Money. Banking, and the Financial System – Page 15

Key Macro Data Series during the Time Since the Arrival of Covid–19 in the United States

A bookstore in New York City closed during Covid. (Photo from the New York Times)

Four years ago, in mid-March 2020, Covid–19 began to significantly affect the U.S. economy, with hospitalizations rising and many state and local governments closing schools and some businesses. In this blog post we review what’s happened to key macro variables during the past four years. Each monthly series starts in February 2020 and the quarterly series start in the fourth quarter of 2019.

Production

Real GDP declined by 5.8 percent from the fourth quarter of 2019 to the first quarter of 2020 and by an additional 28.0 percent from the first quarter of 2020 to the second quarter. This decline was by far the largest in such a short period in the history of the United States. From the second quarter to the third quarter of 2020, as businesses began to reopen, real GDP increased by 34.8 percent, which was by far the largest increase in a single quarter in U.S. history.

Industrial production followed a similar—although less dramatic—path to real GDP, declining by 16.8 percent from February 2020 to April 2020 before increasing by 12.3 percent from April 2020 to June 2020. Industrial production did not regain its February 2020 level until March 2022. The swings in industrial production were smaller than the swings in GDP because industrial production doesn’t include the output of the service sector, which includes firms like restaurants, movie theaters, and gyms that were largely shutdown in some areas. (Industrial production measures the real output of the U.S. manufacturing, mining, and electric and gas utilities industries. The data are issued by the Federal Reserve and discussed here.)

Employment

Nonfarm payroll employment, collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in its establishment survey, followed a path very similar to the path of production. Between February and April 2020, employment declined by an astouding 22 million workers, or by 14.4 percent. This decline was by far the largest in U.S. history over such a short period. Employment increased rapidly beginning in April but didn’t regain its February 2020 level until June 2022.

The employment-population ratio measures the percentage of the working-age population that is employed. It provides a more comprehensive measure of an economy’s utilization of available labor than does the total number of people employed. In the following figure, the blue line shows the employment-population ratio for the whole working-age population and the red line shows the employment-population ratio for “prime age workers,” those aged 25 to 54.

For both groups, the employment-population ratio plunged as a result of Covid and then slowly recovered as the production began increasing after April 2020. The employment-population ratio for prime age workers didn’t regain its February 2020 value until February 2023, an indication of how long it took the labor market to fully overcome the effects of the pandemic. As of February 2024, the employment-population ratio for all people of working age hasn’t returned to its February 2020 value, largely because of the aging of the U.S. population.

Average weekly hours worked followed an unusual pattern, declining during March 2020 but then increasing to beyond its February 2020 level to a peak in April 2021. This increase reflects firms attempting to deal with a shortage of workers by increasing the hours of those people they were able to hire. By April 2023, average weekly hours worked had returned to its February 2020 level.

Income

Real average hourly earnings surged by more than six percent between February and April 2020—a very large increase over a two-month period. But some of the increase represented a composition effect—as workers with lower incomes in services industries such as restaurants were more likely to be out of work during this period—rather than an actual increase in the real wages received by people employed during both months. (Real average hourly earnings are calculated by dividing nominal average hourly earnings by the consumer price index (CPI) and multiplying by 100.)

Median weekly real earnings, because it is calculated as a median rather than as an average (or mean), is less subject to composition effects than is real average hourly earnings. Median weekly real earnings increased sharply between February and April of 2020 before declining through June 2022. Earnings then gradually increased. In February 2024 they were 2.5 percent higher than in February 2020.

Inflation

The inflation rate most commonly mentioned in media reports is the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous year. The following figure shows that inflation declined from February to May 2020. Inflation then began to rise slowly before rising rapidly beginning in the spring of 2021, reaching a peak in June 2022 at 9.0 percent. That inflation rate was the highest since November 1981. Inflation then declined steadily through June 2023. Since that time it has fluctuated while remaining above 3 percent.

As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.5 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.5), the Federal Reserve gauges its success in meeting its goal of an inflation rate of 2 percent using the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index. The following figure shows that PCE inflation followed roughly the same path as CPI inflation, although it reached a lower peak and had declined below 3 percent by November 2023. (A more detailed discussion of recent inflation data can be found in this post and in this post.)

Monetary Policy

The following figure shows the effective federal funds rate, which is the rate—nearly always within the upper and lower bounds of the Fed’s target range—that prevails during a particular period in the federal funds market. In March 2020, the Fed cut its target range to 0 to 0.25 percent in response to the economic disruptions caused by the pandemic. It kept the target unchanged until March 2022 despite the sharp increase in inflation that had begun a year earlier. The members of the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had initially hoped that the surge in inflation was largely caused by disuptions to supply chains and would be transitory, falling as supply chains returned to normal. Beginning in March 2022, the FOMC rapidly increased its target range in response to continuing high rates of inflation. The targer range reached 5.25 to 5.50 percent in July 2023 where it has remained through March 2024.

Although the money supply is no longer the focus of monetary policy, some economists have noted that the rate of growth in the M2 measure of the money supply increased very rapidly just before the inflation rate began to accelerate in the spring of 2021 and then declined—eventually becoming negative—during the period in which the inflation rate declined.

As we discuss in the new 9th edition of Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.5 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.5), some economists believe that the FOMC should engage in nominal GDP targeting. They argue that this approach has the best chance of stabilizing the growth rate of real GDP while keeping the inflation rate close to the Fed’s 2 percent target. The following figure shows the economy experienced very high rates of inflation during the period when nominal GDP was increasing at an annual rate of greater than 10 percent and that inflation declined as the rate of nominal GDP growth declined toward 5 percent, which is closer to the growth rates seen during the 2000s. (This figure begins in the first quarter of 2000 to put the high growth rates in nominal GDP of 2021 and 2022 in context.)

