(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Worker Pay Keeps Lagging, Not Leading, U.S. Inflation

Tags

benefits, core services, cost of living, ECI, Employment Cost Index, Federal Reserve, inflation, Jerome Powell, Labor Department, private sector, services, stimulus, wages, workers, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The Federal Reserve, the agency with the U.S. government’s main inflation-fighting responsibilities, has made clear that it’s paying special attention to worker pay to figure out whether it’s getting living costs under control or not, and that its favored measure of pay is the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index (ECI).

Therefore, it’s genuinely important that the new ECI (for the fourth quarter of last year) came out this morning. Even more important, the results undercut the widespread beliefs (especially by Fed leaders) both that worker compensation has been a driving force behind the inflation America has experienced so far, and/or has great potential to keep it raging.

Consequently, the new numbers seem likely to influence greatly the big choice before the Fed. Will it keep trying to raise the cost of borrowing for consumers and businesses alike in the hope of slowing spending enough to cool inflation even at the risk of producing a recession? Or will it decide that it’s made enough inflation progress already, and can tolerate current levels of economic growth – which the latest data tell us are pretty good) rather than stepping on the brakes harder.

The central bank likes the ECI better than the hourly and weekly also put out by Labor for two main reasons. First, it measures salaries and non-cash benefits, too. And second, it takes into account what economists call compositional effects.

That is, the standard wage figures report hourly and weekly pay for specific sectors of the economy, but they don’t say anything about labor costs for businesses for the same jobs over time. The ECI tries to achieve this aim by stripping out the way that the makeup of employment between industries can change, and the way that the makeup of jobs within industries can change (e.g., from a majority of lower wage occupations to one of higher wage occupations).

According to the new ECI report, when you adjust for the cost of living, “private wages and salaries declined 1.2 percent for the 12 months ending December 2022” and “ Inflation-adjusted benefit costs in the private sector declined 1.5 percent over that same period.”

So for the last year, total compensation has risen more slowly, rather than faster, than inflation, That’s not the kind of fuel I’d want in my vehicle or home. (As known by RealityChek regulars, private sector trends are the ones that count because compensation levels there are set largely by market forces, rather than mainly by politicians’ decisions, as is the case for public sector workers.)

Blame-the-workers (or their bosses) types can argue that since late 2021, compensation has caught up some with inflation rates. Specifically, from December, 2020 through December, 2021, it had fallen in after-inflation terms by 2.5 percent. Between the next two Decembers, it had dropped by less than half that rate – 1.2 percent.

But it was still down – and this during a period when private business claimed it was frantic trying to fill unprecedented numbers of job openings in absolute terms.

Moreover, the new ECI release contained signs that even this modest compensation catch up could soon reverse itself. Between the first quarter of last year and the fourth, in pre-inflation terms, the total compensation increase weakened from 1.4 percent to one percent even. And for what it’s worth, both economists and CEOs still judge that the odds of a recession this year are well over 50 percent.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell has also expressed concerns about wage trends in what he calls the core service sector, because, as he put it at the end of last November:

“This is the largest of our three categories, constituting more than half of the core PCE index.[the Fed’s preferred gauge of prices]. Thus, this may be the most important category for understanding the future evolution of core inflation. Because wages make up the largest cost in delivering these services, the labor market holds the key to understanding inflation in this category.”

The ECI releases don’t contain figures for this group, but if you look at total compensation for private service sector workers, it’s tough to see how they’ve been en fuego lately, either. Between the first and fourth quarter of last year, their rate of increase dropped by the exact same rate as that for the private sector overall. And although most economic growth forecasts lately have been far too pessimistic, almost no one seems to expect the current expansion to strengthen.

And if workers haven’t been able to reap a major inflation-adjusted compensation bonanza in the conditions that have prevailed for the last few months, or during earlier strong growth bursts since the CCP Virus struck the United States in force, when will they?

I remain concerned that living costs could remain worrisomely high – though not that they’ll rocket up again – because consumers still have lots of spending power, which will keep giving businesses lots of pricing power. But that’s not because Americans’ pay has exploded. It’s because government stimulus has been so mammoth in recent years, and could well stay unnaturally high.

Further, since such government spending is politically popular – and will remain more tempting for politicians to approve as the next election cycle approaches – my foreseeable-future forecast for the U.S. economy remains stagflation.  In other words, growth will be rather stagnant, and inflation will stay way too high.  And as the new ECI release suggests, workers could be left further behind the living cost eight ball than ever.       

Advertisement

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why the Really Tight U.S. Job Market Isn’t Propping Up Much Inflation

Tags

CCP Virus, consumer spending, consumers, coronavirus, cost of living, COVID 19, Federal Reserve, headline PCE, inflation, inflation-adjusted wages, interest rates, Jerome Powell, monetary policy, PCE, personal consumption expenditures index, prices, recession, stagflation, stimulus, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

It’s been widely assumed that even though very tight U.S. labor markets haven’t yet touched off the kind of wage-price spiral that can supercharge inflation, they’ve been helping consumers offset the effects of rapidly rising prices – and therefore helping to keep living costs worrisomely high.

The intertwined reasons? Because even though when adjusted for inflation, wages generally have been falling since price increases took off in early 2021, rock-bottom unemployment rates and the wage hikes that have been received have enabled healthy consumer spending – and given business unusual pricing power.

