Connect with us

Business

Black Tesla employees describe a culture of racism: ‘I was at my breaking point’

Published

on

Black Tesla employees describe a culture of racism: ‘I was at my breaking point’

Warning: This story quotes a number of racist slurs allegedly directed at Black staff at Tesla’s California plant, based on a lawsuit filed towards the corporate.

A single mom was excited to land a job at Tesla. About three years in, she was fired, she mentioned, after complaining that Black staff have been ceaselessly referred to as the N-word on the meeting line.

A former refinery employee couldn’t wait to get into inexperienced vitality. She mentioned she quickly discovered herself and different Black staff assigned to essentially the most arduous duties in a nook of the manufacturing unit co-workers referred to as “the plantation.”

A military veteran was promoted to a fleet supervisor job. He mentioned he was fired after he complained his boss referred to as him and two Black co-workers “monkeys.”

In interviews with The Occasions, three Black former workers described how jobs on the pioneering automaker devolved into private nightmares attributable to a sample of rampant racism and harassment at Tesla’s Fremont, Calif., manufacturing unit.

Advertisement

Their accounts increase on allegations in a Feb. 9 lawsuit filed by the California Division of Honest Employment and Housing on behalf of greater than 4,000 present and former Black staff on the world’s most dear automobile firm — the biggest racial discrimination go well with ever introduced by the state by variety of staff impacted.

The three former workers describe a office the place racist slurs in English and Spanish have been usually aimed toward Black workers by co-workers and supervisors, as alleged within the lawsuit. They are saying Tesla segregated Black staff into separate areas, gave them the toughest duties and routinely denied them promotions.

They usually allege that after they knowledgeable the corporate about racist therapy, their complaints went ignored or they have been fired.

Tesla disputed the previous workers’ accounts, stating that the three staff didn’t complain to the corporate about racism and that any self-discipline they acquired was the results of their very own office habits.

“Race performs no function in any of Tesla’s work assignments, promotions, pay or self-discipline,” attorneys for the corporate mentioned in a press release. “Tesla prohibits discrimination, in any type.”

Advertisement

‘We’re the crabs within the barrel’

Monica Chatman was a single mom working two jobs, as a grocery retailer stocker and a FedEx driver, when she landed at Tesla in late 2016.

At first, Chatman, then 32, didn’t thoughts the schedule — obligatory 12-hour shifts, six or seven days every week. “I’m a workaholic,” she mentioned. “I’ve labored since I used to be 14.”

At Tesla’s orientation, “they mentioned when you do the work, you’ll be able to succeed and that is the most effective job you’ll ever have,” she recalled.

Tesla’s automobile manufacturing unit in Fremont, Calif., the place three Black former workers described how jobs on the pioneering automaker devolved into private nightmares attributable to a sample of rampant racism and harassment.

(David Butow / For The Occasions)

Advertisement

For $19.50 an hour, Chatman drove a cart and later a forklift on the night time shift, hauling components to meeting strains.

She was paid additional time however mentioned she turned exhausted and resented that she had no selection however to comply with it as a way to hold her job. “There was a time the place I labored three months straight — no days off.”

African American staff have been routinely assigned the toughest duties, Chatman mentioned, “the work no person needed to do — that was extra put on and tear on the physique.”

Tesla is “modern-day slavery,” she mentioned, echoing claims she made as a part of a class-action lawsuit. “And we’re the crabs within the barrel.”

Advertisement

Chatman’s first supervisor, a white girl, transferred 4 South Asian males to a unique route after that they had labored as a workforce hoisting half-shafts, carpets and brake strains. She instructed Chatman to take over.

“I used to be a thin 115 kilos,” Chatman recalled. “I mentioned, ‘You’re telling me to do a four-man job on my own?’ Her phrases have been: ‘Do the job or lose your job.’”

At one level, Chatman’s blood stress dropped and he or she briefly fainted on her cart. Sitting for some time at a medical station, she nonetheless felt weak. She requested to go dwelling to recuperate, however mentioned she was threatened with termination.

So Chatman stayed for what she recalled as “the worst night time of my life.”

