A blog about business and economics.

Nov. 24 2015 3:59 PM

It’s Time to Change Your Amazon Password. Like, Immediately.

Just when Amazon’s account security was looking good, things have taken a turn for the worrisome. Last week, the online retailer added two-factor authentication, a crucial security feature that had previously been unavailable to its users. As Lily Hay Newman explained in Slate, enabling it is a critical step if you want to protect your account. If that doesn’t sound necessary, consider this: Amazon just acknowledged that some users’ passwords may have been compromised.

ZDNet reports that Amazon has contacted some of its customers, informing them by email—and through their actual user accounts on the site itself—that their passwords “may have been improperly stored on [their] device[s] in a way that could potentially expose [them] to a third party.” The company claims that it has already corrected the issue.


As security concerns go, this sounds like a fairly moderate one. Indeed, it’s important to note that Amazon has not been “hacked”: In its communications with users, the site claims that it does not believe user passwords actually were exposed to third parties. Nevertheless, to protect those who might have been exposed by this vulnerability, the company is forcing them to reset their passwords. Such caution is common for Amazon: ZDNet notes that it has taken similar steps in the past.

Those who haven’t been contacted are likely in the clear this time. Nevertheless, this story should provide an important reminder to those of us who rely too lightly on Amazon’s security features: Consider turning on two-factor now (Newman outlines the steps in her post; it’s simple and surprisingly convenient) and, because you can never be too safe, changing your password as well.

Video Advertisement

Nov. 24 2015 2:21 PM

Don’t Fly Home for Thanksgiving. Leave the Country.

There’s one thing Americans are rarely thankful for on Thanksgiving: affordable airfare. According to Hopper, a data-driven travel site that monitors about 2 billion price quotes a day, flights over Thanksgiving can be up to 75 percent higher than flights during the rest of the year That means a domestic flight that would normally be $300 might cost $525­, depending on how far you plan ahead.

That’s a nauseating price point for broke millennials living in expensive cities like New York or San Francisco. “Flying across the country is fucking expensive,” a friend who’s a 22-year-old intern from Seattle living in New York told me. With another holiday coming up so soon, she’d rather shell out the $500 to go home for Christmas. But even if you can comfortably afford the Thanksgiving markup, is spending that kind of money for only a few days of family time still worth it? Especially when “Friendsgiving” and “Skypesgiving” seem like perfectly good (and cheap) alternatives?


Consider another alternative: going somewhere that doesn’t celebrate Thanksgiving at all. Although international flights aren’t necessarily cheaper over Thanksgiving, with airfare up to 20 percent higher in some cases, as values they’re not nearly as bad as what you’ll pay for domestic flights. Plus, if you monitor travel apps like Hitlist or and Hopper’s GTFO (Get the Flight Out), you can usually find some tempting last-minute holiday deals. Kayak’s new Holiday Tracker Hacker site has an “Escapes” tab that shows the top 10 global cities where Thanksgiving and Christmas airfares have dropped the most since last year. Hong Kong and Taipei, Taiwan, are on the top of that list.

There are myriad reasons to skip Thanksgiving in your hometown, depending on your mileage (and air-carrier miles). Perhaps your family is stressful. Perhaps the dinner-table political arguments are heated and awkward. Perhaps you’d rather skip the domestic terminal at the airport—that hive of crowds, crankiness, and flight delays—and kick back in the international departures area, plotting the final details of your four-day sojourn abroad.

So where should you go? Skipping your turkey dinner for a quick trip to Turkey may no longer seem like a great idea this week, but if you’re curious, when I checked Hipmunk, another flight aggregation tool, round-trip tickets from Boston to Istanbul were running between $600 and $700. If you’re willing to wait until the Sunday after Thanksgiving, Fiji Airways has 40 percent off flights to Fiji, Australia, and New Zealand on Nov. 29 and 30.

Here’s an idea of other round-trip overseas flights that you can still spontaneously book in the next few days using Hopper’s GTFO and Hitlist:

  • Washington, D.C., to Guadalajara, Mexico, for $417­—leaving Tuesday at 5:45 p.m. and returning Monday, Nov. 30.
  • New York City to Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, for $334—leaving Friday and returning Monday, Nov. 30
  • Chicago to Moscow for $555—leaving Thursday and returning Monday, Nov. 30.
  • Los Angeles to Bangkok, Thailand for $603—leaving Thursday and returning Tuesday, Dec. 1.
  • Seattle to Seoul, South Korea, for $670—leaving Wednesday and returning Sunday, Nov. 29.

And if you just realized that you do want to go home for Thanksgiving, there’s still a chance you can find a domestic deal before Thursday.

Nov. 24 2015 12:58 PM

China Is Expanding Its Economic Influence in Africa. What Is Africa Getting Out of It?

The Conversation
The Conversation

This article originally appeared in The Conversation.

China’s ties to Africa are likely to get stronger this year as the world’s biggest economy appears poised to once again double its investments across the fast-growing continent.

The run-up to the sixth Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) to be held early next month in South Africa is under way. The forum—in its 15th year and the first held under President Xi Jinping’s administration—has been the main venue for setting the investment, trade and integration agenda between China and countries in Africa.

But has this relationship been as good for Africa as it has been for China? And what can other countries beginning to receive more of its largesse learn from it?

As the poster child for economic growth in recent decades, China has been increasingly keen to spread its wealth and influence around. Even though the country is suffering from a slowdown and expected to achieve “only” single-digit growth rate in the coming years, it remains one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Its success has been, in part, the result of it being the recipient of huge amounts of foreign direct investment itself.

As China gradually embraces the roles and responsibilities of the world’s biggest economy as well, it is increasingly reversing that flow of cash and is expected to soon surpass the U.S. as the largest investor in other countries.

The inauguration of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a rival to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, is a sign of that, with its $100 billion in financial firepower, as is the new China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which will run from Gwadar in Pakistan to China’s western Xinjiang region, supported by a historical agreement of over $46 billion.

Indeed, the amount of investments made by China abroad is estimated to be $531 billion in outward foreign direct investment, with 4 percent of it—$22 billion—going to investments in natural resource extraction, finance, infrastructure, power generation, textiles, and home appliances in Africa.

That’s a small sum at first glance, but its economic impact to the region is both huge and far-reaching, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, with the biggest investments made in Nigeria, Sudan, South Africa, and Angola.

In addition to investment projects, China has quickly become the continent’s biggest trading partner, with trade volume of $166 billion in 2014. This is likely to continue to increase and reach an estimated $1.7 trillion by 2030. But despite the substantial investments, most of them have been routinely cast as detrimental to Africa’s overall competitiveness.

The projects are dependent on deals made at the highest political levels. They lack competitive and transparent bidding processes, and most of the work force employed at these ventures has been Chinese. Promises of job creation have not been fulfilled. Further, when Africans are hired, local rules and regulations are often flouted, leading at times to poor safety.

For instance, at Chinese-run mines in Zambia’s copper belt, employees must work for two years before they get safety helmets. Ventilation below ground is poor, and deadly accidents occur almost on a daily basis.

More frequently, jobs are lost to Chinese employees, who are ferried in project by project. For example, the growing Chinese presence in South Africa may have cost the country 75,000 jobs from 2000 to 2011. In Nigeria, the influx of low-priced Chinese textile goods has caused 80 percent of Nigerian companies in this industry to close.

Africans' impression of Chinese firms could also be shaped by illegal practices carried out by them.

For example, by law, mining on small plots of 25 acres or less is restricted to Ghanaian nationals. However, many Chinese continue to explore for gold in conjunction with local landowners, even though regulations have made it clear that such practice is illegal. The result: Many Africans see themselves to be exploited by the newcomers.

Perhaps making matter worse, the kinds of goods that the two partners trade with each other have done little to change such perception.

Whereas China buys from Africa mainly natural resources—minerals and metals—African countries import primarily the finished results, ranging from machinery and electrical goods to plastics and rubber.

Such an arrangement could benefit both parties, but it’s more often seen as China exploiting Africa’s natural resources to feed its need for industrial output. At the same time, by exporting cheap—and often shoddy—manufactured goods to African countries, local companies not only become less competitive but they also grow increasingly dependent on China.

Recent research has also suggested that the Chinese presence has failed to bring significant skill developments, adequate technological transfer or any measurable upgrade to the productivity levels to this part of the world.

Recently, China has become more tactful in its approach to Africa, trying to preempt the perception that its presence in Africa may be one-sided only.

