Business
Column: A conservative think tank says Trump policies would crater the economy — but it's being kind
If you are wired into the flow of campaign news — as I am, for my sins — you will be inundated this week with reports of a new analysis of the fiscal impact of the economic proposals of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
Long story short: Trump’s would be much worse in terms of increasing the federal debt than Harris’. According to the study issued Monday by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Harris’ policies would expand the debt by $3.5 trillion over 10 years, Trump’s by $7.5 trillion.
These are eye-catching figures, to be sure. They’re also completely worthless for assessing the true economic effect of the candidates’ proposals, for several reasons.
The disappearance of migrant workers…dries up local demand at grocery stories, leasing offices, and other nontraded services. The resulting blow to demand for all workers overwhelms the reduction in supply of foreign workers.
— The Peterson Institute for International Economics, on Trump’s deportation plan
One is the committee’s single-minded, indeed simple-minded, focus on the direct effect of the proposals on the federal deficit and national debt. That’s not surprising, because (as I’ve reported in the past) the CRFB was created to be a deficit scold, funded by the late hedge-fund billionaire Peter G. “Pete” Peterson.
For instance, the CRFB has been a consistent voice, as was Peterson, in campaigns to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits on the preposterous grounds that the U.S., the richest country on Earth, can’t afford the expense. (Peterson’s foundation still provides a significant portion of the committee’s budget.)
This focus on the national debt and the federal deficit as a linchpin of economic policy dates back to the 1940s among Republicans and the 1970s among Democrats. Throughout that period it made policymaking more austere and left the country without the resources to combat real economic needs such as poverty while increasing inequality.
The harvest, as economist Brad DeLong of UC Berkeley has noted, was the rise of a policy that failed everyone but the rich. Trump would continue that policy; Harris would continue the Biden administration’s effort to return the U.S. to a government that serves all the people.
Another problem with the analysis is that the candidates’ proposals are inchoate — as the committee acknowledges. The committee cobbled together their purported platforms from written policy statements, social media posts, and dubious other sources and then absurdly claimed that its effort helped to “clarify [the] policy details.”
The worst shortcoming of the CRFB’s analysis is that it’s hopelessly narrow. Its focus is on the first-order effects of the individual proposals on federal income and spending, without paying much attention to the dynamic economic effects of those policies. Would the policy spur more growth over time, or less?
For the record:
8:26 a.m. Oct. 8, 2024An earlier version of this post incorrectly described the committee’s estimates on the direct cost of Harris’ proposal to extend and increase the health insurance subsidies created by the Affordable Care Act and improved by the Biden administration.
The committee estimates the direct cost of Harris’ proposal to extend and increase the health insurance subsidies created by the Affordable Care Act and improved by the Biden administration at $350 billion to $600 billion over 10 years; but what would be the gains in gross domestic product from reducing the cost of healthcare for the average household?
The committee barely even acknowledges that this is a salient issue. It says that in some of its estimates it accounts for “dynamic feedback effects on revenue and spending,” but also says, “we do not account for possible changes in GDP resulting from the candidates’ policies.”
The committee’s treatment of Trump’s tariff proposals demonstrate the vacuum at the heart of its analysis. It treats the income from Trump’s proposal — a 10% to 20% tariff on most imported goods and 60% on Chinese imports — as a revenue gain for the federal budget. Economists are all but unanimous in regarding tariffs as a tax on American consumers, however — in other words, a tax transferring household income to the Treasury.
Donald Trump’s economic policies would destroy economic growth, according to an expert analysis.
(Peterson Institute for International Economics)
The committee writes: “Such a significant change to trade policy could have economic and geopolitical repercussions that go beyond what a standard tax model would estimate.” As a result, “the true economic impact is hard to predict.” Thanks for nothing.
Uncertainties about the details of the candidates’ proposals resulted in laughably wide ranges in the committee’s fiscal estimates. The effect on the deficit and debt of Harris’ proposals is estimated at zero to $8.1 trillion over 10 years. For Trump’s plans, the range is $1.45 trillion to $15.15 trillion. What are voters or policy makers supposed to do with those figures?
The CRFB also reports a “central” estimate for both — $3.5 trillion expansion of debt for Harris, $7.5 trillion for Trump — but doesn’t say much about how it arrived at those figures, other than to say that sometimes it just split the difference between the high and low estimates, and sometimes relied on estimates of the individual proposals by the Congressional Budget Office and the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
I asked the CRFB to comment on the shortcomings listed above, but haven’t received a response.
Despite all that, the CRFB analysis showed up on the morning web pages of major newspapers and other media coast-to-coast on Monday, as though its conclusions were credible, solid and bankable. (Here at The Times, we passed.)
Consider the CRFB’s treatment of Trump’s deportation policy, which he has called “largest deportation program in American history,” affecting at least 11 million undocumented immigrants and millions more who are in the U.S. legally.
The committee says that might increase the deficit by anywhere from zero to $1 trillion over a decade, with a middle-of-the-road estimate of $350 billion — “chiefly,” it said, “by reducing the number of people paying federal taxes.” It also cites unspecified “additional economic effects of immigration.”
