When inflation began to accelerate in the spring of 2022, the highly unusual situation in the U.S. labor market was one of the reasons. This morning (July 2), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Job Openings and Labor Turnover” (JOLTS) report for May 2024. The report proivided more data indicating that the U.S. labor market is continuing its return to pre-pandemic conditions.
The following figures shows the total number of job openings. The BLS defines a job opening as a full-time or part-time job that a firm is advertising and that will start within 30 days. Although the total number of job openings, at 8.1 million, is still somewhat above pre-pandemic levels, it has been gradually declining since reaching a peak of 12.2 million in March 2022.
The next figure shows that, at 4.9 percent, the rate of job openings has continued its slow decline from 7.4 percent in March 2022. The rate in May was just slightly above the rate in January 2019, although it was till above the rates during most of 2019 and early 2020, as well as the rates during most of the period following the Great Recession of 2007–2009. The rate of job openings is defined by the BLS as the number of job openings divided by the number of job openings plus the number of employed workers, multiplied by 100.
In the following figure, we compare the total number of job openings to the total number of people unemployed. The figure shows a slow decline from a peak of more than 2 job openings per unemployed person in the spring of 2022 to 1.2 job openings per employed person in May 2024—the same as in April and about the same as in 2019 and early 2020, before the pandemic. Note that the number is still above 1.0, indicating that the demand for labor is still high, although no higher than during the strong labor market of 2019.
The rate at which workers are willing to quit their jobs is an indication of how they perceive the ease of finding a new job. As the following figure shows, the quit rate declined slowly from a peak of 3 percent in late 2021 and early 2022 to 2.2 percent in November 2023, where it has remained through May 2024. That rate is slightly below the rate during 2019 and early 2020. By this measure, workers perceptions of the state of the labor market seem largely unchanged in recent months.
The JOLTS data indicate that the labor market is about as strong as it was in the months priod to the start of the pandemic, but it’s not as historically tight as it was through most of 2022 and 2023. Speaking today at a conference hosted by the European Central Bank, Fed Chair Jerome Powell was quoted as saying that the Fed had made “a lot of progress” in reducing inflation and that the labor market had made “a pretty substantial” move toward a better balance between labor demand and labor supply.
On Friday morning, the BLS will release its “Employment Situation” report for June, which will provide additional data on the state of the labor market. (Note that the data in the JOLTS report lag the data in the “Employment Situation” report by one month.)
The monthly “Employment Situation” report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is closely watched by economists, investment analysts, and Federal Reserve policymakers. Many economists believe that the payroll employment data from the report is the best single indicator of the current state of the economy.
Most economists, inside and outside of the government, accept the dates determined by the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) for when a recession begins and ends. Although that committee takes into account a variety of macroeconomic data series, the peak of a business cycle as determined by the committee almost always corresponds to the peak in payroll employment and the trough of a business cycle almost always corresponds to the trough in payroll employment.
One drawback to relying too heavily on payroll employment data in gauging the state of the economy is that the data are subject to—sometimes substantial—revisions. As the BLS explains: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.” The revisions can be particularly large at the beginning of a recession.
For example, the following figure shows revisions the BLS made to its initial estimates of the change in payroll employment during the months around the 2007–2009 recession. The green bars show months for which the BLS revised its preliminary estimates to show that fewer jobs were lost (or that more jobs were created), and the red bars show months for which the BLS revised its preliminary estimates to show that more jobs were lost (or that fewer jobs were created).
For example, the BLS initially reported that employment declined by 159,000 jobs during September 2008. In fact, after additional data became available, the BLS revised its estimate to show that employment had declined by 460,000 jobs during the month—a difference of 300,000 more jobs lost. As the recession deepened between April 2008 and April 2009, the BLS’s initial reports underestimated the number of jobs lost by 2.3 million. In other words, the recession of 2007–2009 turned out to be much more severe than economists and policymakers realized at the time.
