A Toy for Toddlers Doubles as Code Bootcamp

A Toy for Toddlers Doubles as Code Bootcamp

Cubetto, a wooden robot developed by Primo Toys, wheels around under its own power, along a course charted by the human behind the machine. It teaches children as young as 3 the basics of computer programming. Credit Andrew Testa for The New York Times

It took a tentative step forward, turned to the left, took another step and then came to rest under a tree — at least, a drawing of one.

Cubetto does not actually walk, but the smiling wooden robot does wheel around under its own power, along a course charted by the human behind the machine.

With a $225 price tag, it is an expensive vehicle for play. Although a remote-controlled car may have been simpler, and cheaper, there was a purpose to the exercise: teaching children as young as 3 the basics of computer programming and developing technological and critical thinking skills.

It used to be that mass-market toys were the purview of the Mattels and Fisher-Prices of the world. But new financing avenues, like crowdfunding, have made it easier for entrepreneurs to get into the market.

Cubetto’s creator, Primo Toys, developed its first prototype for testing in 2013. The next year, the company took the prototype to the Emerge Education incubator, which helps entrepreneurs learn about the educational toys market. In 2015, Cubetto went to the Highway1 incubator, which focuses on hardware development and production, and last year the company raised $1.6 million in a Kickstarter campaign.

Filippo Yacob, the founder of Primo Toys, was hoping to market to toy buyers and retailers when he attended the Toy Industry Association’s New York Toy Fair in February. Mr. Yacob said he was inspired by classic building blocks to have children teach themselves coding fundamentals.

“This block-based programming language looks and feels like a toy but is in fact a procedural programming language,” he said.

He officially started his company on Nov. 20, 2013 — the same day his son was born.

“When I found out that I was going to be a dad, I started thinking about the things I wanted my son to learn,” he said. One of those things was coding, a skill set that Mr. Yacob says he believes is now as critical as reading or math.

“It is 21st-century literacy,” he said. “The idea behind Cubetto was to create a tool that would make that literacy accessible to this age group, 3 to 6.”

According to Adrienne Appell, the director for strategic communications at the Toy Industry Association, this segment — which did not even exist 20 years ago — has rapidly become a major part of the toy market.

A Cubetto kit includes the robot, a programming console and instruction tiles. It also comes with a play mat that represents the robot’s world and a book, which together allow players to follow a story line that the robot roams through. Multiple books and play mats are available, but young coders are free to design their own adventure rather than using a set story if they prefer.

Since the kits started shipping to consumers in November, reactions have been generally positive.

The Toy Insider, which reviews toys and makes purchasing recommendations to its readers, included Cubetto in its list of top STEM toys for children ages 3 to 5, although the publication has not yet formally reviewed it.

Filippo Yacob, the founder of Primo Toys, said he was inspired by classic building blocks to have children teach themselves coding fundamentals. Credit Andrew Testa for The New York Times

“It’s a really tangible example of coding, which is sort of an abstract concept,” said Marissa DiBartolo, a senior editor at The Toy Insider. “Kids may not even realize that’s what they’re doing.”

The popular wisdom on computers and “screen time” has been mixed. Some parents are certainly hesitant to put their children in front of screens too early.

In Ms. DiBartolo’s view, technology is an important part of the modern world, and finding ways to introduce technological principles at a young age helps children begin to develop necessary skills.

Ms. DiBartolo’s publication also endorses other toys that are similar to Cubetto, including one from established brands like Fisher-Price’s Codeapillar and Learning Resources’ Code and Go Robot Mouse. Both Codeapillar and the Code and Go Robot Mouse are electronic. Codeapillar is controlled by stringing together directional pieces that chart a course for the robot to travel. Code and Go is programmed with cards and also comes with obstacles so players can build a course for their robot mouse to navigate.

Robot Turtles, from Think Fun, is a traditional board game, but Ms. DiBartolo said it still taught “if/then” — a fundamental command in coding — as players use cards to direct pieces across the board toward a prize in the center.

Other start-ups are also targeting different segments of the STEM market. For example, Magical Microbes produces science experimentation kits, including one called MudWatt that teaches users about biochemical properties by having them create a mud-based battery.

STEM toys, and the skills they promote, are also finding a place in the classroom. Mr. Yacob said one of his goals was to see a Cubetto kit in every early-learning environment worldwide.

Teachers see the benefits of learning to code beyond just allowing students to create new computer programs.

Amy Flannery, the director of curriculum and instruction for the Wilson School District in Reading, Pa., said that coding helped turn children into what she calls “problem finders,” rather than just problem solvers.

“What’s important about this for children is the logic. It’s the ‘learning to build’ mind-set” of finding problems that need to be solved, she said. Thinking this way, Ms. Flannery said, students can figure out and try a path to solve a problem, and if doesn’t work, they will still have learned something they can apply to their next attempt.

For example, learning through trial and error makes students better at logical thinking, Ms. Flannery said. “I call it puzzle brain,” she said. “You’re struggling to figure something out but you know you can do it in the end. Anything that gives them that puzzle brain is something that will make them a thinking student, and that’s what I want to come into my school, someone who will try and fail and try again.”

Mr. Yacob said that Cubetto was in line with those goals. It can also serve as an introduction to other topics through the accompanying storybooks.

As with many other inventors, his goal is to have Cubetto join a long line of technologies that contribute to the human experience.

“Technology allows us to do the things that make us human, so cooking, art, architecture, engineering,” Mr. Yacob said. “Technology allows us to affirm our humanity, and this is why I think it’s so important.”


Tesla Has Something Hotter Than Cars to Sell: Its Story

Tesla Has Something Hotter Than Cars to Sell: Its Story

Elon Musk, Tesla’s founder and chief executive, entering Trump Tower for a meeting with President-elect Donald J. Trump in early January. Credit Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

As Tesla shares surged past $300 this week and the company’s market value surpassed Ford’s, even its founder, Elon Musk, acknowledged on Twitter that the company was “absurdly overvalued if based on the past.”

By “the past,” he presumably means old-fashioned valuation measures like price-to-earnings or price-to-sales ratios, the traditional benchmarks for evaluating stock prices. By those measures, Tesla — a company that lost $773 million last year — is indeed off the charts.

Tesla’s market value of nearly $49 billion is not only higher than that of Ford, which earned nearly $11 billion in profit last year, but is within easy striking distance of General Motors, which earned $9.4 billion.

