As we noted in a recent post on the latest jobs report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has updated the population estimates in its household employment survey to reflect the revised population estimates from the Census Bureau. The census now estimates that the civilian noninstitutional population was about 2.9 million larger in December 2024 than it had previously estimated. The original undercount was significantly driven by an underestimate of the increase in the immigrant population.
The following figure shows the more rapid growth of foreign-born workers in recent years in comparison with the growth in native-born workers. In the figure, we set the number of native-born workers and the number of foreign-born workers both equal to 100 in January 2007. Between January 2007 and January 2025, the number of foreign-born workers increased by 40 percent, while the number of native-born workers increased by only 6 percent.
As the following figure shows, although foreign-born workers are an increasingly larger percentage of the total labor force, native-born workers are still a large majority of the labor force. Foreign-born workers were 15.3 percent of the labor force in January 2007 and 19.5 percent of the labor force in January 2025. Foreign-born workers accounted for about 56 percent of the increase in the total labor force over the period from January 2007 to January 2025.
H/T to Jason Furman for pointing us to the BLS data.
This morning (February 7), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for January. This report was particularly interesting because it includes data reflecting the annual benchmark revision to the establishment, or payroll, survey and the annual revision of the household survey data to match new population estimates from the Census Bureau.
According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 143,000 jobs during January. This increase was below the increase of 169,000 to 175,000 that economists had forecast in surveys by the Wall Street Journal and bloomberg.com. The somewhat weak increase in jobs during January was offset by upward revisions to the initial estimates for November and December. The previously reported increases in employment for those months were revised upward by a total of 100,000 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 BLS also announced the results of its annual revision of the payroll employment data benchmarked to March 2024. The revisions are mainly based on data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). The data in payroll survey are derived from a sample of 300,000 establishments, whereas the QCEW is based on a much more comprehensive count of workers covered by state unemployment insurance programs. The revisions indicated that growth in payroll employment between March 2023 and March 2024 had been overstated by 598,000 jobs. Although large in absolute scale, the revisions equal only 0.4 percent of total employment. In addition, as we discussed in this blog post last August, initially the BLS had estimated that the overstatement in employment gains during this period was an even larger 818,000 jobs. (The BLS provides a comprehensive discuss of its revisions to the establishment employment data here.)
The following table shows the revised estimates for each month of 2024, based on the new benchmarking.
The BLS also revised the household survey data to reflect the latest population estimates from the census bureau. Unlike with the establishment data, the BLS doesn’t adjust the historical household data in light of the population benchmarking. However, the BLS did include two tables in this month’s jobs report illustrating the effect of the new population benchmark. The following table from the report shows the effect of the benchmarking on some labor market data for December 2024. The revision increases the estimate of the civilian noninstitutional population by nearly 3 million, most of which is attributable to an increase in the estimated immigrant population. The increase in the estimate of the number of employed workers was also large at 2 million. (The BLS provides a discussion of the effects of its population benchmarking here.)
The following table shows how the population benchmarking affects changes in estimates of labor market variables between December 2024 and January 2025. The population benchmarking increases the net number of jobs created in January by 234,000 and reduces the increase in the number of persons unemployed by 142,000.
As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate, as reported in the household survey, decreased from 4.1 percent in December to 4.0 percent in January. The figure shows that the unemployment rate has fluctuated in a fairly narrow range over the past year.
The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we’ve noted in previous posts, 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. AHE increased 4.1 percent in January, which was unchanged from the December increase. By this measure, wage growth is still somewhat higher than is consistent with annual price inflation running at the Fed’s target of 2 percent.
There isn’t much in today’s jobs report to change the consensus view that the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at its next meeting on March 18-19. One indication of expectations of future rate cuts comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As shown in the following figure, today these investors assign a probability of 91.5 percent to the FOMC keeping its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at the current range of 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent at the March meeting. Investors assign a probability of only 8.5 percent to the FOMC cutting its target range by 25 basis points at that meeting.
Earlier this week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Job Openings and Labor Turnover” (JOLTS) report for December 2024. The report indicated that labor market conditions remain strong, with most indicators being in line with their values from 2019, immediately before the pandemic. The following figure shows that, at 4.5 percent, the rate of job openings remains in the same range as during the previous six months. While well down from the peak job opening rate of 7.4 percent in March 2022, the rate of job openings was the same as during the summer of 2019 and above the rates during most of the period following the Great Recession of 2007–2009.