The BLS also made substantial revisions to its initial estimates of payroll employment for 2020 and 2021 during the Covid pandemic, as the following figure shows. (Note that this figure appears in our new 9th edition of Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1 and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 13, Section 13.1).)
The BLS initially estimated that employment in March 2020 declined by about 700,000. After gathering more data, the BLS revised its estimate to indicate that employment declined by twice as much. Similarly, the BLS’s initial estimates substantially understated the actual growth in employment from August to December 2021. After gathering more data, the BLS revised its estimate to indicate that nearly 2 million more jobs had been created during those months than it had originally estimated.
Just as the initial estimates for total payroll employment are often revised by sutbstantial amounts up or down, the same is true of the initial estimates of payroll employment in individual industries. Because the number of establishments surveyed in any particular industry can be small, the initial estimates can be highly inaccurate. For instance, Justin Fox, a columnist for bloomberg.com recently noted what appears to be a surge in employment in the “sports teams and clubs” industry. As the following figure shows, employment in this industry seems to have increased by an improbably large 75 percent. Was there a sudden increase in the United States in the number of new sports teams? Certainly not over just a few months. It’s more likely that most of the increase in employment in this industry will disappear when the initial employment estimates are revised.
One source of data for the BLS revisions to the monthly payroll employment data is the BLS’s “Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.” The QCEW is based on the reports required of all firms that participate in the state and federal unemployment insurance program. The BLS estimates that 95 percent of all jobs in the United States are included in the QCEW data. As a result, the QCEW surveys about 11.9 million establishments as opposed to the 666,000 establishments included in the establishment survey.
The BLS uses the QCEW to benchmark the payroll employment data, which reconciles the two series. The BLS makes the revisions with a lag. For instance, the payroll employment data for 2023 won’t be revised using the QCEW data until August 2024. Looking at the 2023 employment data from the two series shows a large discrepancy, as seen in the following figure.
The blue line shows the employment data from the establishment survey and the orange line shows the data from the QCEW survey. (Both series are of nonseasonally adjusted data.) The values on the vertical axis are thousands of workers. In December 2023, the establishment survey indicated that a total of 158,347,000 people were employed in the nonfarm sector in the United States. The QCEW series shows a total of 154,956,133 people were employed in the nonfarm sector—about 3.4 million fewer.
How can we interpret the discrepancy between the employment totals from the two series? The most straightforward interpretation is that the QCEW data, which uses a larger sample, is more accurate and payroll employment has been significantly overstating the level of employment in the U.S. economy. In other words, the labor market was weaker in 2023 than it seemed, which may help to explain why inflation slowed as much as it did, particularly in the second half of the year.
However, this interpretation is not clear cut because the QCEW data are also subject to revision. As Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Budget Lab at Yale and former chief economist for the Council of Economic Advisers, has pointed out, the QCEW data are typically revised upwards, which would close some of the gap between the two series. So, although it seems likely that the closely watched payroll employment data have overstated the strength of the labor market, we won’t get a clearer indication of how large the overstatement is until August when the BLS will use the QCEW data to benchmark the payroll employment data.
Image of “a woman shopping in a grocery store” generated by ChatGTP 4o.
Today (June 12) we had the unusual coincidence of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releasing its monthly report on the consumer price index (CPI) on the same day that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) concluded a meeting. The CPI report showed that the inflation rate had slowed more than expected. As the following figure shows, the inflation rate for May measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous month—headline inflation (the blue line)—was 3.3 percent—slightly below the 3.4 percent rate that economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had expected, and slightly lower than the 3.4 percent rate in April. Core inflation (the red line(—which excludes the prices of food and energy—was 3.4 percent in May, down from 3.6 percent in April and slightly lower than the 3.5 percent rate that economists had been expecting.
As the following figure shows, 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 declines in the inflation rate are much larger. Headline inflation (the blue line) declined from 3.8 percent in April to 0.1 percent in May. Core inflation (the red line) declined from 3.6 percent in April to 2.0 percent in May. Overall, we can say that inflation has cooled in May and if inflation were to continue at the 1-month rate, the Fed will have succeeded in bringing the U.S. economy in for a soft landing—with the annual inflation rate returning to the Fed’s 2 percent target without the economy being pushed into a recession.
But two important notes of caution:
1. It’s hazardous to rely to heavily on data from a single month. Over the past year, the BLS has reported monthly inflation rates that were higher than economists expected and rates that was lower than economists expected. The current low inflation rate would have to persist over at least a few more months before we can safely conclude that the Fed has achieved a safe landing.
2. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.5 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.5), the Fed uses the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, rather than the CPI in evaluating whether it is hitting its 2 percent inflation target. So, today’s encouraging CPI data would have to carry over to the PCE data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) will release on January 28 before we can conclude that inflation as the Fed tracks it did in fact slow significantly in April.
The BLS released the CPI report at 8:30 am eastern time. The FOMC began its meeting later in the day and so committee members were able to include in their deliberations today’s CPI data along with other previously available information on the state of the economy. At the close of the meeting, , the FOMC released a statement in which it stated, as expected, that it would leave its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent. After the meeting, the committee also released—as it typically does at its March, June, September, and December meetings—a “Summary of Economic Projections” (SEP), which presents median values of the committee members’ forecasts of key economic variables. The values are summarized in the following table, reproduced from the release.
The table shows that compared with their projections in March—the last time the FOMC published the SEP—committee members were expecting higher headline and core PCE inflation and a higher federal funds rate at the end of this year. In the long run, committee members were expecting a somewhat highr unemployment rate and somewhat higher federal funds rate than they had expected in March.
Note, as we discuss in Macreconomics, Chapter 14, Section 14.4 (Economics, Chapter 24, Section 24.4 and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 16, Section 16.4), there are twelve voting members of the FOMC: the seven members of the Board of Governors, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and presidents of four of the other 11 Federal Reserve Banks, who serve one-year rotating terms. In 2024, the presidents of the Richmond, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Cleveland Feds are voting members. The other Federal Reserve Bank presidents serve as non-voting members, who participate in committee discussions and whose economic projections are included in the SEP.
Prior to the meeting there was much discussion in the business press and among investment analysts about the dot plot, shown below. Each dot in the plot represents the projection of an individual committee member. (The committee doesn’t disclose which member is associated with which dot.) Note that there are 19 dots, representing the 7 members of the Fed’s Board of Governors and all 12 presidents of the Fed’s district banks.
The plots on the far left of the figure represent the projections of each of the 19 members of the value of the federal funds rate at the end of 2024. Four members expect that the target for the federal funds rate will be unchanged at the end of the year. Seven members expect that the committee will cut the target range once, by 0.25 percentage point, by the end of the year. And eight members expect that the cut target range twice, by a total of 0.50 percent point, by the end of the year. Members of the business media and financial analysts were expecting tht the dot plot would project either one or two target rate cuts by the end of the year. The committee was closely divided among those two projections, with the median projection being for a single rate cut.
In its statement following the meeting, the committee noted that:
“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. In addition, the Committee will continue reducing its holdings of Treasury securities and agency debt and agency mortgage‐backed securities. The Committee is strongly committed to returning inflation to its 2 percent objective.”
In his press conference after the meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted that the morning’s CPI report was a “Better inflation report than nearly anyone expected.” But, Powell also noted that: “You don’t want to be motivated any one data point.” Reinforcing the view quoted above in the committee’s statement, Powell emphasized that before cutting the target for the federal funds rate, the committee would need “Greater confidence that inflation is moving back to 2% on a sustainable basis.”
In summary, today’s CPI report was an indication that the Fed is on track to bring about a soft landing, but the FOMC will be closely analyzing macroeconomic data over at least the next few months before it is willing to cut its target for the federal funds rate.
Image of “a small business with a help wanted sign in the window” generated by ChatGTP 4o.
