Federal Reserve – Page 12 – HubbardOBrienEconomics.com Blog

Latest Jobs Report May Indicate the Labor Market Is Weakening

Image generated by ChatGTP 4o.

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 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’s headline that the “Case for September Rate Cut Builds After Slower Jobs Data,” seems likely to be accurate.

Latest JOLTS Report Confirms that the Labor Market Is Returning to Pre-Pandemic Conditions

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.)

Latest PCE Report Shows Inflation Slowing

Chair Jerome Powell and other members of the Federal Open Market Committee (Photo from federalreserve.gov)

On Friday, June 28, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released its “Personal Income and Outlays” report for April, which includes monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index. Inflation as measured by annual changes in the consumer price index (CPI) receives the most attention in the media, but the Federal Reserve looks instead to inflation as measured by annual changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2 percent annual inflation target.

The following figure shows PCE inflation (blue line) and core PCE inflation (red line)—which excludes energy and food prices—for the period since January 2015 with inflation measured as the change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. Measured this way, in May PCE inflation (the blue line) was 2.6 percent in May, down slightly from PCE inflation of 2.7 percent in April. Core PCE inflation (the red line) in May was also 2.6 percent, down from 2.8 percent in April.

The following figure shows PCE inflation and core PCE inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month inflation, while this figure shows 1-month inflation.) Measured this way, PCE inflation sharply declined from 3.2 percent in April to -0.1 percent in in May—meaning that consumer prices actually fell during May. Core PCE inflation declined from 3.2 percent in April to 1.0 percent in May. This decline indicates that inflation by either meansure slowed substantially in May, but data for a single month should be interpreted with caution.

The following figure shows another way of gauging inflation by including the 12-month inflation rate in the PCE (the same as shown in the figure above—although note that PCE inflation is now the red line rather than the blue line), inflation as measured using only the prices of the services included in the PCE (the green line), and the trimmed mean rate of PCE inflation (the blue line). Fed Chair Jerome Powell and other members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) have said that they are concerned by the persistence of elevated rates of inflation in services. The trimmed mean measure is compiled by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas by dropping from the PCE the goods and services that have the highest and lowest rates of inflation. It can be thought of as another way of looking at core inflation by excluding the prices of goods and services that had particularly high or particularly low rates of inflation during the month.

Inflation using the trimmed mean measure was 2.8 percent in May (calculated as a 12-month inflation rate), down only slightly from 2.9 percent in April—and still well above the Fed’s target inflation rate of 2 percent. Inflation in services remained high in May at 3.9 percent, down only slightly from 4.0 percent in April.

This month’s PCE inflation data indicate that the inflation rate is still declining towards the Fed’s target, with the low 1-month inflation rates being particularly encouraging. But the FOMC will likely need additional data before deciding to lower the committee’s target for the federal funds rate, which is currently 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent. The next meeting of the FOMC is July 30-31. What do financial markets think the FOMC will decide at that meeting?

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 July meeting. The chart indicates that investors assign a probability of only 10.3 percent to the FOMC cutting its federal funds rate target by 0.25 percentage point at that meeting and an 89.7 percent probability of the commitee leaving the target unchanged.

In contrast, the following figure shows that investors expect that the FOMC will cut its federal funds rate at the meeting scheduled for September 17-18. Investors assign a 57.9 percent probability of a 0.25 percentage point cut and a 6.2 percent probability of a 0.50 percentage point cut. The committee deciding to leave the target unchanged at 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent is assigned a probability of only 35.9 percent.

Is the U.S Labor Market Weaker Than It Seems?

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.

Latest CPI Report Shows Slowing Inflation and the FOMC Appears Likely to Cut Its Target for the Federal Funds Rate at Least Once This Year

Image of “a woman shopping in a grocery store” generated by ChatGTP 4o.

Today (June 12) we had the unusual coincidence of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releasing its monthly report on the consumer price index (CPI) on the same day that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) concluded a meeting. The CPI report showed that the inflation rate had slowed more than expected. As the following figure shows, the inflation rate for May measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous month—headline inflation (the blue line)—was 3.3 percent—slightly below the 3.4 percent rate that economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had expected, and slightly lower than the 3.4 percent rate in April. Core inflation (the red line(—which excludes the prices of food and energy—was 3.4 percent in May, down from 3.6 percent in April and slightly lower than the 3.5 percent rate that economists had been expecting.

