Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index – Page 3

As Expected, FOMC Cuts Target for the Federal Funds Rate by 0.25 Percentage Point

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speaks at a press conference following a meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee. (Photo from federalreserve.gov)

Members of the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had signaled that the committee was likely to cut its target range for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) at its meeting today (December 18). As we noted in this recent post, investors had overwhelming expected a cut of this size. Although the committee followed through with a 25 basis point cut, Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted in a press conference following the meeting that it was a “closer call” than were the two earlier cuts this year. The statement the committee released after the meeting showed that only one member—Beth M. Hammack, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland—ended up voting against the decision to cut the target rate.

In his press conference, Powell noted that although there were some indications that the labor market has weakened, the committee believed that unemployment was likely to remain near the natural rate. The committee also saw real GDP increasing at a steady rate. Powell stated that he was optimistic about the economy and that “I expect another good year next year.” The main obstacle to the committee fulfilling its dual mandate for full employment and price stability is that inflation remains persistently above the Fed’s target of a 2 percent annual inflation rate.

After the meeting, the committee also released a “Summary of Economic Projections” (SEP)—as it typically does at its March, June, September, and December meetings. The SEP 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 forecasts mirror the points that Powell made in his news conference:

Committee members now forecast that GDP will be higher in 2024, and that the unemployment rate will be lower, than they had forecast in September.
Committee members now forecast that both personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price inflation and core PCE inflation will be slightly higher in 2024 than they had forecast in September.
Most notably, whereas in September committee members had forecast that PCE inflation would be 2.1 percent in 2025, they now forecast it will be 2.5 percent—notably higher. And committee members now forecast that inflation will not fall to the Fed’s 2 percent target until 2027, rather than 2026.
Finally, committee members now project that the federal funds rate will end 2025 50 basis points lower than it is now, rather than 100 basis points lower. In other words, committee members ares now forecasting only two 25 basis point cuts in the target next year rather than the four cuts they had forecast in September.

In his press conference, Powell noted that the main reason that PCE inflation remains high is that inflation in the prices of housing services has been running high, as have the prices of some other services. Noting that monetary policy affects the economy “with long and variable lags,” Powell stated that he believes that inflation is still on track to fall to the 2 percent target.

Given that inflation has been running closer to 2.5 percent and that the committee expects the inflation rate will still be 2.5 percent next year, a reporter asked Powell if the committee had considered the possibility of accepting a 2.5 percent inflation rate in the long run. Powell replied that: “No. We’re not going to settle for [2.5 percent inflation].” He stated that a 2 percent inflation rate is what the Fed “owes the public.”

Finally, Powell indicated that the committee would have to take into account the effects of the incoming Trump Administration’s fiscal policy actions—particularly tariff increases—when they occur. President Trump has stated that he would like to see interest rates decline more quickly, so the committee may face criticism for keeping the target for the federal funds rate higher next year than they had originally intended.

Latest PCE Inflation Data Indicate that Fed May Struggle to Achieve a Soft Landing

An image generated by GTP-4o of people shopping

This morning (November 27), the BEA released monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index as part of its “Personal Income and Outlays” report for October. The Fed relies on annual changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2 percent annual inflation target. This month’s data indicates that progress towards the Fed’s target may have stalled.

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 2016 with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. Measured this way, in October, PCE inflation (the blue line) was 2.3 percent, up from 2.1 percent in September. Core PCE inflation (the red line) in October was 2.8 percent, up from 2.7 percent in September. Both PCE inflation and core PCE inflation were in accordance with the expectations of economists surveyed.

One reason that PCE inflation has been lower than core PCE inflation in recent months is that PCE inflation has been held down by falling energy prices, as shown in the following figure. Energy prices have been falling over the last three months and were down 5.9 percent in October. It seems unlikely that falling energy prices will persist.

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 October to 2.9 percent from 2.1 percent in September. Core PCE inflation rose from 3.2 percent in September to 3.3 percent in October. Because core inflation is generally a better measure of the underlying trend in inflation, both 12-month and 1-month core PCE inflation indicate that inflation may still run well above the Fed’s 2 percent target in coming months. But the usual caution applies that data from one month shouldn’t be overly relied on.

