TIME Economy

Here’s the Big Problem With America’s Economic Recovery

Janet Yellen
Federal Reserve Bank Board Chairman Janet Yellen Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images

Yes, the U.S. is roaring back—especially compared to competitors—but that doesn't mean we're out of the woods yet exactly

If you could write one headline to encompass the past six years of economic history, it would probably be “U.S. Leadership Is Over.” The financial crisis, the Great Recession and the tepid recovery that followed seemed to mark a permanent decline in American market hegemony. But the past few months of economic data are calling all that into question: U.S. gross domestic product and jobs growth are the strongest they’ve been since the crisis. CEO surveys are predicting a new era of business spending. And the effect of the dramatic fall in oil prices since last summer will likely mean the equivalent of a $100 billion tax cut for U.S. consumers.

For an economy made up 70% of consumer spending, that could mean the beginning of that virtuous, job-creating consumption cycle that we’ve been awaiting since things went to hell in 2008. What’s more, with trouble in developing markets like Russia, India and Brazil as well as most of Europe, the U.S. is suddenly no longer the epicenter of market trouble but rather the best hope for global prosperity. The question everyone is asking now is, Can the U.S. lead the world again?—-economically, at least.

Times have changed since the U.S. last found itself in a similar position. Then, back in the late 1990s, when the Asian debt crisis had everyone predicting the end of a great run of global growth, the worst-case scenario never came to pass. Even as China and the other big Asian markets tanked, U.S. growth powered along at nearly 4%, helping the rest of the world maintain a respectable 2.5% average.

But now China represents four times as much of the world’s growth as it used to, having swapped places with Europe in terms of importance. The debt crisis and major economic slowdown happening in the world’s most populous nation are big reasons that oil prices have fallen—Chinese businesses and consumers are using much less energy these days. That creates a contagion effect in countries like Brazil, Nigeria and Russia and in parts of the Middle East, which have economies that are increasingly driven by China. No wonder experts like Morgan Stanley’s Ruchir Sharma are proclaiming that the next global recession will be “made in China.”

What does all that mean economically for the U.S.? While the fall in oil prices is great short-term news for middle- and low-income Americans—who are already buying more gas, cars and big-ticket appliances as a result—it also makes it tougher for American energy producers to pump out of the ground all that homemade shale oil and gas we’ve been hearing about for the past several years.

Unlike the Saudis, who can practically dig with a teaspoon and hit oil, we have to frack for it, and that’s expensive. Saudis need about $25 a barrel to make money on oil. We need at least $70, and most of the energy development and production happening in the U.S. now was set up at a time when prices were over $100. Currently they are hovering around $60, thanks not only to a sluggish China but also to the unwillingness of Saudi Arabia to cut production in order to boost prices (which may be part of a complex geopolitical strategy by the Saudis to put pressure on rival petro-autocrats in Iran, as well as Putin’s Russia).

All of this matters, and not just because energy is the de facto scoreboard for the global economy these days. If U.S. energy producers decide that they can’t afford to stay in the game with prices so low, that could hurt American manufacturers who were basing their expansion plans on cheap power. They might cut jobs, which cuts consumer spending, which cuts jobs … head-spinning, I know. The bottom line is that the evolution of the global economy over the past couple of decades blunts the ability of the U.S. to carry the rest of the world economically in the years ahead.

While it’s an amazing thing that the U.S. is likely to outgrow many emerging markets this year, the crucial question will be how robust the U.S. recovery will remain in the face of the global slowdown. At the risk of being a Cassandra, I’d feel better if I thought the U.S. recovery had been built on a firmer foundation, like a strong housing recovery or a real pickup in wages. Neither is the case. Rather, this recovery is genetically modified—it was engineered by the Fed’s $4 trillion money dump and interest rates that are still near zero. As they begin to rise—as they almost certainly will toward the middle to end of 2015—the monetary scientists in Washington will step back from the petri dish and see if the economy can sustain what they kick-started. Only then will we be able to gauge whether the U.S. has regained its position as the driver of the global economy.