As the following figure shows, if we look at the 1-month inflation rate for headline and core inflation—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year—the declines in the inflation rate are much larger. Headline inflation (the blue line) declined from 3.8 percent in April to 0.1 percent in May. Core inflation (the red line) declined from 3.6 percent in April to 2.0 percent in May. Overall, we can say that inflation has cooled in May and if inflation were to continue at the 1-month rate, the Fed will have succeeded in bringing the U.S. economy in for a soft landing—with the annual inflation rate returning to the Fed’s 2 percent target without the economy being pushed into a recession.

But two important notes of caution:

1. It’s hazardous to rely to heavily on data from a single month. Over the past year, the BLS has reported monthly inflation rates that were higher than economists expected and rates that was lower than economists expected. The current low inflation rate would have to persist over at least a few more months before we can safely conclude that the Fed has achieved a safe landing.

2. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.5 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.5), the Fed uses the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, rather than the CPI in evaluating whether it is hitting its 2 percent inflation target. So, today’s encouraging CPI data would have to carry over to the PCE data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) will release on January 28 before we can conclude that inflation as the Fed tracks it did in fact slow significantly in April.

The BLS released the CPI report at 8:30 am eastern time. The FOMC began its meeting later in the day and so committee members were able to include in their deliberations today’s CPI data along with other previously available information on the state of the economy. At the close of the meeting, , the FOMC released a statement in which it stated, as expected, that it would leave its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent. After the meeting, the committee also released—as it typically does at its March, June, September, and December meetings—a “Summary of Economic Projections” (SEP), which presents median values of the committee members’ forecasts of key economic variables. The values are summarized in the following table, reproduced from the release.

The table shows that compared with their projections in March—the last time the FOMC published the SEP—committee members were expecting higher headline and core PCE inflation and a higher federal funds rate at the end of this year. In the long run, committee members were expecting a somewhat highr unemployment rate and somewhat higher federal funds rate than they had expected in March.

Note, as we discuss in Macreconomics, Chapter 14, Section 14.4 (Economics, Chapter 24, Section 24.4 and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 16, Section 16.4), there are twelve voting members of the FOMC: the seven members of the Board of Governors, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and presidents of four of the other 11 Federal Reserve Banks, who serve one-year rotating terms. In 2024, the presidents of the Richmond, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Cleveland Feds are voting members. The other Federal Reserve Bank presidents serve as non-voting members, who participate in committee discussions and whose economic projections are included in the SEP.

Prior to the meeting there was much discussion in the business press and among investment analysts about the dot plot, shown below. Each dot in the plot represents the projection of an individual committee member. (The committee doesn’t disclose which member is associated with which dot.) Note that there are 19 dots, representing the 7 members of the Fed’s Board of Governors and all 12 presidents of the Fed’s district banks.

The plots on the far left of the figure represent the projections of each of the 19 members of the value of the federal funds rate at the end of 2024. Four members expect that the target for the federal funds rate will be unchanged at the end of the year. Seven members expect that the committee will cut the target range once, by 0.25 percentage point, by the end of the year. And eight members expect that the cut target range twice, by a total of 0.50 percent point, by the end of the year. Members of the business media and financial analysts were expecting tht the dot plot would project either one or two target rate cuts by the end of the year. The committee was closely divided among those two projections, with the median projection being for a single rate cut.

In its statement following the meeting, the committee noted that:

“In considering any adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. The Committee does not expect it will be appropriate to reduce the target range until it has gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2 percent. In addition, the Committee will continue reducing its holdings of Treasury securities and agency debt and agency mortgage‐backed securities. The Committee is strongly committed to returning inflation to its 2 percent objective.”

In his press conference after the meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted that the morning’s CPI report was a “Better inflation report than nearly anyone expected.” But, Powell also noted that: “You don’t want to be motivated any one data point.” Reinforcing the view quoted above in the committee’s statement, Powell emphasized that before cutting the target for the federal funds rate, the committee would need “Greater confidence that inflation is moving back to 2% on a sustainable basis.”

In summary, today’s CPI report was an indication that the Fed is on track to bring about a soft landing, but the FOMC will be closely analyzing macroeconomic data over at least the next few months before it is willing to cut its target for the federal funds rate.

What Does the Latest Jobs Report Tell Us about the State of the U.S. Economy?

Image of “people working in a store” generated by ChatGTP 4o.

