HubbardOBrienEconomics.com Blog

Featured

A View of the Wealthy in a 1930’s Mystery Novel

Image generated by ChatGPT

The period between the two World Wars—the 1920s and 1930s—is often called the Golden Age of Mystery Novels. Authors such as Agatha Christie and Dorothy Sayers in the United Kingdom, and Ellery Queen (pen name of cousins Frederic Dannay and Manfred B. Lee) and Mary Roberts Rinehart in the United States, topped the bestseller lists and are still read today.

One of the attractions of mystery stories from this period is the, often accidental, insights they give into life during those times. Some customs differ sharply from those of today. For instance, absolutely everyone—man or woman—both smokes and drinks alcohol. Racial attitudes were far from enlightened. For a particularly shocking example, search online for the original title of the Agatha Christie novel now published as And Then There Were None. Attitudes toward women were at least somewhat less problematic in part because some of the most widely read mystery writers were women.

But in some respects, the attitudes of characters in these novels could be surprisingly contemporary. British writer Freeman Wills Crofts wrote a series of mysteries featuring the Scotland Yard Chief Inspector Joseph French. The following appears in Crofts’s novel Fatal Venture, first published in 1939:

“Generally speaking, the deceased was not popular. … He was also a keen and successful businessman, and, as the Chief Inspector knew, one man’s gain meant another man’s loss and there must have been many financial casualties who had no cause to love him.”

As a side note, if you had to be a character in a Golden Age mystery, you absolutely didn’t want to be an unpleasant, older, wealthy man. The half-life of such characters was generally measured in hours. In this case, John Stott—the person Inspector French is referring to—is the wealthy victim whose murder French has to solve.

Image of the novel from Amazon.com

Inspector French’s view that “one man’s gain meant another man’s loss” echoes recent arguments that rich businesspeople don’t deserve the wealth their success brings. This view runs counter to the fundamental economic idea that if a transaction is freely entered into, the transaction must benefit both parties. Otherwise, why would the party who is made worse off have agreed to the transaction?

Even in the case where there is an imbalance in economic power—for instance, when a consumer is buying a product from a monopolist—the purchase must have made the buyer better off, or he or she wouldn’t have made it. In this case, though, we can argue that, by forming monopolies, sellers make themselves better off at the expense of consumers. In the United States, the antitrust laws are intended to deal with that situation by making illegal mergers and other business practices that make consumers worse off.

In general, though, entrepreneurs, by starting new businesses or introducing new products, make consumers better off even if the entrepreneurs become very wealthy. In a famous academic paper, Nobel laureate William Nordhaus of Yale University, estimated the “fraction of the benefits from new technologies that have been captured by innovators … as compared to the fraction that have been passed on in lower prices.” He found that innovators captured only 2.2 percent of the social returns to innovation. The remainder of the returns represent consumer surplus. (We discuss the role of entrepreneurs in a market system in Microeconomics, Chapter 2, Section 2.3. We discuss the concept of consumer surplus in Chapter 4.)

In an opinion column on bloomberg.com, Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute noted that “a back-of-the-envelope calculation [applying] Nordhaus’s result to Bezos suggests he has created $5.4 trillion in value for the rest of society.” As Strain’s reference to this calculation as being “back-of-the-envelope” indicates, it’s not clear that Nordhaus’s analysis, which is based on data for the U.S. nonfarm business sector, can be applied to the contribution of a single entrepreneur like Bezos. But most economists would agree with the general point that entrepreneurs generate benefits to consumers that are far greater than the return the entrepreneurs receive for their contributions—even if the entrepreneurs end up earning billions.

Inspector French solved the mystery of John Stott’s murder, proving himself to have been an excellent detective even if he wasn’t a very good economist.

Featured

Glenn’s Policy Advice to President Trump

Image of the White House generated by ChatGPT

Note: In this opinion column, Glenn discusses issues—including the U.S. current account deficit, the role of the U.S. dollar in the international financial system, and the effect of the exchange value of the dollar on the U.S. economy—covered in Macroeconomics, Chapter 18 (Economics, Chapter 28).

This opinion column first appeared in Project Syndicate.

The Policy Pivot Trump Needs

US President Donald Trump’s administration believes that the dollar’s reserve-currency status has tilted the global playing field against America and undermined the country’s competitiveness. While wrong about the dollar, the White House is right about an issue that economists—who, unlike voters, abstract from the exchange rate’s distributional effects—often ignore. As November’s midterm elections approach, the administration needs a policy pivot if it is to meet its rebalancing goals and strengthen the US economy.

To be sure, the dollar’s global role, all else being equal, increases its value but also leaves the United States running larger current-account deficits than it would otherwise. But focusing solely on a reserve currency’s challenges overlooks its benefits and, importantly, the non-tariff policy tools that can address domestic spillovers—the impetus for Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, which aimed to rein in imports and promote exports.

Economists have responded to the Trump administration’s concerns about US Federal Reserve swap lines with foreign central banks by arguing that they are a feature, not a bug, of the dollar’s position, which requires the US to supply greenbacks when needed. They have also pointed out that while current-account deficits may be associated with a strong dollar, the US has had large trade imbalances, with the attendant fretting, even when the greenback’s foreign-exchange value has been relatively low.

Instead, economists emphasize the dollar’s “exorbitant privilege,” including lower borrowing costs and the ability to impose financial sanctions on geopolitical adversaries. Moreover, they counter that tariffs are not an effective response to the dollar’s impact on US exports because they raise domestic manufacturing costs (roughly half of US imports are intermediate goods) and do not reduce the macro imbalances driving the overall trade deficit.

These arguments are correct, but also incomplete. In fact, Trump’s concerns reflect a crucial political-economy question: the distributional implications of dollar dominance.

To see why, consider Robert E. Rubin’s tenure as US Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration. His mantra was that “a strong dollar is good for America.” He could have been referring to the features of the US economy that underpin the dollar’s status, such as institutional and policy stability and deep financial markets. Whatever the exact meaning, his stance reflected the prevailing view on Wall Street, which benefited from the stronger dollar implied by reserve-currency status.

But for all the benefits that accrue to financiers and consumers, a stronger dollar makes it harder for US industry to compete globally, to the detriment of industrial employment, incomes, and communities. Trump’s position is thus reminiscent of the political tug-of-war in 1925 in the UK over returning pound sterling to its pre-World War I exchange rate under the gold standard. Despite supporting financial interests and the stronger pound, then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill said: “I would rather see finance less proud and industry more content.”

Trump’s economic agenda recognizes the adverse effects of globalization and technological advances on certain parts of American society, in contrast to economists’ emphasis on averages and overall benefits. But Trump misses the simple insight that there are more—and better—ways to help US manufacturing and its left-behind workers than through a weaker dollar alone. He has several policy instruments at his disposal that can address these voters’ concerns and help achieve his administration’s goals while preserving support for the dollar’s reserve-currency role.

For starters, the administration can support a robust industrial sector by increasing public funding for basic research, which advances technology, and a network of applied research centers to diffuse advances in industrial processes. Streamlining regulatory approvals for construction and electricity transmission will also be crucial.

Second, to help workers develop new skills, the administration could channel more resources toward community colleges, while a substantially expanded Earned Income Tax Credit would increase rewards for work. Lastly, more targeted place-based aid could help those areas facing severe disruptions from globalization and technology.

By focusing on the problems associated with a stronger dollar, Trump and his economic advisers have asked an old question in a new way. Their mistake is insisting on answering it with the wrong instrument. Weakening the dollar, including by eroding policy predictability and the economic institutions underpinning its hegemony, will exacerbate the affordability pressures many Americans face and harm the country’s fiscal position. The question now is whether the administration will see the need for a policy pivot in time to affect the midterms.

Featured

New BEA Releases Show Slower Growth and High Inflation

Image created by ChatGPT

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released two reports this morning (May 28): “GDP (Second Estimate) and Corporate Profits, 1st Quarter 2026” and “Personal Income and Outlays, April 2026.” The BEA revised downward its estimate of real GDP growth in the first quarter of 2026 from an annual rate of 2.0 percent to an annual rate of 1.6 percent. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had expected that the BEA would leave its estimate of real GDP growth in the first quarter unchanged. The following figure shows the BEA’s estimated rates of GDP growth in each quarter beginning with the first quarter of 2022.

The following figure—taken from the BEA report—shows the contributions of each component of spending to the BEA’s downward revision of its estimate of GDP growth. The growth of both consumption spending and investment spending, which are the largest component of GDP, were revised downward. The downward revision in consumption spending reflects lower spending on services and the downward revision in investment spending reflects lower business spending on inventories.

As we’ve discussed in previous blog posts, to better gauge the state of the economy, policymakers—including former Fed Chair Jerome Powell—often prefer to strip out the effects of imports, inventory investment, and government expenditures—which can be volatile—by looking at real final sales to private domestic purchasers, which includes only spending by U.S. households and firms on domestic production. As the following figure shows, real final sales to domestic purchasers increased at an annual rate of 2.4 percent in the first quarter, which was well above the 1.6 percent rate of increase in real GDP and also above the U.S. economy’s expected long-run annual real growth rate of 1.8 percent. Note also that real final sales to private domestic purchasers grew by 2.9 percent in the third quarter of 2025, during which real GDP grew by 4.4 percent, and by 1.9 percent in the first quarter of 2025, when real GDP declined by 0.6 percent. So this measure of output is more stable and likely is a better indicator of the underlying growth rate in the economy than is the growth rate of real GDP.

The BEA’s “Personal Income and Outlays” report this morning included monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index. The Fed relies on annual changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2 percent annual inflation target. The following figure shows headline PCE inflation (the blue line) and core PCE inflation (the red line)—which excludes energy and food prices—for the period since January 2019, with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. In April, headline PCE inflation was 3.8 percent, up from 3.5 percent in March. Core PCE inflation in April was 3.3 percent, up slightly from 3.2 percent in March. Headline PCE inflation was slightly below and core PCE inflation was equal to the forecasts of economists surveyed by FactSet. Both headline PCE inflation and core PCE inflation remain well above the Fed’s 2 percent annual inflation target.

The following figure shows monthly PCE inflation and monthly core PCE inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (Often referred to as 1-month inflation.) Measured this way, headline PCE inflation fell from the very high rate of 8.9 percent in March to a still high rate of 4.9 percent in April. Core PCE inflation declined from 3.6 in March to 2.9 percent in April. Even leaving aside the effect of rising gasoline prices on headline PCE, these data show that in March both core and headline PCE inflation were well above the Fed’s target.

Former Fed Chair Jerome Powell frequently mentioned that inflation in non-market services can skew PCE inflation. Non-market services are services whose prices the BEA imputes rather than measures directly. For instance, the BEA assumes that prices of financial services—such as brokerage fees—vary with the prices of financial assets. So that if stock prices rise, the prices of financial services included in the PCE price index also rise. Powell has argued that these imputed prices “don’t really tell us much about … tightness in the economy. They don’t really reflect that.” The following figure shows 12-month headline inflation (the blue line) and 12-month core inflation (the red line) for market-based PCE. (The BEA explains the market-based PCE measure here.)

Headline market-based PCE inflation was 3.7 percent in April, up from 3.4 percent in March. Core market-based PCE inflation was 3.1 percent in April, unchanged from March. So, both market-based measures, although lower than the full PCE measures, show inflation in April remaining well above the Fed’s 2 percent target.

New Fed Chair Kevin Warsh argued in testimony before the Senate that the Fed should stop relying on headline PCE inflation: “The measures [of inflation] I prefer are looking at things that are called trimmed averages. We take out all of the tail-risks, all of the one-off items, and we ask ourselves whether the generalized change in prices is having second-order effects on the economy.”

Trimmed-mean PCE inflation drops the 31 percent of goods and services with the highest inflation rates and the 24 percent of goods and services with the lowest inflation rates. A closely related measure, median PCE inflation, is calculated by listing the inflation rate in each individual good or service included in the PCE and identifying the inflation rate of the good or service that is in the middle of the list—that is, the inflation rate in the price of the good or service that has an equal number of higher and lower inflation rates.

The following figure shows headline PCE inflation the (blue line), core PCE inflation (the brown line) and trimmed-mean PCE inflation (the red line). Trimmed-mean PCE inflation in April was 2.4 percent, well below both headline and core PCE inflation.

The following figure from the web site of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland shows headline PCE inflation (the green line), core PCE inflation (the blue line), and median PCE inflation (the brown line). In April, median PCE inflation was 2.8 percent, also below both headline and core inflation. So Warsh has a point that these two measures of inflation, which are less affected by particularly high or low rates of inflation in some goods and services, indicate that inflation has been running below the Fed’s currently preferred measure. But these measures also show inflation running well above the Fed’s 2 percent annual inflation target.

Today’s macro data have had little effect on investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. For some time, investors have seen little likelihood that the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee would cut its target for the federal funds rate until sometime next year. These investors see it as far more likely that the committee will raise its target by the end of the year than that it will cut it.

Featured

Why Doesn’t Apple Manufacture the MacBook Neo in the United States?

Image of the MacBook Neo from apple.com

The United States hasn’t exported more goods and services than its imported since 1975. The following figure shows the U.S. trade deficits since 1949 as a percentage of GDP. (In this figure, we’re measuring the trade balance as net exports rather than the trade balance as reported in the balance of payment accounts. The two measures are highly correlated.)

As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 18 (Economics, Chapter 28), a trade deficit is driven by the relationship between a country’s national saving and domestic investment rather than by the competitiveness of a country’s exports or by the trade agreements a country has with its trading partners.

Clearly, though, many politicians see a trade deficit as a problem. Some politicians have argued that the U.S. trade deficit would shrink if more of the manufactured goods Americans consume were produced in the United States. Would it be possible, for example, to produce more consumer electronics in the United States? A few months ago, Apple stopped assembling units of the Mac Pro, its high-end, professional workstation computer, at a facility in Austin, Texas. More recently, Apple announced that it would begin assembling its Mac Mini, a compact desktop computer that lacks a keyboard and a monitor, in a new factory in Houston. These examples indicate that Apple can produce electronic products in the United States. But the number of Mac Pros or Mac Minis Apple sells each year is very small compared with the estimated 248 million iPhones it sold in 2025.

In March, Apple introduced the MacBook Neo. At a price of $599 ($499 if you are a college student or faculty member), the Neo is Apple’s first entry into the low-priced laptop market that had been dominated by the Google Chromebook. By the end of April, sales were running far above Apple’s initial forecasts and the firm was planning to double production of the Neo from 5 million units to 10 million—all of which would be assembled in China or Vietnam.

Why doesn’t Apple assemble the Neo in the United States? There are several reasons, but the most important is that the Neo is Apple’s first entry into the low-priced laptop market that is now dominated by Google’s Chromebook—all of which are assembled overseas. Apple is able to price the Neo at $599 only if it keeps its production costs very low. Workers who assemble electronic products like laptops require substantial training. Firms such as Foxconn and Quanta Computer have been assembling electronic products for many years in countries such as China and Vietnam. As a result, these countries have large numbers of workers experienced in assembling electronic products. U.S.-based firms have many fewer workers with this experience.

Assembly lines for electronic products need to be flexible to respond quickly when firms introduce new models like the Neo. So, in addition to hiring hundreds of thousands of workers to work on assembly lines, Foxconn, Quanta, and other firms operating in China, India, and Vietnam hire thousands of engineers. Typically, these engineers do not have college degrees, but they have sufficient training to rapidly redesign and reconfigure assembly lines to produce new models. In 2010, when President Barack Obama pressed Steve Jobs, the late Apple CEO, to produce iPhones in the United States, Jobs stated that he would need 30,000 such engineers if Apple were to make iPhones in the United States, but “you can’t find that many in America to hire.”

In addition, wages are much higher in the United States than in China or Vietnam. Workers assembling electronic products in China earn about $6 per hour. Workers doing the same jobs in Vietnam earn only about $2 per hour. In the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in April 2026, production workers in computer and electronic product manufacturing were earning $39.32 per hour.

The factories that assemble Apple products in Asia typically have many suppliers located near them—a so-called supplier ecosystem. Some suppliers make components of the products—although other components are produced outside of Asia, including in the United States—as well as providing repair, maintenance, and other services to the factories. The lack of such a supplier ecosystem would make assembling Neos in the United States very difficult. According to an article in the New York Times, when Apple started producing the Mac Pro in Austin, Texas, it had trouble finding a local firm to produce the custom screws needed in assembling the computers. According to the article, “In China, Apple relied on factories that can produce vast quantities of custom screws on short notice. In Texas, … [Apple had to rely on a] 20-employee machine shop that … could produce at most 1,000 screws a day.”

Production of some electronic goods—notably computer chips—has been expanding in the United States. In 2022, Congress passed the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act. The Act authorized the federal government to pay subsidies to help firms increase chip production in the United States. Intel, TSMC, Samsung, and Micron have all constructed new chip factories in the United States. As we mentioned earlier, Apple intends to assemble its Mac Mini in a new factory in Houston.

But the United States lacks a comparative advantage in the assembly of high-volume electronic products like the iPhone or MacBook Neo. So it’s unlikely that the expansion of U.S. chip production will be followed by a similar expansion in the assembly of smartphones and computers.

Featured

CPI Inflation Worsens, As Expected

Image generated by ChatGPT

Today (May 12), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its report on the consumer price index (CPI) for April. As expected, higher energy prices resulting from the conflict in Iran led to a jump in inflation. The following figure compares headline CPI inflation (the blue line) and core CPI inflation (the red line).

The headline inflation rate, which is measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous year, was 3.8 percent in April, up from 3.3 in March. This was the highest inflation rate since May 2023.
The core inflation rate, which excludes the prices of food and energy, was 2.7 percent in April, up slightly from 2.6 percent in March.

Headline inflation and core inflation were both slightly higher than economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had expected.

In the following figure, we look at the 1-month inflation rate for headline and core inflation—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. Calculated as the 1-month inflation rate, headline inflation (the blue line) was a very high 8.0 percent in April, which was actually down from 10.9 percent in March. Core inflation (the red line) was 4.6 percent in April, up from 2.4 percent in March.

The following figure emphasizes the role played by energy prices in causing the jump in inflation. The blue line shows the 1-month inflation rate in all energy prices included in the CPI. Inflation in energy prices declined from a very high 245.1 percent in March to a still high 56.6 percent in April. The red line shows the 1-month inflation rate in gasoline prices, which declined from an astounding 907.4 percent in March to a still very painful 88.8 percent in April.

Did the jump in energy prices pass through to increases in food prices, which are a key concern for many consumers? The following figure shows 1-month inflation in the CPI category “food at home” (the blue bar)—primarily food purchased at grocery stores—and the category “food away from home” (the red bar)—primarily food purchased at restaurants. Inflation in grocery prices rose 8.5 percent in April after declining in March. Inflation in food prices away from home was 2.8 percent in April, down from 2.9 percent in March. The high rate of increase in grocery prices was due to rising energy prices, as well as to sharp increases in beef and fruit and vegetable prices, which rose for reasons largely unrelated to higher energy costs.

What effect is this inflation report likely to have on the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) at its next meeting on June 16–17—Kevin Warsh’s first meeting as Fed chair? Earlier this year, some market analysts believed that replacing Jerome Powell as chair with Warsh would increase the probability of the FOMC cutting its target for the federal funds rate this year. But the acceleration in inflation during the past two months, even if it proves to be temporary, and relatively strong data on economic growth and employment make it unlikely that Warsh will push for a rate cut any time soon. At this point, trading by investors in the federal funds futures market favors the FOMC neither raising nor lowering its federal funds rate target during the remainder of this year.

Featured

Surprisingly Strong Jobs Report

Image generated by ChatGPT

This morning (May 8), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for April. The report showed a stronger than expected increase in employment.

The jobs report has two estimates of the change in employment during the month: one estimate from the establishment survey, often referred to as the payroll survey, and one from the household survey. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and Federal Reserve policymakers believe that employment data from the establishment survey provide a more accurate indicator of the state of the labor market than do the household survey’s employment and unemployment data. (The groups included in the employment estimates from the two surveys are somewhat different, as we discuss in this post.)

According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 115,000 nonfarm jobs during April. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had forecast an increase of only 55,000 jobs. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg had a slightly higher forecast of a net increase of 62,000 jobs. The BLS revised downward its previous estimates of employment in February and March by a combined 16,000 jobs. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”)

The following figure from the jobs report shows the net change in nonfarm payroll employment for each month in the last two years. The figure shows an unusual pattern in the job market since the middle of 2025 in which months of declining employment and months of increasing employment have been alternating. March and April of 2026 are the first back-to-back months of increasing net employment since March and April of 2025.

These fluctuations of net employment gains around roughly zero are consistent with a recent analysis from economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas that estimates the break-even rate of employment growth—the rate of employment growth at which the unemployment rate remains constant. They note that “continued net outflows of unauthorized immigrants, together with shifts in labor force participation, have pushed the monthly break-even employment growth lower than previously thought.” They conclude that: “The break-even rate [of employment growth] peaked at about 250,000 jobs per month in 2023, fell to roughly 10,000 by July 2025, and declined to near zero thereafter, averaging about –3,000 jobs per month from August to December 2025, indicating, if anything, a modest net jobs loss over this period.” In other words, in the current labor market, the break-even rate of employment growth may actually be negative.

The unemployment rate, which is calculated from data in the household survey, was 4.3 percent in April, unchanged from March. As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate has been remarkably stable over the past year and a half, staying between 4.0 percent and 4.4 percent in each month since May 2024. The Federal Open Market Committee’s current estimate of the natural rate of unemployment—the normal rate of unemployment over the long run—is 4.2 percent. So, unemployment is slightly above that estimate of the natural rate. (We discuss the natural rate of unemployment in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9 and Economics, Chapter 19.)

As the following figure shows, the monthly net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. As measured by the household survey, there was a net decrease of 226,000 in April, the fourth consecutive month of decreases. (Note that because of last year’s shutdown of the federal government, there are no data for October or November.) In any particular month, the story told by the two surveys can be inconsistent. In this case, the establishment survey shows a strong increase in net employment, while the household survey shows a decline.

The household survey has another important labor market indicator: the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those workers aged 25 to 54. In April the ratio was 80.7 percent, the same as in February and March. The prime-age population ratio remains above its value for most of the period since 2001. The continued high levels of the prime-age employment-population ratio indicate continuing strength in the labor market.

There have been media reports of firms, including Salesforce, Cloudflare, Coinbase, and Freshworks, laying off workers in information systems. The following figure shows net employment changes in the BLS employment category of “computing infrastructure providers, data processing, web hosting, and related services.” Employment in this sector declined for the sixth straight month in April. Since November 2025, the sector has experienced a net decline of 23,000 jobs.

The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we noted in this post, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage of being available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure shows the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. The AHE increased 3.6 percent in April, up from 3.4 percent in March.

What effect is this jobs report likely to have on the decisions of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee at its next meeting on June 16–17, the first meeting with Kevin Warsh as chair? Although employment growth has been relatively slow in recent months, as noted earlier, even that slow rate may be close to the break-even rate of employment growth. So, it’s unlikely that the FOMC will see current conditions in the job market as warranting a cut in the committee’s target range for the federal funds rate. In addition, disruptions to the world oil market as a result of the conflict in Iran have caused oil prices to rise, putting upward pressure on the price level. And the effects of tariff increases have likely not yet fully passed through to increases in prices. These factors make it likely that the committee will keep its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at its next meeting and may even begin considering future increases in the target range.

The probability that investors in the federal funds futures market assign to the FOMC keeping its target rate unchanged at its June meeting decreased slightly this afternoon to 93.9 percent, from 96.4 percent yesterday. Investors no longer assign a greater than a 50 percent probability to a rate cut occuring at any meeting through the end of 2027.

Featured

Two Releases from the BEA this Morning Show Steady GDP Growth and Rising Inflation

Image created by ChatGPT of the Department of Commerce building in Washington, DC

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released two reports this morning: “GDP (Advance Estimate), 1st Quarter 2026” and “Personal Income and Outlays, March 2026.” The BEA estimates that real GDP grew at annual rate of 2.0 percent in the first quarter of 2026. That rate was up sharply from 0.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2025, but below the 2.2 percent rate economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had forecast. The following figure shows the BEA’s estimated rates of GDP growth in each quarter beginning with the first quarter of 2022.

As the following figure—taken from the BEA report—shows, investment spending made the largest contribution to the growth of real GDP in the first quarter, with consumption spending growing at a slower rate than during the previous three quarters. Spending on imports grew significantly more than did spending on exports, resulting in net exports reducing real GDP growth by 1.3 percentage points.

As we’ve discussed in previous blog posts, to better gauge the state of the economy, policymakers—including Fed Chair Jerome Powell—often prefer to strip out the effects of imports, inventory investment, and government expenditures—which can be volatile—by looking at real final sales to private domestic purchasers, which includes only spending by U.S. households and firms on domestic production. As the following figure shows, real final sales to domestic purchasers increased by 2.5 percent at an annual rate in the first quarter, which was well above the 2.0 percent increase in real GDP and also above the U.S. economy’s expected long-run annual real growth rate of 1.8 percent. Note also that real final sales to private domestic purchasers grew by 2.9 percent in the third quarter of 2025, during which real GDP grew by 4.4 percent, and by 1.9 percent in the first quarter of 2025, when real GDP declined by 0.6 percent. So this measure of output is more stable and likely is a better indicator of the underlying growth rate in the economy than is growth in real GDP.

The BEA’s “Personal Income and Outlays” report this morning included monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index. The Fed relies on annual changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2 percent annual inflation target. The following figure shows headline PCE inflation (the blue line) and core PCE inflation (the red line)—which excludes energy and food prices—for the period since January 2019, with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. In March, headline PCE inflation was 3.4 percent, up from 2.7 percent in February. Core PCE inflation in March was 3.2 percent, up from 3.0 percent in February. Both headline PCE inflation and core PCE inflation remained well above the Fed’s 2 percent annual inflation target.

The following figure shows monthly PCE inflation and monthly core PCE inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (Often referred to as 1-month inflation.) Measured this way, headline PCE inflation soared to 9.2 percent in March, up from to 4.9 percent in February. Core PCE inflation fell to 3.6 percent in March from 5.2 percent in February. Even leaving aside the effect of rising gasoline prices on headline PCE, these data show that in March both core and headline PCE inflation were far above the Fed’s target.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell has frequently mentioned that inflation in non-market services can skew PCE inflation. Non-market services are services whose prices the BEA imputes rather than measures directly. For instance, the BEA assumes that prices of financial services—such as brokerage fees—vary with the prices of financial assets. So that if stock prices rise, the prices of financial services included in the PCE price index also rise. Powell has argued that these imputed prices “don’t really tell us much about … tightness in the economy. They don’t really reflect that.” The following figure shows 12-month headline inflation (the blue line) and 12-month core inflation (the red line) for market-based PCE. (The BEA explains the market-based PCE measure here.)

Headline market-based PCE inflation was 3.4 percent in March, up from 2.9 percent in February. Core market-based PCE inflation was 3.1 percent in March, up from 2.9 percent in February. So, both market-based measures show inflation in March remaining well above the Fed’s 2 percent target.

Increases in rent have been one driver of inflation. The following figure shows the 12-month change in service prices, excluding energy and housing prices. Inflation in service prices measured this way was 3.5 percent in March. One-month inflation (not shown) was even higher at 4.6 percent.

However measured, inflation is clearly running well above the Fed’s 2 percent target. Incoming Fed Chair Kevin Warsh is walking into a difficult situation. He’s likely to come under pressure from President Trump to convince his colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee to cut the target for the federal funds rate. But it seems unlikely that a majority of the committee would be willing to cut the target with inflation remaining well above 2 percent. As we mentioned in yesterday’s post, investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts don’t expect that the target rate will be lowered before the committee’s meeting on December 14–15 2027.

Featured

FOMC Holds Its Target for the Federal Funds Rate Constant as Powell Announces that He Intends to Remain on the BoG

Screenshot of Fed Chair Jerome Powell at his FOMC press conference on April 29

Today’s meeting of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had the expected result with the committee deciding to leave unchanged its target for the federal funds rate at its current range of 3.50 percent to 3.75 percent. The members of the committee voted 8 to 4 in favor of the decision. Fed Governor Stephen Miran voted against the decision, preferring to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points). Beth Hammack, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland; Neel Kashkari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis; and Lorie Logan, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; supported keeping the target rate unchanged but “but did not support inclusion of an easing bias in the statement at this time.”

Perhaps the most significant news came at Chair Powell’s press conference at the conclusion of the meeting. Powell noted that Kevin Warsh’s nomination to be Fed chair had advanced out of the Senate Banking Committee this morning. Powell expected that Warsh would assume the role of chair by the time Powell’s term as chair ends on May 15. However, Powell announced that he would break with decades of tradition and remain on the Board of Governors. He noted that: “I have said that I will not leave the Board until this investigation [into his testimony before Congress concerning the renovations of the Fed’s headquarters building] is well and truly over, with transparency and finality, and I stand by that…. After my term as Chair ends on May 15, I will continue to serve as a governor for a period of time, to be determined. I plan to keep a low profile as a governor.” Powell’s term on the Board expires on January 31, 2028.

Powell will be the first Fed chair to remain on the Board after the end of his term as chair since Marriner Eccles continued to serve for three years after the end of his term as chair in 1948. The person whom the president has nominated as chair of the Board of Governors, once confirmed by the Senate, by tradition also serves as the chair of the FOMC. However, the Federal Reserve Act allows the FOMC to select its own chair. To head off any speculation that he might attempt to remain as chair of the FOMC, Powell stated at his press conference that: “When Kevin Warsh is confirmed and sworn, he will be that Chair. Once sworn in as Board Chair, his new colleagues will elect him to chair the FOMC as well.”

The FOMC has left its target for federal funds rate unchanged since lowering it by 25 basis points on December 10 of last year. The following figure shows for the period since January 2010, the upper bound (the blue line) and the lower bound (the green line) for the FOMC’s target range for the federal funds rate, as well as the actual values for the federal funds rate (the red line). Note that the Fed has been successful in keeping the value of the federal funds rate in its target range. (We discuss the monetary policy tools the FOMC uses to maintain the federal funds rate within its target range in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.2 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.2).)

During his press conference, Powell discussed the reasons for the dissenting votes by Hammack, Kashkari, and Logan. The area of disagreement has to do with this sentence from the committee’s statement: “In considering the extent and timing of additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks.” The three dissenters believe that the statement implies that the next change would likely be to lower the target range for the federal funds. They wished the language to be changed to communicate that the next change might also be to raise the target range. The four dissents were the most at an FOMC meeting since 1992.

Powell stated that he believed the current target range was mildly restrictive, which he believed was appropriate given that the economy was still experiencing strong output growth and that the labor market appears to be stable, while tariffs and rising oil prices are putting upward pressure on the price level.

When might the FOMC lower its target range for the federal funds rate? One indication of expectations of future changes in the FOMC’s target for the federal funds rate comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. There are four more FOMC meeting scheduled for this year and for each meeting investors assign a probability of greater than 98 percent that the committee will either keep its target constant or raise it. For each meeting in 2027 until the last one on December 17–18, investors assign a probability of greater than 70 percent that the committee will keep its target constant or raise it. In other words, investors don’t believe that the target rate will be cut until the end of next year.

The next FOMC meeting will be on June 16–17. At that meeting, the committee is scheduled to release its quarterly Summary of Economic Projections (SEP), which includes a “dot plot” that represents each member’s expectations of future values of the federal funds rate. Warsh has questioned whether the SEP and the dot plot serve a good purpose and he may attempt to persuade the committee to abandon them. He has also questioned whether the chair should hold a press conference after every FOMC meeting as Powell has done since January 2019.

If Warsh does hold a press conference after the June meeting, his responses to questions will be closely analyzed for clues about the direction he intends to take the committee.

Featured

Glenn and Tony’s Excellent AI Adventure

Economics_Comic Download

Many thanks to Matt O’Brien for producing this comic!

Featured

Glenn on Adam Smith and the Midterm Elections

Image created by ChatGPT

This opinion column was first published on Project Syndicate.

Adam Smith on the U.S. Midterms

The Wealth of Nations offers a useful lens for understanding why US President Donald Trump’s mercantilist agenda has fallen short of its own stated goals. It also points to a better path, combining competitive markets with policies that help workers and communities build skills and keep pace with economic change.

November’s midterm elections pose a serious challenge for US President Donald Trump. Key components of his economic agenda, especially its protectionist measures, have raised concerns about the rising cost of living, prompted a rare rebuke from the Supreme Court, and cast doubt on the legal basis for his tariffs. Fortunately for Trump and the Republicans, they still have time to pivot to a pro-growth agenda that better addresses voter anxieties before the midterms.

Trump’s agenda is rooted in voter concerns about economic disruption driven by technological change and globalization. Breaking with the bipartisan embrace of market-friendly policies, his administration has sought to shield US producers from competition. While Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has hinted that a pivot to a pro-growth strategy is in the works, reconciling it with the administration’s mercantilist approach will be difficult.

There is, however, an alternative path that better aligns with Trump’s stated goal of helping people and communities buffeted by economic change. For guidance, it is worth turning to Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nations, published 250 years ago, grappled with many of the same tensions and pointed to a pragmatic middle ground.

At first glance, Smith may seem at odds with Trump’s approach. After all, The Wealth of Nations centers on Smith’s critique of the mercantilist order of his day. Mercantilism prizes trade surpluses and the accumulation of national wealth in the hands of the state. To work, it requires extensive government intervention in commerce, trade, and labor markets. But that expansive role invites rent-seeking and excessive control, a key concern for Smith.

Smith’s treatise turned this system on its head by posing a radical question: Where does national wealth come from? For Smith, the answer stood in contrast to mercantilism. A competitive economy, with limited government intervention, would be accompanied by openness and specialization, in turn raising living standards.

While Smith did not develop a formal theory of growth, his intuition about the importance of openness to markets and innovation is consistent with modern growth models and stands in contrast to Trump-era policymaking. As Nobel laureate economist Joel Mokyr has noted, science, practical knowledge, and openness to change are key drivers of long-term prosperity.

But Trump has also identified an important tension. Modern growth models are like a coin. The “heads” side is growth and its benefits for living standards; the “tails” side is disruption—the upending of existing investments, firms, jobs, and even communities. It is here that Trump’s mercantilism, with its focus on minimizing the effects of disruption on voters’ lives, gains political traction.

Smith challenges this perspective in two ways. First, he reminds us of the limits mercantilism places on living standards. Second, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which he considered his finest work, he emphasizes empathy and what my Columbia colleague Edmund S. Phelps calls “mass flourishing,” which aims to ensure that everyone benefits from economic progress, including those disrupted by its forward march.

Here, then, is the policy alternative to both Trumpian mercantilism and market orthodoxy: augmenting Smith’s concept of “competition” with the “ability to compete.” Such an agenda would center on preparation and reconnection, both vital for participation in—and support for—an open economy.

One place to begin is workforce development. In the United States, community colleges are well positioned to serve as training grounds for skill development and career transitions, often working closely with local employers to create quality jobs. While support for community colleges has declined in many states, a federal block grant focused on completion and skill development would significantly enhance their impact.

Similarly, a more generous Earned Income Tax Credit could boost labor-force participation and attachment. Increased funding for basic research, alongside support for applied research centers across the country, could raise productivity by bringing cutting-edge tools to businesses, much as land-grant colleges have historically done in agriculture and manufacturing.

To reconnect displaced workers, personal re-employment accounts—combining funds for training with re-employment bonuses—could help reduce the duration of joblessness. For communities affected by structural economic change, more effective place-based aid could support productivity-enhancing business services in lower-income areas with higher unemployment.

Such measures, along with a growth-oriented agenda, could reshape the electoral landscape. Investments in AI and electricity generation could be accelerated through regulatory reform, particularly by easing permitting rules under the National Environmental Policy Act. To increase the housing supply, a prerequisite for mobility and growth, the administration could propose incentives for state and local governments to scale back restrictive construction regulations.

Going further, the administration would need to abandon its nativist immigration policies. Increasing the number of high-skilled immigrants, particularly in STEM fields, would boost growth, as immigrants have been shown to drive technological innovation, leading to more patents, higher productivity, and rising incomes.

Likewise, expanding federal support for research and development would yield high returns. Some estimates suggest that the returns are so large that the net cost to taxpayers may be zero or even negative, as higher productivity generates enough additional tax revenue to offset the cost. Combined with a stable macroeconomic environment and pro-investment policies of the kind Trump has championed, these changes could significantly accelerate growth.

A more constructive approach to economic disruption would shift away from broad tariffs and protectionism, which tend to raise consumer prices and erode the competitiveness of US manufacturing by increasing input costs. The Supreme Court’s recent reversal of many tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has created an opportunity—and underscored the need—for a course correction.

Trump has rightly raised questions about the economic consequences of technological change and globalization. Two and a half centuries after its publication, The Wealth of Nations points toward a necessary pivot away from mercantilism and toward a more balanced, pro-growth framework.

Featured

Glenn’s Advice for Kevin Warsh

The Marriner S. Eccles building, headquarters of the Federal Reserve in Washington, DC. Image from federalreserve.gov.

The following opinion column appeared in the Financial Times.

What Warsh Should Do at the Fed

Donald Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh as chair of the Federal Reserve comes at a pivotal time for the American economy and for the US central bank. A pall has been cast by the administration’s unforced error of trumped-up charges against Jay Powell, the current Fed chair, and the president’s renewed threats to fire him if he does not leave by the end of his term. But the nominee’s credentials and experience ought to ensure a smooth confirmation. The question now should be what happens next.

The Fed faces three challenges. In the short term, the potential impact of the Iran war on employment calls for a careful assessment of the direction of the US economy. In the medium term, inflation continuing to run above the 2 per
cent target will limit the central bank’s room for maneuver, and also call its
credibility into question. In the longer term, questions remain about the
effectiveness of quantitative easing, the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, errors
made in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, and the central bank’s forays
into areas better left to fiscal or regulatory policy.

All of which means that when Warsh eventually takes up the post, he should
launch an evaluation of the purpose, strategy and structure of the Fed straight
away.

First, purpose. The Federal Reserve was established as a lender of last resort
designed to mitigate financial crises. After it struggled to discharge that role
during the Great Depression, it turned to managing aggregate demand and
inflation. In 1978, Congress used the Humphrey-Hawkins Act to codify its
focus on inflation and employment, while giving the Fed leeway on how to
achieve those objectives. It also required the Fed chair to report to Congress on
its outcomes and outlook.

Warsh should now offer justifications for each of these objectives, set out
clearly what trade-offs they entail and how progress will be communicated.
This clarity focuses markets and elected officials on the importance of low and
steady inflation for US economic performance. And the advent of a new chair
provides an opportunity to make the Fed’s lender-of-last-resort decision-making clearer. Such explanations would be helpful in the present
environment of economic and public policy uncertainty.

Next comes strategy. This is about choosing a set of activities that deliver
objectives consistently. For the Fed, independence in monetary policy and the
ability to flex its balance sheet enable it to keep inflation low and manage
financial turmoil. Political assaults on its independence, of the type we have
recently seen, or restrictions on its balance sheet as a lender of last resort put
these strategic advantages at risk.

To deliver on purpose and strategy, the incoming chair should optimize the
Fed’s structure. The arrangement of a board of governors in Washington,
district banks led by district presidents, a Federal Open Market Committee of
the board and (a rotation of) five district presidents is set by law. But there are
three practical steps Warsh could take to improve the effectiveness of this setup.

First, the central bank should cast a wider net to gather insights from
economists, business leaders and financial market participants, with Fed
conferences reopened to members of these communities. Second, decisions
and direction should be communicated to financial markets and the public
consistently by the chair and by other officials.

Third, replace the notorious “dot plots”, which map FOMC members’
projections for the federal funds rate, with scenarios. Dot plots can be
misinterpreted as signals about the future path of interest rates. By contrast,
scenario analysis models how policy would respond to important changes, such
as shifts in AI investment, supply constraints, the natural rate of
unemployment, and medium-run effects on inflation, the dollar and US
economic activity from the conflict in Iran.

Such a comprehensive evaluation of purpose, strategy and structure would give
Warsh and the Fed both renewed organizational cohesion—and, more
importantly, a game plan.

On the perennial question of interest rates, the US economy’s near-term
momentum and elevated inflation are likely to tilt the balance of risks against
further cuts, despite Trump’s enthusiasm for an immediate cut. And while
Warsh is right to point out that the Fed should learn more about the economic
effects of AI, over the medium run a high-productivity-growth economy is
associated with a higher, not lower, real rate of interest.

Over this crucial period, the ability of the new chair to communicate clearly to
the public the value of low and steady inflation will be vital. The rules
governing the Fed’s role as lender of last resort should also be made clearer.
Finally, Warsh is correct that the Fed should take care to avoid engaging in the
kind of backdoor fiscal policy it has practiced in recent years.

Warsh is smart, informed, experienced in crisis management and an excellent
communicator. If the president allows him a free hand as chair, the American
economy should reap the benefits. Stay tuned.

Featured

NEW! 4-11-26 Podcast – Glenn Hubbard & Tony O’Brien discuss Fed transition, inflation, and AI security!

What happens when the Fed chair’s seat is about to change hands—and inflation still won’t behave? In this episode of the Hubbard & O’Brien Economics Podcast, Tony O’Brien and Glenn Hubbard break down the looming transition from Jerome Powell to Kevin Warsh, what the latest inflation and energy-price pressures mean for interest rates, and why navigating the FOMC could be Warsh’s toughest test yet. They also unpack the Fed’s massive balance sheet, the regulatory constraints around shrinking it, and a surprising new risk on the horizon: AI-driven security threats that could expose vulnerabilities across the financial system. If you want a clear, candid take on where monetary policy may be headed next, this is the listen.

Featured

A Double Dose of Bad Inflation News

Image generated by ChatGPT

This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its report on the consumer price index (CPI) for March. Yesterday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index for February as part of its “Personal Income and Outlays” report. Both reports showed that the inflation has worsened. Note that data for the PCE were collected before the beginning of the conflict with Iran.

CPI Inflation jumped to a level well above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent annual inflation target. The following figure compares headline CPI inflation (the blue line) and core CPI inflation (the red line). Because of the effects of the federal government shutdown, the BLS didn’t report inflation rates for October or November, so both lines show gaps for those months.

The headline inflation rate, which is measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous year, was 3.3 percent in March, up from 2.4 percent in February.
The core inflation rate, which excludes the prices of food and energy, was 2.6 percent in March, up only slightly from 2.5 percent in February.