This morning (June 4), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Job Openings and Labor Turnover” (JOLTS) report for April 2024. The report proivided more data indicating that the U.S. labor market is continuing its return to pre-pandemic conditions. The following figure shows that, at 4.8 percent, the rate of job openings has continued its slow decline from the rate of 7.4 percent in March 2022. The rate in April was the same as the rate in January 2019, although it was till above the rates during most of 2019 and early 2020, as well as the rates during most of the period following the Great Recession of 2007–2009.
The BLS defines a job opening as a full-time or part-time job that a firm is advertising and that will start within 30 days. The rate of job openings is the number of job openings divided by the number of job openings plus the number of employed workers, multiplied by 100.
In the following figure, we compare the total number of job openings to the total number of people unemployed. The figure shows a slow decline from a peak of more than 2 job openings per unemployed person in the spring of 2022 to 1.2 job openings per employed person in April 2024—about the same as in 2019 and early 2020, before the pandemic. Note that the number is still above 1.0, indicating that the demand for labor is still high, although no higher than during the strong labor market of 2019.
The rate at which workers are willing to quit their jobs is an indication of how they perceive the ease of finding a new job. As the following figure shows, the quit rate declined slowly from a peak of 3 percent in late 2021 and early 2022 to 2.2 percent in November 2023, where it has remained through April of 2024. That rate is slightly below the rate during 2019 and early 2020. By this measure, workers perceptions of the state of the labor market seem largely unchanged in recent months.
The JOLTS data indicate that the labor market is about as strong as it was in the months priod to the start of the pandemic, but it’s not as historically tight as it was through most of 2022 and 2023.
On Friday morning, the BLS will release its “Employment Situation” report for May, which will provide additional data on the state of the labor market. (Note that the data in the JOLTS report lag the data in the “Employment Situation” report by one month.)
Inflation was running higher than expected during the first three months of 2024, indicating that the trend in late 2023 of declining inflation had been interrupted. At the beginning of the year, many economists and analysts had expected that the Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) would begin cutting its target for the federal funds rate sometime in the middle of the year. But with inflation persisting above the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target, it has become likely that the FOMC will wait until later in the year to start cutting its target and might decide to leave the target unchanged through the remainder of 2024.
Accordingly, economists and policymakers were intently awaiting the report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on the consumer price index (CPI) for April. The report released this morning showed a slight decrease in inflation, although the inflation rate remains well above the Fed’s 2 percent target. (Note that, as we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.5 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.5), the Fed uses the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, rather than the CPI in evaluating whether it is hitting its 2 percent inflation target.)
The inflation rate for April measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous month—headline inflation—was 3.4 percent—about the same as economists had expected—down from 3.5 percent in March. As the following figure shows, core inflation—which excludes the prices of food and energy—was 3.6 percent in April, down from 3.8 percent in March.
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 declines in the inflation rate are larger. Headline inflation declined from 4.6 percent in March to 3.8 percent in April. Core inflation declined from 4.4 percent in March to 3.6 percent in April. Note that the value for core inflation is the same whether we measure over 12 months or over 1 month. Overall, we can say that inflation seems to have cooled in April, but it still remains well above the Fed’s 2 percent target.
As has been true in recent months, the path of inflation in the prices of services has been concerning. As we’ve noted in earlier posts, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome 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. Powell has been particularly concernd about how slowly the price of housing has been declining, a point he made again in the press conference that followed the most recent FOMC meeting.
The following figure shows the 1-month inflation rate in service prices and in service prices not included including housing rent. The figure shows that inflation in all service prices has been above 4 percent in every month since July 2023, but inflation in service prices slowed markedly from 6.6 percent in March to 4.4 percent in April. Inflation in service prices not including housing rent declined more than 50 percent, from 8.9 percent in March to 3.4 percent in April. But, again, even though inflation in service prices declined in April, as the figure shows, the 1-month inflation in services is volatile and even these smaller increases aren’t yet consistent with the Fed meeting its 2 percent inflation target.
Finally, in order to get a better estimate of the underlying trend in inflation, some economists look at median inflation, which is calculated by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and Ohio State University. If we listed the inflation rate in each individual good or service in the CPI, median inflation is the inflation rate of the good or service that is in the middle of the list—that is, the inflation rate in the price of the good or service that has an equal number of higher and lower inflation rates. As the following figure shows, at 4.3 percent, median inflation in April was unchanged from its value in March.
Today’s report was good news for the Fed in its attempts to reduce the inflation rate to its 2 percent target without pushing the U.S. economy into a recession. But Fed Chair Jerome Powell and other members of the FOMC have made clear that they are unlikely to begin cutting the target for the federal funds rate until they receive several months worth of data indicating that inflation has clearly resumed the downward path it was on during the last months of 2023. The unexpectedly high inflation data for the first three months of 2024 has clearly had a significant effect on Fed policy. Powell was quoted yesterday as noting that: “We did not expect this to be a smooth road, but these [inflation readings] were higher than I think anybody expected,”
In the new 9th edition of Macroeconomics, in Chapter 9, Section 9.7 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.7 and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 13, Section 13.7), we have an Apply the Concept feature that looks at research conducted by economists at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics into the effects of inflation on households at different income levels. That research involved looking at the differences between the mix of goods that households at different income levels consume and at differences in increases in the wages they earn. The following figure, reproduced from this feature shows that as a percentage of their total consumption expenditures households with low incomes spend more on housing and food, and less on transportation and recreation than do households with high incomes.
During the three-year period from March 2020 to April 2023, wages increased faster than did prices for households with low incomes, while wages increased at a slower than did prices for households with high incomes. We concluded from this research that: “during this period, workers with lower incomes were hurt less by the effects of inflation than were workers with higher incomes.”
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has just released a new study that uses different data to arrive at a similar conclusion. The CBO divided households into five equal groups, or quintiles, from the 20 percent with the lowest incomes to the 20 percent with the highest incomes. The following table shows how income quintiles divide their consumption across different broad categories of goods and services. For example, compared with households in the highest income quintile, households in the lowest income quintile spend a much larger fraction of their budget on rent and a significantly larger fraction on food eaten at home. Households in the lowest quintile spent significantly less on “other services,” which include spending on hotels and on car maintenance and repair.
The CBO study measures the effect of inflation over the past four years on different income quintiles by comparing the change in the fraction of their incomes households needed to buy the same bundle of goods and services in 2024 that they bought in 2019. The first figure below shows the result when household income includes only market income—primarily wages and salaries. The second figure shows that result when transfer payments—such as Social Security benefits received by retired workers and unemployment benefits received by unemployed workers—are added to market income. (The values along the vertical axis are percentage points.)
The fact that, in both figures, the fraction of each quintiles’ income required to buy the same bundle of goods and services is negative means that between 2019 and 2023 income increased faster than prices for all income quintiles. Looking at the bottom figure, households in the highest income quintile could spend 6.3 percentage points less of their income in 2024 to buy the same bundle of goods and services they had bought in 2019. Households in the lowest income quintile could spend 2.0 percentage points less. Households in the middle income quintile had the smallest reduction—0.3 percentage point—of their income to buy the same bundle of goods and services.
It’s worth keeping mind that the CBO data represent averages within each quintile. There were certainly many households, particularly in the lower income quintiles, that needed to spend a larger precentage of their income in 2024 to buy the same bundle of goods and services that they had bought in 2019, even though, as a group, the quintile they were in needed a smaller percentage.
This morning (May 3), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report for April. The report has two estimates of the change in employment during the month: one estimate from the establishment survey, often referred to as the payroll survey, and one from the household survey. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and 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. (The groups included in the employment estimates from the two surveys are somewhat different, as we discuss in this post.)
