Ch19: Unemployment and Inflation – HubbardOBrienEconomics.com Blog

As Expected, CPI Inflation Falls Slightly in July

Image created by ChatGPT

Today (August 12), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its report on the consumer price index (CPI) for July. Lower energy and grocery prices contributed to a slight decline in the inflation rate in July compared with June.

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 3.4 percent in July, down from 3.5 percent in June.
The core inflation rate, which excludes the prices of food and energy, was 2.5 percent in July, down from 2.6 in June.

Headline inflation and core inflation were both equal to the forecasts of economists surveyed by FactSet. (Note that because of last year’s federal government shutdown, inflation data for October 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, both headline (the blue line) and core inflation (the red line) increased in July from the negative values in June. That is, the U.S. economy experienced deflation in June because the price level, measured by the CPI and by the CPI less food and energy prices, fell in that month.

In July, 1-month headline CPI inflation was 0.9 percent and 1-month core CPI inflation was 2.6 percent.

The following figure illustrates the role played by energy prices in contributing to the large swings in the monthly inflation rate since the conflict in Iran began at the end of February. The red line shows the 1-month inflation rate in all energy prices included in the CPI. Inflation in energy prices, which had increased at annual rate of 245 percent in March, declined at an annual rate of 16.4 percent in July. The blue line shows the 1-month inflation rate in gasoline prices, which in March had spiked to more than 900 percent measured at an annual rate, declined at an annual rate of 29.4 percent in July. A return to full-scale hostilities in the Middle East would increase oil prices, which would likely lead to an increase in the U.S. inflation rate.

There had been a fear that the rise in energy prices that began in March would 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, which increased 2.3 percent in June, declined 0.9 percent in July. Inflation in food prices away from home increased from 2.8 percent in June to 3.8 percent in July. To this point, increases in energy priced do not seem to have caused a significant increase in either grocery prices or restaurant prices.

Today’s relatively good inflation report, following last week’s report showing an unexpected decline in employment, has likely reduced the chance that Federal Reserve policymakers will increase their target for the federal funds rate at the next meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on September 15–16. In trading in the federal funds futures market this afternoon, investors assigned a 62.1 percent probability to the FOMC keeping its target unchanged at that meeting, which was up from a 51.6 probability yesterday. Traders assign a 53.2 percent probability to the committee increasing its target at its October 27–28 meeting, down from 62.2 percent yesterday.

It’s worth noting, however, that inflation is still running above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent annual inflation target. In testimony before Congress in a hearing on his nomination as Fed Chair, Kevin Warsh cautioned that good news in a single month’s inflation report should be treated with caution. Warsh has intentionally moved away from discussing the circumstances under which monetary policy might change in the future—so-called forward guidance. (We discuss forward guidance in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15 (Economics, Chapter 25)). Uncertainty about actions the FOMC may take during its three remaining meeting this year remains high.

Employment in July Unexpectedly Declined

This morning (August 7), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for July. The report showed a decline in employment.

According to the establishment survey, there was a net decrease of 23,000 nonfarm jobs during July. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had forecast an increase of 83,000 jobs. Economists surveyed by FactSet had forecast a higher net increase of 100,000 jobs. The BLS revised downward its previous estimates of employment in May and June by a combined 103,000 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 since peaking in March with a net increase of 214,000 jobs, job growth has slowed markedly over the last four months. Over the last three months, we’ve seen only an average of 20,000 net new jobs created.

The slow pace of recent job growth is consistent with the view among some economists that slowing labor force growth has driven the break-even rate of employment growth—the rate required to keep the unemployment rate constant—down to nearly zero

Despite the decrease in employment in July, the unemployment rate, which is calculated from data in the household survey, declined to 4.1 percent from 4.2 percent in June. The decline in the unemployment rate was due to a decline in the estimated size of the labor force. Although the estimated size of the labor force can fluctuate significantly from month to month, July was the fifth month in a row during which the labor force is estimated to have declined. Despite that fact, 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 June 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, currently the unemployment rate is slightly below 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 87,000 jobs in July, roughly similar to the net decrease in employment shown in the establishment survey. Since January, the household survey has sown a net increase in jobs in only one month, with a total net decrease of 1.8 million jobs. In contrast, the establishment survey has shown a net increase of 426,000 jobs over the same period. (Note that because of last year’s shutdown of the federal government, there are no data for October or November.)