Moreover the unequal project of manufacturing unit duties, verbal harassment was a every day affliction, Chatman mentioned. Driving forwards and backwards, she mentioned within the declaration filed with the lawsuit that she would hear Latino and white staff, and their supervisors, casually seek advice from Black staff with the N-word. “You’d hear n— this and n— that,” she mentioned. ”It was the norm. It was Tesla’s custom.”

Advertisement

Chatman didn’t hear Asian staff use the N-word, she mentioned, however they “would make hen jokes,” a stereotype mocking of Black People’ weight loss plan.

A Latino colleague who labored as a supervisory lead taunted her ceaselessly, she mentioned. As soon as, on her approach again from the restroom, she heard him bark right into a walkie-talkie, “Monica must get her Black ass over right here.”

One other time, she mentioned she heard him inform a body of workers, “Monica and them N—s up there — they don’t do s—. All they do is sit on their ass all day.”

Reached by phone, the lead declined to reply any questions.

After that, Chatman mentioned she filed a racial harassment grievance with Rose Sanson in Tesla’s human assets division. Throughout a number of conferences with HR, she additionally complained about job discrimination — not simply how she was assigned a four-person shift, however how she and different Black staff have been being segregated in “the nastiest, most uncomfortable space” of the manufacturing unit the place it was “freezing chilly” in winter, she mentioned.

Advertisement

The Occasions reached out to Sanson by electronic mail and phone. She didn’t reply.

Tesla’s billionaire chief govt, Elon Musk, would come by way of the entrance of the manufacturing unit “along with his entourage,” Chatman mentioned. “They didn’t need a Black face up there,” she mentioned, including that Latino colleagues have been left up entrance whereas Black staff have been moved to the again.

After her HR grievance, Chatman mentioned she was not harassed. She mentioned the lead was fired after complaints from a number of staff. However she quickly noticed him again on the manufacturing unit, rehired in a non-supervisory job.

As months handed, irrespective of how laborious she labored, Chatman was denied routine efficiency opinions, which frequently result in raises and promotions. She would prepare new staff and see them promoted over her.

“I used to be blackballed,” she mentioned.

Advertisement

A yr later, in September 2019, Chatman hit a sprinkler head as she was driving down an aisle. That shut down an meeting line for quarter-hour.

She was fired.

However weeks earlier than that, one other driver had saved his job after crashing into 5 sprinklers “pop, pop, pop,” she mentioned, monitoring her claims within the declaration. In a separate multi-sprinkler incident, she mentioned, a employee wasn’t fired regardless of inflicting a flood that shut down a line for hours.

“I had by no means had an accident all these years,” Chatman mentioned. “However they have been ready for me to make a mistake.”

In a press release, Tesla mentioned her termination stemmed from the incident, which it referred to as a “critical security violation.” Tesla denied Chatman was required to work three months with out a break day and mentioned she acquired opinions in addition to financial efficiency rewards.

Advertisement

The corporate acknowledged it was the lead “who first complained about Ms. Chatman’s abusive habits, solely to be met along with her reactionary grievance days later. Nonetheless, Tesla promptly investigated Ms. Chatman’s grievance and interviewed a number of witnesses, none of whom corroborated her grievance.”

Lawrence Organ, Chatman’s lawyer in a class-action go well with towards Tesla, mentioned the corporate’s allegations are “the identical tactic” it has used to counter different complaints by Black staff, together with a case introduced by a Black elevator operator. In October, a federal jury awarded that employee $137 million after discovering the corporate turned a blind eye to racial taunts and offensive graffiti.

“As an alternative of attacking the victims of racism at their facility, Tesla ought to deal with taking remedial actions designed to finish the racist conduct,” Organ mentioned.

Tesla didn’t reply to a request for Chatman’s time playing cards, HR grievance or personnel information. Chatman’s attorneys mentioned in addition they haven’t gotten these paperwork from the corporate.

‘I used to be at my breaking level’

In 2017, Kimberly Romby was working as a rotating building security attendant at San Francisco Bay Space oil refineries, however she needed a extra steady job.

Advertisement

The 38-year-old utilized to Tesla and was employed as a supplies handler, hoisting 40-pound packages of auto components onto forklifts and carts, and driving them by way of the manufacturing unit to meeting strains.

The job paid $18 an hour and entailed six- or seven-day weeks, with 12-hour shifts. The additional time was obligatory.