TIME Companies

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz Sounds Off on Racism in America

Schultz talks with employees after grand jury announcements in Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases

Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, is well known for taking a stand on political issues, from veterans rights to overcoming political gridlock (remember those Come Together cups during the debt ceiling debacle and government shutdown?). Over the last few days, he’s stepped into the tricky terrain of racial issues and police brutality, with an impromptu Open Forum at the Starbucks Support center in Seattle, in which he offered Starbucks employees a chance to sound off about their own experiences with racism and racial issues. On Tuesday, he released the highly emotional video from that meeting to all 135,000 Starbucks employees in the U.S., along with a letter (below) provided exclusively to TIME in which he outlined his concern about the economic and political effects of racism and increasing social polarization in America. “I’ve watched with a heavy heart as tragic events and unrest have unfolded across America, from Ferguson, Missouri to New York City to Oakland, California,” wrote Schultz. “I’m deeply saddened by what I have seen, and all too aware of the ripple effect.”

Indeed, it’s an issue I’ve spoken about in depth with Schultz. As I wrote several days ago, Starbucks is a perfect retail proxy for the American economy, which is increasingly bifurcated, a nation of latte buyers and those who sell the coffee. The minute-by-minute data that Starbucks gets on consumer spending is perhaps the most sensitive indicator of U.S. consumer confidence around, so it was startling to hear from Schultz that coffee sales took a hit during the riots in Ferguson, which is something that concerns him not only from the point of view of the economy and U.S. consumers — whom he calls “fragile” — but from a political stability point of view as well. “I don’t want to go into specifics,” Schultz told me the day after riots in New York City, following the announcement that a grand jury would not indict a police officer in the chokehold-related death of Eric Garner, “but I can tell you that the volatile situation in Ferguson and the situation in New York had an immediate negative effect on consumer behavior across the country.” What’s more, Schultz says he believes there’s a growing despondency amongst the public that government officials simply aren’t up to the task of dealing with these issues, something that will have an effect on business and the economy, even in the midst of a so-called “recovery.”

“I talk to other people who are running national retail companies,” says Schultz. “We’re at the heart of the holiday season, and there are protests going on throughout the country, but aside from that, the American people have a fractured level of trust and confidence in government today. That’s a fact. Over the last year, if you track the bar graph of where that [trust] was a year ago and where it is today, it has continued to go down,” he adds. “So I think every consumer business, no matter who you are or what you do, is fighting against the cloud that is hanging over the American people, about how they’re feeling about the country, how they’re feeling about their future — and all of that is directly linked to their lack of faith and confidence and trust in the leadership in Washington.”

Those sentiments mirror some of the political statements Schultz made during his investor conference in Seattle a few days ago, leading to speculation that he may be considering a push into politics, or even contemplating a run as a third-party candidate (Schultz has stopped giving personal political donations out of disgust with both parties). While sources close to him say he’s considered politics in the past, Schultz tells me he feels he can “do more to effect change where I am right now” and isn’t considering a run at the moment.

That said, he won’t shy away from political discussion, and from sounding off on his own experiences. (Schultz, now a billionaire, grew up in the projects in Brooklyn.) He’s planning more Open Forum meetings in the coming weeks to discuss race issues, and beyond that he also has big plans to do more around veterans hiring, youth employment and student debt issues in the coming months.

“If I feel like I can sincerely attack a problem and make a difference, I’m going to jump in and try and do it. There are clearly such significant and substantive problems that need to be addressed, and this long tail, which has been going on for years, is getting to the point where it’s going to have a systemic effect on — forget the national economy, on the country [as a whole]. The conscience of the country. The ability of the country to continue to succeed at the level it once did,” Schultz says. “I came from a family that lived on the other side of the tracks and the American promise and the American dream was available to me; what I think about and what I’m concerned about is, is that going to be possible for those kinds of young people who grew up on the other side of the road today?” It’s a question that even in the midst of an economic recovery is becoming more and more pressing, for citizens, business people and politicians alike.

The full text of Schultz’s letter is below:

To: Starbucks partners; managing directors for company-operated and joint venture markets

Date: December 16, 2014

Re: Message from Howard: It Starts with Conversation

Dear partners,

Like many of you these past weeks, I have watched with a heavy heart as tragic events and unrest have unfolded across America, from Ferguson, Missouri to New York City to Oakland, California. Personally, I am deeply saddened by what I have seen, and all too aware of the ripple effect.

