Author: hubbardobrieneconomics

FOMC Holds Target Rate Constant as Warsh Promises Procedural Changes after First Meeting as Chair

Photo of Kevin Warsh from bloomberg.com via the Wall Street Journal

It was a foregone conclusion that at its meeting that ended today, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) would leave unchanged its target range for the federal funds rate at 3.50 percent to 3.75 percent. There was great interest, however, about whether at his first meeting as chair of the committee, Kevin Warsh might indicate changes he would push for in the committee’s procedures.

One immediate change was evident in the statement that the committee released at the end of its meeting. The first statement reproduced below is from April 29, the last meeting Jerome Powell presided over as chair. The second statement is the statement that the committee released today.

The statement released today is much shorter and omits any mention of how the committee might respond in the future to new economic data, other than the simple statement that, “The Committee will deliver price stability.”

The brevity of the statement reflects the skepticism Warsh had voiced in his Senate confirmation hearings on the usefulness of forward guidance, or statements by the FOMC about how it will conduct monetary policy in the future. We discuss forward guidance in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15 (Economics, Chapter 25).

In his press conference following the meeting, Warsh announced that he was forming five new committees to look at: 1) Fed communications, 2) the Fed’s balance sheet, 3) the Fed’s use of data, 4) the effects of technological change and productivity, particularly with respect to artificial intelligence, and 5) the inflation process, with the aim of identifying key drivers of inflation. He indicated that the committees would include members from outside the Fed and were expected to report their findings by the end of the year.

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, typically, 19 committee members’ forecasts of key economic variables. Notably, Warsh indicated that, although he encouraged his colleagues on the committee to continue submitting their forecasts to be compiled in the SEP, he didn’t submit forecasts. He indicated that the future of the SEP is one of the issues to be considered by his new committee on Fed communications.

The forecasts of key economic variables from the SEP 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:

  1. Compared with the previous SEP in March, the committee members reduced their forecast of real GDP growth in 2026 from 2.4 percent to 2.2 percent. The committee members left unchanged their forecast of long-run growth in real GDP at 2.0 percent. Despite reducing their forecast of real GDP growth in 2026, the committee lowered their forecast of the unemployment rate in 2026 from 4.4 percent to 4.3 percent. The committee members left their forecast of the long-run rate of unemployment, often called the natural rate of unemployment, unchanged at 4.2 percent. 
  2. Committee members significantly raised their forecast of personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price inflation in 2026 to 3.6 percent from 2.7 percent in March. They raised their forecast of inflation in 2027 slightly and continued to forecast that PCE inflation will decline to the Fed’s 2.0 percent annual target in 2028.
  3. The committee’s forecasts of the federal funds rate at the end of each year from 2026 through 2028 were increased, indicating that the committee sees the federal funds rate as likely to be “higher for longer.” The forecast for the long-run federal funds rate was left unchanged at 3.1 percent.

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 18 dots, representing the 6 members of the Fed’s Board of Governors who provided forecasts and all 12 presidents of the Fed’s district banks. 

The dots plotted on the far left of the figure represent the projections by the 18 members of the value of the federal funds rate at the end of 2026. The plots indicate that at this point eight members of the committee forecast no change in the federal funds rate this year, nine members (circled in red) expect at least one increase in the federal funds rate by the end of the year, and only one member expected that there would be a cut in the federal funds by year’s end. The dots plotted 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.

Warsh indicated at his press conference that it was unlikely that he would hold a press conference after each meeting of the committee as Jerome Powell had been doing beginning with the January 2019 meeting.

Warsh made several other notable points at the press conference. He reiterated that the Fed’s inflation target would remain an annual increase of 2.0 percent in the PCE. He noted that he saw the current level of the federal funds rate as having a restrictive effect on only the housing market. And he expressed dissatisfaction with how the economic statistics the FOMC relies upon when setting policy were being compiled. He indicated that the new committee on the Fed’s use of data might formulate suggestions to other federal government agencies, such as the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on changes in how they collect data.

CPI Inflation Highest Since 2023, but Slightly Below Expectations

Image generated by ChatGPT

Today (June 10), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its report on the consumer price index (CPI) for May. As expected, higher energy prices caused by the conflict in Iran have continued to result in high rates of 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 4.2 percent in May, up from 3.8 in April. This was the highest inflation rate since April 2023.
  • The core inflation rate, which excludes the prices of food and energy, ticked up only slightly to 2.8 percent in May from 2.7 percent in April. 

Headline inflation was equal to and core inflation was slightly lower than economists surveyed by FactSet had forecast. (Note that because of last year’s federal government shutdown, inflation data for October and November 2025 are not available.)

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 high at 5.8 percent in May, but down from a very high 8.0 percent in April and 10.9 percent in March. Core inflation (the red line) was 2.5 percent in May, down significantly from 4.6 percent in April.

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 increased from a very high 56.6 percent in April to a slightly higher 58.8 percent in May. The red line shows the 1-month inflation rate in gasoline prices, which rose from a very high 88.8 percent in April to an even higher 126.4 percent in May.