The household survey has another important labor market indicator: the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those workers aged 25 to 54. In July, the ratio increased to 80.4 percent, partially reversing the sharp decline in June. The prime-age population ratio can show volatility from month to month but has remained above 80 percent every month since December 2022.

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. July was an exception with a net increase of 2,400 jobs.

The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we noted in earlier posts, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is AHE. 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 AHE from the same month in the previous year. AHE increased 3.2 percent in July, down from 3.4 percent in June. The rate of increase in AHE has been below 4.0 percent each month since August 2025, indicating that cost pressure from wage increases has not been a significant source of price inflation during the past year.

With inflation having been above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent annual target every month since March 2021, there has been increasing speculation that the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) would increase its target for the federal funds rate at least once before the end of 2026. At the FOMC’s last meeting in late July, three members of the committee voted to increase the target, an unusual amount of dissent from a committee decision.

Does the slowdown in employment growth in recent months reduce the chance that the FOMC will increase its target range for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on September 15–16? Investors in the federal funds futures market believe that the answer is “yes.” Yesterday, investors assigned only a 45.0 percent probability to the committee keeping its target rate unchanged. This afternoon, that probability had increased to 55.9 percent. The BLS will release its estimate of inflation as measured by the consumer price index next Wednesday. That report will provide further evidence about the current state of inflation.

What Explains the Rise in 30-Year Treasury Yields?

Image created by ChatGPT

At the close of trading on Friday, July 31, the yield on the 30-year Treasury bond was 5.28 percent. As the following figure shows, that yield was the highest since July 2007, before the Global Financial Crisis and the Great Recession of 2007–2009.

Note: As we discuss in Money, Banking, and the Financial System, Chapter 3, when economists refer to the interest rate on a bond, they are referring to the bond’s yield to maturity. (A new edition of our textbook is now available.)

The figure shows the nominal yields on the 30-year Treasury bond—the yield not corrected for the effects of inflation. What factors can cause the nominal yield on Treasury bonds to increase? Because investors are interested in the real yield on Treasury bonds—the yield corrected for the effects of inflation—an increase in the expected inflation rate will cause the nominal yield to rise. The Fisher effect refers to the assertion by Yale economist Irving Fisher that the nominal interest rate on a bond rises point-for-point with increases in the expected inflation rate. Although the pure Fisher effect doesn’t typically hold, there’s no doubt that changes in the expected inflation rate are a key driver of changes in nominal bond yields.

The other main driver of nominal bond yields is changes in the demand for credit. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that, because of continuing federal government budget deficits, the value of publicly held Treasury securities will rise “from 101 percent of GDP in 2026 to 120 percent in 2036, well above the previous record of 106 percent just after World War II.” Such substantial increases in the supply of Treasury bonds will lower their prices, raising their nominal yields.

The market for Treasury bonds is linked to the market for corporate bonds. Although not all investors who buy Treasury bonds also buy corporate bonds and vice versa, many investors participate in both markets. As a result, a surge in the supply of corporate bonds will raise both their yields and the yields on Treasury bonds. As the following figure shows, the yields on high-quality corporate bonds (those rated A, AA, or AAA), have moved roughly in synch with Treasury yields, with recent increases in corporate yields mirroring the increases in Treasury yields.

The surge in the supply of corporate bonds has been driven by so-called hyperscalers, such as Amazon, Google, Oracle, and Microsoft, who have been raising hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the building of data centers to power AI programs.

