Establishment survey – Page 2 – HubbardOBrienEconomics.com Blog

Surprisingly Strong Jobs Report

Image created by ChatGTP=4o of workers on an automobile assembly line.

We noted in a blog post earlier this week that although the preliminary estimate from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) indicated that real GDP had declined during the first quarter of 2025, the report didn’t provide a clear indication that the U.S. economy was in recession. This morning (May 2), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for April. The data in the report also show no sign that the U.S. economy is in a recession. Although there have been many stories in the media about businesspeople becoming increasingly pessimistic, we don’t yet see it in the employment data. We should add two caveats, however: 1. The effects of the large tariff increases the Trump Administration announced on April 2 are likely not reflected in the data from this report, and 2. at the beginning of a recession the data in the jobs report can be subject to large revisions.

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 Federal Reserve policymakers believe that employment data from the establishment survey provide a more accurate indicator of the state of the labor market than do the household survey’s employment data and unemployment data. (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 177,000 jobs during April. This increase was well above the increase of 135,000 that economists surveyed had forecast. Somewhat offsetting this unexpectedly large increase was the BLS revising downward its previous estimates of employment in February and March by a combined 58,000 jobs. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”) The following figure from the jobs report shows the net change in payroll employment for each month in the last two years.

The unemployment rate was unchanged to 4.2 percent in April. As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate has been remarkably stable over the past year, staying between 4.0 percent and 4.2 percent in each month since May 2024. In March, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) forecast that the unemployment rate for 2025 would average 4.4 percent.

As the following figure shows, the monthly net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. As measured by the household survey, there was a net increase of 436,000 jobs in April, following an increase of 201,000 jobs in March. As an indication of the volatility in the employment changes in the household survey note the very large swings in net new jobs in January and February. In any particular month, the story told by the two surveys can be inconsistent with employment increasing in one survey while falling in the other. This month, however, both surveys showed net jobs increasing. (In this blog post, we discuss the differences between the employment estimates in the two surveys.)

The household survey has another indication of continuing strength in the labor market. The employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those aged 25 to 54—increased from 80.4 percent in March to 80.7 percent in April. The prime-age employment-population ratio is somewhat below the high of 80.9 percent in mid-2024, but is above what the ratio was in any month during the period from January 2008 to January 2020.

It remains unclear how many federal workers have been laid off since the Trump Administration took office. The establishment survey shows a decline in total federal government employment of 9,000 in April. However, the BLS notes that: “Employees on paid leave or receiving ongoing severance pay are counted as employed in the establishment survey.” It’s possible that as more federal employees end their period of receiving severance pay, future jobs reports may find a more significant decline in federal employment. To this point, the decline in federal employment has been too small to have a significant effect on the overall labor market.

The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we noted in this post, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage of being available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure shows the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. The AHE increased 3.8 percent in April, which is unchanged from the March increase.

The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic. The April, the 1-month rate of wage inflation was 2.0 percent, down from 3.4 percent in March. If the 1-month increase in AHE is sustained, it would contribute to the Fed’s achieving its 2 percent target rate of price inflation.

Today’s jobs report leaves the situation facing the Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) largely unchanged. Looming over monetary policy, however, is the expected effect of the Trump Administration’s unexpectedly large tariff increases. As we note in this blog post, a large unexpected increase in tariffs results in an aggregate supply shock to the economy. In terms of the basic aggregate demand and aggregate supply model that we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 13 (Economics, Chapter 23), an unexpected increase in tariffs shifts the short-run aggregate supply curve (SRAS) to the left, increasing the price level and reducing the level of real GDP.

One indication of expectations of future changes in the target for the federal funds rate comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) The data from the futures market indicate that, despite the potential effects of the surprisingly large tariff increases, investors don’t expect that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate at its May 6–7 meeting. As shown in the following figure, investors assign a 98.2 percent probability to the committee keeping its target unchanged at 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent at that meeting.