The following figure shows other ways 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 core inflation, excluding the price of housing services as well as the prices of food and energy (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 and in housing.

Inflation in services remained high, increasing from 3.7 percent in September to 3.9 percent in October. Core inflation, measured by excluding housing as well as food and energy, increased from 2.1 percent in September to 2.4 percent in October.

Some Fed watchers have suggested that higher inflation readings may lead he Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at its next meeting on December 17-18. As of today, however, investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts are still expecting that the FOMC will reduce its target by 0.25 percent (25 basis points) at its next meeting. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As shown in the following figure, investors assign a probability of 70 percent to the FOMC cutting its target for the federal funds rate from the current range of 4.50 percent to 4.75 percent to a range of 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent. Investors assign a probability of only 30 percent to the FOMC leaving its target unchanged.

Since the FOMC began increasing the target for the federal funds rate in the spring of 2022, economists have discussed three possible outcomes of the Fed’s monetary policy:

A hard landing, with the economy only returning to the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target if the U.S. economy experiences a recession
A soft landing, with the economy returning to 2 percent inflation without experiencing a recession.
No landing, with the economy not experiencing a recession but with inflation remaining persistently above the Fed’s 2 percent target.

With GDP and employment data showing no indication that a recession will begin soon and with today’s data showing inflation—while having declined substantially from its mid-2022 peak—remaining above the Fed’s 2 percent target, the chances of the no landing outcome seem to be increasing.

New Data on Inflation and Wage Growth Indicate that the Fed Is Still Not Assured of Hitting Its Inflation Target

Photo courtesy of Lena Buonanno.

Yesterday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released quarterly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index as part of its advance estimate of third quarter GDP. (We discuss that release in this blog post.) Today, the BEA released monthly data on the PCE as part of its Personal Income and Outlays report. In addition, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released quarterly data on the Employment Cost Index (ECI).

The Fed relies on 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 2016 with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. Measured this way, in September PCE inflation (the blue line) was 2.1 percent, down from 2.3 percent in August. Core PCE inflation (the red line) in September was 2.7 percent, which was unchanged from August. PCE inflation was in accordance with the expectations of economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal, but core inflation was higher than expected.

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 September to 2.1 percent from 1.4 percent in August. Core PCE inflation rose from 1.9 percent in August to 3.1 percent in June. Because core inflation is generally a better measure of the underlying trend in inflation, both 12-month and 1-month core PCE inflation indicate that inflation may still run above the Fed’s 2 percent target in coming months. But the usual caution applies that data from one month shouldn’t be overly relied on.

Turning to wages, as we’ve noted in earlier posts, as a measure of the rate of increase in labor costs, the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) prefers the ECI to average hourly earnings (AHE).

The AHE is calculated by adding all of the wages and salaries workers are paid—including overtime and bonus pay—and dividing by the total number of hours worked. As a measure of how wages are increasing or decreasing during a particular period, AHE can suffer from composition effects because AHE data aren’t adjusted for changes in the mix of occupations workers are employed in. For example, during a period in which there is a decline in the number of people working in occupations with higher-than-average wages, perhaps because of a downturn in some technology industries, AHE may show wages falling even though the wages of workers who are still employed have risen. In contrast, the ECI holds constant the mix of occupations in which people are employed. The ECI does have this drawback: It is only available quarterly whereas the AHE is available monthly.

The data released this morning indicate that labor costs continue to increase at a rate that is higher than the rate that is likely needed for the Fed to hit its 2 percent price inflation target. The following figure shows the percentage change in the employment cost index for all civilian workers from the same quarter in 2023. The blue line shows only wages and salaries while the red line shows total compensation, including non-wage benefits like employer contributions to health insurance. The rate of increase in the wage and salary measure decreased from 4.0 percent in the second quarter of 2024 to 3.8 percent in the third quarter. The movement in the rate of increase in compensation was very similar, decreasing from 4.1 percent in the second quarter of 2024 to 3.9 percent in the third quarter.