I have asked myself what it means not to be a bystander, as a citizen and as a Starbucks partner. What are our individual and collective responsibilities to our country, as well as to our own company?

Last week, one thing became clear: we cannot continue to come to work every day aware of the difficult and painful experiences facing our nation, and not acknowledge them, together, as a company. Indeed, despite the raw emotion around the events and their underlying racial issues, we at Starbucks should be willing to talk about them internally. Not to point fingers or to place blame, and not because we have answers, but because staying silent is not who we are.

On Wednesday, December 10, the morning after the protests in Berkeley, California, I called an impromptu Open Forum at our Starbucks Support Center in Seattle. The meeting was strictly internal, solely for Starbucks partners. There was no planning and I did not announce the meeting’s topic. All I knew was that we needed to come together, in a safe space, and have a conversation about what was happening in our nation.

For an hour a microphone was passed from partner to partner. People spoke with grace and emotion. Many shared personal experiences going as far back as childhood, and offered ideas about how to move the conversation, our company and our country forward. People spoke with such conviction and vulnerability. Everyone demonstrated compassion and personal courage. The Forum was at times uncomfortable, yet overall it was enlightening. It provided many of us, myself included, with a deeper understanding around issues of race and the realities facing our country.

What struck me most was how open our partners were to one another. Despite differences in life experiences, people showed civility and respect for the subject matter as well as for each other. I was not surprised, but I was incredibly proud. Wednesday’s Open Forum was the most powerful I’d ever attended in the 25 years that Starbucks has been holding them for our partners around the world. As you watch the video from that Open Forum, you too may agree.

The dialogue did not end once we returned to our work. In an unprecedented outpouring of emails, in our hallways, in my office, in our partner networks, many of you shared more thoughts. Most significantly, you expressed gratitude for having the opportunity to share, to listen and to learn. That sentiment alone made it clear to me that Starbucks could continue to do something we’ve always done: foster community and conversation.

That is why the Leadership Team and I have decided to expand opportunities for civil discourse within Starbucks, among our partner communities. We plan to host internal-only Open Forums around America and will begin in January in Oakland, St. Louis and New York City. Details about these events will be shared in the coming days.

I’ve always believed that core to our success has been our commitment to achieve the balance between our social conscience and responsible commerce. This is one of those times. Starbucks is far from perfect, and we do not claim to have solutions to our country’s complicated social issues. However, doing what is right for society and doing what is right for business cannot be mutually exclusive endeavors. While it is always safer to stand on the sidelines, that is not leadership. Today more than ever companies such as Starbucks must use their platforms and resources to create opportunities for their people, as well as for the communities they serve.

So today, we choose to act in a way that is authentic to us, by nurturing a sense of community and bringing people together through the lens of humanity. At this trying time, it is important for all of us to be open and to be present.

Onward,

Howard

Read next: Inside Starbucks’ Radical New Plan for Luxury Lattes

TIME Retail

Go Inside Starbucks’ Wild New ‘Willy Wonka Factory of Coffee’

Founder Howard Schultz shows us his new concept for the future of the coffee chain

On Dec. 5, founder Howard Schultz debuted part of his new strategy for Starbucks: his first flagship “Roastery,” a 15,000 square foot space that is both a coffee roasting facility, and a consumer retail outlet. The place is to coffee what FAO Schwartz is to toys or Dover Street Market is to fashion—retail theatre. You can watch beans being roasted, talk to master grinders, have your drink brewed in front of you in multiple ways, lounge in a coffee library, order a selection of gourmet brews and locally prepared foods. (The entire store is crafted from Made in America materials, by regional artisans.) The architecture says “niche” not mass, as does the merchandise—copies of the New Yorker are scattered alongside top of the line espresso machines and bags of reserve beans marked with their crop year.

Schultz calls it his “Willy Wonka factory of coffee,” and it speaks to the fact that in retail, as in nearly every aspect of the economy these days, there seems to be two directions—up, or down. At the Roastery, a latte made from beans cut and roasted in front of you only minutes before can cost more than $6 bucks. And the truth is that they could probably charge a lot more. There’s little price sensitivity for the upscale consumer these stores—and the smaller “Reserve” stores inspired by the flagship, which will be coming to a town near you in 2015—will target.

For more, click here.