Most important, this is what the Federal Reserve believes, and it’s the federal government institution with the prime responsibility for fighting inflation. According to Chair Jerome Powell, “demand for workers far exceeds the supply of available workers, and nominal wages have been growing at a pace well above what would be consistent with 2 percent inflation over time.”

For good measure, Powell said that the labor market “holds the key to understanding inflation” especially in U.S. services industries other than housing, which make up more than half of the set of inflation data favored by the Fed, and where “wages make up the largest cost.”

How come, then, when you look at the wage data put out by the federal government, it’s so hard to find evidence that recent wage levels have significantly bolstered U.S. workers’ spending power during this current high inflation period?

Given the Fed’s power, it makes sense to use the inflation measure it values most – which as RealityChek regulars know is the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index. As the Fed prefers, we’ll focus on the “headline” gauge, which includes the food and energy prices that are stripped out of a different (“core”) reading supposedly because they’re volatile for reasons having nothing to do with the economy’s underlying prone-ess to inflation.

And for the best measure of the wages workers are taking home, we’ll use weekly wages. What they show is that since the headline PCE rate first breached the central bank’s two percent target, in March, 2021, inflation-adjusted weekly pay (as opposed to the pre-inflation wages Powell oddly emphasizes) is actually down – by 4.60 percent. For production and non-supervisory workers (call them “blue collar” workers for convenience’s sake), real weekly wages were off by a more modest but still non-trivial 3.52 percent.

And this has propped up American consumer spending exactly how?

The Fed actually looks more closely at a wider official measure of compensation than the wage figures. It’s called the Employment Cost Index (ECI) and it takes into account salaries as well as wages, along with non-wage benefits. The ECI only comes out quarterly, and the next one, for the fourth quarter,of last year, won’t be out till January 31. But from the second quarter of 2021 (roughly when headline annual PCE inflation rose higher than that two percent Fed target) through the end of the third quarter of 2022, the ECI for private sector workers) also dropped in after-inflation terms – by 2.39 percent.

But if American workers’ pay isn’t doing much to power their still-strong consumption, what is? Obviously, the answer is mainly the excess savings piled up thanks to pandemic stimulus programs and government measures aimed at…compensating them for high inflation.

When it comes to fighting inflation, there’s good news stemming from the status of these enormous amounts of cash injected into American bank accounts: They’re being run down significantly or are just about gone for everyone except the wealthy. That no doubt explains much of the recent evidence of the cooling of the white hot levels of consumer demand that filled so many businesses with confidence that they could jack up prices dramatically are cooling, and why headline PCE is showing some signs of ebbing.

The bad news remains what it always has – that meaningfully reduced consumer spending, combined with the Fed’s continued stated determination to keep increasing the price of the borrowing that spurs so much spending, could trigger more unemployment, even worse wage trends, and a possibly painful recession.

Yet as I wrote in that above-linked RealityChek post, the $64,000 questions that will determine inflation’s fate remains unanswered: Will recession fears lead the Fed to chicken out, and at least pause its inflation-fighting interest rate increases? And will Congress and the Executive Branch decide to ride to the rescue as well, with new politically popular stimulus programs – which are likely to stimulate inflation, too?  My answer remains a pretty confident “Yes,” which is why my forecast for the economy calls for a short, fairly shallow downturn followed by a significant stretch of “stagflation” – sluggish growth and above-Fed-target inflation.   

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why the U.S. Inflation Outlook Just Got Even Cloudier

Tags

CCP Virus, China, consumer price index, consumers, core CPI, coronavirus, cost of living, COVID 19, CPI, energy prices, Federal Reserve, food prices, inflation, Jerome Powell, prices, recession, stagflation, stimulus, supply chains, Ukraine War, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If the big U.S. stock indices didn’t react enthusiastically to yesterday’s official American inflation figures (which were insensitively released the very day I had a minor medical procedure), that’s because they were too mixed to signal that consumer prices were finally being brought under control.

Lately, good news on inflation-fighting has been seen as good news for stock investors because it indicates that the Federal Reserve may at least pause its campaign to hike interest rates in order to slow economic growth significantly– and even trigger a recession. That’s because a weaker economy means consumers will have less money to spend and that businesses therefore will find it much harder to keep raising prices, and even to maintain prices at currently lofty levels. And all else equal, companies’ profits would take a hit.

So already softening inflation could convince the central bank that its efforts to date have been good enough, and that its goal of restoring price stability can be achieved without encouraging further belt tightening – and more downward pressure on business bottom lines.

Of course, stock investors aren’t always right about economic data. But their take on yesterday’s figures for the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which cover December. seems on target.

The data definitely contained encouraging news. Principally, on a monthly basis, the overall (“headline”) CPI number showed that prices actually fell in December – by 0.08 percent. That’s not much, but this result marks the first such drop since July’s 0.02 percent, and the biggest sequential decline since the 0.92 percent plunge recorded in April, 2020, when the economy was literally cratering during the CCP Virus’ devastating first wave. Further, this latest decrease followed a very modest 0.10 percent monthly increase in November.

