Image of “people attending a job fair” generated by GTP-4o
On Wednesday, August 21, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued revised estimates of the increase in employment, as measured by the establishment survey, over the period from April 2023 through March 2024. The BLS had initially estimated that on average during that period net employment had increased by 242,000 jobs per month. The revision lowered this estimate by 28 percent to an average of only 174,000 net new jobs created per month. The difference between those two monthly averages means that the U.S. economy had generated a total of 818,000 fewer jobs during that period.
Why does the BLS have to revise its employment estimates? As we discuss in Macroeonomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1) the initial estimates that the BLS issues each month in its “Employment Situation” reports are based on a sample of 300,000 establishments. The monthly data also rely on estimates of the number of employees at establishments that opened or closed during the month and on employment changes at establishments that failed to respond to the survey. In August of each year, the BLS issues revised employment estimates based on state unemployment insurance tax records, which are much more comprehensive than the original sample of establishments because nearly all employers are included.
Although this year’s revision is particularly large in absolute terms—the largest since 2009—it still represents only about 0.5 percent of the more than 158 million people employed in the U.S. economy. How will this revision affect the decision by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) at its next meeting on September 17-18 to cut or maintain its target for the federal funds rate? The members of the committee were probably not surprised by the downward revision in the employment estimates, although they may have anticipated that the revision would be smaller. In five of the past six years, the BLS has revised its estimates of payroll employment downward in its annual benchmark revision.
In his press conference following the June 12 FOMC meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell observed that “you have payroll jobs still coming in strong, even though, you know, there’s an argument that they may be a bit overstated.” (Note that FOMC members don’t receive the data in BLS reports until the reports are publicly released.) As we noted in this recent post, even before the BLS revised its employment estimates downward, recent monthly increases were below the level likely needed to keep up with population growth—so-called breakeven employment growth. There was already a high likelihood that the FOMC intended to cut its target for the federal funds rate at its September meeting. The substantial downward revision in the employment data makes a cut nearly a certainty.
Chair Powell is scheduled to give a speech on Friday morning at the Kansas City Fed’s annual monetary policy symposium held in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. During that speech, he’s likely to give his reaction to the revised employment data—and the state of the labor market more generally.
Today (August 14), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly report on the consumer price index (CPI), which showed inflation falling below 3 percent for the first time since March 2021.
As the following figure shows, the inflation rate for July measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous month—headline inflation (the blue line)—was 2.9 percent down from 3.0 percent in June. Core inflation (the red line)—which excludes the prices of food and energy—was 3.2 percent in July, down from 3.3 percent in June.
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—we see an increase in the inflation rate in July, but the increase is from the very low levels in June. Headline inflation (the blue line) increased from –0.7 percent in June (which means that consumer price actually fell that month) to 1.9 percent in July. Core inflation (the red line) increased from 0.8 percent in June to 2.o percent in July. Overall, we can say that, taking 1-month and 12 month inflation together, the U.S. economy seems on course 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. (Note, though, that 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.)
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and his colleagues on the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) have been closely following inflation in the price of shelter. The price of “shelter” in the CPI, as explained here, includes both rent paid for an apartment or house and “owners’ equivalent rent of residences (OER),” which is an estimate of what a house (or apartment) would rent for if the owner were renting it out. OER is included to account for the value of the services an owner receives from living in an apartment or house.
As the following figure shows, inflation in the price of shelter has been a significant contributor to headline inflation. The blue line shows 12-month inflation in shelter and the red line shows 1-month inflation in shelter. Twelve-month inflation in shelter continued its decline that began in the spring of 2023, falling from 5.1 percent in June to 5.0 percent July. One-month inflation in shelter—which is much more volatile than 12-month inflation in shelter—increased from 2.1 percent in June to 4.6 percent in July. The value for 1-month inflation in shelter may concern the members of the FOMC, but the continuing decline in in the less volatile 12-month inflation in shelter provides some reassurance that inflation in shelter is likely continuing to decline.
Finally, in order to get a better estimate of the underlying trend in inflation, some economists look at median inflation and trimmed mean inflation. Median inflation is calculated by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and Ohio State University. If we listed the inflation rate in each individual good or service in the CPI, median inflation is the inflation rate of the good or service that is in the middle of the list—that is, the inflation rate in the price of the good or service that has an equal number of higher and lower inflation rates. Trimmed mean inflation drops the 8 percent of good and services with the higherst inflation rates and the 8 percent of goods and services with the lowest inflation rates.