TIME Retail

Inside Starbucks’ Radical New Plan for Luxury Lattes

An employee pours milk into a cardboard coffee cup inside a Starbucks Corp. coffee shop in London on June 9, 2014.
An employee pours milk into a cardboard coffee cup inside a Starbucks Corp. coffee shop in London on June 9, 2014. Bloomberg/Getty Images

Your Starbucks is about to change radically—get ready for $6 coffee

If there is a retail proxy for America, it must be Starbucks. The company has 12,000 stores in the US, doing 47 million transactions per week, serving 70 million unique customers. One in eight people found a Starbucks card in their Christmas stocking last year. So when Starbucks founder and CEO Howard Schultz says something about consumers, people tend to listen. (Indeed, everyone from President Obama to the heads of major investment banks have been known to ring him for a cup by cup read on the state of the economy.)

At the company’s biannual investor conference this week, Schultz gave his take on the state of the recovery in the US. While Schultz is bullish, laying out some robust growth targets for his company, he also said, “We are living at a time when the world is very fragile, and that effects consumer confidence.” Just like the overall economy, Starbucks is bifurcated—stores in some affluent cities are doing more business than ever, while others have yet to spring back from the last several years of crisis and recession.

What’s more, the way people are shopping is changing profoundly. According to Schultz, the “seismic shift” in consumer spending from bricks and mortar retail outlets to online shopping that the company first noted last year has become “a tidal wave.” That’s going to change the entire nature of retail and public spaces. As Schultz put it, “I wouldn’t want to be a mall operator five to ten years from today,” referencing the fact that foot traffic in malls and in Main Street shopping areas throughout the country is way down from last year.

The problem is, that’s where most Starbucks today are located. Solution: a whole new approach to stores that mirrors this new economy. Just as fashion brands have “haute” couture and mass market lines, Starbucks will now have luxury “reserve” stores, and many more express kiosks, mobile coffee trucks and all kinds of specialized retail outlets purpose built for specific spaces. Think luxe roadside coffee pit-stops, or “hammerhead” shaped drive through outlets made out of used cargo containers that will sit in the entrance to highways or on small silvers of land near a bowling alley or another local attraction.

The idea will be to make Starbucks a destination in and of itself, one that’s not so dependent on foot traffic. “People are still longing for connection, and a sense of community, perhaps more so now that they are spending more time at their computers, or working from home,” says Schultz. But in order to preserve the “third place,” Schultz says the company will increasingly have to offer “experience, rather than just a product.”

On Dec. 5, Schultz debuted part of the new strategy—his first flagship “Roastery,” a 15,000 square foot space in Capitol Hill, Seattle that is both a coffee roasting facility, and a consumer retail outlet. The place is to coffee what FAO Schwartz is to toys or Dover Street Market is to fashion—retail theatre. You can watch beans being roasted, talk to master grinders, have your drink brewed in front of you in multiple ways, lounge in a coffee library, order a selection of gourmet brews and locally prepared foods. (The entire store is crafted from Made in America materials, by regional artisans.) The architecture says “niche” not mass, as does the merchandise—copies of the New Yorker are scattered alongside top of the line espresso machines and bags of reserve beans marked with their crop year.

Schultz calls it his “Willy Wonka factory of coffee,” and it speaks to the fact that in retail, as in nearly every aspect of the economy these days, there seems to be two directions—up, or down. At the Roastery, a latte made from beans cut and roasted in front of you only minutes before can cost more than $6 bucks. And the truth is that they could probably charge a lot more. There’s little price sensitivity for the upscale consumer these stores—and the smaller “Reserve” stores inspired by the flagship, which will be coming to a town near you in 2015—will target.

In America these days, there are two kinds of people: those that can buy lattes, and those who make them. Schultz is endeavoring to change both their lives.

Read next: How to Win Free Starbucks for Life

TIME Business

GE Makes a Big Bet on Manufacturing

Rana Foroohar is TIME's assistant managing editor in charge of economics and business.

The company’s plan to make things again is a test for the entire American economy

If one company mirrors the travails of American business over the past decade, it’s General Electric. The manufacturing giant founded by Thomas Edison in 1892–and the last of the original firms in the Dow Jones industrial average still listed on that index–grew into a multinational powerhouse that made everything from lightbulbs to locomotives as the U.S. became the world’s lone superpower. Its nickname said everything: Generous Electric. But by the time the 2008 economic crisis hit, GE had gone from being an industrial innovator to being the country’s sixth largest bank, relying on financial wizardry rather than engineering to satisfy investors.