The CRFB might have profited from reading an analysis of the deportation proposal produced in March by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which was also funded by Pete Peterson but, staffed by economic eggheads with a wider intellectual horizon, tends to take a more intelligent approach to economic policy.
“The immigrants being targeted for removal are the lifeblood of several parts of the US economy,” the institute observed. “Their deportation will … prompt US business owners to cut back or start fewer new businesses, … while scaling back production to reflect the loss of consumers for their goods.”
The institute cited estimates that a deportation program in effect from 2008 to 2014 cost the jobs of 88,000 U.S. native workers for ever one million unauthorized immigrant workers deported. Arithmetic tells us that, in those terms, deporting 11 million immigrants would cost the jobs of about 968,000 U.S. natives.
“The disappearance of migrant workers … dries up local demand at grocery stores, leasing offices, and other nontraded services,” the institute reported. “The resulting blow to demand for all workers overwhelms the reduction in supply of foreign workers.”
The institute was a lot more free-spoken than the CRFB about the effect of Trump’s proposed policies on economic growth. Considering only the deportations, tariffs, and Trump’s desire to exercise more control over the Federal Reserve System, it concluded that by the end of Trump’s term, U.S. GDP would be as much as 9.7% lower than otherwise, employment would fall by as much as 9%, and inflation would climb by as much as 7.4 percentage points.
An overly sedulous focus on deficit reduction as economic policy has caused “real harm [for] the nation’s most vulnerable groups, including millions of debt-saddled and downwardly mobile Americans,” economic historian David Stein of the Roosevelt Institute and UC Santa Barbara wrote last month. When it became Democratic orthodoxy under Presidents Carter and Clinton, the party pivoted to “‘Reagan Democrats’ and suburbant white voters at the expense of the labor and civil rights movements.”
As the federal government pulled back, “state budgets were ravaged,” Stein wrote. State and local services were slashed. The efforts to control federal debt forced households to take on more debt.
The deficit scolds are still at it and still have vastly more credibility than they deserve. That’s clear from the CRFB’s analysis and the alacrity with which it was republished as “news” Monday. Efforts to turn policy back to the point that it benefits everyone, not just the rich, still have a long way to go in this country.
Business
California-based company recalls thousands of cases of salad dressing over ‘foreign objects’
A California food manufacturer is recalling thousands of cases of salad dressing distributed to major retailers over potential contamination from “foreign objects.”
The company, Irvine-based Ventura Foods, recalled 3,556 cases of the dressing that could be contaminated by “black plastic planting material” in the granulated onion used, according to an alert issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Ventura Foods voluntarily initiated the recall of the product, which was sold at Costco, Publix and several other retailers across 27 states, according to the FDA.
None of the 42 locations where the product was sold were in California.
Ventura Foods said it issued the recall after one of its ingredient suppliers recalled a batch of onion granules that the company had used n some of its dressings.
“Upon receiving notice of the supplier’s recall, we acted with urgency to remove all potentially impacted product from the marketplace. This includes urging our customers, their distributors and retailers to review their inventory, segregate and stop the further sale and distribution of any products subject to the recall,” said company spokesperson Eniko Bolivar-Murphy in an emailed statement. “The safety of our products is and will always be our top priority.”
The FDA issued its initial recall alert in early November. Costco also alerted customers at that time, noting that customers could return the products to stores for a full refund. The affected products had sell-by dates between Oct. 17 and Nov. 9.
The company recalled the following types of salad dressing:
- Creamy Poblano Avocado Ranch Dressing and Dip
- Ventura Caesar Dressing
- Pepper Mill Regal Caesar Dressing
- Pepper Mill Creamy Caesar Dressing
- Caesar Dressing served at Costco Service Deli
- Caesar Dressing served at Costco Food Court
- Hidden Valley, Buttermilk Ranch
Business
They graduated from Stanford. Due to AI, they can’t find a job
A Stanford software engineering degree used to be a golden ticket. Artificial intelligence has devalued it to bronze, recent graduates say.
The elite students are shocked by the lack of job offers as they finish studies at what is often ranked as the top university in America.
When they were freshmen, ChatGPT hadn’t yet been released upon the world. Today, AI can code better than most humans.
Top tech companies just don’t need as many fresh graduates.
“Stanford computer science graduates are struggling to find entry-level jobs” with the most prominent tech brands, said Jan Liphardt, associate professor of bioengineering at Stanford University. “I think that’s crazy.”
While the rapidly advancing coding capabilities of generative AI have made experienced engineers more productive, they have also hobbled the job prospects of early-career software engineers.
Stanford students describe a suddenly skewed job market, where just a small slice of graduates — those considered “cracked engineers” who already have thick resumes building products and doing research — are getting the few good jobs, leaving everyone else to fight for scraps.
“There’s definitely a very dreary mood on campus,” said a recent computer science graduate who asked not to be named so they could speak freely. “People [who are] job hunting are very stressed out, and it’s very hard for them to actually secure jobs.”
The shake-up is being felt across California colleges, including UC Berkeley, USC and others. The job search has been even tougher for those with less prestigious degrees.