As the following figure (from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland) shows, median inflation (the brown line) ticked up slightly from 4.2 percent in June to 4.3 percent in July. Trimmed mean inflation (the blue line) was unchanged in July at 3.3 percent. One conclusion from these data is that headline and core inflation may be somewhat understating the underlying rate of inflation.
For the past few weeks investores in financial markets have been expecting that recent inflation and employment data will lead the FOMC to cut its target for the federal funds at its next meeting on Septembe 17-18 .
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 the current values from trading of federal funds futures.
The probabilities in the chart reflect investors’ predictions of what the FOMC’s target for the federal funds rate will be after the committee’s September meeting. The chart indicates that investors assign a probability of 35.5 percent to the FOMC cutting its target range for the federal funds rate by 0.50 percentage point from the current 5.25 prcent to 5.50 percent to 4.75 percent to 5.25 percent. Investors assign a much larger probability—64.5 percent—to the FOMC cutting its target range for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point to 5.00 percent to 5.25 percent.
It would most likely require the next BLS “Employment Situation” report—which is scheduled for release on September 6—to show unexpected weakness for the FOMC to cut its target for the federal funds rate by more than 0.25 percentage point.
Supports: Macroeconomics, Chapter 9,Economics, Chapter 19, and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 13.
Image generated by GTP-4o.
In its “Employment Situation” report for July 2024, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) stated that according to the household survey the total number of people employed, the total number of people unemployed, and the unemployment rate all increased. Would we expect this result to always hold? That is, in a month in which both the total number of people employed and the total number of people unemployed increased will the unemployment rate always increase? Briefly explain.
Solving the Problem Step 1: Review the chapter material. This problem is about calculating the unemployment rate, so you may want to review Chapter 9, Section 9.1, “Measuring the Unemployment Rate, the Labor Force Participation Rate, and the Employment-Population Ratio.”
Step 2: Answer the question by explaining whether we can be certain what happens to the unemployment rate in a month in which both the total number of people employed and the total number of people unemployed increased. The unemployment rate is equal to the number of people unemployed divided by the number of people in the labor force (multiplied by 100). The labor force equals the sum of the number of people employed and the number of people unemployed.
Suppose, for example, that the unemployment rate in the previous month was 4 percent. If both the number of people employed and the number of people unemployed increase, the unemployment rate will increase if the increase in the number of people unemployed as a percentage of the increase in the labor force is greater than 4 percent. The unemployment rate will decrease if the increase in the number of people unemployed as a percentage of the increase in the labor force is less than 4 percent.
Consider a simple numerical example. Suppose that in the previous month there were 96 people employed and 4 people unemployed. In that case, the unemployment rate will be (4/(96 + 4)) x 100 = 4.0%.
Suppose that during the month the number of people employed increases by 30 and the number of people unemployed increases by 1. In that case, there are now 126 people employed and 5 people unemployed. The unemployment rate will have fallen from 4.0% to (5/(126 + 5)) x 100 = 3.8%.
Now suppose that the number of people employed increased by 30 and the number of people unemployed increases by 3. The unemployment will have risen from 4.0% to (7/(126 + 7)) x 100 = 5.3%.
We can conclude that what happened in July 2024 need not always happen. If both the total number of people employed and the total number of people unemployed increased during a given month, we can’t be sure whether the unemployment rate has increased or decreased.
Earlier this week, as we discussed in this blog post, the Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) voted to leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged. In his press conference following the meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell stated that: “Overall, a broad set of indicators suggests that conditions in the labor market have returned to about where they stood on the eve of the pandemic—strong but not overheated.”
This morning (August 2), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often referred to as the “jobs report”) for July, which indicates that the labor market may be weaker than Powell and the other members of the FOMC believed it to be when they decided to leave their target for the federal funds rate unchanged.
The jobs report has two estimates of the change in employment during the month: one estimate from the establishment survey, often referred to as the payroll survey, and one from the household survey. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and 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 114,000 jobs during July. This increase was below the increase of 175,000 to 185,000 that economists had forecast in surveys by the Wall Street Journal and bloomberg.com. The following figure, taken from the BLS report, shows the monthly net changes in employment for each month during the past two years.
The previously reported increases in employment for April and May were revised downward by 29,000 jobs. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”) As we’ve discussed in previous posts (most recently here), downward revisions to the payroll employment estimates are particularly likely at the beginning of a recession, although this month’s adjustments were relatively small.
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 change in jobs as measured by the household survey declined from 116,000 in June to 67,000 in June. So, in this case the direction of change in the two surveys was the same—a decline in the increase in the number of jobs.