Fiscal Policy

As we discuss in the new 9th edition of Macroeconomics, Chapter 15 (Economics, Chapter 25), in response to the Covid pandemic Congress and Presidents Trump and Biden implemented the largest discretionary fiscal policy actions in U.S. history. The resulting increases in spending are reflected in the two spikes in federal government expenditures shown in the following figure.

The initial fiscal policy actions resulted in an extraordinary increase in federal expenditures of $3.69 trillion, or 81.3 percent, from the first quarter to the second quarter of 2020. This was followed by an increase in federal expenditures of $2.31 trillion, or 39.4 percent, from the fourth quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2021. As we recount in the text, there was a lively debate among economists about whether these increases in spending were necessary to offest the negative economic effects of the pandemic or whether they were greater than what was needed and contributed substantially to the sharp increase in inflation that began in the spring of 2021.

Saving

As a result of the fiscal policy actions of 2020 and 2021, many households received checks from the federal government. In total, the federal government distributed about $80o billion directly to households. As the figure shows, one result was to markedly increase the personal saving rate—measured as personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income—from 6.4 percent in December 2019 to 22.0 in April 2020. (The figure begins in January 2020 to put the size of the spike in the saving rate in perspective.)

The rise in the saving rate helped households maintain high levels of consumption spending, particularly on consumer durables such as automobiles. The first of the following figure shows real personal consumption expenditures and the second figure shows real personal consumption expenditures on durable goods.

Taken together, these data provide an overview of the momentous macroeconomic events of the past four years.

Do ATMs that Dispense Gold Rather Than Currency Make Economic Sense?

An Automated Teller Machine (ATM) located in Egypt that dispenses gold bars rather than currency. (Photo from ahrm.org.)

A recent article in the New York Times (available here, but a subscription may be required) discusses how consumers in Egypt are dealing with inflation. According to statistics from the International Monetary Fund, consumer prices in Egypt rose 23.5 percent in 2023 and are projected to increase by 32.2 percent in 2024, although in early 2024 inflation may have been running at an annual rate of 50 percent. In response to the inflation, many Egyptian businesses have begun quoting prices in U.S. dollars rather than in Egyptian pounds. The value of the Egyptian pound has declined from about 18 pounds to the U.S. dollar in early 2022 to about 48 pounds to the dollar today. In practice, many Egyptian consumers can have difficulty obtaining dollars except on the black market, where the exchange rate is generally worse than the rate quoted by the Egyptian central bank.

According to the article, many Egyptians, losing faith in value of the pound and unable to easily obtain U.S. dollars, have turned to gold as a potentially “safe financial harbor.” The article notes that: “The market [for gold] grew so fevered that the government announced in November that it was partnering with a financial technology company to install A.T.M.s [Automated Teller Machines] that would dispense gold bars instead of cash.” That ATM is shown in the photo above.

This episode raises two questions:

Is gold a good hedge (a “safe harbor”) against inflation?
Are ATMs that dispense gold rather than currency a good idea?

As we discuss in Chapter 14, Section 14.3 of Money, Banking, and the Financial System, gold has not been a good hedge against inflation for U.S. investors. Although many people believe that the price of gold can be relied on to increase if the general price level increases, in fact, the data show that the price of gold can’t be counted on to keep up with increases in the general price level. In the following figure, the blue line shows the market price of gold during each month since January 1976. The red line shows the real price of gold, which is calculated by dividing the nominal price of gold by the consumer price index (CPI). (For convenience, we set the value of the CPI equal to 100 in January 1976.) The price of gold is measured in dollars per ounce.

The figure shows that the market price of gold can fall even as the price level rises. For example, the price of gold rose from $132 per ounce in January 1976 to $670 per ounce in September 1980. As a result, during that period the real price of gold more than tripled, and holding gold during this period was a good hedge against inflation. Unfortunately, the market price of gold then went into a long decline and didn’t again reach its September 1980 value until April 2007, a period during which the CPI more than doubled. In other words, over this more than 25-year period gold provided no hedge at all against the effects of inflation. Consumers in India today shouldn’t count on buying gold as way to protect the real value of their savings from being reduced by inflation.

The New York Times article refers to only a single ATM in Egypt that dispenses gold bars rather than Egyptian pounds. Would we expect that the number of these ATMs will increase in Egypt and other countries experiencing very high inflation rates? Does the existence of these ATMs indicate that people in Egypt are now—or will likely begin—using gold bars rather than currency for routine buying and selling?

The answer to both questions is likely “no.” Although the article refers to an “ATM,” it might be better to think of this facility as instead being a vending machine. Similar ATMs/vending machines that dispense gold bars are available in the United States (as indicated here, here, and here), and, most likely, in other countries as well.

We usually think of vending machines as selling soda and water or snacks. But there are many vending machines that sell other products as well. For instance, most large airports have vending machines that sell small electronic products, such as cell phone batteris or earphones. The term ATM is usually reserved for machines that enable people who have deposits at a bank or other financial firms to withdraw currency. So, the article seems to be describing something that is more a vending machine than an ATM. The article discusses the many small businesses in Egypt that buy and sell gold, which makes it likely that most consumers will continue to rely on those businesses rather than on a machine when they want to buy and sell gold.

It seems unlikely that people in Egypt will beging using gold bars for routine buying and selling—that is, using gold as a medium of exchange. Most goods in Egypt have their prices denominated in either Egyptian pounds or in U.S. dollars or in both. Anyone attempting to buy goods with gold bars would need first to determine the market price of gold at that time before making the purchase and would have to locate a seller who was willing to accept gold in exchange for their goods. In effect, sellers would be engaging in two transactions at the same time: buying gold from the buyer and selling goods to the buyer. Although in a time of high inflation a seller takes on the risk that currency he accepts for a purchase may decline in value while the seller is holding it, a seller accepting gold also takes on the risk that the market price of gold may fall while the seller is holding it.