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 slowed markedly to 0.8 percent in May from 8.5 percent in April. Inflation in food prices away from home was 3.7 percent in May, up from 2.8 percent in April. April’s very high rate of increase in grocery prices was due to rising energy prices, but also to sharp increases in beef and fruit and vegetable prices, which had risen for reasons largely unrelated to higher energy costs. Consumers enjoyed some relief in May from the sharp decrease in the rate of increase in grocery prices.

This inflation report is unlikely to have much effect on Fed policymakers as they prepare for the next meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on June 16–17—Kevin Warsh’s first meeting as Fed chair. Persistently high inflation rates combined with relatively strong data on economic growth and employment make it more likely that the FOMC will increase, rather than cut, its target for the federal funds rate later in the year.

At this point, trading in the federal funds futures market indicates that investors believe that its unlikely that the committee will raise or lower its target for the federal funds rate at its June, July, or September meetings. This morning, investors assigned a 48.6 percent probability of the FOMC raising its target for the federal funds rate at its October 27–28 meeting and a 66.2 percent of doing so at its meeting on December 8–9.

AI Analyzes an Economic Puzzle

Image generated by ChatGPT

People have collected sports cards for decades. For many years, the most sought-after and highest-priced example was a baseball card featuring Pittsburgh Pirates shortstop Honus Wagner. In the early twentieth century, baseball cards were often included in packs of cigarettes. In 1909, each pack of Sweet Caporal Cigarettes included a baseball card from what collectors call the T206 set. Although Wagner was a major star, relatively few of his cards were issued. That may have been because he was opposed to tobacco use and didn’t want his card to help sell cigarettes or because the tobacco company declined to pay him the fee he required. 

There are probably only 50 to 60 Wagner cards in existence. In August 2022, the Wagner card shown below sold at auction for $7.25 million, which was at the time a record.   

Image from goldin.co

This record was broken a few days later when the Topps rookie card for New York Yankees outfielder Mickey Mantle sold for $12.6 million.

Image from ha.com

A new record as the highest-priced sports card was set in August 2025, when a card featuring basketball stars Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant sold for $12.932 million.

Image from ha.com

In recent years, collecting cards from trading card games (TCG) such as Magic: The Gathering, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and, especially, Pokémon has become increasingly popular. Collectors pay higher prices for cards that are in nicer condition. Accordingly, many collectors and dealers submit cards to grading companies that assign the cards a numerical grade, with 10 being the highest grade. The leading card grading company is Professional Sports Authenticator (PSA). Despite its name, PSA now grades more TCG cards than sports card. In 2025, PSA graded 11.5 million TCG cards and 7.7 million sports cards.

In February of this year, a rare PSA-graded 1998 Japanese Pikachu Illustrator Pokémon card with a perfect grade of 10 sold for $16.492 million.

Image from goldin.co

The increasing popularity of collecting TCG cards and the publicity from media reports of the high sales prices of some cards has led to a surge in submissions to card grading companies. PSA is the largest card grading company, grading nearly four times as many cards as its closest competitor. Card grading fees increase with the market value of the card being graded. PSA charges significantly higher prices than its competitors. Collectors are apparently willing to pay the higher prices because PSA-graded cards often sell for higher prices than do cards graded by competitors.

On May 28, PSA surprised many card collectors by announcing that its backlog of cards collectors had submitted but that the company had not yet graded had reached 10 million. As a result, the company stated it was no longer accepting new submissions of lower priced cards. (Cards submitted to its Value Bulk, Value, Value Plus, and Value Max tiers.) The company described the policy as a “temporary pause” that would remain in place until its backlog of ungraded cards had declined to 5 million. PSA estimated that it would take four months to reach that target.

Why did PSA allow its backlog of ungraded cards to grow to 10 million? The backlog is an indication that at the prices it was charging, the quantity of its grading services demanded was much greater than the quantity of grading services it could supply with its existing workforce and grading equipment. Why, then, didn’t it raise its prices to reduce the quantity of its grading services demanded?

In Microeconomics, Chapter 10, Section 10.3, we describe several examples of firms being a situation similar to the one PSA finds itself in. In these situations, firms choose not to raise their prices even though doing so would seem to increase their profits. As we discuss in that chapter, the key reason firms don’t raise prices is they believe their customers might see the price increases as being unfair.

We thought it would be interesting to ask ChatGPT to analyze why PSA didn’t raise its prices when faced with a rapidly expanding backlog of ungraded cards. Here’s ChatGPT’s—lengthy!—answer to this economic puzzle:

 Image generated by ChatGPT

They probably could have raised price enough to slow submissions, but that would not have solved the whole problem PSA was trying to solve.
In the current 2026 pause, PSA said Value Bulk, Value, Value Plus, and Value Max submissions were being paused because a surge added 1.6 million cards and pushed the active backlog toward 10 million; PSA’s stated goal is to reduce that backlog to 5 million before reopening those tiers. In other words, the target was not “new submissions = grading capacity.” The target was new submissions well below capacity so the existing queue could shrink.


The clean economic answer is:

1. A market-clearing price would only stop the backlog from getting worse.
Suppose PSA can grade 90,000 cards per day, a capacity figure PSA itself recently gave for global output. If they priced submissions so exactly 90,000 new cards arrived per day, the backlog would not fall; it would stay stuck. To reduce a 10-million-card backlog to 5 million, they need throughput to exceed incoming volume by millions of cards over the pause period. That means they needed rationing that was stronger than ordinary price clearing.

2. They actually did use price rationing, just in a blunt tiered way.
PSA did not close everything. It paused the lower-priced value tiers and left Regular, Express, Super Express, Walk-Through, and premium services open. PSA’s own pricing page shows Regular at $79.99/card, Express at $149/card, Super Express at $349/card, Walk-Through at $599/card, and premium tiers much higher. Baseball America summarized the effect as PSA temporarily pausing all card grading tiers under $80. So one way to read the move is: PSA effectively raised the minimum direct price for new card grading to the Regular tier, while refusing to call the paused Value tiers “available at a surge price.”

3. The demand curve was probably unstable and hard to estimate.
A normal market-clearing price assumes the firm can predict how many units will arrive at each price. PSA’s demand was not behaving smoothly. In 2021, after a price increase, PSA still reported receiving more cards in three days than it had received in the prior three months. In 2026, PSA said updated turnaround/service announcements were followed by another rapid demand spike. In that environment, “raise the price until volume equals capacity” is not simple, because each price change can trigger a rush, panic submissions, dealer behavior, and speculation.

4. A huge price increase would damage the brand more than a pause.
If PSA had said, “Value Bulk is still open, but now it costs $80, $120, or $200 per card,” many collectors would view that as gouging, especially because value-tier grading is used for lower-value cards. A pause lets PSA say, “we are protecting turnaround times and existing customers,” rather than “we are monetizing a bottleneck.” PSA explicitly framed the 2026 pause as a way to avoid compromising existing orders and to focus on cards already in its care. 

5. Grading quality is part of the product.
PSA is not just selling a slot in a queue; it is selling trust in the grade. If a backlog forces rushed hiring, rushed training, overloaded receiving, or inconsistent review, the long-term asset — confidence in PSA 10, PSA 9, etc. — can be worth more than the short-term revenue from accepting every card at a higher price. PSA’s own statement tied the pause to protecting the “integrity of the PSA standard.” 

6. A pause is easier to reverse than a surge-price regime.
A temporary stop says: “These tiers are closed until backlog conditions improve.” A giant price hike creates other problems: customers anchor to the new price, dealers renegotiate, memberships lose value, submitters complain when prices later fall, and competitors can market PSA as exploitative. PSA instead extended Collectors Club memberships during the pause, which suggests they were trying to preserve customer goodwill while reducing intake. 

So the best answer is: because the bottleneck was a stock problem, not just a flow problem. Raising prices enough to make new submissions equal daily capacity would still leave the backlog in place. To drain the backlog, PSA needed submissions below capacity; pausing the cheapest/highest-volume tiers achieved that more predictably, while keeping high-value urgent tiers open and avoiding the optics of extreme surge pricing.

Surprisingly Strong Jobs Report

Image generated by ChatGPT

This morning (June 5), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for May. 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 172,000 nonfarm jobs during May. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had forecast an increase of only 80,000 jobs.  Economists surveyed by Bloomberg had a slightly higher forecast of a net increase of 88,000 jobs. The BLS revised upward its previous estimates of employment in March and April by a combined 93,000 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 that the relatively strong employment increases of the past three months represent a break from the unusual pattern in that began in the middle of 2025 in which months of declining employment and months of increasing employment had been alternating.

These increased employment gains are not consistent with an increasingly popular view among economists that slowing labor force growth had resulted in the break-even rate of employment growth—the rate of employment growth at which the unemployment rate remains constant—having fallen to close to zero.

In fact, despite the strong increase in employment, the unemployment rate, which is calculated from data in the household survey, was unchanged in May at 4.3 percent. 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 increase of 149,000 jobs in May, roughly similar to the increase in the establishment survey. But the household survey shows an overall decline in jobs during the past five months, in contrast to the net increase in jobs shown in the establishment survey. (Note that because of last year’s shutdown of the federal government, there are no data for October or November.) It’s not unusual for the two surveys to show significantly different movements in net job creation, particularly over short periods of time.

The household survey has another important labor market indicator: the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those workers aged 25 to 54. In May the ratio was 80.8 percent, up slightly from 80.7 percent in April. The prime-age population ratio remains above its value for most of the period since 2001. The persistently 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, Cisco Systems, and Meta Platforms, 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 has been declining during most months since the beginning of 2023, but May was an exception with a net increase of 3,700 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 3.4 percent in May, down from 3.6 percent in April.

What effect is this jobs report likely to have on the decisions of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) at its next meeting on June 16–17, the first meeting with Kevin Warsh as chair? The relatively strong growth in employment during the past three months make it 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. 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 increased to 97.2 percent this morning from 95.4 percent yesterday. Investors now assign a higher probability to a rate increase by the end of the year than to a rate cut.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.