As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate, which is also reported in the household survey, increased from 4.1 percent to 4.3 percent—the highest unemployment rate since October 2021. Although still low by historical standards, July was the fifth consecutive month in which the unemployment rate increased. It is also higher than the unemployment rate just before the pandemic. The unemployment rate was below 4 percent most months from mid-2018 to early 2020.
Some economists and policymakers have been following the Sahm rule, named after Claudia Sahm Chief Economist for New Century Advisors and a former Fed economist. The Sahm rule, as stated on the site of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is: “Sahm Recession Indicator signals the start of a recession when the three-month moving average of the national unemployment rate (U3 [measure]) rises by 0.50 percentage points or more relative to the minimum of the three-month averages from the previous 12 months.” The following figure shows the values of this indicator dating back to March 1949.
So, according to this indicator, the U.S. economy is now at the start of a recession. Does that mean that a recession has actually started? Not necessarily. As Sahm stated in an interview this morning, her indicator is a historical relationship that may not always hold, particularly given how signficantly the labor market has been affected during the last four years by the pandemic.
As we noted in a post earlier this week, investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts assigned a probability of 11 percent that the FOMC would cut its target for the federal funds rate by 0.50 percentage point at its next meeting. (Investors in this market assigned a probability of 89 percent that the FOMC would cut its target by o.25 percentage point.) Today, investors dramatically increased the probability to 79.5 percent of a 0.50 cut in the federal funds rate target, as shown in this figure from the CME site.
Investors on the stock market appear to believe that the probability of a recession beginning before the end of the year has increased, as indicated by sharp declines today in the stock market indexes.
The next scheduled FOMC meeting isn’t until September 17-18. The FOMC is free to meet in between scheduled meetings but doing so might be interpreted as meanng that economy is in crisis, which is a message the committee is unlikely to want to send. It would likely take additional unfavorable reports on macro data for the FOMC not to wait until September to take action on cutting its target for the federal funds rate.
Image of “Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speaking at a podium” generated by GTP-4o.
At the conclusion of its July 30-31 meeting, the Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) voted unamiously to leave its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 5.25 percent to 5.5 percent. (The statement the FOMC issued following the meeting can be found here.)
In the statement Fed Chair Jerome Powell read at the beginning of his press conference after the meeting, Powell appeared to be repeating a position he has stated in speeches and interviews during the past month:
“We have stated that we do not expect it will be appropriate to reduce the target range for the federal funds rate until we have gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2 percent. The second-quarter’s inflation readings have added to our confidence, and more good data would further strengthen that confidence. We will continue to make our decisions meeting by meeting.”
But in answering questions from reporters, he made it clear that—as many economists and Wall Street investors had already concluded—the FOMC was likely to reduce its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on September 17-18. Powell noted that recent data were consistent with the inflation rate continuing to decline toward the Fed’s 2 percent annual target. Powell summarized the consensus from the discussion among committee members as being that “the time was approaching for cutting rates.”
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 the current values resulting from trading of federal funds futures.
The probabilities in the chart reflect investors’ predictions of what the FOMC’s target for the federal funds rate will be after the committee’s September meeting. The chart indicates that investors assign a probability of 100 percent to the FOMC cutting its federal funds rate target at this meeting. Investors assign a probability of 89.0 percent that the committee will cut its target by 0.25 percentage point and a probability of 11.0 percent that the commitee will cut its target by 0.50 percentage point. When asked at his press conference whether the committee had given any consideration to making a 0.50 percentage point cut in its target, Powell said that it hadn’t.
Powell stated that the latest data on wage increases had led the committee to conclude that the labor market was no longer a source of inflationary pressure. The morning of the press conference, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its latest report on the Employment Cost Index (ECI). 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).
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. In contrast, the ECI holds the mix of occupations constant. The ECI does have the drawback that it is only available quarterly whereas the AHE is available monthly.
The following figure shows the percentage change in the ECI for all civilian workers from the same quarter in the previous year. 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 4.3 percent in the first quarter of 2024 to 4.2 percent in the second quarter of 2024. The rate of increase in compensation also declined slightly from 4.2 percent to 4.1 percent. As the figure shows, both measures continued their declines from the peak of wage inflation during the second quarter of 2022. In his press conference, Powell said that the this latest ECI report was a little better than the committee had expected.
Finally, Powell noted that the committee saw no indication that the U.S. economy was heading for a recession. He observed that: “The labor market has come into better balance and the unemployment rate remains low.” In addition, he said that output continued to grow steadily. In particular, he pointed to growth in real final sales to private domestic purchasers. This macro variable equals the sum of personal consumption expenditures and gross private fixed investment. By excluding exports, government purchases, and changes in inventories, final sales to private domestic purchasers removes the more volatile components of gross domestic product and provides a better measure of the underlying trend in the growth of output.