It’s interesting that the Egyptian government reacted to consumers buying gold as a hedge against inflation by partnering with a financial firm to make available an “ATM” that dispenses gold bars. But it probably doesn’t represent a significant development in the Egyptian financial system.

Consumer Price Inflation Comes in Somewhat Higher than Expected

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell (Photo from Bloomberg News via the Wall Street Journal.)

Economists, policymakers, and Wall Street analysts have been waiting for macroeconomic data to confirm that the Federal Reserve has brought the U.S. economy in for a soft landing, with inflation arrving back at the Fed’s target of 2 percent without the economy slipping into a recession. Fed officials have been cautious about declaring that they have yet seen sufficient data to be sure that a soft landing has actually been achieved. Accordingly, they are not yet willing to begin cutting their target for the federal funds rate.

For instance, on March 6, in testifying before the Commitee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives, Fed Chair Jerome Powell stated that the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) “does not expect that it will be appropriate to reduce the target range until it has gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2 percent.” (Powell’s statement before his testimony can be found here.)

The BLS’s release today (March 12) of its report on the consumer price index (CPI) (found here) for February indicated that inflation was still running higher than the Fed’s target, reinforcing the cautious approach that Powell and other members of the FOMC have been taking. The increase in the CPI that includes the prices of all goods and services in the market basket—often called headline inflation—was 3.2 percent from the same month in 2023, up slightly from 3.1 In January. (We discuss how the BLS constructs the CPI in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 19.4, Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.4, and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 3, Section 13.4.) As the following figure shows, core inflation—which excludes the prices of food and energy—was 3.8 percent, down slightly from 3.9 percent in January.

If 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—the values are more concerning, as indicated in the following figure. Headline CPI inflation is 5.4 percent (up from 3.7 percent in January) and core CPI inflation is 4.4 percent (although that is down from 4.8 percent in January). The Fed’s inflation target is measured using the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, not the CPI. But CPI inflation at these levels is not consistent with PCE inflation of only 2 percent.

Even more concerning is the path of inflation in the prices of services. As we’ve noted in earlier posts, Chair Powell has emphasized that as supply chain problems have gradually been resolved, inflation in the prices of goods has been rapidly declining. But inflaion in services hasn’t declined nearly as much. Last summer he stated the point this way:

“Part of the reason for the modest decline of nonhousing services inflation so far is that many of these services were less affected by global supply chain bottlenecks and are generally thought to be less interest sensitive than other sectors such as housing or durable goods. Production of these services is also relatively labor intensive, and the labor market remains tight. Given the size of this sector, some further progress here will be essential to restoring price stability.”

The following figure shows the 1-month inflation rate in services prices and in services prices not included including housing rent. Some economists believe that the rent component of the CPI isn’t well measured and can be volatile, so it’s worthwhile to look at inflation in service prices not including rent. The figure shows that inflation in all service prices has been above 4 percent in every month since July 2023. Although inflation in service prices declined from January, it was still a very high 5.8 percent in February. Inflation in service prices not including housing rent was even higher at 7.5 percent. Such large increases in the prices of services, if they were to continue, wouldn’t be consistent with the Fed meeting its 2 percent inflation target.

Finally, some economists and policymakers look at median inflation to gain insight into the underlying trend in the inflation rate. 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. As the following figure shows, although median inflation declined in February, it was still high at 4.6 percent and, although median inflation is volatile, the trend has been generally upward since July 2023.

The data in this month’s BLS report on the CPI reinforces the view that the FOMC will not move to cut its target for the federal funds rate in the meeting next week and makes it somewhat less likely that the committee will cut its target at the following meeting on April 30-May 1.

The Latest Employment Report: How Can Total Employment and the Unemployment Rate Both Increase?

Photo courtesy of Lena Buonanno.

On the first Friday of each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases its “Employment Sitution” report for the previous month. The data for February in today’s report at first glance seem contradictory: The BLS reported that the net increase in employment in February was 275,000, which was above the increase of 200,000 that economists participating in media surveys had expected (see here and here). But the unemployment rate, which had been expected to remain constant at 3.7 percent, rose to 3.9 percent.

The apparent paradox of employment and the unemployment rate both increasing in the same month is (partly) attributable to the two numbers being from different surveys. The employment number most commonly reported in media accounts is from the establishment survey (sometimes referred to as the payroll survey), whereas the unemployment rate is taken from the household survey. The results of both surveys are included in the BLS’s monthly “Employment Situation” report. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and policymakers at the Federal Reserve believe that employment data from the establishment survey provides a more accurate indicator of the state of the labor market than do either the employment data or the unemployment data from the household survey. Accordingly, most media accounts interpreted the data released today as indicating continuing strength in the labor market.

However, it can be worth looking more closely at the differences between the measures of employment in the two series because it’s possible that the household survey data is signalling that the labor market is weaker than it appears from the establishment survey data. The following table shows the data on employment from the two surveys for January and February.

	Establishment Survey	Household Survey
January	157,533,000	161,152,000
February	157,808,000	160,968,000
Change	+275,000	-184,000

Note that in addition to the fact that employment as measured by the household survey is falling, while employment as measured by the establishment survey is increasing, household survey employment is significantly higher in both months. Household survey employment is always higher than establishment survey employment because the household survey includes employment of three groups that are not included in the establishment survey:

Self-employed workers
Unpaid family workers
Agricultural workers

(A more complete discuss of the differences in employment in the two surveys can be found here.) The BLS also publishes a useful data series in which it attempts to adjust the household survey data to more closely mirror the establishment survey data by, among other adjustments, removing from the household survey categories of workers who aren’t included in the payroll survey. The following figure shows three series—the establishment series (gray line), the reported household series (orange line), and the adjusted household series (blue line)—for the months since 2021. For ease of comparison the three series have been converted to index numbers with January 2021 set equal to 100.