So maybe inflation is showing some genuine signs of faltering momentum? Maybe. But maybe not. For example, that CPI sequential slip in July was followed by three straight monthly increases that ended with a heated 0.44 percent in October.

Moreover, core CPI accelerated month-to-month in December. That’s the inflation gauge that strips out food and energy prices because they’re supposedly volatile for reasons having little or nothing to do with the economy’s underlying inflation prone-ness.

December’s sequential core CPI rise was 0.30 percent – one of the more sluggish figures of the calendar year, but a rate faster than a November number of 0.27 percent that was revised up from 0.20 percent. Therefore, these last two results could signal more inflation momentum, not less.

In addition, as always, the annual headline and core CPI numbers need to be viewed in light of the baseline effect – the extent to which statistical results reflect abnormally low or high numbers for the previous comparable period that may simply stem from a catch-up trend that’s restoring a long-term norm.

Many of the multi-decade strong year-to-year headline and core inflation rates of 2021 came after the unusually weak yearly results that stemmed from the short but devastating downturn caused by that first CCP Virus wave. Consequently, I was among those (including the Fed) believing that such price rises were “transitory,” and that they would fade away as that particular baseline effect disappeared.

But as I’ve posted (e.g., last month), that fade has been underway for months, and annual inflation remains powerful and indeed way above the Fed’s two percent target. The main explanations as I see it? The still enormous spending power enjoyed by consumers due to all the pandemic relief and economic stimulus approved in recent years, and other continued and even new major government outlays that have put more money into their pockets (as listed toward the end of this column).

(A big hiring rebound since the economy’s pandemic-induced nadir and rock-bottom recent headline unemployment rates have helped, too. But as I’ll explain in an upcoming post, the effects are getting more credit than they deserve.)

And when you look at the baselines for the new headline and core CPI annual increases, it should become clear that after having caught up from the CCP Virus-induced slump, businesses still believe they have plenty of pricing power left, which suggests at the least that inflation will stay high.

Again, here the inflation story is better for the annual headline figure than for the core figure. In December, the former fell from November’s 7.12 percent to 6.42 percent – the best such number since the 6.24 percent of October, 2021, and the sixth straight weakening. The baseline 2020-2021 headline inflation rate for December was higher than that for November (6.83 percent versus 7.10 percent), and had sped up for four consecutive months. But that November-December 2020-2021 increase was more modest than the latest November-December 2021-2022 decrease, which indicates some progress here.

At the same time, don’t forget that the 6.24 percent annual headline CPI inflation of October, 2020-2021 had a 2019-2020 baseline of just 1.18 percent. Hence my argument that businesses today remain confident about their pricing power even though they’ve made up for their pandemic year weakness in spades.

In December, annual core inflation came down from 5.96 percent to 5.69 percent. That was the most sluggish pace since December, 2020-2021’s 5.48 percent, but just the third straight weakening. But the increase in the baseline number from November to December, 2021 was from 4.59 percent to that 5.48 percent – bigger than the latest November-December decrease. In other words, this trend for core CPI is now running opposite it encouraging counterpart for headline CPI.

Finally, as far as baseline arguments go, that 5.48 percent December, 2021 annual core CPI increase followed a baseline figure the previous year of a mere 1.28 percent. Since the new annual December rate of 5.69 percent comes on top of a rate more than four times higher, that’s another sign of continued business pricing confidence.

But the inflation forecast is still dominated by the question of how much economic growth will sink, and how the Fed in particular will react. And the future looks more confusing than ever.

The evidence for considerably feebler expansion, and even an impending recession, is being widely cited. Indeed, as this Forbes poster has reported, “The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s Survey of Professional Forecasters indicates the highest probability of a recession over the next 12 months in the survey’s 55-year history.”

If they’re right, inflation may keep cooling modestly for a time but still remain worrisomely warm. And the Fed may react either by keeping interest rates lofty for longer than expected – as Chair Jerome Powell has already said – or even raise them faster. 

Nonetheless, although the recession that did take place during the first and second quarters of last year convinced numerous observers that worse was yet to come, the third quarter saw a nice bounceback and the fourth quarter could be even better. So if a downturn is coming, it will mean that economic activity will need to shrink very abruptly. Hardly impossible, but hardly a sure thing.

And if some form of economic nosedive does occur, it could prompt the Fed to hold off or even reverse course to some extent, even if price increases remain non-trivial. A major worsening of the economy may also lead Congress and the Biden administration to join the fray and approve still more stimulus to cushion the blow.

Complicating matters all the while – the kind of monetary stimulus added or taken away by the central bank takes months to ripple through the economy, as the Fed keeps emphasizing.  Some of the kinds of fiscal stimulus, like the pandemic-era checks, work faster, but others, like the infrastructure bill and the huge new subsidies for domestic semiconductor manufacturing will take much longer.

Additionally, some of the big drivers of the recent inflation are even less controllable by Washington and more unpredictable than the immense U.S. economy – like the Ukraine War’s impact on the prices of energy and other commodities, including foodstuffs, and the wild recent swings of a range of Chinese government policies that keep roiling global and domestic supply chains. 

My own outlook? It’s for a pretty shallow, short recession followed by a comparably moderate recovery and all accompanied by price levels with which most Americans will keep struggling. Back in the 1970s, it was called “stagflation,” I’m old enough to remember that’s an outcome that no one should welcome, and it will mean that the country remains as far from achieving robust, non-inflationary growth as ever.  

