New Articles

The Treasury Option: How the US Can Achieve the Financial Inclusion Benefits of a CBDC Now

american flag and manufacturing industry

The Treasury Option: How the US Can Achieve the Financial Inclusion Benefits of a CBDC Now

As public debate heats up over whether the United States should create a central bank digital currency (CBDC), there is another option that deserves consideration:  Treasury Accounts.  The Treasury Department could, relatively quickly, create digital accounts to provide payment services that would be especially valuable to unbanked and underbanked individuals.  These accounts might not possess all the technological advances of a full-blown CBDC, but they would be much easier to establish and could be implemented now under existing statutory authority.  Importantly, Treasury Accounts could immediately improve access to financial services for the millions of Americans who have limited access to banking services today and also greatly facilitate the distribution of federal benefit programs to all Americans.  Treasury Accounts are not an alternative to CBDCs but rather a faster, easier way to achieve some of the primary objectives of those who favor creating a CBDC.  The creation of Treasury Accounts would represent a concrete step forward in the Treasury Department’s efforts “to unlock the unrealized potential of underserved communities,” an initiative the Department announced in connection with Secretary Yellen’s appointment of the Department’s first counselor for racial equity last Fall.

Many believe a CBDC can be a means to expand financial inclusion.  One prominent proposal known as Fed Accounts—which has attracted support from progressive members of Congress–would create a system of retail accounts at the Federal Reserve that would provide all Americans with the opportunity to have a bank account at no cost.  These accounts could also be used to distribute federal benefits on an expedited basis.  But many believe that direct Federal Reserve accounts for individuals would be an inappropriate expansion of the Federal Reserve’s role, and that in any event the Federal Reserve would not be well equipped to reach the kinds of retail customers that do not have traditional bank accounts.  Moreover, the creation of a CBDC in the United States faces many challenges, both technical and political.  There is substantial debate not only as to how such an instrument should be designed, but whether it is even needed.  Almost certainly it will take a number of years before a consensus emerges on the proper path forward.

The financial inclusion need remains significant and urgent, however.  According to the FDIC, 5.4% of American households are unbanked and roughly three times as many more underbanked—the latter term meaning those who have a bank account but use expensive nonbank services like check cashing, money orders, payday lenders and international remittance services.  The unbanked as a percentage of the population is greater in the United States than in all other G7 countries and far more concentrated among those at the lower end of the income distribution.  Despite considerable efforts from consumer advocates over decades, neither regulatory authorities nor private initiatives have succeeded in providing universal access to financial services.

The Treasury Department, in our view, is a much more logical place for the federal government to experiment with improving access to financial services.  It has decades of experience as well as the legal authority to create a program of Treasury Accounts that could reach the underserved.  During the Pandemic, it was the Treasury Department along with the Internal Revenue Service, which is a bureau within the Department, that was charged with distributing emergency payments and later advanced Child Tax Credits to millions of households, including many without traditional bank accounts.   While the process was bumpy at times, the Department’s overall performance in distributing almost $1 trillion in Pandemic benefits in over half a billion separate payments was impressive.  The Treasury has also devised multiple programs over the years designed to reach the underserved.  This includes programs to distribute federal benefits which in some cases incorporated payment services.  The Treasury created the Direct Express program which enables unbanked individuals to receive federal benefits on a privately-managed pre-paid card.  It also developed the digital Treasury Direct interface that allows individuals to invest directly in government securities, and it has experimented with the creation of a new class of digital savings bonds designed to encourage retirement savings.

Our proposal for Treasury Accounts would provide low cost, no-frills payment services and encourage the accumulation of emergency savings reserves.  The breadth of the eligibility criteria would need to be determined, but they would be designed to meet the needs of low-income individuals and particularly the unbanked and underbanked, leveraging the experiences that the Department has gained working with fintech firms and non-profit groups during the Pandemic. For example, Treasury Accounts could provide:

  • basic services and fees incorporating recent Fintech approaches built on streamlined mobile banking interfaces and  checkless payments as well as no overdraft or non-sufficient funds fees and very low or no balance requirements and monthly maintenance fees.
  • faster clearing of deposited checks compared to private market offerings, a critical need for people who live paycheck to paycheck.  The Treasury could provide for immediate clearing of government checks and facilitate direct deposit from participating employers.
  • more efficient know-your-customer screening, which often prevents or discourages unbanked persons from obtaining private accounts.  The account opening screening could be considered largely or entirely satisfied by the fact that someone has already established eligibility for and is receiving government benefits; and
  • a maximum balance to minimize disintermediation risk, with provisions for rolling over accounts that reach such limitations into private accounts.