Note that for most of this period, the adjusted household survey series tracks the establishment survey series fairly closely. But in November 2023, both household survey measures of employment begin to fall, while the establishment survey measure of employment continues to increase. Falling employment in the household survey may be signalling weakness in the labor market that employment in the establishment survey may be missing, but it might also be attributed to the greater noisiness in the household survey’s employment data.

There are three other things to note in this month’s employment report. First, the BLS revised the initially reported increase in December establishement survey employment downward by 35,000 jobs and the January increase downward by 124,000 jobs. The January adjustment was large—amounting to more than 35 percent of the initially reported increase of 353,000. It’s normal for the BLS to revise its initial estimates of employment from the establishment survey but a series of negative revisions is typical of periods just before or at the beginning of a recession. It’s important to note, though, that several months of negative revisions to establishment employment are far from an infallible predictor of recessions.

Second, as shown in the following figure, the increase in average hourly earnings slowed from the high rate of 6.8 percent in January to 1.7 percent in February—the smallest increase since early 2022.. (These increases are measured at a compounded annual rate, which is the rate wages would increase if they increased at that month’s rate for an entire year.) A slowing in wage growth may be another sign that the labor market is weakening, although the data are noisy on a month-to-month basis.

Finally, one positive indicator of the state of the labor market is that average weekly hours worked increased. As shown in the following figure, average hours worked had been slowly, if irregularly, trending downward since early 2021. In February, average hours worked increased slightly to 34.3 hours per week from 34.2 hours per week in January. But, again, it’s difficult to draw strong conclusions from one month’s data.

In testifying before Congress earlier this week, Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted that:

“We believe that our policy rate [the federal funds rate] is likely at its peak for this tightening cycle. If the economy evolves broadly as expected, it will likely be appropriate to begin dialing back policy restraint at some point this year. But the economic outlook is uncertain, and ongoing progress toward our 2 percent inflation objective is not assured.”

It seems unlikely that today’s employment report will change how Powell and the other memebers of the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee evaluate the current economic situation.

The Latest PCE Report and PCE Inflation v. CPI Inflation

Photo courtesy of Lena Buonanno.

Wall Street Journal columnist Justin Lahart notes that when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases its monthly report on the consumer price index (CPI), the report “generates headlines, features in politicians’ speeches and moves markets.” When the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) releases its monthly report “Personal Income and Outlays,” which includes data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, there is much less notice in the business press or, often, less effect on financial markets. (You can see the difference in press coverage by comparing the front page of today’s online edition of the Wall Street Journal after the BEA released the latest PCE data with the paper’s front page on February 13 when the BLS released the latest CPI data.)

This difference in the weight given to the two inflation reports seems curious because the Federal Reserve uses the PCE, not the CPI, to determine whether it is achieving its 2 percent annual inflation target. When a new monthly measure of inflation is released much of the discussion in the media is about the effect the new data will have on the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) decision on whether to change its target for the federal funds rate. You might think the result would be greater media coverage of the PCE than the CPI. (The PCE includes the prices of all the goods and services included in the consumption component of GDP. Because the PCE includes the prices of more goods and services than does the CPI, it’s a broader measure of inflation, which is the key reason that the Fed prefers it.)

That CPI inflation data receive more media discussion than PCE inflation data is likely due to three factors:

The CPI is more familiar to most people than the PCE. It is also the measure that politicians and political commentators tend to focus on. The media are more likely to highlight a measure of inflation that the average reader easily understands rather than a less familiar measure that would require an explanation.
The monthly report on the CPI is typically released about two weeks before the monthly report on the PCE. Therefore, if the CPI measure of inflation turns out to be higher or lower than expected, the stock and bond markets will react to this new information on the value of inflation in the previous month. If the PCE measure is roughly consistent with the CPI measure, then the release of new data on the PCE measure contains less new information and, therefore, has a smaller effect on stock and bond prices.
Over longer periods, the two measures of inflation often move fairly closely together as the following figure shows, although CPI inflation tends to be somewhat higher than PCE inflation. The values of both series are the percentage change in the index from the same month in the previous year.

Turning to the PCE data for January released in the BEA’s latest “Personal Income and Outlays” report, the PCE inflation data were broadly consistent with the CPI data: Inflation in January increased somewhat from December. The first of the following figures shows PCE inflation and core PCE inflation—which excludes energy and food prices—for the period since January 2015 with inflation measured as the change in PCE from the same month in the previous year. The second figure shows PCE inflation and core PCE inflation measured as the inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The first figure shows what is sometimes called 12-month inflation and the second figure shows 1-month inflation.)

The two inflation measures are telling markedly different stories: 12-month inflation shows a continuation in the decline in inflation that began in 2022. Twelve-month PCE inflation fell from 2.6 percent in December to 2.4 percent in January. Twelve-month core PCE inflation fell from 2.9 percent in December to 2.8 percent in December. So, by this measure, inflation continues to approach the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target.

One-month PCE and core PCE inflation both show sharp increases from December to January: From 1.4 percent in December to 4.2 percent for 1-month PCE inflation and from 1.8 percent in December to 5.1 percent in January for 1-month core PCE inflation.

The one-month inflation data are bad news in that they may indicate that inflation accelerated in January and that the Fed is, therefore, further away than it seemed in December from hitting its 2 percent inflation target. But it’s important not to overinterpret a single month’s data. Although 1-month inflation is more volatile than 12-month inflation, the broad trend in 1-month inflation had been downwards from mid-2022 through December 2023. It will take at least a more months of data to assess whether this trend has been broken.

Fed officials didn’t appear to be particularly concerned by the news. For instance, according to an article on bloomberg.com, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta President Raphael Bostic noted that: “The last few inflation readings—one came out today—have shown that this is not going to be an inexorable march that gets you immediately to 2%, but that rather there are going to be some bumps along the way.” Investors appear to continue to expect that the Fed will cut its target for the federal funds rate at its meeting on June 11-12.