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: An End to a U.S. Trade Winning Streak?

Tags

Advanced Technology Products, China, consumption-led growth, dollar, economic growth, exchange rate, exports, Federal Reserve, goods trade, imports, inflation, interest rates, Jerome Powell, manufacturing, monetary policy, non-oil goods, services trade, Trade, trade deficit, yuan, zero covid policy, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s official U.S. monthly trade data (for September) signal an end to an encouraging stretch during which the national economy both exported more and imported less – and engineered some growth at the same time. (See, e.g., here and here.)

That’s been encouraging because it means expansion that’s powered more by production than by consumption – a recipe for much more solid, sustainable growth and prosperity than the reverse.

But the new trade figures show not only that the total trade gap widened for the first time since March (to $73.28 billion), and reached its highest level since June’s $80.88 billion. They also revealed that the deficit increased because of lower exports and higher imports for the first time since January.

The discouraging September pattern also indicates that American trade flows are finally starting to feel the effect of the surging U.S. dollar, which hurts the price competitiveness of all domestic goods and services in markets at home and abroad.

Some (smallish) silver linings in the new trade statistics? A bunch of (biggish) revisions showing that the August improvement in America’s was considerably better than first reported.

At the same time, two new U.S. trade records of the bad kind were set – all-time highs in services imports and in imports of and the deficit for Advanced Technology Products (ATP). But services exports reached an all-time high as well.

The impact of the revisions can be seen right away in that combined goods and services trade deficit figure. The September total was 11.58 percent higher than its August counterpart. And it did break the longest stretch of monthly drop-offs since the May-November, 2019 period. But that new August figure is now reported at $65.28 billion, not $67.40 billion. That’s fully 2.55 percent lower.

The August total exports figures saw a noteworthy upward revision, too – by 0.72 percent, from $258.92 billion to $260.79 billion. In September, however, these overseas sales decreased for the first time since January, with the 1.07 percent slippage bringing them down to $258.00 billion. That’s the lowest level since May’s $254.53 billion..

As for overall imports, they were up in September for the first time since May. The increase from $326.47 billion to $331.29 billion amounted to 1.47 percent.

As with the total trade deficit, the August figure for the goods trade gap was revised down by a sharp 1.67 percent, from $87.64 billion to $86.17 billion. And also as with the total trade shortfall, its goods component in September rose for the first time since March. The 7.63 percent worsening, to $92.75 billion, brought the gap to its highest since June’s $99.26 billion.

Goods exports for August were upgraded significantly, too – by 0.75 percent, from $182.50 billion to $183.86 billion. But in September, they shrank on month by 2.01 percent, with the $180.17 billion level the lowest since May’s $179.76 billion.

Goods imports for their part climbed for the first time since May. Their 1.09 percent increase pushed these purchases up from $270.04 billion in August to $272.92 billion in September.

The revisions worked the opposite way for the longstanding service trade surplus. August’s total is now judged to be $20.49 billion – 1.24 percent higher than the originally reported $20.24 billion. And in September it sank for the second straight month, with the 5.01 percent decrease representing the biggest monthly drop since May’s 9.69 percent, and the resulting in a $19.47 billion number the weakest since June’s $18.38 billion.

Services exports for August were upgraded by 0.67 percent, from $76.42 billion to $76.93 billion. They climbed increased further in September – by 1.18 percent to a fourth straight record of $77.83 billion.

The August services import totals were also revised up, with the new $56.44 billion level 0.46 percent higher than the original $56.18 billion. Their ascent continued in September, with the 3.42 percent surge – to a record $58.37 billion – standing as the biggest monthly increase since February’s 5.13 percent.

Domestic manufacturing had a mildly encouraging September, with its yawning, chronic trade gap narrowing by 1.74 percent, from $131.71 billion to $129.41 billion.

Manufacturing exports slumped from $113.34 billion in August (the second best ever after June’s $114.78 billion) to $110.688, for a 2.34 percent retreat.

Manufacturing imports tumbled by 2.02 percent, from August’s $245.05 billion (the second highest all-time amount behind March’s $256.18 billion) to $240.10 billion.

Due to these figures, manufacturing’s year-to-date trade deficit is running 18.17 percent ahead of 2021’s record level (which ultimately came in at $1.32977 trillion). In fact, at its current $1.13974 trillion, it’s already the second highest yearly manufacturing deficit in U.S. history.

Since manufacturing trade dominates America’s goods trade with China, it wasn’t surprising to see the also gigantic and longstanding merchandise trade deficit with the People’s Republic declining in September for the first time in five months.

The small 0.39 percent monthly decrease, from $37.44 billion in August (this year’s top total so far) to $37.29 billion no doubt reflected the effects of Beijing’s continuing and economically damaging Zero Covid lockdowns.

Indeed, however modest, this decrease is noteworthy given that China allowed its currency, the yuan, to depreciate by 11.29 percent versus the dollar this year through September.

U.S. goods exports to the People’s Republic were down in September for the first time since June, with the 7.39 percent fall-off pulling the total from $12.91 billion (a 2022 high so far) to $11.95 billion. The monthly decrease was the biggest since April’s Zero Covid-related 16.25 percent, and the level the lowest since June’s $11.68 billion.

America’s goods imports from China were off on month in September as well – and also for the first time in June. The contraction from August’s $50.35 billion (the second highest all-time total) to September’s $49.25 billion was 2.24 percent.

On a year-to-date basis, the China deficit has now risen by 21.98 percent. That’s important because it continues the trend this year of growing faster than its closest global proxy, the non-oil goods trade deficit (which has widened during this period by just 17.21 percent).

Moreover, this gap has widened overwhelmingly because of China’s feeble importing. Year-to-date, the People’s Republic’s goods purchases from the United States are up just 3.05 percent. The non-oil goods counterpart figure is 15.88 percent.

Finally, the U.S. trade deficit in Advanced Technology Products (the U.S. government’s official name for these goods, hence the capitalization) surged by 18.79 percent sequentially in September, from $20.47 billion to a new monthly record of $24.32 billion. That level topped March’s previous high of $23.31 billion by 4.35 percent.

ATP exports rose a nice 5.39 percent on month in September, from $32.60 billion to $34.33 billion. But imports popped by 10.50 percent, from August’s $53.08 billion to a record $58.65 billion – which surpassed the old record (also set in March) of $56.71 billion by 3.41 percent.

Moreover, year-to-date the ATP deficit is up 29.65 percent, from $137.31 billion to !$178.01 billion. That’s already equal to the third highest total annual total ever, behind last year’s $195.45 billion and 2020’s $188.13 billion. So look for another yearly worst t be hit in these trade flows.

At this point, the trade deficit’s future is especially hard to predict. On the one hand, if the chances of a U.S. recession before too long seem to have increased due to the Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s hawkish remarks yesterday on inflation and interest rates. Normally, that would force the deficit down as tighter monetary policy depressed consumption – and imports.

On the other hand, higher interest rates could well keep strengthening the dollar and keep the deficit on the upswing. So could the still enormous levels of savings (and spending power) that Americans have amassed since the CCP Virus pandemic struck.

The only thing that seems certain, unfortunately, is that the sweet spot that American trade flows have found themselves in recently looks like it’s gone for the time being.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Worst of All Possible Inflation Worlds for U.S. Workers?

Tags

ECI, Employment Cost Index, Federal Reserve, inflation, Jerome Powell, Labor Department, labor productivity, PCE, personal consumption expenditures index, productivity, recession, stagflation, wages, workers, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The newest report on a key official measure of worker compensation has just shown that, during today’s high inflation era, American workers could be both significantly fueling the soaring prices that are dominating the U.S. economy and getting shafted by them.

This measure – called the Employment Cost Index – is tracked by the Department of Labor, and is watched closely by the Federal Reserve (the government’s chief inflation-fighting agency) for two major reasons. First, it includes not just wages, but salaries and non-cash benefits. Second, unlike the Labor Department’s average wage figures, it takes into account what economists call compositional effects.

In other words, the those wage figures report hourly and weekly pay for specific sectors of the economy, but they don’t say anything about labor costs for businesses for the same jobs over time. The ECI tries to achieve this aim by factoring in the way that the makeup of employment between industries can change, and the way that the makeup of jobs within industries can change (e.g., from a majority of lower wage occupations to one of higher wage occupations).

In his press conference last Wednesday following the Federal Reserve’s announcement of a second straight big increase in the interest rate it controls directly, Chair Jerome Powell mentioned that the ECI report coming out on Friday would greatly influence the central banks’ decision on how much more tightening of credit conditions would be needed to slow the economy enough to cool inflation acceptably.

That’s because, as he has explained previously, the supposedly superior insights on worker pay provided by the ECI enable the Fed to figure out whether a major inflation engine has started to rev up – employee compensation rising faster than worker productivity. Industries (or entire economies) in this situation are denied the option of absorbing wage increases by achieving greater efficiencies in their operations Therefore, they face more pressure to maintain earnings and profits by passing pay increases onto their customers, their customers face more pressure to keep up with living costs by pushing for pay hikes themselves, and what economists term a classic and hard-to-break wage-price spiral takes off.

The new ECI results per se looked alarming enough from this perspective. They showed that between the second quarter of 2021 and the second quarter of 2022, total employee compensation for the private sector ose by 5.5 percent. That’s the fastest pace since this data series began in 2001. Moreover, this record represented the third straight all-time high. (RealityChek regulars know that private sector numbers are the most important gauge, since its pay and other indicators are mainly driven by market forces, unlike the statistics for government workers, where the indicators largely reflect politicians’ decisions.)

Sadly, though, according to the Fed’s favorite measure of consumer inflation (the Commerce Department’s Personal Consumption Expenditures price index), living costs increased by 6.45 percent. So workers fell further behind the eight ball.

Perhaps worst of all, however, productivity growth is in the toilet. We won’t get the initial second quarter figures until September 1, but during the first quarter, for non-farm businesses (the most closely followed measure for the private sector), it fell year-on-year by 0.6 percent – the worst such performance since the fourth quarter of 1993.

Nor was this figure a one-off for the current high inflation period. From the time consumer prices began their recent speed up (April, 2021) through the first quarter of this year, labor productivity is off by 1.36 percent, the ECI is up 3.95 percent, and PCE inflation has risen by 4.65 percent. So a strong case can be made that workers, businesses, and the economy as a whole are in the worst of all possible worlds.