“I needed to be a part of the inexperienced vitality motion,” she mentioned. “It was the long run — a profession that was going to take me a great distance.”

Inside weeks, she mentioned, two younger Latino co-workers started harassing her with homophobic slurs after she talked about she had a spouse.

A woman wears a dark hoodie sweatshirt with flames printed on the back.

Kimberly Romby, a former Tesla worker, says Black staff on the firm’s Fremont plant have been segregated right into a crowded nook of the manufacturing unit with out air-con.

(Paul Kuroda / For The Occasions)

Advertisement

The 2 males would snigger at her and repeatedly referred to Black staff with racist slurs in English and Spanish, she mentioned. When she objected, they might say “Shut up, N—.”

She complained to her supervisor, who was white, and in addition to HR, however mentioned she noticed no proof of any follow-up. Tesla mentioned Romby by no means complained about racial slurs or discrimination.

In March, after Romby had advised security enhancements on forklift routes that have been then applied, she was honored with a efficiency award certificates at a employees recognition luncheon.

She mentioned that solely made co-workers jealous, and the harassment escalated.

Advertisement

After her complaints to HR, Romby mentioned, she was shifted to a extra strenuous route, the place she needed to elevate as many as 100 heavy packages a day with out assist. Non-Black staff on that route labored in pairs, she mentioned.

Throughout downtime on the manufacturing unit, when components or vehicles have been delayed and line-work slowed, solely Black staff have been ordered to do “basic cleansing,” Romby mentioned, getting on their palms and knees to wash flooring and wipe beneath cabinets, whereas white and Latino workers have been allowed to take relaxation breaks.

On the meeting line, Black staff got essentially the most arduous jobs, corresponding to putting in dashboards, she mentioned.

When, because of this, Black staff precipitated bottlenecks or errors, Romby would overhear supervisors say, “Them N—s over there … they’re lazy.’ However they have been working as laborious as anybody,” she mentioned. She reported the slur in her grievance to the state.

Staff referred to as Tesla’s manufacturing unit “the plantation,” and “the slave ship,” not only for the brutal work tempo that everybody skilled, however particularly as a result of Black staff have been routinely segregated right into a nook of the manufacturing unit that lacked air-con and work circumstances have been most crowded, Romby mentioned.

Advertisement
At Tesla's factory in Fremont, Calif.

A welder works on a Tesla automobile on the Fremont, Calif., manufacturing unit in 2015.

(David Butow / For The Occasions)

“There have been hardly any white staff over there. It was hell in the summertime.”

Romby’s complaints to human assets officers solely led to her being shifted to completely different departments the place harassment would proceed, she mentioned.

By December 2018, she mentioned, “I used to be at my breaking level.” She visited a psychologist at Kaiser Permanenteand took a month’s medical depart due to stress.

Advertisement

Whereas away, she wasn’t paid as a result of hours after submitting papers for the depart, HR emailed her that she was “underneath investigation for supposedly threatening somebody,” she mentioned. Baffled, she requested whom she had threatened, and was instructed it was somebody on the day shift.

However she had labored the night time shift.

“Folks on the day shift instructed them, ‘We don’t know her,’” Romby mentioned. “It was only a bunch of B.S.”

When she returned, Romby was shifted to a brand new place. She continued to be badgered by supervisors, she mentioned.

In March 2019, she give up. “I felt like I used to be compelled out,” she mentioned.

Advertisement

Now Romby has a brand new job working as a welder and mechanic by way of the native boilermakers union, the place, in distinction to Tesla’s nonunion office, if anybody harasses you, she mentioned, “We notify our union reps, and it will get taken care of instantly.”

In a press release, Tesla mentioned that “Romby had a number of co-workers complain about her unprofessional and threatening conduct…. An investigation revealed she forcefully poked a co-worker within the face two instances and threatened to ‘whoop his ass’ as a result of she believed he was speaking about her behind her again.”

After two written warnings, Tesla mentioned, Romby complained “her supervisors have been unprofessional towards her, however by no means acknowledged that these supervisors used racial slurs or handled her in a different way due to race.”

Organ, Romby’s lawyer, mentioned she contests Tesla’s allegations, and did so in a March 2018 grievance “the place she wrote that she ‘solely stood up for herself to be left alone.’”