The program could be implemented using Treasury’s financial agent authority to partner with commercial institutions, the cost of which is covered under a permanent, indefinite appropriation enacted in 2004.  The financial agents would provide all customer-facing functions.  These agents could include fintech firms that could provide innovative forms of outreach, including through mobile applications, as well as minority-owned and other firms that have experience reaching  underserved populations.  We describe two possible legal structures for creating Treasury Accounts that would not require new legislation, one building on the existing Direct Express program, and the other utilizing Treasury’s savings bond authority.  We conclude by discussing how Treasury Accounts compare to a CBDC as a vehicle to promote financial access, and how they could generate useful information and insights that might later be incorporated into any CBDC that the nation eventually decides to adopt.

american flag and manufacturing industry

US Regions Must Collaborate on Planning to Maximize New Federal Funds

Thanks to historic commitments by Congress and resilient local economies, the next five years have the potential to be a grand era of reinvestment in metropolitan America. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) have committed billions of dollars for communities to modernize their infrastructure networks, ranging from older water systems to cutting-edge broadband. Meanwhile, the House and Senate are set to make big bets on innovation-focused growth centers and targeted industries. State and local budgets also performed better than expected through 2020 and 2021, leaving additional fiscal resources available for economic and community development

Periods of intense investment like this don’t come around often. Communities and the country need projects and policies that deliver transformative, long-term value. That’s where planning comes into the picture.

Most metro areas already have established economic and workforce strategies, transportation plans, and comprehensive housing and land use plans to prioritize what industries to invest in, where to develop real estate, and what infrastructure is needed to connect them. But if metro areas can coordinate those long-range plans around common goals, the chances of delivering lasting value go up. If not, expensive projects could fail to maximize outcomes—or worse, end up working against one another. Either way, a generational opportunity would be wasted.

Unfortunately, there are few existing mechanisms or incentives to encourage this sort of coordination. Even though the federal government formally promotes regional economic strategy-building, there is no requirement that different plans talk to each other. Coordination also isn’t required between state and metropolitan plans, or between plans developed by neighboring jurisdictions within the same metro area. The situation gets considerably more complicated in the country’s largest metro areas, which are home to the most jurisdictions, the most diverse industries, and the widest array of investment alternatives.

The federal government helped start this next great wave of metropolitan capital investment, so it should ensure that investment will be used to the best effect. We recommend Congress establish a new planning coordination program within the Economic Development Administration (EDA), which would support local governments and business organizations in metropolitan areas of at least 1 million people to formally integrate objectives and priority projects across multiple long-range plans. For a relative pittance compared to the costs of capital projects, the federal government can incentivize metropolitan partners to develop the coordination template America needs to make good on its investment ambitions.

The bones of America’s planning paradigm are strong. Cities, counties, and special-purpose governments like utilities use tools such as zoning codes and capital budgets to decide where public dollars are spent and attempt to influence where private investments occur. Metropolitan planning organizations and councils of government convene local governments to plan regional investments, particularly inter-jurisdictional transportation like highways and transit lines. The private and civic sectors play a role too, often working with local governments to design long-range economic development strategies, including how to deliver more inclusive career pathways, what big bets to make on innovative industries, or drafting master plans for specific districts.

The federal government is also an established partner in many planning exercises. Since 1991, federal surface transportation law mandates that metro areas designate a regional government to lead transportation planning and, at least every five years, develop a long-range transportation plan. Laws administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandate the creation of three- to five-year consolidated plans to qualify for agency grants. The Department of Commerce and the EDA use the certification of a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) or equivalent plan every five years to qualify for a range of EDA grants. The Department of Labor funds workforce development boards to define and act on regional workforce priorities. And these are just a sampling of federal planning requirements.

soiled planning processes impact the built enviroment
soiled planning processes impact the built environment

Yet for all the planning taking place, there is often little coordination among these various processes, and the result is formal plans that often directly contradict one another. In some cases, those contradictions may occur between the local and regional levels. This is the case when a regional entity like the Association of Bay Area Governments in metropolitan San Francisco wants to build more housing, but locality after locality limits housing construction. In other instances, the conflict may be within different planning documents written by the same local government or regional entity; for example, most large American cities have been unable to match their land use and development practices to their climate goals. Even timing can be a conflict: A metro area’s major planning cycles can fall on different years, with different offices and staff leading them, making coordination all the more difficult.

This is a missed opportunity. With so much complementarity between infrastructure, real estate, and economic and workforce development, making sure formal plans talk to one another can increase the odds that metropolitan development leads to agreed-upon outcomes—advancing particular industry sectors, for example, or enhancing local commercial corridors. That means ensuring that policies and strategies identified in these plans—focused on businesses, transit, land use, education, marketing, parks and public space, etc.—are aligned toward these specific ends.

Now is an ideal time to support this kind of coordination with federal incentives. The federal government knows this is a good idea—it’s why HUD, the EDA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Transportation all run offices and programs to promote the concept. Even the Government Accountability Office has affirmed the need, particularly within economic development. The federal government also has the regulatory power to compel regional and local actors to work together across different disciplines. What regions require is the resources and staff time to help them do it—and the mandate to make it multiple people’s job. Now, with EDA reauthorization conversations starting in Congress, there is a legislative vehicle to address the need.

The new EDA planning coordination program we propose would provide grants to support staffing resources within those entities responsible for regional planning. Since CEDS already includes industrial and infrastructure goals, CEDS authors within a given metro area could be the primary recipient(s) and make sub-awards to transportation, housing, workforce, and other regional planning entities. The grants would cover staff time to regularly convene regional actors, coordinate with the public (including a steering committee), and revise formal plans. The core output of the program would be evidence of those revisions, including adjustments to overarching goals, capital projects, and other policies.