Whenever productivity is the subject, it’s important to note that it’s the economic performance measure in which economists probably have the least confidence. And even if it’s accurate, don’t jump to blame workers for sloughing off. Maybe management is doing a lousy job of improving their productivity. Alternatively, maybe managers simply haven’t figured out how to do so in the midst of so many unusual challenges posed by the pandemic and its aftermath – chiefly the stop-go nature of the economy’s early aftermath, and the resulting turbulence that, along with the Ukraine war and China’s Zero Covid policy, is still roiling and stressing supply chains.

Whatever’s wrong, though, unless a course correction comes soon, it looks like the odds of the economy sinking into prolonged stagflation – roaring inflation and weak economic growth – are going up. And ultimately, that matters more to the American future than whether some form of recession is already here, or around the corner.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Real Message Behind the New U.S. Inflation Figures

Tags

bubbles, consumer price index, core PCE, CPI, energy, Federal Reserve, inflation, Jerome Powell, monetary policy, PCE, personal consumption, personal consumption expenditures index, productivity, recession, {What's Left of) Our Economy

There – that wasn’t so hard, was it? Meaning that if a national government (including its central bank) wants to get inflation down, it’s not a rocket science-type challenge. Elected officials (or dictators) can cut public spending, monetary authorities like America’s Federal Reserve can tighten monetary policy, and voila. Receiving less financial juice, consumers stop consuming so much, businesses stop investing and hiring so robustly, and the lower level of economic activity begins depriving sellers of pricing power – at least if they want to keep their sales up. 

Moreover, these governments can enjoy the benefits of a venerable economic adage: an effective cure for high prices is high prices. That is, at some point, regardless of government policies, goods and services begin getting unaffordable. So businesses and consumers alike don’t buy so much of them, and the reduced demand also forces sellers that want to keep sales up to start marking them down.

At least that’s a message that’s easy to take away from the today’s new official report on U.S. “Personal Income and Outlays,” which, as usual, contains data on price increases and consumer spending, and which shows a softening in both.

Before delving into the specifics, however, it’s important to point out that (1) less economic activity means less prosperity – and in many instanaces can mean much worse – for most of the population; and (2), the higher inflation has become, the more belt tightening is needed, and the more economic suffering must be imposed, in order to bring it to levels considered acceptable. And since the new, better numbers from Washington still reveal price increases near multi-decade highs, it figures that returning to satisfactory inflation will require many Americans to experience significantly more economic pain.

In other words, the “soft landing” that Fed officials in particular describe as the goal of their anti-inflation policy – that is, taming inflation while still fostering some growth – still looks like much less than a sure bet. Even Fed Chair Jerome Powell acknowledges this.

Powell and many others insist that even if the landing is hard, the anti-inflation medicine will be necessary, since, in his words, “Economies don’t work without price stability.” Often they add that the steps necessary to defeat inflation will also help cure the economy of its long-time addiction to bubble-ized growth – that is, prosperity based on credit conditions that are kept way too loose, that deprive producers of the market-based disciplines needed to keep prosperity sustained, and that in fact spur so many bad and even reckless choices by all economic actors that they inevitably end in torrents of tears.

I’m sympathetic to these arguments, but the main point here is that killing off inflation per se has always been first and foremost a matter of will – which has clearly been lacking for too long. Avoiding recession, conversely, is no great accomplishment, either: Just keep inflating bubbles with easy money. It’s fostering soundly based, sustainable growth that’s been the challenge that American leaders have long failed to meet.

As for the specifics, let’s start with the inflation figures contained in today’s report from the Commerce Department. They’re somewhat different from the more widely covered Consumer Price Index (CPI) tracked by the Labor Department, but this Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index matters a lot because it’s the inflation measure favored by the Fed, which has major inflation-fighting responsibilities.

On a monthly basis, “headline” PCE inflation (the broadest measure) bounced up from April’s 0.2 percent (the weakest such figure since the flatlline of November, 2020) to 0.6 percent (the worst such figure since March’s 0.9 percent). The “core” figure (which strips out food and energy prices supposedly because they’re volatile for reason largely unrelated to the economy’s fundamental vulnerability to inflation), increased sequentially in May by 0.3 percent for the fourth straight month. Those are the smallest such increases since September, 2020’s 0.2 percent.

These results are one sign that spending has fallen off enough to prevent still strong energy inflation from bleeding over into the rest of the economy – just about all of which uses energy as a key input. And indeed, the new Commerce release reports that adjusting for inflation, personal consumption fell on month (by 0.4 percent) for the first time since last December (1.4 percent).

As known by RealityChek regulars, the annual rates of change are usually more important than the monthly, because they gauge developments over longer time periods and are therefore less likely to be thrown off by short-term developments or sheer statistical randomness. And encouragingly, they tell a similar story. The headline annual PCE inflation rate of 6.3 percent was the same as April’s, and lower than March’s 6.6 percent. Annual core PCE inflation dropped to 4.7 percent from April’s 4.9 percent and hit its lowest level since last November’s 4.7 percent – another sign that because consumers have pulled back, hot inflation in energy isn’t stoking ever stronger price rises elsewhere.