It’s a different story if we look at the end of the year. As the following figure shows, investors now expect that by the end of the FOMC’s meeting on December 9-10, the committee will have implemented at least three 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) cuts in its target range for the federal funds rate. Investors assign a probability of 75.9 percent that the target range will end the year at 3.50 percent to 3.75 percent or lower. At their March meeting, FOMC members projected only two 25 basis point cuts this year—but that was before the announcement of the unexpectedly large tariff increases.

How the economy will fare for the remainder of the year depends heavily on what happens with respect to tariffs. News today that China and the United States may be negotiating lower tariff rates has contributed to rising stock prices. The following figure from the Wall Street Journal shows movements in the S&P stock index over the past year. The index declined sharply on April 2, following President Trump’s announcement of the tariff increases. As of 2 pm today, the S&P index has risen above its value on April 1, meaning that it has recovered all of the losses since the announcement of the tariff increases. The increase in stock prices likely indicates that investors expect that the tariff increases will end up being much smaller than those originally announced and that the chances of a recession happening soon are lower than they appeared to be on April 2.

Strong Jobs Report with No Sign of Recession

Image generated by GTP-4o

In a post earlier this week, we noted that according to the usually reliable GDPNow forecast from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, real GDP in the first quarter will decline by 2.8 percent. (The forecast was updated yesterday on the basis of additional data releases to a slightly less pessimistic –2.4 percent decline.) This morning (March 7), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for February. The data in the report show no sign that the U.S. economy is in a recession. We should add the caveat, however, that at the beginning of a recession the data in the jobs report can be subject to large revisions.

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 Federal Reserve policymakers believe that employment data from the establishment survey provide 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 151,000 jobs during February. This increase was below the increase of 160,000 that economists had forecast. The previously reported increase for December was revised upward, while the previously reported increase for January was revised downward. The net change in jobs, taking the revisions for those two months together, was 2,000 lower than originally estimated. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”) The following figure from the jobs report shows the net change in payroll employment for each month in the last two years.

The unemployment rate rose slightly to 4.1 percent in February from 4.0 percent in January. As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate has been remarkably stable in recent months, staying between 4.0 percent and 4.2 percent in each month since May 2024. Last December, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) forecast that the unemployment rate for 2025 would average 4.3 percent.

As the following figure shows, the net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. The net change in jobs as measured by the household survey for February showed a sharp decrease of 588,000 jobs following a very large increase of 2,234,000 jobs in January. In any particular month, the story told by the two surveys can be inconsistent with employment increasing in one survey while falling in the other. The difference was particularly dramatic this month. (In this blog post, we discuss the differences between the employment estimates in the two surveys.)

Another concerning sign in the household survey is the fall in the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those aged 25 to 54. The ratio declined from 80.7 percent in January to 80.5 percent in February. Although the employment-population is still high relative to the average level since 2001, it’s now well below the high of 80.9 percent in mid-2024. Continuing declines in this ratio would indicate a significant softening in the labor market.

It’s unclear how many federal workers have been laid off since the Trump Administration took office. The household survey shows a decline in total federal government employment of 10,000 in February. The household survey was conducted in the week that included February 12, so, it’s possible that next month’s jobs report may find a more significant decline.

The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we noted in this post, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage of being available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure shows the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. The AHE increased 4.0 percent in February, up slightly from 3.9 percent in January.

The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic. The February 1-month rate of wage inflation was 3.4 percent, a decline from the surprisingly high 5.2 percent rate in December. Whether measured as a 12-month increase or as a 1-month increase, AHE is still increasing somewhat more rapidly than is consistent with the Fed achieving its 2 percent target rate of price inflation.