“It’s nuts,” Bruce Greenwald, a professor at Columbia Business School and an expert in value investing, said of Tesla’s stock price. “Investors believe it’s going to dominate a market that no company has ever dominated before.”

But Tesla is not a stock, or a company, that is measured by the past, as Mr. Musk is well aware. He also wrote on Twitter that stock prices represent “risk-adjusted future cash flows” — and Tesla is about nothing if not a utopian future of safe, reliable, powerful, self-driving electric vehicles powered by solar-fed batteries that are easy on the environment.

In that regard, Tesla has ascended into a rarefied realm of so-called story stocks — companies that have so bewitched investors that their stock prices are impervious to any traditional valuation measures because their stories are simply too good not to be true.

And to the dismay of short-sellers, who believe they have ample rational reasons to bet against such stocks, their share prices can stay in the stratosphere for years, even decades.

These story stocks — the term was coined by James Montier, a value investor and a member of the asset allocation team at the investment management firm GMO — are relatively rare, but hardly new. Amazon’s stock surged for decades even without any meaningful profits. A more recent example is Snapchat’s parent, Snap, which is racking up large losses while its stock trades at an astronomical price-to-sales ratio of nearly 50, far higher than Tesla’s 7. (Ford’s, by comparison, is 0.3.)

Amazon and Snap both have stories that are compelling for many investors: Amazon has transformed retailing and is destined to dominate it. Snap is reinventing communication, at least for millennials and those even younger.

Early investors in Uber and Airbnb, though they remain private companies, have valued them at stratospheric multiples based largely on the notion that Uber will transform and dominate local transportation and Airbnb will revolutionize the hotel industry.

For story stocks, any development that lends credence to the story can cause a surge in already high valuations. This week Tesla reported quarterly sales that were modestly above expectations, and the stock surged 7 percent in a day. Tesla shares are up nearly 40 percent this year, even though many investors considered them overvalued in January.

A Tesla showroom in Brooklyn. The surge in the automaker’s stock far outpaces its actual sales. Credit Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Ron Baron, the billionaire investor and founder of Baron Capital, disclosed last year that he owned about 1.6 million Tesla shares. He predicted on CNBC in February that Tesla shares would quadruple by 2020 and triple again by 2025. By then he expects Tesla to become the largest company in the world as measured by market capitalization.

For all the excitement and promise surrounding such companies, there are many cautionary tales.

“Stories are great before bed, but are disastrous as a stock-selection technique,” Mr. Montier wrote in his 2009 book “Value Investing: Tools and Techniques for Intelligent Investment.” If something is expensive based on traditional valuation metrics, he said, “you had better believe its story, as that is all you have.”

Various studies have shown that stocks with high price-to-sales ratios, on average, significantly underperform market averages. For every Tesla or Uber, there’s a Valeant Pharmaceuticals or Theranos — two story stocks that seduced an astounding array of prominent investors and supporters based on stories that did turn out to be too good to be true.

And while many investors’ memories tend to be short, the so-called dot-com bubble in the late 1990s spawned scores of story stocks, nearly all of them now worthless and forgotten.

Still, Mr. Montier acknowledged, “Stories are compelling.” They appeal to intuition rather than reason. “But perhaps investors would be well advised to follow Odysseus’s example of putting beeswax in his crew’s ears and tying himself to the mast in order to avoid the disastrous, but oh so desirable, call of the Siren song.”

Will Tesla be one of the rare exceptions and, as Mr. Baron has predicted, emerge as the world’s most valuable company?

The company has won over many skeptics with its near-flawless execution, so far, and the high quality of its vehicles and high levels of consumer satisfaction. It is no longer a start-up: It delivered 25,000 vehicles in the last quarter. It is on track to achieve economies of scale, and the company says the gross margin on each vehicle is above 20 percent, far higher than the industry average. That could drive enormous future profits.

But that’s not the Tesla story — or stories — investors are betting on.

Adam Jonas, a Morgan Stanley automotive analyst who is hardly a starry-eyed optimist about the industry, upgraded Tesla shares to overweight in January. He singles out the company’s new autonomous driving technology as a compelling safety feature that will significantly reduce occupant and pedestrian injuries and fatalities. This week he said he expected “vehicle safety to be the primary differentiator in Tesla’s upcoming product offensive,” referring to the eagerly anticipated introduction of Tesla’s new, lower-price Model 3, which will be equipped with the new technology.

That Tesla is an all-electric, environmentally friendly, nonfossil-fuel vehicle — the story that once excited investors — is barely mentioned anymore.

Even more futuristic is the idea that Tesla cars will be entirely self-driving, able to cruise streets nearly full time (except when they are being charged at Tesla’s high-speed battery-charging stations). In this vision, Tesla owners will share their vehicles with Tesla when not using them, and during that time they will ferry other passengers, serving as Tesla’s version of Uber. Thus Tesla will disrupt Uber’s nascent market dominance.

And Tesla is no longer seen just as a vehicle manufacturer. With its solar and battery technologies, it is in a position to dominate two other enormous industry segments. Tesla “is reinventing the electric grid,” as Mr. Baron said on CNBC. “That’s a bigger opportunity than cars.”

Even if all that comes to pass, it may not be enough to justify Tesla’s valuation unless it can sustain a competitive advantage over time, as Mr. Greenwald, the value investing expert, put it. Tesla is spending heavily on research and development, and perhaps its technology will be difficult or impossible for others to replicate. The established automakers have had years to catch up to or overtake Tesla’s Model S, with a conspicuous lack of success.

But for committed value investors, the writing is on the wall: “Is Tesla going to dominate its industry? That’s the key question,” Mr. Greenwald said. “When it comes to the global auto industry, no one ever has, and in all likelihood, no one ever will.”


China Tech Investment Flying Under the Radar, Pentagon Warns

China Tech Investment Flying Under the Radar, Pentagon Warns

The sensor technology of Velodyne, on display at the International CES trade show in Las Vegas in 2013, is used in some driverless vehicles. The company benefited early on from a Pentagon grant. Credit Joe Klamar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

HONG KONG — China is investing in Silicon Valley start-ups with military applications at such a rapid rate that the United States government needs tougher controls to stem the transfer of some of America’s most promising technologies, a Pentagon report says.

There are few restrictions on investing in American start-ups that focus on artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles and robotics, the report contends, and China has taken advantage. Beijing, the report says, is encouraging its companies to invest for the purpose of pushing the country ahead in its strategic competition with the United States.