No one could reasonably call today’s inflation report “good” – especially since the baseline effect (which RealityChek readers know throughout 2021 produced annual inflation rates that were unusually high because of a catch-up effect from the unusually low inflation results of 2020) is gone. In other words, price increases much higher than the Fed’s two percent target rate are persisting.

But to this point, anyway, these increases aren’t coming faster – which is crucial because one reason inflation is so feared is its tendency to feed upon itself.

As pointed out above, though, weakening inflation by tanking the economy is no great triumph of economic policy. Worse, it’s all too easy to conclude from recent history that, even though a recession hasn’t officially arrived, once it does, most politicians will rev up the spending engines again, and (successfully) pressure the Fed to at least stop the tightening. And inflation will take off again. 

There’s a much better inflation-fighting alternative that’s available, at least in principle:  Increase the nation’s sagging productivity growth.  Boosting business’ efficiency enables companies to deal with cost increases — including wage hikes — without passing them on to consumers.  But a productivity rebound seems nowhere in sight, seemingly leaving the nation stuck in a pattern of blowing up bubbles to achieve periods of acceptable growth and employment, popping them at least occasionally to keep prices in check, and hoping the whole Ponzi scheme can somehow continue indefinitely.  

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Will Americans Need “That Seventies Show” to Tame Inflation?

Tags

consumer price index, consumers, CPI, demand, economics, elasticity, energy, Federal Reserve, food, inflation, interest rates, Jerome Powell, monetary policy, Paul A. Volcker, recession, retail sales, supply, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I haven’t commented much in detail on dccisions by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, mainly because they’re so thooughly covered in the press. But yesterday’s announcement by the central bank that it would raise the short-term interest rate it controls by an amount not matched in nearly thirty years could loom especially large over the nation’s economic future, and some of its ramifications deserve more attention than they’ve received.

First, as widely noted, the Fed could be tightening monetary policy – in an effort to slow and eventually reverse price increases by slowing economic activity – even though a recession sooner rather than later looks likely. In fact, the timing of yesterday’s interest rate hike and seemingly solid assurances that increases will continue for the foreseeable future may be even stranger, because the recession may already be here.

Some important signs:  Yesterday also saw the release of a Census Bureau report indicating that U.S. retail sales dipped on a monthly basis in May.  If this result holds (and we’ll find out on July 15), that would mark the first such decrease since December, and the news would be ominous given the dominant role played by personal spending in the American economy. 

In addition, on top of the economy’s shrinkage during the first quarter of this year, a well regarded source of forecasts on the path of the gross domestic product (GDP – economist’s main measure of the economy’s size and how it changes) is predicting no growth whatever in the second quarter. That result would enable the nation to skirt a recession according to one popular definition of the term holding that such slumps only occur when GDP adjusted for inflation falls for two consecutive quarters.

At the same time, a flat-line real GDP for the second quarter would mean that, on a cumulative basis, the economy has contracted over a two-quarter stretch. That sounds like a pretty good approximation of a recession to me. In fact, this cumulative shrinkage could still take place even if after-inflation GDP eaks out a small gain between April and June. (We’ll get the first official read on the subject on July 28.)

And maybe more important, when it comes to the lives of most Americans, what’s the difference between a recession (especially if it’s modest) and very slow growth? Indeed, for the record, the Fed itself yesterday lowered its own projection for real U.S. growth for this entire year from 2.8 percent to 1.7 percent.

Second, examining the Fed’s inflation-fighting record during the late-1970s – which it’s also been widely noted bears some strong resemblances to the present – raises immense questions regarding the central bank’s chances of making major inflation progress without triggering a recession that would be anything but modest.

In case you’re not old enough to remember that historical episode, inflation was actually higher during the late-1970s, and also stemmed partly a combination of oil price shocks generated by overseas events plus a development that’s too often ignored nowadays – a substantial deterioration in the nation’s international financial position. Though this current account deficit back then was tiny by today’s standards, it had just become a noteworthy shortfall as a share of GDP after years of small surplus or balance, and was broadly interpreted as a sign that Americans’s spending was spinning out of control (You’ll find a great account of this period here.)

As current Fed Chair Jerome Powell is fond of recalling, that towering late-1970s inflation was broken mainly by the steadfastness of that period’s Chair, Paul A. Volcker – who raised interest rates to levels that were as astronomical as they were wholly unprecedented. But although Volcker took the helm of the Fed when inflation (as measured by the headline Consumer Price Index, or CPI) wasn’t that much higher than today’s rates, it took a near-doubling of these rates from levels that also were much higher than today’s to bring price increases down to acceptable levels, and even this effort took three and a half years and dragged the economy into not just one, but two recessions – and severe ones at that. (My sources for the interest rate infomation is here. For the inflation and growth data, I’ve relied on the official government data tables I always use.)

Specifically, on Volcker’s first day as Fed Chair (in August, 1979), the federal funds rate it controls stood at 11 percent – versus the 1.75 percent ceiling to which the Powell Fed just approved. The annual inflation rate was 11.84 percent – versus the 8.52 percent recorded last month. And the economy was growing by three percent annually – versus the current rate of probably one percent at best.