This morning (June 7), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report for May. Recent government releases of macroeconomic data have indicated that the expansion of the U.S. economy is slowing. For instance, as we noted in this recent post on the JOLTS report, the labor market seems to be normalizing. Real personal consumption expenditures declined from March to April. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Nowcast of real GDP growth during the current quarter declined from 2.74 percent at the end of April to 1.76 percent at the end of May. That decline reflects some weakness in the data series the economists at the New York Fed use to forecast current real GDP growth

In that context, today’s jobs report was, on balance, surprisingly strong. The report has two estimates of the change in employment during the month: one estimate from the establishment survey, often referred to as the payroll survey, and one from the household survey. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and policymakers at the Federal Reserve believe that employment data from the establishment survey provides a more accurate indicator of the state of the labor market than do either the employment data or the unemployment data from the household survey. (The groups included in the employment estimates from the two surveys are somewhat different, as we discuss in this post.)

According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 272,000 jobs during May. This increase was well below the increase of 190,000 that economists had forecast in a survey by the Wall Street Journal and well above the net increase of 165,000 during April. (Bloomberg’s survey of economists yielded a similar forecast of an increase of 180,000.) The increase was also higher than the 232,000 average monthly increase during the past year. The following figure, taken from the BLS report, shows the monthly net changes in employment for each month during the past two years.

The surprising strength in employment growth in establishment survey was not echoed in the household survey, which reported a net decrease of 408,000 jobs. 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, and—as noted earlier—the two surveys are of somewhat different groups. Still, the discrepancy between the two survey was notable.

The unemployment rate, which is also reported in the household survey, ticked up slightly from 3.9 percent to 4.0 percent. This is the first time that the unemployment has reached 4.0 percent since January 2022.

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 4.1 percent increase in May was a slight increase from the 4.0 percent increase in April. The increase in the rate of wage inflation is in contrast with the decline in employment and increase in the unemployment rate in the same report.

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 4.9 percent in May is a sharp increase from the 2.8 percent rate in April, although it’s unclear whether the increase represents a significant acceleration in wage inflation or is just reflecting the greater volatility in wage inflation when calculated this way.

To answer the question posed in the title to this post, the latest jobs report is a mixed bag that doesn’t send a clear message as to the state of the economy. The strong increase in employment and the increase in the rate of wage growth indicate that economy may not be slowing sufficiently to result in inflation declining to the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent annual target. On the other hand, the decline in employment as measured in the household survey and the tick up in the unemployment rate, along with the data in the recent JOLTS report, indicate that the labor market may be returning to more normal conditions.

It seems unlikely that this jobs report will have much effect on the thinking of the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which has its next meeting next week on June 11-12.

Solved Problem: The Fed and the Value of Money

Supports: Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Economics, Chapter 25, Essentials of Economics, Chapter 17, and Money, Banking, and the Financial System, Chapter 15.

Image generated by ChatGTP-4o.

In a book review in the Wall Street Journal, the financial writer James Grant referred to “the Federal Reserve’s goal to cheapen the dollar by 2% a year.”

Briefly explain what “cheapen the dollar” means.
Briefly explain what Grant means by writing that the Fed has a “goal to cheapen the dollar by 2% a year.”
Do you agree with Grant that the Fed has this goal? Briefly explain.

Solving the Problem
Step 1: Review the chapter material. This problem is about the economic effects of the Federal Reserve’s policy goal of a 2 percent annual inflation rate, so you may want to review Chapter 15, Section 15.5, “A Closer Look at the Fed’s Setting Monetary Policy Targets.”

Step 2: Answer part a. by explaining what “cheapen the dollar” means. Judging from the context, “cheapen the dollar” means to reduce the purchasing power of a dollar. Whenever inflation occurs, the amount of goods and services a dollar can purchase declines. If the inflation rate in a year is 10 percent, than at the end of the year $1,000 can buy 10 percent fewer goods and services than it could at the beginning of the year.

Step 3: Answer part b. by expalining what Grant means by the Fed having a goal of cheapening the dollar by 2 percent a year. Congress has given a dual mandate of high employment and price stability. Since 2012, the Fed has interpreted a 2 percent annual inflation rate as meeting its mandate for price stability. So, Grant means that the Fed’s 2 percent annual inflation goal in effect is also a goal to cheapen—or reduce the purchasing power of the dollar—by 2 percent a year.

Step 4: Answer part c. by explaining whether you agree with Grant that the Fed has a goal of cheapening the dollar by 2 percent a year. As explained in the answer to part b., there is a sense in which Grant is correct; the Fed’s goal of a 2 percent inflation rate is a goal of allowing the purchasing power of the dollar to decline by 2 percent a year. One complication, however, is that most economists believe that changes in price indexes such as the consumer price index (CPI) and the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index overstate the actual amount of inflation occurring in the economy. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.4 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.4, and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 13, Section 13.4), there are several biases that cause price indexes to overstate the true inflation rate; the most important of the biases is the failure of price indexes to take fully into account improvements over time in the quality of many goods and services. If increases in price indexes are overstating the inflation rate by one percentage point, then the Fed’s goal of a 2 percent inflation rate results in the dollar losing 1 percent—rather than 2 percent—of its purchasing power over time, corrected for changes in quality.

Another Middling Inflation Report

A meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (Photo from federalreserve.gov)

On Friday, May 31, the Bureau of Eeconomic Analysis (BEA) released its “Personal Income and Outlays” report for April, which includes monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index. Inflation as measured by changes in the consumer price index (CPI) receives the most attention in the media, but the Federal Reserve looks instead to inflation as measured by changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2 percent annual inflation target.

The following figure shows PCE inflation (blue line) and core PCE inflation (red line)—which excludes energy and food prices—for the period since January 2015 with inflation measured as the change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. Measured this way, PCE inflation in April was 2.7 percent, which was unchanged since March. Core PCE inflation was also unchanged in April at 2.8 percent. (Note that carried to two digits past the decimal place, both measures decreased slightly in April.)

The following figure shows PCE inflation and core PCE inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month inflation, while this figure shows 1-month inflation.) Measured this way, PCE inflation declined from 4.1 percent in March to 3.1 percent in April. Core PCE inflation declined from 4.1 percent in March to 3.0 percent in April. This decline may indicate that inflation is slowing, but data for a single month should be interpreted with caution and, even with this decline, inflation is still above the Fed’s 2 percent target.

The following figure shows another way of gauging inflation by including the 12-month inflation rate in the PCE (the same as shown in the figure above—although note that PCE inflation is now the red line rather than the blue line), inflation as measured using only the prices of the services included in the PCE (the green line), and the trimmed mean rate of PCE inflation (the blue line). Fed Chair Jerome Powell has said that he is particularly concerned by elevated rates of inflation in services. The trimmed mean measure is compiled by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas by dropping from the PCE the goods and services that have the highest and lowest rates of inflation. It can be thought of as another way of looking at core inflation by excluding the prices of goods and services that had particularly high or particularly low rates of inflation during the month.

Inflation using the trimmed mean measure was 2.9 percent in April, down from 3.0 percent in March. Inflation in services remained high, although it declined slightly from 4.0 percent in March to 3.9 percent in April.

It seems unlikely that this month’s PCE data will have much effect on when the members of the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will decide to lower the target for the federal funds rate. The next meeting of the FOMC is June 11-12. That meeting is one of the four during the year at which the committee publishes a Summary of Economic Projections (SEP). The SEP should provide greater insight into what committee members expect will happen with inflation during the remained of the year and whether it’s likely that the committee will lower its target for the federal funds rate this year.

Inflation Cools Slightly in Latest CPI Report

Inflation was running higher than expected during the first three months of 2024, indicating that the trend in late 2023 of declining inflation had been interrupted. At the beginning of the year, many economists and analysts had expected that the Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) would begin cutting its target for the federal funds rate sometime in the middle of the year. But with inflation persisting above the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target, it has become likely that the FOMC will wait until later in the year to start cutting its target and might decide to leave the target unchanged through the remainder of 2024.

Accordingly, economists and policymakers were intently awaiting the report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on the consumer price index (CPI) for April. The report released this morning showed a slight decrease in inflation, although the inflation rate remains well above the Fed’s 2 percent target. (Note that, as we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.5 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.5), the Fed uses the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, rather than the CPI in evaluating whether it is hitting its 2 percent inflation target.)

The inflation rate for April measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous month—headline inflation—was 3.4 percent—about the same as economists had expected—down from 3.5 percent in March. As the following figure shows, core inflation—which excludes the prices of food and energy—was 3.6 percent in April, down from 3.8 percent in March.

If we look at the 1-month inflation rate for headline and core inflation—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year—the declines in the inflation rate are larger. Headline inflation declined from 4.6 percent in March to 3.8 percent in April. Core inflation declined from 4.4 percent in March to 3.6 percent in April. Note that the value for core inflation is the same whether we measure over 12 months or over 1 month. Overall, we can say that inflation seems to have cooled in April, but it still remains well above the Fed’s 2 percent target.