In some instances, Chinese companies have made under-the-radar investments intended to dodge the oversight of a government agency, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as Cfius.

Such concerns show that China is looming in America’s rearview mirror after a decades-long campaign by Beijing to close the technological gap between the two countries. Although the race is often cast in an economic light, the Pentagon report underlines the national security threat.

In recent years, China has combined domestic subsidies with aggressive investment overseas to build its own technological know-how. A government plan, “Made in China 2025,” that proposes lavishing state funds on 10 important industries has raised concerns from American and European business groups. Meanwhile, the global semiconductor industry has been shaken by Beijing-backed investment aimed at acquiring new microchip knowledge.

President Trump has said he would resist Chinese trade tactics that put American companies at a disadvantage, though it is unclear whether the topic has come up in meetings with President Xi Jinping of China that began on Thursday and continue Friday.

The report found that increasingly sophisticated commercial technology had blurred the lines between what was available to military consumers and civilian ones. Often start-ups and leading internet companies like Facebook and Google are working on products as sophisticated as anything the military has at its disposal.

“For example, V.R. for gaming is at a similar level of sophistication as the V.R. used in simulators for our armed forces,” the report said, referring to virtual reality. “Facial recognition and image detection for social networking and online shopping has real application in tracking terrorists or other threats to national security,” the report continued, which added that much of the autonomous vehicle and drone technology of today was developed using grants from the Pentagon.

In some cases, companies aided by those grants have since raised money from Chinese investors. Velodyne, for example, started developing light sensors for driverless cars after participating in a competition set up by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a unit of the Pentagon, in 2005. Since then, those sensors have been used on the United States Navy’s unmanned surface vehicles.

Last summer, the company received a $150 million joint investment from Ford and the Chinese internet giant Baidu. Baidu declined to comment on the investment.

A Velodyne spokeswoman said the round represented its first outside investment.

“The company obtained all necessary government clearances relating to the investment as part of the funding process,” the spokeswoman wrote in an email. “Notably, the investments were designed to make advanced LiDAR sensors more accessible to the broader industry, resulting in the development of safer, less expensive autonomous vehicles.”

Ashton B. Carter, the former secretary of defense, commissioned the report as an urgent review of what senior Pentagon officials have considered China’s alarming penetration of Silicon Valley, particularly in deals that finance nascent technology that has military applications.

The report found that American private industry was mostly unaware of Beijing’s efforts — many of the deals involve relatively small amounts of money — and that Washington did not have a strong understanding of the scale of the issue.

“The U.S. government does not have a holistic view of how fast this technology transfer is occurring, the level of Chinese investment in U.S. technology, or what technologies we should be protecting,” the report said.

Michael A. Brown, the former chief executive of Symantec, led the study, called “How Chinese Investments in Emerging Technology Enable a Strategic Competitor to Access the Crown Jewels of U.S. Innovation.” The New York Times reviewed a copy of the unclassified report.

Mr. Carter declined to comment on the final document issued to cabinet officials last month.

The report does not offer examples of American companies that have accepted Chinese investment and then found that their sensitive technologies were transferred to China.

But it does take exception to tactics that it says Chinese funds have used to skirt government oversight. For example, it singles out Canyon Bridge, a venture capital firm that it says was formed to buy Lattice Semiconductor, an American microchip company. The firm has Chinese capital and American management expertise. The purpose of creating Canyon Bridge was to obscure the source of capital to “enhance the possibility” that the transaction would be approved by Cfius, the report said.

Peter Kuo, a partner at Canyon Bridge, said that the there was never any intention to obscure the source of the fund’s capital, as shown by meetings it had with Cfius before the deal was signed.

Chinese investors plowed about $30 billion into early-stage technology through more than 1,000 funding deals between 2010 and 2016. During that time, participation from China rose to about 10 percent of total venture deals, with investment in crucial industries like artificial intelligence, robotics and augmented reality accelerating in 2016, according to the report.

Among the investors identified in the report are well-known private firms and funds like Alibaba and Baidu. It also points to government-sponsored investors like Westlake Ventures, a fund in Redwood City, Calif., that is owned by the Hangzhou government, and ZGC Capital, an investor owned by 17 state-owned enterprises with an office in Santa Clara, Calif.

The rising trend in venture capital investments has occurred alongside state-directed industrial espionage and online theft, which the American government has been unable to slow, the report says. In the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Silicon Valley field office, only 10 people are dedicated to counterespionage, and F.B.I. officials said in interviews for the report that it “has very limited resources relative to the threat.”

“The scale of the espionage continues to increase,” the authors say. “Despite the rise in convictions, there is no way to know how big this problem really is.”

Correction: April 7, 2017
An earlier version of this article misstated how much money Chinese investors put into American early-stage technology between 2010 and 2016. It was $30 billion, not $620 billion.


Retail Payrolls Sustain a New Blow as Shopping Habits Shift

Retail Payrolls Sustain a New Blow as Shopping Habits Shift

A worker at Walmart, the single largest private employer in the United States. Credit Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Doors at many Macy’s, Sears and J. C. Penney stores may still be open, but some of the jobs they once supported are starting to vanish.

General merchandise stores shed 34,700 jobs in March, the government announced Friday, the single most disappointing figure in a generally disappointing jobs report.

After hitting a low point during the recession in December 2009, the retail sector has reliably been churning out more jobs. Though the Labor Department’s monthly employment summary provides only a snapshot of the labor market, this is the second month in a row that retail payrolls have registered substantial losses — a possible sign that larger structural changes are in the works.

“E-commerce and technology have absolutely changed the rules of the game and given massive amounts of power to the consumer,” said Simeon Siegel, a retail analyst at Nomura. “There is a self-help mentality now. People walk around with their phones in their hand to tell them the best model and the best price. You don’t need as many people walking around trying to convince you to buy a sweater.”

The vitality of the retail sector has been muscled out of the spotlight lately by a focus on better-paying manufacturing jobs, which President Trump sees as crucial to the revival of the middle class, particularly in the Midwest and the South. But retail outlets still employ millions of Americans and serve as an entry point into the labor force, especially for those with less education and fewer skills.

Remember that while General Motors was once the single largest employer, today Walmart is.