In this year’s China-Africa forum, for example, the Middle Kingdom is believed to be making efforts to mitigate the broad criticisms of its “mercantilist” approach toward Africa by, among other things, offering more access to capital for local companies. The fact is that China’s Export-Import Bank extended $62.7 billion in loans to African countries from 2001 to 2010, some $12.5 billion more than the World Bank.

And contrary to what many may believe, China’s investment is not concentrated in countries with inadequate rule of law. The biggest recipient is in fact South Africa—though the Chinese presence is often more visible in other countries from which Western governments have shied away.

Indeed, as researchers have pointed out, Chinese investments are not concentrated in natural resources: Services are the most common sector, with significant investments in manufacturing as well. This suggests that China is now doing more to help African countries to build up their competitiveness.

Lately, the Middle Kingdom has tended to reduce to publicize major oil and mining contracts and instead has focused more on areas where it’s creating jobs, investing in infrastructure and transferring technology. And the latest Forum on China-Africa Cooperation is meant to showcase that. But will loans to support new railroads and other infrastructure projects be enough to make up for concerns that African resources are being exploited?

The challenge for Xi, and China, is to further develop the relationship and at the same time alter sometimes negative perceptions. That’s the opportunity presented by the forum, which could be a game changer for China, its external policy model and its growing footprint beyond its borders. Key to that is ensuring Chinese companies operating in Africa comply with local rules and regulations. They also have to change their views of the locals, so that the latter are seen as equal business partners.

Only by making such fundamental shifts can China capture people’s hearts and minds, and not just their mines.

The Conversation

Nov. 24 2015 11:36 AM

If You’re Buying a Turkey From Whole Foods Because It Was “Humanely” Raised, Read This First                                                  

In preparation for this year’s Thanksgiving feast, more consumers than ever before will seek turkeys that have been humanely raised. For these shoppers, optimistic messages offered by Whole Foods and other animal welfare–oriented food retailers will provide assurance that they’re making an ethical food choice. “Our birds live in harmony with the environment and we allow them plenty of room to roam,” explains a Diestel Turkey Ranch brochure, prominently displayed at many Whole Foods meat counters. Diestel turkeys raised at the Ranch’s main farm earn a 5+ welfare mark—the highest—from the nonprofit Global Animal Partnership, which contracts with third-party certifiers and administers the company’s rating system for humanely raised animal products. Diestel is one of only a handful of Whole Foods meat suppliers out of about 2,100 to achieve this remarkable distinction. So, along with the Diestel’s  promise that “on our ranch a turkey can truly be a turkey,” it seems safe to assume that the Diestel turkeys sold at Whole Foods lived a decent life.

But a recent undercover investigation by the animal advocacy group Direct Action Everywhere tells a more complicated story. Located in Sonora, California, Diestel’s showcase farm gives every appearance of being a model operation. According to its brochure, as well as videos on the company’s website, healthy-looking turkeys roam shaded pastures in a natural setting. Yet, as investigators discovered, the birds roaming in Sonora may be at best a token sampling of Diestel’s overall turkey population. The main source of Diestel’s turkey output appears to be an industrial operation with 26 barns (housing about 10,000 birds each) located 3.5 miles down the highway in Jamestown, California.* (This location earned a 3 from the Global Animal Partnership.) Direct Action investigators became suspicious in part because of a 2013 water discharge report—something the regional water board filed in response to complaints that toxic waste from a Diestel facility was making its way into local drinking water. The report also revealed that the Sonora farm produced about 1 percent of Diestel’s turkeys. So something didn’t add up. 


Visits to Diestel’s Jamestown facility—conducted by Direct Action investigators over nine months (they just “walked right in”)—revealed horrific conditions, even by the standards of industrial agriculture. The group saw turkeys that had been jammed into overcrowded barns, trapped in piles of feces, and afflicted with swollen eyes and open sores. Technically, the birds were allowed outdoor access, but investigators said they saw only one bird outside over the course of the nine-month investigation—an escaped turkey at that. In some cases investigators found dead turkeys strewn across the barn floor. In others, they were overwhelmed by noxious odors and had to leave. Company records (posted on the side of the barn) showed that up to 7 percent of the birds died in a single week. All of which is to say: Diestel Turkey Ranch is a factory farm.