If we look at the compound annual growth rate of the ECI—the annual rate of increase assuming that the rate of growth in the quarter continued for an entire year—we find that the rate of increase in wages and salaries decreased from 3.4 percent in the second quarter of 2024 to 3.1 percent in the third quarter. Similarly, the rate of increase in compensation decreased from 3.7 percent in the second quarter of 2024 to 3.2 percent in the third quarter. So, this measure indicates that there has been some easing of wage inflation in the third quarter, although, again, we have to use caution in interpreting one quarter’s data.

Some economists and policymakers prefer to look at the rate of increase in ECI for private industry workers rather than for all civilian workers because the wages of government workers are less likely to respond to inflationary pressure in the labor market. The first of the following figures shows the rate of increase of wages and salaries and in total compensation for private industry workers measured as the percentage increase from the same quarter in the previous year. The second figure shows the rate of increase calculated as a compound growth rate.

Both figures show results consistent with the 12-month PCE inflation figures: A decrease in wage inflation during the third quarter compared with the second quarter but with wage inflation still running somewhat above the level consistent with the Fed’s 2 percent price inflation target.

Taken together, the PCE and ECI data released today indicate that the Fed has not yet managed to bring about soft landing—returning inflation to its 2 percent target without pushing the economy into a recession. As we noted in yesterday’s post, although output growth remains strong, there are some indications that the labor market may be weakening. If so, future months may see a further decrease in wage growth that will make it more likely that the Fed will hit its inflation target. The BLS is scheduled to release its “Employment Situation” report for October on Friday, November 1. That report will provide additional data for assessing the current state of the labor market.

Real GDP Growth Comes in Slightly Below Expectations, Inflation Is Below Target, and the Labor Market Shows Some Weakening

Image of GDP generated by GTP-4o

This week, two data releases paint a picture of the U.S. economy as possibly slowing slightly, but still demonstrating considerable strength. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released its advance estimate of GDP for the third quarter of 2024. (The report can be found here.) The BEA estimates that real GDP increased by 2.8 percent at an annual rate in the third quarter—July through September. That was down from the 3.0 percent increase in real GDP in the second quarter and below the 3.1 percent that economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had expected. The following figure from the BEA report shows the growth rate of real GDP in each quarter since the fourth quarter of 2020.

Two other points to note: In June, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had forecast that the growth rate of real GDP in the third quarter would be only 2.1 percent. The CBO forecasts that, over the longer run, real GDP will grow at a rate of 1.7 to 1.8 percent per year. So, the growth rate of real GDP according to the BEA’s advance estimate (which, it’s worth recalling, is subject to potentially large revisions) was above expectations from earlier this year and above the likely long run growth rate.

Consumer spending was the largest contributor to third quarter GDP growth. The following figure shows growth rates of real personal consumption expenditures and the subcategories of expenditures on durable goods, nondurable goods, and services. There was strong growth in each component of consumption spending. The 8.1 percent increase in expenditures on durables was particularly strong. It was the second quarter in a row of strong growth in spending on durables after a decline of –1.8 percent in the first quarter.

Investment spending and its components were a more mixed bag, as shown in the following figure. Investment spending is always more volatile than consumption spending. Overall, gross private domestic investment increased at a slow rate of 0.3 percent—the slowest rate since a decline in the first quarter of 2023. Residential investment decreased by 5.1 percent, reflecting difficulties in residential construction due to mortgage interest rates remaining high. Business fixed investment grew 3.1 percent, powered by an increase of 11.1 percent in spending on business equipment. Spending on structures—such as factories and office buildings—had increased rapidly over the past two years before slowing to a 0.2 percent increase in the second quarter and a decline of 4.0 percent in the fourth quarter.

The GDP report also contained data on the private consumption expenditure (PCE) price index, which the FOMC uses to determine whether it is achieving its goal of a 2 percent inflation rate. The following figure shows inflation as measured using the PCE and the core PCE—which excludes food and energy prices—since the beginning of 2016. (Note that these inflation rates are measured using quarterly data and as compound annual rates of change.) Despite the strong growth in real GDP, inflation as measured by PCE was only 1.5 percent, below the 2.5 percent increase in the second quarter and below the Federal Reserve’s 2.0 percent inflation target. Core PCE, which may be a better indicator of the likely course of inflation in the future, declined to 2.2 percent in the third quarter from 2.8 percent in the second quarter. The third quarter increase was slightly above the rate that economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal had expected.