“Regardless of its authorized obligation to provide employment information to Ms. Romby as required by the California Labor Code, Tesla has by no means offered her with any investigations into her complaints about inappropriate conduct on the manufacturing unit,” Organ mentioned.

Advertisement

‘That was salt within the wound’

Nigel Jones was 22 when he began working at Tesla’s Fremont car meeting plant in 2016. He’d simply completed a three-year stint within the Military as a provide specialist, with a posting in South Korea.

His first job at Tesla was easy: hold tanks on forklifts crammed with distilled water so that they didn’t overheat. At first, he mentioned, “I liked working there, I’m a folks particular person, I really like speaking to folks, and our job was important as a result of if the gear goes down, the manufacturing unit’s not operating.”

He did decide up on some ominous overtones as he moved across the manufacturing unit. He’d overhear white supervisors berate Black, Asian and Latino staff, usually directing the N-word at Black workers. “Issues like, ‘Inform that N— to recover from right here.”

When he requested fellow Black staff about it, they instructed him to suppose twice about complaining, as a result of, he had been instructed, those that had taken comparable complaints to human assets wound up out of a job.

However he preferred his boss on the time, the cash was good and “I’ve all the time been the sort who says, ‘Hmm, OK. That simply occurred. Let it go, hold the optimistic vibes.’”

Advertisement

Jones was promoted to fleet supervisor, in control of retaining the manufacturing unit’s forklifts and carts on schedule, maintained and repaired. Initially employed as a contract employee, the corporate took him on as full-time worker. He felt he was on his approach up. “However once I turned full time, issues began going downhill in a short time.”

A man holds a skateboard in one hand and has his other arm on a woman's shoulders.

Nigel Jones labored for 3 years on the Tesla plant in Fremont. His mom, Rhonda Lockhart, proper, mentioned she had him get a lawyer when he instructed her about discrimination and harassment on the job.

(Paul Kuroda / For The Occasions)

He assumed he would “be going to the supervisor conferences and getting built-in” with different managers. “However I used to be younger and Black and didn’t get invited to something. I used to be outcasted from the get-go.”

He had concepts for bettering the fleet however mentioned he was by no means taken significantly. “They didn’t like how a lot the corporate was spending on gear, however they wouldn’t hear my solutions on learn how to minimize prices. I mentioned when you folks put extra money into coaching folks [to use the equipment properly] relatively than shopping for new gear, you would save some huge cash. By no means as soon as did that begin to occur.”

Advertisement

Quickly after his promotion, his new boss, a white man, began attending the conferences that Jones was excluded from.

His earlier boss had been communicator, Jones mentioned. However with the brand new boss, “we’d miss communications. He wouldn’t be telling me issues I wanted to know. It appeared like he was attempting to make me look dangerous, like we weren’t doing something.”

The person referred to as him and two Black co-workers monkeys, he mentioned. “As soon as, he walked away saying, ‘Oh you lazy N—s.’ We checked out one another and mentioned, ‘What?’”

That occurred in December 2017, Jones mentioned. Just a few weeks later, he instructed his mom, Rhonda Lockhart. Reached by telephone, Lockhart mentioned she recalled the dialog along with her son, which she discovered troubling. “I needed to clarify to Nigel that for a supervisor to name you the N-word, that’s not regular.” She contacted a lawyer, and her son turned a part of the Division of Honest Employment and Housing lawsuit.

The supervisor, who now works for one more firm, didn’t reply to emails and a telephone name from The Occasions.

Advertisement

Although he feared he is perhaps fired, Jones felt compelled to report the racism to human assets. His first assembly went nicely, he mentioned. The lady assigned to his division, whom he recognized as Tori Tanaka, “appeared to need to assist.” (Tanaka, who not works at Tesla, couldn’t be reached for remark.) However on the subsequent assembly, there was a unique girl who to Jones appeared much less involved. Known as in a 3rd time, he was fired.

“They didn’t inform me why, solely that I wasn’t match for Tesla, and later I came upon it was for security and attendance violations, which I by no means as soon as had a write-up for.”

A colleague at a unique Tesla facility provided to rent him there, however then instructed Jones he had been “blacklisted” from the corporate. “That was salt within the wound,” he mentioned.