When asked how Global Animal Partnership certifiers could have possibly failed to understand that the showcase farm did not represent the company’s standard model of production, Wayne Hsiung, a former Northwestern University law professor who founded Direct Action Everywhere, explained that the Global Animal Partnership itself “has a tiny staff … claiming to supervise the lives of 300 million animals.” (According to a 2014 tax form, the group pays just $96,711 in salaries and wages, and the bulk of its revenue for that year came from a $300,000 contribution from Whole Foods.) Whole Foods has responded to Direct Action Everywhere’s video footage of the abuse, writing, “Whole Foods Market is proud to stand behind the many hard working farmers such as the Diestel family, who are committed to maintaining a high level of animal welfare.” It noted that an “expert team” who visited the farm “within hours of the video being brought to our attention” declared the conditions at Jamestown to be “not as they were portrayed in the video.” Diestel also dismissed the allegations to the Wall Street Journal, saying that the video only focuses on a small window of time and that the Turkey flock is healthy.

Those responses notwithstanding, consumers worried about the treatment of farm animals should be more than a little disturbed by Direct Action Everywhere’s report. In an era in which we are increasingly asking to know where food comes from, the documented conditions at Diestel remind us of a reality easily overlooked: The task of seeking transparency goes well beyond monitoring conditions at the industrial behemoths. Small, less-industrialized family farms that stress welfare and sustainability should be considered equally suspect, and oversight should be equally rigorous for every kind of farm.

The reason for this is rooted in a kind of paradox. As consumers become increasingly knowledgeable about the terrible circumstances on factory farms, we’ve come to demand that animal products be sourced from smaller ones—farms that fit our mythologized notion of preindustrial agriculture. As the rise of a powerful food movement confirms, we are, appropriately enough, willing to pay more to support such alternatives to the factory farm. For good reasons, these developments are to be celebrated. They point the way to a healthier food system. But producing humane alternatives comes with unavoidable limitations. When corporations such as Whole Foods and Chipotle—to name the most notable supporters of alternative agriculture—attempt to meet consumer demand for responsibly sourced goods, they run into a frustrating economic reality, one that nobody seems to want to discuss: Compassion for animals—that is, practicing true welfare—makes it impossible to raise them en masse.

It’s a hard fact to swallow, but the humane treatment of farm animals is not only more expensive than the industrial option, it’s a substantially more time-consuming endeavor. To the extent that a free-roaming bird fattens on its own terms, it deviates from the rigid production schedule dictated by a large company like Whole Foods. Imagine hiring an independent seamstress working from home to manufacture the uniforms for an army in a week’s time. That’s what Whole Foods and other companies seeking humane animal products do when they knock on the small farmer’s door and ask for an industrial quantity of birds to be delivered for the holidays. So while the Diestel revelation is disturbing, it shouldn’t be surprising. A farm can’t produce upwards of 2 million turkeys—as the Diestal ranch does—to fulfill (in part) the demands of a major retailer wanting birds that were raised according to the highest welfare standards. Doing that, as the Diestel case shows, requires a factory.

The takeaway from this incident might be unpalatable but, when it comes to Thanksgiving dinner, concerned consumers have a hard choice to make: forget about animal welfare or, while menu planning, forget about the turkey.

*Correction, Nov. 24, 2015: This post originally misstated the distance between Sonora and Jamestown, California. They are separated by 3.5 miles, not 45 miles.

Nov. 24 2015 10:04 AM

Be a Decent Human Being and Don’t Go Shopping on Thanksgiving

Black Friday, the traditional and chaotic start to the holiday shopping season, has now creeped into the territory of Thursday’s turkey and pie. In 2014, Jordan Weissmann wrote against shopping on Thanksgiving. The original is reprinted below.

This Thanksgiving, millions of Americans will slide back from their dinner tables, get in their cars, and head for a postprandial shopping trip to snap up deals at a holiday sale.


Please, please do not be one of those people—both for your own sake, and out of respect for the retail staff who get dragooned into coming to work on a day they should have off with family. 

I know. Complaining about our mania for holiday bargain-hunting, and that Black Friday now begins on Brown Thursday, is already a bit of a cliché. Progressive-minded writers seem to spend every November lamenting the misfortune of employees forced to show up to their job on Thanksgiving. The econ bloggers at ThinkProgress have practically devoted an entire month of coverage to the subject. Meanwhile, stores like Costco, Crate and Barrel, and Marshalls now brag about the fact that they don’t open on our national day of gluttony as a way of painting themselves as family-friendly.

But it bears repeating. Thanksgiving shopping, as it currently stands, is an awful tradition that should be boycotted.

To start, Black Friday (and its Thursday lead-in) is a bit of a sham. Yes, some of those cut-rate flat-screen TVs are a real steal. But, as the Wall Street Journal explained last year, many of the supposedly great deals are a “carefully engineered illusion.” Retailers regularly mark down merchandise from heavily inflated prices to trick shoppers into believing they’re getting a bargain. Meanwhile, prices often drop further as the holiday season progresses and stores try to clear out inventory, and better deals can sometimes be found at other times of the year. Plus, in binge-shopping over Thanksgiving weekend, behavioral psychology suggests you’re pretty much dooming yourself to overspend, including on full-price items that just happen to be sitting next to those marked-down toaster ovens.

In short, those who shop on Thanksgiving are practically begging to be fleeced.

Now about all those poor Walmart, Best Buy, and JCPenney* employees who are stuck working instead of watching football. The big-picture problem here is that the United States is, of course, the only rich nation where workers aren’t guaranteed paid vacations or holidays, which is why companies like Walmart, which has stayed open on every Thanksgiving since 1988, can ask their staff to come in whether they want to or not. If we had a humane national vacation policy, none of this would be an issue.

But we don’t. And so retailers are mostly free to keep whatever hours they choose, and demand their workforce deal with it. Some companies, like Walmart and Kmart, do say they offer their staff bonus pay for working Thanksgiving (though exactly how much, in Walmart’s case, is a bit of a question). But in some cases, workers don’t have any choice but to clock in. Kmart employees, for instance, say they’ve been told they could lose their jobs or be otherwise punished if they don’t come in. Target workers are also reportedly not allowed to ask for time off work. Lots of retail workers are probably thankful for the extra holiday paycheck. But many would probably prefer not to be forced to babysit while a bunch of rampaging bargain-hunters tears through the television aisle.

What’s especially galling about this is that early Thanksgiving day sales don’t necessarily benefit the retail industry as a whole. Instead, they’re the product of a massive collective action problem. Opening up on Thursday doesn’t increase sales overall. But companies are worried that if they don’t, their customers will simply do their shopping elsewhere. “Retailers are trying to get a jump on the competition,” Bill Martin of mall-traffic tracker ShopperTrak told MarketWatch last year. “Thursday is simply selling the stuff at the expense of Black Friday.” Many of the stores that do choose to stay closed on Thanksgiving, like Neiman Marcus, Sam’s Club, Costco, and Crate and Barrel cater to somewhat wealthier clientele and don’t rely on massive markdowns to court customers. They have the luxury of sitting out of the competition. But we can’t rationally expect big-box stores like Best Buy, Walmart, and Kmart that cater to the cash-strapped middle class to do the same.

We could try to solve this problem with regulation. Massachusetts, Maine, and Rhode Island ban stores from opening on Thanksgiving. A state lawmaker in Ohio has introduced a bill that would force stores to pay employees triple wages for working on the holiday and allow them to take the day off without facing retaliation.

But until workers can freely choose whether to show up for the job on Thanksgiving, consumers who take advantage of these overhyped sales are simply voting for the gross status quo. Right now, Brown Thursday is a terrible bargain for society. Don’t fall for it.

*Correction, Nov. 26, 2014: This post originally misspelled the name of retailer JCPenney.

Nov. 24 2015 8:00 AM

Forget Security Cameras. Stores Are Using Face Recognition to See If You’re a Shoplifter. 

They see you when you’re shopping, and they know if you’ve been bad or good.

An in-depth piece by the BBC finds that retail stores are increasingly using cameras with face-recognition technology to identify shoplifters—and, in some cases, big spenders.


The cameras snap your picture as you walk in or browse the selves, then send it to a database of known shoplifters, often provided by local police. If there's a match, the store's managers or security guards will get a notification on their phone. What they do next—kick you out, follow you around, simply take note of your presence—is up to them. In one pilot program, the doors to a fancy jewelry store in Rotterdam, Netherlands, would actually lock when a suspected shoplifter approached.

Stores can use the same software to build their own databases of loyal and deep-pocketed customers, then target them with discounts or special customer service.

The technology isn't new. Police and the military have employed face recognition for years, while Facebook and Google use it to tag you and your friends in photos.

What's surprising about the BBC piece is the extent to which retailers appear to be adopting the technology, even as surveys consistently show that their customers abhor it. The story, which focuses on the United Kingdom, cites a survey by the U.S.-based IT services company CSC that finds more than 1 in 4 British retailers is using face recognition on its customers. That's a lot more than you'd expect to find using a technology that most people think of as futuristic and dystopian, if they’re aware of it at all.

It’s possible the technology is less common here: CSC told me it doesn’t have comparable survey data on U.S. retailers. It’s also possible that the 27 percent figure, based on a survey of 150 IT and marketing executives from U.K. retailers, is an overstatement.

We know, however, that at least some major U.S. retailers are doing this too. Fortune reported on Nov. 9 that Walmart tested a face-recognition system earlier this year. FaceFirst, which provided the technology, told Fortune that “several” Fortune 500 companies are using its software. But it wouldn’t say which ones they were—and, aside from Walmart, neither would the retailers. The ones the magazine contacted either denied using the technology or declined to comment.

What’s disturbing, even if you’re not opposed to face recognition in principle, is that we really don’t know which stores are using it. U.S. law does not restrict the use of face recognition technology, and only two states—Illinois and Texas—regulate it.

It’s no wonder retailers are reluctant to talk about their use of the technology: They clearly view it quite differently from their customers. More than half of the retail executives in that CSC survey said they believe the technology is beneficial, and just 7 percent considered it “intrusive.”

Among the 2,000 consumers who responded, however, 56 percent admitted they don’t know what face recognition is. Of those who do, 75 percent said they believe it’s intrusive. That dovetails with a June 2015 survey by Transparency Market Research, this one conducted in the U.S., which found that 75 percent of U.S. shoppers would avoid shopping at a store that used face recognition. That number remained a stubborn 55 percent even when respondents were told that the technology would come with a price discount.

The same research firm estimated the global face recognition market was worth $1.3 billion in 2014, and forecast that it will more than double by 2022. In short, face recognition is no longer science fiction. It’s big business.

Efforts to set ethical guidelines around face recognition, however, have so far gone nowhere. Talks between consumer privacy groups and industry representatives over voluntary guidelines for its use broke down this summer when the privacy groups walked out. They said the industry groups refused to consider even basic privacy protections.

It’s a neat little Catch-22 they’ve worked out. Retailers aren’t going to tell customers that they’re using face recognition unless customers demand it. And customers aren’t going to demand it if they don’t know it’s happening.

Previously in Slate:

Nov. 23 2015 7:45 PM

Janet Yellen Very Politely Smacks Down Ralph Nader

Late last month, Ralph Nader wrote a rambling and somewhat offensive open letter to Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen in which he chastised the Fed for allegedly hurting savers by keeping interest rates too low for too long, then suggested Yellen ask her husband, Nobel Prize–winning economist George Akerlof, for advice on how to do her job. Monday, in a slightly unexpected move, Yellen responded with a letter of her own. It doesn't mention the whole husband-knows-best flap. But it does very politely and efficiently demolish Nader's broader argument. Her point: Raising rates too soon would have tanked the damn economy, which would have been a whole lot worse for savers than the fact that their savings accounts aren't paying much interest today. Here's the heart of it:

It may help to review a few basic facts. In 2007 and 2008, the world faced the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression. The unemployment rate in the ensuing economic downturn climbed to 10 percent in the United States. In response, the Federal Reserve acted forcefully—reducing short-term interest rtes to historically low levels. These lower borrowing costs for millions of American families and businesses helped support asset prices—including home prices and, as you note, stock prices. More importantly, by making consumer purchases more affordable and encouraging businesses to invest, low interest rates supported the economic recovery and the creation of millions of jobs. Indeed, the most recently reported unemployment rate, 5 percent, underscores the progress we have seen. Americans generally have benefitted, most particularly lower- and middle-income people affected disproportionately during the downturn.

Would savers have been better off if the Federal Reserve had not acted as forcefully as it did and had maintained a higher level of short-term interest rates, including rates paid to savers? I don’t believe so. Unemployment would have risen to even higher levels, home prices would have collapsed further, even more businesses and individuals would have faced bankruptcy and foreclosure, and the stock market would not have recovered. True, savers could have seen higher returns on their federally-insured deposits, but these return would hardly have offset the more dramatic declines they would have experienced in the value of their homes and retirement accounts. Many of these savers undoubtedly would have lost their jobs or pensions (or faced increased burdens from supporting unemployed grandchildren.)

So, why is Yellen taking time to respond to a man who hasn't been politically relevant for 15 years? This is purely speculation, but I don't really think Janet Yellen cares all that much about Ralph Nader. But the man's criticisms of the Fed just happen to closely mirror arguments made by some conservatives, who have made bashing the central bank a major economic theme of the GOP primary. So Nader's letter gives her an excuse to very pointedly respond in writing to their accusations without looking too overtly political.

Or maybe the the woman just really took umbrage at that husband line. And if so, who could blame her?

Nov. 23 2015 5:47 PM

The Salvation Army Just Killed Your Excuse That You’re “Out of Change”

Last year, Slate’s Jordan Weissmann observed that the rise of e-payments might be changing the way we tip. At coffee shops where we once might have tossed our change into a jar, services like Square now prompt us to pay much more. This has been a boon for baristas and others who depend on gratuities, since they otherwise might not receive anything from the swipe of a credit card. Now street-level charities like the Salvation Army are getting in on the action, testing the waters of our digital generosity.

This experiment comes via DipJar, a New York–based company that makes small canisterlike credit card receptacles. When you slide a card into one of them, it automatically charges a set amount—typically a dollar, though merchants can set it to other quantities—to the attached account. The machines produce a satisfying dinging sound as the payment goes through, clearly indicating to all involved that a virtuous act has been performed.


Now, as BostInno’s Dylan Martin reports, DipJar has branded some of its units in the style of Salvation Army’s red kettles to complement the charity’s annual fundraising campaign.* Dipjar is distributing the units to retail stores and other locations throughout Colorado and Southern California. As Martin explains, because the devices have their “own payment processing service,” they “can help retail stores raise money for The Salvation Army without having to take money that goes through their bookkeeping.”

It’s not entirely clear how the units will be set up: Since they don’t ordinarily give the consumer (or the donor, in this case) an option of how much they’re willing to pay, they’ll likely be set to the baseline $1, a figure that may seem more reasonable to someone who’s just paid five times that much for a latte than one who’s impulsively giving to a charity. It’s also not immediately clear how large a cut DipJar will be taking for its participation, if any, though the smart money says the company is doing this for the exposure.

This isn’t the Salvation Army’s first attempt to accommodate to the realities of modern commerce. Its online red kettle program, for example, allows organizations to raise funds through virtual channels. But the $4 million it hopes to raise through that initiative pales in comparison to, say, the $135.9 million it raised through all its outlets in 2013. The charity’s real-world bell ringers still play a central role in its fundraising efforts, generally outweighing its Internet fundraising. Its project with DipJar, however, occupies an emerging space between the virtual and the real, one that will likely be important for the Salvation Army as its altruistic troops soldier ahead.

*Correction, Nov. 24, 2015: This post originally misidentified BostInno staff writer Dylan Martin as Dylan Matt.

Nov. 23 2015 12:36 PM

Once Again, Pfizer Is Trying to Move Overseas to Avoid U.S. Taxes

It's been a long, hard road, but it seems as if Pfizer Inc. might finally succeed at self-deporting itself in order to escape the IRS. The U.S. pharmaceutical giant announced Monday that it plans to merge with Ireland-based Allergan in a $155 billion deal that would set up the largest "corporate inversion" in history while also creating the world's biggest drugmaker by sales.

Inversions, you may recall, are transactions that allow U.S. companies to move their headquarters overseas by merging with a smaller foreign company, and thereby avoid U.S. corporate income taxes. For their part, Pfizer and Allergan plan to shack up together in Dublin, where the newlywed couple will be renamed Pfizer PLC and continue trading on the New York Stock Exchange while paying a projected tax rate of about 17 or 18 percent, down from Pfizer's current 25 percent tax bill. This is Pfizer's second high-profile attempt to move abroad. Last year, it tried and failed to purchase U.K-.based AstraZeneca, whose management resisted the deal, arguing it undervalued their company.


While any sort of business can theoretically use an inversion to reduce its tax burden—Burger King arranged a tie-up with Tim Hortons as an excuse to move to Canada last year—the pharmaceutical industry has been especially keen on this maneuver. There seem to be a few reasons why. America's corporate tax code is unusual in that it taxes profits earned abroad, which makes it especially irksome for drugmakers, which sell their products all across the globe. There are also lots of pharma companies based in Europe, which means there are plenty of merger targets for American firms considering an inversion. Beyond that, there's a follow-the-leader effect at play—pharma companies that don't invert are worried that paying higher U.S. taxes will put them at a competitive disadvantage against those who do manage to move overseas.

These deals are obviously a sign that some companies find the U.S. tax system inhospitable. Conservatives have typically cited them as proof that the entire corporate code needs an overhaul—one that, in all likelihood, would involve lowering rates to make ours a bit more competitive with the rest of the world's. But, frankly, it might not be worth getting too worked up over inversions, since at this point they're still fairly rare, and it's not 100 percent clear how they affect our economy.

Keep in mind that when they invert, companies like Pfizer are basically moving their official postal address and not a ton more; it's not as if Pfizer is uprooting all of its factories and R&D and moving them to Dublin, too. As Matt Gardner, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, put it earlier this month, “An inversion by Pfizer would very likely amount to pretending to be Irish, much like the Notre Dame mascot.” The merger will probably deal a slight blow to U.S. gross domestic product, since the profits from inverted companies earn aren't counted toward our national accounts. But that's not exactly crushing, since at least some of the money will probably get sent back to U.S. investors in the form of dividends. As for taxes, well, Congress' number-crunchers think inversions will cost the U.S. Treasury about $41 billion over 10 years. However, some recent research out of Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management suggests that might be off—and that, weirdly enough, inversions might actually increase American tax collections by allowing companies to bring money they were previously hoarding overseas back to their U.S. operations and hand it out to shareholders.

Economic implications aside, Pfizer’s move can still be interpreted as a bit of a middle finger to the Treasury Department, which just last week announced a new set of rules specifically designed to discourage inversions. Sorry Jack Lew. Big pharma, it seems, don’t care.

Nov. 20 2015 3:01 PM

Fitness Tracker–Maker Jawbone Just Laid Off 15 Percent of Its Staff

The struggling fitness tracker manufacturer Jawbone just suffered another jab. On Thursday, the 16-year-old wearable company laid off 60 employees—15 percent of its workforce—according to TechCrunch. The company is also shuttering its marketing-focused New York office and downsizing operations in Sunnyvale, California, and Pittsburgh. But it will continue to make its Up wrist trackers, Jambox speakers, and Bluetooth headsets.

In a statement, a Jawbone spokesperson attributed the bloodletting to a “streamlining” strategy:

Jawbone’s success over the past 15 years has been rooted in its ability to evolve and grow dynamically in a rapidly scaling marketplace. As part of our strategy to create a more streamlined and successful company, we have made the difficult decision to reorganize the company which has had an impact on our global workforce. We are sad to see colleagues go, but we know that these changes, while difficult for those impacted, will set us up for greater success.

These are the second round of layoffs for Jawbone this year. In June, Jawbone laid off 20 employees—4 percent of its workforce—right after receiving a $300 million loan from the private equity firm BlackRock and getting involved in a messy patent infringement suit with Fitbit. Jawbone accused its rival in wearable tech of “systematically plundering” company secrets by poaching Jawbone employees, as Slate’s Alison Griswold reported at the time.

Jawbone has also struggled to deliver on its products. The new Up3 fitness tracker, released in May, received less-than-stellar reviews. And although it was designed for swimmers, the tracker wasn’t that water-resistant. This made it nearly impossible for the company to compete in the highly competitive wearable market.

As BuzzFeed notes, Jawbone wasn’t even in the top five wearable vendors, which included Fitbit, Apple, Xiamoi, Garmin, and Samsung. As those companies celebrate the 200 percent growth in wearable tech, industry pioneer Jawbone can’t seem to keep up.