Eylul Akgul graduated last year with a degree in computer science from Loyola Marymount University. She wasn’t getting offers, so she went home to Turkey and got some experience at a startup. In May, she returned to the U.S., and still, she was “ghosted” by hundreds of employers.
“The industry for programmers is getting very oversaturated,” Akgul said.
The engineers’ most significant competitor is getting stronger by the day. When ChatGPT launched in 2022, it could only code for 30 seconds at a time. Today’s AI agents can code for hours, and do basic programming faster with fewer mistakes.
Data suggests that even though AI startups like OpenAI and Anthropic are hiring many people, it is not offsetting the decline in hiring elsewhere. Employment for specific groups, such as early-career software developers between the ages of 22 and 25 has declined by nearly 20% from its peak in late 2022, according to a Stanford study.
It wasn’t just software engineers, but also customer service and accounting jobs that were highly exposed to competition from AI. The Stanford study estimated that entry-level hiring for AI-exposed jobs declined 13% relative to less-exposed jobs such as nursing.
In the Los Angeles region, another study estimated that close to 200,000 jobs are exposed. Around 40% of tasks done by call center workers, editors and personal finance experts could be automated and done by AI, according to an AI Exposure Index curated by resume builder MyPerfectResume.
Many tech startups and titans have not been shy about broadcasting that they are cutting back on hiring plans as AI allows them to do more programming with fewer people.
Anthropic Chief Executive Dario Amodei said that 70% to 90% of the code for some products at his company is written by his company’s AI, called Claude. In May, he predicted that AI’s capabilities will increase until close to 50% of all entry-level white-collar jobs might be wiped out in five years.
A common sentiment from hiring managers is that where they previously needed ten engineers, they now only need “two skilled engineers and one of these LLM-based agents,” which can be just as productive, said Nenad Medvidović, a computer science professor at the University of Southern California.
“We don’t need the junior developers anymore,” said Amr Awadallah, CEO of Vectara, a Palo Alto-based AI startup. “The AI now can code better than the average junior developer that comes out of the best schools out there.”
To be sure, AI is still a long way from causing the extinction of software engineers. As AI handles structured, repetitive tasks, human engineers’ jobs are shifting toward oversight.
Today’s AIs are powerful but “jagged,” meaning they can excel at certain math problems yet still fail basic logic tests and aren’t consistent. One study found that AI tools made experienced developers 19% slower at work, as they spent more time reviewing code and fixing errors.
Students should focus on learning how to manage and check the work of AI as well as getting experience working with it, said John David N. Dionisio, a computer science professor at LMU.
Stanford students say they are arriving at the job market and finding a split in the road; capable AI engineers can find jobs, but basic, old-school computer science jobs are disappearing.
As they hit this surprise speed bump, some students are lowering their standards and joining companies they wouldn’t have considered before. Some are creating their own startups. A large group of frustrated grads are deciding to continue their studies to beef up their resumes and add more skills needed to compete with AI.
“If you look at the enrollment numbers in the past two years, they’ve skyrocketed for people wanting to do a fifth-year master’s,” the Stanford graduate said. “It’s a whole other year, a whole other cycle to do recruiting. I would say, half of my friends are still on campus doing their fifth-year master’s.”
After four months of searching, LMU graduate Akgul finally landed a technical lead job at a software consultancy in Los Angeles. At her new job, she uses AI coding tools, but she feels like she has to do the work of three developers.
Universities and students will have to rethink their curricula and majors to ensure that their four years of study prepare them for a world with AI.
“That’s been a dramatic reversal from three years ago, when all of my undergraduate mentees found great jobs at the companies around us,” Stanford’s Liphardt said. “That has changed.”
Business
Disney+ to be part of a streaming bundle in Middle East
Walt Disney Co. is expanding its presence in the Middle East, inking a deal with Saudi media conglomerate MBC Group and UAE firm Anghami to form a streaming bundle.
The bundle will allow customers in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to access a trio of streaming services — Disney+; MBC Group’s Shahid, which carries Arabic originals, live sports and events; and Anghami’s OSN+, which carries Arabic productions as well as Hollywood content.
The trio bundle costs AED89.99 per month, which is the price of two of the streaming services.
“This deal reflects a shared ambition between Disney+, Shahid and the MBC Group to shape the future of entertainment in the Middle East, a region that is seeing dynamic growth in the sector,” Karl Holmes, senior vice president and general manager of Disney+ EMEA, said in a statement.
Disney has already indicated it plans to grow in the Middle East.
Earlier this year, the company announced it would be building a new theme park in Abu Dhabi in partnership with local firm Miral, which would provide the capital, construction resources and operational oversight. Under the terms of the agreement, Disney would oversee the parks’ design, license its intellectual property and provide “operational expertise,” as well as collect a royalty.
Disney executives said at the time that the decision to build in the Middle East was a way to reach new audiences who were too far from the company’s current hubs in the U.S., Europe and Asia.
-
Iowa5 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Iowa7 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine4 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland5 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota6 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
New Mexico3 days agoFamily clarifies why they believe missing New Mexico man is dead
-
Nebraska1 week agoNebraska lands commitment from DL Jayden Travers adding to early Top 5 recruiting class