Perhaps the most enduring quality of the broader economic recovery since then has been the gap between reality and perception. While growth and jobs are up, only about 1 in 4 Americans believes the economy is getting stronger, according to a recent survey by the investment firm BlackRock. The reason is clear: personal incomes aren’t rising, except at the very top. Historically, the key to achieving broad income growth has been creating more middle-income jobs. And those have traditionally come from the manufacturing sector.

Which is partly why, in order to save his company, CEO Jeffrey Immelt borrowed $3 billion from Warren Buffett and vowed to retool GE–away from complex financial schemes and back toward making things. GE, in other words, is trying to do what the U.S. as a whole needed to do: rebalance its economy and get back to basics.

So, six years on from disaster, how is it going?

Immelt has made progress. With the recent spin-off of GE’s consumer-finance division, which peddles financial products ranging from private-label credit cards to auto loans, the share of profits that comes from finance has gone from more than half to about 40%. The target is to get it back down to around 25%. As CFO Jeff Bornstein recently put it to me, “We had to decide whether we wanted to be a tech company that solves the world’s big problems or a finance company that makes a few things.”

GE’s executives are betting on a few megatrends, including the belief that emerging-market economies are entering a period very much like the post–World War II period in the U.S. Those countries will need new houses, bridges, roads, airports and all types of consumer goods in unprecedented quantities. The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that by 2025, emerging-economy nations will spend more than $20 trillion a year in this way. That means that future economic growth may well be centered on making things, rather than trading on their value.

To help capture its share of that action, GE is trying to copy some of Silicon Valley’s methods. The company has set up a “growth board” that operates like an internal venture-capital firm, vetting new ideas presented by employees and then dishing out a bit of time and capital to explore them. The result is that production cycles for projects like new oil-drilling equipment or LED lighting systems are shortening dramatically. An idea that once took two years to test might go from paper to production in 45 days.

The firm is also sourcing new ideas from the crowd. One recent design for a bracket on a jet engine came from a 22-year-old in Indonesia who had tapped into a website where the company posts problems and offers payouts to whoever can solve them.

Still, the big question is just how many good new jobs America’s industrial firms, small and large, will actually create in the coming years. So far, the trends are positive. In October, the Boston Consulting Group’s annual survey of senior manufacturing executives found that the number of respondents bringing production back from China to the U.S. had risen 20% in the past year. GE’s new hub in San Ramon, Calif., which was launched more than two years ago to explore the burgeoning “Internet of things” (i.e., machine-to-machine communication via the Internet), has gone from zero employees to more than 1,000. The company is also using more local small and midsize suppliers, thanks to new technologies like 3-D printing that let startups achieve more speed and scale.

Such trends at GE and elsewhere have yet to replace the 1.6 million manufacturing jobs lost in the recession. The good news about our postcrisis economy is that it is smarter and nimbler and growing in the right sectors. The bad news is that it still doesn’t have enough good jobs for those who need them. The way forward may be clear, but getting there is another story.

TO READ JOE’S BLOG POSTS, GO TO time.com/swampland

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Economy

Where the Next Financial Crisis Will Come From

financial crisis
Mutlu Kurtbas—Getty Images

It won't be from the banking sector

The next financial crisis won’t come from the banking sector. That’s the message implicit in the latest report on the global financial sector from the Financial Stability Board, the group that monitors what’s happening with the world’s money flow. Instead, it’s very likely to come from the massive and growing “shadow banking” sector—an area mostly untouched by our government regulators.

New numbers show that the shadow banking industry—which includes everything from money market funds to real-estate trusts to hedge funds—grew by a whopping $5 trillion in 2013 to $75 trillion. If you look at the sector as a percentage of the global economy, that’s nearly what is was pre-crisis, back in 2007.

That means many of the risks that used to be held on bank balance sheets have moved to the non-regulated areas of finance. This says a number of important things. First and perhaps most importantly, all the backslapping in Washington about how much “safer” our banking system is now than it was six years ago is meaningless. While banks are still plenty risky, increasingly, new financial risk isn’t being held in banks — it’s being held in places that regulators can’t see it. (see my debate with Treasury over that fact here.) That Dodd-Frank financial regulation wasn’t able to do more about this is a real pity.

One of the ways that you can already see how the shadow-banking sector is influencing the financial markets is in margin debt. That’s a measure of the amount of debt that investors are using to buy stocks – and right now, New York Stock Exchange margin debt is at record highs; some think that’s because hedge funds have become such huge market players, in some cases as large or larger than banks in terms of their influence. Margin debt at record highs is scary for many reasons, one of which is that when there’s a lot of margin debt and the market turns, it speeds up a fall, leading to the kind of snowball effect that can lead to a market crash.

While that won’t necessarily happen any time soon, it’s worth remembering that debt itself is always the best predictor of financial crisis. As plenty of research shows, over the last two hundred years or so, every single financial crisis has been preceded by a big increase in debt levels. The growth in the shadow banking sector means we now know less, not more, than we did about who’s holding debt than before the financial crisis of 2008. That’s something we should all be worried about.

TIME Economy

What You Need to Know About the Stock Market Sell-Off

For the last few years, markets were from Mars, and the real economy was from Venus. The two literally occupied different worlds, as stock prices kept rising, even as wages were stagnant and growth was slow. As of yesterday, that divide has been bridged. Stock prices finally plunged into a real correction of the kind we haven’t seen since the apex of the European debt crisis three years ago.

The question is, why now? The answer comes in two parts. First, with Europe in danger of tipping into recession, and China’s growth much lower than the official statistics would indicate (that’s one of the big reasons oil prices are down since China is now the world’s major consumer of energy), investors have realized that a wimpy recovery in the U.S. isn’t enough to buoy global growth. Sure, growth numbers were a bit better this year than last, but we’re still in a 3 percent economy that doesn’t look or feel much different than the 2 percent economy (see my Curious Capitalist column on that topic). If you think of the global economy as three legs on a stool, the legs being the U.S., Europe, and the emerging markets led by China, what’s becoming very clear to markets is that a 3 percent economy in the U.S. isn’t enough to sustain global momentum. Indeed, the U.S. may grow faster than the world as a whole this year, which is an odd thing for a developed market. It speaks to how weak the global economy as a whole still is.

Second, markets have realized that this recovery has been a genetically engineered recovery. It’s been engineered by the monetary scientists at the Fed, who’ve pumped $4 trillion into the economy since 2009 in an attempt to strengthen an economy that is fundamentally not as strong as it looks. Despite the Fed’s best efforts (and I agree that they needed to do something, especially in the beginning), the real economy simply hasn’t caught up to the markets. Unemployment has ticked down, but wages still haven’t ticked up. It’s no accident that weak retail sales in the U.S. were one of the economic indicators that triggered the sell-off. As I’ve said many times before, you can’t have a sustainable recovery, one markets can really believe in, until you have the majority of the population with more money in their pockets.

The reality is that this hasn’t happened in the last few years, and for many people, decades (the average male worker today makes less in real terms than he did in the early 1970s).

So does this mean we are in for a long, slow slide? Not exactly. I’d bet more on increased volatility (if you are a subscriber, you can read this piece I wrote on the coming Age of Volatility, back in 2011). Markets will go up and down, but as long as the U.S. is the prettiest house on the ugly block that is the global economy, money may stay parked in the largest American multinationals longer than you’d think. Whether or not our economy deserves the vote of confidence is another question.

TIME Walmart

Why Walmart Workers Losing Healthcare Might Not Be Bad

Getty Images

Ironies abound

Talk about irony. In the same week that Walmart announced employees who work less than 30 hours will be losing their health care coverage, the company also announced that it’d be getting deeper into the business of selling insurance, making it easier for customers to price shop for insurance in stores. In some ways, this mirrors Walmart’s overall business model—keep prices down for consumers, but keep wages and benefits for employees low too.

Ironically, under the rules of Obamacare, it’s possible that those part time employees will get a better deal on health care exchanges, thanks to subsidies that help lower income workers buy insurance. It’s all part of the new landscape created by the Affordable Care Act. As Obamacare turns one year old, Joe Nocera and I discussed how it’s changed healthcare, business, and the economy, on WNYC’s Money Talking.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser