Money. Banking, and the Financial System – Page 19

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.

Information, Stock Prices, and Boeing

Agents from the National Transportation Safety Board inspect a piece of the Boeing jetliner found in a backyard in Portland, Oregon. (Photo from the AP via the New York Times.)

What causes movements in stock prices? As we explain in Economics and Microeconomics, Chapter 8, Section 8.2 (Macroeconomics, Essentials of Economics, and Money, Banking, and the Financial System, Chapter 6, Section 6.2): “Shares of stock represent claims on the profits of the firms that issue them. As the fortunes of the firms change and they earn more or less profit, the prices of the stock the firms have issued should also change.”

We also note that: “Many Wall Street investment professionals expend a great deal of effort gathering all possible information about the future profitability of firms, hoping to buy the stocks that are most likely to rise in the future. As a result of the actions of these professional investors, all of the information about a firm that is available on news and financial websites, cable TV business shows, and online discussion sites like X and Reddit is already reflected in the firm’s stock price.” As a consequence, the price of a firm’s stock will change only as a result of new information about the future profitability of the firm issuing the stock.

During the course of a typical week, the new information that becomes available about a large company, like Apple or General Motors, is likely to indicate only minor changes in the future profitability of the firm. Therefore, we wouldn’t expect that the firm’s stock price would change very much. Sometimes, though, investors receive important new information that causes them to significantly revise their expectations of the future profitability of a firm. That’s what happened to Boeing, the jetliner manufacturer, on Friday, January 5. An Alaska Air Boeing 737 Max 9 was taking off from Portland International Airport when a piece of the plane blew out. (A Wall Street Journal article gives the details of the incident.)

The accident caused some industry observers to question whether Boeing’s quality control during manufacturing had deficiencies that might lead to other problems being discovered on the firm’s jetliners. Boeing was particularly at risk of having its quality control methods questioned because in 2019 two slightly different models of the 737 Max airliner had crashed, causing the planes to be grounded for almost two years.

The effect of the Alaska Air incident on Boeing’s stock price can be seen in the following figure, reproduced from the Wall Street Journal. On Friday, January 5 at 4 pm eastern time—the time at which trading on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) closes for the day—the price of Boeing’s stock was $249.00 per share. The accident took place at around 7:40 pm eastern time, so it occurred after the close of trading on the NYSE. When trading on the NYSE resumed at 9:30 am on Monday, January 8, Boeing’s stock price had declined to $227.79 per share. The size of the drop in price indicated that investors believed that the Portland accident would have a significantly negative affect on Boeing’s future profitability. Boeing’s profits could fall if the accident leads airlines to reduce their future purchases of 737 Max airliners or if Boeing’s costs rise significantly as a result of making repairs on Max airliners currently in servide or as a result of having to spend more on quality control measures when manufacturing the planes.

The effect of the Portland accident on Boeing’s stock price is an example of the efficiency of the stock market in processing information about a firm’s future profitability.

Another Employment Report Consistent with a Soft Landing

Photo courtesy of Lena Buonanno.

In recent months, the macroeconomic data has generally been consistent with the Federal Reserve successfully bringing about a soft landing: Inflation returning to the Fed’s 2 percent target without the economy entering a recession. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest Employment Situation Report, released on the morning of Friday, December 8, was consistent with this trend. (The full report can be found here.)

Economists and policymakers—notably including the members of the Federal Reserve’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.

The report indicated that during November there had been a net increase of 199,000 jobs. This number was somewhat above the expected gain of 153,000 jobs Reuters news service reported from its survey of economists and just slightly above an expected gain of 190,000 jobs the Wall Street Journal reported from a separate survey of economists. The BLS revised downward by 35,000 jobs its previous estimate for September. It left its estimate for October unchanged. The following figure from the report shows the net increase in jobs each month since November 2021.

Because the BLS often substantially revises its preliminary estimates of employment from the establishment survey, it’s important not to overinterpret data for a single month or even for a few months. But general trends in the data can give useful information on changes in the state of the labor market. The estimate for November is the fourth time in the past six months that employment has increased by less than 200,000. Prior to that, employment had increased by more than 200,000 every month since January 2021.

Although the rate of job increases is slowing, it’s still above the rate at which new entrants enter the labor market, which is estimated to be roughly 90,000 people per month. The additional jobs are being filled in part by increased employment among people aged 25 to 54—so-called prime-age workers. (We discuss the employment-population ratio in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1, Economics, Chapter 19, Section 9.1, and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 13, Section 13.1.) As the following figure shows, the employment-population ratio for prime-age workers remains above its level in early 2020, just before the spread of the Covid–19 pandemic in the United States.

The estimated unemployment rate, which is collected in the household survey, was down slightly from 3.9 percent to 3.7 percent. A shown in the following figure, the unemployment rate has been below 4 percent every month since February 2022.

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, continued its gradual decline, as shown in the following figure. As a result, upward pressure on prices from rising labor costs is easing. (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 the latest employment report indicate that the labor market is becoming less tight, reflecting a gradual slowing in U.S. economic growth. The data are consistent with the U.S. economy approaching a soft landing. It’s still worth bearing in mind, of course, that, as Fed Chair Jerome Powell continues to caution, there’s no certainty that inflation won’t surge again or that the U.S. economy won’t enter a recession.

Economists vs. the Market in Predicting the First Cut in the Federal Funds Rate

The meeting room of the FOMC in the Federal Reserve building in Washington, DC.

As we’ve noted in several recent posts, the inflation rate has fallen significantly from its peak in mid-2022, as U.S. economic growth has been slowing and the labor market appears to be less tight, slowing the growth of wages. Some economists and policymakers now believe that by early 2024, inflation will approach the Fed Reserve’s 2 percent inflation target. At that point, the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is likely to turn its attention from inflation to making sure that the U.S. economy doesn’t slip into a recession.

Accordingly, both economists and financial market participants have begun to anticipate the point at which the FOMC will begin to cut its target for the federal funds rate. (One note of caution: Fed Chair Jerome Powell has made clear that the FOMC stands ready to further increase its target for the federal funds rate if the inflation rate shows signs of increasing. He made this point most recently on December 1 in a speech at Spelman College in Atlanta.) There is currently an interesting disagreement between economists and investors over when the FOMC is likely to cut interest rates and by how much. We can see the views of investors reflected in the futures market for federal funds.

Futures markets allow investors to buy and sell futures contracts on commodities–such as wheat and oil–and on financial assets. Investors can use futures contracts both to hedge against risk—such as a sudden increase in oil prices or in interest rates—and to speculate by, in effect, betting on whether the price of a commodity or financial asset is likely to rise or fall. (We discuss the mechanics of futures markets in Chapter 7, Section 7.3 of Money, Banking, and the Financial System.) The CME Group was formed from several futures markets, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, and allows investors to trade federal funds futures contracts. The data that result from trading on the CME indicate what investors in financial markets expect future values of the federal funds rate to be. The following chart from the CME’s FedWatch Tool shows values after trading of federal funds futures on December 5, 2023.

The probabilities in the chart reflects investors’ predictions of what the FOMC’s target for the federal funds rate will be after the committee’s meeting on March 20, 2024. This meeting is the first after which investors currently expect that the target is likely to be lowered. The target range is currently 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent. The chart indicates that investors assign a probability of 60.2 percent to the FOMC making at least a 0.25 percentage cut in the target rate at the March meeting.

Looking at the values for federal funds futures after the FOMC’s December 18, 2024 meeting, investors assign a 66.3 percent probability of the committee having reduced its target for the federal funds rate to 4.00 to 4.25 percent of lower. In other words, investors expect that during 2024, the FOMC will have cut its target for the federal funds rate by at least 1.25 percentage points.

Interesingly, according to a survey by the Financial Times, economists disagree with investors’ forecasts of the federal funds rate. According to the survey, which was conducted between December 1 and December 4, nearly two-thirds of economists believe that the FOMC won’t cut its target for the federal funds rate until July 2024 or later. Three-quarters of the economists surveyed believe that the FOMC will cut its target by 0.5 percent point or less during 2024. Fewer than 10 percent of the economists surveyed believe that during 2024 the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate by 1.25 percent or more. (The Financial Times article describing the results of the survey can be found here. A subscription may be requred to read the article.)

So, at least among the economists surveyed by the Financial Times, the consensus is that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate later and by less than financial markets are indicating. What explains the discrepancy? The main explanation is that economists see inflation being persistently above the Fed’s 2 percent target for longer than do financial market participants. The economists surveyed are also more optimistic that the U.S. economy will avoid a recession in 2024. If a recession occurs, the FOMC is more likely to significantly cut its target than if the economy during 2024 experiences moderate growth in real GDP and the unemployment rate remains low.

One other indication from financial markets that investors expect that the U.S. economy is likely to slow during 2024 is given by movements in the interest rate on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note. As shown in the following figure, from August to October of this year, the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note rose from less than 4 percent to nearly 5 percent—an unusually large change in such a short period of time. Since then, most of that increase has been reversed with the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note having fallen below 4.2 percent in early December

The movements in the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note typically reflect investors’ expectations of future short-term interest rates. (We discuss the relationship between short-term and long-term interests rates—which economists call the term structure of interest rates—in Money, Banking, and the Financial System, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.) The increase in the 10-year interest rate between August and October reflected investors’ expectation that short-term interest rates were likely to remain persistently high for a considerable period—perhaps several years or more. The decline in the 10-year rate from late October to early December reflects investors changing their expectations toward future short-term interest rates being lower than they had previously thought. Again, as in the data on federal funds rate futures, investors seem to be expecting either slower economic growth or slower inflation than do economists.

One other complication about the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note should be mentioned. Some of the increase in the rate from August to October may also have represented concern among investors that large federal budget deficit would cause the Treasury to issue more Treasury notes than investors would be willing to buy without the Treasury increasing the interest rate investors would receive on the newly issued notes. This concern may have been reinforced by data showing that foreign investors, particularly in China and Japan, appeared to have slowed or stopped adding to their holdings of Treasury notes. Part of the recent decline in the interest rate on the Treasury note may reflect investors becoming less concerned about these two factors.

Can We Now Rule Out One of the Three Potential Monetary Policy Outcomes?

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell (photo from bloomberg.com)

In a blog post from February of this year, we discussed three possible outcomes of the contractionary monetary policy that the Federal Reserve has been pursuing since March 2022, when the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) began raising its target range for the federal funds rate:

A soft landing. The Fed’s preferred outcome; inflation returns to the Fed’s target of 2 percent without the economy falling into recession.
A hard landing. Inflation returns to the Fed’s 2 percent target, but the economy falls into a recession.
No landing. At the beginning of 2023, the unemployment remained very low and inflation, as measured by the percentage change in the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index from the same month in the previous year, was still above 5 percent. So, some observers, particularly in Wall Street financial firms, began discussing the possibility that low unemployment and high inflation might persist indefinitely, resulting an outcome of no landing.

At the end of 2023, the economy appears to be slowing: Retail sales declined in October; real disposable personal income increased in October, but it has been trending down, as have real personal consumption expenditures; while the increase in third quarter real GDP was recently revised upward from 4.9 percent to 5.2 percent, forecasts of growth in real GDP during the fourth quarter show a marked slowing—for instance, GDPNow, compiled by the Atlanta Fed, estimates fourth quarter growth at 2.1 percent; and while employment continues to expand, average weekly hours have been slowly declining and initial claims for unemployment insurance have been increasing.

The slowing in the growth of output, income, and employment are reflected in a falling inflation rate. The following figure show the percentage change since the same month in the previous year in PCE price index, which is the measure the Fed uses to gauge whether it is hitting its 2 percent inflation target. (We discuss the reasons for the Fed preferring the PCE price index to the consumer price index (CPI) in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.5 and Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.5.) The figure also shows core PCE, which excludes the prices of food and energy. Core PCE inflation typically gives a better measure of the underlying inflation rate than does PCE inflation.

PCE inflation declined from 3.4 percent in September to 3.0 percent in October. Core PCE inlation declined from 3.8 percent in September to 3.5 percent in September. Although inflation has been declining from its peak in mid-2022, both of these measures of inflation remain above the Fed’s 2 percent target.

But 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—we see a much sharper decline in inflation, as the following figure shows.

The 1-month inflation rate is naturally more volatile than the 12-month inflation rate. In this case, the 1-month rate shows a sharp decline in PCE inflation from 3.8 percent in September to 0.6 percent in October. Core PCE inflation declined less sharply from 3.9 percent in September to 2.0 percent in October.

The continuing decline in inflation has caused some economists and Wall Street analysts to predict that the FOMC will not implement further increases in its target for the federal funds rate and will likely begin cutting its target by mid-2024.

On December 1 in a speech at Spelman College in Atlanta, Fed Chair Jerome Powell urged caution in assuming that the Fed has succeeded in putting inflation on a course back to its 2 percent target:

“The FOMC is strongly committed to bringing inflation down to 2 percent over time, and to keeping policy restrictive until we are confident that inflation is on a path to that objective. It would be premature to conclude with confidence that we have achieved a sufficiently restrictive stance, or to speculate on when policy might ease. We are prepared to tighten policy further if it becomes appropriate to do so.”

In terms of the three policy outcomes listed at the beginning of this post, the third—no landing, with the unemployment rate remaining very low while the inflation rate remains above the Fed’s 2 percent target—now seems unlikely. The labor market appears to be weakening, which will likely result in increases in the unemployment rate. The next “Employment Report” from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which will be released on December 8, will provide additional data on the state of the labor market.