Ideally, Congress would help the EDA improve its staffing to support these new regional activities. Staff in the EDA’s regional offices are vital conduits for explaining how federal programs work, sharing best and failed practices from across the country and communicating needs back to EDA headquarters. Likewise, the EDA’s Washington, D.C. office should receive more staffing to consolidate all the lessons and experiences into a common knowledge hub for nonparticipating regions, smaller places, or peers across the economic development and research communities.

Some metropolitan leaders are already experimenting with new ways to merge regional planning and major investments. In Kansas City, the bistate KC Rising initiative between Missouri and Kansas brings together the business, government, and civic communities to align their efforts around seven common pillars. And the multisectoral board of the Greater Portland Economic Development District in the Pacific Northwest used their CEDS process to formally adopt a new set of integrated values and principles. These are the kinds of emerging models that a new EDA program can support—and that the EDA should seek, collect, and share with other regions to inform their planning work.

Congress should finish the job it started when it approved historic levels of investment in metropolitan America by supporting a coordination program like the one recommended here. Planning is far cheaper than capital projects or tax incentives—and it is money well spent if it ensures physical investments lead to better projects with better outcomes that advance regional prosperity, resiliency, and opportunity.

supply ICYMI – Former Congressman: Let’s not Make America’s Supply Chain Challenges Worse benchmark

ICYMI – Former Congressman: Let’s not Make America’s Supply Chain Challenges Worse

Writing in the Journal of Commerce, Former Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA), who represented the Port of Lake Charles for more than a decade, argues that America’s supply chain problems are the result of landside congestion that the Ocean Shipping Reform Act will not solve. Instead, ORSA “would make it worse and ultimately raise costs to the American consumer and businesses.”

Congress should heed Boustany’s advice and invest in new infrastructure that raises the capacity of the transportation industry.

As America’s supply chain continues to be tested, there is reason to be hopeful for the future. Back in November, there was much reporting about Christmas being canceled. However, as we got closer and closer to Christmas, shelves were stocked, and families were able to purchase the gifts they wanted for their loved ones.

It might seem difficult to reconcile these conflicting reports, but as a former member of the US House of Representative’s Ways and Means Committee and having had the privilege of representing much of southern Louisiana, including the Port of Lake Charles, I want to discuss the complexity of the supply chain, how we got here, and where we go from here.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had severe global implications on our manufacturing and supply chain system. From day one, industry stakeholders, including ocean carriers, marine terminal operators, dockworkers, and many more, have worked with the federal government, Congress, and both the current and prior presidential administration to ensure goods flowed.

If we think back to 2020, when the pandemic first came to the US, we can remember how frightened many of us were, purchasing goods in bulk out of fear that shelves would be completely empty. However, those fears never quite materialized. Marine terminal operators, longshore workers, stevedores, and many others put themselves on the frontlines, at a time before vaccines, to ensure that consumer goods, medical goods, and everything else made it to American ports. The shipping industry remains committed to facing these challenges head-on and is working tirelessly to manage the current supply chain issues, while laying the foundation for a stronger supply chain.

Heavy investment in port infrastructure

Transportation industry leaders are investing heavily into US port infrastructure, not just to mitigate the current challenges, but to help pave the way for a 21st century port infrastructure and intermodal connectors capable of meeting the demands of a globalized economy. Here in my home state, industry leaders are investing in a new terminal at Plaquemines, Louisiana, to help facilitate more imports and exports in the Mississippi Gulf region. Industry partners are also making significant investments in new ships, containers, and technologies. In the short term, marine terminal operators and their ocean carrier customers are working closely with the White House on developing solutions to alleviate the current bottlenecks and delays.

Some of these solutions we’ve already seen come to fruition, such as expanded hours at truck gates, more local depots by carriers to get cargo off terminal, and significant private investments into our marine terminal infrastructure. These investments, short term and long term, are vital in supporting America’s advantage in the shipping industry. Ocean carriers have a choice in where to bring their ships and it’s vital we retain our competitive edge to support this industry that provides more than 30.8 million jobs, a large portion of which don’t require a college degree, and has a total economic impact of more than $5.4 trillion. As a former member of Congress, I understand the anxieties many of my former colleagues feel as we enter the election season, and the compulsion to act in the face of this issue. But as we all know, well-meaning intentions can lead to negative consequences.

On Capitol Hill, there is an insatiable appetite to be viewed as doing something for the supply chain. However, today’s bottleneck disruptions are caused by a shortage of physical assets (trucks, warehouse space, truck chassis, rail cars) and labor (truck drivers and warehouse workers). The uptick in COVID cases since late 2021 continuing through the new year also resulted in a shortage of longshore workers. Those disruptions are not caused by the marine terminals, ocean carriers, or inadequacies in existing law. Pending legislation to amend the US Shipping Act will not fix supply chain congestion, but instead would make it worse and ultimately raise costs to the American consumer and businesses.

We have a variety of solutions at our disposal to help facilitate and improve our supply chain. Washington can help by enacting tax credits to stimulate additional last-mile warehouse capacity, and identify off-dock acreage near rail ramps and logistic container hubs. The industry can continue to locate and create temporary warehouse spaces and use tax credits to stimulate investment in clean trucks needed at ports. We can work together to prioritize appointments to pick up essential cargo, such as medical equipment, at marine terminals, and support industry solutions to minimize congestion, such as PierPass.