As the following figure shows, this measure of output has grown at an annual rate of more than 2.5 percent in each of the last three quarters. Output expanding at that rate is indicative of an economy that is neither overheating nor heading toward a recession.
At this point, unless macro data releases are unexpectedly strong or weak during the next six weeks, it seems nearly certain that at its September meeting the FOMC will reduce its target range for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point.
Jerome Powell arriving to testify before Congress. (Photo from Bloomberg News via the Wall Street Journal.)
Each month the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases its “Employment Situation” report. As we’ve discussed in previous blog posts, discussions of the report in the media, on Wall Street, and among policymakers center on the estimate of the net increase in employment that the BLS calculates from the establishment survey.
How should the members of the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee interpret these data? For instance, the BLS reported that the net increases in employment in June was 206,000. (Always worth bearing in mind that the monthly data are subject to—sometimes substantial—revisions.) Does a net increase of employment of that size indicate that the labor market is still running hot—with the quantity of labor demanded by businesses being greater than the quantity of labor workers are supplying—or that the market is becoming balanced with the quantity of labor demanded roughly equal to the quantity of labor supplied?
On July 9, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee indicated that his interpretation of labor market data indicate that: “The labor market appears to be fully back in balance.” One interpretation of the labor market being in balance is that the number of net new jobs the economy creates is enough to keep up with population growth. In recent years, that number has been estimated to be 70,000 to 100,000. The number is difficult to estimate with precision for two main reasons:
There is some uncertainty about the number of older workers who will retire. The more workers who retire, the fewer net new jobs the economy needs to create to accommodate population growth.
More importantly, estimates of population growth are uncertain, largely because of disagreements among economists and demographers over the number of immigrants who have entered the United States in recent years.
In calculating the unemployment rate and the size of the labor force, the BLS relies on estimates of population from the Census Bureau. 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. As the following figure from the CBO report indicates, the CBO believes that the Census Bureau has underestimated how much immigration has occurred and what the level of immigration is likely to be over the next few years. (In the figure, SSA refers to the Social Security Administration, which also makes forecasts of population growth.)
Some economists and policymakers have been surprised that low levels of unemployment and large monthly increases in employment have not resulted in greater upward pressure on wages. If the CBO’s estimates are correct, the supply of labor has been increasing more rapidly than is indicated by census data, which may account for the relative lack of upward pressure on wages. If the CBO’s estimates of population growth are correct, a net increase in employment of 200,000, as occured in June, may be about the number necessary to accommodate growth in the labor force. In other words, Chair Powell would be correct that the labor market was in balance in June.
In a recent publication, economists Nicolas Petrosky-Nadeau and Stephanie A. Stewart of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco look at a related concept: breakeven employment growth—the rate of employment growth required to keep the unemployment rate unchanged. They estimate that high rates of immigration during the past few years have raised the rate of breakeven employment growth from 70,000 to 90,000 jobs per month to 230,000 jobs per month. This analysis would be consistent with the fact that as net employment increases have averaged 177,000 over the past three months—somewhat below their estimate of breakeven employment growth—the unemployment rate has increased from 3.8 percent to 4.1 percent.
Image of “a family shopping in a supermarket” generated by ChatGTP 4o.
In testifying before Congress this week, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell indicated that the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) was becoming more concerned that it not be too late in reducing its target for the federal funds rate:
“[I]n light of the progress made both in lowering inflation and in cooling the labor market over the past two years, elevated inflation is not the only risk we face. Reducing policy restraint too late or too little could unduly weaken economic activity and employment.”
Powell also noted that: “more good data would strengthen our confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2 percent.” Today (July 11), Powell received more good data as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly report on the consumer price index (CPI), which showed a further slowing in inflation.
As the following figure shows, the inflation rate for June measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous month—headline inflation (the blue line)—was 3.o percent down from 3.3 percent in May. Core inflation (the red line)—which excludes the prices of food and energy—was 3.3 percent in June, down from 3.4 percent in May.
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 0.1 percent in May to –0.7 in June—consumer prices fell during June. Core inflation (the red line) declined from 2.0 percent in May to 0.8 percent in June. Overall, we can say that inflation has cooled further in June, bringing the U.S. economy closer to a soft landing—with the annual inflation rate returning to the Fed’s 2 percent target without the economy being pushed into a recession. (Note, though, that 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 FOMC has been looking closely at inflation in the price of shelter. The price of “shelter” in the CPI, as explained here, includes both rent paid for an apartment or house and “owners’ equivalent rent of residences (OER),” which is an estimate of what a house (or apartment) would rent for if the owner were renting it out. OER is included to account for the value of the services an owner receives from living in an apartment or house.