Although we can’t entirely rule out the possibility of a no landing outcome, it seems more likely that the economy will either make a soft landing—if output and employment continue to increase, although at a slower rate, while inflation continues to decline—or a hard landing—if output and employment begin to fall as the economy enters a recession. Although a consensus seems to be building among economists, policymakers, and Wall Street analysts that a soft landing is the likeliest outcome, Powell has provided a reminder that that outcome is far from certain.

Fed Governor Christopher Waller Gives an Optimistic Speech

Federal Reserve Governor Christopher J. Waller (photo from the Associated Press via the Wall Street Journal)

Fed Governor Christopher Waller has a reputation for being a policy hawk, which means that since the spring of 2022 he has been a forceful advocate of multiple increases in the target for the federal funds rate as the Fed attempts to slow the economy and bring inflation back to the Fed’s 2 percent target. (Waller’s biography on the Fed’s web site can be found here.)

So, it was notable that in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) on November 28, he said that “I am increasingly confident that policy is currently well positioned to slow the economy and get inflation back to 2 percent.” Although he also stressed that “there is still significant uncertainty about the pace of future activity, and so I cannot say for sure whether the [Federal Open Market Committee] FOMC has done enough to achieve price stability” his remarks were interpreted as reinforcing the growing view among non-Fed economists and investors that the FOMC is unlikely to increase its target for the federal funds rate further and is likely to reduce the target at some point during 2024. The text of Waller’s speech can be found here.

AEI economist Michael Strain interviewed Waller following his speech. In the interview (which can be found here), Strain made the case for believing that the Fed’s ability to achieve a soft landing—returning inflation to the 2 percent target without pushing the economy into a recession—would be more difficult than Waller seems to believe. Included in the interview are discussions of whether expecting a soft landing is consistent with the historical record, what guidance the Taylor rule can give to monetary policymakers (we discuss the Taylor rule in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.5, Economics, Chapter 25, Section 15.5, and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 17, Section 17.5), the significance of rising labor force participation rates among prime-age workers, and the implications large federal budget deficits have for monetary policy.

In Prison, Sam Bankman-Fried Encounters a Barter Economy

Photo from the Wall Street Journal.

Earlier this month, Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted of fraud connected with the collapse of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange he founded. (We discuss aspects of cryptocurrencies in earlier blog posts here and here.) Bankman-Fried had a reputation for dressing casually and for having bushy, unkempt hair. In preparing for his trial, Bankman-Fried paid another inmate at the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York City to cut his hair short. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Bankman-Fried paid the other inmate not with currency but with four packets of mackerels—like the ones shown in the photo above—to cut his hair.

Although using packets of mackerels to buy and sell services may seem strange, in fact, packets of mackerel seem to be widely used in place of currency in the U.S. prison system. We explained the situation in an Apply the Concept in an earlier edition of our principles textbook. We reproduce that feature here. Note that the inmate quoted indicates that the price of a haircut at that time was only two mackerel packets rather than the four that Bankman-Fried paid. (Question to consider: Would we expect that prices of services in terms of mackerel packets would be the same across prisons at a given time or in the same prison over time?)

The Mackerel Economy in the Federal Prison System

Inmates of the federal prison system are not allowed to have money. Funds they earn working in the prison or receive from friends and relatives are placed in an account they can draw on to buy snacks and other items from the prison store. Lacking money, prisoners could barter with each other in exchanging goods and services, but we have seen that barter is inefficient. Since about 2004, in many prisons small plastic packets of mackerel fillets costing about $1 each have been used as money. [According to the Wall Street Journal article linked to earlier, the mackerel packets now sell for $1.30.] The packets are known in prison as “macks.”

Some prisoners have set up small businesses using mackerel packets for money. They sell services such as shoe shines, cell cleaning, or haircuts for macks. According to a prisoner in Lompoc prison in California, “A haircut is two macks.” A former prisoner described a fellow prisoner’s food business: “I knew a guy who would buy ingredients and use the microwaves to cook meals. Then people used mack to buy it from him.” In the Pensacola prison in Florida, the prison commissary was open only one day a week. So, several prisoners would run “prison 7-Elevens” by stocking up on goods and reselling them for macks at a profit. Very few prisoners actually eat the mackerel in the packets. In fact, apart from prison commissaries, the demand for mackerel in the United States is very small.

The mackerel economy is under pressure at some prisons, where rules exist against hoarding goods from the commissary. Prisoners caught dealing in macks can risk no longer being allowed to use the commissary or may be moved to a less desirable cell. In these prisons, the mackerel economy has been pushed underground.