In recent days, there has been much discussion as to whether the increased supply of bonds or rising expectations of future inflation have been behind the surge in Treasury yields. Following the latest meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on Wednesday, July 29, Fed Chair Kevin Warsh’s press conference left many industry analysts believing that Warsh would be willing to tolerate higher rates of inflation. If, on the other hand, Warsh had been interpreted as willing to raise the FOMC’s target for the federal funds rate in the near future, that may have reassured investors that future rates of inflation would be lower, which would have brought down Treasury yields. An article in the Wall Street Journal quoted Mark Cabana, head of U.S. rates strategy at Bank of America as saying: “If you actually want to get long-end rates down, there’s an argument that you need to raise front-end rates [that is, the target for the federal funds rate] right now in order to establish that credibility.”

The following figure from the Wall Street Journal shows that during Warsh’s press conference, the yield on the 30-year Treasury bond rose sharply.

Despite the immediate reaction of bond investors to Warsh’s press conference, there isn’t much indication that in recent weeks a significant rise in investors’ expectations of inflation has been the key driver of increases in the Treasury bond rate.

In January 1997, the U.S. Treasury started issuing indexed bonds to address investors’ concerns about the effects of inflation on real interest rates. With these bonds, called TIPS (Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities), the Treasury increases the principal, or face value, as the price level increases, as measured by the CP. The stated interest rate on a TIPS remains fixed once issued, but because it is applied to a principal amount that increases with inflation, the effective interest rate increases with inflation. For example, suppose that when issued, a 30-year TIPS has a principal of $1,000 and a coupon rate of 3%. (The coupon rate equals the coupon payment divided by the face value, or par value, of a bond.) If the inflation rate during the year is 2%, then the principal increases to $1,020. So, the investor would receive the coupon rate of 3% plus the 2% increase in the principal, or 5%. In the rare case in which the economy experiences deflation, with the price level falling, the principal of a TIPS will decrease.

If we compare the yield on a TIPS of a given maturity to the yield on a non-TIPS Treasury security of the same maturity, we have an estimate of the annual inflation rate investors expect over that time period. For example, if the yield on a non-TIPS 30-Year Treasury bond is 5% and the yield on a 30-year TIPS is 2%, investors expect an annual inflation rate of 3% over the next 30 years. The difference between the yield on the non-TIPS 30-year Treasury bond and the yield on the 30-year TIPS is called the 30-year breakeven inflation rate because at that inflation rate, an investor would expect the same real yield from buying either the TIPS or the non-TIPS bond.

The following figure shows, for the period beginning in January 2022, the daily yield to maturity on the 30-year Treasury bond (the blue line), the yield on the 30-year TIPS (the orange line), and the implied 30-year breakeven inflation rate (the green line). Note that values for the green line are usually close to 2%, which is the Fed’s long-run inflation target. Even during 2022, when inflation as measured by the CPI reached 9%, this measure of expected inflation never rose above 2.7%. When the expected inflation rate changes relatively little during a period when the actual inflation rate is fluctuating, expectations of inflation are said to be well anchored.

A reasonable conclusion is that, to this point, the rise in long-term bond yields appears to be driven more by the increasing supply of Treasury and corporate bonds than by higher expected inflation.

(We should note that some economists question the accuracy of using breakeven inflation as a measure of expected inflation for two reasons: (1) An investor buying a TIPS is protected against the possibility that the inflation rate might turn out to be higher than expected. As a result, investors may be willing to accept a slightly lower interest rate on TIPS, which would lead to an
overestimate of the expected inflation rate. (2) The volume of TIPS traded on any given day is much smaller than volume of non-TIPS Treasury securities traded, which make TIPS slightly less liquid—meaning they are slightly more difficult to sell. Investors typically require a higher interest rate to buy a less liquid asset. So, this outcome might have the opposite effect of the first one—an underestimate of the expected inflation rate.)