Headline inflation was equal to the forecast of economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal but well below the 3.7 percent rate forecast by economists surveyed by FactSet. Core inflation was slightly below the forecast of 2.7 percent in both surveys. Higher energy prices drove the jump in CPI inflation.

In the following figure, we look at the 1-month inflation rate for headline and core inflation—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. Calculated as the 1-month inflation rate, headline inflation (the blue line) was 10.9 percent in March, up from 3.2 percent in February. Core inflation (the red line) actually decreased to 2.4 in March from 2.6 percent in February.

The following figure emphasizes the role paid by energy prices in causing the jump in inflation. The blue line shows the 1-month inflation rate in all energy prices included in the CPI. The red line shows the 1-month inflation rate in gasoline prices—which was an astounding 907.4 percent.

Did the jump in energy prices pass through to increases in food prices, which are a key concern for many consumers? The following figure shows 1-month inflation in the CPI category “food at home” (the blue bar)—primarily food purchased at grocery stores—and the category “food away from home” (the red bar)—primarily food purchased at restaurants. Inflation in both measures fell in March, indicating that they hadn’t (yet?) been affected by rising energy prices. Food at home actually decreased by 1.9 percent in March after increasing by 5.4 percent in February. Food away from home increased 2.9 percent in March, down from 3.9 percent in February.

Turning now to PCE inflation for February. The following figure shows headline PCE inflation (the blue line) and core PCE inflation (the red line)—which excludes energy and food prices—with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. Headline PCE inflation was 2.8 percent in February, unchanged from January. Core PCE inflation was 3.0 percent in February, down slight from 3.1 percent in January . Headline inflation was slightly higher and core inflation was equal to the forecast of economists surveyed by FactSet.

The following figure shows 1-month headline PCE inflation and core PCE. Measured this way, headline PCE inflation increased from 3.7 percent in January to 4.6 percent in February. Core PCE inflation declined from 4.8 percent in January to 4.5 percent in February. So, even before the effects of the escalation in energy prices, both 1-month and 12-month PCE inflation are telling the same story of inflation above the Fed’s target—well above in the case of 1-month inflation. These numbers raise significant concern about whether inflation was making progress toward the Fed’s 2 percent target even before the effects of the rise in energy prices.

Headline market-based PCE inflation was 2.7 percent in February, up slightly from 2.6 percent in January. Core market-based PCE inflation was 2.9 percent in February, up slightly from 2.8 percent in January. So, both market-based measures show inflation as stable but well above the Fed’s 2 percent target.

In the following figure, we look at 1-month inflation using these measures. One-month headline market-based inflation increased to 2.1 percent in November from 1.3 percent in October. One-month core market-based inflation fell to 1.3 percent in November from 2.0 percent in October. So, in November, 1-month market-based inflation was at or below the Fed’s annual inflation target. As the figure shows, the 1-month inflation rates are more volatile than the 12-month rates, which is why the Fed relies on the 12-month rates when gauging how close it is coming to hitting its target inflation rate.

What effect are these troubling inflation reports likely to have on the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) at its next meeting on April 28–29—likely Jerome Powell’s last meeting as Fed chair? Economists generally recommend that central banks “look through”—that is, take no action—in response to a supply shock. A supply shock ordinarily results in a one-time increase in the price level, rather than a long-lasting increase in inflation. Fed policymakers, though, are aware that inflation has been running above their 2 percent target for more than five years. The possibility that even a temporary spike in inflation might result in a significant increase in the inflation rate that households and firms expect is a concern. At this point, investors in the federal funds futures market assign only a very small probability to the FOMC raising or lowering its target for the federal funds rate at the next several meetings. Following the next meeting, Powell will give his thoughts on these and other issues at a press conference.

Featured

Job Market Bounces Back from Weak Start to the Year

Image created by ChatGPT

This morning (April 3), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for March. The report showed a stronger than expected increase in employment.

The jobs report has two estimates of the change in employment during the month: one estimate from the establishment survey, often referred to as the payroll survey, and one from the household survey. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and Federal Reserve policymakers believe that employment data from the establishment survey provide a more accurate indicator of the state of the labor market than do the household survey’s employment data and unemployment data. (The groups included in the employment estimates from the two surveys are somewhat different, as we discuss in this post.)

According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 178,000 nonfarm jobs during March. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had forecast an increase of only 59,000 jobs. Economists surveyed by FactSet had a similar forecast of a net increase of 60,000 jobs. The BLS revised downward its previous estimates of employment in January and February by a combined 7,000 jobs. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”)

These fluctuations of net employment gains around zero are consistent with a recent analysis from economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas that estimates the break-even rate of employment growth—the rate of employment growth at which the unemployment rate remains constant. They note that “continued net outflows of unauthorized immigrants, together with shifts in labor force participation, have pushed the monthly break-even employment growth lower than previously thought.” They conclude that: “The break-even rate [of employment growth] peaked at about 250,000 jobs per month in 2023, fell to roughly 10,000 by July 2025, and declined to near zero thereafter, averaging about –3,000 jobs per month from August to December 2025, indicating, if anything, a modest net jobs loss over this period.” In other words, in the current labor market, the break-even rate of employment growth may actually be negative.

The unemployment rate, which is calculated from data in the household survey, declined from 4.4 percent in February for 4.3 percent in March. As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate has been remarkably stable over the past year and a half, staying between 4.0 percent and 4.4 percent in each month since May 2024. The Federal Open Market Committee’s current estimate of the natural rate of unemployment—the normal rate of unemployment over the long run—is 4.2 percent. So, unemployment is slightly above that estimate of the natural rate. (We discuss the natural rate of unemployment in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9 and Economics, Chapter 19.)

As the following figure shows, the monthly net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. As measured by the household survey, there was a net decrease of 64,000 in March. (Note that because of last year’s shutdown of the federal government, there are no data for October or November.) In any particular month, the story told by the two surveys can be inconsistent. In this case, the establishment survey shows a strong increase in net employment, while the household survey shows a decline. (In this blog post, we discuss the differences between the employment estimates in the two surveys.)

The household survey has another important labor market indicator: the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those workers aged 25 to 54. In March the ratio was 80.7 percent, unchanged from February. The prime-age population ratio remains above its value for most of the period since 2001. The continued high levels of the prime-age employment-population ratio indicate some continuing strength in the labor market.

The Trump Administration’s layoffs of some federal government workers are clearly shown in the estimate of total federal employment for October, when many federal government employees exhausted their severance pay. (The BLS notes that: “Employees on paid leave or receiving ongoing severance pay are counted as employed in the establishment survey.”) As the following figure shows, there was a decline in federal government employment of 166,000 in October, with additional declines in the following five months. The total decline in federal government employment since the beginning of February 2025 is 352,000. But the decline has been slowing, with a net decrease of 18,000 jobs in March. So, the effect of layoffs of federal government workers is no longer a major factor in month-to-month changes in total employment.

The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic. In March, the 1-month rate of wage inflation was 2.9 percent, down from 4.6 percen in February. So both 12-month and 1-month wage inflation show wages increasing slowing.

What effect is this jobs report likely to have on the decisions of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee at its next meeting on April 28–29? Although employment growth has been slow in recent months, as noted earlier, even that slow rate may be close to the break-even rate of employment growth. So, it’s unlikely that the FOMC will see current conditions in the job market as warranting a cut in the committee’s target range for the federal funds rate. In addition, disruptions to the world oil market as a result of the conflict in Iran have caused oil prices to rise, putting upward pressure on the price level. These factors make it likely that the committee will keep its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at its next meeting.

The probability that investors in the federal funds futures market assign to the FOMC keeping its target rate unchanged at its April meeting was 99.5 percent this afternoon, only a slight decrease from 100.0 percent yesterday.

Featured

Disney Defeating Pirates? Dogs and Coffee the Keys to a Healthy Life?

Image generated by ChatGPT

Recently, Rustam Jamilov of the University of Oxford posted the following figure to X, noting that: “A new paper shows that the release of Pirates of the Caribbean was associated with a 38% decline in real-world piracy incidents. The lives saved by Disney are staggering.”

A recent article in the New York Times had the headline “Get a Dog, Live Longer.” The article stated that: “Research dating back decades has found that people who own pets, especially dogs, tend to be healthier than people who don’t.” A “large review of studies published in 2019 found that owning a dog was associated with a 24 percent lower risk of dying from all causes over the course of 10 years.”

An article in the Washington Post had the headline “Drink Coffee to Prevent Dementia? It’s Not So Far-Fetched.” The article reports on a study in which “The researchers analyzed data from more than 131,000 people over multiple decades.” The key finding of the study was that “Those who regularly drank caffeinated coffee had an 18 percent lower risk [of developing dementia] compared to people who drank little or none. Regular coffee drinkers also performed better on some cognitive tests and were less likely to report mental decline.”

All three of these cases involve observational studies, rather than experiments. In experiments, researchers assign some randomly selected people to a treatment group and other people to a control group. If you wanted to test the effect of having a dog on a person’s health, you could give a dog to a randomly selected group of people—the treatment group—and assign another randomly selected group of people to remain without a dog—the control group. Then you would follow both groups for a period of years and see if there was any difference in health outcomes between the people with a dog and those without a dog.

As this example indicates, experiments can be an impractical way to test a hypothesis. So instead, researchers often follow a group of people over time and then look for correlations between their activities—having a dog or drinking coffee, for example—and their life outcomes: Are people who engage in these activities healthier, happier, more likely to be married, have higher incomes, and so on. Observational studies can generate correlations between two variables, but it’s not clear if they establish causation—does owning a dog cause you to be healthier.

Some correlations are obvious nonsense. Rustam Jamilov is joking when he pretends that, because a decline in piracy in the real world followed the release of the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, releasing the movie reduced piracy. In Chapter 6 of Money, Banking, and the Financial System we discuss the nonsense correlation discovered by Leonard Koppett when he noticed that—for a period of 11 years—which conference the winner of the National Football League’s Super Bowl was from was correlated with the performance of the stock market in the following year.

The claims that owning a dog or drinking coffee might improve your health seem more plausible because you can think of reasonable causal mechanisms. For instance, if you own a dog you might be more likely to take long walks, which may improve your health. And there may be some attribute of caffeine that makes coffee drinkers less likely to suffer from dementia.

The problem is that because people in an observational study aren’t randomly assigned to engage in the activity being studied—owning a dog or drinking coffee—we can’t be sure if people engaging in these activities differ systematically from those who don’t. As the article on the health benefits of dogs points out: “Dog owners tend to be younger and richer than non-owners, characteristics that correspond with better health.” Observational studies generally fail to control for these confounding factors, making it more difficult to determine if the correlations they find are causal.

Image created by ChatGPT

A famous example of concluding that a correlation was causal when it likely wasn’t comes from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), which followed more than 30,000 postmenopausal nurses beginning in 1976. The nurses who used hormone therapies were more than 40 percent less likely to develop coronary heart disease. This correlation was believed to be causal, which resulted in many more postmenopausal women being proscribed hormone therapies.

This conclusion was reversed by the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), which was conducted in the 1990s and randomly assigned women to receive hormone therapy or a placebo. The women receiving the hormone therapy turned out to be more likely to experience coronary problems. Part of the explanation appears to be that the nurses in the NHS who used the hormone therapy were already healthier in some respects, such as having lower weight and lower blood pressure, than the nurses who did not use the hormone therapy. (Note: The findings in this area complex and are still being debated, so don’t take our brief summary as a definitive account!)

Image created by ChatGTP

In recent years, economists have often used natural experiments to attempt to identify causal results from observational studies. With a natural experiment, economists identify some variable of interest—say, an increase in the minimum wage—that has changed for one group of people—say, fast-food workers in one state—while remaining unchanged for another similar group of people—say, fast-food workers in a neighboring state. Researchers can draw an inference about the effects of the change by looking at the difference between the outcomes for the two groups. In this example, the difference between changes in employment at fast-food restaurants in the two states can be used to measure the effect of an increase in the minimum wage.

In a famous study of the effect of the minimum wage on employment in the fast food industry published in 1994 in the American Economic Review, David Card of the University of California, Berkeley and the late Alan Krueger of Princeton University pioneered the use of natural experiments. In that study, Card and Krueger analyzed the effect of the minimum wage on employment in fast-food restaurants by comparing what happened to employment in New Jersey when it raised the state minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour with employment in eastern Pennsylvania where the minimum wage remained unchanged. They found that, contrary to the usual analysis that increases in the minimum wage lead to decreases in the employment of unskilled workers, employment of fast-food workers in New Jersey actually increased relative to employment of fast-food workers in Pennsylvania. Card shared the 2021 Nobel Prize in Economics with Joshua Angrist of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Guido Imbens of Stanford University in part for his work using natural experiments.

The following graphic from Nobel Prize website summarizes the study. (Note that not all economists have accepted the results of Card and Krueger’s study. We briefly summarize the debate over the effects of the minimum wage in Microeconomics and Economics, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.)

So, attempting to draw causal inferences from observational studies is hard. Having a dog or drinking coffee may not actually improve your health.

But why take chances? Adopt a dog!

Featured

FOMC Holds Its Target for the Federal Funds Rate Steady at Powell’s Next-to-Last Meeting

Photo from federalreserve.gov

The following figure shows for the period since January 2010, the upper bound (the blue line) and the lower bound (the green line) for the FOMC’s target range for the federal funds rate, as well as the actual values for the federal funds rate (the red line). Note that the Fed has been successful in keeping the value of the federal funds rate in its target range. (We discuss the monetary policy tools the FOMC uses to maintain the federal funds rate within its target range in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.2 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.2).)

After the meeting, the committee also released a “Summary of Economic Projections” (SEP)—as it typically does after its March, June, September, and December meetings. The SEP presents median values of the 19 committee members’ forecasts of key economic variables. The values are summarized in the following table, reproduced from the release. (Note that only 5 of the district bank presidents vote at FOMC meetings, although all 12 presidents participate in the discussions and prepare forecasts for the SEP.)

There are several aspects of these forecasts worth noting:

Compared with December, the committee members increased their forecasts of real GDP growth for each year from 2025 through 2027. The committee members also increased their forecast of long-run growth in real GDP to 2.0 percent from 1.8 percent in December. Although that increase may seem small, as we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 10, Section 10.1 (Economics, Chapter 20, Section 20.1), over time, small increases in growth rates in real GDP can result in substantial increases in the standard of living. Despite increasing their forecast of growth in real GDP, committee members left their forecasts of the unemployment rate unchanged.
Committee members reduced their forecast for 2026 of personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price inflation significantly to 2.7 percent from 2.4 percent in December. They raised their forecast for inflation in 2027 slightly and continued to forecast that PCE inflation will decline to the Fed’s 2.0 percent annual target in 2028.
The committee’s forecasts of the federal funds rate at the end of each year from 2026 through 2028 were unchanged but the forecast for the long-run federal funds rate was increased to 3.1 percent from 3.0 percent in December.

Prior to the meeting there was much discussion in the business press and among investment analysts about the dot plot, shown below. Each dot in the plot represents the projection of an individual committee member. (The committee doesn’t disclose which member is associated with which dot.) Note that there are 19 dots, representing the 7 members of the Fed’s Board of Governors and all 12 presidents of the Fed’s district banks.

The plots on the far left of the figure represent the projections by the 19 members of the value of the federal funds rate at the end of 2026. The plots indicate that at this point there is majority support on the committee for one 25 basis point cut by the end of the year in the federal funds rate from its current range of 3.50 percent to 3.25 percent to a range of 3.25 percent to 3.00 percent. The plots on the far right of the figure indicate that there is substantial disagreement among committee members as to what the long-run value of the federal funds rate—the so-called neutral rate—should be. Of course, the plots only represent the forecasts of the committee members and individual committee members are likely to adjust their forecasts as additional macroeconomic data become available in the coming months.

During his press conference following the meeting, Powell indicated that the effects of the conflict in Iran on the U.S. economy were uncertain. He noted that traditionally central banks “look through” increases in oil prices because they result in only a one-time increase in the price level rather than in sustained inflation. He noted, though, that the committee might take steps to offset the effect of higher oil prices if there were an indication that the price increases were affecting long-run expectations of inflation.

He noted that the increase in inflation in recent months was largely due to the effects of the increase in tariffs on goods prices. Powell indicated that committee members expect that the tariff increases will have largely passed through the economy by the middle of the year. Powell attributed committee members increasing their forecast of long-run growth in real GDP to their expectation that recent increases in productivity growth would be sustained.

Finally, Powell discussed the end of his term as chair on May 15. (Powell will be chair for one more meeting of the FOMC on April 28–29.) He stated that if the Senate doesn’t confirm Kevin Warsh as his replacement as chair by May 15, he would follow the law and Fed tradition by continuing to serve as chair in a temporary capacity. Powell’s term as a member of the Board of Governors doesn’t end until January 31, 2028. He indicated that he will only step down from his position on the Board if the legal case the Department of Justice has opened against him for having given allegedly false testimony to Congress is “well and truly over, with transparency and finality.”

Featured

Real GDP Growth Revised Downward as PCE Inflation Is Slightly Lower than Expected

Image generated by ChatGPT

The Burea of Economic Analysis (BEA) released two reports this morning. One report included a revision of estimated growth in real GDP during the fourth quarter of 2025 from an advance estimate of 1.4 percent—which was already lower than had been expected—to 0.7 percent. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had expected that fourth quarter growth would be revised upward to 1.5 percent. The BEA’s “Personal Income and Outlays, January 2026” report indicated that the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index had increased 2.8 percent over the past year, slightly below the 2.9 percent that economists had expected.

The following figure shows the estimated rates of GDP growth in each quarter beginning with the first quarter of 2021.

As the following figure—taken from the BEA report—shows, consumer spending, investment spending, government spending, and net exports were all revised downward from the original advance estimates. The decline in real government expenditures of –1.0 percent at an annual rate—revised downward from –0.9 percent—was the most important factor contributing to the slowing growth in real GDP during the fourth quarter. The decline in government expenditures is largely attributable to the federal government shutdown, which lasted from October 1, 2025 to November 12, 2025.

As we’ve discussed in previous blog posts, to better gauge the state of the economy, policymakers—including Fed Chair Jerome Powell—often prefer to strip out the effects of imports, inventory investment, and government expenditures—which can be volatile—by looking at real final sales to private domestic purchasers, which includes only spending by U.S. households and firms on domestic production. As the following figure shows, real final sales to domestic purchasers increased by 1.9 percent in the fourth quarter at an annual rate—revised downward from the advance estimate of 2.4 percent—which was well above the 0.9 percent increase in real GDP and slightly above the U.S. economy’s expected long-run annual real growth rate of 1.8 percent. Note also that real final sales to private domestic purchasers grew by 2.9 percent in the third quarter, during which real GDP grew by 4.4 percent, and by 1.9 percent in the first quarter of 2025, when real GDP declined by 0.6 percent. So this measure of output is more stable and likely is a better indicator of the underlying growth rate in the economy than is growth in real GDP.

The second BEA report this morning included monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index for January 2026. The Fed relies on annual changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2.0 percent annual inflation target. The following figure shows headline PCE inflation (the blue line) and core PCE inflation (the red line)—which excludes energy and food prices— with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. In January 2026, headline PCE inflation was 2.8 percent, down slightly from 2.9 percent in December 2025 (which was also the inflation rate economists had expected for January 2026). Core PCE inflation in January was 3.1 percent, up slightly from 3.0 in December. Both headline PCE inflation and core PCE inflation remained above the Fed’s 2.0 percent annual inflation target.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell has frequently mentioned that inflation in non-market services can skew PCE inflation. Non-market services are services whose prices the BEA imputes rather than measures directly. For instance, the BEA assumes that prices of financial services—such as brokerage fees—vary with the prices of financial assets. So that if stock prices fall, the prices of financial services included in the PCE price index also fall. Powell has argued that these imputed prices “don’t really tell us much about … tightness in the economy. They don’t really reflect that.” The following figure shows 12-month headline inflation (the blue line) and 12-month core inflation (the red line) for market-based PCE. (The BEA explains the market-based PCE measure here.)

Headline market-based PCE inflation was 2.6 percent in January, down from 2.7 percent in December. Core market-based PCE inflation was 2.8 percent in January, up from 2.7 in December. So, both market-based measures show inflation as stable but above the Fed’s 2 percent target.

In the following figure, we look at 1-month inflation using these measures. One-month headline market-based inflation was 3.3 percent in January, down from 4.3 percent in December. One-month core market-based inflation increased to 4.6 percent in January from 4.4 percent in December. As the figure shows, the 1-month inflation rates are more volatile than the 12-month rates, which is why the Fed relies on the 12-month rates when gauging how close it is coming to hitting its target inflation rate.

Today’s data arrive against the backdrop of the conflict in Iran. According to the AAA, gasoline prices have risen to an average of $3.63 per gallon from $2.94 a month ago. Assuming that the conflict is resolved relatively soon, that increase should have only a transitory effect on inflation. Chair Powell as indicated that he believes that the upward pressure of tariffs on the price level is also still working its way through the economy.

Recent macroeconomic data, along with the effects of tariffs and the conflict in Iran, make it unlikely that members of the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will reduce their target range for the federal funds rate any time soon. The probability that investors in the federal funds futures market assign to the FOMC keeping its target rate unchanged at its March 17–18 meeting decreased only slightly this afternoon to 99.1 percent from rom 99.9 percent yesterday. Investors don’t assign a greater than 50 percent probability to the FOMC cutting its federal funds rate target at any meeting before the meeting on October 27–28.

Featured

CPI Inflation Comes in about as Expected

Image created by ChatGPT

The news this morning on inflation was ho-hum. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its report on the consumer price index (CPI) for February. Inflation was about as expected and remained moderately above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent annual inflation target. The following figure compares headline CPI inflation (the blue line) and core CPI inflation (the red line). Because of the effects of the federal government shutdown, the BLS didn’t report inflation rates for October or November, so both lines show gaps for those months.

The headline inflation rate, which is measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous year, was 2.4 percent in February, unchanged from January.
The core inflation rate, which excludes the prices of food and energy, was 2.5 percent in February, also unchanged from January.

Headline and core inflation were both equal to the forecasts of economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal.

In the following figure, we look at the 1-month inflation rate for headline and core inflation—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. Calculated as the 1-month inflation rate, headline inflation (the blue line) was 3.2 percent in February, up from 2.1 percent in January. Core inflation (the red line) decreased to 2.6 percent in February from 3.6 percent in January.

The 1-month and 12-month headline and core inflation rates are telling similar stories, with both measures indicating that the rate of price increase is running somewhat above the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target.

Of course, it’s important not to overinterpret the data from a single month. The figure shows that the 1-month inflation rate is particularly volatile. Also note that the Fed uses the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, rather than the CPI, to evaluate whether it is hitting its 2 percent annual inflation target. February data on the PCE will be released on Friday.

In recent months, there have been many media reports on how consumers are concerned about declining affordability. Affordability has no exact interpretation but typically means concern about inflation in goods and services that consumers buy frequently.

Many consumers seem worried about inflation in food prices. The following figure shows 1-month inflation in the CPI category “food at home” (the blue bar)—primarily food purchased at groceries stores—and the category “food away from home” (the red bar)—primarily food purchased at restaurants. Inflation in both measures rose in February. Food at home increased 5.4 percent in February, up from 2.3 percent in January. Food away from home increased 3.9 percent in February, up from 1.8 percent in January. Again, 1-month inflation rates can be volatile.

Gasoline prices, which bounce around a lot from month to month, were up in February. The following figure shows 1-month inflation in gasoline prices. In February the price of gasoline increase at an annual rate of 10.1 percent, after having fallen at an annual rate of 32.2 percent in January. These data were gathered before the increase in gasoline prices caused by the conflict in Iran. The increase in food and gasoline prices helped push headline inflation above core inflation in February.

The affordability discussion has also focused on the cost of housing. The price of shelter in the CPI, as explained here, includes both rent paid for an apartment or a house and “owners’ equivalent rent of residences (OER),” which is an estimate of what a house (or apartment) would rent for if the owner were renting it out. OER is included in the CPI to account for the value of the services an owner receives from living in an apartment or house. The following figure shows 1-month inflation in shelter.

One-month inflation in shelter, which has been trending down since early 2023, increased slightly to 2.8 percent in February from 2.7 in January.

It’s unlikely that this inflation report will have much effect on the views of the members of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The FOMC is unlikely to lower its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on March 17–18. The probability that investors in the federal funds futures market assign to the FOMC keeping its target rate unchanged at that meeting increased only slightly from 98.4 percent yesterday to 99.4 percent this afternoon.

Featured

Surprising Decline in Employment in the February Jobs Report

Image created by ChatGPT

This morning (March 6), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for February. The jobs report for January showed a much stronger than expected increase in employment. Today’s report was a surprise in the opposite direction with employment unexpectedly declining.

The jobs report has two estimates of the change in employment during the month: one estimate from the establishment survey, often referred to as the payroll survey, and one from the household survey. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and Federal Reserve policymakers believe that employment data from the establishment survey provide a more accurate indicator of the state of the labor market than do the household survey’s employment data and unemployment data. (The groups included in the employment estimates from the two surveys are somewhat different, as we discuss in this post.)

According to the establishment survey, there was a net decrease of 92,000 nonfarm jobs during February. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had forecast an increase of 50,000 jobs. Economists surveyed by FactSet had a higher forecast of a net increase of 70,000 jobs. The BLS revised downward its previous estimates of employment in December and January by a combined 69,000 jobs. The revised estimate indicates that employment fell in December by 17,000 rather than increasing by 48,000 as in the previous estimate. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”)

The following figure from the jobs report shows the net change in nonfarm payroll employment for each month in the last two years. The current estimates show a net decrease in employment during five of the last nine months.

The unemployment rate, which is calculated from data in the household survey, increased to 4.4 percent in February for 4.3 percent in January. As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate has been remarkably stable over the past year and a half, staying between 4.0 percent and 4.4 percent in each month since May 2024. The Federal Open Market Committee’s current estimate of the natural rate of unemployment—the normal rate of unemployment over the long run—is 4.2 percent. So, unemployment is slightly above that estimate of the natural rate. (We discuss the natural rate of unemployment in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9 and Economics, Chapter 19.)

As the following figure shows, the monthly net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. As measured by the household survey, there was a net decrease of 185,000 in February. (Note that because of last year’s shutdown of the federal government, there are no data for October or November.) In any particular month, the story told by the two surveys can be inconsistent. In this case, both surveys indicate a net decline in employment. (In this blog post, we discuss the differences between the employment estimates in the two surveys.)

The household survey has another important labor market indicator: the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those workers aged 25 to 54. In February the ratio was 80.7 percent, down slightly from 80.8 percent in January. The prime-age population ratio remains above its value for most of the period since 2001. The continued high levels of the prime-age employment-population ratio indicate some continuing strength in the labor market.

The Trump Administration’s layoffs of some federal government workers are clearly shown in the estimate of total federal employment for October, when many federal government employees exhausted their severance pay. (The BLS notes that: “Employees on paid leave or receiving ongoing severance pay are counted as employed in the establishment survey.”) As the following figure shows, there was a decline in federal government employment of 166,000 in October, with additional declines in the following four months. The total decline in federal government employment since the beginning of February 2025 is 327,000. But the decline has been slowing, with a net decrease of 10,000 jobs in February.

The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic. In February, the 1-month rate of wage inflation was 5.0 percent, unchanged from January. This high rate of wage growth is surprising given the decline in employment. But two month’s data from such a volatile series may not accurately reflect longer-run trends in wage inflation.

What effect is this weak jobs report likely to have on the decisions of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee at its next meeting on March 17–18? Taken by itself, employment having fallen in five of the last nine months might be expected to cause the committee to cut its target range for the federal funds rate. But disruptions to the world oil market as a result of the U.S. and Israeli bombing campaign in Iraq have caused oil prices to rise, putting upward pressure on the price level. In addition, wage growth in the United States appears higher than is consistent with price inflation returning to the Fed’s 2 percent annual target. These factors make it likely that the committee will keep its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at its next meeting.

The probability that investors in the federal funds futures market assign to the FOMC keeping its target rate unchanged at its March meeting was largely unchanged this morning at 95.6 percent, only a slight decrease from 96.3 percent yesterday.

Featured

How Many Manufacturing Workers Are There in the United States?

Image created by ChatGPT

Every president dating back to at least Ronald Reagan, who took office in January 1981, has promised to increase manufacturing employment. Manufacturing jobs are often seen as making it possible for workers without a college degree to earn a middle-class income. As the following figure shows, though, since 2018, average hourly earnings of workers in manufacturing have actually been less than average hourly earnings of all workers.

If we look at just the wages of production and nonsupervisory workers in manufacturing—like the workers shown in the image above—during the past 20 years, the average hourly earnings of production workers in manufacturing have generally been about 20 percent less than the average hourly earnings of all workers.

The following figure shows the absolute number of all employees in manufacturing (the blue line) and production and nonsupervisory employees in manufacturing monthly since 1939. Employment of production workers peaked in 1943, during World War II. Employment of all employees in manufacturing peaked in 1979. (All employees in manufacturing include, in addition to production workers, managers and other employees with administrative duties, accountants, lawyers, salespeople, and all other employees not directly concerned with production.) The trend in manufacturing employment has generally been downward since 1979 and has been below 13 million every month since December 2008. In January 2026, there were 12.6 million total employees in manufacturing of whom 8.8 million were production workers.

The following figure shows manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment for each month since 1939. Manufacturing employment peaked as percentage of total employment at 38.7 percent in 1943. It has slowly trended down since that time, being below 10 percent every month since September 2007. In January 2026, manufacturing employment was 7.9 percent of total employment.

All of the data in the figurs shown so far are from the establishment survey (formally, the Current Employment Statistics (CES)). Recently, Adam Ozimek, Benjamin Glasner, and Jiaxin He of the Economic Innovation Group have examined the discrepancy between the number of manufacturing workers as reported in establishment survey and the larger number of manufacturing workers reported in the household survey (formally, the Current Population Survey (CPS).) Each month when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases its “Employment Situation” report, usually referred to as the “jobs report,” attention focuses on two numbers: The change in total employment as calculated from the establishment survey and the unemployment rate as calculated from the household survey.

In addition to the unemployment rate, the BLS releases monthly data on total employment and on employment by industry from the household survey. Most economists, policymakers, and investment analysts pay little attention to the data on employment by industry from the household survey because the employment by industry data from the establishment survey is considered more reliable. In fact, the employment by industry data from the household survey isn’t included among the many macro series available on the FRED site. The following figure reproduces the two establishment survey (CES) data (the blue and red lines) shown in the third figure above along with the household survey (CPS) data (the green line) from the BLS site. (Note that the household survey data is choppier than the data in the other two series because it is not seasonally adjusted.)

Manufacturing employment is consistently larger in the household survey data than in the establishment survey data. For example, in January 2026, total manufacturing employment according to the establishment survey was 12.6 million, whereas total manufacturing employment according to the household survey was 15.4 million—a difference of 2.7 million. Put another way, if the household survey is accurate, manufacturing employment is actually 20 percent higher than it appears from the widely-used establishment survey data.

The establishment survey data is collected by surveying firms, whereas the household survey data is collected from surveying workers. In other words, in January, 2.7 million more workers considered themselves to be in manufacturing than firms reported were actually working in manufacturing. Typically, economists and policymakers consider results from the establishment survey to be more reliable because firms are legally obliged to keep accurate accounts of the number of their employees, whereas the answers from workers responding to surveys are accepted without additional checking.

Ozimek, Glasner, and He note that the persistence of a gap between the establishment and household data on manufacturing employment indicates that there are some establishments that the census considers to be engaged in some activity other than manufacturing but whose workers consider themselves to be in manufacturing. The authors present a careful discussion of the issues involved and the entire piece (linked to above) is worth reading carefully by anyone who is concerned about this issue, but we can mention here one particularly interesting point.

The authors link to a paper by Andrew Bernard and Theresa Fort of Dartmouth College discussing “factoryless goods producing firms,” which are “manufacturing-like as they perform many of the tasks and activities found in manufacturing firms” but that don’t actually manufacture goods. Ozimek, Glasner, and He give as one example Apple’s Elk Grove, California site. They note that at one time Apple assembled computers at that site but that currently “there is no assembly at that location, but thousands of Apple employees work there on logistics, distribution, repair, and customer support.” In other words, the site contributes to manufacturing Apple’s products and, if surveyed, many of its employees might respond that they work in manufacturing, but because no products are actually assembled at the site, the site won’t be considered as engaged in manufacturing by the establishment survey. They conclude that: “These sorts of employees—who work adjacent to manufacturing, but not in categorized establishments—make up a big chunk of the 2.2 to 2.8 million missing manufacturing workers.”

Clearly, an important issue in an accurate count of manufacturing workers is a definition of what we mean by manufacturing. Should a particular site—establishment—be considered as engaged in manufacturing only if products are assembled at that site? Or should a site be considered as engaged in manufacturing if its purpose is to support assembly that is done elsewhere?

Because the number of manufacturing workers and the fraction of the labor force engaged in manufacturing have been important political issues for decades, it’s somewhat surprising how little attention has been devoted to ensuring that we’re actually correctly measuring manufacturing employment.

Featured

New Real GDP Data Shows that Growth Slowed Substantially in the Fourth Quarter … or Did It?

Image created by ChatGPT

Recent macro data had been showing relatively strong growth in output and steady growth in employment. This morning’s release of the initial estimate of real GDP growth for the fourth quarter of 2025 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) was expected to show continuing solid growth. (The report can be found here.) Instead, the BEA estimates that real GDP increased in the fourth quarter by only 1.4 percent measured at an annual rate. Growth was down sharply from the 4.4 percent increase in the third quarter of 2025. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had forecast a 2.5 percent increase. The following figure shows the estimated rates of GDP growth in each quarter beginning with the first quarter of 2021.

As the following figure—taken from the BEA report—shows, the decline in real government expenditures of –0.90 percent at an annual rate was the most important factor contributing to the slowing growth in real GDP during the fourth quarter. The decline in government expenditures is largely attributable to the federal government shutdown, which lasted from October 1, 2025 to November 12, 2025.

As we’ve discussed in previous blog posts, to better gauge the state of the economy, policymakers—including Fed Chair Jerome Powell—often prefer to strip out the effects of imports, inventory investment, and government expenditures—which can be volatile—by looking at real final sales to private domestic purchasers, which includes only spending by U.S. households and firms on domestic production. As the following figure shows, real final sales to domestic purchasers increased by 2.4 percent at an annual rate in the fourth quarter, which was well above the 1.4 percent increase in real GDP and also above the U.S. economy’s expected long-run annual real growth rate of 1.8 percent. Note also that real final sales to private domestic purchasers grew by 2.9 percent in the third quarter, during which real GDP grew by 4.4 percent, and by 1.9 percent in the first quarter of 2025, when real GDP declined by 0.6 percent. So this measure of output is more stable and likely is a better indicator of the underlying growth rate in the economy than is growth in real GDP.

The BEA report this morning also included quarterly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index. The Fed relies on annual changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2 percent annual inflation target. The following figure shows headline PCE inflation (the blue line) and core PCE inflation (the red line)—which excludes energy and food prices—for the period since the first quarter of 2019, with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same quarter in the previous year. In the fourth quarter of 2025, headline PCE inflation was 2.8 percent, up slightly from 2.7 percent in the third quarter. Core PCE inflation in the third quarter was 2.9 percent, unchanged from the third quarter. Both headline PCE inflation and core PCE inflation remained above the Fed’s 2 percent annual inflation target.

The following figure shows quarterly PCE inflation and quarterly core PCE inflation calculated by compounding the current quarter’s rate over an entire year. Measured this way, headline PCE inflation increased to 2.9 percent in the fourth quarter of 2025, up from to 2.8 percent in the third quarter. Core PCE inflation fell to 2.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2025 from 2.9 percent in the third quarter. Measured this way, both core and headline PCE inflation were also above the Fed’s target.

Today was also notable for a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that invalidated some of the Trump administration’s tariff increases that began to be implemented in April 2025. President Trump announced this afternoon that he would impose a new 10 percent across-the-board tariff, relying on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, rather than on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the Supreme Court ruled today did not authorize presidents to unilaterally impose tariffs.

Today’s developments appeared unlikely to have much effect on the views of the members of the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The FOMC is unlikely to lower its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on March 17–18. The probability that investors in the federal funds futures market assign to the FOMC keeping its target rate unchanged at that meeting increased only slightly from 94.6 percent yesterday to 96.0 percent this afternoon.

Featured

CPI Inflation Comes in Lower than Expected

Image created by ChatGPT

There was good news this morning on inflation. (Although maybe not quite good enough to justify the exuberance of the people in the AI-generated image above!) The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its report on the consumer price index (CPI) for January. The following figure compares headline CPI inflation (the blue line) and core CPI inflation (the red line). Because of the effects of the federal government shutdown, the BLS didn’t report inflation rates for October or November, so both lines show gaps for those months. (Today’s report was delayed two days by the recent brief government shutdown.)

The headline inflation rate, which is measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous year, was 2.4 percent in January, down from 2.7 percent in December.
The core inflation rate, which excludes the prices of food and energy, was 2.5 percent in January, down from 2.6 percent in December.

Headline inflation was lower than the forecast of economists surveyed by FactSet, while core inflation was at the forecast rate.

In the following figure, we look at the 1-month inflation rate for headline and core inflation—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. Calculated as the 1-month inflation rate, headline inflation (the blue line) was 2.1 percent in January, down from 3.6 percent in December. Core inflation (the red line) increased to 3.6 percent in January from 2.8 percent in December.

The 1-month and 12-month headline inflation rates are telling similar stories, with both measures indicating that the rate of price increase is running slightly above the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target. The 1-month core inflation rate shows inflation running well above the Fed’s target.

In recent months, there have been many media reports on how consumers are concerned about declining affordability. These concerns are thought to have contributed to Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York City mayoral race. Affordability has no exact interpretation but typically means concern about inflation in goods and services that consumers buy frequently.

Many consumers seem worried about inflation in food prices. The following figure shows 1-month inflation in the CPI category “food at home” (the blue bar)—primarily food purchased at groceries stores—and the category “food away from home” (the red bar)—primarily food purchased at restaurants. Inflation in both measures fell in January from the very high leves of December. Food at home increased 2.3 percent in January, down sharply from up from 7.8 percent in December. Food away from home increased 1.8 percent in January, also down sharply from 8.7 percent in December. Again, 1-month inflation rates can be volatile, but the deceleration in inflation in food prices would be a welcome development if it can be sustained in future months.

There was also good news in the falling price of gasoline. The following figure shows 1-month inflation in gasoline prices. In January the price of gasoline fell at an annual rate of 32.2 percent, after having fallen at an annual rate of 4.0 percent in December. As those values imply, 1-month inflation rates in gasoline are quite volatile.

One-month inflation in shelter decreased to 2.7 percent in January from 4.7 in December, which is also good news if it can be sustained.

What effect have the tariffs that the Trump administration announced on April 2 had on inflation? (Note that many of the tariff increases announced on April 2 have since been reduced.) There has been a debate among policymakers and economists as to whether the full effects of tariff increases have already shown up in prices of final goods. In his press conference following the last meeing of the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), Fed Chair Jerome Powell indicated that he believed that tariffs would cause further price increases later in the year:

“The U.S. economy has pushed right through [the tariff increases]. Partly that is—that the way that what was implemented was significantly less than what was announced at the beginning. In addition, other countries didn’t retaliate, and, in addition, a good part of it hasn’t been passed through to consumers yet. It’s being—it’s being taken by companies that stand between the consumer and the exporter.”

The following figure shows 12-month inflation in durable goods—such as furniture, appliances, and cars—which are likely to be affected directly by tariffs, and 12-month inflation in services, which are less likely to be affected by tariffs. In January, inflation in durable goods was 0.4 percent, down from 1.2 percent in December. Inflation in services was 3.2 percent in January, down slightly from 3.3 percent in December. So to this point, upward pressure on goods prices from the tariffs is not reflected in the most recent data.

It’s unlikely that this inflation report will have much effect on the views of the members of the FOMC. The FOMC is unlikely to lower its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on March 17–18. The probability that investors in the federal funds futures market assign to the FOMC keeping its target rate unchanged at that meeting declined only slightly from 91.6 percent yesterday to 90.2 percent after the release of today’s inflation report.

Featured

Healthcare Jobs Dominate Employment Growth in the United States

Image created by ChatGPT

It’s not surprising that employment in health care has been increasing. The National Health Expenditure (NHE) Projections Model of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimates that the long-run income elasticity of demand for private personal health care spending is 1.58. So, a 10 percent increase in U.S. disposable personal income will result in the long run in a 15.8 percent increase in private personal health care spending. In other words, we would expect personal health care spending to become an increasing fraction of total household spending. In addition, the median age of the U.S. population has increased from 32.9 years in 1990 to a projected 40.1 years in 2025. As people age, their demand for health care increases. Finally, holding income and age constant, demand for health care has also increased as a result of the increasing effectiveness of medical care in treating disease.

Despite these long-run trends, it’s surprising how dependent increases in U.S. employment have become recently on the growth in health care jobs. The following figure shows monthly changes in a broad measure of health care employment (the blue bars) and in total nonfarm employment (the red bars), using data from the establishment survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (This blog post yesterday discussed the latest “Employment Situation” report from the BLS.)

The values for January 2023 through December 2024 show what we might expect—the increase in total employment being significantly larger than the increase in health care employment. During this period, health care employment was about 48.5 percent of total employment. In other words, although health care employment was a key driver of increases in employment, non-health care employment was also steadily increasing. The situation since January 2025 is much different with health care employment increasing by 817,000, while total employment increased by only 311,000. In other words, since January 2025, employment outside of health care (again, broadly defined) has fallen by more than 500,000 jobs.

We can look at longer term trends in health care employment relative to employment in other industries. The following maps show the change over time in the industry with the most employment in each state, using data from the BLS’s “Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.” The industries are grouped into four broad categories: manufacturing, retail trade, leisure and hospitality, and health care. (Industries are defined as follows using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): Manufacturing is NAICS 31–33, Retail trade is NAICS 44–45, Leisure and hospitality is NAICS 72, and health care is NAICS 62.)

In 1990, manufacturing was the largest source of private employment in most states, and in no state was health care the largest employer. By 2000, manufacturing was still the largest employer in 27 states, but health care had become the largest employer in 2 states. The results for 2024 are strikingly different: Manufacturing was no longer the largest employer in any state, and health care was the largest employer in 48 states—every state except for Hawaii and Nevada.

In 1990, almost twice as many people in the United States worked in manufacturing as worked in health care. In 2024, employment in health care was 80 percent greater than employment in manufacturing. And these trends are likely to continue. The BLS forecast in 2025 that 12 of the 20 fastest-growing occupations over the next 10 years will be in health care.

Featured

Surprisingly Strong Jobs Report Accompanied by a Large Downward Annual Benchmark Revision

Image created by ChatGPT

This morning (February 11), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for January. The report was originally scheduled to be released last Friday but was postponed by the brief federal government shutdown. The data in the report show that the labor market was much stronger than expected in January.

According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 130,000 nonfarm jobs during January. This increase was well above the increase of 55,000 that economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had forecast. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg had a higher forecast of 65,000 net jobs. The BLS revised downward its previous estimates of employment in November and December by a combined 17,000 jobs. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”)

The following figure from the jobs report shows the net change in nonfarm payroll employment for each month in the last two years. The increase in net jobs in January was the largest since December 2024.

The unemployment rate, which is calculated from data in the household survey, fell from 4.4 percent in December to 4.3 percent in January. As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate has been remarkably stable over the past year and a half, staying between 4.0 percent and 4.4 percent in each month since May 2024. The Federal Open Market Committee’s current estimate of the natural rate of unemployment—the normal rate of unemployment over the long run—is 4.2 percent. So, unemployment is slightly above the natural rate. (We discuss the natural rate of unemployment in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9 and Economics, Chapter 19.)

As the following figure shows, the monthly net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. As measured by the household survey, there was a net increase of 528,000 in January, far above the increase in jobs from the payroll survey. (Note that because of last year’s shutdown of the federal government, there are no data for October or November.) In any particular month, the story told by the two surveys can be inconsistent. In this case, both surveys indicate unexpectedly strong job growth, with the increase in household employment being particularly strong. (In this blog post, we discuss the differences between the employment estimates in the two surveys.)

The household survey has another important labor market indicator: the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those workers aged 25 to 54. In January the ratio was 80.9 percent, the highest since September 2024. In addition to matching the recent highs reached in mid-2024, the prime-age employment-population ratio is above what the ratio was in any month since April 2001. The continued high levels of the prime-age employment-population ratio indicates some continuing strength in the labor market.

The Trump Administration’s layoffs of some federal government workers are clearly shown in the estimate of total federal employment for October, when many federal government employees exhausted their severance pay. (The BLS notes that: “Employees on paid leave or receiving ongoing severance pay are counted as employed in the establishment survey.”) As the following figure shows, there was a decline federal government employment of 166,000 in October, with additional declines in the following three months. The total decline in federal government employment since the beginning of February 2025 is 324,000.

The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic. In January, the 1-month rate of wage inflation was 5.0 percent, up from 0.7 percent in December. This increase in wage growth may be an indication of a strengthening labor market. But one month’s data from such a volatile series may not accurately reflect longer-run trends in wage inflation.

In today’s jobs report, the BLS also included its final annual benchmark revision to the establishment employment data. (We discussed the preliminary annual revision in this blog post last September.) The following table from the jobs report indicates that the revision was quite substantial. The revised estimate of payroll employment is 1,029,000 jobs lower than the original estimate. The increase in total nonfarm employment in 2025 was revised down to only 181,000 from the original estimate of 584,000. Leaving aside the collapse in employment in 2020 during the Covid pandemic, job growth in 2025 was the slowest since 2010 in the immediate aftermath of the Great Recession of 2007–2009.

Despite the large downward revision to job growth in 2025, the strong job growth for January in today’s jobs report makes it unlikely that the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will lower its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on March 17–18. The probability that investors in the federal funds futures market assign to the FOMC keeping its target rate unchanged at that meeting jumped from 79.9 percent yesterday to 92.1 percent after the release of today’s jobs report.

Featured

December JOLTS Report Shows Possible Labor Market Weakening

Image created by ChatGPT

Today (February 5), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Job Openings and Labor Turnover” (JOLTS) report for December 2025. The report indicated that labor market conditions may be weakening. The following figure shows that the rate of job openings fell to 3.9 percent in December from 4.2 percent in November. The rate was 4.5 percent in October. The job openings rate is the lowest since April 2020, at the start of the Covid pandemic. We should note the usual caveat that the monthly JOLTS data is subject to potentially large revisions as the BLS receives more complete data.

(The BLS defines a job opening as a full-time or part-time job that a firm is advertising and that will start within 30 days. The rate of job openings is the number of job openings divided by the number of job openings plus the number employed workers, multiplied by 100.)

In the following figure, we show a measure of the state of the labor market that economists frequently use: the total number of job openings to the total number of people unemployed. In December there were 0.87 job openings per unemployed person, the lowest value for that measure since March 2021, during the recovery from the pandemic. The value was 1.0 in September. (Note that data for October and November are unavailable because the data weren’t collected during the shutdown of the federal government from October 1 to November 12 last year.) The value for December is well below the 1.21 job openings per employed person in February 2020, just before the pandemic. (Note that, as we discussed in this blog post, the employment-population ratio for prime age workers, which many economists consider a key measure of the state of the labor market, rose in December, putting it above what the ratio was in any month during the period from January 2008 to February 2020.)

The rate at which workers are willing to quit their jobs is an indication of how they perceive the ease of finding a new job. As the following figure shows, the quit rate declined slowly from a peak of 3 percent in late 2021 and early 2022 to 2.0 percent in August 2024, the same value as in December 2025. That rate is below the rate during 2019 and early 2020. By this measure, workers’ perceptions of the state of the labor market have remained remarkably stable over the last year and a half.

Overall, this JOLTS report is consistent with what some economists have labeled a “slow hire, slow fire” labor market. Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s remarks at his press conference following the last meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) indicates that Fed policymakers share this view, which Powell believes complicates monetary policymaking:

“So there are lots of … little places that suggest that the labor market has softened, but part of … payroll job softening is that both the supply and demand for labor has come down … growth in those two have come down. So that makes it a difficult time to read the labor market. So, imagine they both came down a lot, to the point where there is no job growth. Is that full employment? In a sense it is. If demand and supply are … in balance, you could say that’s full employment. At the same time, is it—do we really feel like … that’s a maximum employment economy? It’s a challenging—it’s very challenging and quite unusual situation.”

The BLS was scheduled to release its monthly “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for January 2026 tomorrow. Because of the temporary lapse in funding that began Saturday, the report will instead be released next Wednesday, February 11. That report will provide additional data on the state of the labor market. (Note that the data in the JOLTS report lag the data in the “Employment Situation” report by one month.)

Featured

President Trump Nominates Kevin Warsh to be Fed Chair

Photo of Kevin Warsh from Bloomberg News via the Wall Street Journal

This morning, President Trump ended the suspense over who he would nominate for Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve by choosing Kevin Warsh. Warsh was considered one of the four finalists, along with Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, Fed Governor Christopher Waller, and Rick Rieder, who is an executive at BlackRock, an investment firm.

Warsh had been appointed to the Board of Governors in 2006 by President George W. Bush. Warsh was the youngest person ever appointed to the Board and served from 2006 to 2011. He is generally credited with having been heavily involved in formulating policy during the Great Financial Crisis of 2007–2009. He, along with Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, Fed Governor Donald Kohn, and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner were labeled the “four musketeers” of monetary policy during that period. (We discuss the reasons why during that period Bernanke relied on a small group for policymaking in Money, Banking, and the Financial System, Chapter 13.)

Warsh had been considered an inflation hawk, which would indicate that he would be in favor of keeping the target for the federal funds relatively high until inflation returns to the Fed’s 2 percent annual target and would also want to shrink the Fed’s balance sheet by continuing quantitative tightening (QT). Warsh’s current views are summarized in an op-ed he wrote for the Wall Street Journal in November titled” The Federal Reserve’s Broken Leadership” (a subscription may be required). In that op-ed, Warsh seems to advocate that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should be lowering its target for the federal funds rate more quickly. Presumably, Warsh’s views on appropriate monetary policy will be discussed at his confirmation hearing.

Assuming that Warsh has sufficient support in the Senate to be confirmed there remains the question of which seat on the Board of Governors he will fill. Current Chair Jerome Powell’s term as chair expires on May 15, 2026. If Powell follows recent precedent, he will step down when his term as chair ends, providing an open seat that Warsh can fill. But Powell’s term as a Fed governor doesn’t end until January 31, 2028, so he could chose to remain on the board until that time. If Powell doesn’t step down, Warsh would presumably fill the seat currently occupied by Stephen Miran, whose term technically ends tomorrow (January 31). Miran will likely remain on the board until Warsh is confirmed.

The Wall Street Journal printed a useful graphic showing the current membership of the board. Powell is listed with the Presidents Obama and Biden’s appointees because he was first appointed to the board by President Obama in 2012. But Powell was appointed as Fed chair by President Trump in 2018. He was reappointed as chair by President Biden in 2022. If Powell steps down from the board when Warsh is confirmed and if Miran is appointed to another term, or if he steps down and President Trump appoints someone else to that seat, President Trump will have appointed a majority of board members. It’s worth remembering that 5 Fed District Bank presidents vote at each meeting of the FOMC (all 12 District Bank presidents attend each meeting) and that District Bank presidents are not appointed by the U.S. president.

Featured

As Expected, the FOMC Keeps the Federal Funds Rate Target Unchanged

Photo of Fed Chair Jerome Powell from federalreserve.gov

Today’s meeting of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had the expected result with the committee deciding to keep its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 3.50 percent to 3.75 percent. Fed Governors Stephen Miran and Christopher Waller voted against the action, preferring to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point or 25 basis points.

The following figure shows for the period since January 2010, the upper limit (the blue line) and the lower limit (the green line) for the FOMC’s target range for the federal funds rate, as well as the actual values for the federal funds rate (the red line). Note that the Fed has been successful in keeping the value of the federal funds rate in its target range. (We discuss the monetary policy tools the FOMC uses to maintain the federal funds rate within its target range in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.2 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.2).)

Powell’s press conference following the meeting was his first opportunity to discuss the Department of Justice having served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas, which indicted that Powell might face a criminal indictment related to his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in June concerning expenditures on renovating Federal Reserve buildings in Washington DC. It was also his first opportunity to discuss his attendance at the Supreme Court during oral arguments in the case that Fed Governor Lisa Cook brought attempting to block President Trump’s attempt to remove her from the Fed’s Board of Governors.

Powell stated that he had attended the Supreme Court hearing because he believed the case to be the most important in the Fed’s history. He noted that there was a precedent for his attendance in that Fed Chair Paul Volcker had attended a Supreme Court during his term. Powell declined to say anything further with respect to the Department of Justice subpoenas or with respect to whether he would stay on the Board of Governors after his term as chair ends in May. (Powell’s term as chair ends on May 15; his term as a Fed governor ends on January 31, 2028.)

With respect to the economy, Powell stated that he saw the risks to the two parts of the Fed’s dual mandate for price stability and maximum employment to be roughly balanced. Although inflation continues to be above the Fed’s annual target of 2 percent, committee members believe that inflation is elevated because of one-time price increases resulting from tariffs. The committee’s staff economists believe that most of the effects of tariffs on the price level were likely to have passed through the economy sometime in the middle of the year.

Powell noted that the economy had surprised the committee with its strength and that the outlook for further growth in output was good. He noted that there continued to be signs of slight weakening of the labor market. In particular, he cited increases in the broadest measure of the unemployment rate released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The following figure shows the U-6 measure of the unemployment rate (the blue bars). This measure differs from the more familiar (U-3) measure of the unemployment rate (the red bars) in that it includes people who are working part time for economic reasons and people who are marginally attached to the labor force. The BLS counts people as marginally attached to the labor force if they “indicate that they have searched for work during the prior 12 months (or since their last job if it ended within the last 12 months), but not in the most recent 4 weeks. Because they did not actively search for work in the last 4 weeks, they are not classified as unemployed [according to the U-3 measure].” Between June 2025 and December 2025, the U-3 meaure of unemployment increased by 0.3 percentage point, while the U-6 measure increased by 0.7 percentage point.

When asked whether he had advice for his successor as Fed chair, Powell said the Fed chairs should not get pulled into commenting on elective politics and should earn their democratic legitimacy through their interactions with Congress.

Looking forward, Powell repeated the sentiment included in the committee’s statement that: “In assessing the appropriate stance of monetary policy, the Committee will continue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook. The Committee would be prepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy as appropriate if risks emerge that could impede the attainment of the Committee’s goals.”

The next FOMC meeting is on March 17–18. One indication of expectations of future changes in the FOMC’s target for the federal funds rate comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.)

As of this afternoon, investors assigned a 86.5 percent probability to the committee keeping its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 3.50 percent to 3.75 percent at its March meeting. That expectation reflects the view that a solid majority of the committee believes, as Powell indicated in today’s press conference, that the unemployment rate is unlikely to rise significantly in coming months, while the inflation rate is likely to decline as the effects of the tariff increases finish passing through the economy.

Featured

Cracker Barrel’s Dilemma: What Happens When Your Market Niche Shrinks?

Cracker Barrel’s original logo on the left and the logo it temporarily adopted in 2025 on the right. (Logos from nrn.com)

Dan Evins opened the first Cracker Barrel Old Country Store on Highway 109 in Lebanon, Tennessee in 1969 to attract more customers to his Shell service station. The restaurant offered traditional Southern-style food such as buttermilk biscuits, country-fried steak, and chicken and dumplings. Cracker Barrel was an immediate success and by 1977 had expanded to 13 locations in Tennessee and Georgia, with each location including a restaurant and an attached store designed to resemble the traditional general stores that were once common in rural areas. In 2026, Cracker Barrel had 657 locations in 44 states.

In Chapter 13, we study monopolistically competitive markets. One key feature of these markets is low barriers to entry. So we would expect that in a monopolistically competitive market such as restaurants, if an entrepreneur uses a new strategy that earns an economic profit, that strategy is likely to be copies by other firms. A number of other restaurant chains compete with Cracker Barrel offering similar menus and approaches that are intended to appeal to consumers who are older, likely to live in rural or suburban areas—particularly in the South and Midwest—and prefer traditional country-style cooking. These competitors include Golden Corral, Bob Evans, Black Bear Diner, Denny’s, and Waffle House. The entry into the market and expansion of these chains resulted in declining profits for Cracker Barrel. The chain also lost breakfast customers to IHOP, McDonald’s, and Eggs Up Grill.

In 2020, Cracker Barrel was severely affected by the Covid pandemic because many of its older customers were reluctant to eat in restaurants. Even after the effects of the pandemic had passed, Cracker Barrel’s profit continued to decline, falling from $255 million in 2021 to $40 million in 2024. In response to this falling profit, in 2024 the firm’s board of directors hired Julie Felss Masino as CEO to lead a “strategic transformation.” On being hired, Masino stated that: “We know from our research that despite high levels of consumer affinity, we’re just not as relevant as we once were. We need to address these dynamics by refreshing and refining the brand ….”

Masino oversaw a $700 million plan to transform the chain by renovating the restaurants including removing many of the vintage signs, knickknacks, tools, and photos that had decorated walls, changing the marketing approach, and updating the menu by dropping some items and adding 20 new items such as New York strip steaks, chicken sandwiches, Mimosas, and Strawberry Peach Lemonade. The aim was to attract younger and more urban customers.

Many long-time customers were opposed to changes but, overall, initially revenue and profit increased. Then in August 2025, Cracker Barrel introduced a new more streamlined and modern logo that, importantly, eliminated from the logo the drawing of an older man—often referred to as “Old Timer”—sitting on a chair with his arm on a barrel. The change led to an immediate negative response on social media from Cracker Barrel customers. The controversy was soon widely covered in the business media and elsewhere. The number of customers in Cracker Barrel’s restaurants declined by 8 percent and its stock price dropped by 40 percent as investors concluded that the firm’s rebranding was a major error that it might have difficulty coming back from.

After only a week, Masino and other company executives reversed course and reverted to using the older logo. The company also suspended the plan to remodel its restaurants and restored to its menu some items that it had dropped. Masino was quoted as stating that: “We are doubling down on delicious, scratch-made food the way our guests expect it and that great country hospitality that we’re known for.”

Will Cracker Barrel be able to bounce back from reversing its strategy of modernizing its restaurants, its menu, and its marketing to appeal to younger urban customers? It has a difficult task. The chain was originally intended to appeal to particular market niche. As competition for consumers in that niche increased and as the number of those consumers declined, the chain was faced with a difficult choice: Either reduce costs sufficiently to remain profitable with fewer customers or change its strategy in an attempt to appeal to new customers. They chose to do some of both, making the changes discussed earlier and also cutting costs in food preparation. The cost cutting was also criticized as customers objected to such changes as making its signature biscuits in large batches rather than making them as needed and reheating green beans rather than cooking them on demand. In early 2026, the outlook for the chain didn’t appear promising.

Sources: Heather Haddon, “Now Cracker Barrel Diehards Think the Food Isn’t Up to Scratch, Either,” Wall Street Journal, December 9, 2025; Nathaniel Meyerson, “Cracker Barrel Isn’t Doomed Just Yet,” edition.cnn.com, September 13, 2025; Dee-Ann Durbin, “Cracker Barrel Is Keeping Its Old-Time Logo after New Design Elicited an Uproar,” apnews.com, August 27, 2025; Dee-Ann Durbin, “Breakfast Is Booming at US Restaurants. Is It Also Contributing to High Egg Prices?” apnews.com, February 13, 2025; Heather Haddon, “After a Bruising Year, Casual-Dining Chains Try to Stage a Comeback,” Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2025; Cracker Barrel Old Coun-try Store, “Cracker Barrel Launches Flavor Packed Summer Menu Featuring Exclusive New Beed Sting Fried Chicken, Plus More,” prnewswire.com, May 8, 2024; Joanna Fantozzi, “Cracker Bar-rel Unveils ‘Strategic Transformation’ Amid Financial Struggles,” nrn.com, May 18, 2024; Lynn and Cele Seldon, “Cracker Barrel Anniversary,” trailblazer.thousandtrails.com, September 12, 2019; “About Cracker Barrel,” crackerbarrel.com; and Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Annual Report, various years.

Featured

PCE Inflation Remains Steady While Real Personal Consumption Spending Rises

Image created by ChatGPT

On January 22, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index and on real personal consumption spending for October and November as part of its “Personal Income and Outlays” report. Because of the federal government shutdown, two months of data were released together with some of the price data for October being imputed because the Bureau of Labor Statistics was unable to collect some consumer price data in that month. The release of data for December has been delayed.

The following figure shows headline PCE inflation (the blue line) and core PCE inflation (the red line)—which excludes energy and food prices—with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. In November, headline PCE inflation was 2.8 percent, up slightly from 2.7 percent in October. Core PCE inflation in November was also 2.8 percent, up slightly from 2.7 percent in November. Both headline and core PCE inflation for November were equal to the forecast of economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal.

The following figure shows headline PCE inflation and core PCE inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month inflation, while the figure below shows 1-month inflation.) Measured this way, headline PCE inflation increased from 1.9 percent in October to 2.5 percent in November. Core PCE inflation declined from 2.5 percent in October to 1.9 percent in November. So, both 1-month and 12-month PCE inflation are telling the same story of inflation somewhat above the Fed’s target. The usual caution applies that 1-month inflation figures are volatile (as can be seen in the figure).

Headline market-based PCE inflation was 2.5 percent in November, up slightly from 2.4 percent in October. Core market-based PCE inflation was 2.4 percent in November, down slightly from 2.5 percent in October. So, both market-based measures show inflation as stable but above the Fed’s 2 percent target.

Data on real personal consumption expenditures were also included in this report. The following figure shows compound annual rates of growth of real personal consumptions expenditures for each month since January 2023. Measured this way, the growth in real personal consumptions expenditures rebounded from 1.3 percent in September to 3.7 percent in both October and October and November.

Strong growth in real personal consumption is consistent with the strong growth in real GDP in the third quarter of 2025 shown in the following figure, which reflects revised data that the BEA released yesterday. Real GDP grew at a compound annual rate of 3.8 percent in October and 4.4 percent in November. indicating a strong rebound in output growth following a 0.6 percent decrease in real GDP in the first quarter of 2025.

Is it likely that real GDP continued its strong growth in the fourth quarter of 2025? Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta prepare nowcasts of real GDP. A nowcast is a forecast that incorporates all the information available on a certain date about the components of spending that are included in GDP. The Atlanta Fed calls its nowcast GDPNow. As the following figure from the Atlanta Fed website shows, today the GDPNow estimate—taking into account this week’s macroeconomic data—is that real GDP grew at an annual rate of 5.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2025.

These data confirm the widely-held view among economists and investors that the Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market committee will keep its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at is next meeting on January 27–28.

Featured

Solved Problem: The Effect of a Cap on Credit Card Interest Rates

Supports: Macroeconomics Chapter 4, Section 4.3, and Chapter 14, Section 14.3 and Economics, Chapter 4, Section 4.3, and Chapter 24, Section 24.3.

Image created by ChatGPT

Credit cards provide two main services: 1) They are more convenient to use than cash and are more widely accepted than are personal checks, and 2) they are a source of short-term credit. People who pay their balances off at the end of each month get (very short-term) credit for free. People who don’t pay their balances off have to pay interest on the unpaid balance. Credit cards are the leading source of short-term credit to small businesses. We can think of the interest rate on credit card balances as the price of credit card services, although people who pay off their balances each month avoid paying this price. (Note that banks and other credit card issuers also earn fees from merchants who accept credit cards. These processing fees are usually between 1.5 percent and 3.5 percent of the price of the transaction.)

President Trump announced that he intends to cap the interest rate on credit cards at 10 percent. (Imposing such a cap is usually thought to require Congressional approval.) Currently, the average interest rate on credit cards is about 21 percent, although interest rates vary across cards due to differences in the awards the cards give to card holders and the credit history of the card holders.

In this problem, we look at the effect of capping credit card interest rates on the market for credit card services. An interest rate cap is effectively a price ceiling, so we can use the analysis in Chapter 4, Section 4.4, “Government Intervention in the Market: Price Floors and Price Ceilings” to analyze the effect of the interest rate cap on the market for credit card services. We briefly discuss the effects of a cap on credit card interest rates in the Apply the Concept “Help for Young Borrowers: Fintech or Ceilings on Interest Rates?” in Chapter 14, Section 14.3.

Use a demand and supply graph to illustrate the effect of a cap on credit card interest rates on the market for credit card services. Be sure that your graph shows the equilibrium price (interest rate) and quantity of credit card services before and after the imposition of the cap. Briefly explain why you would expect the demand curve for credit card services to be downward sloping and the supply curve for credit card services to be upward sloping.
Which groups would you expect to be most affected and which would you expect to be least affected by the imposition of a cap on credit card interest rates?

Solving the Problem
Step 1: Review the chapter material. This problem is about the effect of an interest rate cap on the market for credit card services, so you may want to review Chapter 4, Section 4.4, “Government Intervention in the Market: Price Floors and Price Ceilings” and the Apply the Concept “Help for Young Borrowers: Fintech or Ceilings on Interest Rates?” in Chapter 14, Section 14.3.

Step 2: Answer part a. by drawing a demand and supply graph of the market for credit card services that illustrates the effect of an interest rate cap. The following figure is simlar to Chapter 4, Figure 4.10, which shows the effect of rent control on the market for rental apartments. We can show the interest rate cap as a horizontal line at an interest rate of 10%. The inital equilibrium, before the imposition of a cap, is at an interest rate of 20 percent and a quantity of credit card services, Q₁, where the demand curve for credit card services crosses the supply curve for credit card services. After imposition of the interest rate ceiling, the equilibrium interest falls to 10 percent and the equilibrium quantity of credit card services falls from Q₁ to Q₂.

We would expect that the higher the interest rate on credit card balances, the fewer the quantity of credit card services consumers will demand. Therefore, the demand curve for credit card services should be downward sloping. We would also expect that the higher the interest rate on credit card balances, the great the quantity of credit card services that banks and other credit card issuers will supply. Therefore, the supply curve for credit card services should be upward sloping.

Step 2: Answer part b. by discussing which groups you would expect to be most affected and which you would expect to be least affected by the imposition of a cap on credit card interest rates. The figure shows that after the imposition of an interest rate ceiling there is a shortage of credit card services equal to the quantity Q₃ – Q₂. Because Q₂ is less than Q₁, we know that some people who would have credit cards prior to the imposition of the interest rate ceiling will no longer be able to qualify for them. These people will be affected most by the interest rate cap. We would expect that people who have a higher risk of defaulting on their credit card balances would be most likely to be unable to obtain credit cards following the imposition of the interest rate cap because credit card issuers won’t be able to charge them an interest rate high enough to compensate the issuers for the higher risk of default. In addition, those people who are still able to receive credit cards and who typically don’t pay off their balance each month will benefit from the decline in the interest rate on unpaid balances from 20 percent to 10 percent.

The people who pay off their balances each month will be least affected because they weren’t paying interest. There are some complications, however. Credit card issuers may respond to the interest rate cap by reducing the rewards—such as cash back on their purchases or points toward buying airline tickets or hotel stays—that card holders receive for using their cards. Reducing rewards would affect even those people who pay off their balances each month.

Extra credit: There has been a debate over how many people would be affected by the imposition of a cap on credit card interest rates. For example, Brian Shearer of Vanderbilt University argues that credit card issuers will only modestly reduce the number of people with weak credit histories who they will no longer be willing to issue credit cards to. Paul Calem and Alexander Kim of the Bank Policy Institute, a banking industry trade group, argue that up to two-thirds of people who currently fail to pay off their credit card balances each month are likely to no longer qualify for credit cards or will qualify for credit cards will lower dollar limits following the imposition of a credit card cap.

Featured

Overall CPI Inflation Is Steady While Inflation in Grocery and Restaurant Prices Increases

Image created by ChatGPT

This morning (January 13), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its report on the consumer price index (CPI) for December. The following figure compares headline CPI inflation (the blue line) and core CPI inflation (the red line). Because of the effects of the federal government shutdown, the BLS didn’t report inflation rates for October or November, so both lines show gaps for those months.

The headline inflation rate, which is measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous year, was 2.7 percent in December..
The core inflation rate, which excludes the prices of food and energy, was 2.6 percent in December.

Headline inflation was the same as economists surveyed by FactSet had forecast, while core inflation was slightly lower.

Calculated as the 1-month inflation rate, headline inflation (the blue line) was 3.8 percent in December, the same as in September which is the most recent month with data. Core inflation (the red line) was up slightly to 2.9 percent in December from 2.8 percent in September.

The 1-month and 12-month inflation rates are telling similar stories, with both measures indicating that the rate of price increase is running moderately above the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target.

Many consumers seem worried about inflation in food prices. The following figure shows 1-month inflation in the CPI category “food at home” (the blue bar)—primarily food purchased at groceries stores—and the category “food away from home” (the red bar)—primarily food purchased at restaurants. Both measures increased rapidly in December. Food at home increased 9.0 percent in December, up from 4.0 percent in September. Food away from home increased 8.7 percent in December, up from 1.7 percent in September. Again, 1-month inflation rates can be volatile, but these large increases in food prices in December may help explain the recent focus on affordability.

The news on changes in the price of gasoline was better for consumers. The following figure shows 1-month inflation in gasoline prices. In December, the price of gasoline fell by 5.3 percent after a very large 41.9 percent in November. As those values imply, 1-month inflation rates in gasoline are quite volatile.

One-month inflation in shelter jumped in December to 5.0 percent from 2.5 percent in September, although it was down from 5.4 percent in August.

Overall, then, inflation in food and shelter was high in December, although gasoline prices fell in that month.

This CPI report is unlikely to affect the action the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) may take at its next meeting on January 27–28. Investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts assign a very high probability to the FOMC leaving its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at that meeting as well as at its meeting on March 17–18. Investors don’t expect the committee to cut its target range for the federal funds rate until its June 16–17 meeting. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.)

By the time of the FOMC’s June meeting, the committee will have several additional months’ data on inflation, employment, and output. Jerome Powell’s term as Fed chair will end on May 15, so presumably the FOMC will have a new chair at that meeting. (This blog post from yesterday includes Powell’s response to the news that he is under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and a statement by Glenn and other economists who have served in government objecting to the investigation because they believe that it will undermine the independence of the Fed. We discuss the issue of Fed independence in Macroeconomics, Chapter 17 (Economics, Chapter 27) and Money, Banking, and the Financial System, Chapter 13.)

Featured

Statement on the Federal Reserve Signed by Glenn and other Economists Who Have Served in Government

Statement on the Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve’s independence and the public’s perception of that independence are critical for economic performance, including achieving the goals Congress has set for the Federal Reserve of stable prices, maximum employment, and moderate long-term interest rates. The reported criminal inquiry into Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell is an unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial attacks to undermine that independence. This is how monetary policy is made in emerging markets with weak institutions, with highly negative consequences for inflation and the functioning of their economies more broadly. It has no place in the United States whose greatest strength is the rule of law, which is at the foundation of our economic success.

SIGNATORIES

Ben S. Bernanke served two terms as Chair of the Board of Governors of the Fed, as well as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.

Jared Bernstein served as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden.

Jason Furman served as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama.

Timothy F. Geithner served as the 75th Secretary of the Treasury under President Barack Obama, as well as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Alan Greenspan served five terms as Chair of the Board of Governors of the Fed, first appointed by President Ronald Reagan and then reappointed by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. He also was Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Gerald Ford.

Glenn Hubbard served as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.

Jacob J. Lew served as the 76th Secretary of the Treasury under President Barack Obama.

N. Gregory Mankiw served as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.

Henry M. Paulson served as the 74th Secretary of the Treasury under President George W. Bush.

Kenneth Rogoff is the Maurits C. Boas Professor of International Economics at Harvard University and former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund.

Christina Romer served as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama.

Robert E. Rubin served as the 70th Secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, after serving as the first director of the White House National Economic Council.

Janet Yellen served as the 78th Secretary of the Treasury under President Joe Biden, Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Governors of the Fed, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton, and President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

*********************

Separately, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell issued the following statement last night. (Here is a link to Powell’s statement and to a video of Powell reading the statement.)

Good evening.

On Friday, the Department of Justice served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas, threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June. That testimony concerned in part a multi-year project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings.

I have deep respect for the rule of law and for accountability in our democracy. No one—certainly not the chair of the Federal Reserve—is above the law. But this unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure.

This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. It is not about Congress’s oversight role; the Fed through testimony and other public disclosures made every effort to keep Congress informed about the renovation project. Those are pretexts. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.

This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions—or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.

I have served at the Federal Reserve under four administrations, Republicans and Democrats alike. In every case, I have carried out my duties without political fear or favor, focused solely on our mandate of price stability and maximum employment. Public service sometimes requires standing firm in the face of threats. I will continue to do the job the Senate confirmed me to do, with integrity and a commitment to serving the American people.

Thank you.

Featured

December Jobs Report Shows Employment Up and the Unemployment Rate Down

Image generated by ChatGPT

This morning (January 9), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for December. Both the increase in employment and the unemployment rate were lower than had been expected.

According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 50,000 nonfarm jobs during December. This increase was below the increase of 75,000 net new jobs that economists surveyed by FactSet had forecast. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had forecast an increase of 71,000 jobs. In addition, the BLS revised downward its previous estimates of employment in October and November by a combined 76,000 jobs. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”)

During 2025, the U.S. economy experienced an average monthly net increase of 49,000 jobs, down from an average monthly net increase of 168,000 jobs during 2024.

The following figure from the jobs report shows the net change in nonfarm payroll employment for each month in the last two years. The figure illustrates that monthly job growth has moved erratically since April. The Trump administration announced sharp increases in U.S. tariffs on April 2. Media reports indicate that some firms have slowed hiring due to the effects of the tariffs or in anticipation of those effects.

The unemployment rate decreased from 4.5 percent in November to 4.4 percent in December. The unemployment rate is below the 4.5 percent rate economists surveyed by FactSet had forecast. As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate had been remarkably stable over the past year, staying between 4.0 percent and 4.2 percent in each month May 2024 to July 2025 before breaking out of that range in August. Not that the gap in the figure for October reflects the fact that the federal government shutdown resulted in the BLS not conducting a household survey in that month.

Each month, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta estimates how many net new jobs are required to keep the unemployment rate stable. Given a slowing in the growth of the working-age population due to the aging of the U.S. population and a sharp decline in immigration, the Atlanta Fed currently estimates that the economy would have to create 113,487 net new jobs each month to keep the unemployment rate stable at 4.4 percent. If this estimate is accurate, continuing monthly net job increases of only 50,000 would result in a rising unemployment rate.

As the following figure shows, the monthly net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the monthly net change in jobs from the establishment survey. As measured by the household survey, there was a net increase of 232,000 jobs in December. (There is no employment estimate from the household survey for October or November.) As an indication of the volatility in the employment changes in the household survey note the very large swings in net new jobs in January and February. In any particular month, the story told by the two surveys can be inconsistent, as was the case this month with employment increasing much more in the household survey than in the employment survey. (In this blog post, we discuss the differences between the employment estimates in the two surveys.)

The household survey has another important labor market indicator: the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those aged 25 to 54. In December the ratio rose to 80.7 percent from 80.6 percent in November. The prime-age employment-population ratio is somewhat below the high of 80.9 percent in mid-2024, but is still above what the ratio was in any month during the period from January 2008 to February 2020. The increase in the prime-age employment-population ratio is a particular bright spot in this month’s jobs report.

The following figure shows monthly net changes in federal government employment as measured by the establishment survey. Following the very large net decrease of 179,000 federal government jobs in October, the data for the last two months were more typical of the changes in earlier years with a net increase of 3,000 federal jobs in November and 2,000 jobs in December. In these two months, changes to federal employment had only a small effect on the overall labor market.

The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic. In December, the 1-month rate of wage inflation was 4.0 percent, up from 3.0 percent in November. Both the 1-month and the 12-month data for average hourly earnings show that wage growth remains fairly strong.

What effect might today’s jobs report have on the decisions of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) with respect to setting its target for the federal funds rate? One indication of expectations of future changes in the FOMC’s target for the federal funds rate comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) In recent weeks, investors have expected that the FOMC would leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at its next meeting on January 27–28. This afternoon, as the following figure shows, investors raised the probability they assign to the committee leaving its target for the federal funds rate unchanged to 95.0 percent from 88.9 percent yesterday. The relatively strong jobs report combined with measures of inflation remaining above the Fed’s 2 percent annual target, makes it likely that the committee will wait to receive additional data on employment, inflation, and GDP before adjusting its federal funds rate target.

Featured

Happy New Year from Hubbard and O’Brien Economics!

Featured

Real GDP Growth in the Third Quarter Comes in Well Above Forecasts

Image created by ChatGTP

This morning (December 23), the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released its initial estimate of real GDP for the third quarter of 2025. (The report can be found here.) The BEA estimates that real GDP increased in the third quarter by 4.3 percent measured at an annual rate. Economists surveyed by FactSet had forecast a 3.2 percent increase. Real GDP experienced strong growth for the second quarter in a row, following an estimated 0.6 percent decline in the first quarter of 2025. The following figure shows the estimated rates of GDP growth in each quarter beginning with the first quarter of 2021.

As the following figure—taken from the BEA report—shows, the growth in consumer spending in the third quarter was the most important factor contributing to the increase in real GDP. Increases in net exports and in government spending also contributed to GDP growth, while investment spending declined.

To better gauge the state of the economy, policymakers often prefer to strip out the effects of imports, inventory investment, and government purchases—which can be volatile—by looking at real final sales to private domestic purchasers, which includes only spending by U.S. households and firms on domestic production. As the following figure shows, real final sales to domestic purchasers increased by 3.0 percent at an annual rate in the third quarter, which was below the 4.3 percent increase in real GDP but still well above the U.S. economy’s expected long-run annual growth rate of 1.8 percent. Note also that real final sales to private domestic purchasers grew by 1.9 percent in the first quarter, during which real GDP declined. So this measure of output indicates solid growth during the first three quarters of the year.

The BEA report this morning included quarterly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index. The Fed relies on annual changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2 percent annual inflation target. The following figure shows headline PCE inflation (the blue line) and core PCE inflation (the red line)—which excludes energy and food prices—for the period since the first quarter of 2019, with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same quarter in the previous year. In the third quarter, headline PCE inflation was 2.7 percent, up from 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Core PCE inflation in the third quarter was 2.9 percent, up from 2.7 percent in the second quarter. Both headline PCE inflation and core PCE inflation remained well above the Fed’s 2 percent annual inflation target.

The following figure shows quarterly PCE inflation and quarterly core PCE inflation calculated by compounding the current quarter’s rate over an entire year. Measured this way, headline PCE inflation increased to 2.8 percent in the third quarter of 2025, up from to 2.1 percent in the second quarter. Core PCE inflation increased to 2.9 percent in the third quarter of 2025 from 2.6 percent in the second quarter. Measured this way, both core and headline PCE inflation were well above the Fed’s target.

The relatively strong growth and above-target inflation data from today’s report contrast with last week’s mixed but somewhat weak employment data (which we discuss here) and CPI data that showed inflation significantly slowing (which we discuss here). Note, though, that the employment data were affected by the unusually large decline in federal government employment and the CPI report relied on incomplete data. And, of course, both the employment and GDP data are subject to revision.

In guiding monetary policy, the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will look for further indications as to whether today’s data showing strong real GDP growth and inflation stuck above the Fed’s target or last week’s data showing both employment growth and inflation slowing are giving a more accurate picture of the state of economy. The FOMC meets next on January 27–28.

Featured

The United States Typically Runs Surpluses in Services as Well as Deficits in Goods

Image created by ChatGPT

A recent post on the blog of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reminds us that although the media and some policymakers tend to focus on the fact that the United States typically runs a deficit in trade in goods, it also typically runs a surplus in trade in services. We discuss these points in Economics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 and Chapter 28, Section 28.1 (Macroeconomics, Chapter 7, Section 7.1 and Chapter 18, Section 18.1, and Microeconomics, Section 9.1). The first of the following figures shows U.S. net exports in services in dollar terms for the period from the first quarter of 1960 through the second quarter of 2025. The second figure show U.S. net exports in services as a percentage of U.S. GDP.

How does the United States compare to other countries? The following figure shows for 2024 the leaders in net exports of services for large economies (those with GDP of $1 trillion or more). The United States has largest value for net exports of services followed by the United Kingdom. China had negative net exports of services in 2024.

The following figure shows net exports in services as percentage of GDP among large economies. Measured this way, the largest net exporter of services is the United Kingdom, followed by Spain. The United States is included in graph (in red) for comparison and ranks ninth.

The following table from the St. Louis Fed’s blog posts shows the U.S. industries that export the most services.

The export of travel services represents largely foreign tourism in the United States. For example, if a family from France visits Walt Disney World in Florida, their spending would be included as an export of travel services.

Featured

CPI Inflation Slows but Some Data Are Missing from Latest Report

Image generated by ChatGPT

On Thursday (December 18) the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its latest report on the consumer price index (CPI). The federal government shutdown, which lasted from October 1 to November 12, is still affecting the macroeconomic statistics being gathered by the BLS and other agencies. The BLS notes in the report:

“BLS did not collect survey data for October 2025 due to a lapse in appropriations. BLS was unable to retroactively collect these data. For a few indexes, BLS uses nonsurvey data sources instead of survey data to make the index calculations. BLS was able to retroactively acquire most of the nonsurvey data for October. CPI data collection resumed on November 14, 2025.”

The following table from the CPI report gives an indication of how much data that is normally collected wasn’t collected in October or November.

Bearing in mind the missing data, the following figure compares headline CPI inflation (the blue bar) and core CPI inflation (the red bar) as reported in this month’s CPI report.

The headline inflation rate, which is measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous year, was 2.7 percent in November, down from 3.0 in September.
The core inflation rate, which excludes the prices of food and energy, was 2.6 percent in November, down from 3.0 percent in September.

Economists who were surveyed by Fact Set had forecast that both headline inflation and core inflation would rise to 3.1 percent in November. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal also forecast that headline inflation would rise to 3.1 percent in November, but forecast that core inflation would rise slightly less to 3.0 percent. It’s unclear whether the economists were aware at the time they were surveyed how much data for October and November would be missing from this month’s report.

Because of how much data that is normally collected was missing from the calculations of November’s inflation rate, the results should be treated with caution. The Wall Street Journal quoted an economist at the investment bank UBS as advising: “I think you largely just put this one to the side. Maybe this report gives a minor downward sign for overall inflation, but the vast, vast majority of this is just noise and should be ignored.”

Several economists were concerned about the computation the BLS had to make to deal with the lack of direct data on the price of “shelter.” The price of shelter in the CPI, as explained here, includes both rent paid for an apartment or a house and “owners’ equivalent rent of residences (OER),” which is an estimate of what a house (or apartment) would rent for if the owner were renting it out. OER is included in the CPI to account for the value of the services an owner receives from living in an apartment or house. The following figure shows CPI inflation, measured as the percentage change since the same month in the previous year, leaving out the price of shelter. Measured this way, inflation was 2.6 percent in November, which is slightly lower than the 2.7 percent inflation rate the BLS reported when including all items.

What effect have the tariffs that the Trump administration announced on April 2 had on inflation? (Note that many of the tariff increases announced on April 2 have since been reduced.) The following figure shows 12-month inflation in durable goods—such as furniture, appliances, and cars—which are likely to be affected directly by tariffs, and services, which are less likely to be affected by tariffs. To make recent changes clearer, we look only at the months since January 2022. In November, inflation in durable goods decreased to 1.8 percent from 2.2 percent in September. Inflation in services in November was 3.2 percent, down from 3.6 percent in September. So the upward pressure on goods prices from the tariffs seems to be declining. But, again, missing data makes it’s unclear to what extent November inflation numbers are representative of what’s actually happening currently to prices.

It’s unlikely that this inflation report will have much effect on the views of the members of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee. In a press conference after the committee’s most recent meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell cautioned against drawing firm conclusions from data for October and November:

“I should mention on the data, as long as I’m talking about it, that we’re going to need to be careful in assessing particularly the household survey data. There are very technical reasons about the way data are collected in some of these measures, both in, you know, inflation and in labor—in the labor market so that the data may be distorted. And not just sort of more volatile, but distorted. And that—it’s—and that’s really because data was not collected in October and half of November. So we’re going to get data, but we’re going to have to look at it carefully and with a somewhat skeptical eye by the time of the January meeting ….”

Featured

October and November Jobs Data Give Mixed Picture of the Labor Market

Image created by ChatGPT

Because of the federal government shutdown from October 1 to November 12, the regular release by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of its monthly “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) has been disrupted. The jobs report usually has two estimates of the change in employment during the month: one estimate from the establishment survey, often referred to as the payroll survey, and one from the household survey. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and Federal Reserve policymakers believe that employment data from the establishment survey provide a more accurate indicator of the state of the labor market than do the household survey’s employment data and unemployment data. (The groups included in the employment estimates from the two surveys are somewhat different, as we discuss in this post.)

Today, the BLS released a jobs report that has data from the payroll survey for both October and November, but data from the household survey only for November. Because of the government shutdown, the household survey for October wasn’t conducted.

According to the establishment survey, there was a net decrease of 105,000 nonfarm jobs in October and a net increase of 64,000 nonfarm jobs in November. The increase for November was above the increase of 40,000 that economists surveyed by FactSet had forecast. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had forecast a net increase of 45,000 jobs. The BLS revised downward by a combined 33,000 jobs its previous estimates of employment in August and September. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”)

The following figure from the jobs report shows the net change in nonfarm payroll employment for each month in the last two years. The figure illustrates that, as the BLS notes in the report, nonfarm payroll employment “has shown little net change since April.” The Trump administration announced sharp increases in U.S. tariffs on April 2. Media reports indicate that some firms have slowed hiring due to the effects of the tariffs or in anticipation of those effects. In addition, a sharp decline in immigration has slowed growth in the labor force.

The unemployment rate estimate relies on data collected in the household survey, so there id no unemployment estimate for October. As shown in the following figure, the unemployment rate increased from 4.4 percent in September to 4.6 percent in November, the highest rate since September 2021. The unemployment rate is above the 4.4 percent rate economists surveyed by FactSet had forecast. The unemployment rate had been remarkably stable, staying between 4.0 percent and 4.2 percent in each month from May 2024 to July 2025, before breaking out of that range in August. The Federal Open Market Committee’s current estimate of the natural rate of unemployment—the normal rate of unemployment over the long run—is 4.2 percent. So, unemployment is now well above the natural rate. (We discuss the natural rate of unemployment in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9 and Economics, Chapter 19.)

As the following figure shows, the monthly net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. As measured by the household survey, there was a net increase of 96,000 jobs from September to November. In the payroll survey, there was a net decrease in of 41,000 jobs from September to November. In any particular month, the story told by the two surveys can be inconsistent. In this case, we are measuring the change in jobs over a two month interval because there is no estimate from the household survey of employment in October. Over that two month period the household survey is showing more strength in the labor market than is the payroll survey. (In this blog post, we discuss the differences between the employment estimates in the two surveys.)

The household survey has another important labor market indicator: the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those workers aged 25 to 54. In November the ratio was 80.6 percent, down slightly from 80.7 in September. (Again, there is no estimate for October.) The prime-age employment-population ratio is somewhat below the high of 80.9 percent in mid-2024, but is still above what the ratio was in any month during the period from January 2008 to February 2020. The continued high levels of the prime-age employment-population ratio indicates some continuing strength in the labor market.

The Trump Administration’s layoffs of some federal government workers are clearly shown in the estimate of total federal employment for October, when many federal government employees exhausted their severance pay. (The BLS notes that: “Employees on paid leave or receiving ongoing severance pay are counted as employed in the establishment survey.”) As the following figure shows, there was a decline federal government employment of 162,000 in October, with an additional decline of 6,000 In November. The total decline since the beginning of February 2025 is 271,000. At this point, we can say that the decline in federal employment has had a significant effect on the overall labor market and may account for some of the rise in the unemployment rate.

The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic. In November, the 1-month rate of wage inflation was 1.6 percent, down from 5.4 percent in October. This slowdown in wage growth may be an indication of a weakening labor market. But one month’s data from such a volatile series may not accurately reflect longer-run trends in wage inflation.

What effect might today’s jobs report have on the decisions of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) with respect to setting its target range for the federal funds rate? Today’s jobs report provides a mixed take on the state of the labor market with very slow job growth—although the large decline in federal employment is a confounding factor—a continued high employment-population ratio for prime age workers, and slowing wage growth.

Featured

Three Dissents as the FOMC Cuts Its Target for the Federal Funds Rate

Photo from federalreserve.gov

Today’s meeting of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had the expected result with the committee deciding to lower its target for the federal funds rate from a range of 3.75 percent to 4.00 percent to a range of 3.50 percent to 3.75 percent—a cut of 25 basis points. The members of the committee voted 9 to 3 in favor of the cut. Fed Governor Stephen Miran voted against the action, preferring to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 50 basis points. President Austan Goolsbee of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and President Jeffrey Schmid of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City also voted against the action, preferring to leave the target range unchanged.

There are several aspects of these forecasts worth noting:

Compared with September, the committee members increased their forecasts of real GDP growth for each year from 2025 through 2027. The increase for 2026 was substantial, from 1.8 percent to 2.3 percent, although some of this increase was attributable to the federal government shutdown causing some economic output to be shifted from 2025 to 2026. Committee members slightly decreased their forecasts of the unemployment rate in 2027. They left their forecast of the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2025 unchanged at 4.5 percent.
Committee members reduced their forecasts for personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price inflation for 2025 and 2026. Similarly, their forecasts of core PCE inflation for 2025 and 2026 were also reduced. The committee does not expect that PCE inflation will decline to the Fed’s 2.0 percent annual target until 2028.
The committee’s forecasts of the federal funds rate at the end of each year from 2025 through 2028 were unchanged.

The plots on the far left of the figure represent the projections by the 19 members of the value of the federal funds rate at the end of 2025. The fact that several members of the committee preferred that the federal funds rate end 2025 above 4 percent—in other words higher than it will be following the vote at today’s meeting—indicates that several non-voting district bank presidents, beyond Goolsbee and Schmid, would have preferred to not cut the target range. The plots on the far right of the figure indicate that there is substantial disagreement among comittee members as to what the long-run value of the federal funds rate—the so-called neutral rate—should be.

During his press conference following the meeting, Powell indicated that the increase in inflation in recent months was largely due to the effects of the increase in tariffs on goods prices. Powell indicated that committee members expect that the tariff increases will cause a one-time increase in the price level, rather than causing a long-term increase in the inflation rate. Powell also noted the recent slow growth in employment, which he noted might actually be negative once the Bureau of Labor Statistics revises the data for recent months. This slow growth indicated that the risk of unemployment increasing was greater than the risk of inflation increasing. As a result, he said that the “balance of risks” caused the committee to believe that cutting the target for the federal funds rate was warranted to avoid the possibility of a significant rise in the unemployment rate.

The next FOMC meeting is on January 27–28. By that time a significant amount of new macroeconomic data, which has not been available because of the government shutdown, will have been released. It also seems likely that President Trump will have named the person he intends to nominate to succeed Powell as Fed chair when Powell’s term ends on May 15, 2026. (Powel’s term on the Board doesn’t end until January 31, 2028, although he declined at the press conference to say whether he will serve out the remainder of his term on the Board after he steps down as chair.) In addition, it’s possible that by the time of the next meeting the Supreme Court will have ruled on whether President Trump can legally remove Governor Lisa Cook from the Board and on whether President Trump’s tariff increases this year are Constitutional.

Featured

PCE Inflation Increases Slightly in September

Image created by ChatGPT

Today (December 5), the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index for September as part of its “Personal Income and Outlays” report. Release of the report was delayed by the federal government shutdown.

The following figure shows headline PCE inflation (the blue line) and core PCE inflation (the red line)—which excludes energy and food prices—with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. In September, headline PCE inflation was 2.8 percent, up slightly from 2.7 percent in August. Core PCE inflation in September was also 2.8 percent, down slightly from 2.9 percent in August. Both headline and core PCE inflation were equal to the forecast of economists surveyed.

The following figure shows headline PCE inflation and core PCE inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month inflation, while the figure below shows 1-month inflation.) Measured this way, headline PCE inflation increased from 3.1 percent in August to 3.3 percent in September. Core PCE inflation declined from 2.7 percent in August to 2.4 percent in September. So, both 1-month and 12-month PCE inflation are telling the same story of inflation somewhat above the Fed’s target. The usual caution applies that 1-month inflation figures are volatile (as can be seen in the figure). In addition, these data are for September and likely don’t fully reflect the situation nearly two months later.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell has frequently mentioned that inflation in non-market services can skew PCE inflation. Non-market services are services whose prices the BEA imputes rather than measures directly. For instance, the BEA assumes that prices of financial services—such as brokerage fees—vary with the prices of financial assets. So that if stock prices fall, the prices of financial services included in the PCE price index also fall. Powell has argued that these imputed prices “don’t really tell us much about … tightness in the economy. They don’t really reflect that.” The following figure shows 12-month headline inflation (the blue line) and 12-month core inflation (the red line) for market-based PCE. (The BEA explains the market-based PCE measure here.)

Headline market-based PCE inflation was 2.6 percent in September, up from 2.4 percent in August. Core market-based PCE inflation was 2.6 percent in September, unchanged from August. So, both market-based measures show inflation as stable but above the Fed’s 2 percent target.

In the following figure, we look at 1-month inflation using these measures. One-month headline market-based inflation increase sharply to 3.7 percent in September from 2.6 percent in August. One-month core market-based inflation increased to 2.7 percent in September from 2.0 percent in August. As the figure shows, the 1-month inflation rates are more volatile than the 12-month rates, which is why the Fed relies on the 12-month rates when gauging how close it is coming to hitting its target inflation rate.

Data on real personal consumption expenditures were also included in this report. The following figure shows compound annual rates of growth of real real personal consumptions expenditures for each month since January 2023. Measured this way, the growth in real personal consumptions expenditures slowed sharply in September to 0.5 percent from 3.0 percent in August.

Does the slowing in consumptions spending indicate that real GDP may have also grown slowly in the third quarter of 2025? Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta prepare nowcasts of real GDP. A nowcast is a forecast that incorporates all the information available on a certain date about the components of spending that are included in GDP. The Atlanta Fed calls its nowcast GDPNow. As the following figure from the Atlanta Fed website shows, today the GDPNow forecast—taking into account today’s data on real personal consumption expenditures—is for real GDP to grow at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the third quarter, which reflects continuing strong growth in other measures of output.

In a number of earlier blog posts, we discussed the policy dilemma facing the Fed. Despite the Atlanta Fed’s robust estimate of real GDP growth, there are some indications that the labor market may be weakening. For instance, earlier this week ADP estimated that private sector employment declined by 32,000 jobs in November. (We discuss ADP’s job estimates in this blog post.) As the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) prepares for its next meeting on December 9–10, it has to balance guarding against a potential decline in employment with concern that inflation has not yet returned to the Fed’s 2 percent annual target.

If the committee decides that inflation is the larger concern, it is likely to leave its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged. If it decides that weakness in the labor market is the larger concern, it is likely to reduce it target range by 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points). Statements by FOMC members indicate that opinion on the committee is divided. In addition, the Trump administration has brought pressure on the committee to cut its target rate.

One indication of expectations of future changes in the FOMC’s target for the federal funds rate comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) Investors’ expectations have been unusually volatile during the past two months as new macroeconomic data or new remarks by FOMC members have caused swings in the probability that investors assign to the committee cutting the target range.

As of this afternoon, investors assigned a 87.2 percent probability to the committee cutting its target range for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points to 3.50 percent to 3.75 percent at its December meeting. At the December meeting the committee will also release its Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) giving members forecasts of future values of the inflation rate, the unemployment rate, the federal funds rate, and the growth rate of real GDP. The SEP, along with Fed Chair Powell’s remarks at his press conference following the meeting, should provide additional information on the monetary policy path the committee intends to follow in the coming months.

Featured

Is the Price of a Thanksgiving Dinner Higher this Year? It Depends on What Side Dishes You Serve.

Image generated by ChatGPT

A perennial media story this time of year looks at whether a Thanksgiving turkey dinner costs more or less than last year. Not too surprisingly, the answer depends on what side dishes you serve with the turkey. Deloitte provides tax, consulting, and other services to businesses. Their calculation of the cost of a Thanksgiving dinner over the past three years can be found here.

The following image shows the food that they include in their cost calculation. For that particular Thanksgiving dinner, the cost is slightly higher than in 2024, although slightly lower than in 2023.

Image from deloitte.com

The following image from the American Farm Bureau Federation, a lobbying organization for U.S. farmers, shows the food they include in their calculation of the cost of a Thanksgiving dinner.

Image from fb.org

For a Thanksgiving dinner with those side dishes, the price is about 5 percent lower this year than last year.

Image from fb.org

Note that the two estimates differ in the cost of the turkey. It’s not clear whether the difference is due to the size of the turkey or to differences in the price of the turkey. Related point: The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) stopped collecting data on retail turkey prices in February 2020, at the start of the pandemic, and never resumed collecting them. Here’s the link to the BLS retail turkey price series on FRED. The series begins in January 1980 and ends in February 2020.

Justin Fox, in a column on bloomberg.com, notes that demand for turkey has been declining in recent years. The following figure uses data on turkey consumption per capita from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Turkey consumption peaked at 18.2 pounds per person in 1996 and has fallen to an estimated 13.1 pounds per person in 2025—a decline of about 28 percent. Is this decline an indication that people have moved away from eating turkey for Thanksgiving? Fox argues that it likely doesn’t. Note the rapid rise of turkey consumption between 1980 and 1990. Fox believes the surge in consumption was due to “both chicken and turkey [consumption increasing] as health concerns led many Americans to shun red meat starting in the late 1970s ….” In recent years, though, “red-meat consumption has steadied … chicken consumption has continued to rise, and turkey is losing out. Maybe people just don’t like how it tastes.” Glenn and Tony agree that, alas, turkey is often dry—although, admittedly, skilled cooks claim that it isn’t dry when prepared properly.

So, turkey may be holding its own at the heart of Thanksgiving dinners, but seems to be struggling to get on the menu during the rest of the year.

Featured

When John Williams Speaks … Investors Listen

Photo of Federal Reserve Bank of New York President John Williams from newyorkfed.org

Many economists consider the three most influential people at the Federal Reserve to be the chair of the Board of Governors, the vice-chair of the Board of Governors, and the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The influence of the New York Fed president is attributable in part to being the only president of a District Bank to be a voting member of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) every year and to the New York Fed being the location of the Open Market Desk, which is charged with implementing monetary policy. The Open Market Desk undertakes open market operations—buying and selling Treasury securities—and conducts repurchase agreements (repos) and reverse repurchase agreements (reverse repos) with the aim of keeping the federal funds rate within the target range specified by the FOMC. (We discuss the mechanics of how monetary policy is conducted in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Economics, Chapter 25, and Money, Banking, and the Financial System, Chapter 15.)

John Williams has served as president of the New York Fed since 2018. Given his important role in the formulation and execution of monetary policy, investors pay close attention to his speeches and other public remarks looking for clues about the likely future path of monetary policy. As we noted yesterday in a post discussing the latest jobs report, Fed watchers were uncertain as to whether the FOMC would cut its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on December 9–10.

Yesterday morning, investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts assigned a probability of 39.6 percent to the FOMC cutting its target range for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) from 3.75 percent to 4.00 to 3.50 percent to 3.75 percent. Today in a speech delivered at the Central Bank of Chile, John Williams stated that:”I still see room for a further adjustment in the near term to the target range for the federal funds rate to move the stance of policy closer to the range of neutral, thereby maintaining the balance between the achievement of our two goals” of maximum employment and price stability.

Investors interpreted this statement as indicating that Williams would support cutting the target range for the federal funds rate at the December FOMC meeting. Given his position on the committee, it seemed unlikely that Williams would have publicly supported a rate cut unless he believed that a majority of the committee would also support it. As the following figure shows, after the text of Williams’s speech was released this morning, investors in the federal funds futures market increased the probability they assigned to a rate cut to 69.4 percent. That movement in the federal funds futures market was a recognition of the important role the president of the New York Fed plays in formulating monetary policy.

Featured

Congratulations to Pace University for Winning the 2025 College Fed Challenge

Photo from federalreserve.gov of the Pace University Fed Challenge team and their faculty advisers

Each year the Federal Reserve sponsors a competition among college student teams. As desribed on the Fed’s website, in the competition “Teams analyze economic and financial conditions and formulate a monetary policy recommendation, modeling the Federal Open Market Committee.”

This year’s winner is Pace University, representing the New York Federal Reserve District. Harvard College took second place and the University of California, Los Angeles took third place. The University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago, and Davidson College received honorable mentions. In 2024, the competition was won by the team from Princeton University, representing the Philadelphia Federal Reserve District.

This year, 139 colleges in 36 states participated in the competition. The rules of the competition are described here. After the competition, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell noted that: “Fed Challenge offers undergraduate students an opportunity to learn firsthand about monetary policy and the work of the Federal Reserve. I thank these students for the dedication, creativity, and analytical skills they demonstrated as they grappled with real-world economic challenges.”

Featured

Surprisingly Strong September Jobs Report

Image created by ChatGPT

If not for the shutdown of the federal government, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) would have already released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for September and October by now. The September jobs report was released today based largely on data collected before the shutdown.

Because the household survey wasn’t conducted in October, the data in the October report that relies on the household survey won’t be included when the BLS releases establishment employment data for October on December 16. The data for September released today showed the labor market was stronger than expected in that month.

According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 119,00 nonfarm jobs during September. This increase was well above the increase of 50,000 that economists surveyed by FactSet had forecast. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had also forecast a net increase of 50,000 jobs. The relatively large increase in employment in September was partially offset by the BLS revising downward by a combined 33,000 jobs its previous estimates of employment in July and August. The estimate for August was revised from a net gain of 22,000 to a net loss of 4,000. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”)

The following figure from the jobs report shows the net change in nonfarm payroll employment for each month in the last two years. The figure makes clear the striking deceleration in job growth beginning in May. The Trump administration announced sharp increases in U.S. tariffs on April 2. Media reports indicate that some firms have slowed hiring due to the effects of the tariffs or in anticipation of those effects.

As shown in the following figure, the unemployment rate increased from 4.3 percent in August to 4.4 percent in September, the highest rate since October 2021. The unemployment rate is above the 4.3 percent rate economists surveyed by FactSet had forecast. The unemployment rate had been remarkably stable, staying between 4.0 percent and 4.2 percent in each month from May 2024 to July 2025, before breaking out of that range in August. In September, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) forecast that the unemployment rate during the fourth quarter of 2025 would average 4.5 percent. The FOMC’s current estimate of the natural rate of unemployment—the normal rate of unemployment over the long run—is 4.2 percent. (We discuss the natural rate of unemployment in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9 and Economics, Chapter 19.)

Each month, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta estimates how many net new jobs are required to keep the unemployment rate stable. Given slower growth in the working-age population due to the aging of the U.S. population and a sharp decline in immigration, the Atlanta Fed currently estimates that the economy would have to create 111,878 net new jobs each month to keep the unemployment rate stable at 4.4 percent. If this estimate is accurate, if the average monthly net job increase from May through September of 38,600 were to continue, the result would be a rising unemployment rate.

As the following figure shows, the monthly net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. As measured by the household survey, there was a net increase of 251,000 jobs in September, following a net increase of 288,000 jobs in August. As an indication of the volatility in the employment changes in the household survey note the very large swings in net new jobs in January and February. In any particular month, the story told by the two surveys can be inconsistent. as was the case in September with employment increasing much more in the household survey than in the employment survey. (In this blog post, we discuss the differences between the employment estimates in the two surveys.)

The household survey has another important labor market indicator: the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those aged 25 to 54. In September the ratio was 80.7 percent, the same as in August. The prime-age employment-population ratio is somewhat below the high of 80.9 percent in mid-2024, but is still above what the ratio was in any month during the period from January 2008 to February 2020. The continued high levels of the prime-age employment-population ratio indicates strength in the labor market.

It is still unclear how many federal workers have been laid off since the Trump Administration took office. The establishment survey shows a decline in federal government employment of 3,000 in September and a total decline of 97,000 since the beginning of February 2025. However, the BLS notes that: “Employees on paid leave or receiving ongoing severance pay are counted as employed in the establishment survey.” It’s possible that as more federal employees end their period of receiving severance pay, future jobs reports may report a larger decline in federal employment. To this point, the decline in federal employment has had only a small effect on the overall labor market.

The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic. In September, the 1-month rate of wage inflation was 3.0 percent, down from 5.1 percent in August. This slowdown in wage growth may be an indication of a weakening labor market. But one month’s data from such a volatile series may not accurately reflect longer-run trends in wage inflation.

What effect might today’s jobs report have on the decisions of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) with respect to setting its target range for the federal funds rate? The minutes from the FOMC’s last meeting on October 28–29 indicate that committee members had “strongly differing views” over whether to cut the target range by 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) at its next meeting on December 9–10 or to leave the target range unchanged.

One indication of expectations of future changes in the FOMC’s target for the federal funds rate comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) A month ago, investors assigned a 98.8 percent probability of the committee cutting its target range to 3.50 percent to 3.75 percent at its December meeting. Since that time indications have increased that output and employment growth have continued to be relatively strong and that inflation is stuck above the Fed’s 2 percent annual target. This morning, as the following figure shows, investors assign a probability of 60. 4 percent to the committee keeping its target unchanged at 3.75 percent to 4.00 percent at the December meeting. Committee members will also release their Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) at that meeting. The SEP, along with Fed Chair Powell’s remarks at his press conference following the meeting, should provide additional information on the monetary policy path the committee intends to follow in the coming months.

Featured

Is the iPhone Air Apple’s “New Coke”?

Image created by GPT

Most large firms selling consumer goods continually evaluate which new products they should introduce. Managers of these firms are aware that if they fail to fill a market niche, their competitors or a new firm may develop a product to fill the niche. Similarly, firms search for ways to improve their existing products.

For example, Ferrara Candy, had introduced Nerds in 1983. Although Nerds experienced steady sales over the following years, company managers decided to devote resources to improving the brand. In 2020, they introduced Nerds Gummy Clusters, which an article in the Wall Street Journal describes as being “crunchy outside and gummy inside.” Over five years, sales of Nerds increased from $50 millions to $500 million. Although the company’s market research “suggested that Nerds Gummy Clusters would be a dud … executives at Ferrara Candy went with their guts—and the product became a smash.”

Image of Nerds Gummy Clusters from nerdscandy.com

Firms differ on the extent to which they rely on market research—such as focus groups or polls of consumers—when introducing a new product or overhauling an existing product. Henry Ford became the richest man in the United States by introducing the Model T, the first low-priced and reliable mass-produced automobile. But Ford once remarked that if before introducing the Model T he had asked people the best way to improve transportation they would probably have told him to develop a faster horse. (Note that there’s a debate as to whether Ford ever actually made this observation.) Apple co-founder Steve Jobs took a similar view, once remaking in an interview that “it’s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” In another interview, Jobs stated: “We do no market research. We don’t hire consultants.”

Unsurprisingly, not all new products large firms introduce are successful—whether the products were developed as a result of market research or relied on the hunches of a company’s managers. To take two famous examples, consider the products shown in image at the beginning of this post—“New Coke” and the Ford Edsel.

Pepsi and Coke have been in an intense rivalry for decades. In the 1980s, Pepsi began to gain market share at Coke’s expense as a result of television commercials showcasing the “Pepsi Challenge.” The Pepsi Challenge had consumers choose from colas in two unlabeled cups. Consumers overwhelming chose the cup containing Pepsi. Coke’s management came to believe that Pepsi was winning the blind taste tests because Pepsi was sweeter than Coke and consumers tend to favor sweeter colas. In 1985, Coke’s managers decided to replace the existing Coke formula—which had been largely unchanged for almost 100 years—with New Coke, which had a sweeter taste. Unfortunately for Coke’s managers, consumers’ reaction to New Coke was strongly negative. Less than three months later, the company reintroduced the original Coke, now labeled “Coke Classic.” Although Coke produced both versions of the cola for a number of years, eventually they stopped selling New Coke.

Through the 1920s, the Ford Motor Company produced only two car models—the low-priced Model T and the high-priced Lincoln. That strategy left an opening for General Motors during the 1920s to introduce a variety of car models at a number of price levels. Ford scrambled during the 1930s and after the end of World War II in 1945 to add new models that would compete directly with some of GM’s models. After a major investment in new capacity and an elaborate marketing campaign, Ford introduced the Edsel in September 1957 to compete against GM’s mid-priced models: Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Buick.

Unfortunately, the Edsel was introduced during a sharp, although relatively short, economic recession. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 13 (Economics, Chapter 23), consumers typically cut back on purchases of consumer durables like automobiles during a recession. In addition, the Edsel suffered from reliability problems and many consumers disliked the unusual design, particularly of the front of the car. Consumers were also puzzled by the name Edsel. Ford CEO Henry Ford II was the grandson of Henry Ford and the son of Edsel Ford, who had died in 1943. Henry Ford II named in the car in honor of his father but the unusual name didn’t appeal to consumers. Ford ceased production of the car in November 1959 after losing $250 million, which was one of the largest losses in business history to that point. The name “Edsel” has lived on as a synonym for a disastrous product launch.

Image of iPhone Air from apple.com

Apple earns about half of its revenue and more than half of its profit from iPhone sales. Making sure that it is able to match or exceed the smartphone features offered by competitors is a top priority for CEO Tim Cook and other Apple managers. Because Apple’s iPhones are higher-priced than many other smartphones, Apple has tried various approaches to competing in the market for lower-priced smartphones.

In 2013, Apple was successful in introducing the iPad Air, a thinner, lower-priced version of its popular iPad. Apple introduced the iPhone Air in September 2025, hoping to duplicate the success of the iPad Air. The iPhone Air has a titanium frame and is lighter than the regular iPhone model. The Air is also thinner, which means that its camera, speaker, and its battery are all a step down from the regular iPhone 17 model. In addition, while the iPhone Air’s price is $100 lower than the iPhone 17 Pro, it’s $200 higher than the base model iPhone 17.

Unlike with the iPad Air, Apple doesn’t seem to have aimed the iPhone Air at consumers looking for a lower-priced alternative. Instead, Apple appears to have targeted consumers who value a thinner, lighter phone that appears more stylish, because of its titanium frame, and who are willing to sacrifice some camera and sound quality, as well as battery life. An article in the Wall Street Journal declared that: “The Air is the company’s most innovative smartphone design since the iPhone X in 2017.” As it has turned out, there are apparently fewer consumers who value this mix of features in a smartphone than Apple had expected.

Sales were sufficiently disappointing that within a month of its introduction, Apple ordered suppliers to cut back production of iPhone Air components by more than 80 percent. Apple was expected to produce 1 million fewer iPhone Airs during 2025 than the company had initially planned. An article in the Wall Street Journal labeled the iPhone Air “a marketing win and a sales flop.” According to a survey by the KeyBanc investment firm there was “virtually no demand for [the] iPhone Air.”

Was Apple having its New Coke moment? There seems little doubt that the iPhone Air has been a very disappointing new product launch. But its very slow sales haven’t inflicted nearly the damage that New Coke caused Coca-Cola or that the Edsel caused Ford. A particularly damaging aspect of New Coke was that was meant as a replacement for the existing Coke, which was being pulled from production. The result was a larger decline in sales than if New Coke had been offered for sale alongside the existing Coke. Similarly, Ford set up a whole new division of the company to produce and sell the Edsel. When Edsel production had to be stopped after only two years, the losses were much greater than they would have been if Edsel production hadn’t been planned to be such a large fraction of Ford’s total production of automobiles.

Although very slow iPhone Air sales have caused Apple to incur losses on the model, the Air was meant to be one of several iPhone models and not the only iPhone model. Clearly investors don’t believe that problems with the Air will matter much to Apple’s profits in the long run. The following graphic from the Wall Street Journal shows that Apple’s stock price has kept rising even after news of serious problems with Air sales became public in late October.

So, while the iPhone Air will likely go down as a failed product launch, it won’t achieve the legendary status of New Coke or the Edsel.

Featured

Solved Problem: Using the Demand and Supply Model to Analyze the Effects of a Tariff on Televisions

Supports: Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, Economics, and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 4, Section 4.4

Image generated by ChapGPT

The model of demand and supply is useful in analyzing the effects of tariffs. In Chapter 9, Section 9.4 (Macroeconomics, Chapter 7, Section 7.4) we analyze the situation—for instance, the market for sugar—when U.S. demand is a small fraction of total world demand and when the U.S. both produces the good and imports it.

In this problem, we look at the television market and assume that no domestic firms make televisions. (A few U.S. firms assemble limited numbers of televisions from imported components.) As a result, the supply of televisions consists entirely of imports. Beginning in April, the Trump administration increased tariff rates on imports of televisions from Japan, South Korea, China, and other countries. Tariffs are effectively a tax on imports, so we can use the analysis in Chapter 4, Section 4.4, “The Economic Effect of Taxes” to analyze the effect of tariffs on the market for televisions.

Use a demand and supply graph to illustrate the effect of an increased tariff on imported televisions on the market for televisions in the United States. Be sure that your graph shows any shifts of the curves and the equilibrium price and quantity of televisions before and after the tariff increase.
An article in the Wall Street Journal discussed the effect of tariffs on the market for used goods. Use a second demand and supply graph to show the effect of a tariff on imports of new televisions on the market in the United States for used televisions. Assume that no used televisions are imported and that the supply curve for used televisions is upward sloping.

Solving the Problem
Step 1: Review the chapter material. This problem is about the effect of a tariff on an imported good on the domestic market for the good. Because a tariff is a like a tax, you may want to review Chapter 4, Section 4.4, “The Economic Effect of Taxes.”

Step 2: Answer part a. by drawing a demand and supply graph of the market for televisions in the United States that illustrates the effect of an increased tariff on imported televisions. The following figure shows that a tariff causes the supply curve of televisions to shift up from S₁ to S₂. As a result, the equilibrium price increases from P₁ to P₂, while the equilibrium quantity falls from Q₁ to Q₂.

Step 2: Answer part b. by drawing a demand and supply graph of the market for used televisions in the United States that illustrates the effect on that market of an increased tariff on imports of new televisions. Although the tariff on imported televisions doesn’t directly affect the market for used televisions, it does so indirectly. As the article from the Wall Street Journal notes, “Today, in the tariff era, demand for used goods is surging.” Because used televisions are substitutes for new televisions, we would expect that an increase in the price of new televisions would cause the demand curve for used televisions to shift to the right, as shown in the following figure. The result will be that the equilibrium price of used televisions will increase from P₁ to P₂, while the equilibrium quantity of used televisions will increase from Q₁ to Q₂.

To summarize: A tariff on imports of new televisions increases the price of both new and used televisions. It decreases the quantity of new televisions sold but increases the quantity of used televisions sold.

Featured

Older People Have Become Relatively Wealthier While Younger People Have Become Relatively Less Wealthy

Image created by ChatGPT

There has been an ongoing debate about whether Millennials and people in Generation Z are better off or worse off economically than are Baby Boomers. Edward Wolff of New York University recently published a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper that focuses on one aspect of this debate—how the wealth of households headed by someone 75 years and older changed relative to the wealth of households headed by someone 35 years and younger during the period from 1983 to 2022.

Wolff uses data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances to measure the wealth, or net worth, of people in these age groups—the market value of their financial assets minus the market value of their financial liabilities. He includes in his measure of assets the market value of people’s real estate holdings—including their homes—stocks and bonds, bank deposits, contributions to defined contribution pension funds, unincorporated businesses, and trust funds. He includes in his measure of liabilities people’s mortgage debt, consumer debt—including credit card balances—and other debt, such as educational loans. Because Wolff wants to focus on that part of wealth that is available to be spent on consumption, he refers to it as financial resources, and he excludes from his wealth measure the present value of future Social Security payments and the present value of future defined contribution pension benefits.

The following figure from Wolff’s paper shows that, using his definition, both median and mean wealth have increased substantially from 1987 to 2o22. Note that both measures of average wealth declined during the Great Recession and Global Financial Crisis of 2007–2009. Median wealth declined by nearly 44 percent between 2007 and 2010. That median wealth grew much faster than mean wealth over the whole period indicates that wealth inequality.

Although the average wealth of all age groups increased over this period, the relative wealth of households 75 years and older rose and the relative wealth of households 35 years and younger fell. The following figure from the NBER Digest illustrates this shift. The 75 and over age group increased its mean net worth from 5 percent greater than the mean net worth of the average household in 1983 to 55 percent of the mean net worth of the average household in 2022. In contrast, the 35 and under age group saw its mean new worth relative to the average household fall from 21 percent in 1983 to 16 percent in 2022. Note, though, that there is significant volatility over time in the relative wealth shares of the two age groups.

What explains the relative increase in wealth among households 75 and over and the relative decrease in wealth among households 35 and under? Wolff identifies three key factors:

“[T]he homeownership rate, total stocks directly and indirectly owned, and home mortgage debt. The homeownership rate is the same in the two years for the youngest group but falls relative to the overall rate, whereas it shoots up for the oldest group both in actual level and relative to the overall average. The value of stock holdings rises for both age groups but vastly more for the oldest households compared to the youngest ones and accounts for a substantial portion of the elderly’s relative wealth gains. Mortgage debt rises in dollar terms for both groups but considerably more in relative terms for the youngest group.”

Perhaps surprisingly, Wolff finds that “despite dire press reports, educational loans fail to appear as a significant factor” in explaining the decline in the relative wealth of younger households.

Featured

FOMC Meeting Results in Expected Rate Cut

Photo of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell from federalreserve.gov

Today’s meeting of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) occurred against a backdrop of a shutdown of the federal government that has delayed release of most government economic data. (We discuss the government shutdown here, here, and here.)

As most observers had expected, the committee decided today to lower its target for the federal funds rate from a range of 4.00 percent to 4.25 percent to a range of 3.75 percent to 4.oo percent—a cut of 0.25 percentage point, or 25 basis points. The members of the committee voted 10 to 2 for the 25 basis point cut with Governor Stephen Miran dissenting because he preferred a 50 basis point cut and Jeffrey Schmid, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, dissenting because he preferred that the target range be left unchanged at this meeting.

The following figure shows, for the period since January 2010, the upper bound (the blue line) and the lower bound (the green line) for the FOMC’s target range for the federal funds rate, as well as the actual values of the federal funds rate (the red line). Note that the Fed has been successful in keeping the value of the federal funds rate in its target range. (We discuss the monetary policy tools the FOMC uses to maintain the federal funds rate in its target range in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.2 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.2).)

During his press conference following the meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell made news by stating that a further cut in the target rate at the FOMC’s meeting on December 9–10 is not a foregone conclusion. This statement came as a surprise to investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As of yesterday, investors has assigned a probability of 90.5 percent to the committee cutting its target range by another 25 basis points at the December meeting. Today that probability dropped to zero. Instead investors now assign a probability of 67.8 percent to the target remaining unchanged at that meeting, and a probability of 32.2 percent of the committee raising its target by 25 basis points.

Powell also indicated that he believes that the recent increase in inflation was largely due to the effects of the increase in tariff rates that the Trump administration began implementing in April. (We discuss the recent data on inflation in this post.) Powell indicated that committee members expect that the tariff increases will cause a one-time increase in the price level, rather than a long-term increase in the inflation rate. As a result, he said that the shift in the “balance of risks” caused the committee to believe that cutting the target for the federal funds rate was warranted to avoid the possibility of a significant rise in the unemployment rate.

In discussing inflation, Powell highlighted three aspects of the recent CPI report: inflation in goods, inflation in shelter, and inflation in services not including shelter. (The BLS explains is measurement of shelter here.) The following figure shows inflation in each of those categories, measured as the percentage increase from the same month in the previous year. Inflation in goods (the blue line) has been trending up, reflecting the effect of increased tariffs rates. Inlation in shelter (the red line) and in services minus shelter (the green line) have generally been trending downward. Powell noted that the decline in inflation in shelter has been slower than most members of the committee had expected.

Still, Powell argued that with the downward trend in services, once the temporary inflation in goods due to the effects of tariffs had passed through the economy, inflation was likely to be close the Fed’s 2 percent annual target. He thought this was particularly likely to be true because even after today’s cut, the federal funds rate was “restrictive” because it remained above its long-run nominal and real values. A restrictive monetary policy will slow spending and inflation.

In the following figure, we look at the 1-month inflation rates—that is, the annual inflation rates calculated by compounding the current month’s rates over an entire year—for the same three categories. Calculated as the 1-month inflation rate, goods inflation (the blue line) was running at a very high 6.6 percent in September. inflation in shelter (the red line) had declined to 2.5 per cent in September. Inflation in services minus shelter rose slightly in September to 2.1 percent.

Assuming that the shutdown of the federal government ends within the next few weeks, members of the FOMC will have a great deal of data on inflation, real GDP growth, and employment to consider before their next meeting in December.

Featured

Who Will President Trump Nominate to Be Fed Chair?

Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council (photo from the AP via the Wall Street Journal)

Jerome Powell’s second term as chair of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governor ends on May 15,2026. (Although his term as a member of the Board of Governors doesn’t end until January 31, 2028, Fed chairs have typically resigned their seats on the Board at the time that their term as chair ends.) President Trump has been clear that he won’t renominate Powell to a third term. Who will he nominate?

Polymarket is a site on which people can bet on political outcomes, including who President Trump will choose to nominate as Fed chair. The different amounts wagered on each candidate determine the probabilities bettors assign to that candidate being nominated. The following table shows each candidate with a probability of least 1 percent of being nominated as of 5 pm eastern time on October 27.

Kevin Hassett, who is currently the director of the National Economic Council, has the highest probability at 36 percent. Fed Governor Christopher Waller, who was nominated to the Board by President Trump in 2020, is second with a 23 percent probability. Kevin Warsh, who served on the Board from 2006 to 2011, and was important in formulating monetary policy during the financial crisis of 2007–2009, is third with a probability of 16 percent. Rick Reider, an executive at the investment company Black Rock, is unusual among the candidates in not having served in government. Bettors on Polymarket assign him a 10 percent probability of being nominated. Stephen Miran and Michelle Bowman are current members of the Board who were nominated by President Trump.

Scott Bessent is the current Treasury secretary and has indicated that he doesn’t wish to be nominated. James Bullard served as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis from 2008 to 2023. David Zervos is an executive at the Jeffries investment bank and in 2009 served as an adviser to the Board of Governors. Lorie Logan is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and Philip Jefferson is currently vice chair of the Board of Governors.

Today, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated that the list of candidates had been reduced to five—although bettors on Polymarket indicate that they believe these five are likely to be the first five candidates listed in the chart above, it appears that Bowman, rather than Miran, is the fifth candidate on Bessent’s lists. Bessent indicated that President Trump will likely make a decision on who he will nominate by the end of the year.

Featured

CPI Inflation for September Slightly Below Forecasts but Still Above Target

Image generated by ChatGPT

As we’ve noted in recent blog posts (here and here), the shutdown of the federal government has interrupted the release of government data, including the “Employment Situation” report prepared monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The federal government made an exception for the BLS report on the consumer price index (CPI) because annual cost-of-living increases in Social Security payments are determined by the average inflation rate in the CPI during July, August, and September.

Accordingly, today (October 24), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its report on the consumer price index (CPI) for September. The following figure compares headline CPI inflation (the blue line) and core CPI inflation (the red line).

The headline inflation rate, which is measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous year, was 3.0 percent in September, up from 2.9 percent in August.
The core inflation rate, which excludes the prices of food and energy, was also 3.0 percent in September, down slightly from 3.1 percent in August.

Headline inflation and core inflation were both slightly lower than the 3.1 rate for both measures that economists had expected.

In the following figure, we look at the 1-month inflation rates for headline and core inflation—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. Calculated as the 1-month inflation rate, headline inflation (the blue line) declined from the very high rate of 4.7 percent in August to the still high rate of 3.8 percent in September. Core inflation (the red line) declined from 4.2 percent in August to 2.8 percent in September.

The 1-month and 12-month inflation rates are both indicating that inflation remains well above the Fed’s 2 percent annual inflation target in September. Core inflation—which is often a good indicator of future inflation—in particular has been running well above target during the last three months.

Does the increase in inflation represent the effects of the increases in tariffs that the Trump administration announced on April 2? (Note that many of the tariff increases announced on April 2 have since been reduced.) The following figure shows 12-month inflation in durable goods—such as furniture, appliances, and cars—which are likely to be affected directly by tariffs, all core goods, and core services. Services are less likely to be affected by tariffs.. To make recent changes clearer, we look only at the months since January 2022. In August, inflation in durable goods declined slightly to 1.8 percent in September from 1.9 percent in August. Inflation in core goods was unchanged in September at 1.5 percent. Inflation in core services fell slightly in September to 3.5 percent from 3.6 percent in August.

The following figure shows 1-month inflation in the prices of these products, which may makes clearer the effects of the tariff increases. In September, durable goods inflation was a high 4.0 percent, although down from 5.1 percent in August. Core goods inflation in September was 2.7 percent, down from 3.4 percent in August. Core service inflation was 2.9 percent in August, down from 4.3 percent in August.

To better estimate the underlying trend in inflation, some economists look at median inflation and trimmed mean inflation.

Median inflation is calculated by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and Ohio State University. If we listed the inflation rate in each individual good or service in the CPI, median inflation is the inflation rate of the good or service that is in the middle of the list—that is, the inflation rate in the price of the good or service that has an equal number of higher and lower inflation rates.
Trimmed-mean inflation drops the 8 percent of goods and services with the highest inflation rates and the 8 percent of goods and services with the lowest inflation rates.

The following figure shows that 12-month trimmed-mean inflation (the blue line) was 3.2 percent in September, down slightly from 3.3 August. Twelve-month median inflation (the red line) 3.5 percent in September, down slightly from 3.6 in August.

The following figure shows 1-month trimmed-mean and median inflation. One-month trimmed-mean inflation declined from 3.2 percent in August to 2.4 percent in September. One-month median inflation declined from 3.4 percent in August to 2.4 percent in September. These data are consistent with the view that inflation is still running above the Fed’s 2 percent target.

With inflation running above the Fed’s 2 percent annual target, we wouldn’t typically expect that the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) would cut its target for the federal funds rate at its October 28–29 meeting. At this point, though, it seems likely that the FOMC will “look through” the higher inflation rates of the last few months because the higher rates may be largely attributable to one-time price increases caused by tariffs. Committee members have signaled that they are likely to cut their target for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) at the conclusion of next week’s meeting.

This morning, investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts assign a probability of 96.7 percent to the FOMC cutting its target for the federal funds rate at that meeting by 25 basis points from its current target range of 4.00 percent to 4.25 percent. Investors assign a 95.9 percent probability of the committee cutting its target by an additional 25 basis points to 3.50 percent to 3.75 percent at its December 9–10 meeting. If persistently high inflation rates reflect more than just the temporary effects of tariffs, these rate cuts will make it unlikely that the Fed will reach its 2 percent inflation target anytime soon.