Today’s jobs report leaves the situation facing the Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) largely unchanged. There are some indications that the economy may be weakening, as shown by some of the data in the jobs report and by some of the data incorporated by the Atlanta Fed in its pessimistic nowcast of first quarter real GDP. But the Fed hasn’t yet brought inflation down to its 2 percent annual target. In addition, it’s unclear how the Trump Administration’s policies—particularly with respect to tariff increases—might affect the economy. Speaking today at an event at the University of Chicago, Fed Chair Jerome Powell observed the following:

“Looking ahead, the new Administration is in the process of implementing significant policy changes in four distinct areas: trade, immigration, fiscal policy, and regulation. It is the net effect of these policy changes that will matter for the economy and for the path of monetary policy. While there have been recent developments in some of these areas, especially trade policy, uncertainty around the changes and their likely effects remains high. As we parse the incoming information, we are focused on separating the signal from the noise as the outlook evolves. We do not need to be in a hurry, and are well positioned to wait for greater clarity.”

The likeliest outcome is that the FOMC will keep its target for the federal funds rate unchanged, perhaps for several meetings, unless additional data are released that clearly show the economy to be weakening.

One indication of expectations of future cuts in the target for the federal funds rate comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) The data from the futures market indicates that investors don’t expect that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate at either its March 18–19 or May 6–7 meetings. As shown in the following figure, only at the FOMC’s June 17–18 meeting do investors assign a greater than 50 percent probability to the committee cutting its target. As of this afternoon, investors assign a probability of only 19.2 percent to the FOMC keeping its target unchanged at 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent at that meeting. They assign a probability of 80.8 percent to the committee cutting its target rate by at least 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) at that meeting.

Strong Jobs Report in the Context of Annual Revisions to the Establishment and Household Surveys

Photo courtesy of Lena Buonanno

This morning (February 7), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for January. This report was particularly interesting because it includes data reflecting the annual benchmark revision to the establishment, or payroll, survey and the annual revision of the household survey data to match new population estimates from the Census Bureau.

According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 143,000 jobs during January. This increase was below the increase of 169,000 to 175,000 that economists had forecast in surveys by the Wall Street Journal and bloomberg.com. The somewhat weak increase in jobs during January was offset by upward revisions to the initial estimates for November and December. The previously reported increases in employment for those months were revised upward by a total of 100,000 jobs. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”)

The BLS also announced the results of its annual revision of the payroll employment data benchmarked to March 2024. The revisions are mainly based on data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). The data in payroll survey are derived from a sample of 300,000 establishments, whereas the QCEW is based on a much more comprehensive count of workers covered by state unemployment insurance programs. The revisions indicated that growth in payroll employment between March 2023 and March 2024 had been overstated by 598,000 jobs. Although large in absolute scale, the revisions equal only 0.4 percent of total employment. In addition, as we discussed in this blog post last August, initially the BLS had estimated that the overstatement in employment gains during this period was an even larger 818,000 jobs. (The BLS provides a comprehensive discuss of its revisions to the establishment employment data here.)

The following table shows the revised estimates for each month of 2024, based on the new benchmarking.

The BLS also revised the household survey data to reflect the latest population estimates from the census bureau. Unlike with the establishment data, the BLS doesn’t adjust the historical household data in light of the population benchmarking. However, the BLS did include two tables in this month’s jobs report illustrating the effect of the new population benchmark. The following table from the report shows the effect of the benchmarking on some labor market data for December 2024. The revision increases the estimate of the civilian noninstitutional population by nearly 3 million, most of which is attributable to an increase in the estimated immigrant population. The increase in the estimate of the number of employed workers was also large at 2 million. (The BLS provides a discussion of the effects of its population benchmarking here.)

The following table shows how the population benchmarking affects changes in estimates of labor market variables between December 2024 and January 2025. The population benchmarking increases the net number of jobs created in January by 234,000 and reduces the increase in the number of persons unemployed by 142,000.

As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate, as reported in the household survey, decreased from 4.1 percent in December to 4.0 percent in January. The figure shows that the unemployment rate has fluctuated in a fairly narrow range over the past year.