Tesla disputes that Jones was fired with out warning, saying he “was reprimanded quite a few instances for documented attendance and security violations” and for “strolling off the job.”

Requested to supply information of Jones’ violations or reprimands, Tesla didn’t reply.

Advertisement

The corporate mentioned it has no file of “Jones making any race primarily based grievance throughout his employment at Tesla.”

Jones mentioned he was by no means reprimanded for any office difficulty.

He had testified underneath oath in regards to the prevalence of the N-word at Tesla in two current arbitration circumstances introduced towards the corporate by former workers. In a single case, the arbitrator awarded a Black employee greater than one million {dollars}.

Organ, his lawyer, mentioned Jones complained to HR about racism on Dec. 6, 2017. Shortly after that, Tesla “started searching for a purpose to fireplace him.” Jones was terminated on Feb. 13, 2018.

Jones now runs the skateboard firm he based, Unfold the Shred. Generally he thinks about Musk, who as soon as instructed workers who have been targets of racism to get a “thick pores and skin.”

Advertisement

“He has good concepts,” Jones mentioned. However “when you don’t humble your self a bit of bit, it can convey you down the unsuitable path. You may suppose you’re doing the suitable factor, however you’re not.”

Occasions researcher Scott Wilson contributed to this report.

Business

Disney's streaming business is profitable for the first time, but its parks unit lags

Published

on

Disney's streaming business is profitable for the first time, but its parks unit lags

After years of losses totaling billions of dollars, Walt Disney Co.’s overall streaming business has reached profitability for the first time. Third-quarter results, however, were tempered by weakening demand at the company’s key parks unit.

The Burbank media and entertainment giant reported Wednesday that its streaming business — which includes Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ — took in about $6.4 billion in revenue for its fiscal third quarter, up 15% compared with a year earlier.

The streaming business notched $47 million in operating income, compared with a loss of $512 million a year earlier. During the most recent quarter, ESPN+ helped boost Disney’s streaming business over the profitability hump, at a time when Disney+ and Hulu saw an operating loss of $19 million.

The milestone comes one fiscal quarter earlier than Disney executives had anticipated.

“What we’ve been seeing with streaming is significant success largely driven by the success of our creativity,” chief executive Bob Iger said during a Wednesday morning call with analysts. “We’re bullish about the future of this business.”

Advertisement

Achieving profitability in Disney’s streaming business has been a top priority for Iger, who earlier this year held off activist investor Nelson Peltz in a proxy fight. Among other things, Peltz demanded that Disney show a realistic plan for achieving large margins of profitability in its streaming business. To reach that goal, Iger undertook a wide-ranging cost-cutting effort across the company, which slashed thousands of jobs.

Company executives said product and technology improvements in its streaming services would pay dividends going forward. They mentioned that bundling packages, such as the recent deal Disney reached with Warner Bros. Discovery to offer Disney+, Hulu and Max for one price, has helped reduce subscriber churn, while the company’s early efforts to crack down on password sharing have not faced significant backlash.

Overall, the company generated revenue of $23.1 billion during the fiscal third quarter, up 4% year over year. Earnings, excluding certain items, were $1.39 per share, up from $1.03 a year earlier and higher than analysts’ estimates.

The company’s studios business also contributed to the quarterly results, led by the success of Pixar’s “Inside Out 2.”

Disney’s entertainment division reported revenue of about $10.6 billion, up 4% year over year. Operating income for the segment totaled $1.2 billion, up from $408 million in the previous year. (The interest in “Inside Out 2” also drove viewers to Disney+, as the company said viewers’ desire to watch 2015’s “Inside Out” helped lead to more than 1.3 million sign-ups for the streaming service. Iger said the company is seeing similar trends with the previous “Deadpool” and “Planet of the Apes” movies.)

Advertisement

Revenue for Disney’s sports business, which includes ESPN, increased 5% to about $4.5 billion, though the segment saw operating income of $802 million, down 6%. Domestic ESPN ad revenue rose 17% year over year, but it wasn’t enough to offset the $314-million operating loss from Disney’s Star India business, which saw higher programming and production costs due to the timing of the ICC T20 cricket World Cup.

It was a more muted quarter for the company’s experiences division, which includes its amusement parks and cruise line, as well as merchandise.