(The BLS defines a job opening as a full-time or part-time job that a firm is advertising and that will start within 30 days. The rate of job openings is the number of job openings divided by the number of job openings plus the number employed workers, multiplied by 100.)
In the following figure, we compare the total number of job openings to the total number of people unemployed. The figure shows a slow decline from a peak of more than 2 job openings per unemployed person in the spring of 2022 to 1.1 job openings per unemployed person in December 2024—about the same as in 2019 and early 2020, before the pandemic. Note that the number is still above 1.0, indicating that the demand for labor is still high, although no higher than during the strong labor market of 2019.
The rate at which workers are willing to quit their jobs is an indication of how they perceive the ease of finding a new job. As the following figure shows, the quit rate declined slowly from a peak of 3 percent in late 2021 and early 2022 to 2.0 percent in July 2024, the same value as in December 2024. That rate is below the rate during 2019 and early 2020. By this measure, workers’ perceptions of the state of the labor market may have deteriorated slightly in recent months.
The JOLTS data indicate that the labor market is about as strong as it was in the months prior to the start of the pandemic, but it’s not as historically tight as it was through most of 2022 and 2023. In recent months, workers may have become less optimistic about finding a new job if they quit their current job. The “Great Quitting,” which was widely discussed in the business press during the period of high quit rates in 2022 and 2023 would seem to be over.
On Friday morning, the BLS will release its “Employment Situation” report for January, which will provide additional data on the state of the labor market. (Note that the data in the JOLTS report lag the data in the “Employment Situation” report by one month.)
Today (January 30), the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released its advance estimate of GDP for the fourth quarter of 2024. (The report can be found here.) The BEA estimates that real GDP increased at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in the fourth quarter—October through December. That was down from the 3.1 percent increase in real GDP in the third quarter. On an annual basis, real GDP grew by 2.5 percent in 2024, down from 3.2 percent in 2023. A 2.5 percent growth rate is still well above the Fed’s estimated long-run annual growth rate in real GDP of 1.8 percent. The following figure shows the growth rate of real GDP (calculated as a compound annual rate of change) in each quarter since the first quarter of 2021.
Personal consumption expenditures increased at an annual rate of 4.2 percent in the fourth quarter, while gross private domestic investment fell at a 5.6 annual rate. As we discuss in this blog post, Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s preferred measure of the growth of output is growth in real final sales to private domestic purchasers. This measure of production equals the sum of personal consumption expenditures and gross private fixed investment. By excluding exports, government purchases, and changes in inventories, final sales to private domestic purchasers removes the more volatile components of gross domestic product and provides a better measure of the underlying trend in the growth of output.
The following figure shows growth in real GDP (the blue line) and in real final sales to private domestic purchasers (the red line) with growth measured as compound annual rates of change. Measured this way, in the fourth quarter of 2024, real final sales to private domestic producers increased by 3.2 percent, well above the 2.3 percent increase in real GDP. Growth in real final sales to private domestic producers was down from 3.4 percent in the third quarter, while growth in real GDP was down from 3.1 percent in third quarter. Overall, using Powell’s preferred measure, growth in production seems strong.
This BEA report also includes data on the private consumption expenditure (PCE) price index, which the FOMC uses to determine whether it is achieving its goal of a 2 percent inflation rate. The following figure shows inflation as measured using the PCE (the blue line) and the core PCE (the red line)—which excludes food and energy prices—since the beginning of 2016. (Note that these inflation rates are measured using quarterly data and as percentage changes from the same quarter in the previous year to match the way the Fed measures inflation relative to its 2 percent target.) Inflation as measured by PCE was 2.4 percent, up slightly from 2.3 percent in the third quarter. Core PCE, which may be a better indicator of the likely course of inflation in the future, was 2.8 percent in the fourth quarter, unchanged since the third quarter. As has been true of other inflation data in recent months, these data show that inflation has declined greatly from its mid-2022 peak while remaining above the Fed’s 2 percent target.