As the following figure shows, inflation in the price of shelter has been a significant contributor to headline inflation. The blue line shows 12-month inflation in shelter and the red line shows 1-month inflation in shelter. Twelve-month inflation in shelter continued its decline that began in the spring of 2023. One-month inflation in shelter declined substantially from 4.9 percent in May to 2.1 percent in June. These values indicate that the price of shelter may no longer be a significant driver of headline inflation.
Finally, in order to get a better estimate of the underlying trend in inflation, some economists look at median inflation and trimmed mean inflation. Meadin inflation is calculated by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and Ohio State University. If we listed the inflation rate in each individual good or service in the CPI, median inflation is the inflation rate of the good or service that is in the middle of the list—that is, the inflation rate in the price of the good or service that has an equal number of higher and lower inflation rates. Trimmed mean inflation drops the 8 percent of good and services with the higherst inflation rates and the 8 percent of goods and services with the lowest inflation rates.
As the following figure (from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland) shows, both median inflation (the brown line) and trimmed mean inflation (the blue line) were somewhat higher than either headline CPI inflation or core CPI inflation. One conclusion from these data is that headline and core inflation may be somewhat understating the underlying rate of inflation.
Financial markets are interpreting the most inflation and employment data as indicating that at its meeting on Septembe 17-18 the FOMC is likely to cut its target range for the federal funds rate from the current 5.25 percent to 5.50 to 5.00 percent to 5.25 percent.
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 the current values from trading of federal funds futures.
The probabilities in the chart reflect investors’ predictions of what the FOMC’s target for the federal funds rate will be after the committee’s September meeting. The chart indicates that investors assign a probability of only 8.1 percent to the FOMC leaving its federal funds rate target unchanged at its September meeting, but a 84.6 percent probability of the committee cutting its target by 0.25 percentage point (and a 7.3 percent probability of the committee cutting its target by 0.50 percent age point).
Recent macroeconomic data have been sending mixed signals about the state of the U.S. economy. The growth in real GDP, industrial production, retail sales, and real consumption spending has been slowing. Growth in employment has been a bright spot—showing steady net increases in job growth above the level necessary to keep up with population growth. Even here, though, as we discuss in a recent blog post, the data may be overstating the actual strength of the labor market.
This morning (July 5), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often referred to as the “jobs report”) for June, which, while seemingly indicating continued strong job growth, also provides some indications that the labor market may be weakening. The jobs report has two estimates of the change in employment during the month: one estimate from the establishment survey, often referred to as the payroll survey, and one from the household survey. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and 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 206,000 jobs during April. This increase was a little above the increase of 1900,000 to 200,000 that economists had forecast in surveys by the Wall Street Journal and bloomberg.com. The following figure, taken from the BLS report, shows the monthly net changes in employment for each month during the past to years.
It’s notable that the previously reported increases in employment for April and May were revised downward by 110,000 jobs, or by about 25 percent. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”) As we’ve discussed in previous posts (most recently here), revisions to the payroll employment estimates can be particularly large at the beginning of a recession.
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 increased from –408,000 in May (that is, employment by this measure fell during May) to 116,000 in June.
Note that the BLS also reports a survey for household employment adjusted to conform to the concepts and definitions used to construct the payroll employment series. After this adjustment, over the past 12 months household employment has increased by 32.5 million less than has payroll employment. Clearly, this is a very large discrepancy and may be indicating that the payroll survey is substantially overstating growth in employment.
The unemployment rate, which is also reported in the household survey, ticked up slightly from 4.0 percent to 4.1 percent. Although still low by historical standards, June was the fourth consecutive month in which the unemployment rate increased.
The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we note in this post, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage that it is available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure show the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. The 3.9 percent increase for June continues a downward trend that began in January and is the smallest increase since June 2021.
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 3.5 percent in June is a significant decrease from the 5.3 percent rate in May, although it’s unclear whether the decline was an additional sign that the labor market is weakening or reflected the greater volatility in wage inflation when calculated this way.
What effect is today’s job reports likely to have on the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee as it considers changes in its target for the federal funds rate? As always, it’s a good idea not to rely too heavily on a single data point—particularly because, as we noted earlier, the establishment survey employment data is subject to substantial revisions. But the Wall Street Journal’sheadline that the “Case for September Rate Cut Builds After Slower Jobs Data,” seems likely to be accurate.
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.
HubbardOBrienEconomics.com Blog 