According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 175,000 jobs during April. This increase was well below the increase of 240,000 that economists had forecast in a survey by the Wall Street Journal and well below the net increase of 315,000 during March. The following figure, taken from the BLS report, shows the monthly net changes in employment for each month during the past to years.
As the following figure shows, the net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs in the establishment survey. The net increase in jobs as measured by the household survey fell from 498,000 in March to 25,000 in April.
The unemployment rate, which is also reported in the household survey, ticked up slightly from 3.8 percent to 3.9 percent. It has been below 4 percent every month since February 2022.
The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we note in this recent post, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage that it is available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure show the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. The 3.9 percent value for April continues a downward trend that began in February.
The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic.
The 1-month rate of wage inflation of 2.4 percent in April is a significant decrease from the 4.2 percent rate in March, although it’s unclear whether the decline was a sign that the labor market is weakening or reflected the greater volatility in wage inflation when calculated this way.
The macrodata released during the first three months of the year had, by and large, indicated strong economic growth, with the pace of employment increases being particularly rapid. Wages were also increasing at a pace above that during the pre-Covid period. Inflation appeared to be stuck in the range of 3 percent to 3.5 percent, above the Fed’s target inflation rate of 2 percent.
Today’s “Employment Situation” report may be a first indication that growth is slowing sufficiently to allow the inflation rate to fall back to 2 percent. This is the outcome that Fed Chair Jerome Powell indicated in his press conference on Wednesday that he expected to occur at some point during 2024. Financial markets reacted favorably to the release of the report with stock prices jumping and the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note falling. Many economists and Wall Street analysts had concluded that the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) was likely to keep its target for the federal funds rate unchanged until late in the year and might not institute a cut in the target at all this year. Today’s report caused some Wall Street analysts to conclude, as the headline of an article in the Wall Street Journal put it, “Jobs Data Boost Hopes of a Late-Summer Rate Cut.”
This reaction may be premature. Data on employment from the establishment survey can be subject to very large revisions, which reinforces the general caution against putting too great a weight one month’s data. Its most likely that the FOMC would need to see several months of data indicating a slowing in economic growth and in the inflation rate before reconsidering whether to cut the target for the federal funds rate earlier than had been expected.
The latest significant piece of macroeconomic data that will be available to the Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) before it concludes its meeting tomorrow is the report on the Employment Cost Index (ECI), released this morning by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). As we’ve noted in earlier posts, as a measure of the rate of increase in labor costs, the FOMC prefers the ECI to average hourly earnings (AHE) .
The AHE is calculated by adding all of the wages and salaries workers are paid—including overtime and bonus pay—and dividing by the total number of hours worked. As a measure of how wages are increasing or decreasing during a particular period, AHE can suffer from composition effects because AHE data aren’t adjusted for changes in the mix of occupations workers are employed in. For example, during a period in which there is a decline in the number of people working in occupations with higher-than-average wages, perhaps because of a downturn in some technology industries, AHE may show wages falling even though the wages of workers who are still employed have risen. In contrast, the ECI holds constant the mix of occupations in which people are employed. The ECI does have the drawback, that it is only available quarterly whereas the AHE is available monthly.
The data released this morning indicate that labor costs continue to increase at a rate that is higher than the rate that is likely needed for the Fed to hit its 2 percent price inflation target. The following figure shows the percentage change in the employment cost index for all civilian workers from the same quarter in 2023. The blue line looks only at wages and salaries while the red line is for total compensation, including non-wage benefits like employer contributions to health insurance. The rate of increase in the wage and salary measure decreased slightly from 4.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2023 to 4.3 percent in the first quarter of 2024. The rate of increase in compensation was unchanged at 4.2 percent in both quarters.
If we look at the compound annual growth rate of the ECI—the annual rate of increase assuming that the rate of growth in the quarter continued for an entire year—we find that the rate of increase in wages and salaries increased from 4.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2023 to 4.5 percent in the first quarter of 2024. Similarly, the rate of increase in compensation increased from 3.8 percent in the third quarter of 2023 to 4.5 percent in the first quarter of 2024.
Some economists and policymakers prefer to look at the rate of increase in ECI for private industry workers rather than for all civilian workers because the wages of government workers are less likely to respond to inflationary pressure in the labor market. The first of the following figures shows the rate of increase of wages and salaries and in total compensation for private industry workers measured as the percentage increase from the same quarter in the previous year. The second figure shows the rate of increase calculated as a compound growth rate.
The first figure shows a slight decrease in the rate of growth of labor costs from the fourth quarter of 2023 to the first quarter of 2024, while the second figure shows a fairly sharp increase in the rate of growth.
Taken together, these four figures indicate that there is little sign that the rate of increase in employment costs is falling to a level consistent with a 2 percent inflation rate. At his press conference tomorrow afternoon, following the conclusion of the FOMC’s meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell will give his thoughts on the implications for future monetary policy 0f recent macroeconomic data.
On Friday, April 5—the first Friday of the month—the Bureau of labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report with data on the state of the labor market in March. The BLS reported a net increase in employment during March of 303,000, which was well above the increase that economists had been expecting. The previous estimates of employment in January and February were revised upward by 22,000 jobs. (We also discuss the employment report in this podcast.)
Employment increases during the second half of 2023 had slowed compared with the first half of the year. But, as the following figure from the BLS report shows, since December 2023, employment has increased by more than 250,000 in each month. These increases are far above the estimated increases of 70,000 to 100,000 new jobs needed to keep up with population growth. (But note our later discussion of this point.)
The unemployment rate had been expected to stay steady at 3.9 percent, but declined slightly to 3.8 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 Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) expect that the unemployment rate for 2024 will be 4.0 percent, a forcast that is beginning to seem too high.
The monthly 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.
As we noted in a previous post, whereas employment as measured by the establishment survey has been increasing each month, employment as measured by the household surve declined each month from December 2023 through February 2024. But, as the following figure shows, this trend was reversed in March, with employment as measured by the household survey increasing 498,000—far more than the 303,000 increase in employment in establishment survey. This reversal may be another indication of the underlying strength of the labor market.
As the following figure shows, despite the substantial increases in employment, wages, as measured by the percentage change in average hourly earnings from the same month in the previous year, have been trending down. The increase in average hourly earnings declined from 4.3 percent February in to 4.1 percent in March.
The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic.
Wages increased by 6.1 percent in January 2024, 2.1 percent in February, and 4.2 percent in March. So, the 1-month rate of wage inflation did show an increase in March, although it’s unclear whether the increase was a result of the strength of the labor market or reflected the greater volatility in wage inflation when calculated this way.
Some economists and policymakers are surprised that low levels of unemployment and large monthly increases in employment have not resulted in greater upward pressure on wages. One possibility is that the supply of labor has been increasing more rapidly than is indicated by census data. In a January report, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) argued that the Census Bureau’s estimate of the population of the United States is too low by about 6 million people. This undercount is attributable, according to the CBO, largely the Census Bureau having underestimated the amount of immigration that has occurred. If the CBO is correct, then the economy may need to generate about 200,000 net new jobs each month to accommodate the growth of the labor force, rather than the 80,000 to 100,000 we mentioned earlier in this post.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell noted in a press conference following the most recent meeing of the FOMC that: “Strong job creation has been accompanied by an increase in the supply of workers, reflecting increases in participation among individuals aged 25 to 54 years and a continued strong pace of immigration.” As a result:
“what you would have is potentially kind of what you had last year, which is a bigger economy where inflationary pressures are not increasing. In fact, they were decreasing. So you can have that if you have a continued supply-side activity that we had last year with—both with supply chains and also with, with growth in the size of the labor force.”
If Powell is correct, in the coming months the U.S. economy may be able to sustain rapid increases in employment without those increases leading to an increase in the rate of inflation.
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.
HubbardOBrienEconomics.com Blog 