The division dominated the company’s financial results in recent fiscal quarters, aided in part by pent-up demand for travel since the pandemic. But for the most recent quarter, the division reported operating income of $2.2 billion, down 3% from last year.

Disney said the decrease in operating income was due to softening consumer demand. Results from the company’s U.S.-based parks decreased “modestly,” though year-over-year attendance was comparable and per-capita spending was “slightly up,” the company said.

The group brought in about $8.4 billion in revenue in the fiscal third quarter, up 2% year over year.

Advertisement

The company expects to see “flat-ish” revenue for its experiences division in the fourth quarter and for several quarters after that, Hugh Johnston, chief financial officer, said on the Wednesday call. Disney cited the Olympics’ effect on attendance at Disneyland Paris, as well as “cyclical softening” in China as factors for fourth-quarter results.

Continue Reading

Business

Google loses major antitrust case over search, declared a monopoly by judge

Published

on

Google loses major antitrust case over search, declared a monopoly by judge

In a major blow to Google, a federal judge on Monday ruled that the tech giant violated antitrust laws by illegally maintaining a monopoly on web searches.

The much-anticipated decision marks a significant victory for federal regulators trying to rein in the power of Big Tech and could send shock waves through the tech world. Other firms, including Apple, Meta and Amazon, also face federal antitrust lawsuits.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta wrote in his opinion.

The ruling did not include a remedy for Google’s conduct.

Kent Walker, president of Google Global Affairs, said in a statement that the company plans to appeal.

Advertisement

“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” he said. “As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”

Regulators alleged that Google maintained a monopoly on web searches by reaching agreements with browser developers, phone manufacturers and wireless carriers to pre-load their products with the Google search engine as the default.

By agreeing to partner with Google, the companies receive a portion of the advertising revenue Google generates through the search process, the ruling said.

In 2021, Google paid out a total of $26.3 billion in revenue share under its contracts with browser developers Apple and Mozilla, major manufacturers of Android devices such as Samsung and Motorola, and U.S. wireless carriers including AT&T and Verizon, according to the ruling.

That amount was Google’s greatest expense that year, the ruling said. That same year, Google earned more than $146 billion in advertising revenue, according to the ruling.

Advertisement

“These distribution deals have forced Google’s rivals to find other ways to reach users,” the ruling said.

The Mountain View-based subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. has increasingly cornered the market for web searching. In 2009, 80% of U.S. web searches went through Google. By 2020, that figure was nearly 90%, according to the ruling. Almost 95% of mobile searches used Google.

Google’s next closest competitor — Microsoft’s Bing — took up just 6% of web searches, the ruling said.

This dominance of the search market caught the attention of antitrust regulators, and by 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice and multiple state attorneys general had filed two separate lawsuits against the tech giant.

During the course of legal proceedings, dozens of witnesses were deposed, including high-ranking tech executives. The bench trial started in September 2023 and lasted for nine weeks. Closing arguments occurred in May.

Advertisement

It’s not yet clear what the ruling will mean for Google, particularly since the company plans to appeal and there will be further proceedings about potential remedies.

“We’re still in the middle of the game, as opposed to the end of the game,” said Colin Kass, a partner in the litigation department at Proskauer and co-head of the firm’s antitrust group.

But if the ruling stands, it could force Google to revisit how it does deals with outside companies for the opportunity to be the default search engine, said Jef Pearlman, clinical professor of law and director of the intellectual property and technology law clinic at the USC Gould School of Law.

“If it stands, this will limit their current approach,” he said.

The ruling is less likely to have an effect on the other pending tech federal antitrust cases, mostly because the Google case focuses so narrowly on the market for web searches, which is not relevant to the other lawsuits, legal experts said.

Advertisement

But it could serve as a warning for artificial intelligence companies, which are starting to make deals with outside companies to use their technology and could run into similar issues as Google did with its default search engine agreements.

Though the AI market is still nascent, “they will be thinking of this as they pen those deals,” Pearlman said.

Continue Reading

Business

Sell-off on Wall Street: Why it is happening and what it says about the economy

Published

on

Sell-off on Wall Street: Why it is happening and what it says about the economy

It’s nail-biting time on Wall Street.

