos in Hand-Off did not predict any of these developments within Chinanobody didbut the memos did lay out a strategic framework for minimizing risk and maximizing the opportunities for peace and stability in what we now call the Indo-Pacific. To say this was naive would be to argue for a strategy of strangling China at a time in its development when engagement still had some traction and when, more importantly, U.S. allies and the American public, both of whom mainly saw China as a partner, would not have supported containment and decoupling.

What are the lessons from Hand-Off going forward?

The most important lesson is one the Biden administration already has right: Invest in allies and partners to maintain that balance of power that favors freedom. Biden has elevated the Quad meetings to a regular summit, and he graciously credited Bush for starting the Quad when the leaders first assembled in 2022. The Biden administration has also launched one of the most ambitious security partnerships of the past few decades with the Australia-United Kingdom-United States agreement (AUKUS) to help Australia deploy and build nuclear-powered submarines. The pact also aims to develop advanced technological capabilities bypooling resourcesand integrating supply chains for defense-related science, industry, and supply chains.

Second, the administration needs to reconstruct some form of the economic statecraft that underpinned U.S. strategies toward China in the past. Far from helping China compete, agreements like TPP were designed to force Beijing to play by the rules or lose hundreds of billions of dollars in trade as tariffs and market barriers among the rule-abiding economies went down. Now, sadly, it is the United States that is outside the TPP and suffering from lost access, while Beijing aggressively lobbies the signatories to let the Chinese economy into the agreement. The Biden administrations Indo-Pacific Economic Framework is something of a placeholder to show Washington cares, but it lacks market access or binding rules that would influence business behavior and get Beijings attention. Multilateral organizations like the World Trade Organization also matter in this context. The Bush administration probably could have done more within the WTO to address Chinas cheating on its commitments, but the Trump and Biden administrations have gone too far in allowing the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO to wither at a time when U.S. allies still see it as an important tool to hold China to account.

Third, the Biden administration has left the world wondering how this all ends with China. French President Emmanuel Macrons craven comments on Taiwan after his visit to Beijing were short-sighted and very damaging to regional security. More responsible U.S. allies like Japan and Australia are signing on to deeper military and intelligence cooperation with the United States. But none of them have any clarity about Washingtons longer-term vision for the relationship with China. Xis constant attacks on the United States, democracy, and U.S. allies make it difficult to imagine a happy place in U.S.-China relations. But other than blunting Chinese aggression and coercion, what is this alignment between allies for? What kind of relationship or strategic equilibrium with China is the United States aiming to achieve? The Bush administration could answer that question to an extent that helped rally allies. Biden would do well to engage with U.S. allies on the proper answer in the current geopolitical environment.

Fourth, resources matter. Some blame the Global War on Terror for convincing the Bush administration it had to get along with China. The authors never heard those arguments in our time in the White House, nor is that alleged tradeoff even hinted at in the declassified memos in Hand-Off. The fundamentals of the Bush administrations China strategy did not change because of 9/11. What did change was the availability of resources. Even after the Obama administration pledged to pivot to Asia in 2011, resources did not flow into military and diplomatic efforts the way they should have. Continuing struggles in the Middle East, federal budget sequestration, and now Russias war on Ukraine have all slowed the long anticipated rebalance of forces to deal with China. Biden and the U.S. Congress need to resource their strategy of competition, and finally make the pivot from the Bush administrations war on terror real.

See more here:
The Secret China Memos Bush Passed to Obama - Foreign Policy

Johnson and other Republicans said the renewables, broadly considered to be wind, hydropower and solar, are too unreliable to trust as stable power sources.

Though wind and solar are intermittent sources, large battery systems can store electricity for down periods, and renewables last year surpassed nuclear power as a larger source of electricity, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Renewables, which the EIA considers wind, hydropower, solar, geothermal and biomass, generated about 22 percent of electricity in the country last year, more than nuclear (18.2 percent) or coal (19.5 percent).

Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis., said his home district, in the state's north, is not ideal for wind or solar power. "We're not in a windy region, and we don't have sun for a significant amount of the year," Tiffany said. "It just isn't the best place for these intermittent sources of power."

The areas of the country with the strongest potential for wind power are the regions that stretch from the U.S.-Canada border, through the Great Plains states and down to Texas.

Excerpt from:
As EPA readies climate rule, Obama and Trump eras linger - Roll Call