This latest BEA report doesn’t change the consensus view of the overall macroeconomic situation: Production and employment are growing at a steady pace, while inflation remains stubbornly above the Fed’s target.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell at a press conference following a meeting of the FOMC (photo from federalreserve.gov)
Members of the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had signaled that the committee was likely to leave its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent at its meeting today (January 29), which, in fact, was what they did. As Fed Chair Jerome Powell put it at a press conference following the meeting:
“We see the risks to achieving our employment and inflation goals as being roughly in balance. And we are attentive to the risks on both sides of our mandate. … [W]e do not need to be in a hurry to adjust our policy stance.”
The next scheduled meeting of the FOMC is March 18-19. It seems likely that the committee will also keep its target rate constant at that meeting. Although at his press conference, Powell noted that “We’re not on any preset course.” And that “Policy is well-positioned to deal with the risks and uncertainties that we face in pursuing both sides of our dual mandate.” The statement the committee released after the meeting showed that the decision to leave the target rate unchanged was unanimous.
The following figure shows, for the period since January 2010, the upper bound (the blue line) and lower bound (the red line) for the FOMC’s target range for the federal funds rate and the actual values of the federal funds rate (the green line) during that time. Note that the Fed is successful in keeping the value of the federal funds rate in its target range.
A week ago, President Donald Trump in a statement to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland noted his intention to take actions to reduce oil prices. And that “with oil prices going down, I’ll demand that interest rates drop immediately.” As we noted in this recent post about Fed Governor Michael Barr stepping down as Fed Vice Chair for Supervision, there are indications that the Trump administration may attempt to influence Fed monetary policy.
In his press conference, Powell was asked about the president’s statement and responded that he had “No comment whatever on what the president said.” When asked whether the president had spoken to him about the need to lower interest rates, Powell said that he “had no contact” with the president. Powell stated in response to another question that “I’m not going to—I’m not going to react or discuss anything that any elected politician might say ….”
As we noted earlier, it seems likely that the FOMC will leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at its meeting on March 18-19. One indication of expectations of future rate cuts comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As shown in the following figure, today these investors assign a probability of 82.0 percent to the FOMC keeping its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at the current range of 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent at the March meeting. Investors assign a probability of only 18.0 percent to the committee cutting its target range by 25 basis points at that meeting.
At the close of stock trading on Friday, January 24 at 4 pm EST, Nvidia’s stock had a price of $142.62 per share. When trading reopened at 9:30 am on Monday, January 27, Nvidia’s stock price plunged to $127.51. The total value of all Nvidia’s stock (the firm’s market capitalization or market cap) dropped by $589 billion—the largest one day drop in market cap in history. The following figure from the Wall Street Journal shows movements in Nvidia’s stock price over the past six months.
What happened to cause should a dramatic decline in Nvidia’s stock price? As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 6 (Economics, Chapter 8, and Money, Banking, and the Financial System, Chapter 6), Nividia’s price of $142.62 at the close of trading on January 24—like the price of any publicly traded stock—reflected all the information available to investors about the company. For the company’s stock to have declined so sharply at the beginning of the next trading day, important new information must have become available—which is exactly what happened.
As we discussed in this blog post from last October, Nvidia has been very successful in producing state-of-the-art computer chips that power the most advanced generative artificial intelligence (AI) software. Even after Monday’s plunge in the value of its stock, Nvidia still had a market cap of nearly $3.5 trillion at the end of the day. It wasn’t news that DeepSeek, a Chinese AI company had produced AI software called R1 that was similar to ChatGTP and other AI software produced by U.S. companies. The news was that R1—the latest version of the software is called V3—appeared to be comparable in many ways to the AI software produced by U.S. firms, but had been produced by DeepSeek despite not using the state-of-the-art Nvidia chips used in those AI programs.
The Biden administration had barred export to China of the newest Navidia chips to keep Chinese firms from surging ahead of U.S. firms in developing AI. DeepSeek claimed to have developed its software using less advanced chips and have trained its software at a much lower cost than U.S. firms have been incurring to train their software. (“Training” refers to the process by which engineers teach software to be able to accurately solve problems and answer questions.) Because DeepSeek’s costs are lower, the company charges less than U.S. AI firms do to use its computer infrastructure to handle business tasks like responding to consumer inquiries.