The prison mackerel economy illustrates an important fact about money: Anything can be used as money, as long as people are willing to accept it in exchange for goods and services—even pouches of fish that no one wants to eat.

Source: Justin Scheck, “Mackerel Economics in Prison,” Wall Street Journal, October 2, 2008.

Glenn, Harry Holzer, and Michael Strain Analyze the Effect of Changes in Unemployment Benefits during the Pandemic

A job fair in Jackson, Mississippi (photo from the Associated Press)

As part of the Social Security Act of 1935,Congress created the unemployment insurance program to make payments to unemployed workers. The program run jointly by the federal government and the state governments. It’s financed primarily by state and federal taxes on employers. States are allowed to determine which workers are eligible, the dollar amount of the unemployment benefit workers will receive, and for how long workers will receive the benefit.

What’s the purpose of the unemployment insurance program? A document published the U.S. Department of Labor explains that: “Unemployment compensation is a social insurance program. It is designed to provide benefits to most individuals out of work, generally through no fault of their own, for periods between jobs…. [Unemployment compensation] ensures that a significant proportion of the necessities of life can be met on a week-to-week basis while a search for work takes place.”

But the same document also notes that unemployment compensation “maintains [unemployed workers’] purchasing power which also acts as an economic stabilizer in times of economic downturn.” By “economic stabilizer,” the Department of Labor is noting that unemployment compensation is what in Macroeconomics, Chapter 16, Section 16.1 (Economics, Chapter 26, Section 26.1) we call an automatic stabilizer. An automatic stabilizer is a government spending or taxing program that automatically increases or decreases along with the business cycle.

As shown in the following figure, when the economy enters a recession, the total amount of unemployment compensation payments increases without the federal government or the state governments having to take any action because eligibility for the payments is already defined in existing law. So, during a recession, the unemployment insurance program helps to keep aggregate demand higher than it would otherwise be, which can lessen the severity of the recession.

As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.3 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.3), the unemployment insurance program can have an unintended effect. The higher the unemployment insurance payment a worker receives and the longer the worker receives it, the more likely the worker is to delay searching for another job. In other words, by reducing the opportunity cost of being unemployed, unemployment insurance benefits may unintentionally increase the length of unemployment spells—the amount of time the typical worker is unemployed.

During and immediately after the 2020 recession, the federal government increased the dollar amount of the unemployment insurance payments that workers received and extended the number of months workers could continue to receive these payments. Under the American Rescue Plan, a law which President Biden proposed and Congress passed in March 2021, workers receiving unemployment insurance benefits received an additional $300 weekly from March 2021 until September 6, 2021. Also, under the law, people, such as the self-employed and gig workers, would receive unemployment insurance benefits even though they had previously been ineligible to receive them. (Note the resulting spike during this period in the total dollar amount of unemployment insurance benefits as shown in the above figure.)

Some state governments were concerned that the extended benefits might cause some workers to delay taking jobs, thereby slowing the recovery of these states’ economies from the effects of the pandemic. Accordingly, 18 states stopped participating in the programs in June 2021, meaning that at that time unemployed workers would no longer receive the extra $300 per week and workers who prior to March 2021 hadn’t been eligible to receive unemployment benefits would again be ineligible.

Were unemployed workers in the states that ended the expanded unemployment insurance benefits in June more likely to become employed than were unemployed workers in states that continued the expanded benefits into September? On the one hand, ending the expanded benefits would increase the opportunity cost of not having a job. But, on the other hand, because government payments to workers would decline in these states, the result could be a decline in consumer spending that would decrease the demand for labor. Which of these effects was larger would determine whether employment increased or decreased in the states that ended expanded unemployment benefits early.

Glenn, along with Harry Holzer of Georgetown University and Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute, carried out an econometric analysis to explore the effects ending expanded unemployment benefits early had on the labor markets in those states. They find that:

Among unemployed workers ages 25 to 54 (“prime-age workers”), ending the expanded unemployment benefit program increased the number of workers in those states who moved from being unemployed to being employed by 14 percentage points.
Among prime-age workers, the employment-to-population ratio in those states increased by about 1 percentage point.
Among prime-age workers, the unemployment rate in those stated decreased by about 0.9 percentage point.

These estimates indicate that the effect of ending the expanded unemployment benefit program raised the opportunity cost of being unemployed more than it decreased the demand for labor by reducing the incomes of some household. But what about the larger question of whether households were made better or worse off as a result of ending the program early? The authors find that ending the program early decreased the share of households that had no difficulty meeting expenses. They, therefore, conclude that the effects on household well-being of ending the program early are ambiguous.

The paper presenting these results can be found here. Warning! The econometric analysis is quite technical.