New BEA Releases Show Slower Growth Than Expected and Lower Inflation

Image created by ChatGPT

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released two reports this morning (July 30): “GDP (Advance Estimate), 2nd Quarter 2026” and “Personal Income and Outlays, June 2026.” The BEA’s initial—or advance—estimate is that real GDP grew in the second quarter of 2026 at annual rate of 1.5 percent, down from an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the first quarter. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had forecast that real GDP would grow at a rate of 1.8 percent in the second quarter. The following figure shows the BEA’s estimated rates of real GDP growth in each quarter beginning with the first quarter of 2022.

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 3.9 percent in the second quarter, more than twice the rate of growth of real GDP, as well as far above the U.S. economy’s expected long-run annual real growth rate of 1.8 percent. So growth in real final sales to domestic purchasers indicates that the U.S. economy is expanding rapidly, as opposed to the much weaker growth shown by real GDP data. Typically, growth in real final sales to domestic purchasers is steadier than growth in real GDP and is likely a better indicator of the underlying growth rate in the economy.

There has been much discussion in the media of the surge in spending on new data centers to power artificial intelligence programs. This surge is reflected in following figure, which shows real domestic investment in information processing equipment. This category of investment spending has increased more than 40 percent since the fourth quarter of 2024.

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. As we noted in a blog post yesterday, Fed Chair Kevin Warsh indicated in his press conference following the meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) that the committee intended to continue using the PCE price index as its gauge of inflation, although that decision would be revisited early next year. Warsh may have intended this statement to reassure financial markets that there would be continuity in the Fed’s measure of inflation. However, some investors appear to have interpreted Warsh’s statement that the decision would be revisited next year as an indication that he favored moving to a measure that would show lower rates of inflation than those shown by the PCE.

In other words, some investors believe that in the future the FOMC might be willing to accept higher levels of PCE inflation. Perhaps in response to this interpretation, the yield on the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond rose to its highest level since 2007. Higher expected inflation can lead to lower bond prices and higher bond yields. (We discuss this point in Money, Banking, and the Financial System, Chapter 5, which is now available in a new edition.)

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 June, headline PCE inflation was 3.7 percent, down from 4.1 percent in May. Core PCE inflation in June was 3.3 percent, down slightly from 3.4 percent in May. Headline and core PCE inflation were both equal to the forecasts of economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal. 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 declined from 5.7 percent in May to –1.3 percent in June; in other words, consumer prices fell in June. Core PCE inflation fell from 4.1 in May to 1.6 percent in June. Even leaving aside the effect of falling gasoline prices on headline PCE, these data show that in June there was a noticeable deceleration in inflation. Of course, it’s important not to overinterpret the data from a single month.

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 3.5 percent in May, down from 4.0 percent in May. Core market-based PCE inflation was 3.0 percent in June, down from 3.2 percent in May. So, both market-based measures, although lower than the full PCE measures, show inflation in June remaining well above the Fed’s 2 percent target.

Fed Chair Kevin Warsh argued in testimony at his confirmation hearing 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 red line) and trimmed-mean PCE inflation (the brown line). Trimmed-mean PCE inflation in June was 2.2 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 June, median PCE inflation was 2.7 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 still running well above the Fed’s 2 percent annual inflation target.

Today’s macro data releases appear to have reinforced the view of investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts that the FOMC will raise its target for the federal funds rate by o.25 at its meeting on September 15–16. That probability increased from 58.3 percent yesterday to 65.4 percent this afternoon.

FOMC Holds Target Rate Constant, with Three Dissenting Votes

Fed Chair Kevin Warsh and colleagues discuss policy at the June FOMC meeting (Photo from federalreserve.gov.)

There was some uncertainty as to whether 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. As of yesterday, trading in the federal funds rate futures market had given a 31 percent probability to the committee raising its target by 0.25 percentage points (25 basis points). The committee voted 9–3 to keep the target range unchanged, with 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, voting to raise the target range by 25 basis points.