If the claims regarding DeepSeek’s software are accurate, then AI firms may no longer require the latest Nvidia chips and may be forced to reduce the prices they can charge firms for licensing their software. The demand for electricity generation may also decline if it turns out that the demand for AI data centers, which use very large amounts of power, will be lower than expected.
But on Monday it wasn’t yet clear whether the claims being made about DeepSeek’s software were accurate. Some industry observers speculated that, despite the U.S. prohibition on exporting the latest Nvidia chips to China, DeepSeek had managed to obtain them but was reluctant to admit that it had. There were also questions about whether DeepSeek had actually spent as little as it claimed in training its software.
What happens to the price of Nvidia’s stock during the rest of the week will indicate how investors are evaluating the claims DeepSeek made about its AI software.
Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent. (Photo from Progect Syndicate.)
By setting an ambitious 3% growth target, U.S. Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent has provided the Trump administration a North Star to follow in devising its economic policies. The task now is to focus on productivity growth and avoiding any unforced errors that would threaten output.
U.S. Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent is right to emphasize faster economic growth as a touchstone of Donald Trump’s second presidency. More robust growth not only implies higher incomes and living standards—surely the basic objective of economic policy—but also can reduce America’s yawning federal budget deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio, and ease the sometimes difficult trade-offs across defense, social, and education and research spending.
But faster growth must be more than just a wish. Achieving it calls for a carefully constructed agenda, based on a recognition of the channels through which economic policies can raise or reduce output. While a pro-investment tax policy might boost capital accumulation, productivity, and GDP, higher interest rates from deficit-financed tax or spending changes might have the opposite effect. Similarly, since growth in hours worked is a component of growth in output or GDP, the new administration should avoid anti-work policies that hinder full labor-force participation, as well as sudden adverse changes to legal immigration.
While recognizing that some policy shifts that increase output might adversely affect other areas of social interest (such as the distribution of income) or even national security, policymakers should focus squarely on increasing productivity. The three pillars of any productivity policy are support for research, investment-friendly tax provisions, and more efficient regulation.
Ideas drive prospects in modern economies. Basic research in the sciences, engineering, and medicine power the innovation that advances technology, improvements in business organization, and gains in health and well-being. It makes perfect sense for the federal government to support such research. Since private firms cannot appropriate all the gains from their own outlays for basic research, they have less of an incentive to invest in it. Moreover, government support in this area produces valuable spillovers, as demonstrated by the earlier Defense Department research expenditures that became catalysts for today’s digital revolution.
This being the case, cuts in federal support for basic research are inconsistent with a growth agenda. Still, policymakers should review how research funds are distributed to ensure scientific merit, and they should encourage a healthy dose of risk-taking on newer ideas and researchers.
In addition to encouraging commercialization of spillovers from basic research and defense programs, federal support for applied research centers around the country would accelerate the dissemination of new productivity-enhancing technologies and ideas. Such centers also tend to distribute the economy’s prosperity more widely, by making new ideas broadly accessible—as agricultural- and manufacturing-extension services have done historically.
To address the second pillar of productivity growth, the administration should seek to extend the pro-investment provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump signed into law in 2017. While the TCJA’s lower tax rates on corporate profits remain in place, the expensing of business investment – a potent tool for boosting capital accumulation, productivity, and incomes – was set to be phased out over the 2023-26 period. This provision could be restored and made permanent by reducing spending on credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, or by rolling back the spending – such as $175 billion to forgive student loans – associated with outgoing President Joe Biden’s executive orders.
If the new administration wanted to go further with tax policy, it could build on the 2016 House Republican blueprint for tax reform that shifted the business tax regime from an income tax to a cashflow tax. By permitting immediate expensing of investment, but not interest deductions for nonfinancial firms, this reform would stimulate investment and growth, remove tax incentives that favor debt over equity, and simplify the tax system.
That brings us to the third pillar of a successful growth strategy: efficient regulation. The issue is not “more” versus “less.” What really matters for growth is how changes in regulation can improve the prospects for growth through innovation, investment, and capital allocation, while focusing on trade-offs in risks. Those shaping the agenda should start with basic questions like: Why can’t we build better infrastructure faster? Why can’t capital markets and bank lending be nimbler? Not only do such questions identify a specific goal; they also require one to identify trade-offs.