As has been true in recent months, the path of inflation in the prices of services has been concerning. As we’ve noted in earlier posts, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has emphasized that as supply chain problems have gradually been resolved, inflation in the prices of goods has been rapidly declining. But inflaion in services hasn’t declined nearly as much. Powell has been particularly concernd about how slowly the price of housing has been declining, a point he made again in the press conference that followed the most recent FOMC meeting.

The following figure shows the 1-month inflation rate in service prices and in service prices not included including housing rent. The figure shows that inflation in all service prices has been above 4 percent in every month since July 2023, but inflation in service prices slowed markedly from 6.6 percent in March to 4.4 percent in April. Inflation in service prices not including housing rent declined more than 50 percent, from 8.9 percent in March to 3.4 percent in April. But, again, even though inflation in service prices declined in April, as the figure shows, the 1-month inflation in services is volatile and even these smaller increases aren’t yet consistent with the Fed meeting its 2 percent inflation target.

Finally, in order to get a better estimate of the underlying trend in inflation, some economists look at median inflation, which is calculated by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and Ohio State University. If we listed the inflation rate in each individual good or service in the CPI, median inflation is the inflation rate of the good or service that is in the middle of the list—that is, the inflation rate in the price of the good or service that has an equal number of higher and lower inflation rates. As the following figure shows, at 4.3 percent, median inflation in April was unchanged from its value in March.

Today’s report was good news for the Fed in its attempts to reduce the inflation rate to its 2 percent target without pushing the U.S. economy into a recession. But Fed Chair Jerome Powell and other members of the FOMC have made clear that they are unlikely to begin cutting the target for the federal funds rate until they receive several months worth of data indicating that inflation has clearly resumed the downward path it was on during the last months of 2023. The unexpectedly high inflation data for the first three months of 2024 has clearly had a significant effect on Fed policy. Powell was quoted yesterday as noting that: “We did not expect this to be a smooth road, but these [inflation readings] were higher than I think anybody expected,”

What Can We Conclude from a Weaker than Expected Employment Report?

This morning (May 3), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report for April. The report has two estimates of the change in employment during the month: one estimate from the establishment survey, often referred to as the payroll survey, and one from the household survey. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and policymakers at the Federal Reserve believe that employment data from the establishment survey provides a more accurate indicator of the state of the labor market than do either the employment data or the unemployment data from the household survey. (The groups included in the employment estimates from the two surveys are somewhat different, as we discuss in this post.)

According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 175,000 jobs during April. This increase was well below the increase of 240,000 that economists had forecast in a survey by the Wall Street Journal and well below the net increase of 315,000 during March. The following figure, taken from the BLS report, shows the monthly net changes in employment for each month during the past to years.

The unemployment rate, which is also reported in the household survey, ticked up slightly from 3.8 percent to 3.9 percent. It has been below 4 percent every month since February 2022.

The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we note in this recent post, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage that it is available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure show the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. The 3.9 percent value for April continues a downward trend that began in February.

The 1-month rate of wage inflation of 2.4 percent in April is a significant decrease from the 4.2 percent rate in March, although it’s unclear whether the decline was a sign that the labor market is weakening or reflected the greater volatility in wage inflation when calculated this way.

The macrodata released during the first three months of the year had, by and large, indicated strong economic growth, with the pace of employment increases being particularly rapid. Wages were also increasing at a pace above that during the pre-Covid period. Inflation appeared to be stuck in the range of 3 percent to 3.5 percent, above the Fed’s target inflation rate of 2 percent.

Today’s “Employment Situation” report may be a first indication that growth is slowing sufficiently to allow the inflation rate to fall back to 2 percent. This is the outcome that Fed Chair Jerome Powell indicated in his press conference on Wednesday that he expected to occur at some point during 2024. Financial markets reacted favorably to the release of the report with stock prices jumping and the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note falling. Many economists and Wall Street analysts had concluded that the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) was likely to keep its target for the federal funds rate unchanged until late in the year and might not institute a cut in the target at all this year. Today’s report caused some Wall Street analysts to conclude, as the headline of an article in the Wall Street Journal put it, “Jobs Data Boost Hopes of a Late-Summer Rate Cut.”

This reaction may be premature. Data on employment from the establishment survey can be subject to very large revisions, which reinforces the general caution against putting too great a weight one month’s data. Its most likely that the FOMC would need to see several months of data indicating a slowing in economic growth and in the inflation rate before reconsidering whether to cut the target for the federal funds rate earlier than had been expected.