Similar to the early days of the pandemic, we’ll only resolve these issues by working together. I urge my former colleagues on Capitol Hill to put partisanship politics behind us and work with our friends in the transportation sector to ensure that we find a solution to our infrastructure woes and formulate a solution that has the input of all participants. Speaking over each other, and excluding important voices, will only harm us in the long run.

Charles Boustany served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2005 to 2017, representing Louisiana’s 7th Congressional District, and later the 3rd Congressional District.

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo Stresses President Biden’s Executive Order on “Ensuring the Responsible Development of Digital Assets”

Following President Biden’s signing of an Executive Order on “Ensuring the Responsible Development of Digital Assets” that establishes a Federal government-wide approach to the development of the digital assets industry, Secretary of Commerce Gina M. Raimondo today in Washington proceeded in stressing the needs and benefits of the order.

He said “President Biden has identified a bold and prudent path forward for a whole-of-government approach to encourage responsible innovation in digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, stable coins, and central bank digital currencies. This Executive Order will ensure that our policy on digital assets safeguards our financial system and promotes American leadership.

“Over the last two decades, the market of digital assets and related technologies has evolved into a multi-trillion-dollar global industry. Digital assets have profound implications for the American economy at all levels: for national and state regulators, established businesses and startups, and, above all, individuals. Digital assets and associated technologies could hold significant potential for individual economic empowerment, financial inclusion, and reinforcement of America’s position as a world leader in innovative financial services.

“As is the case for the digital assets market, innovation and growth tend to be accompanied by emerging challenges. As threats to the security and integrity of our financial system scale, the Department remains committed to addressing them and supporting our partners across sectors in their anti-money laundering efforts, countering terrorist and other illicit financing, and combatting other abusive activities. We can and will ensure that our digital assets industry is a global leader while promoting the resilience of the U.S. financial system by working with our industry partners to mitigate risks for the businesses and individuals who rely on it.

He concluded “I particularly welcome President Biden’s direction to engage with industry, civil society, and other interagency partners in developing a framework to promote U.S. economic competitiveness by leveraging digital asset technologies and remain eager to hear what we can do to promote the secure and inclusive development of this growing part of our financial services system.

“As in all industries, America’s innovation is its strength. Working together, we will work to ensure that American businesses remain globally competitive in this space through the responsible development of digital asset technologies.”

platform SC

US invests $450 million in Port Infrastructure Development Program

The US Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) has announced nearly $450 million in newly available grants for port-related projects.

The funding is set to be provided through the Port Infrastructure Development Plan (PIDP) and is the largest investment program ever implemented in the US.

These grants seek to help ports across the country expand capacity and improve the movement of goods through the supply chain following mass congestion over the last year.

The funding is made possible through President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and is nearly double last year’s investment in PIDP for states and port authorities.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will invest $17 billion in ports and waterways.

“We’re proud to announce this funding to help ports improve their infrastructure— to get goods moving more efficiently and help keep costs under control for American families,” said US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

President Biden is leading the largest-ever federal investment in modernising our country’s ports, which will improve our supply chains and the lives of Americans who depend on them.”

These grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to support projects that will improve the movement of goods to, through and around ports.

The law calls on applicants to explore ways to include projects that will not just improve goods movement but also strengthen resilience, reduce emissions, and advance environmental justice.

Acting Maritime Administrator Lucinda Lessley added: “The historic investments made by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will help remove bottlenecks by enabling ports to expand capacity and improve intermodal connections.

“The grant funds will also create new jobs across the US maritime industry.”

California is one of the worst affected regions in the US for congestion, this led to Governor Gavin Newsom investing $2.3 billion in the states’ ports through his 2022-2023 budget proposal.

The proposal, also known as “The California Blueprint”, aims to enhance operations at the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach by addressing recent supply chain challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

economic

Cities With the Most Economic Growth in 2021

The U.S. economy has made a remarkable comeback from the deep dive caused by the pandemic. Consumer spending (fueled by savings and government stimulus money) is strong, the economy recently added the most jobs in nearly a year, and the housing market is booming. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nonfarm employment has grown by 1.5% from January to May, and the unemployment rate is now 5.9%, well below the high of 14.8% seen in April 2020.

In the spring of last year, real gross domestic product (GDP)—a measure of economic activity used to track the health of the country—fell by a record annualized rate of 31.4%, the sharpest contraction in modern U.S. history. In comparison, real GDP fell by less than 9% annualized in 2008 during the Great Recession and took several years to recover. Following the initial COVID-19 shutdowns, GDP has been recovering quickly as economic activity resumes, and is projected to return to its pre-pandemic level later this year.

Alongside the broader economic contraction were massive job losses: nonfarm employment initially dropped by 20.5 million in the early stages of the pandemic. Following this unprecedented decline, employment increased sharply in May of last year, but since then, the recovery has slowed with current employment far below pre-pandemic levels. Some cities and states have been affected more than others depending on local economic factors. As such, current unemployment rates vary widely across the country, ranging from less than 3% to more than 10%.

To find the locations with the most economic growth in 2021, researchers at Stessa analyzed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, and Redfin, creating a composite score based on the following factors:

-Percentage change in total employment from January to May 2021

-Unemployment rate from May 2021

-Average monthly building permits per capita (averaged over January to May 2021)

-Average monthly home sales per capita (averaged over January to May 2021)

Based on these metrics, Utah and Florida are the two states with the most economic growth this year. Both states saw employment grow by 1.5% from January to May and have lower than average unemployment rates (at 2.7% and 5.0%, respectively). At a time when housing is in short supply across much of the country, new residential construction is booming in these states, with 107 and 79 average monthly building permits per 100,000 residents, respectively, far above the national rate of 43.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, Louisiana and Alaska reported the least economic growth so far this year. Louisiana employment actually decreased slightly from January to May while employment in Alaska increased only marginally. Both states have higher than average unemployment rates and lower than average residential construction and home sales per capita.

To find the metropolitan areas with the most economic growth, Stessa ranked metros using the same composite score. To improve relevance, only metropolitan areas with at least 100,000 people were included in the analysis. Additionally, metro areas were grouped based on population size.

Here are the large U.S. metros experiencing the most economic growth in 2021.

Metro Rank   Composite score   Percentage change in total employment   Unemployment rate  Average monthly building permits per 100,000 residents  Average monthly home sales per 100,000

 

Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN    1     78.9     1.1% 3.9% 132 174
Raleigh-Cary, NC    2     78.6     1.0% 3.8% 136 168
Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown, TX    3     77.9     1.3% 4.2% 207 138
Jacksonville, FL    4     75.0     0.8% 4.2% 127 191
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL    5     74.7     2.8% 5.4% 84 173
Oklahoma City, OK    6     73.0     1.3% 3.6% 55 139
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI    7     71.4     1.7% 3.8% 57 122
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL    8     70.4     1.0% 4.6% 75 193
Salt Lake City, UT    9     69.9     1.1% 2.8% 78 107
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta, GA    10     68.9     1.1% 3.9% 55 153
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO    11     65.3     1.6% 5.9% 77 156
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV    12     64.7     3.1% 8.9% 63 181
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA    13     64.6     2.6% 5.3% 51 133
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ    14     64.4     1.3% 6.2% 88 173
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC    15     63.6     0.4% 4.3% 83 152
United States    –     N/A     1.5% 5.8% 43 165

 

For more information, a detailed methodology, and complete results, you can find the original report on Stessa’s website: https://www.stessa.com/blog/cities-with-most-economic-growth/

density

The Top-Paying Low-Density Cities in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated a mass exodus of people from dense, expensive cities to less crowded, affordable areas. A recent survey conducted by The Harris Poll found that 39 percent of urban Americans are considering moving to a less crowded location as a result of the pandemic. This shift in attitude follows a long period of urbanization that began during the Industrial Revolution and continued through the beginning of 2020.

Despite most Americans living in high-density areas, the overall population density in the U.S. is relatively low, at under 100 people per square mile. In fact, only about 5 percent of U.S. counties have a population density that exceeds 1,000 people per square mile. Most of these high-density counties are located in coastal states such as Virginia, New Jersey, New York, and California. Low-density areas are scattered throughout the country, with the lowest population densities observed in the North Central and Mountain regions.

While rural living might be attractive for some, many Americans are simply looking for less crowded alternatives to some of the most densely populated areas like New York City (27,954 per square mile), San Francisco (18,828 per square mile), and Boston (14,396 per square mile). For reference, the median population density of America’s 324 largest cities with over 100,000 residents is just 3,419 per square mile, about 80 percent less crowded than New York City.

For families seeking a less crowded place for health and safety reasons, but also wanting to maintain a comparable salary, there are several locations to consider, especially in the South and the Midwest. To find which low-density cities pay the best, researchers at Roofstock, a real estate investment platform, analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau for cities with over 100,000 residents.

The researchers first identified cities with population densities that fell below the median of 3,419 people per square mile. Then the researchers ranked the remaining cities by their respective median annual earnings for full-time workers. In the event of a tie, the city with the higher median earnings for all workers was ranked higher. To improve relevance, cities were further grouped into the following cohorts based on population size: small (100,000–149,999), midsize (150,000-349,999), and large (350,000 or more).

Here are the top-paying large U.S. cities with low population densities.

For more information, a detailed methodology, and complete results, you can find the original report on Roofstock’s website: https://learn.roofstock.com/blog/best-paying-low-density-cities

iranian

US Imposes Additional Sanctions on Key Sectors of Iranian Economy

On Friday, January 10, 2020, President Trump issued a new Executive Order, “Imposing Sanctions With Respect to Additional Sectors of Iran” (“E.O.”), which authorizes the imposition of sanctions against persons operating in or transacting with Iran’s construction, mining, manufacturing or textile sectors. The E.O. also imposes secondary sanctions against foreign financial institutions (“FFIs”) that engage in “significant financial transactions” within these sectors. Concurrently, the US Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), designated several Iranian and third-country metal producers and mining companies, a number of senior Iranian officials, and third-country entities that have transacted in the Iranian metal and mining sectors. This Legal Update provides a brief summary of these new sanctions and designations and discusses their impact on US and non-US businesses and financial institutions.

Designations. Concurrently with the E.O., OFAC designated several Iranian and third-country entities, including 17 Iranian metal producers and mining companies (described as the largest metals manufacturers in Iran); an Oman-based steel supplier; a network of three China- and Seychelles-based entities; and a vessel involved in the purchase, sale and transfer of Iranian metals products, as well as in the provision of critical metals production components to Iranian metal producers. OFAC also designated, pursuant to pre-existing authorities, several senior Iranian officials who have “advanced the regime’s destabilizing objectives.”[i]

New Targeted Sanctions. The E.O. imposes sanctions on the construction, mining, manufacturing and textile sectors of the Iranian economy, expanding on those already imposed on the country’s energy, shipping and financial sectors under Executive Order 13846 (“E.O. 13846”) and the iron, steel, aluminum and copper sectors under Executive Order 13871 (“E.O. 13871”). The aim of the new E.O. is to “deny the Iranian government revenues, including revenues derived from the export of products from key sectors of Iran’s economy, that may be used to fund and support its nuclear program, missile development, terrorism and terrorist proxy networks, and malign regional influence.” The new sanctions come amid rising tensions between the United States and Iran and only days after targeted, tit-for-tat military actions by both countries.

The E.O. authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or within the possession or control of any US person, belonging to any person (meaning an individual or an entity) determined to:

1. be operating in the construction, mining, manufacturing, or textile sectors of the Iranian economy;

2. have knowingly engaged, on or after January 10, 2020, in a significant transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of significant goods or services used in connection with one of the aforementioned sectors of the Iranian economy;

3. have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the E.O.; or

4. be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the E.O.[i]

Importantly, the E.O. authorizes the Treasury Department to designate as a Specially Designated National (“SDN”), any “person,” including non-Iranian and non-US persons, who operates in or knowingly engages in a significant transaction in these sectors of the Iranian economy. The E.O. also permits the Treasury Secretary to designate other sectors of the Iranian economy to be subject to sanctions in the future.

Secondary Sanctions on Foreign Financial Institutions. In addition to the targeted sanctions discussed above, the E.O. permits the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to impose correspondent account and payable-through-account (“CAPTA”) secondary sanctions on any FFI that, on or after January 10, 2020, knowingly conducts or facilitates any “significant financial transaction”:

i. for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of significant goods or services used in connection with one of the aforementioned sectors of the Iranian economy; or

ii. for or on behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

CAPTA sanctions “may prohibit the opening, and prohibit or impose strict restrictions on the maintaining” of such accounts in the US by FFIs determined to have engaged in the conduct described in the E.O.

Impact of the New Iranian Sanctions and Related Designations

The E.O. expands on the sanctions already put into place against Iran following the reimposition of secondary sanctions against the country announced in May 2018 and as expanded under E.O. 13846 (sanctions against Iranian energy, shipping and financial sectors) and E.O. 13871 (sanctions against Iranian iron, steel, aluminum and copper sectors).

Under the current sanctions regime, it remains prohibited for US persons—including US-owned or -controlled entities—to engage in virtually any transaction, directly or indirectly, with Iran without OFAC authorization. US persons are further prohibited from transacting without authorization with those persons and entities designated by OFAC and added to the SDN List, including via this recent round of designations.

The new sanctions introduced by the E.O. increase OFAC’s ability to sanction non-US persons, as the E.O. enables the United States to designate and block the property and interests in property of those non-US persons operating in or engaging in significant transactions with the construction, mining, manufacturing or textile sectors of Iran.[i] This has the effect of cutting off such non-US persons from the US financial system (and the US market more generally). Businesses with a presence in the European Union may continue to face challenges as they take into account this enhanced sanctions authority in light of the EU blocking statute, which prohibits EU companies from direct or indirect compliance with certain US sanctions laws, including Iranian sanctions.

It remains a secondary sanctions risk for FFIs (and non-US businesses) to knowingly engage in significant transactions involving certain Iranian persons on the SDN List.[i] Additionally, as discussed above, CAPTA sanctions may be imposed against FFIs who conduct or facilitate any “significant financial transaction” in one of the sectors of the Iranian economy specified in the E.O., regardless of whether such transactions have a US nexus. FFIs and non-US businesses may now include an evaluation of significant transactions in the Iranian construction, mining, manufacturing or textile sectors as part of their Iran sanctions risk assessments.

While the E.O. does not define either the term “significant transaction” or “significant financial transaction,” we suspect that the Treasury Department will apply a standard similar to previously issued guidance published in relation to E.O. 13871. Accordingly, such a determination will likely be based on a multifactor, totality-of-the-circumstances assessment of a broad range of factors, including the size, number and frequency of the transactions or services; their type, complexity and commercial purpose; and the level of awareness of the institution’s management.[i]

Since reinstating secondary sanctions in 2018, the United States has only designated non-US entities under secondary sanctions in a few limited circumstances.[i] However, this E.O. joins a series of preexisting Iran-related secondary sanctions authorities[ii] and further extends the extraterritorial reach of the Iran sanctions program to advance US policy objectives.

_________________________________________________________________

Endnotes

[1] See Press Release, Treasury Targets Iran’s Billion Dollar Metals Industry and Senior Regime Officials (January 10, 2020), available at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm870

[1] The E.O., by its terms, does not apply with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction for the provision (including any sale) of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran.

[1] The blocking provision of the E.O. requires that the property or interests in property comes within the United States or within the possession or control of a US person (e.g., through use of the US financial system in such transactions).

[1] See OFAC FAQ 636, available at https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/sanctions/pages/faq_iran.aspx

[1] See OFAC FAQ 671, available at https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/sanctions/pages/faq_iran.aspx

[1] See, e.g., OFAC, “Iran-related Designations; Issuance of Iran-related Frequently Asked Question,” (Sept. 25, 2019), available at https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20190925.aspx (adding Chinese tanker companies to the SDN list due to their alleged role in transporting Iranian oil).

[1] See, e.g., Mayer Brown Legal Update, “US to Reimpose Secondary Sanctions Against Iran Amid EU Opposition” (May 9, 2018), available at https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/perspectives-events/publications/2018/05/us-to-reimpose-secondary-sanctions-against-iran-am Executive Order 13846, “Reimposing Certain Sanctions With Respect to Iran,” (Aug. 6, 2018).

About the authors:

Tamer Soliman is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington DC and Dubai offices, global head of the firm’s Export Control & Sanctions practice and a member of the International Trade practice.

Ori Lev is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington DC office and a member of the Financial Services Regulatory & Enforcement practice and the Consumer Financial Services group.

Yoshi Ito is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington DC office and a member of the International Trade and Public Policy, Regulatory & Political Law practices.

Brad Resnikoff is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington DC office and a member of the Financial Services Regulatory & Enforcement practice.

Liz Owerbach is an associate in Mayer Brown’s Washington DC office and a member of the firm’s Export Control & Sanctions and International Trade practices.

Brad Cohen is an associate in Mayer Brown’s New York office and a member of the Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice.

usmca

Sizing up the USMCA Compromise Package – How Various Industries Will be Impacted

On December 10, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Trump administration, along with leaders in Mexico and Canada, announced a compromise to the new North American trade deal, known as the U.S. Mexico and Canada Agreement.  Eleventh-hour concessions by the Administration and Mexico are likely to result in a win for labor, President Trump, and ultimately market stability.

The final deal gives Democrats in Congress a few big wins in the pharmaceutical and labor industries, as well as environmental standards, and gives President Trump the victory of having his new trade deal on the path to ratification by all countries involved. Canada managed to receive much of what they requested, despite the slight opening of the Canadian dairy market to U.S. producers.

One of the biggest changes from the original draft USMCA in the compromise trade agreement is the negotiated labor monitoring and penalties for noncompliance. While the original draft required Mexico to change its laws to make it easier for workers to unionize, the compromise created an interagency committee that will monitor Mexico’s labor reform, established benchmarks and penalties for Mexico’s labor reform process, and established labor attachés in Mexico for on-the-ground reporting about Mexico’s labor practices.

Below is an outline of the changes to the USMCA – the House is expected to vote on the deal next week, though the Senate will likely not address the bill until the impeachment process has concluded:

For workers, language was removed that made it difficult to prove that trading partners are not protecting workers from violence in their respective countries. Now, Mexico has agreed to a “rapid-response labor mechanism” (see ANNEX 31-A) that allows independent, multinational three-person panels to investigate Mexican factories. Mexico, too, can have a panel investigate factories in the U.S. If a violation of union rights is found, a complaint can be filed, and the country making the accusation can determine the period of time that the accused county can have to address the concern. Provisions against Forced Labor also remain strong in the agreement. The deal is expected to also create 176,000 new jobs in the U.S. (See Article 23.3-23.4, ‘Labor Rights.)

For the environment, Democrats have promised that the deal has an added commitment that all the countries will have seven multilateral environment agreements (MEAs), alongside language that will allow the list to grow over time. Provisions include prioritization and monitoring of MEA commitments, and maintain and strengthen the protection of endangered species, the Montreal Protocol, prevention of pollution from ships, regulation of whaling, protection of the Ozone Layer and more (Article 1.3 Amendment and Article 24.9 Amendment)

For the pharmaceutical industry, the deal’s former provision that gave biologics a 10-year exclusivity period on the market is now entirely taken out. Democrats argued against the exclusivity period, concerned it could increase the cost of drugs, and succeeded in eliminating language that allows patent evergreening – when brand-name drug manufactures extend patents an additional to maintain power in the market when a new or related drug is created. (See the deletion of Article 20.49 ‘Biologics’)

For the internet, a Democratic concession led to maintained protections in the USMCA for technology companies, giving legal immunity for content posted by their users, as well as legal protections when these companies seek to moderate platforms. These provisions remain the same from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of the USMCA.

For the steel industry, while the deal already exempted the Canada and Mexico from steel and aluminum tariffs, the revised agreement has strict rules of origin in the automotive industry. The deal states that seven years after entry into the USMCA, all steel manufacturing must occur in one or more of the countries involved, except for the refinement of steel additives. Ten years after the agreement, the countries will consider appropriate requirements in the interest of all parties for aluminum to also be considered. (See Chapter 4, ‘Rules of Origin’)

For Canada and dairy, the U.S. will be able to export 3.6% of Canada’s dairy market, currently at 1%. Dairy companies in the U.S. can sell their products into Mexico duty-free, with access to common-named cheeses, while Canada is opening its market with more duty-free quotas for U.S. dairy products. The deal eliminates Canada’s 6/7 milk pricing system, and holds Canadian export of dairy to the standards of international trade rules.