The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we’ve noted in previous posts, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage of being available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure shows the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. AHE increased 4.1 percent in January, which was unchanged from the December increase. By this measure, wage growth is still somewhat higher than is consistent with annual price inflation running at the Fed’s target of 2 percent.

There isn’t much in today’s jobs report to change the consensus view that the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at its next meeting on March 18-19. One indication of expectations of future rate cuts comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As shown in the following figure, today these investors assign a probability of 91.5 percent to the FOMC keeping its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at the current range of 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent at the March meeting. Investors assign a probability of only 8.5 percent to the FOMC cutting its target range by 25 basis points at that meeting.

A Slightly Better Than Expected Jobs Report

An image generated by GTP-4o of people going to work.

The Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has its next meeting on December 17-18. Although the committee is expected to lower its target range for the federal funds rate at that meeting, some members of the committee have been concerned that inflation has remained above the committee’s 2 percent annual target. For instance, in an interview on December 4, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said: “Growth is definitely stronger than we thought, and inflation is coming a little higher. The good news is that we can afford to be a little more cautious as we try to find [the] neutral [federal funds rate].”

This morning (December 6), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for November. The report provided data indicating that the labor market remained strong—perhaps stronger than is consistent with the FOMC being willing to rapidly cut its federal funds rate target. The data in the October report (which we discussed in this blog post) were distorted by the effects of hurricanes and strikes. Today’s report indicated a bounce back in the labor market as many workers in areas affected by hurricanes returned to work and key strikes ended.

Economists who had been surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had forecast that payroll employment, as reported in the establishment survey, would increase by 214,000. The BLS reported that payroll employment in November had increased by 227,000, slightly above expectations. The unemployment rate—which is calculated from data in the household survey—was 4.2 percent, up slightly from 4.1 percent in October. In addition, the BLS revised upward its estimates of the employment increases in September and October by a total of 56,000. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”) The following figure, taken from the BLS report, shows the net changes in employment for each month during the past two years.

As the following figure shows, the net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. The net change in jobs as measured by the household survey for November was a decline of 355,000 jobs following a decline of 368,000 jobs in October. So, the story told by the two surveys is somewhat at odds, with a solid employment gain in the establishment survey contrasted with a significant employment decline in the household survey. (In this blog post, we discuss the differences between the employment estimates in the household survey and the employment estimates in the establishment survey.)

The employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those aged 25 to 54—also declined, as shown in the following figure, to 80.4 percent in November from 80.6 percent in October. Although this was the second consecutive month of decline, the employment-population ratio remained high relative to levels seen since 2001.

As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate, which is also reported in the household survey, increased slightly to 4.2 percent in November from 4.1 percent in October. The unemployment is still below its recent high of 4.3 percent in July.

The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we noted in this post, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage that it is available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure shows the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. The AHE increased 4.0 percent in November, the same as in October.

The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic.
The November 1-month rate of wage inflation was 4.5 percent, a decline from the 5.2 percent rate in October. Whether measured as a 12-month increase or as a 1-month increase, AHE is still increasing more rapidly than is consistent with the Fed achieving its 2 percent target rate of price inflation.

Given these data from the jobs report, is it likely that the FOMC will reduce its target range for the federal funds rate at its next meeting? One indication of expectations of future rate cuts comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As shown in the following figure, today these investors assign a probability of 88.8 percent to the FOMC cutting its target range for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) from the current range of 4.50 percent to 4.75 percent, at its next meeting. Investors assign a probability of only 11.2 percent of the committee leaving its target range unchanged.

What do investors expect will happen at the next FOMC meeting after the December 17-18 meeting, which will occur on January 28-29, 2025? As of today, investors assing a probability of only 26.5 percent that the committee will set its target range at 4.00 percent to 4.25 percent, or 50 basis points, below the current target. In other words, only a minority of investors are expecting the committee to cut its target range at both its December and January meetings.

Weaker Than Expected Jobs Report Likely Due to the Effects of Hurricanes and Strikes

Image generated by GTP-4o.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases the “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) monthly. Economists and policymakers follow this report closely because it provides important insight into the current state of the U.S. economy. The October jobs report was released this morning, November 1 As sometimes happens, the data in the report were distorted by unusual events last month, primarily the effects of hurricanes and strikes. The BLS reported the results of its surveys without attempting to correct for these events. With respect to hurricanes, the BLS noted:

“No changes were made to either the establishment or household survey estimation procedures for the October data. It is likely that payroll employment estimates in some industries were affected by the hurricanes; however, it is not possible to quantify the net effect on the over-the-month change in national employment, hours, or earnings estimates because the establishment survey is not designed to isolate effects from extreme weather events. There was no discernible effect on the national unemployment rate from the household survey.”

Economists who participated in various surveys had forecast that payroll employment would increase by 117,500, with the unemployment rate—which is calculated from data in the household survey—being unchanged at 4.1 percent. The forecast of the unemployment rate was accurate, as the BLS reported a 4.1 percent unemployment rate in October. But the BLS reported that payroll employment had increased by only 12,000. In addition, the BLS revised downward its estimates of the employment increases in August and September by a total of 112,000. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”) The following figure, taken from the BLS report, shows the net changes in employment for each month during the past two years.

What had initially seemed to be particularly strong growth in employment in September, possibly indicating a significant increase in the demand for labor, has been partially reversed by the data revision.

As the following figure shows, the net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. The net change in jobs as measured by the household survey for October was a decline of 368,000 jobs after an increase of 430,000 jobs in September. So, the story told by the two surveys was similar: significant weakening in the job market. But we need to keep in mind the important qualification that the job market in some areas of the country had been disrupted by unusual events during the month.

Other data in the jobs report told a more optimistic story of conditions in job market. The following figure shows the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those aged 25 to 54. Although it declined from 80.9 percent to 80.6 percent, it remained high relative to levels seen since 2001.

The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we noted in this post yesterday, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage that it is available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure shows the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. AHE increased 4.0 percent in October, up from a 3.9 percent increase in September.

The October 1-month rate of wage inflation was 4.5 percent, an increase from the 3.8 percent rate in September. Whether measured as a 12-month increase or as a 1-month increase, AHE is increasing more rapidly than is consistent with the Fed achieving its 2 percent target rate of price inflation.

The Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has its next meeting on November 6-7. What effect will this jobs report likely have on the committee’s actions at that meeting? One indication of expectations of future rate cuts comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As shown in the following figure, today these investors assign a probability of 99.8 percent to the FOMC cutting its target for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) at its next meeting. Investors see effectively no chance of the committee leaving its target range unchanged at the current 4.75 percent to 5.00 percent or of the committee cutting its target rate by 50 basis point cut.

Investors don’t appear to believe that the acceleration in wage growth indicated by today’s jobs report will cause the FOMC to pause its rate cutting. Nor do they appear to believe that the unexpectedly small increase in payroll employment will cause the committee to cut its target for the federal funds rate by 50 basis points.

Surprisingly Strong Jobs Report

The “Employment Situation” report (often referred to as the “jobs report”), released monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is always closely followed by economists and policymakers because it provides important insight in the current state of the U.S. economy. The jobs report for August, which was released in early September, showed signs that the labor market was cooling. The report played a role in the decision by the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee to cut its target for the federal funds rate by 0.50 percentage point (50 basis points) at its meeting on September 17-18. A 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) cut would have been more typical.

In a press conference following the meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell explained that one reason that the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) cut its for the federal funds rate by 50 basis points rather than by 25 basis points was the state of the labor market: “In the labor market, conditions have continued to cool. Payroll job gains averaged 116,000 per month over the past three months, a notable step-down from the pace seen earlier in the year.”

The September jobs report released this morning (October 4) indicates that conditions in the labor market appear to have turned around. 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.)

Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal and by Bloomberg had forecast a net increase in payroll employment of 150,000 and an unchanged unemployment rate of 4.2 percent. The BLS reported a higher net increase of 250,000 jobs and a tick down of the unemployment rate to 4.1 percent. In addition, the BLS revised upward its estimates of the employment increases in July and August by a total of 72,000. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”) The following figure, taken from the BLS report, shows the net changes in employment for each month during the past two years.

What had seemed from the BLS’s initial estimates to be slow growth in employment from April to June has been partly reversed by revisions. With the current estimates, employment has been increasing since July at a pace that should reduce any concerns that U.S. economy is on the brink 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 from the establishment survey. The net change in jobs as measured by the household survey increased from 168,000 in August to 430,000 in September. So, in this case the direction of change in the two surveys was the same, with both showing strong increases in the net number of jobs created in September.

As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate, which is also reported in the household survey, decreased slightly for the second month in a row. It declined from 4.2 percent in August to 4.1 percent in September.

The household survey also provides data on the employment-population ratio. The following figure shows the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those aged 25 to 54. It’s been unchanged since July at 80.9 percent, the higest level since 2001.

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 shows the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. AHE increased 4.0 percent in September, up from a 3.9 percent increase in August.

The 1-month rate of wage inflation of 4.5 percent in September is a decrease from the 5.6 percent rate in August. Whether measured as a 12-month increase or as a 1-month increase, AHE is increasing more rapidly than is consistent with the Fed achieving its 2 percent target rate of price inflation.

What effect will this jobs report likely have on the FOMC’s actions at its final two meetings of the year on November 6-7 and December 17-18? Some investors were expecting that the FOMC would cut its target for the federal funds rate by 50 basis points at its next meeting, matching the cut at its September meeting. This jobs report makes it seem more likely that the FOMC will cut its target by 25 basis points.

One indication of expectations of future rate cuts comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As shown in the following figure, today these investors assign a probability of 97.4 percent to the FOMC cutting its target for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points percentage point at its next meeting and a probability of 2.6 percent to the FOMC leaving its target unchanged at a range of 4.75 percent to 5.00 percent. Investors see effectively no chance of a 50 basis point cut at the next meeting.

Mixed Jobs Report Sets the Stage for the FOMC to Cut Fed Funds Target

Image generated by GTP-4o.

The “Employment Situation” report (often referred to as the “jobs report”), which is released monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is always closely followed by economists and policymakers because it provides important insight in the current state of the U.S. economy. This month’s report is considered particularly important because last month’s report indicated that the labor market might be weaker than most economists had believed. As we discussed in a recent blog post, late last month Fed Chair Jerome Powell signaled that the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) was likely to cut its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on September 17-18.

Economists and investment analysts had speculated that following August’s unexpectedly weak jobs report, another weak report might lead the FOMC to cut its federal funds target by 0.50 percentage rate rather than by the more typical 0.25 percent point. The jobs report the BLS released this morning (September 6) was mixed, showing a somewhat lower than expected increase in employment as measured by the establishment survey, but higher wage growth.

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 142,000 jobs during August. This increase was below the increase of 161,000 that economists had forecast in a survey by the Wall Street Journal. The following figure, taken from the BLS report, shows the monthly net changes in employment for each month during the past two years. The BLS revised lower its estimates of the net increase in jobs during June and July by a total of 86,000. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”)

The BLS’s estimate of average monthly job growth during the last three months is now 116,000, a significant decline from an average of 211,000 per month during the previous three months and 251,000 per month during 2023.

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 increased from 67,000 in July to 168,000 in August. So, in this case the direction of change in the two surveys was the same—an increase in the net number of jobs created in August compared with July.

As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate, which is also reported in the household survey, decreased from 4.3 percent to 4.2 percent—breaking what had been a five month string of unemployment rate increases.

