Business

(NEW YORK) — Tens of thousands of Boeing workers have voted to strike after rejecting the proposed contract from the embattled aerospace company — a move with far-reaching implications for the U.S. economy.

Boeing had reached a tentative agreement earlier this week with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, or IAM, the union representing 33,000 workers at Boeing plants in Washington State, Oregon and California.

However, union members rejected the contract agreement on Thursday night with a vote of 94.6%. IAM’s members will strike at midnight on Friday after 96% voted for the action.

“The message was clear that the tentative agreement we reached with IAM leadership was not acceptable to the members,” Boeing said in a statement following the strike vote. “We remain committed to resetting our relationship with our employees and the union, and we are ready to get back to the table to reach a new agreement.”

A work stoppage would weaken Boeing as it struggles to recover from a years-long stretch of scandals and setbacks, hamstringing the nation’s largest exporter, experts told ABC News. But, they added, workers are frustrated with what they perceive as inadequate compensation and a sense they must sacrifice to make up for the company’s mismanagement.

Here’s what to know about what’s behind the strike and its implications for the U.S. economy:

Why are Boeing workers preparing to strike?

Neither Boeing nor the IAM wants a strike. The workers might carry one out anyway.

The tentative agreement struck this week delivers a 25% raise over the four-year duration of the contract, as well as worker gains on healthcare costs and retirement benefits. The union had sought a 40% pay increase over the life of the deal.

The agreement also features a commitment from Boeing to build its next commercial plane with union labor in Washington state.

Boeing touted the strength of its offer earlier this week. “Simply put, this is the best contract we’ve ever presented,” Stephanie Pope, Boeing Commercial Airplanes president and CEO, wrote in a letter to union members obtained by ABC News.

The union echoed support for the agreement, urging workers to ratify the deal.

“We have achieved everything we could in bargaining, short of a strike. We recommended acceptance because we can’t guarantee we can achieve more in a strike,” IAM District 571 President Jon Holden, who leads the union local involved in negotiations, told members in a public letter.

In response to ABC News’ request for comment, a Boeing spokesperson pointed to a letter sent to union members by CEO Kelly Ortberg.

“I hope you will choose the bright future ahead, but I also know there are employees considering another path — and it’s one where no one wins,” Ortberg said.

“For Boeing, it is no secret that our business is in a difficult period, in part due to our own mistakes in the past. Working together, I know that we can get back on track, but a strike would put our shared recovery in jeopardy, further eroding trust with our customers and hurting our ability to determine our future together,” Ortberg added.

IAM declined to respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

Still, the vote indicates that workers are ready to defy the company and the union. For years, West Coast Boeing workers have taken issue with their level of compensation, especially in light of strong company performance and a surge in the cost of living, experts said.

“There are years and years of pent-up frustration among Boeing workers,” Jake Rosenfeld, a professor of sociology at Washington University in St. Louis who studies labor, told ABC News. “This is an expression of being completely fed up.”

Union members also view themselves as being asked to make sacrifices made necessary by the company’s mismanagement, said Henry Harteveldt, a travel industry analyst at Atmosphere Research Group.

In January, a door plug blew out of the company’s 737 Max 9 aircraft during an Alaska Airlines flight, prompting a federal investigation. The renewed scrutiny arrived roughly five years after Boeing 737 Max aircraft were grounded worldwide following a pair of crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed a combined 346 people.

In 2021, after a two-year ban, Boeing 737 Max aircraft were permitted to fly.

Boeing is carrying nearly $60 billion in debt, Pope noted in her letter to union members. The company’s share price has plummeted almost 40% since the outset of 2024. Ortberg took over as CEO last month.

“The workers cannot and should not be expected to bear all of the burden of the changes needed at Boeing,” Harteveldt said.

“But I don’t think Boeing is asking them or expecting them to do that,” Harteveldt added. “Boeing has extended what appears to be a very generous offer with substantial wage increases.”

What’s at stake in a potential Boeing strike?

Boeing, which employs 145,000 U.S.-based workers, is a major U.S. firm with a sprawling network of suppliers, experts said.

The company estimates that it contributes nearly $80 billion to the U.S. economy each year, and indirectly accounts for 1.6 million jobs.

A prolonged strike would weaken production with the potential to slow output, diminish income and trigger layoffs, Harteveldt said.

“There’s a risk of a downward spiral,” Harteveldt said.

Such a strike would not impact flight activity or down planes, however, since the workers at issue take part in manufacturing new products. That stands in contrast with an averted railroad strike in 2022, which would have halted a sizable share of the nation’s cargo trains.

“This wouldn’t be as devastating,” Rosenfeld said.

Still, he added, a potential strike would hold implications for a signature U.S. firm.

“It would further damage an iconic company that has already had years of setbacks,” Rosenfeld said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(SEATTLE) — Tens of thousands of Boeing workers are set to cast ballots in a vote Thursday that could potentially trigger a major strike against the embattled aerospace company with far-reaching implications for the U.S. economy.

Boeing reached a tentative agreement earlier this week with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, or IAM, the union representing 33,000 workers at Boeing plants in Washington State, Oregon and California.

However, union members could potentially reject the contract agreement, walk off the job and send the two sides back to the bargaining table.

A work stoppage would weaken Boeing as it struggles to recover from a years-long stretch of scandals and setbacks, hamstringing the nation’s largest exporter, experts told ABC News. But, they added, workers are frustrated with what they perceive as inadequate compensation and a sense they must sacrifice to make up for the company’s mismanagement.

The ratification vote concludes at 9 p.m. ET, and the union will release the results in a press conference soon afterward. If union members reject the contract, they will take a second vote on a strike that could begin as soon as Friday morning.

“This is a very, very high-stakes game of chicken,” Henry Harteveldt, a travel industry analyst at Atmosphere Research Group, told ABC News.

Here’s what to know about what’s behind the strike and its implications for the U.S. economy:

Why are Boeing workers threatening to strike?

Neither Boeing nor the IAM want a strike. The workers might carry one out anyway.

The tentative agreement struck this week delivers a 25% raise over the four-year duration of the contract, as well as worker gains on healthcare costs and retirement benefits. The union had sought a 40% pay increase over the life of the deal.

The agreement also features a commitment from Boeing to build its next commercial plane with union labor in Washington state.

Boeing touted the strength of its offer earlier this week. “Simply put, this is the best contract we’ve ever presented,” Stephanie Pope, Boeing Commercial Airplanes president and CEO, wrote in a letter to union members obtained by ABC News.

The union echoed support for the agreement, urging workers to ratify the deal.

“We have achieved everything we could in bargaining, short of a strike. We recommended acceptance because we can’t guarantee we can achieve more in a strike,” IAM District 571 President Jon Holden, who leads the union local involved in negotiations, told members in a public letter.

In response to ABC News’ request for comment, a Boeing spokesperson pointed to a letter sent to union members by CEO Kelly Ortberg.

“I hope you will choose the bright future ahead, but I also know there are employees considering another path — and it’s one where no one wins,” Ortberg said.

“For Boeing, it is no secret that our business is in a difficult period, in part due to our own mistakes in the past. Working together, I know that we can get back on track, but a strike would put our shared recovery in jeopardy, further eroding trust with our customers and hurting our ability to determine our future together,” Ortberg added.

IAM declined to respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

Still, workers may defy the company and the union. For years, West Coast Boeing workers have taken issue with their level of compensation, especially in light of strong company performance and a surge in the cost of living, experts said.

“There are years and years of pent up frustration among Boeing workers,” Jake Rosenfeld, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington who studies labor, told ABC News. “This is an expression of being completely fed up.”

Union members also view themselves as being asked to make sacrifices made necessary by the company’s mismanagement, said Harteveldt, of Atmosphere Research Group.

In January, a door plug blew out of the company’s 737 Max 9 aircraft during an Alaska Airlines flight, prompting a federal investigation. The renewed scrutiny arrived roughly five years after Boeing 737 Max aircraft were grounded worldwide following a pair of crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed a combined 346 people.

In 2021, after a two-year ban, Boeing 737 Max aircraft were permitted to fly.

Boeing is carrying nearly $60 billion in debt, Pope noted in her letter to union members. The company’s share price has plummeted almost 40% since the outset of 2024. Ortberg took over as CEO last month.

“The workers cannot and should not be expected to bear all of the burden of the changes needed at Boeing,” Harteveldt said.

“But I don’t think Boeing is asking them or expecting them to do that,” Harteveldt added. “Boeing has extended what appears to be a very generous offer with substantial wage increases.”

What’s at stake in a potential Boeing strike?

Boeing, which employs 145,000 U.S.-based workers, is a major U.S. firm with a sprawling network of suppliers, experts said.

The company estimates that it contributes nearly $80 billion to the U.S. economy each year, and indirectly accounts for 1.6 million jobs.

A prolonged strike would weaken production with the potential to slow output, diminish income and trigger layoffs, Harteveldt said.

“There’s a risk of a downward spiral,” Harteveldt said.

Such a strike would not impact flight activity or down planes, however, since the workers at issue take part in manufacturing new products. That stands in contrast with an averted railroad strike in 2022, which would have halted a sizable share of the nation’s cargo trains.

“This wouldn’t be as devastating,” Rosenfeld said.

Still, he added, a potential strike would hold implications for a signature U.S. firm.

“It would further damage an iconic company that has already had years of setbacks,” Rosenfeld said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Fearless Fund, a venture capitalist firm that invests in female entrepreneurs of color, has settled a discrimination lawsuit over a grant program specifically for Black women.

The lawsuit from the American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) claimed that the fund’s Fearless Strivers Grant Contest, which was open “only to Black females,” was discriminatory.

The grant program was at its end when the court case began in 2023, according to an online post by Fearless Fund founder Arian Simone, and the fund said it was motivated to avoid a court ruling so as not to lead to a Supreme Court decision that could end minority-based funding nationwide.

The Fearless Fund said it will continue to focus on “helping under-resourced entrepreneurs who have been ill served by traditional capital markets for far too long.” In a statement on the settlement, it announced a new $200 million debt fund with the goal of lending to more than 3,000 under-resourced founders.

Representatives of Fearless Fund partners Simone and Ayana Parson told reporters in August 2023 that the fund was established to address the wide gap in venture capital funding for businesses led by women of color “who confront barrier after barrier to obtain support and investments for their businesses.”

The Fearless Strivers Grant Contest was created specifically for Black women because Black women-owned businesses receive less than 1% of venture capital funding, according to the organization.

AAER called the grant program “divisive and illegal” and claimed that it “encouraged the Fearless Fund to open its grant contest to Hispanic, Asian, Native American and white women but Fearless has decided instead to end it entirely.”

White women-founded companies take home 64% of “Diversity Investments” by deal count, meanwhile women of color-owned businesses only take home 10%, according to an analysis of Crunchbase data by venture capital firm BBG Ventures.

Fearless Fund partners have long defended their work, citing the poor representation of women of color among venture capital recipients and evidence of racial bias in the investment decisions of asset allocators.

“From the moment the lawsuit was filed, I pledged to stand firm in helping and empowering women of color entrepreneurs in need. I stand by that pledge today and in fact my commitment remains stronger than ever,” read a statement from the organization’s co-founder Arian Simone. “Our overarching mission remains focused on helping and empowering entrepreneurs who have been historically overlooked in the venture capital marketplace.”

AAER’s founder Edward Blum also leads the Students for Fair Admissions, the group that initiated the anti-affirmative action case that reached the Supreme Court and won the case, setting new limits on the use of race-based policies in college admissions.

The conservative group claimed that affirmative action, which was implemented to address racial inequities in access to higher education, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Inflation is down significantly from its 9.1% pandemic-era peak in 2022, but the cost of food — especially groceries — may continue to puzzle some consumers at checkout lines as new data showed two major categories with slight price increases.

Despite signs of overall inflation cooling compared to a year ago, the current rate of 2.9% remains higher than the Federal Reserve’s target.

The latest Consumer Price Index report for August, released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Wednesday, showed that while inflation has softened, staples such as groceries are up 1.1% compared to 2023 with higher prices on some common household products like eggs and meat, poultry and fish.

Breaking down the latest inflation data on food and grocery prices

The food index, which is comprised of food away from home and food at home, has increased 2.1% over the last year — and after rising 0.2% in each of the previous two months, was up another 0.1% in August.

There was a slight 0.3% drop last month for takeout and dining, according to the CPI, but food at home remained unchanged.

“Food away from home slowed a little bit at 3.9% year over year, versus that .9% for the food at home category,” Dr. Michael Swanson, Wells Fargo’s Chief Agriculture Economist, told ABC News. “So they’re both slowly kind of trending back down, but still, that’s a big gap and it’s been a pretty persistent gap, which really speaks to the wages at the restaurant level.”

He reminded that “if you can bring yourself to spend a little time prepping food or cooking food at home, you’re going to save yourself a lot of money.”

Grocery prices slowly rise in two major categories, what it means

Food at home rose at a slower pace than overall inflation at .09% over the last year, but two of the six major grocery store food groups — meats, poultry, fish, and eggs — rose last month and by 3.2% over the last 12 months.

The popular animal proteins went up 0.8% in August and eggs increased 4.8%, as dairy and related products increased 0.5% in August.

“When we see a category like eggs where it came in at $3.20 for a dozen at the national number — vs. a year ago in August where it was $2.04 and the answer is, why?” Dr. Swanson posited. “We know that we dealt with avian influenza early in the year, barns are being repopulated, but we’re not right back to where we were previously. So there’s a good, clear story about what happened there.”

“The big dollar category is meat, poultry and eggs — of the food at home category — which had the two worst performers across the entire supermarket,” Swanson said. “It wasn’t really that the ranchers got more money or the wholesalers got more money this month, we saw the retailer spreads move up.”

Food price predictions as we inch towards fall, holidays

Swanson likened food price fluctuations to seasonal weather patterns that yield long term benefits: “For example, how much snow did you get in California and will there be enough melt and water to fill the reservoirs to then be able to grow more strawberries.”

“We’re gonna have the biggest corn and soybean crop ever in the history of United States, according to the USDA,” Swanson said, which he explained has dropped the prices “way down from a year ago.” He continued, “that’s really important to the consumer ultimately, because that’s what impacts [the price of] chickens, beef and everything else — so there’s good news, but it’s not here just yet.”

How grocers are meeting shopper demand for lower prices

“No retailer simply gives you money, if they’re going to give you lower prices or better value, it’s because they went out and fought with their suppliers to get it for you,” he explained.

“What we’re seeing in that universe of wholesalers and food manufacturers, they’re starting to get a lot more pressure from the retailers to say, ‘Help me out here, because I need to do more for our shoppers,'” Swanson said. “It’s a slow process, but it’s been a complete tide shift in mentality and so all the retailers, to some degree have gone back to say, ‘You just have to do better than that.'”

Swanson found in looking at the Federal Reserve Board which tracks capacity utilization in food manufacturing, that “during the peak of the crisis — they didn’t have any spare capacity, so they weren’t interested in negotiating with food retailers like Walmart.”

Since that’s no longer the case, Swanson said we’re starting to see “a little bit more and more slack” which makes wholesalers “more susceptible to arm twisting from the food retailers.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Amazon is expanding its grocery footprint, simplifying online shopping and launching a “new no-frills brand” to help consumers stretch their dollar, while taking aim at rival retail competitor Walmart.

On Wednesday, the retail tech giant, which owns Whole Foods as well as its own grocery service Amazon Fresh, announced expanded Prime member savings both in-store and online, the launch of a new private label brand, Amazon Saver, and enhancements to the online user experience.

“We’re always looking to make grocery shopping easier, faster, and more affordable for our customers,” Claire Peters, worldwide vice president of Amazon Fresh, said in a statement. “With expanded Prime member savings, the introduction of the new Amazon Saver brand, and simplified online shopping, it’s now easier than ever to get your weekly grocery shopping done on a budget with Amazon Fresh — whether you’re browsing the aisles or filling your online cart.”

What is Amazon Saver?

Amazon’s new private label brand, Amazon Saver, will offer an array of grocery staples from crackers and cookies to canned fruit and condiments.

Most Amazon Saver items will be priced under $5, and Prime members will get an additional 10% off these products.

“Amazon Saver complements our selection of private-label brands, designed to provide the best value for a wide range of grocery products,” the company said in a press release. “We’ve just started to roll this new private label out with several products, and will add more than 100 items to the Amazon Saver selection over time.”

As of time of publication, some items include a 42-ounce can of oats for $3.99, several flavors of 15-ounce coffee creamers for $3.49 each, and a 15-ounce can of traditional pizza sauce for $1.09.

Hitha Herzog, retail expert and chief research officer of H Squared Research, told ABC News’ Good Morning America that as a parent company, “Amazon has several different brands and grocery silos within the grocery umbrella — and with Amazon Saver, we are talking just basics.”

“What is different about Amazon is that the logistics of them handling the product to the customer is at the top. They are able to get this product very quickly,” Herzog said.

The new line from Amazon takes on other budget-friendly private labels like Great Value from Walmart, Good & Gather from Target, and Bowl & Basket from ShopRite.

Food prices post-pandemic continue to rise

Food prices have been volatile for both the at-home and away from home categories, with two of the six major grocery indexes — meats, eggs and produce, as well as dairy — on the rise, even as inflation cooled, according to August Consumer Price Index data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

While there are some signs of stabilization after rapid increases during the last three years out of the COVID-19 pandemic — which resulted in massive supply chain issues with labor shortages from farms and producers to manufacturing and distribution — the cost of food is still a considerable expense.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, families spent more than 11% of their disposable income on food in 2023, with a little over 5% of that going to groceries.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Shares in former President Donald Trump’s social media company fell to a record low Wednesday on the heels of Tuesday’s presidential debate, which a CNN poll indicated was won by Vice President Kamala Harris.

Shares of Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social, closed down 10.5% Wednesday to end the day at a record low.

Shared dipped as much as 17% Wednesday before slightly improving at the close of trading.

For some investors, Trump Media serves as a bellwether for the former president’s odds in the upcoming presidential election. When Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts in New York in May, the company’s stock price tumbled — but the stock surged in the days following the July presidential debate and the assassination attempt on the former president.

Analysts have said that the company’s stock performance is removed from the financial outlook of the company, which reported losing more than $16 million over a three-month period ending in June during which it only brought in $836,000 in revenue.

The stock price has been buoyed by a number of passionate individual investors who bought shares in the company to support Trump or because they believe in the company’s mission.

Next week, Trump faces a pivotal choice about his investment in the company. The lockup provision that barred him from selling his shares for the first six months since the company went public expires next week, meaning that Trump could begin selling his shares in the company as early as Sept. 19.

According to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Trump owns approximately 115 million shares of the company, which are worth nearly $2 billion based on Wednesday’s stock price.

On paper, Trump has lost more than $4 billion in his stake over the last six months as the company’s stock price has declined.

A representative for Trump Media & Technology Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump on Tuesday opened with a fiery exchange about the economy, an issue that often ranks as the top priority for voters.

The two candidates exchanged sharp barbs over the nation’s recent bout of inflation, Trump’s plan for an escalation of tariffs, and the economic proposals put forward by Harris.

Economists who spoke to ABC News offered an assessment of the attacks leveled by the two candidates, fact-checking major claims and providing context for a full evaluation of their implications.

Here’s what to know about what economists thought of key claims made during the debate:

Harris: “My opponent has a plan that I call the Trump sales tax, which would be a 20% tax on everyday goods that you rely on to get through the month.”

Harris deploys the phrase “Trump sales tax” in reference to Trump’s plan for additional tariffs in a potential second term.

Trump told Fox Business last year that a tax on all imported goods could land at 10%. In April, he proposed a higher tariff of at least 60% on Chinese goods.

Economists who spoke to ABC News confirmed that tariffs are widely thought to raise prices for consumers in the importing country. That’s because foreign producers typically pass along some or all of the tax burden to consumers in the form of higher prices, they said.

“This is generally accepted in economics,” said Stephan Weiler, a professor of economics at Colorado State University and a former Fed research officer.

Economists couldn’t verify the estimate put forward by Harris of a 20% increase on the prices of goods, in part because it’s difficult to predict exactly how foreign manufacturers might respond to tariffs.

In theory, foreign producers that control a given market could offset higher taxes by pushing the costs onto consumers with price increases, Yeva Nersisyan, a professor of economics at Franklin & Marshall College, told ABC News. However, Nersisyan added, companies in competitive industries may face more difficulty doing so.

“It’s hard to say whether that 20% number is accurate,” Nersisyan said.

Trump: “We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before. Probably the worst in our nation’s history.”

Economists who spoke to ABC News rejected the assertion that the nation’s bout of inflation marks its worst ever, noting that the U.S. endured higher price increases as recently as the 1980s.

In addition, economists said Trump overstated the extent to which the Biden administration caused the rapid rise in prices, though they acknowledged that a stimulus measure enacted by Biden may have contributed to some of the inflation.

Like many economic problems, inflation emerged due to an imbalance between supply and demand, economists said.

Hundreds of millions of people across the globe who endured pandemic-era lockdowns replaced restaurant expenditures with online orders of couches and exercise bikes. But the demand for goods and labor far outpaced supply, as COVID-19-related bottlenecks slowed delivery times and infection fears kept production workers on the sidelines.

“The number-one cause of the inflation was a supply adjustment to the COVID shock, particularly coming out of isolation,” Jeffrey Frankel, an economist at Harvard University, told ABC News.

Pandemic-era spending measures enacted by Trump and Biden may also have contributed to the price spike, economists said.

Jason Furman, a professor at Harvard University and former economic adviser to President Barack Obama, estimated that Biden’s American Rescue Plan added between 1 and 4 percentage points to the inflation rate in 2021, Roll Call reported. Michael Strain, of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, estimated that the legislation added 3 percentage points to inflation.

“One could argue that the COVID-related policies helped heat and possibly overheat the economy,” Weiler said.

Harris: “Donald Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression … what we have done is clean up Donald Trump’s mess.”

The economy had already emerged from the pandemic-induced recession and begun to recover by the time Biden took office, economists said.

However, the U.S. remained well below pre-pandemic levels in some key measures of economic health, including employment. In turn, economists said, Biden inherited an economy in need of significant rejuvenation.

The unemployment rate peaked at 14.8% in April 2020 when Trump was in office – which was indeed the highest level since the Great Depression, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But unemployment rapidly declined to 6.4% in January 2021 by the time Trump left office, as the economy started to rebalance.

The effort to blame Trump for the spike in unemployment is misleading, since it resulted from a once-in-a-century pandemic, economists said.

“COVID is the tidal wave that overwhelmed the whole story,” Weiler said. “The politics of this is hyperbole.”

The COVID-induced recession lasted two months in the spring of 2020, the shortest U.S. recession ever recorded, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, a non-profit organization that serves as the recognized authority on economic downturns. The speedy recovery was owed in part to trillions in economic stimulus enacted by Trump that March.

“It was very quick and very, very big,” Nersisyan said.

Still, the economy suffered a dearth of jobs and persistent supply blockages when Biden took office, economists said. Over the course of the Biden administration, the labor market expanded at a rapid pace while economic growth quickened. By 2022, the economy had recovered all of the jobs that were lost during the pandemic.

“The recovery from the recession had already begun when Biden took office, but it hadn’t gotten that far,” Frankel said.

Trump: “She doesn’t have a plan. She copied Biden’s plan. And it’s, like, four sentences, like, run-Spot-run. Four sentences that are just, oh, we’ll try and lower taxes.”

Trump sharply criticized Harris for a perceived lack of detailed economic proposals.

Some economists who spoke to ABC News agreed that there was an absence of a complete economic plans from Harris. However, they added, Trump has also failed to provide a detailed set of policy proposals on economic issues.

“I would like to see more detailed policy proposals from both candidates,” Anne Villamil, a professor of economics at the University of Iowa, told ABC News.

“For Harris, I would like to know how her policies would differ from current policies,” Villamil added. “For Trump, I would like to know how his policies would differ from the policies of his previous administration.”

Last month, Harris unveiled economic plans intended to ease inflation, fix the housing market, and slash taxes for middle-income families. The plans include eye-catching proposals such as a $25,000 subsidy for first-time homebuyers and a ban on grocery price gouging, the latter of which had not been put forward by Biden.

Harris has also proposed a 28% tax on long-term capital gains, which clocks in well below the 39.6% tax rate for such income put forward by Biden.

Trump has said he would renew his signature tax-cut measure, which eased taxes for individuals and corporations, while vowing to do away with taxes on tips and Social Security benefits.

“Trump is not one who has a lot of detailed policies himself,” Nersisyan said. “This is not a policy election.”

ABC News’ Jon Haworth contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Shares in former President Donald Trump’s social media company fell more than 12% Wednesday morning on the heels of Tuesday’s presidential debate, which a CNN poll indicated was won by Vice President Kamala Harris.

Shares of Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social, were trading Wednesday at the lowest level since the company first went public — a drop of more than 70% since a closing high of $66.22 on March 27.

As of noon, the company’s shares were selling for $16.29.

For some investors, Trump Media serves as a bellwether for the former president’s odds in the upcoming presidential election. When Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts in New York in May, the company’s stock price tumbled — but the stock surged in the days following the July presidential debate and the assassination attempt on the former president.

Analysts have said that the company’s stock performance is removed from the financial outlook of the company, which reported losing more than $16 million over a three-month period ending in June during which it only brought in $836,000 in revenue.

The stock price has been buoyed by a number of passionate individual investors who bought shares in the company to support Trump or because they believe in the company’s mission.

Next week, Trump faces a pivotal choice about his investment in the company. The lockup provision that barred him from selling his shares for the first six months since the company went public expires next week, meaning that Trump could begin selling his shares in the company as early as Sept. 19.

According to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Trump owns approximately 115 million shares of the company, which are worth nearly $2 billion based on Wednesday’s stock price.

On paper, Trump has lost more than $4 billion in his stake over the last six months as the company’s stock price has declined.

A representative for Trump Media & Technology Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Consumer prices rose 2.5% in August compared to a year ago, slowing more than expected and delivering welcome news for the Federal Reserve, days before a widely expected interest rate cut.

Inflation cooled significantly from a year-over-year rate of 2.9% recorded in the previous month.

Price increases have fallen from a peak in 2022, but inflation remains higher than the Federal Reserve’s target rate of 2%.

The chances of an interest rate cut at the Fed’s meeting next week are all but certain, according to the CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment. Market observers are divided over whether the Fed will impose its typical cut of a quarter of a percentage point, or opt for a larger half-point cut.

So far this year, the job market has slowed alongside cooling inflation. That trend was underscored last week by a weaker-than-expected jobs report, though employers added a solid 142,000 jobs. The unemployment rate has ticked up this year from 3.7% to 4.2%.

The Fed is guided by a dual mandate to keep inflation under control and maximize employment. In theory, low interest rates help stimulate economic activity and boost employment, while high interest rates slow economic performance and ease inflation.

Recent trends have shifted the Fed’s focus away from controlling inflation and toward ensuring a healthy job market.

Speaking at an annual gathering in Jackson Hole, Wyoming last month, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said the “time has come” for the Fed to adjust its interest rate policy.

At previous meetings, Powell said the Fed needed to be confident that inflation had begun moving sustainably downward to its target rate of 2% before instituting rate cuts. Last month, Powell appeared to indicate that the Fed had achieved that objective.

“My confidence has grown that inflation is on a sustainable path down to 2%,” Powell said.

Since last year, the Federal Reserve has held interest rates at their highest level in more than two decades. High borrowing costs for everything from mortgages to credit card loans have helped slow the economy and lower inflation, but the policy risks tipping the U.S. into a recession.

Last month, Goldman Sachs economists raised the probability of a U.S. recession in the next year from 15% to 25%. However, economists disagree about whether current economic conditions warrant serious concern.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(PHILADELPHIA) — Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump met for the first time Tuesday in their first presidential debate of the 2024 election, hosted by ABC News.

The high-stakes, 90-minute debate was held at Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center, with Trump and Harris arguing their cases for the White House.

As the Democratic and Republican nominees debated the most pressing topics facing the nation, ABC News live fact-checked their statements on the economy for answers that were exaggerated, needed more context or were false.

HARRIS CLAIM: 16 Nobel laureates say Trump’s plan would increase inflation and land us in a recession

FACT-CHECK: Mostly true

Harris correctly describes what the Nobel laureates said about inflation during Trump’s presidency: “There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation.” But while the group describes Harris’ agenda as “vastly superior” to Trump’s, their letter doesn’t specifically predict a recession by the middle of 2025. Rather, the group wrote: “We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.”

The 16 economists are George Akerlof, Angus Deaton, Claudia Goldin, Oliver Hart, Eric S. Maskin, Daniel L. McFadden, Paul R. Milgrom, Roger B. Myerson, Edmund S. Phelps, Paul M. Romer, Alvin E. Roth, William F. Sharp, Robert J. Shiller, Christopher A. Sims, Joseph Stiglitz and Robert B. Wilson.

HARRIS CLAIM: Trump wants a “20% tax on everyday goods” that would cost families “about $4,000 more a year.”

FACT-CHECK: True, but needs context

Trump has proposed a universal “10-20%” tariff on all U.S. imports, from cars and electronics to wine, food products and many other goods. He has also proposed a 60% tariff on imports from China. Vice President Harris called the plan “Trump’s sales tax,” though the former president has not explicitly proposed such a tax. Independent economists, however, say the proposed import tariffs would unquestionably result in higher prices for American consumers across the board.

The precise financial impact on families is hard to predict and estimates vary widely — from additional annual costs per household of $1,700 to nearly $4,000, depending on the study. Trump has not called for any tax hikes for American families.

He has proposed exempting Social Security benefits and tips from taxation, as well as extending individual tax cuts enacted in 2017.

TRUMP CLAIM: Trump said, “We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before. Probably the worst in our nation’s history.”

FACT-CHECK: False, but it was very high

It’s true that early in Joe Biden’s presidency the annual inflation rate peaked at roughly 9% (June of 2022), but that’s not the highest it’s ever been. There are several examples of the inflation rate being much higher than 9% in the U.S, including in the immediate aftermath of World War II and during the oil embargo and shortages of the late ’70s and early 1980s, when the inflation rate peaked at 14.5%.

The inflation rate as of July 2024 is at 2.9% annual inflation, the lowest it has been in three years. It should also be noted that President Biden has falsely claimed that he inherited a high rate from his predecessor. In fact, inflation was at 1.4% when he took office.

*Data for this fact check was gathered from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, or St. Louis Fed

HARRIS CLAIM: Harris said, “Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression.”

FACT-CHECK: Needs context

The unemployment rate peaked at 14.8% in April 2020 when Trump was in office — that was indeed the highest level since the Great Depression, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But unemployment rapidly declined to 6.4% in January 2021 by the time Trump left office, as the economy started to rebalance. And that 6.4% unemployment rate is still better than the 10% peak during the Great Recession in October 2009.

If you eliminate pandemic statistics, the lowest unemployment rate under Trump was just slightly higher than the lowest point under Biden. Both were good: 3.5% under Trump and 3.4% under Biden at their lowest respectively, according to data provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.