This week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Job Openings and Labor Turnover” (JOLTS) report for September 2024. The report provided data indicating some weakening in the U.S. labor market. The following figure shows the rate 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 and the rate of job openings as the number of job openings divided by the number of job openings plus the number of employed workers, multiplied by 100. The 4.9 percent job opening rate in September continued the slow decline from the peak rate of 7.4 percent in March 2022. The rate is also slightly below the rate during late 2018 and 2019 before the Covid pandemic.

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 1.1 job openings per employed person in September 2024, somewhat below the levels 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.

Finally, note from the figure that over the period during which the BLS has been conducting the JOLTS survey, the rate of job openings has declined just before and during recessions. Does that fact indicate that the decline in the job opening rate in recent months is signaling that a recession is likely to begin soon? We can’t say with certainty, particularly because the labor market was severely disrupted by the pandemic. The decline in the job openings rate since 2022 is more likely to reflect the labor market returning to more normal conditions than a weakening in hiring that signals a recession is coming.

To summarize these data:

Real GDP growth is strong, although below what economists had been projecting.
Inflation as measured by the PCE is below the Fed’s 2 percent target, although core inflation remains slightly above the target.
The job market has weakened somewhat, although there is no strong indication that a recession will happen in the near future.

Fed Governor Michelle Bowman Explains Her Dissenting Vote at the FOMC Meeting

Federal Reserve Governor Michelle Bowman (Photo from federalreserve.gov)

Federal Reserve Chairs place a high value on consensus, particularly with respect to the decisions of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) setting the target for the federal funds rate. (Note that the chair of the Fed’s Board of Governors also serves as the chair of the FOMC.) As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 14, Section 14.4 (Economics, Chapter 24, Sectio 24.4), the FOMC has 12 voting members: the 7 members of the Board of Governors, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and 4 of the other 11 District Bank presidents, who serve rotating one-year terms.

Decisions by the FOMC in setting the target for the federal funds rate are usually unanimous. Prior to the FOMC meeting on September 17-18, each vote of the committee had been unanimous since Esther George, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City cast a dissenting vote at the meeting on June 14-15, 2022. At that meeting, the committee voted to raise its target for the federal funds rate by 0.75 percentage point (75 basis points). George voted against the move because she believed a 0.50 percentage point (50 basis points) increase would have been more appropriate.

At the September 17-18 meeting, Fed Governor Michelle Bowman voted against the decision to reduce the target for the federal funds rate by 50 basis points because she believed a cut of 25 basis point would have been more appropriate. She was the first member of the Board of Governors to cast a dissenting vote at an FOMC meeting since 2005.

Perhaps because it’s unusual for a member of the Board of Governors to dissent from an FOMC decision, Bowman issued a statement explaining her vote. In her statement, Bowman argued that although inflation has declined substantially over the past two years, she was concerned that inflation as measured by the 12-month percentage change in the core personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index was still 2.5 percent—above the Fed’s target inflation rate of 2 percent: “Although it is important to recognize that there has been meaningful progress on lowering inflation, while core inflation remains around or above 2.5 percent, I see the risk that the Committee’s larger policy action could be interpreted as a premature declaration of victory on our price stability mandate.” (Note that the Fed uses the PCE rather than the core PCE to gauge whether it is hitting its inflation target, but core PCE is generally thought to be a better indicator of the underlying inflation rate.)

Bowman also noted the difficulty of interpreting developments in the labor market: “My reading of labor market data has become more uncertain due to increased measurement challenges and the inherent difficulty in assessing the effects of recent immigration flows.” (We discuss the effects on employment measures of differing estimates of the level of immigration in this blog post.)

Latest PCE Report Shows Inflation Continues to Ease

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell at a press conference following a meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (Photo from federal reserve.gov)

Inflation in 2024 is a tale of two quarters. During the first quarter of 2024, inflation ran higher than expected considering the falling inflation rates at the end of 2023. As a result, although at the beginning of the year many economists and Wall Street analysts had expected the Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) would cut its target for the federal funds rate at least once in the first half of 2024, the FOMC left its target unchanged.