Workers in the 1970s at a General Motors plant in Detroit. The automaker was once the single largest private employer in the United States. Credit Dan Dmitruck/United Press International

Yet even Walmart is having to contend with a sea change in the way people shop. The company, for instance, has been closing smaller stores in rural areas, according to Barbara Denham, a senior economist at Reis, a real estate data and analytics firm.

Jack Kleinhenz, the chief economist at the National Retail Federation, does not discount the magnitude of the transformation that is occurring in retail, but cautioned that the monthly job figures are also highly subject to temporary vagaries. “One of the challenges we have at this time of the year is the quirkiness of seasonal forces,” he said.

An unexpectedly warm February and snowy March and the late arrival of Easter could have elbowed the numbers in an uncharacteristic way.

Diane Swonk, the chief executive of DS Economics in Chicago, agreed. The falloff in hiring “is not a reflection of a consumer than can’t spend, but rather of how they spend,” she said. “Retail is one of the largest employers in the country, and it’s going to go through a pretty massive secular restructuring. We shop differently now, and no one has the right model.”

Most shopping is still done in person rather than online, but shopping patterns are shifting. Ms. Swonk mentioned research that shows consumers like to buy online but return things to bricks-and-mortar stores.

“Clearly, it’s just not one or the other, not just bricks or clicks,” she said. But the marketplace is rapidly changing and retailers “are not sure what the endgame is.”

E-commerce may cause a drop in retail jobs, but a rise in warehouse, distribution and transportation jobs.

At the same time, consumers have not only been changing how they shop, but what they buy. Ms. Denham noted that while the entire retail sector ended up down nearly 30,000 jobs, the restaurant industry showed a gain of 20,000 in March on top of steady previous growth.

“There’s been a shift in consumer spending from things to experiences,” she said, “that’s why restaurants are doing so well.”


Hey Hey, My My: Aging Rock Fans Still Hold Their Lighters High

Hey Hey, My My: Aging Rock Fans Still Hold Their Lighters High

Joanne Warren, center, and Mark Hover, right, listening to Yonder Mountain String Band on Thursday night at the Belly Up Tavern in Solana Beach, Calif. Now that he is retired, Mr. Hover, 65, says he attends more than 100 concerts a year. Credit Carlos Gonzalez for The New York Times

Pete Townshend of the Who struck a nerve with rock ’n’ roll rebels in 1965 with the line “I hope I die before I get old.”

But something has happened in the five decades since he wrote “My Generation”: The boomer generation got older, yet continued to love rock ’n’ roll. Now, as many of those early fans enter retirement, they are still boarding buses and trudging through muddy fields to see their favorite bands.

“It used to be that when you retired, you went to Leisure World or the old retirement complex,” said Mark Hover, a 65-year-old who lives in Moreno Valley, Calif., and retired in 2004 after 30 years working for the United Parcel Service. Now, he said, other options are more appealing to him.

“What you’re supposed to do in your golden years is more of what you love,” he said. “What I’ve loved all my life is going to see live music.” He attends more than 100 shows a year, spending thousands of dollars traveling to concerts and multiday rock festivals like Bonnaroo, in Manchester, Tenn., which he plans to attend in June. He finds that he is far from the only “old guy” — his term — rocking out.

Concerts aimed at old guys are big business. According to the music industry tracking firm Pollstar, the six-day music extravaganza Desert Trip, featuring the Who and fellow rock veterans like the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney and Neil Young, took in $160 million last year. Held in Indio, Calif., the festival catered to “an older, more affluent crowd,” Pollstar said. Mr. Hover was there, and paid $399 for his ticket.

Tickets to other concerts and festivals likely to draw audiences old enough to remember Woodstock — among them the just-announced Classic East and Classic West, with the headliners Fleetwood Mac and the Eagles, scheduled for New York and Los Angeles this summer — are also selling robustly.

Yonder Mountain String Band. Credit Carlos Gonzalez for The New York Times

Mr. Hover said he likes younger acts, such as the Raveonettes, too. The online ticketing service Eventbrite found in a 2015 study conducted by the Harris Poll that 44 percent of those ages 51 to 70 are attending more live shows now than they did in 2005. Of those concertgoers, 40 percent say they want to stay abreast of current tastes.

“My generation had this thing about, don’t trust anyone over 30,” said Sheldon Donig, 70, a retired developer from San Anselmo, Calif. “But age doesn’t seem to be an issue at the festivals I go to. Younger people don’t seem to be ageist.” He said he plans to take his R.V. in June to the Kate Wolf Music Festival in Laytonville, Calif., and in August to the Oregon Eclipse in Crook County, Ore.

For many retirees, concertgoing is a lifestyle, and not a new one. “It’s not like we were playing golf and all of a sudden quit and started seeing shows,” Mr. Donig said. “We’ve been doing this since we were in our 20s.” The difference now, he said, is that they can do more of it.

Bob McAdam, 74, a retired CVS pharmacist from Bourne, Mass., also dived deep into live music after retiring in 2014. He says he attends roughly 150 concerts or festivals a year, twice as many as when he was working. “I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I don’t play golf, and I don’t have a second home in Florida,” he said. “Music is my only hobby.”

Mr. McAdam has built a social network through his showgoing. “You get to know people, and you keep in touch with some of them,” he said. He has little time for peers of his who have given up on contemporary music.

“A lot of people not even my age, but a lot younger, have this idea that Led Zeppelin was the best thing you could listen to, and that there’s nothing worth listening to anymore,” Mr. McAdam said. “That’s just wrong. Also, hearing new music keeps you current.”

Allie Kral of Yonder Mountain String Band showing off her violin skills. Credit Carlos Gonzalez for The New York Times

Occasionally, it can exhaust you. “Festivals are thought of as a younger person’s game because it can be challenging to be out in the summer sun from morning till dusk two or three days in a row,” said Jeffrey Schneider, 54, a lawyer from Dix Hills, N.Y., who plans to retire in the next year or two to focus on concertgoing. “You need stamina. But as Warren Zevon said, ‘I’ll sleep when I’m dead.’”

Festival logistics can be especially hard on retirees with health issues, like Timothy Sanford-Wachtel, 68, a presiding Workers’ Compensation judge in Riverside, Calif., who has survived cancer. Mr. Sanford-Wachtel is planning his impending retirement around concerts and festivals. “Sometimes it’s tough to navigate my walker around 100,000 people,” he said. “But I always tell people I’m not going to quit until the Rolling Stones do.”

Dan Berkowitz, chief executive of CID Entertainment, a Philadelphia company that offers concert travel packages, said retirees tend to expect a smooth operation. “People who are a bit older have the reputation of being demanding,” he said, because they know they should not have to wait in line 45 minutes to get past security, and should not be stuck behind a billboard so they can’t see the stage. Because of retirees’ influence, he said, festival organizers, especially at shows like Desert Trip, which he described as “generally luxurious, as far as festivals go,” operate more carefully.

While clients in their 50s and older represent about 15 percent of his business, they account for about half the attendance at shows that cater to them, like Desert Trip and Fare Thee Well, a 2015 series of concerts by the surviving members of the Grateful Dead. One client in this age group, who has been going to Bonnaroo for eight years, regularly arranges for five or six buses to travel to the festival through CID. “He’s done well for himself, and when it comes time for him to have a bit of fun, he likes to bring his family and friends along,” Mr. Berkowitz said.

Millennials are often said to value experience over material things, but Mr. Berkowitz says he associates that sensibility with his most senior clients. “They know they’re not going to remember that one year they bought a new TV, or got a car with an upgraded moon roof,” he said. “They’re going to remember seeing their favorite artists with family or friends.”

Jill Seagraves, 61, of Upper Montclair, N.J., couldn’t agree more. “My parents used to like to watch golf on TV with drinks on a Sunday afternoon,” she said. “That’s nothing that ever interested me.” Instead, traveling to see festivals like Desert Trip has kept her occupied, and happy, since her children left home; she is a retired homemaker.

“There’s going to be a day where people like Neil Young don’t play anymore, and I want to be at their last tour,” she said. “I want to die with a wristband around my wrist.”


Panicked Borrowers, and the Education Department’s Unsettling Silence

Panicked Borrowers, and the Education Department’s Unsettling Silence

Jessica Schreiber, founder of the nonprofit start-up Fabscrap, at its warehouse. She is waiting to hear whether her venture will allow her to qualify for public service student loan forgiveness. Credit Jake Naughton for The New York Times

It was bad enough late last month when the Education Department, in a legal filing, informed the nation’s public servants that they shouldn’t trust its administrator’s word about whether their student loans qualify for its debt forgiveness program.

But the panic among borrowers that the newfound uncertainty unleashed helps illuminate an additional problem with the public service loan forgiveness program: Many people who believe that they qualify — and entered graduate school, borrowed piles of money and chose employers accordingly — may not realize that they are not making qualifying payments or that certain loans are not eligible for forgiveness.

The program, which began in 2007, was enacted with what was supposed to be a clear-cut proposition: People who worked for 10 years in public service jobs and made regular payments would have the remainder of their federal student loans forgiven. A wide variety of jobs were supposed to qualify, from nonprofit work to teaching in a public school or practicing medicine at a public hospital.

“This is one of the most complex programs ever concocted by Congress,” said Rohit Chopra, a former Education Department employee who also served as the student loan ombudsman for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “So many people who are counting on getting some help are going to be flatly rejected on a technicality.”

People who are in the loan forgiveness program, who think they are or who are contemplating trying to enter it ought to use this scare as an opportunity to step back and double-check their assumptions.

At least four basic things need to happen for someone to get in the program and stay in: He or she must make payments in the right way, have the right kind of employer, be in the right loan category and have the right kind of payment plan.

What follows is a mere summary, and the pitfalls, tripwires and exceptions are legion. Mandatory additional reading includes the Education Department’s fact sheet, its list of 56 questions and answers, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s tool kits for employers and employees.

Let’s take those four requirements in order:

THE RIGHT WAY TO PAY For starters, you need to make 120 payments in order to qualify. They need to be made on time and in full, and you must be working full time.

The count can get complicated for people in school, or just getting out, or in financial trouble, as well as for those with qualifying undergraduate loans who go back to school. Question 21 on the department’s list addresses some of these issues.

THE RIGHT KIND OF EMPLOYER This is what the lawsuit is about. All of the Education Department’s guidance on the topic suggests that people who work for the government or for a nonprofit with 501(c) 3 status should be eligible for forgiveness. Anyone who wants to be certain that an employer qualifies can (and should) file an employment certification form with a loan servicer. Do it every year, and every time you change jobs or servicers. Also check to make sure your payments are going correctly toward that goal of 120.

The lawsuit involved some employers with more esoteric nonprofit statuses, and the Education Department’s filing in response declared that approval of an employment certification form “does not reflect agency action on the borrower’s qualifications” for the public service loan forgiveness program. Additionally, the brief said that borrowers should not expect a truly final decision until after their 120 payments were made.

Cross your fingers, everybody! And cue the justifiable panic. Dr. Jordan Chanler-Berat, 33, an emergency room physician at a nonprofit hospital in New York City, fired off a letter to the Education Department demanding final word now about the fate of his more than $300,000 in student loans. While he had previously received letters saying that his employer qualified, he was primed to be wary. At one point, his human resources person mistakenly told him that his hospital might not qualify.

“I was going to throw up,” he said.

Jessica Schreiber, 28, the founder and sole paid employee of a nonprofit, has her own concerns. She left New York City’s Sanitation Department last year to start Fabscrap, which helps local businesses recycle their fabric. Before starting graduate school, she plotted her loans, payments and career choices according to the rules of the loan forgiveness program.

Dr. Jordan Chanler-Berat, 33, an emergency room physician in New York City. He grew worried about the status of his $330,000 in student loan debt after learning of the federal government’s legal filing in a case involving the public service loan forgiveness program.

Credit Jake Naughton for The New York Times

So when she heard the news about the lawsuit, she posted the following on Facebook: “THIS IS TERRIFYING.”

She has asked for her servicer’s blessing on the eligibility of her nonprofit, and has not heard back yet.

Since the legal filing, the Education Department has told reporters that it cannot comment on pending litigation. I didn’t ask about that. Instead, I simply asked if its servicer’s letters about whether an employer was eligible were something that borrowers should believe. Its three spokesmen did not answer by my deadline for this article.

Let’s call the Education Department’s refusal to clarify the matter exactly what it is: meanness. If the department has made mistakes with the litigants and misclassified their employers, it can fix them quickly and settle the suit without freaking out untold numbers of other borrowers.

THE RIGHT KIND OF LOAN The Education Department’s instructions, via another information page on its website, are pretty clear: You need to have what the agency refers to as a “direct” loan. As the site explains, if the word “direct” isn’t in the title of your loan, it probably doesn’t qualify. If you aren’t sure what kinds of loans you have or whether your statement from your servicer describes them correctly, you can log into the department’s website and look them up.

If you’re making payments on, say, a Federal Family Education Loan (F.F.E.L.) or a Perkins loan, those are not counted toward your 120 payments, even if you work for a qualifying employer (though the Perkins loan has its own cancellation program). You can fix this by consolidating your loans into a direct consolidation loan. Be careful, though: If you consolidate direct loans with nonqualifying loans, any forgiveness-qualifying payments you made on that old direct loan won’t count anymore. The count to 120 resets.

When Dr. Darius Amjadi, a 49-year-old pathologist and Iraq war veteran in Portland, Ore., began his work with a veterans’ hospital, he thought he had a shot at loan forgiveness from the Veterans Affairs Department’s own program. At the same time, his employer informed him that his loans would be eligible for public service loan forgiveness.

But the department’s forgiveness has not come through. And it turns out he had not been in the right kind of federal loan to qualify for forgiveness under the public service program, despite what his employer said. “If anyone had said, ‘Check your loans,’ it would have put me on notice,” Dr. Amjadi said. Now, he’s got a balance of $40,000 and has missed out on years of eligibility for forgiveness.

THE RIGHT KIND OF PAYMENTS This is the category that so worries Mr. Chopra, the former Education Department and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau student loan expert, who is now a senior fellow at the Consumer Federation of America. For starters, he points out that if you are not in some kind of income-driven repayment program (check the Education Department’s website for the names of all of the different ones), you’re not going to benefit from forgiveness and there’s a good chance that your payments don’t qualify.

A standard repayment term for student loans is 10 years, or 120 payments. Those payments may be technically eligible if you have the right employer, but if you’re making them in full (and not on an income-driven plan), you’ll have paid off the loan in 10 years and there won’t be any loan left to forgive.

Mr. Chopra worries about people working for eligible employers and making payments in something called graduated or extended repayment plans that are not income driven. If you think that sounds like you, call your servicer and ask, then ask again at a different time to be sure.

He points to data in an Education Department presentation from late last year that is available online showing that about half of the people enrolled in public service loan forgiveness have not made a single payment that qualifies toward their goal of 120. He suspects that many just don’t realize they’re in the wrong kinds of payment plans.

My inquiries to the Education Department about this matter yielded no replies.

To review, we’ve promised to help our public servants by forgiving their student loan payments after a decade. But the program is confusing, the government’s legal filings contradict its websites, and its representatives aren’t answering questions.

This is no way to treat the people who do some of the most important work in our country. But it’s also yet another reminder that as we build more complexity into our financial systems, we’re sending the message to those who must navigate them that they are on their own.

It’s a shameful message at any time, but it’s particularly galling when it’s firefighters, librarians and nurses on the receiving end.


Electronics Retailer Hhgregg Is Going Out of Business

Electronics Retailer Hhgregg Is Going Out of Business

INDIANAPOLIS — Consumer electronics chain hhgregg Inc. is going out of business and shutting down all its stores.

The Indianapolis company said Friday that it will liquidate its assets after failing to find a buyer for the business. It filed for bankruptcy protection in March.

Founded in 1955, the retailer had 220 stores in 19 states selling major appliances like washers and TVs, as well as computers and home theater systems. As of May last year, it had about 5,000 employees.

Just days before announcing its bankruptcy protection filing last month, hhgregg said it planned to trim down by closing three distribution centers and 88 stores. But the move was not enough to salvage the chain.

“While we had discussions with more than 50 private equity firms, strategic buyers, and other investors, unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in our plan to secure a viable buyer of the business on a going-concern basis within the expedited timeline set by our creditors,” said CEO Bob Riesbeck.

The company said it will start the sale of the merchandise, furniture, fixtures and equipment at its stores and distribution centers on Saturday.

It is the latest brick-and-mortar chain to buckle under due to industry changes from the rise of online shopping. Amazon.com has eaten away at sales of almost every traditional retailer. Earlier this week, shoe chain Payless ShoeSource filed for bankruptcy protection.


Richmond Fed President Resigns, Admitting He Violated Confidentiality

Richmond Fed President Resigns, Admitting He Violated Confidentiality

Jeffrey M. Lacker at the Economic Outlook Forum in 2013. Credit Steve Ruark for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Jeffrey M. Lacker, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond in Virginia, resigned abruptly on Tuesday, saying that he had broken the Fed’s rules in 2012 by speaking with a financial analyst about confidential deliberations.

Mr. Lacker said he also failed to disclose the details of the conversation even when he was questioned directly in an internal investigation.

The confession and resignation shed light on a nearly five-year-old mystery. In October 2012, Medley Global Advisors, a firm that tracks policy developments for financial investors, sent a note to its clients describing previously undisclosed details of the Fed’s plans for a new phase in its bond-buying campaign.

The Fed conducted an inconclusive investigation into the source of the leak. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission opened an insider trading investigation and referred the matter to the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan, which then began a criminal investigation, two people briefed on the matter said.

But the investigation stalled in the past couple of years, one of the people said. As the various government authorities sought to resolve the matter, negotiations heated up about six weeks ago. The statute of limitations on the case was due to expire in the fall.

Mr. Lacker decided to announce his resignation after being told by the authorities that they had completed their investigation into his role, a lawyer representing him said.

“Dr. Lacker has cooperated with the Department of Justice and has been informed that no charges will be brought and that the investigation as to him is complete,” said the lawyer, Richard Cullen, a partner at McGuireWoods. (Mr. Lacker has a doctorate in economics from the University of Wisconsin.)

The Fed’s Office of the Inspector General said Tuesday that its investigation also was now complete. It is not clear whether any other investigations are in progress.

The episode occurred after the Fed said in September 2012 that it would begin to accumulate mortgage bonds until job growth improved substantially, a new chapter in its campaign to stimulate economic growth in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

On Oct. 3, a day before the Fed released an account of its deliberations, Regina Schleiger, a Medley analyst, sent a note to clients saying the Fed was likely to announce in December that it would buy Treasuries too. The note also said that Fed officials were considering a statement that the central bank would not raise interest rates before the unemployment rate fell below a threshold of 6.5 percent.

Mr. Lacker said Tuesday in his statement — issued by McGuireWoods rather than the Richmond Fed — that he had not provided any confidential information about the Fed’s deliberations to Ms. Schleiger, whom he did not name.

Instead, he said that Ms. Schleiger mentioned the information and that he had failed to make clear that he could not comment. The next day, after seeing Ms. Schleiger’s memo, Mr. Lacker said, “I realized that my failure to decline comment on the information could have been taken by the analyst, in the context of the conversation, as an acknowledgment or confirmation of the information.”

He added, “I deeply regret the role I may have played.”

After the leak, the C.F.T.C. pursued an investigation under its “Eddie Murphy rule.” This rule was a nod to Mr. Murphy’s 1983 movie “Trading Places,” which humorously exposed the legality of insider trading in commodities.

In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act adopted some restrictions on federal employees intentionally providing nonpublic government information to help other people trade in certain markets.

Yet the investigation stalled as the agency and Manhattan federal prosecutors were unable to serve a subpoena on Medley because it considers itself to be a news organization, the people briefed on the matter said. The Justice Department generally avoids issuing subpoenas to news organizations.

Separate from the insider trading rules, the Fed had announced a new policy in 2011 restricting contact between policy makers and market intelligence firms like Medley, which traded on the perception that analysts had access to inside information. Officials were instructed to avoid conversations that might contribute to such impressions.

Mr. Lacker said Tuesday that in speaking with Ms. Schleiger he may have violated this policy, too, regardless of the contents of the conversation. He acknowledged speaking with her multiple times.

Mr. Lacker, 61, was the longest-serving member of the Fed’s policy-making committee. He became president of the Richmond Fed in August 2004. He had previously announced that he planned to resign in October.

The Richmond Fed said it would continue to search for a new president, and that its first vice president, Mark L. Mullinix, would lead the bank in the interim. Mr. Lacker was not a voting member of the Fed’s policy committee this year.

The Fed has sought to limit leaks in recent years both by sharing more information with the public and by tightening its communications policies.

In a statement, the Fed said, “We appreciate the diligent efforts made to bring this matter to its conclusion.”

Correction: April 5, 2017
An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misstated the year that a photograph of Jeffrey M. Lacker was taken. It was 2013, not 2012.


NRG, a Power Company Leaning Green, Faces Activist Challenge

NRG, a Power Company Leaning Green, Faces Activist Challenge

Barry Smitherman in 2013, when he was chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission, which largely regulates the oil and gas industry. Now on the board of the energy giant NRG, he has called global warming a hoax. Credit Todd Wiseman for The Texas Tribune

Over the years, NRG, a leading independent power producer whose fleet once depended heavily on coal, has made big bets on low-carbon energy technologies and publicized its embrace of sustainability as essential to its future.

It pursued developing renewable energy for customers large and small and set aggressive goals to reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide — 50 percent by 2030, and 90 percent by 2050.

But now, the company finds its strategy challenged from within.

Activist hedge-fund investors, intent on extracting value from NRG assets, have installed two directors on the board who, in one potential approach, would push to sell off some of the company’s renewable-power projects, raising questions about how it would meet its clean-energy goals.

Raising further questions, one of the directors installed by the activists, Barry T. Smitherman, a lawyer and former energy industry regulator from Texas, has publicly questioned accepted climate science and called global warming a hoax. “Don’t be fooled — not everyone believes in global warming,” he said on Twitter from a presentation called “The Myth of Carbon Pollution” at a conference of regulators in 2013.

And that has drawn the attention of New York City’s comptroller, Scott M. Stringer, who oversees the city’s pension funds that are shareholders in NRG. On Friday, he filed a letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission urging shareholders to oust Mr. Smitherman at their annual meeting on April 27.

“In light of Mr. Smitherman’s stated views on climate change, which are incompatible with NRG’s disclosed business strategy and risks, we question his ability to act in the best interests of NRG and its shareholders,” Mr. Stringer wrote in the letter. “Additionally, we believe his role on the board sends a demoralizing message to the many NRG employees responsible for implementing the company’s existing business strategy and managing its risks.”

Mr. Smitherman did not return an email or phone call seeking comment about his views and how the board shake-up might affect NRG’s long-term strategies and goals.

The conflict has its roots in efforts led by Elliott Management, a multibillion-dollar hedge fund run by Paul E. Singer, and Bluescape Energy Partners, run by C. John Wilder, a former executive at the Texas utility TXU who has been credited with its turnaround.

Under Mr. Singer, an early titan of the hedge-fund industry who has also made a name for himself as a top Republican donor, Elliott has been known for its no-holds-barred approach to taking on companies and governments over its investments around the world.

As an activist investor, Elliott quietly builds up equity stakes in companies until it has a big enough position to start rattling the cages of a company’s management. In South Korea, Elliott became the first investor to publicly spar with Samsung, a conglomerate run by one of the country’s most powerful corporate dynasties. In Argentina, Elliott was pilloried in the local press as a “vulture” investor for waging a decade-long battle with the government over its defaulted debt.

In its investment in NRG, Elliott has so far remained largely behind the scenes. But in an emailed statement on Thursday, Elliott said that if a buyer in the market were willing to pay a premium for some of NRG’s renewables businesses, “it may be a good decision for NRG and its shareholders to crystallize that value.”

Most of the company’s power plants run on fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, but it has extensive wind and solar farms, including several unfinished projects it bought last year from SunEdison, which had gone bankrupt. Earlier this year, the company reported a loss of $891 million for 2016, largely because of low natural gas prices, down from a $6.4 billion loss the year before.

As for investor concerns about the appointment of Mr. Smitherman, Elliott pointed to the fact that Mr. Smitherman had extensive knowledge of the Texas regulatory landscape. NRG is one of the largest energy suppliers in Texas, and some of its assets in the state could be considered for sale, requiring extensive knowledge of the regulatory hurdles.

Mauricio Guiterrez, chief executive of NRG, at its headquarters in Princeton, N.J. The building, opened last year, is described by the company as an “ultra-green” building emphasizing renewable energy technology. Credit Bryan Anselm for The New York Times

“Having someone with Mr. Smitherman’s strong Texas-centric utility regulatory background is crucial to helping NRG navigate this process,” said Michael O’Looney, an Elliott spokesman.

“At NRG, the debate is not over clean versus conventional generation,” Mr. O’Looney said. “The debate is simply over who is the best long-term owner of individual assets and fleets of assets that currently reside inside the broader NRG portfolio.”

Mr. Smitherman and Mr. Wilder are two of three independent board members on a five-member committee formed as part of the agreement with Elliott and Bluescape to make recommendations about cost savings, asset sales and other potential actions, according to Mr. Stringer’s letter. The company’s full board has 13 directors, according to its website.

It was not until around 2013, when he announced his candidacy for state attorney general, that Mr. Smitherman began publicly questioning climate science and global warming, according to energy experts in Texas. He appears to still support the development of renewable energy, writing in The Dallas Morning News in December about how beneficial Texas wind power development had been to the state.

NRG has reeled in recent years as it has sought to transform itself from a conventional-energy giant into a leader in the clean-energy economy.

“NRG is caught between what we consider the next generation of power supply and the status quo,” said Travis Miller, an energy and utilities analyst at Morningstar. “The move toward renewable energy and gas generation is a trend that won’t stop anytime soon so every power generator is trying to develop a strategy where they can benefit from the transition period.”

David Crane, a former chief executive, had tried to do that by transforming the company into the Google of green energy, investing in big renewable-energy projects and buying small start-ups to help capture emerging markets like rooftop solar, electric-vehicle charging and home automation. But the company pulled back from those ambitions as a combination of low oil and gas prices and the threat of rising interest rates led to turbulence in the energy markets and skittishness among renewable-energy investors and the company’s stock tumbled. Despite an elaborate reorganization aimed at cutting costs, reducing debt and better aligning the businesses with investors, Mr. Crane was pushed out in 2015, and replaced by Mauricio Gutierrez, the executive vice president and chief operating officer.

Mr. Gutierrez has continued to pursue the company’s sustainability and carbon reduction efforts, but in a more restrained way, focusing more on large-scale renewable projects and less on the emerging markets.

Marijke Shugrue, an NRG spokeswoman, said: “These are not altruistic, sustainability-only goals. We are firm believers in climate change and that CO2 emissions are a leading factor.”

The company, for instance, recently re-signed the Business Backs Low Carbon pledge organized by Ceres, an advocacy group.

But corporate aims may end up in the hands of directors with a different agenda.

In January, Elliott and Bluescape announced that they had each bought a large stake in NRG and were teaming up to put pressure on the company to make changes to its business. NRG was “deeply undervalued” and could be worth more if its management undertook “operational and financial improvements” as well as “strategic initiatives,” Elliott said at the time in a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Elliott said that Mr. Wilder and his team had “directly relevant experience in effectuating such improvements,” adding that they were in a dialogue with the board.

By February, NRG announced that it had struck an agreement with Elliott, which owned 6.9 percent of the company’s stock, and Bluescape, which had 2.5 percent, to replace two outgoing directors and appoint Mr. Wilder and Mr. Smitherman.

NRG also agreed to undertake a business review of the different parts of the company, including examining “potential portfolio and/or asset de-consolidations.”

The company’s renewables business is likely to be among the assets spun off. Some analysts have argued that those businesses are undervalued because they are housed within NRG’s legacy business, which involves burning natural gas, coal and oil.


Trump Shouldn’t Focus on Job Growth. The New Numbers Show Why.

Trump Shouldn’t Focus on Job Growth. The New Numbers Show Why.

When the first employment report of the Trump presidency was released a month ago, the administration was quick to point to the strong growth in the number of jobs in the United States in February: 235,000, in that initial estimate.

It was a mistake to emphasize it, and the newest numbers, released Friday, show why.

It’s not just that the economy gained a mere 98,000 jobs in March, or that the Labor Department revised earlier months’ gains down by a combined 38,000 (though that apparent volatility alone is an argument for why government officials should be cautious in promoting any given month’s numbers).

More broadly, the United States economy has arrived at a place where job gains, one of hundreds of data points released as part of the monthly report, are not really the best indicator of how things are going.

When the economy is at risk of falling into a recession or struggling to grow out of one, the change in the jobs numbers really is the best single number to understand the state of the economy. While it has a lot of month-to-month statistical variance, it is a fairly reliable indicator — especially if you average a few months together — of whether the economy is growing, contracting or stagnant.

But there are no signs now that the United States is in recession or close to one. And once the economy is close to full employment, gains in jobs take on lesser importance. A few years ago, when the unemployment rate was at 7 or 8 or 10 percent, the level of job gains was driven by employers’ confidence about the economic outlook.

Now, with the jobless rate at 4.5 percent, the binding constraint is the number of available workers. Over the long run, employers can add jobs only as quickly as there are people to fill them. That is determined by a mix of demographic factors like birthrates and immigration levels, along with choices people make like whether to work, retire or stay home with a child.

President Trump during a visit to Ypsilanti, Mich., last month. He has often vowed to bring back jobs, but wage growth may be a more important statistic at this point. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

It’s true that a more booming economy can tend to pull more people into the work force. As President Trump has often noted, there are indeed millions of people not in the labor force who might be in a more robust economy.

But we don’t know how many of those can be coaxed back to the work force as the economy looks stronger, or at what pace. That being the case, it’s hard to know with any certainty what, in 2017 and beyond, would constitute a good level of job growth and what would be a poor one.

Instead of focusing on job growth numbers, which are poised to decelerate anyway thanks to the economy’s near-full-employment status, it would behoove the Trump administration to focus on job market metrics that shed more light at this stage of the recovery and that speak directly to the president’s goal of getting more people back in the job market.

■ Wage growth — more specifically, average hourly earnings for private-sector employees — seems poised to grow, and this would represent true progress for American workers. It rose 0.2 percent in March, a solid reading, and is now up 2.7 percent over the last year. That’s pretty good given that inflation is low, but there’s plenty of room for it to rise further as employers get into bidding wars for talented workers.

In fact, if wage growth were stronger, you would expect it to have the positive effect of pulling people on the bench into the labor force. People who don’t see the value in working for $10 an hour might do so for $15.

■ Then there is the direct measure of how many Americans are working, the employment-to-population ratio. You can refine it to include only those who are between 25 and 54 to filter out students who aren’t working because they are in school and retirees who are on the golf course.

That number showed a bit of progress in March as well — it rose to 78.5 percent from 78.3 percent. But it remains below the 80.3 percent recent high in 2007, and well below the 81.9 percent record high in April 2000.

If the Trump administration sets its foremost goals as improvement in those numbers, wage gains and prime-age employment-to-population ratio, it will be focused on the issues that truly bedevil the United States economy in 2017, and have a considerably better chance of success.