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 2015, 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).)

As with the policy statement issued following Fed Chair Kevin Warsh’s first FOMC meeting in June, today’s policy statement was short and did not include any discussion of the circumstances under which policy might change in the future—so-called forward guidance. We discuss forward guidance in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15 (Economics, Chapter 25).

In his press conference following the meeting, Warsh expanded on his approach to monetary policy, highlighting differences with previous Fed chairs. He noted that he believed that FOMC policy statements should present “just the facts,” providing only a brief summary of current economic conditions and avoiding mention of future monetary policy apart from the assertion—which also closed the policy statement following the June meeting—that “The Committee will deliver price stability.”

He stressed that the committee was in the process of reassessing its approach to monetary policy. The reassessment will rely in part on the findings of the five committees he has formed, although he noted that the FOMC would not feel bound by the recommendations of the five committees. He emphasized that the committee would focus more on trends in economic data and wouldn’t be “holding our breath” waiting for any particular data release. In reply to questions from reporters, he noted that despite the committee leaving its target for the federal funds rate unchanged, there hadn’t been a “pause” in policy because the committee had continued its “rigorous review of big, hard questions.”

Warsh noted that by avoiding forward guidance, the committee wasn’t attempting to surprise financial markets when at some point it announces a policy change. Instead, he argued that prices in financial markets would now better reflect the opinions of market participants, which will provide the committee with useful information.

On two issues, Warsh noted continuity with committee procedures under previous Fed chairs. First, at his June press conference, Warsh had indicated that he would only hold press conferences after FOMC meetings if there was new information to convey. Today, he stated that, through at least the end of the year, he would continue the recent tradition of holding a press conference after each FOMC meeting. Second, when asked about his statements that new measures of inflation were needed, Warsh indicated that, at least through the end of the year, the committee would continue to measure progress toward its 2 percent annual inflation goal using the inflation rate as measured by the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index.

Finally, this afternoon, investors in the federal funds rate futures market assigned a 63.4 percent probability to the committee increasing its target range by 25 basis points at its next meeting on September 15–16, a decrease from 76.0 percent yesterday.

New BEA Releases Show Faster Growth and Higher Inflation

Image created by ChatGPT

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released two reports this morning (June 25): “GDP (Third Estimate), Industries, Corporate Profits, State GDP, and State Personal Income, 1st Quarter 2026” and “Personal Income and Outlays, May 2026.” The BEA revised upward its estimate of real GDP growth in the first quarter of 2026 from an annual rate of 1.6 percent to an annual rate of 2.1 percent. Economists surveyed by LSEG 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 real GDP growth in each quarter beginning with the first quarter of 2022.

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 1.7 percent in the first quarter, below the 2.1 percent rate of increase in real GDP and close to 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 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 May, headline PCE inflation was 4.1 percent, up from 3.8 percent in April, and the highest rate since April 2023. Core PCE inflation in May was 3.4 percent, up slightly from 3.3 percent in April. Headline PCE inflation was equal to the forecasts of economists surveyed by FactSet, while core PCE inflation was slightly higher. 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 increased from 5.0 percent in April to 5.5 percent in May. Core PCE inflation rose from 3.0 in April to 3.9 percent in May. Even leaving aside the effect of rising gasoline prices on headline PCE, these data show that in May both core and headline PCE inflation were well above the Fed’s target.

Headline market-based PCE inflation was 3.9 percent in May, up from 3.7 percent in April. Core market-based PCE inflation was 3.2 percent in May, up slightly from 3.1 percent in April. So, both market-based measures, although lower than the full PCE measures, show inflation in May 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.”

The following figure shows headline PCE inflation the (blue line), core PCE inflation (the red line) and trimmed-mean PCE inflation (the brown line). Trimmed-mean PCE inflation in May 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 May, 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 still 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. These investors still expect that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at its meeting on July 28–29 but will raise the target by 0.25 percentage point at its September 15–16 meeting.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.