Shrinkflation in the Comic Book Industry

Action Comics No. 1, published in June 1938, is often consider the first superhero comic book. (Image from comics.org.)

In a political advertisement that ran before the broadcast of the Super Bowl, President Joe Biden discussed shrinkflation, which refers to firms reducing the quantity of a product in container while keeping the price unchanged. In this post from the summer of 2022, we discussed examples of shrinkflation—including Chobani reducing the quantity of yogurt in the package shown here from 5.3 ounces to 4.5 ounces—and noted that shrinkflation complicates the job of the Bureau of Labor Statistics when compiling the consumer price index.

This yogurt remained the same price although the quantity of yogurt in the container shrank from 5.3 ounces to 4.5 ounces.

Shrinkflation isn’t new; firms have used the strategy for decades. Firms are particularly likely to use shrinkflation during periods of high inflation or during periods when the federal government implements price controls. Firms also sometimes resort to shrinkflation when the the price of a product has remained constant for long enough that the firms fear that consumers will react strongly to the firms increasing the price.

Comic books provide an interesting historical example of shrinkflation. David Palmer, a professor of management at South Dakota State University published an article in 2010 in which he presented data on the price and number of pages in copies of Action Comics from 1938 to 2010. When DC Comics introduced Superman in the first issue of Action Comics in June 1938, it started the superhero genre of comic books. Action Comics No. 1 had a price of $0.10 and was 64 pages.

After the United States entered World War II in December 1941, the federal government imposed price controls to try to limit the inflation caused by the surge in spending to fight the war. Rising costs of producing comic books, combined with the difficulty in raising prices because of the controls, led comic book publishers to engage in shrinkflation. In 1943, the publishers reduced the number of pages in their comics from 64 to 56. In 1944, the publishers engaged in further shrinkflation, reducing the number of pages from 56 to 48.

In 1951, during the Korean War, the federal government again imposed price controls. Comic book publishers responded with further shrinkflation, keeping the price at $0.10, while reducing the number of pages from 48 to 40. In 1954, they shrank the number of pages to 36, which remains the most common number of pages in a comic book today. At that time, the publishers also slightly reduced the width of comics from 7 3/4 inches to 7 1/8 inches. (Today the typical comic book has a width of 6 7/8 inches.)

By the late 1950s, comic book publishers became convinced that they would be better off raising the prices of comic books rather than further shrinking the number of pages. But they were reluctant to raise their prices because they had been a constant $0.10 for more than 20 years, so children and their parents might react very negatively to a price increase, and because no firm wanted to be the first to raise its price for fear of losing sales to its competitors. They were caught in a prisoner’s dilemma: Comic book publishers would all have been better off if they had raised their prices but the antitrust laws kept them from colluding to raise prices and no individual firm had an incentive to raise prices alone. (We discuss collusion, prisoner’s dilemmas, and other aspects of oligopolistic firm behaviour in Chapter 14 of Microeconomics and Economics.)

The most successful publisher in the 1950s was Dell, which sold very popular comic books featuring Donald Duck, Uncle Scrooge, and other characters that particularly appealed to younger children. Because the prices of Dell’s comic books, like those of other publishers, been unchanged at $0.10 since the late 1930s, the firm didn’t have a clear idea of the price elasticity of demand for its comics. In 1957, the firm’s managers decided to use a market experiment to gather data on the price elasticity of demand. In most cities, Dell kept the price of its comics at $0.10, but in some cities it sold the identical comics at a price of $0.15.

The experiment lasted from March 1957 to August 1958 when the company discontinued it by reverting to selling all of its comics for $0.10. Although we lack the data necessary to compare the sales of Dell comics with a $0.15 price to the sales of Dell comics with a $0.10 price, the fact that no other publisher raised its prices during that period and that Dell abandoned the experiment indicates that the demand curve for Dell’s comics was price elastic—the percentage decline in the quantity sold was greater than the 50 percent increase in price—so Dell’s revenue from sales in the cities selling comics with a price of $0.15 likely declined. Dell’s strategy can be seen as a failed example of price leadership. (We discuss the relationship between the price elasticity of demand for a good and the total revenue a firm earns from selling the good in Chapter 6, Section 6.3 of Microeconomics and Economics. We discuss price leadership in Microeconomic and Economics, Chapter 14, Section 14.2.)

In March 1961, Dell increased the price of all of its comics from $0.10 to $0.15. At first, Dell’s competitors kept the prices of their comics at $0.10. As a result, in September 1961, Dell cut the price of its comics from $0.15 to $0.12. By early 1962, Dell’s competitors, including DC Comics, Marvel Comics—publishers of Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four—along with several smaller publishers, had increased the prices of their comics from $0.10 to $0.12. The managers at DC decided that raising the price of comics after having kept it constant for so long required an explantion. Accordingly, they printed the following letter in each of their comics.

H/T to Buddy Saunders for the image.

Comic book publishers have raised their prices many times since the early 1960s, with most comics currently having a price of $4.99. During the recent period of high inflation, comic publishers did not use a strategy of shrinkflation perhaps because they believe that 36 pages is the minimum number that buyers will accept.

The first 25 years of the comic book industry represents an interesting historical example of shrinkflation.

Surprisingly Strong CPI Report

Photo courtesy of Lena Buonanno.

As we’ve discussed in several blog posts (for instance, here and here), recent macro data have been consistent with the Federal Reserve being close to achieving a soft landing. The Fed’s increases in its target for the federal funds rate have slowed the growth of aggregate demand sufficiently to bring inflation closer to the Fed’s 2 percent target, but haven’t, to this point, slowed the growth of aggregate demand so much that the U.S. economy has been pushed into a recession.

