Macroeconomics – Page 10 – HubbardOBrienEconomics.com Blog

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 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 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.

Latest PCE Report Indicates that Inflation May Be Approaching the Fed’s Target

The result when asking GTP-4o to generate “an image illustrating inflation.”

Inflation, as measured by changes in the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, continued a slow decline that began in March. (The Fed uses annual changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2 percent annual inflation target.) On August 30, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released its “Personal Income and Outlays” report for July, which contains monthly PCE data.

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 percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. Measured this way, in July PCE inflation (the blue line) was 2.5 percent, the same as in June. Core PCE inflation (the red line) in July was 2.6 percent, which was also unchanged from June.

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 rose in July to 1.7 percent from 0.7 percent in July—although higher in July, inflation was below the Fed’s 2 percent target in both months. Core PCE inflation was 2.0 percent in July, which was unchanged from June. These data indicate that inflation has been at or below the Fed’s target for the last three months.

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), inflation measured using only the prices of the services included in the PCE (the green line), and the trimmed mean rate of PCE inflation (the red 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 2.7 percent in July (calculated as a 12-month inflation rate), down only slightly from 2.8 percent in June—and still above the Fed’s target inflation rate of 2 percent. Inflation in services remained high in July at 3.7 percent, although down from 3.9 percent in June.

On balance, taking together these various measures, inflation seems on track to return to the Fed’s 2 percent target. As we noted in this earlier post, last week in a speech at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s monetary policy symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming , Fed Chair Jerome Powell all but confirmed that the the Fed’s policy-maiking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will cut its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on September 17-18. There was nothing in this latest PCE report to reduce the likelihood of the FOMC cutting its target at that meeting by an expected 0.25 percent point from a range of 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent to a range of 5.00 percent to 5.25 percent. There also is nothing in the report that would increase likelihood that the committee will cut its target by 0.50 percentage point, as many investors expected following the weak employment report released by the Bureau of labor Statistics (BLS) at the beginning of August. (We discuss this report and the reaction among investors in this post.)

Glenn’s Interview with Jim Pethokoukis

Glenn discusses Fed policy, the state of the U.S economy, economic growth, China in the world economy, industrial policy, protectionism, and other topics in this episode of the Political Economy podcast from the American Enterprise Institute.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/glenn-hubbard-a-pro-growth-policy-agenda/id589914386?i=1000665131415

Fed Chair Powell Indicates that Rate Cuts Will Begin Soon

Photo of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell from federalreserve.gov

Federal Reserve chairs often take the opportunity of the Kansas City Fed’s annual monetary policy symposium held in Jackson Hole, Wyoming to provide a summary of their views on monetary policy and on the state of the economy. In speeches, Fed chairs are careful not to preempt decisions of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) by stating that policy changes will occur that the committee hasn’t yet agreed to. In his speech at Jackson Hole on Friday (August 23), Powell came about as close as Fed chairs ever do to announcing a policy change in a speech.

In the speech, Powell indicated that: “The time has come for policy to adjust. The direction of travel is clear, and the timing and pace of rate cuts will depend on incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks.” The statement is effectively an announcement that the FOMC will reduce its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on September 17-18. By referring to “the timing and pace of rate cuts,” Powell was indicating that the FOMC was likely to eventually reduce its target for the federal funds rate well below its current 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent, although the reductions will be spread out over a number of meetings.

The minutes of the FOMC’s last meeting on July 30-31 were released on August 21. The minutes stated that: “The vast majority [of committee members] observed that, if the data continued to come in about as expected, it would likely be appropriate to ease policy at the next meeting.” The apparent consensus at the July meeting that the target for the federal funds rate should be reduced at the September meeting was likely the key reason why Powell was so forthright in his speech.

In his speech, Powell summarized his views on the reasons that inflation accelerated in 2021 and why it has slowly declined since reaching a peak in the summer of 2022:

“[The analysis of events that Powell supports] attributes much of the increase in inflation to an extraordinary collision between overheated and temporarily distorted demand and constrained supply. While researchers differ in their approaches and, to some extent, in their conclusions, a consensus seems to be emerging, which I see as attributing most of the rise in inflation to this collision. All told, the healing from pandemic distortions, our efforts to moderate aggregate demand, and the anchoring of expectations have worked together to put inflation on what increasingly appears to be a sustainable path to our 2 percent objective.”

As he has over the past three years, Powell emphasized the importance of expectations having remained “anchored,” meaning that households and firms continued to expect that the annual inflation rate would return to 2 percent, even when the current inflation rose far above that rate. We discuss how expectations of inflation affect the current inflation rate in Macroeconomics, Chapter 17 (Economics, Chapter 27).

Where Did 818,000 Jobs Go?

Image of “people attending a job fair” generated by GTP-4o

On Wednesday, August 21, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued revised estimates of the increase in employment, as measured by the establishment survey, over the period from April 2023 through March 2024. The BLS had initially estimated that on average during that period net employment had increased by 242,000 jobs per month. The revision lowered this estimate by 28 percent to an average of only 174,000 net new jobs created per month. The difference between those two monthly averages means that the U.S. economy had generated a total of 818,000 fewer jobs during that period.

Why does the BLS have to revise its employment estimates? As we discuss in Macroeonomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1) the initial estimates that the BLS issues each month in its “Employment Situation” reports are based on a sample of 300,000 establishments. The monthly data also rely on estimates of the number of employees at establishments that opened or closed during the month and on employment changes at establishments that failed to respond to the survey. In August of each year, the BLS issues revised employment estimates based on state unemployment insurance tax records, which are much more comprehensive than the original sample of establishments because nearly all employers are included.

Although this year’s revision is particularly large in absolute terms—the largest since 2009—it still represents only about 0.5 percent of the more than 158 million people employed in the U.S. economy. How will this revision affect the decision by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) at its next meeting on September 17-18 to cut or maintain its target for the federal funds rate? The members of the committee were probably not surprised by the downward revision in the employment estimates, although they may have anticipated that the revision would be smaller. In five of the past six years, the BLS has revised its estimates of payroll employment downward in its annual benchmark revision.

In his press conference following the June 12 FOMC meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell observed that “you have payroll jobs still coming in strong, even though, you know, there’s an argument that they may be a bit overstated.” (Note that FOMC members don’t receive the data in BLS reports until the reports are publicly released.) As we noted in this recent post, even before the BLS revised its employment estimates downward, recent monthly increases were below the level likely needed to keep up with population growth—so-called breakeven employment growth. There was already a high likelihood that the FOMC intended to cut its target for the federal funds rate at its September meeting. The substantial downward revision in the employment data makes a cut nearly a certainty.

Chair Powell is scheduled to give a speech on Friday morning at the Kansas City Fed’s annual monetary policy symposium held in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. During that speech, he’s likely to give his reaction to the revised employment data—and the state of the labor market more generally.

CPI Inflation Is Lowest Since March 2021

Photo courtesy of Lena Buonanno

Today (August 14), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly report on the consumer price index (CPI), which showed inflation falling below 3 percent for the first time since March 2021.

As the following figure shows, the inflation rate for July measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous month—headline inflation (the blue line)—was 2.9 percent down from 3.0 percent in June. Core inflation (the red line)—which excludes the prices of food and energy—was 3.2 percent in July, down from 3.3 percent in June.

As the following figure shows, if we look at the 1-month inflation rate for headline and core inflation—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year—we see an increase in the inflation rate in July, but the increase is from the very low levels in June. Headline inflation (the blue line) increased from –0.7 percent in June (which means that consumer price actually fell that month) to 1.9 percent in July. Core inflation (the red line) increased from 0.8 percent in June to 2.o percent in July. Overall, we can say that, taking 1-month and 12 month inflation together, the U.S. economy seems on course for a soft landing—with the annual inflation rate returning to the Fed’s 2 percent target without the economy being pushed into a recession. (Note, though, that the Fed uses the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, rather than the CPI in evaluating whether it is hitting its 2 percent inflation target.)

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and his colleagues on the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) have been closely following inflation in the price of shelter. The price of “shelter” in the CPI, as explained here, includes both rent paid for an apartment or house and “owners’ equivalent rent of residences (OER),” which is an estimate of what a house (or apartment) would rent for if the owner were renting it out. OER is included to account for the value of the services an owner receives from living in an apartment or house.

As the following figure shows, inflation in the price of shelter has been a significant contributor to headline inflation. The blue line shows 12-month inflation in shelter and the red line shows 1-month inflation in shelter. Twelve-month inflation in shelter continued its decline that began in the spring of 2023, falling from 5.1 percent in June to 5.0 percent July. One-month inflation in shelter—which is much more volatile than 12-month inflation in shelter—increased from 2.1 percent in June to 4.6 percent in July. The value for 1-month inflation in shelter may concern the members of the FOMC, but the continuing decline in in the less volatile 12-month inflation in shelter provides some reassurance that inflation in shelter is likely continuing to decline.

Finally, in order to get a better estimate of the underlying trend in inflation, some economists look at median inflation and trimmed mean inflation. Median inflation is calculated by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and Ohio State University. If we listed the inflation rate in each individual good or service in the CPI, median inflation is the inflation rate of the good or service that is in the middle of the list—that is, the inflation rate in the price of the good or service that has an equal number of higher and lower inflation rates. Trimmed mean inflation drops the 8 percent of good and services with the higherst inflation rates and the 8 percent of goods and services with the lowest inflation rates.

As the following figure (from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland) shows, median inflation (the brown line) ticked up slightly from 4.2 percent in June to 4.3 percent in July. Trimmed mean inflation (the blue line) was unchanged in July at 3.3 percent. One conclusion from these data is that headline and core inflation may be somewhat understating the underlying rate of inflation.

For the past few weeks investores in financial markets have been expecting that recent inflation and employment data will lead the FOMC to cut its target for the federal funds at its next meeting on Septembe 17-18 .

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

The probabilities in the chart reflect investors’ predictions of what the FOMC’s target for the federal funds rate will be after the committee’s September meeting. The chart indicates that investors assign a probability of 35.5 percent to the FOMC cutting its target range for the federal funds rate by 0.50 percentage point from the current 5.25 prcent to 5.50 percent to 4.75 percent to 5.25 percent. Investors assign a much larger probability—64.5 percent—to the FOMC cutting its target range for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point to 5.00 percent to 5.25 percent.

It would most likely require the next BLS “Employment Situation” report—which is scheduled for release on September 6—to show unexpected weakness for the FOMC to cut its target for the federal funds rate by more than 0.25 percentage point.

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.

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 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.