Fortunately, financial regulation under the new administration is likely to improve capital allocation and the prospects for growth, given the leadership appointments already announced at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve. But policymakers also will need to improve the climate for building infrastructure and enhancing the country’s electricity grids to support the data centers needed for generative artificial intelligence. This will require a sharper focus on cost-benefit analysis at the federal level, as well as better coordination with state and local authorities on permitting. Using federal financial support programs as carrots or sticks can be part of such a strategy.
Bessent’s emphasis on economic growth is spot on. By setting an ambitious 3% target for annual growth, he has provided the new administration a North Star to follow in devising its economic policies.
Welcome to the first podcast for the Spring 2025 semester from the Hubbard/O’Brien Economics author team. Check back for Blog updates & future podcasts which will happen every few weeks throughout the semester.
Join authors Glenn Hubbard & Tony O’Brien as they offer thoughts on tariffs in advance of the beginning of the new administration. They discuss the positive and negative impacts of tariffs -and some of the intended consequences. They also look at the AI landscape and how its reshaping the US economy. Is AI responsible for recent increased productivity – or maybe just the impact of other factors. It should be looked at closely as AI becomes more ingrained in our economy.
On January 15, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly report on the consumer price index (CPI). The following figure compares headline inflation (the blue line) and core inflation (the green line).
The headline inflation rate, which is measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous month, was 2.9 percent in December—up from 2.7 percent in November.
The core inflation rate,which excludes the prices of food and energy, was 3.2 percent in December—down from 3.3 percent in November.
Headline inflation was slightly above and core inflation was slightly below what economists surveyed 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) jumped from 3.8 percent in November to 4.8 percent in December. Core inflation (the green line) decreased from 3.8 percent in November to 2.7 percent in December.
Overall, considering 1-month and 12-month inflation together, the most favorable news is the low value of the 1-month core inflation rate. The most concerning news is a sharp increase in 1-month headline inflation, which brought that measure to its highest reading since February 2024. On balance, this month’s CPI report doesn’t do much to challenge the conclusion of other recent inflation reports that progress on lowering inflation has slowed or, possibly, stalled. So, the probability of a “no landing” outcome, with inflation remaining above the Fed’s target for an indefinite period, seems to have at least slightly increased.
Of course, it’s important not to overinterpret the data from a single month. The figure shows that 1-month inflation is particularly volatile. Also note that the Fed uses the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, rather than the CPI, to evaluate whether it is hitting its 2 percent annual inflation target.
As we’ve discussed in previous blog posts, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and his colleagues on the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) have been closely following inflation in the price of shelter. The price of “shelter” in the CPI, as explained here, includes both rent paid for an apartment or a house and “owners’ equivalent rent of residences (OER),” which is an estimate of what a house (or apartment) would rent for if the owner were renting it out. OER is included in the CPI to account for the value of the services an owner receives from living in an apartment or house.
As the following figure shows, inflation in the price of shelter has been a significant contributor to headline inflation. The blue line shows 12-month inflation in shelter, and the red line shows 1-month inflation in shelter. Twelve-month inflation in shelter has been declining since the spring of 2023, but in December it was still high at 4.6 percent. One-month inflation in shelter—which is much more volatile than 12-month inflation in shelter—fell from 4.1 percent in November to 3.1 percent in December.
To better estimate of the underlying trend in inflation, some economists look at median inflation and trimmed mean inflation.
Median inflation is calculated by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and Ohio State University. If we listed the inflation rate in each individual good or service in the CPI, median inflation is the inflation rate of the good or service that is in the middle of the list—that is, the inflation rate in the price of the good or service that has an equal number of higher and lower inflation rates.
Trimmed mean inflation drops the 8 percent of goods and services with the highest inflation rates and the 8 percent of goods and services with the lowest inflation rates.
The following figure shows that 12-month median inflation (the red line) declined slightly from 3.9 percent in November to 3.8 percent in December. Twelve-month trimmed mean inflation (the blue line) was unchanged at 3.2 percent for the fifth month in a row.