By January 2024, many investors in financial markets and some economists were expecting that at its meeting on March 19-20, the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee would be cutting its target for the federal funds. However, members of the committee—notably, Chair Jerome Powell—have been cautious about assuming prematurely that inflation had, in fact, been brought under control. In fact, in his press conference on January 31, following the committee’s most recent meeting, Powell made clear that the committee was unlikely to reduce its target for the federal funds rate at its March meeting. Powell noted that “inflation is still too high, ongoing progress in bringing it down is not assured, and the path forward is uncertain.”

Powell’s caution seemed justified when, on February 2, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its most recent “Employment Situation Report” (discussed in this post). The report’s data on growth in employment and growth in wages, as measured by the change in average hourly earnings, might be indicating that aggregate demand is growing too rapidly for inflation to continue to decline.

The BLS’s release today (February 13) of its report on the consumer price index (CPI) (found here) for January provided additional evidence that the Fed may not yet have put inflation on a firm path back to its 2 percent target. The average forecast of economists surveyed before the release of the report was that the increase in the version of the CPI that includes the prices of all goods and services in the market basket—often called headline inflation—would be 2.9 percent. (We discuss how the BLS constructs the CPI in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 19.4, Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.4, and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 3, Section 13.4.) As the following figure shows, headline inflation for January was higher than expected at 3.1 percent (measured by the percentage change from the same month in the previous year), while core inflation—which excludes the prices of food and energy—was 3.9 percent. Headline inflation was lower than in December 2023, while core inflation was almost unchanged.

Although the values for January might seem consistent with a gradual decline in inflation, that conclusion may be misleading. Headline inflation in January 2023 had been surprisingly high at 6.4 percent. Hence, the comparision between the value of the CPI in January 2024 with the value in January 2023 may be making the annual CPI inflation rate seem artificially low. If 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—the values are more concerning, as indicated in the following figure. Headline CPI inflation is 3.7 percent and core CPI inflation is 4.8 percent.

Even more concerning is the path of inflation in the prices of services. Chair Powell has emphasized that as supply chain problems have gradually been resolved, inflation in the prices of goods has been rapidly declining. But inflaion in services hasn’t declined nearly as much. Last summer he stated the point this way:

The following figure shows the 1-month inflation rate in services prices. The figure shows that inflation in services has been above 4 percent in every month since July 2023. Inflation in services was a very high 8.7 percent in January. Clearly such large increases in the prices of services aren’t consistent with the Fed meeting its 2 percent inflation target.

How should we interpret the latest CPI report? First, it’s worth bearing in mind that a single month’s report shouldn’t be relied on too heavily. There can be a lot of volatility in the data month-to-month. For instance, inflation in the prices of services jumped from 4.7 percent in December to 8.7 percent in January. It seems unlikely that inflation in the prices of services will continue to be over 8 percent.

Second, housing prices are a large component of service prices and housing prices can be difficult to measure accurately. Notably, the BLS includes in its measure the implicit rental price that someone who owns his or her own home pays. The BLS calculates that implict rental price by asking consumers who own their own homes the following question: “If someone were to rent your home today, how much do you think it would rent for monthly, unfurnished and without utilities?” (The BLS discusses how it measures the price of housing services here.) In practice, it may be difficult for consumers to accurately answer the question if very few houses similar to theirs are currently for rent in their neighborhood.

Third, the Fed uses the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, not the CPI, to gauge whether it is achieving its 2 percent inflation target. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) includes the prices of more goods and services in the PCE than the BLS includes in the CPI and measures housing services using a different approach than that used by the BLS. Although inflation as measured by changes in the CPI and as measured by changes in the PCE move roughly together over long periods, the two measures can differ significantly over a period of a few months. The difference between the two inflation measures is another reason not to rely too heavily on a single month’s CPI data.

Despite these points, investors on Wall Street clearly interpreted the CPI report as bad news. Investors have been expecting that the Fed will soon cut its target for the federal funds rate, which should lead to declines in other key interest rates. If inflation continues to run well above the Fed’s 2 percent target, it seems likely that the Fed will keep its federal funds target at its current level for longer, thereby slowing the growth of aggregate demand and raising the risk of a recession later this year. Accordingly, the Dow Jones Industrial Average declined by more than 500 points today (February 13) and the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note rose above 4.3 percent.

The FOMC has more than a month before its next meeting to consider the implications of the latest CPI report and the additional macro data that will be released in the meantime.

Surprisingly Strong Jobs Report

Photo courtesy of Lena Buonanno.

This morning of Friday, February 2, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued its “Employment Situation Report” for January 2024. Economists and policymakers—notably including the members of the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—typically focus on the change in total nonfarm payroll employment as recorded in the establishment, or payroll, survey. That number gives what is generally considered to be the best gauge of the current state of the labor market.

Economists surveyed in the past few days by business news outlets had expected that growth in payroll employment would slow to an increase of between 180,000 and 190,000 from the increase in December, which the BLS had an initially estimated as 216,00. (For examples of employment forecasts, see here and here.) Instead, the report indicated that net employment had increased by 353,000—nearly twice the expected amount. (The full report can be found here.)

In this previous blog post on the December employment report, we noted that although the net increase in employment in that month was still well above the increase of 70,000 to 100,000 new jobs needed to keep up with population growth, employment increases had slowed significantly in the second half of 2023 when compared with the first.

That slowing trend in employment growth did not persist in the latest monthly report. In addition, to the strong January increase of 353,000 jobs, the November 2023 estimate was revised upward from 173,000 jobs to 182,000 jobs, and the December estimate was substantially revised from 216,000 to 333,000. As the following figure from the report shows, the net increase in jobs now appears to have trended upward during the last three months of 2023.

Economists surveyed were also expecting that the unemployment rate—calculated by the BLS from data gathered in the household survey—would increase slightly to 3.8 percent. Instead, it remained constant at 3.7 percent. As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate has been remarkably stable for more than two years and has been below 4.0 percent each month since December 2021. The members of the FOMC expect that the unemployment rate during 2024 will be 4.1 percent, a forcast that will be correct only if the demand for labor declines significantly over the rest of the year.

The “Employment Situation Report” also presents data on wages, as measured by average hourly earnings. The growth rate of average hourly earnings, measured as the percentage change from the same month in the previous year, had been slowly declining from March 2022 to October 2023, but has trended upward during the past few months. The growth of average hourly earnings in January 2024 was 4.5 percent, which represents a rise in firms’ labor costs that is likely too high to be consistent with the Fed succeeding in hitting its goal of 2 percent inflation. (Keep in mind, though, as we note in this blog post, changes in average hourly earnings have shortcomings as a measure of changes in the costs of labor to businesses.)

Taken together, the data in today’s “Employment Situation Report” indicate that the U.S. labor market remains very strong. One implication is that the FOMC will almost certainly not cut its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on March 19-20. As Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted in a statement to reporters after the FOMC earlier this week: “The Committee does not expect it will be appropriate to reduce the target range until it has gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2 percent. We will continue to make our decisions meeting by meeting.” (A transcript of Powell’s press conference can be found here.) Today’s employment report indicates that conditions in the labor market may not be consistent with a further decline in price inflation.

It’s worth keeping several things in mind when interpreting today’s report.

The payroll employment data and the data on average hourly earnings are subject to substantial revisions. This fact was shown in today’s report by the large upward revision in net employment creation in December, as noted earlier in this post.
A related point: The data reported in this post are all seasonally adjusted, which means that the BLS has revised the raw (non-seasonally adjusted) data to take into account normal fluctuations due to seasonal factors. In particular, employment typically increases substantially during November and December in advance of the holiday season and then declines in January. The BLS attempts to take into account this pattern so that it reports data that show changes in employment during these months holding constant the normal seasonal changes. So, for instance, the raw (non-seasonally adjusted) data show a decrease in payroll employment during January of 2,635,000 as opposed to the seasonally adjusted increase of 353,000. Over time, the BLS revises these seasonal adjustment factors, thereby also revising the seasonally adjusted data. In other words, the BLS’s initial estimates of changes in payroll employment for these months at the end of one year and the beginning of the next should be treated with particular caution.
The establishment survey data on average weekly hours worked show a slow decline since November 2023. Typically, a decline in hours worked is an indication of a weakening labor market rather than the strong labor market indicated by the increase in employment. But as the following figure shows, the data on average weekly hours are noisy in that the fluctuations are relatively large, as are the revisons the BLS makes to these data over time.

4. In contrast to today’s jobs report, other labor market data seem to indicate that the demand for labor is slowing. For instance, quit rates—or the number of people voluntarily leaving their jobs as a percentage of the total number of people employed—have been declining. As shown in the following figure, the quit rate peaked at 3.0 percent in November 2021 and March 2022, and has declined to 2.2 percent in December 2023—a rate lower than just before the beginning of the Covid–19 pandemic.

Similarly, as the following figure shows, the number of job openings per unemployed person has declined from a high of 2.0 in March 2022 to 1.4 in December 2023. This value is still somewhat higher than just before the beginning of the Covid–19 pandemic.

To summarize, recent data on conditions in the labor market have been somewhat mixed. The strong increases in net employment and in average hourly earnings in recent months are in contrast with declining average number of hours worked, a declining quit rate, and a falling number of job openings per unemployed person. Taken together, these data make it likely that the FOMC will be in no hurry to cut its target for the federal funds rate. As a result, long-term interest rates are also likely to remain high in the coming months. The following figure from the Wall Street Journal provides a striking illustration of the effect of today’s jobs report on the bond market, as the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note rose above 4.0 percent for the first time in more than a month. The interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note plays an important role in the financial system, influencing interest rates on mortgages and corporate bonds.

FOMC Meeting: Steady as She Goes

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell (Photo from the New York Times.)

This afternoon, Wednesday, January 31, the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) held the first of its eight scheduled meetings during 2024. As we noted in a recent post, macroeconomic data have been indicating that the Fed is close to achieving its goal of bringing the U.S. economy in for a soft landing—reducing inflation down to the Fed’s 2 percent target without pushing the economy into a recession. But as we also noted in that post, it was unlikely that at this meeting Fed Chair Jerome Powell and the other members of the FOMC would declare victory in their fight to reduce inflation from the high levels it reached during 2022.

In fact, in Powell’s press conference following the meeting, when asked directly by a reporter whether he believed that the economy had made a safe landing, Powell said that he wasn’t yet willing to draw that conclusion. Accordingly, the committee kept its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent. This was the fifth meeting in a row at which the FOMC had left the target unchanged. Although some policy analysts expect that the FOMC might reduce its federal funds rate target at its next meeting in March, the committee’s policy statement made that seem unlikely:

“In considering any adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. The Committee does not expect it will be appropriate to reduce the target range until it has gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2 percent.”

Powell reinforced the point during his press conference by stating it was unlikely that the committee would cut the target rate at the next meeting. He noted that:

“The economy has surprised forecasters in many ways since the pandemic, and ongoing progress toward our 2 percent inflation objective is not assured. The economic outlook is uncertain, and we remain highly attentive to inflation risks. We are prepared to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate for longer, if appropriate.”

Powell highlighted a couple of areas of potential concern. The Fed gauges its progress towards achieving its 2 percent inflation goal using the percentage change in the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index. As we noted in a recent post, PCE inflation has declined from a high of 7.1 percent in June 2022 to 2.9 percent in December 2023. But Powell noted that PCE inflation in goods has followed a different path from PCE inflation in services, as the following figure shows.

Inflation during 2022 was much greater in the prices of goods than in the prices of services, reflecting the fact that supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic had a greater effect on goods than on services. Inflation in goods has been less than 1 percent every month since June 2023 and has been negative in three of those months. Inflation in services peaked in February 2023 at 6.0 percent and has been declining since, but was still 3.9 percent in December. Powell noted that the very low rates of inflation in the prices of goods probably aren’t sustainable. If inflation in the prices of goods increases, the Fed may have difficulty achieving its 2 percent inflation target unless inflation in the prices of services slows.

Powell also noted that the most recent data on the employment cost index (ECI) had been released the morning of the meeting. The ECI is compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is published quarterly. It measures the cost to employers per employee hour worked. The BLS publishes data that includes only wages and salaries and data that includes, in addition to wages and salaries, non-wage benefits—such as contributions to retirement accounts or health insurance—that firms pay workers. The figure below shows the percentage change from the same month in the previous year for the ECI including just wages and salaries (blue line) and for the ECI including all compensation (red line). Although ECI inflation has declined significantly from its peak in he second quarter of 2022, in the fourth quarter of 2023, both measures of ECI inflation were above 4 percent. Wages increasing at that pace may not be consistent with a 2 percent rate of price inflation.

Powell’s tone at his news conference (which can be watched here) was one of cautious optimism. He and the other committee members expect to be able to cut the target for the federal funds rate later this year but remain on guard for any indications that the inflation rate is increasing again.

Has the Federal Reserve Achieved a Soft Landing?

The Federal Reserve building in Washington, DC. (Photo from the New York Times.)

Since inflation began to increase rapidly in the late spring of 2021, the key macroeconomic question has been whether the Fed would be able to achieve a soft landing—pushing inflation back to its 2 percent target without causing a recession. The majority of the members of the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) believed that increases in inflation during 2021 were largely caused by problems with supply chains resulting from the effects of the Covid–19 pandemic.

These committee members believed that once supply chains returned to normal, the increase in he inflation rate would prove to have been transitory—meaning that the inflation rate would decline without the need for the FOMC to pursue a contractionary monetary by substantially raising its target range for the federal funds rate. Accordingly, the FOMC left its target range unchanged at 0 to 0.25 percent until March 2022. As the following figure shows, by that time the inflation rate had increased to 6.9 percent, the highest it had been since January 1982. (Note that the figure shows inflation as measured by the percentage change from the same month in the previous year in the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index. Inflation as measured by the PCE is the gauge the Fed uses to determine whether it is achieving its goal of 2 percent inflation.)

By the time inflation reached its peak in mid-2022, many economists believed that the FOMC’s decision to delay increasing the federal funds rate until March 2022 had made it unlikely that the Fed could return inflation to 2 percent without causing a recession. But the latest macroeconomic data indicate that—contrary to that expectation—the Fed does appear to have come very close to achieving a soft landing. On January 26, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released data on the PCE for December 2023. The following figure shows for the period since 2015, inflation as measured by the percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year (the blue line) and as measured by the percentage change in the core PCE, which excludes the prices of food and energy (the red line).

The figure shows that PCE inflation continued its decline, falling slightly in December to 2.6 percent. Core PCE inflation also declined in December to 2.9 percent from 3.2 percent in November. Note that both measures remained somewhat above the Fed’s inflation target of 2 percent.

If we look at the 1-month inflation rate—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year—inflation is closer to Fed’s target, as the following figure shows. The 1-month PCE inflation rate has moved somewhat erratically, but has generally trended down since mid-2022. In December, PCE inflation increased from from –0.8 percent in November (which acutally indicates that deflation occurred that month) to 2.0 percent in December. The 1-month core PCE inflation rate has moved less erratically, also trending down since mid-2022. In December, the 1-month core PCE inflation increased from 0.8 percent in November to 2.1 percent in December. In other words, the December reading on inflation indicates that inflation is very close to the Fed’s target.

The following figure shows for each quarter since the beginning of 2015, the growth rate of real GDP measured as the percentage change from the same quarter in the previous year. The figure indicates that although real GDP growth dropped to below 1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2022, the growth rate rose during each quarter of 2023. The growth rate of 3.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2023 remained well above the FOMC’s 1.8 percent estimate of long-run economic growth. (The average of the members of the FOMC’s estimates of the long-run growth rate of real GDP can be found here.) To this point, there is no indication from the GDP data that the U.S. economy is in danger of experiencing a recession in the near future.

The labor market also shows few signs of a recession, as indicated by the following figure, which shows the unemployment rate in the months since January 2015. The unemployment rate has remained below 4 percent in each month since December 2021. The unemployment rate was 3.7 percent in December 2023, below the FOMC’s projection of a long-run unemployment rate of 4.1 percent.

The FOMC’s next meeting is on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week (February 1-2). Should we expect that at that meeting Fed Chair Jerome Powell will declare that the Fed has succeeded in achieving a soft landing? That seems unlikely. Powell and the other members of the committee have made clear that they will be cautious in interpreting the most recent macroeconomic data. With the growth rate of real GDP remaining above its long run trend and the unemployment rate remaining below most estimates of the natural rate of unemployment, there is still the potential that aggregate demand will increase at a rate that might cause the inflation rate to once again rise.

In a speech at the Brookings Institution on January 16, Fed Governor Christopher Waller echoed what appear to be the views of most members of the FOMC:

“Time will tell whether inflation can be sustained on its recent path and allow us to conclude that we have achieved the FOMC’s price-stability goal. Time will tell if this can happen while the labor market still performs above expectations. The data we have received the last few months is allowing the Committee to consider cutting the policy rate in 2024. However, concerns about the sustainability of these data trends requires changes in the path of policy to be carefully calibrated and not rushed. In the end, I am feeling more confident that the economy can continue along its current trajectory.”

At his press conference on February 1, following the FOMC meeting, Chair Powell will likely provide more insight into the committee’s current thinking.