And for the auto industry, in order to avoid tariffs, a car or truck must have 75% of its components made in the U.S., Mexico or Canada, up from 62.5% today.  Also, workers making the cars or trucks, at least 30% of the work, must be earning at least $16 an hour. By 2023, that number is 40% of the work done on cars.

With the United States positioning itself to negotiate several more trade deals, labor hopes that these last-minute changes set a benchmark for labor standards and enforcement moving forward and, likewise, the President hopes it demonstrates he can close a major trade deal.

___________________________________________________________

Note: Ryan Bernstein, formerly chief of staff to Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) is a senior vice president with McGuireWoods Consulting federal public affairs group.Mariam Eatedali is a research associate at McGuireWoods Consulting; she previously consulted with former representatives and senators to address foreign economic and diplomatic concerns while she was a fellow for the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress

trade war

How Has the Trade War Affected China?

In the last two weeks the stakes in the ongoing trade conflict between the United States and China have increased significantly. After negotiations stalled in July, President Trump expanded his tariff targets to cover nearly all imports from China. But the weapons in this conflict have become increasingly more sophisticated. Beijing retaliated by suspending purchases of U.S. agricultural products and by lowering the value of its currency to make Chinese goods less expensive abroad. In response, the U.S. Treasury named China a currency manipulator and vowed to take actions to eliminate the alleged unfair competitive advantage. In addition, President Trump announced that the United States is not going to do any business with China’s tech giant Huawei. 

While these escalations have recently uneased investors and rattled the markets, they have yet to make an obvious impact on the U.S. economy, albeit U.S. farmers have begun to experience the negative effects of lost sales to China. But how have these actions resonated in China? There are some indicators that the trade war has had an impact on the Chinese economy, as well as public perception in that country. 

At the moment, the U.S. can claim a short term victory, although China appears to be playing the long game. Official reports indicate that Chinese economic growth has decelerated to its slowest pace since 1992, as businesses have held back on investment in light of the ongoing trade tensions with the United States. Also, Chinese exports to the U.S. declined by $5.6 billion in June, versus a $1.8 billion decrease in U.S. exports to China. 

The Trump administration has claimed that its trade policy seeks to remedy problems which have been neglected for too long, and to defend America’s economic interests against perceived abuses by its trade partners. The administration has introduced tariffs as a means to address alleged intellectual property violations by China and a growing trade deficit. Its trade policy takes into account that some pain will need to be absorbed by the United States. However, it is not evident that the U.S. consumer has suffered yet. U.S. importers have to pay the tariffs, and so far many have sough ways to absorb them in whole or in part to minimize any price increases for the consumer. They have also begun to shift sourcing to third countries, including bringing some production to the United States. 

Concurrently, Beijing has implemented a robust domestic stimulus by encouraging banks to relax controls on borrowing and by cutting 2 trillion yuan ($291 billion) in taxes. Furthermore, investment in infrastructure has increased in the first half of the year and Chinese factory output rose 6.3% in June from a year earlier, compared with 5.3% in May. Also, by letting the value of the yuan fall and making Chinese goods cheaper, China has in effect offset some of the impact of the U.S. tariffs – essentially giving the U.S. consumer a tax cut.

The efforts by the Chinese government to lower domestic taxes and support an easier fiscal policy appear to have been, at least temporarily, beneficial to economic growth. If these actions are to be expanded, they may continue to serve as a further stimulus in the second half of this year in areas such as consumption and investment. Although Chinese shipments to the United States have declined, they comprise only about a fifth of its overall exports. By allowing the yuan to fall, China can boost its sales to other countries to offset declines to the United States. 

The trade conflict also does not appear to have had a negative impact on the mindset of the Chinese population at large. Skilled workers and professionals have expressed an open mind to the ongoing trade negotiations, some even welcoming them with a sentiment that “Trump is good for Chinese people” because he has opened up the dialogue between the two countries on trade which in turn has fostered certain welcome reforms in China, as well as tax cuts. Indeed, if Beijing had already planned to institute such measures, then U.S. policy may have provided ample cover for them.

The trade war has also led China to reevaluate existing global alliances, such as those with Japan and Russia. Mending fences with Russia, for instance, is key to the continuation of China’s ambitious “Belt and Road Initiative” of investment and infrastructure projects to connect Asia with Africa and Europe via land and maritime networks. 

With further entrenchment by both sides, and a trade deal increasingly unlikely before next year’s U.S. presidential elections, China appears to be bracing itself for a protracted conflict and may have reason to believe it can “win” if President Trump faces increased political pressures entering the election. As the President recently announced, China may be counting on a Democrat to win the White House to strike a new trade deal. On the other hand, a continuing conflict between two of the world’s greatest economies which has evolved from measures to address intellectual property protection and trade imbalances to currency manipulation, may in the long run lead to recession and hurt growth globally. 

Mark Ludwikowski is the leader of the International Trade practice of Clark Hill, PLC and is resident in the firm’s Washington D.C. office. He can be reached at 202-640-6680 and mludwikowski@ClarkHill.com