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 shows the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. AHE increased 3.8 percent in August, up from a 3.6 percent increase in July.

The 1-month rate of wage inflation of 4.9 percent in August is a significant increase from the 2.8 percent rate in July, although it’s unclear whether the increase represented renewed upward wage pressure in the labor market or reflected the greater volatility in wage inflation when calculated this way.

What effect is this jobs report likely to have on the FOMC’s actions at its September meeting? One indication comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As shown in the following figure, today these investors assign a probability of 73.0 percent to the FOMC cutting its target for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point at its next meeting and a probability of only 27.0 percent that the cut will be 0.50 percentage point. In contrast, after the last jobs report was interpreted to indicate a dramatic slowing of the economy, investors assigned a probability of 79.5 percent to a 0.50 cut in the federal funds rate target.

It seems most likely following today’s mixed job report that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percent point from the current target range of 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent to a range of 5.00 percent to 5.25 percent. The report doesn’t indicate the significant weakening in the labor market that was probably needed to push the committee to cutting its target by 0.50 percent point.

What Are “Principal Federal Economic Indicators?”

Image generated by GTP-4o “illustrating the concept of federal economic statistics.”

Government economic statistics help guide the actions of policymakers, firms, households, workers, and investors. As a recent report from the American Statistical Association expressed it:

“Official statistics from the federal government are a critically important source of needed information in the United States for policymakers and the public, providing information that meets the highest professional standards of relevance, accuracy, timeliness, credibility, and objectivity.”

Government agencies consider some of these statistics to be of particular importance. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated 36 data series as being principal federal economic indicators (PFEIs). Many of these are key macroeconomic data series, such as the consumer price index (CPI), gross domestic product (GDP), and unemployment. Others, such as housing vacancies and natural gas storage, are less familiar although important in assessing conditions in specific sectors of the economy.

Since 1985, the preparation and release of PFEIs has been governed by OMB Statistical Policy Directive No. 3. Among other things, Directive No. 3 is intended to ‘‘preserve the distinction between the policy-neutral release of data by statistical agencies and their interpretation by policy officials.’’ Although some politicians and commentators claim otherwise, federal government statistical agencies, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), are largely staffed by career government employees whose sole objective is to gather and release the most accurate data possible with the funds that Congress allocates to them.

Directive No. 3 also requires the statistical agencies to act so as to ‘‘prevent early access to information that may affect financial and commodity markets.’’ Unfortunately, several times recently the BLS has been subject to criticism for releasing data early or releasing data to financial firms before the official public release of the data. For instance, on August 21, 2o24 the BLS was scheduled to release at 10:00 a.m. its annual benchmark revision of employment estimates from the establishment survey. (We discuss this release in this blog post.) Because of technical problems, the public release was delayed until 10:30. During that half hour, analysts at some financial firms called the BLS and were given the data over the phone. Doing so was contraty to Directive No. 3 because the employment data are a PFEI, which obliges the BLS to take special care that the data aren’t made available to anyone before their public release.

The New York Times filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the BLS in order to investigate the cause of several instances of the agency releasing data early. In an article summarizing the information the paper received as a result of its FOIA request, the reporters concluded that “the information [the BLS] has provided [about the reasons for the early data releases] has at times proved inaccurate or incomplete.” The BLS has pledged to take steps to ensure that in the future it will comply fully with Directive No. 3.

In a report discussing the difficulties federal agencies statistical have in meeting their obligations responsibilities, the American Statistical Association singled out two problems: the declining reponse rate to surveys—particularly notable with respect to the establishment employment survey—and tight budget constraints, which are hampering the ability of some agencies to hire the staff and to obtain the other resources necessary to collect and report data in an accurate and timely manner.

Unexpectedly Weak Employment Report; Beware the Sahm Rule?

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.

How Should the Fed Interpret the Monthly Employment Reports?

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.