The following figure shows 1-month median and trimmed mean inflation. One-month median inflation rose from 2.8 percent in November to 3.6 percent in December. One-month trimmed mean inflation fell slightly from 3.3 percent in November to 3.2 percent in December. These data provide confirmation that (1) CPI inflation at this point is likely running higher than a rate that would be consistent with the Fed achieving its inflation target, and (2) that progress toward the target has slowed.
What are the implications of this CPI report for the actions the FOMC may take at its next meeting on January 28-29? The stock market rendered a quick verdict, as the following figure from the Wall Street Journal shows. As soon as the market opened on Wednesday morning, all three of the most widely followed stock market indexes jumped—as indicated by the vertical segments in the figure. Investors seem to be focusing on core CPI inflation being lower than expected, which should increase the probability that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate at either its March or May meeting. Lower inflation and lower interest rates would be good news for stock prices.
Investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts still do not expect that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting, as indicated by the following figure. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) Today, investors assign a probability of 93.7 percent to the FOMC leaving its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent at its January 28-29 meeting, and a probability of only 2.7 percent to the committee cutting its target range by 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points).
Last September the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) cut its target for the federal funds rate by 0.50 percentage point (50 basis points. Many economists and policymakers expected the FOMC to continue cutting its federal funds rate target at meetings through 2025. (We discussed the September target cut in this blog post.) The FOMC cut its target by 25 basis points at both its November and December 2024 meetings. But by the December meeting, it had become clear that the inflation rate was not falling as quickly to the Fed’s 2 percent target as the committee members had hoped. As FOMC’s staff economists put it, there had been “upward surprises” in inflation data. According to the minutes of the December meeting, several members of the committee believed that “upside risks to the inflation outlook had increased.”
As a result, it seemed likely that the FOMC would leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at its next meeting on January 28-29. This conclusion was reinforced this morning (January 10) when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for December. The report indicates that the labor market is stronger than expected.
Economists who had been surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had forecast that payroll employment, as reported in the establishment survey, would increase by 155,000. The BLS reported that payroll employment in December had increased by 256,000, well above expectations. The unemployment rate—which is calculated from data in the household survey—was 4.1 percent, down slightly from 4.2 percent in November. The following figure, taken from the BLS report, shows the net changes in employment for each month during the past two years.
As the following figure shows, the net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. The net change in jobs as measured by the household survey for December also showed a strong increase of 478,000 jobs following a decline of 273,000 jobs in November. In any particular month, the story told by the two surveys can be inconsistent with employment increasing in one survey while falling in the other. But in December the two surveys were sending the same signal of rapid employment growth. (In this blog post, we discuss the differences between the employment estimates in the household survey and the employment estimates in the establishment survey.)
The employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those aged 25 to 54—also increased, as shown in the following figure, to 80.5 percent in December from 80.4 percent in November. Although the employment-population is below its recent high of 80.9 percent, it remains high relative to levels seen since 2001.
As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate, which is also reported in the household survey, decreased slightly to 4.1 percent in December from 4.2 percent in November. The unemployment rate has been remarkably stable over the past two years, varying only 0.2 percentage point above or below 4.0 percent.
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 that it is 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 3.9 percent in December, down slightly from 4.0 percent in November.
The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic. The December 1-month rate of wage inflation was 3.4 percent, a decline from the 4.9 percent rate in November. Whether measured as a 12-month increase or as a 1-month increase, AHE is still increasing somewhat more rapidly than is consistent with the Fed achieving its 2 percent target rate of price inflation.
Given these data from the jobs report, it seems unlikely that the FOMC will reduce its target range for the federal funds rate at its next meeting. One indication of expectations of future rate cuts comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As shown in the following figure, today these investors assign a probability of 97.3 percent to the FOMC keeping its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at the current range of 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent, at its next meeting. Investors assign a probability of only 2.7 percent of the committee cutting its target range by 25 basis points at that meeting.
As the following figure shows, investors also expect the FOMC to keep its target range unchanged at its meeting on March 18-19, although there is greater uncertainty. Investors assign:
A 74.0 percent probability that the FOMC keeps its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged
A 25.4 percent probability that the committee cuts its target range by 25 basis points
A 0.6 percent probability that the committee cuts its target range by 50 basis points
HubbardOBrienEconomics.com Blog 