Stocks had been dropping at worrisome rates for several days, but on Monday things went from concerning to panicky. At one point, the Dow Jones industrial average plunged more than 1,200 points, on a day when equity markets tumbled across the globe. It closed down 1,034 points, or 2.6%.

Technology stocks have been hit particularly hard lately: The Nasdaq composite was, for a moment on Monday, down more than 10% since the middle of last week, entering into what economists euphemistically call “correction” territory.

The sudden pullback has jolted investors and raised questions that go beyond financial markets to questions about the underlying health of the economy.

And even when things level out, the window-rattling downturn threatened to kill the political euphoria that has swept over Democrats since President Biden withdrew and Vice President Kamala Harris emerged as the party’s standard-bearer.

Advertisement

So what’s happened and what may be next? Here are first-draft-of-history answers to some of the crucial questions:

What’s causing the current plunge in U.S. stock markets?

Economists point to several factors behind the sell-off. To begin with, tech stocks were overdone, pushed beyond their underlying value by the artificial intelligence craze. Hence the Nasdaq correction. Nvidia, Apple and Intel were among big losers Monday.

And Friday’s jobs report, which showed a sharp slowdown in hiring and unemployment in July, set investors — even those not deep into tech — on edge. That came on the heels of news that jobless claims, a proxy for layoffs, increased significantly in the waning days of July.

It hasn’t helped that the Federal Reserve has been reluctant to start cutting interest rates, which have throttled inflation as intended, but also weighed down businesses and consumers.

Then there’s the reverberation from global markets. On Monday, Japan’s once-high-flying stocks took their worst drubbing since Black Monday in 1987. The huge losses were seen, in part, as being a reaction to market declines and growing concerns in the U.S.

Advertisement

“It’s an unfortunate sequence of events that causes selling, selling, selling,” said Christopher Rupkey, chief economist at Fwdbonds, a research house in New York.

How have stock markets in the U.S. performed overall this year?

Even with Monday’s panic-selling, stocks generally are up for the year, many way up.

Both the broader Standard & Poor’s 500 and Nasdaq are still more than 9% higher compared with the start of the year. The Dow is the laggard, up only 2.6% since Jan. 2.

Stocks have benefited from strong corporate earnings; investor excitement over AI’s growth and potential; and the expectation of Fed interest rate cuts, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.

“This is still, at this point, a garden-variety correction,” Zandi said of the current turmoil, though he added that the situation warrants careful watching. “Things can take on a life of their own.”

Advertisement

Should I be worried about a recession?

Not yet, maybe never.

The classical definition of a recession is two straight quarters of declining gross domestic product. The latest, second-quarter GDP, after adjusting for inflation, was a strong 2.8%.

Almost every economist agrees that you can’t have a recession without job growth turning negative for some extended period. And the U.S. economy hasn’t come close to that point.

Employers have added jobs every month since January 2021, when the economy began to recover from the pandemic. Most recently, in July, job growth came in below expectations, but at 114,000 new payroll hires, that was still solidly positive.

“I don’t see the underpinnings of an economic downturn,” said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer and founding partner at Cresset Capital.

Advertisement

Can anything be done to arrest the decline in stocks?

To quell the sell-off, some investors have urged the Fed to cut interest rates now, in a kind of emergency move ahead of the central bank’s next scheduled meeting in mid-September.

Fed officials have taken such steps before, during the pandemic and the Great Recession, for example. But analysts doubt that the policymakers will intervene unless markets keep faltering badly; making an emergency cut could make things worse by frightening people and causing a market meltdown.

“It’s certainly not a hair-on-fire moment,” Zandi said.

What are the risks going forward?

With more people on edge about the economy, further declines in the stock market could erode confidence among businesses and consumers, leading to a pullback in hiring and spending. That would be a psychological development, but economies are not immune to the fears or the hopes of their human components.

Consumer spending, which drives the U.S. economy, has held up very well in recent years, thanks to steady job and wage growth. But there are indications from companies such as McDonald’s and Starbucks that consumers are becoming more cautious.

Advertisement

Higher-income households account for a disproportionately big share of spending, which has been supported by rising gains in home and stock prices. A sharp drop in stocks would have the reverse impact, a so-called negative wealth effect, making richer households more averse to spending, which could lead to a recession.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending