Families Are Fleeing Government-Run Schools


PS118pta

This fall may be the biggest moment of truth for public education since the 1970s.

After seeing enrollment in government-run K-12 schools decline by 3 percent in COVID-marred 2020–21 (including 13 percent for kindergarten and pre-K), all while homeschooling tripled, the $122 billion question facing this new school year is whether that defection is an aberration or inflection point. Given the amount of time that families have now had to plan around school-opening policies that have been among the most cautious in the developed world, would they choose their neighborhood school, or seek alternative solutions with more predictable schedules?

An early bellwether came clanging in last week, suggesting that the mass opting-out will be no mere blip. “Sadly, since the onset of the pandemic, our school roster has declined by 120 students who have left our school,” Principal Elizabeth Garraway of Brooklyn’s P.S. 118 Maurice Sendak elementary school emailed to parents in affluent Park Slope. “Due to the drastic decline in our numbers, our budget to pay teacher salaries was drastically reduced.”

The school, in Brooklyn’s District 15 (where my daughters attend), has plummeted from 345 students in 2018–19 to a projected 225 this September, with kindergarten enrollment collapsing from 76 to 37. Because school funding is pegged to enrollment, that means four teachers had to be reassigned within the Department of Education (DOE), while four others found new jobs. (As per usual in personnel proceedings involving a strong public sector union, it’s the longest-tenured teachers who get to stay, and the freshest blood shown the door.)

“Unfortunately, losing a third of our student body population had very dire consequences for our community,” Garraway wrote.

Maurice Sendak is a successful, highly coveted school; the kind of place parents pay a real estate premium to get into. Until two years ago, public schools in brownstone and gentrifying areas of District 15 were experiencing long enrollment upswings, which ran concurrently with a citywide increase in public school “uptake” from around two-thirds of all resident children to three-quarters.

Those trend lines are now collapsing. The DOE serviced 43,000 fewer kids last year, a drop of more than 4 percent, while charter school enrollment increased by nearly 10,000 despite a state-enforced cap. The five-year numbers prior to this fall are even more dramatic—government-run schools are down more than 5 percent (including 18 percent for kindergarten), while charters are up 31 percent. “Half of all 32 New York City school districts have lost at least 10 percent of their enrollment these past five years,” noted the New York Post.

Enrollment for 2021–22 is still unknown (as far as I can tell, my local elementary still mistakenly believes my soon-to-be first-grader will be attending), but preliminary data from the spring indicated that the kindergarten population, far from bouncing back after a “redshirt” year, would continue to plunge: Applications were down 12 percent, after having declined 9 percent the year before.

Why are families leaving? Back in April I wrote that “it’s too early to say” whether reopening policies played a measurable (in addition to the observably anecdotal) role, but research since then has bolstered that case.

A joint Stanford Graduate School of Education/New York Times study of 70,000 public schools in 33 states three weeks ago showed that those offering remote-only learning at the beginning of 2020–21 experienced a 3.7 percent decline, while those with in-person schooling went down 2.6 percent. “In other words,” Stanford education professor Thomas S. Dee told the university’s publicity department, “going remote-only actually increased the enrollment decline by about 40 percent.”

New York City, despite being mistakenly held up by Democrats and teachers unions as a model for school reopening, rattled parents’ nerves all 2020–21 with repeated school-year delays, capricious shutdowns, hybrid scheduling, and hair-trigger building closures. Meanwhile, private schools, and public schools as close by as Long Island, remained open all year, without ever becoming “superspreaders.”

It makes intuitive sense that parents with means would seek both greater predictability and better educational outcomes for their kids, whether that means moving to a more reliable school district or shelling out the money for private options. Meanwhile, New York charter schools, which were about as physically shuttered as their government-run counterparts last year, are increasing their popularity in part because parents of lesser means disproportionately prefer having a remote-learning option.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio Thursday laid out the city’s COVID school policies, continuing to (accurately) stress as he has for the past half-year that remote and hybrid learning have been an educational catastrophe. But even while seeking to reassure parents that schools will be dependably open full time, hizzoner unveiled a system that will almost certainly produce widespread quarantining of elementary school students.

Unvaccinated kids (which is all of them in elementary schools) will be subject to semiregular testing—10 percent of the unvaxxed population every other week. If there is a positive case in a classroom, all the other unvaccinated kids have to quarantine for at least seven days. So what might that look like in practice?

Los Angeles Unified School District, which has the most extensive testing regime in the country (all students and staff, every week), currently has a 0.6 percent positive rate among students, or one out of every 167. At my daughters’ former elementary school, that would mean five kids. With class sizes at around 25 per, it doesn’t take long at all for whole swaths of a school to be isolated at home, while parents scramble for cover.

We made our decision to leave the public elementary school right as de Blasio started speaking in near-absolutist terms about getting buildings open five days a week. As the check-clearing deadline for private school approached, the calculation went mostly like this: Do we actually trust the New York system to devise rules that will keep classrooms reliably open? The answer, even in those pre–delta variant days, was hell no. Yesterday’s protocols confirmed that suspicion.

If the New York example plays out nationwide—and keep in mind, the 2020–21 K-12 decline happened absolutely everywhere—then the impact on public education, local and state governance, and politics itself could be profound. About one out of every five state-government dollars is spent on primary and secondary education. Spending formulas tied to enrollment will see major declines; those that aren’t will face political pressure from taxpayers rightly wondering why the bill is so high for a service fewer people want. The trend toward tethering education spending to students rather than school buildings will continue shooting upward.

All of which would be another reason to view 2020–21 to be the apex of teachers union power, to be followed by inexorable descent. They got their work-at-home carveouts, their school closures, their preferred party running the federal government, their vaccine fast-tracking, their fingerprints all over the “science,” and their hundreds of billions in federal largesse. And as a result of all that influence, they created a product that’s literally repellant to millions of parents, even at the cost of free. Their ranks will almost certainly thin.

“[American Federation of Teachers Union President Randi Weingarten] seems blithely unaware that parents’ patience is not inexhaustible, and bizarrely determined to alienate her members’ most stalwart supporters: parents like those in Park Slope who pride themselves on being good progressives and public school parents,” wrote American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Robert Pondiscio this week. “I’m still of the mind that ‘new normal’ talk is overwrought, but I’m far less confident of that assertion than I was at the outset of the pandemic. The long-standing practice of sending kids to zoned neighborhood schools is still a hard habit to break. What I didn’t expect was how many public school supporters—from governors and teachers unions to local administrators and school boards—would be so determined to break it.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gX8WVp
via IFTTT

Judge Slaps Down DeSantis Order Banning Mask Mandates In Florida

Judge Slaps Down DeSantis Order Banning Mask Mandates In Florida

It looks like another pandemic-related issue is headed to the Supreme Court, after a Florida judge struck down a ban on mask mandates issued by Governor Ron DeSantis, according to the Associated Press.

DeSantis ‘overstepped his authority’ by issuing an executive order banning the mandates, according to Leon County Circuit Judge John C. Cooper, ruling that the EO was unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.

The order, which gave parents the sole right to decide if their child will wear a mask at school, was deemed by Cooper to be “without legal authority.”

His decision came after a three-day virtual hearing, and after at least 10 Florida school boards voted to defy DeSantis and impose mask requirements with no parental opt-out.

Cooper said that while the governor and others have argued that a new Florida law gives parents the ultimate authority to oversee health issues for their children, it also exempts government actions that are needed to protect public health and are reasonable and limited in scope. He said a school district’s decision to require student masking to prevent the spread of the virus falls within that exemption.

The judge also noted that two Florida Supreme Court decisions from 1914 and 1939 found that individual rights are limited by their impact on the rights of others. For example, he said, adults have the right to drink alcohol but not to drive drunk. There is a right to free speech, but not to harass or threaten others or yell “fire” in a crowded theater, he said. –AP

“We don’t have that right because exercising the right in that way is harmful or potentially harmful to other people,” said Cooper, adding that the law is “full of examples of rights that are limited (when) the good of others … would be adversely affected by those rights.”

Meanwhile, here’s Florida’s R0 vs. California:

Developing…

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/27/2021 – 12:41

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3zowBVM Tyler Durden

Battle Of The Shipping Booms: Containers ’21 Vs Dry Bulk ’07-’08

Battle Of The Shipping Booms: Containers ’21 Vs Dry Bulk ’07-’08

By Greg Miller of FreightWaves,

Container shipping is in uncharted territory. There has never been a crazy boom like this in its history. But as any shipping long-timer will tell you, there has indeed been a crazy boom like this in another sector: dry bulk circa 2007-2008.

It’s worth a look back at this earlier shipping mega-spike. First, to compare and contrast with this year’s meteoric rise in container shipping profits. And second, to put current dry bulk rates — which are at decade highs and still rising — in perspective.

In the left corner, a container ship; in the right, a bulker.

Dry bulk rates now and then

“While dry bulk freight rates and ship values are currently high compared to the past 10 years, they are very far from earnings seen during 2007-2008 and there is little to suggest that they are heading that way,” maintained Peter Sand, chief shipping analyst at shipping association BIMCO, in a report last week. Sand said bulker owners “should acknowledge that this is unlikely to be the start of a super-cycle.”

The Baltic Dry Index (BDI), a rate basket covering the various bulker sizes, recently breached 4,000 points for the first time since 2009. It closed at 4,201 on Tuesday. But the all-time high is 11,793 — nearly triple the current level — recorded on May 20, 2008.

The Baltic Capesize Index, which tracks larger bulkers of about 180,000 deadweight tons (DWT), just topped 6,000 points for the first time since 2009. It closed at 6,206 on Tuesday. But that’s still nowhere near the historic peak of 19,687 on June 5, 2008.

American Shipper has an archive of financial analyst reports on public dry bulk companies dating all the way back to the earlier boom. These historical client notes offer a window on just how extreme the market was; analysts at the time commented nonchalantly on rates that would seem unbelievable today.

On Tuesday, Capesize spot rates were at the equivalent of $51,500 per day, according to Clarksons Platou Securities. For context, in June 2008, rates were reportedly 4.5 times that, briefly hitting $233,000 a day, according to a client note from investment bank Dahlman Rose (the bank was sold to Cowen in 2013). At that time, a 5-year old Capesize sold for $150 million; they go for $44 million today (excerpts from Dahlman Rose Marine Transport Weekly: June 9, 2008 here).

Rates for midsize Panamax bulkers (65,000-90,000 DWT) are now $34,300 per day. In May 2008, they maxed out at $91,700 per day.

Rates for Supramax bulkers (45,000-60,000 DWT) are $36,300 per day, half their May 2008 peak of $70,500 per day. And rates for Handysizes (up to 35,000 DWT) are $33,900 per day, still well below the all-time high of $49,300 in May 2008 reported by Dahlman Rose.

Asked to compare today’s dry bulk market to the 2000s super-spike, Jefferies shipping analyst Randy Giveans told American Shipper, “I’m not saying rates are going back to 2008 levels. What I’m saying is that this decade is going to be better than last decade. For the last decade, the BDI averaged 1,250 and was never above 2,000 for more than very short periods.

“Not many of the current investors were around back in 2000-2010 and realize that the BDI can go to 10,000. No one’s even seen it at over 4,000 for over a decade, so of course when they see it at 4,000, they think it’s going to collapse and there’s no way it can go higher. If you look at a 10-year chart, that makes sense. If you look at a 20-year chart, you realize this isn’t uncharted territory at all.

“I don’t think the BDI will go back to 10,000, but I also don’t think it will go back to an average of 1,250. I think it will be somewhere in the 3,000-6,000 range in the coming years,” said Giveans.

Container vs dry bulk dynamics

Ocean rates follow the same dynamic whether it’s dry bulk or containers or tankers: Spot rates are extremely elastic, unbound by price regulation, and rise until transport costs erase shipper profit margins when demand significantly exceeds vessel supply. As a Greek shipping adage goes, “Ninety-eight ships and 101 cargoes, boom. Ninety-eight cargoes and 101 ships, bust.”

On one hand, there’s a glaring difference between today’s dry bulk market and the 2000s market: The latter was fueled by an unprecedented surge of commodity imports by China. Demand growth today is not comparable.

On the other hand, rate dynamics are not only about demand, they’re about supply versus demand. Much of the current rate frenzy in container shipping is not due to higher demand — demand is exceptionally high in the U.S. but average on a global basis — rather, it’s due to congestion-constrained supply.

Dry bulk capacity is also highly constrained by congestion — 16% of capacity was stuck in queues in mid-August — and the orderbook is at just 7% of the on-the-water fleet, with new bulker orders being blocked out by those for new container ships and gas carriers.

Giveans agreed that vessel supply constraints could certainly push dry bulk rates higher in the months ahead. However, he sees limitations versus what’s happening now in containers and what happened in the past for dry bulk.

“Containers have a higher margin between the shipment cost and the goods being shipped,” he said. “If you have a high-margin item like a pair of shoes that cost $20 to produce that you can sell for $150, you can pay $100 to ship it and still make a profit.” Given how many shoes fit in a container, the high-margin shoe importer can still turn a profit paying $20,000 per forty-foot equivalent unit on the trans-Pacific.

The same math applies to shipping iron ore from Brazil to China, or coal from Indonesia to China. The spread between the production costs and delivered price implies how high dry bulk rates can rise. “Containerized goods probably have a higher margin [than dry bulk],” said Giveans.

He also believes there was more pressing demand from China to import dry commodities in the 2000s super-cycle than today, providing more leeway for extremely high transport costs in the prior era. “With China joining the WTO and hosting the Olympics in August 2008 and the need to build out infrastructure, there was more urgency then than there is today. They were on the clock and they wanted to hit their growth targets.”

Analysts don’t see booms coming

The idea that COVID-era dry bulk rates could rise back toward stratospheric 2007-2008 levels in 2021-2022 remains a fringe theory. That said, no one predicted the current container shipping bonanza. And archived analyst reports from 13-14 years ago reveal that no one predicted the earlier dry bulk boom either. 

Dry bulk stocks experienced a massive run-up, peaking in October 2007 and then again in the May-June 2008, with many shares tripling or more during the period. “Multibaggers” of that era included Excel Maritime, Eagle Bulk, Diana Shipping, Genco Shipping and Navios Holdings, among others.

The biggest stock winner was spot-exposed DryShips. Its share price skyrocketed to $131.34 on Oct. 29, 2007, more than seven times its 2005 IPO price of $18 per share. On that peak day, the shareholding of founder George Economou was valued at $1.7 billion (the equivalent of $2.2 billion today).

DryShips founder George Economou

Analysts didn’t predict the stock run-up. Dry bulk had already experienced four consecutive exceptionally strong years (2003-2006), and in 2007-2008, analysts reacted after the fact to market moves, recalibrating price targets and rate outlooks accordingly.

As of January 2007, Dahlman Rose had a 52-week price target of $35 on DryShips. Cantor Fitzgerald had a target of $10 per share for Navios Holdings, $19 for Excel Maritime, and $21 for DryShips and Eagle Bulk. By year-end, those targets had proved three to six times too low. By November, Cantor Fitzgerald’s price target for DryShips had been massively upgraded, to $133 per share (Cantor Fitzgerald’s Nov. 16, 2007, DryShips note here).

In early 2007, Cantor Fitzgerald estimated full-year earnings for DryShips of $2.82 per share. By August, it had raised its estimate to $5.57. The same month, Dahlman Rose estimated full-year DryShips earnings of $6.71. DryShips’ actual earnings for 2017 came in at $9.52.

Analysts didn’t foresee dry bulk’s fall from grace amid the accelerating financial crisis, either. At the beginning of 2008, both Cantor Fitzgerald’s and Dahlman Rose’s 52-week price targets on DryShips topped $100. The stock ended 2008 trading at around $10. It never recovered and was whittled lower over the next decade by dilutive offerings before delisting in 2019.

Another example: Price targets at the beginning of 2008 for Eagle Bulk’s stock ranged from $18 (Citigroup) to $25 (Dahlman Rose), $36 (Cantor Fitzgerald) and $38 (Lazard). That stock was trading at $7 by December 2008. Eagle Bulk eventually filed for bankruptcy protection, as did Genco and Excel. Eagle and Genco emerged from Chapter 11, Excel disappeared (its fleet was sold to Star Bulk).

By the end of 2008, rates for Capesizes, Panamaxes, Supramaxes and Handysizes were lower than they are today. Dry bulk stocks and rates would flounder for the next 12 years.

“It certainly caught people by surprise,” said Giveans of dry bulk’s mid-2000s rise and fall. “The BDI almost doubled in a six-month period in 2007. In 2008, it dropped by over 90% between May and December. Rates went just bananas over a short period of time. When they move that quickly, it’s hard to be proactive.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/27/2021 – 12:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3kyChWO Tyler Durden

Families Are Fleeing Government-Run Schools


PS118pta

This fall may be the biggest moment of truth for public education since the 1970s.

After seeing enrollment in government-run K-12 schools decline by 3 percent in COVID-marred 2020–21 (including 13 percent for kindergarten and pre-K), all while homeschooling tripled, the $122 billion question facing this new school year is whether that defection is an aberration or inflection point. Given the amount of time that families have now had to plan around school-opening policies that have been among the most cautious in the developed world, would they choose their neighborhood school, or seek alternative solutions with more predictable schedules?

An early bellwether came clanging in last week, suggesting that the mass opting-out will be no mere blip. “Sadly, since the onset of the pandemic, our school roster has declined by 120 students who have left our school,” Principal Elizabeth Garraway of Brooklyn’s P.S. 118 Maurice Sendak elementary school emailed to parents in affluent Park Slope. “Due to the drastic decline in our numbers, our budget to pay teacher salaries was drastically reduced.”

The school, in Brooklyn’s District 15 (where my daughters attend), has plummeted from 345 students in 2018–19 to a projected 225 this September, with kindergarten enrollment collapsing from 76 to 37. Because school funding is pegged to enrollment, that means four teachers had to be reassigned within the Department of Education (DOE), while four others found new jobs. (As per usual in personnel proceedings involving a strong public sector union, it’s the longest-tenured teachers who get to stay, and the freshest blood shown the door.)

“Unfortunately, losing a third of our student body population had very dire consequences for our community,” Garraway wrote.

Maurice Sendak is a successful, highly coveted school; the kind of place parents pay a real estate premium to get into. Until two years ago, public schools in brownstone and gentrifying areas of District 15 were experiencing long enrollment upswings, which ran concurrently with a citywide increase in public school “uptake” from around two-thirds of all resident children to three-quarters.

Those trend lines are now collapsing. The DOE serviced 43,000 fewer kids last year, a drop of more than 4 percent, while charter school enrollment increased by nearly 10,000 despite a state-enforced cap. The five-year numbers prior to this fall are even more dramatic—government-run schools are down more than 5 percent (including 18 percent for kindergarten), while charters are up 31 percent. “Half of all 32 New York City school districts have lost at least 10 percent of their enrollment these past five years,” noted the New York Post.

Enrollment for 2021–22 is still unknown (as far as I can tell, my local elementary still mistakenly believes my soon-to-be first-grader will be attending), but preliminary data from the spring indicated that the kindergarten population, far from bouncing back after a “redshirt” year, would continue to plunge: Applications were down 12 percent, after having declined 9 percent the year before.

Why are families leaving? Back in April I wrote that “it’s too early to say” whether reopening policies played a measurable (in addition to the observably anecdotal) role, but research since then has bolstered that case.

A joint Stanford Graduate School of Education/New York Times study of 70,000 public schools in 33 states three weeks ago showed that those offering remote-only learning at the beginning of 2020–21 experienced a 3.7 percent decline, while those with in-person schooling went down 2.6 percent. “In other words,” Stanford education professor Thomas S. Dee told the university’s publicity department, “going remote-only actually increased the enrollment decline by about 40 percent.”

New York City, despite being mistakenly held up by Democrats and teachers unions as a model for school reopening, rattled parents’ nerves all 2020–21 with repeated school-year delays, capricious shutdowns, hybrid scheduling, and hair-trigger building closures. Meanwhile, private schools, and public schools as close by as Long Island, remained open all year, without ever becoming “superspreaders.”

It makes intuitive sense that parents with means would seek both greater predictability and better educational outcomes for their kids, whether that means moving to a more reliable school district or shelling out the money for private options. Meanwhile, New York charter schools, which were about as physically shuttered as their government-run counterparts last year, are increasing their popularity in part because parents of lesser means disproportionately prefer having a remote-learning option.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio Thursday laid out the city’s COVID school policies, continuing to (accurately) stress as he has for the past half-year that remote and hybrid learning have been an educational catastrophe. But even while seeking to reassure parents that schools will be dependably open full time, hizzoner unveiled a system that will almost certainly produce widespread quarantining of elementary school students.

Unvaccinated kids (which is all of them in elementary schools) will be subject to semiregular testing—10 percent of the unvaxxed population every other week. If there is a positive case in a classroom, all the other unvaccinated kids have to quarantine for at least seven days. So what might that look like in practice?

Los Angeles Unified School District, which has the most extensive testing regime in the country (all students and staff, every week), currently has a 0.6 percent positive rate among students, or around one out of every 167. At my daughters’ former elementary school, that would mean around five kids. With class sizes at around 25 per, it doesn’t take long at all for whole swaths of a school to be isolated at home, while parents scramble for cover.

We made our decision to leave the public elementary school right as de Blasio started speaking in near-absolutist terms about getting buildings open five days a week. As the check-clearing deadline for private school approached, the calculation went mostly like this: Do we actually trust the New York system to devise rules that will keep classrooms reliably open? The answer, even in those pre–delta variant days, was hell no. Yesterday’s protocols confirmed that suspicion.

If the New York example plays out nationwide—and keep in mind, the 2020–21 K-12 decline happened absolutely everywhere—then the impact on public education, local and state governance, and politics itself could be profound. About one out of every five state-government dollars is spent on primary and secondary education. Spending formulas tied to enrollment will see major declines; those that aren’t will face political pressure from taxpayers rightly wondering why the bill is so high for a service fewer people want. The trend toward tethering education spending to students rather than school buildings will continue shooting upward.

All of which would be another reason to view 2020–21 to be the apex of teachers union power, to be followed by inexorable descent. They got their work-at-home carveouts, their school closures, their preferred party running the federal government, their vaccine fast-tracking, their fingerprints all over the “science,” and their hundreds of billions in federal largesse. And as a result of all that influence, they created a product that’s literally repellant to millions of parents, even at the cost of free. Their ranks will almost certainly thin.

“[American Federation of Teachers Union President Randi Weingarten] seems blithely unaware that parents’ patience is not inexhaustible, and bizarrely determined to alienate her members’ most stalwart supporters: parents like those in Park Slope who pride themselves on being good progressives and public school parents,” wrote American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Robert Pondiscio this week. “I’m still of the mind that ‘new normal’ talk is overwrought, but I’m far less confident of that assertion than I was at the outset of the pandemic. The long-standing practice of sending kids to zoned neighborhood schools is still a hard habit to break. What I didn’t expect was how many public school supporters—from governors and teachers unions to local administrators and school boards—would be so determined to break it.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gX8WVp
via IFTTT

Fire Rips Through Massive Chinese Residential Skyscraper

Fire Rips Through Massive Chinese Residential Skyscraper

A high-rise apartment building in Dalian, a city in Northeast China’s Liaoning Province, is engulfed in flames. Around 1030 ET, images and video began populating on social media about the building fire.

According to media report, the building is called Kaixuan International Building and has a unique shape with a middle structure that connects two towers (it was not immediately clear if the building belongs to that other conflagration, Evergrande). The tower complex reportedly houses 818 people in 419 condos. Footage from a distance shows the building’s middle section, and the left tower is ablaze. 

State-run media outlet the Global Times tweeted, “no casualties have been reported yet. The cause of the fire is under investigation.” A video attached to the tweet shows debris falling off the building. 

A courageous firefighter can be seen on top of the building, attempting to extinguish the blaze in the middle section of the building. 

More footage of the fire:

The cause of the fire remains unknown, although it is notable that so far the building hasn’t spontaneously collapsed as was the case in some other high-profile skyscraper infernos.

*This story is still developing

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/27/2021 – 11:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38iQTEf Tyler Durden

Wall Street Reacts To Powell’s Dovish Nothingburger Speech

Wall Street Reacts To Powell’s Dovish Nothingburger Speech

It was (at least a few weeks ago), supposed to be the most highly anticipated central banking event of the summer, where Jerome Powell was expected to reveal the timeline of the coming taper; instead it ended up being a marketwide dovish catalyst which sent stocks surging to new all time highs, the dollar sliding and yields sharply lower, as the best Powell could do – even as he said that  the central bank could begin reducing its monthly bond purchases this year, something everyone knew well by now – was mention the latest FOMC Minutes as a guidepost to tapering, all the while repeating that inflation may be transitory and is not in itself a catalyst to tighten.

The bottom line, and the reason for the market’s dovish eruption: Powell provided no explicit taper signal, as he likely wants to see more jobs reports for accumulated evidence that ‘substantial further progress’ on the labor market is being made, while dismissing soaring inflation as transitory.

Spoos rose during the address, rising above the nice, round 4,500 number for the firs time. Ten-year Treasury yields nudged slightly lower to around 1.33%.

Courtesy of Newsquawk, here is a snapshot hot take on what Powell said, and didn’t say:

  • Fed Chair Powell did not provide any explicit signal that the Fed was on the cusp of tapering its asset purchases; accordingly, he also didn’t reveal anything about the timeline or modalities of the process.
  • Like many other Fed officials, Powell suggested that the ‘substantial further progress’ threshold had been achieved on inflation, although there was still much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, although there had been clear progress, and consistent with the July meeting minutes, Powell said that despite the challenges, the US economy was on the path to a labor market before the pandemic; indeed, since July, there had been more progress on employment, though he also noted the further spread of the Delta Variant, and he would be carefully assessing incoming data and the evolving risks.
  • On inflation, Powell argued that current levels were a cause for concern, although with substantial slack remaining in the labor market and the pandemic continuing, responding to temporary fluctuations in inflation may do more harm than good, adding that there was little evidence of wage increases which might threaten excessive inflation. Ahead, Powell argued that there was little reason to think underlying disinflationary factors have suddenly reversed, and were likely to continue weighing on inflation.
  • Powell’s remarks were largely as expected, and tactically, has given the Fed more time to shape its view on tapering. Next week’s jobs report, comes ahead of the September FOMC, where many expect a ‘taper hint’; the Fed will then get to see two more jobs reports before the November meeting, essentially giving it three jobs reports before it could decide on when to taper — which would still be consistent with market expectations of the announcement in Q4, with a possible start at the end of the year.

The bottom line is that Powell is more focused on the labor market than inflation, does not appear to be overly concerned by the pandemic, although notes the risks that could threaten growth, and he likely wants to see more accumulated evidence that the labor market is moving towards the ‘substantial further progress’ threshold.

As Pantheon Macro’s Ian Shepherdson summarized, “In short, the song remains the same; the test for ‘substantial further progress’ has been met for inflation, but not for employment, and the Delta variant poses new risks. We still think it’s reasonable to expect the tapering announcement in November, but it could easily be delayed if the post-Delta rebound takes longer than we expect.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/27/2021 – 11:32

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38fyHvg Tyler Durden

Watch: Crowds Still Throng Kabul Airport Entrances Despite Continued ‘High Terror Threat’

Watch: Crowds Still Throng Kabul Airport Entrances Despite Continued ‘High Terror Threat’

At a moment US military officials are urging crowds to stay away from congregating at the heavily guarded gates to Kabul international airport, the Pentagon and other allied militaries are simultaneously warning that the threat of more ISIS-K attacks to come remains “high”.

Reporters for Bloomberg observed Friday that “Large crowds milled around Kabul’s international airport on Friday despite repeated warnings of more terrorist attacks.” 

Just days away from the Aug.31 deadline for the full US troop pullout, it’s further being reported that the “window has all but closed” on civilian evacuations, especially for the tens of thousands of Afghans still hoping to get out. Likely the US is poised to begin rapidly getting the troops themselves out, also as the White House confirmed late Thursday it will continue coordinating security with Taliban members guarding the airport perimeter. 

This as the death toll continues to climb after Thursday’s deadly pair of bombings: “An Afghan health ministry official told CBS News on Friday morning that the death toll from the double bombing attack Thursday reached at least 170, the vast majority of whom were Afghans. Ten of the 13 American service members who were killed were Marines.”

One LA Times correspondent who has been on the ground has said “it would be easy for an ISIS fighter to come in” – even the day after multiple blasts already struck in the middle of densely packed crowds.

During a prior press briefing Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, the head of US Central Command, said that evacuations would continue undeterred, however he explained that “airport checkpoints, aimed at keeping explosives off planes, are inherently dangerous assignments,” according to NBC.

“Ultimately at these screening points, in particular, you have to get very up close and personal to the people,” he said. “There’s no way to do that safely from a distance.”

Likely the desperate throngs of people crowding the entrances will remain undeterred, despite efforts to clear these areas, raising the specter of another horrific terror attack.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/27/2021 – 11:09

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3BeU10n Tyler Durden

Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt Reveals Identity In TV Interview

Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt Reveals Identity In TV Interview

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd was cleared of wrongdoing after shooting and killing Ashli Babbit during the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.

The U.S. Capitol Police officer who shot dead an unarmed woman inside the Capitol on Jan. 6 on Thursday defended his actions, claiming he issued verbal warnings before opening fire.

Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd said he shot Ashli Babbitt as she tried to climb through a broken window into the Speaker’s Lobby, adjacent to the House chamber, because he feared she and others inside the building would get into the chamber, where Congress members were hiding after the Capitol was breached.

She was posing a threat to the United States House of Representatives,” Byrd said on NBC.

Byrd admitted he did not know Babbitt was unarmed.

I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are,” Byrd said. “But they had shown violence leading up to that point,” he added.

That statement upset Aaron Babbitt, the husband of Ashli Babbitt.

My agitation level is actually going through the roof right now. He admitted he didn’t really care if she was armed or unarmed or not,” Aaron Babbitt said on Fox News after Byrd’s interview aired.

Video footage showed a number of officers inside the room that sits outside the Speaker’s Lobby, as well as others inside the lobby with Byrd. Terrell Roberts, who is representing the Babbitt family, has told The Epoch Times that the killing was “a pretty clear case of shooting an unarmed person without any legal justification.”

Byrd was cleared earlier this year by both the Department of Justice and the agency he works for.

An undated social media selfie photograph shows Ashley Babbitt, also spelled Ashli. (Ashli Babbitt/Twitter)

Federal authorities decided not to pursue charges against Byrd because they determined, following an investigation, that there was “insufficient evidence” to support a prosecution.

The Capitol Police said the officer “potentially saved Members and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol and to the House Chamber, where Members and staff were steps away.”

Byrd said he does not regret what he did.

I know that day I saved countless lives,” Byrd said on Thursday. “I know members of Congress, as well as my fellow officers and staff, were in jeopardy and in serious danger. And that’s my job.”

Byrd’s identity had been shielded by the Capitol Police, which said it was not publicizing his name because of safety concerns. Byrd’s lawyer had said his client was receiving death threats.

Babbitt’s family had sued to learn his identity and plans to file a lawsuit charging that Byrd violated Babbitt’s constitutional rights.

Byrd’s lawyer did not respond to a request for comment when asked why the officer chose to reveal his own identity.

Byrd said the threats include people saying they will kill him. Aaron Babbitt said he’s also received threats.

I’ve been getting death threats since Jan. 7—two, three, five, 10 a day—and all I did on Jan. 6 was become a widower,” Babbitt said.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/27/2021 – 10:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3mED7V0 Tyler Durden

Justice Breyer Approaches His Retirement Like He Approaches His Judicial Decisions: With An Indeterminate, Multi-Factor Balancing Test

Justice Breyer visited the New York Times bureau in Washington to talk about his new book. His publisher circulated “ground rules,” and said Breyer would not respond to questions about his retirement. Adam Liptak had other plans. Liptak asked Breyer several questions about retirement, and Breyer answered.

Liptak asked Breyer about a Rehnquist quote, and Breyer answered.

He was asked about a remark from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in 2005, in response to a question about whether it was “inappropriate for a justice to take into account the party or politics of the sitting president when deciding whether to step down from the court.”

“No, it’s not inappropriate,” the former chief justice responded. “Deciding when to step down from the court is not a judicial act.”

That sounded correct to Justice Breyer. “That’s true,” he said.

Then Breyer volunteered a quote from another Justice that was on this mind:

He recalled approvingly something Justice Antonin Scalia had told him.

“He said, ‘I don’t want somebody appointed who will just reverse everything I’ve done for the last 25 years,'” Justice Breyer said during a wide-ranging interview on Thursday. “That will inevitably be in the psychology” of his decision, he said.

“I don’t think I’m going to stay there till I die — hope not,” he said.

And before you know it, Breyer opened up with his internal debate:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer says he is struggling to decide when to retire from the Supreme Court and is taking account of a host of factors, including who will name his successor. “There are many things that go into a retirement decision,” he said.

Justice Breyer approaches his retirement the same way he approaches his judicial decisions: with an indeterminate, multi-factor balancing test:

The justice tried to sum up the factors that would go into his decision. “There are a lot of blurred things there, and there are many considerations,” he said. “They form a whole. I’ll make a decision.”

He paused, then added: “I don’t like making decisions about myself.” …

But he seemed at pains to make one thing clear: He is a realist.

“I’ve said that there are a lot of considerations,” Justice Breyer said. “I don’t think any member of the court is living in Pluto or something.”

A lot of blurred things that make a whole. This amalgamation sums up just about any Breyer opinion.

My guess? He didn’t retire this year, to prove he was not influenced by politics. But he will retire next year when the Democrats still maintain a slight majority in the Senate. Of course, that balance could easily change.

Justice Breyer also referred to the “shadow docket” by name. I think this is the first time a Justice has used that phrase publicly.

Justice Breyer said the court should take its foot off the gas. “I can’t say never decide a shadow-docket thing,” he said. “Not never. But be careful. And I’ve said that in print. I’ll probably say it more.”

Asked whether the court should supply reasoning when it makes such decisions, he said: “Correct. I agree with you. Correct.”

Kudos to Will Baude for making such an important contribution on this point.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3BwuXCj
via IFTTT

The Number of ‘Super Commuters’ Explodes in America’s Housing-Starved Metros


reason-traffic2

A housing shortage in cities across the country is costing people more than just money. Unable to find affordable housing closer to the office, an increasing share of Americans are spending extraordinary amounts of time getting to and from work.

The number of “super commuters”—people who spend more than 90 minutes commuting one way—has grown by 45 percent, or three times the rate of the overall workforce, according to a new report from rental website Apartment List.

Pulling from data from the 2019 American Community Survey published by the U.S. Census Bureau, Apartment List found that 4.6 million people (or 3.1 percent of the workforce) qualify as super commuters.

“I think of this as primarily a symptom of excessive housing costs and lack of supply close to the urban core in the nation’s most expensive markets,” says Chris Salviati, an economist with Apartment List and co-author of the study. “These are places that have been rapidly adding jobs, but not adding new housing to meet that demand.”

That’s true of the ultra-expensive New York City region, which tops the nation both in the number of super commuters and in the percentage of the workforce that super commutes. Some 762,000 people there spend over 90 minutes getting to work, or about 7.2 percent of all workers.

Not far behind is the San Francisco Bay–San Jose region, where 269,000 people (6 percent of the workforce) super commute. That represents a staggering 255 percent increase in the number of super commuters from 2010.

Both have added a lot more jobs and workers than housing over the past decade.

In the San Francisco metro area, 3.46 jobs were added for every new unit of housing from 2008–2019, according to another recent report from the Manhattan Institute. The New York metro area similarly added 2.31 jobs for every unit of housing.

One reason for that is both regions contain municipalities, including New York City and San Francisco themselves, where zoning is quite restrictive compared to demand and the permitting process gives a lot of discretion to bureaucrats to shoot down new housing projects.

The Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., regions also top the list of areas with the most super commuters.

A decent jobs-housing balance isn’t a silver bullet for preventing increasing commute times. Houston, Texas, managed to add one home for every new job over the past decade, but still saw super commuters grow as a share of its workforce. Nevertheless, only about 2.6 percent of the region’s workforce has a commute of over 90 minutes, which is below the national average.

These high-cost metros have also spawned satellite communities like Stockton, California, and Poughkeepsie, New York—both about 90 miles from San Francisco and New York City, respectively—where super-commuting levels are hovering around 10 percent of the workforce.

Not all super commuters are traveling long distances. The Apartment List report says that about half of them are living within 30 miles of downtown.

Those people’s primary problem isn’t so much unaffordable housing but rather “poor transportation services,” says Baruch Feigenbaum, a transportation policy researcher at Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this website). “[These are the] folks who experience ridiculous traffic congestion or folks who are taking awful transit so it takes them a ridiculous amount of time to go one mile.”

Transit riders are particularly prone to being super commuters, with 13 percent of them taking more than 90 minutes to get to work, compared to 3 percent of workers overall.

The Apartment List study suggests more transit spending and expanding transit service as a means of improving commute times for riders. Constructing new highway capacity in growing areas with lots of motorists would be another way to speed up travel times, says Feigenbaum.

Congestion pricing, whereby motorists are charged a variable fee to use highway lanes or enter a city’s downtown, could also help reduce travel times for both drivers and bus transit riders.

Super commuters, while growing in number, remain a pretty small portion of the workforce. That’s to be expected. Urban policy research has consistently shown that people, whether they are modern Manhattanites or medieval Parisians, don’t typically like to spend more than 30 minutes traveling one way to work.

For every super commuter, there are likely many more people who are either choosing to spend more on housing to be closer to a particular job or who are forgoing better employment opportunities altogether because of the excessive travel times involved.

Both outcomes make people poorer, even if they aren’t spending three hours in traffic.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3DrFh0a
via IFTTT