On July 26, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released its “Personal Income and Outlays” report for June. The report includes monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index. The Fed relies on annual changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2 percent annual inflation target. The report confirmed that PCE inflation slowed in the second quarter, bringing it closer to the Fed’s 2 percent 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 percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. Measured this way, in June PCE inflation (the blue line) was 2.5 percent, down slightly from PCE inflation of 2.6 percent in May. Core PCE inflation (the red line) in June was also 2.5 percent, which was unchanged from May.

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 June to 0.9 percent from 0.4 percent in May—although higher in June, inflation was well below the Fed’s 2 percent target in both months. Core PCE inflation rose from 1.5 percent in May to 2.0 percent in June. These data indicate that inflation has been at or below the Fed’s target for the last two 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—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 June (calculated as a 12-month inflation rate), down only slightly from 2.9 percent in May—and still above the Fed’s target inflation rate of 2 percent. Inflation in services remained high in June at 3.9 percent, down only slightly from 4.0 percent in May.

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. It now seems likely that the FOMC will soon lower the committee’s target for the federal funds rate, which is currently 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent. Remarks by Fed Chair Powell have been interpreted as hinting as much. 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 4.7 percent to the FOMC cutting its federal funds rate target by 0.25 percentage point at its July 30-31 meeting and an 95.3 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 an 87.7 percent probability of a 0.25 percentage point cut and a 11.9 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 effectively assigned a zero probability. In other words, investors believe with near certainty that the FOMC will reduce its target for the federal funds rate for the first time since the current round of rate increases ended in July 2023.

How Well Have Low-Wage Workers Done over the Years?

Image of servers in a restaurant generated by ChatGTP-4o.

How should you track over time the real wagees of low-wage workers? If you are interested in income mobility, you would want to track the experience over the course of their working lives of individuals who began their careers in low-wage occupations. Doing so would allow you to measure how well (or poorly) the U.S. economy succeeds in providing individuals with opportunities to improve their incomes over time.

You might also be interested in how the real wages of people who earn low wages has changed over time. In this case, rather than tracing the wages over time of individuals who earn low wages when they first enter the labor market, you would look at the real wages of people who earn low wages at any given time. The simplest way to do that analysis would be using data on the average nominal wage earned by, say, the lowest 20 percent of wage earners, and deflate the average nominal wage by a price index to determine the average real wage of these workers. How the average real wage of low-wage workers varies over time provides some insight into the changing standard of living of low-wage workers.

In a recent Substack post, Ernie Tedeschi, Director of Economics at the Budget Lab research center at Yale University, has carried out a careful analysis of movements over time in the average real wage of low-wage workers. Tedeschi points out a complicating factor in this analysis: “The population has gotten older over time and more educated. The workforce looks different too, with more workers in services and fewer in manufacturing. Shifting populations means that comparisons of workers aren’t apples-to-apples over time.”

To correct for these confounding factors, Tedeschi constructs a low-wage index that makes it possible to examine the real wage of low-wage workers, holding constant the composition of low-wage workers with respect to “sex, age, race, college education, and broad industry and occupation” at the values of these characteristics in 2023. Using this approach, makes it possible to separate changes in wages of workers with given characteristics from changes in wages that occur because the average characteristics of workers has changed. For example, on average, workers who are older or who have more years of education will be more productive and, therefore, on average will earn higher wages than will workers who are younger or have fewer years of education.

The following figure from Tedeschi’sSubstack post shows movements in his low-wage index during each quarter from the first quarter of 1979 to the first quarter of 2024, with “low wage” defined as workers at the 25th precentile of the distribution of wages. (That is, 24 percent of workers receive lower wages and 75 percent of workers receive higher wages than do these workers.) The index shows that a low-wage worker in 2024 has a much higher real wage than a low-wage worker in 1979, but the increase in the average real wage occurs mainly during two periods: 1997–2007 and 2014–2024. (Tedeschi uses the person consumption expenditures (PCE) price index to convert nominal wages to real wages.)

A more complete discussion of Tedeschi’s methods and results can be found in his blog post.

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.

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?

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.

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.