Volcker engineered rate hikes to the 20 percent neighborhood – three times! (as depicted in the chart below) – and recessions that produced real GDP nosedives of eight and 6.1 percent (in the second quarter of 1980 and the first quarter of 1982), but the CPI didn’t retreat back into the single digits until May, 1981, and it took until the end of 1982 for a read of 3.8 percent to be recorded.

 

That history doesn’t seem to warrant much optimism that the Powell Fed can cut headline inflation to 5.2 percent by year end while increasing rates only to 3.4 percent (as it’s now expecting).

Third, at his press conference following the rate hike announcement, Powell echoed the conventional wisdom: that although the Fed can cut excessive levels of economic demand enough to tame inflation, it can’t address inflation by affecting economy’s ability to create enough supply to meet that demand, and thereby restore a satisfactory inflationary balance between the two.

But supply and demand are actuallly very closely connected. As I’ve discussed when posting about possible tariff cuts on imports from China, when consumer demand is strong enough, companies can pass along increases in their prices because their customers literally are willing to pay. When consumers are cautious, however, such price hikes become much more difficult.

To be sure, these rules don’t always hold. The big exceptions are products on which consumers will cut spending only as a last resort – like food and energy. They’re (rightly) seen as so important that demand for them is called “inelastic” by economists.

Since food and energy prices have been so central to today’s inflation, it’s easy to see why the conventional wisdom on the Fed and the economy’s supply side is generally accepted. But it’s also true that if consumers become stressed enough (for example, by interest rate increases high enough to slash growth, employment, and income levels), they’ll cut their overall spending even if they keep paying higher prices for those staples. Further, they can in principle reduce their purchases on non-staples enough to bring demand down substantially, and with it, inflationary pressures.

No one could reasonably relish this kind of outcome. But if the 1970s experience teaches any lessons for today, it’s that serious hardship for much of the population can’t be avoided if the inflation war is to be won. In my view, Powell has rightly stated that this victory is essential for America’s long-term prosperity. And President Biden deserves credit for endorsing such priorities. But will the Fed Chair actually take the Volcker-like steps needed to beat down inflation? Will a U.S. President still declaring he wants to be reelected remain a fan if he does? Because I can’t yet bring myself to believe either proposition, I can’t yet bring myself to be optimistic that inflation will drop significantly any time soon.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: One Reason Wages May Indeed be Fueling U.S. Inflation

Tags

business, consumer price index, ECI, Employment Cost Index, Federal Reserve, inflation, Jerome Powell, labor productivity, management, multifactor productivity, productivity, wages, workers, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As known by RealityChek regulars, I’ve pushed back strongly (e.g., here) against claims that today’s historically lofty levels of U.S. inflation have been driven largely or even significantly by wage costs. My main point: However healthy, if the wage increases American workers have gained recently lag behind the overall increase in prices across the entire economy – which has been the case – then how can they deserve much blame?

Even so, one other consideration needs to be added to the mix. It was mentioned by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell in his press conference following the central bank’s announcement of its monetary policy decisions during the December meeting of its Open Market Committee (the partly rotating group of Fed governors that determines short-term interest rates and, more recently, the pace of bond buying or selling).

As Powell stated, the Fed is watching “the risks that persistent real wage growth in excess of productivity [growth] could put upward pressure on inflation.” That’s because when businesses are in situations where wages are rising but their operations are becoming more efficient at a faster rate, they can maintain and even increase profits without passing higher costs on to their customers. When productivity is rising more slowly than inflation, this option isn’t available – or not nearly as readily.

Powell also said that “we don’t see that yet.” But in fact, if you compare one measure of employee pay that he’s been watching closely with the most current measure of productivity growth, that’s exactly what you’ll see – and been happening consistently for two decades.

The pay gauge in question is the Employment Cost Index (ECI) created by the Labor Department. What’s especially useful about it is that is takes into account not only wages and salaries, but the full range of benefits workers receive. This data series goes back to 2001, and if you (1) look at the total compensation figures for all private sector workers (as always, I leave out government workers because their pay is determined largely by politicians’ decisions, not market forces) in pre-inflation terms, then (2) place them side-by-side with the inflation results, and then (3), check these against the Labor Department’s labor productivity results, it’s clear that pay has been rising considerably faster than productivity.

For example, during largely high-inflation 2021, the employment cost index (which is measured quarterly) rose on an annual basis during all four quarters.Yet during the second, third, and fourth quarters of last year, labor productivity by the same yardstick improved more slowly than the ECI. In other words, worker pay was rising faster than productivity.

Nor are these results atypical. In fact, from the first quarter of 2001 through the fourth quarter of last year, the ECI is up 74.12 percent but labor productivity is up jus 47.62 percent.

Another way to look at the subject: Before the fourth quarter ECI and labor productivity results came out (on January 28 and February 3, respectively), I looked at the annual changes in both sets of data for the third quarters of each year going back to 2001. During those 21 third quarters, annual productivity growth lagged annual ECI growth in 15.

It’s important to note that these conclusions don’t automatically justify assuming that worker compensation increases are a major driver of today’s inflation after all, much less that productivity growth’s relatively slow advance is employees’ fault. After all, as just noted, labor productivity has been rising more sluggishly than the ECI for two decades. Inflation didn’t take off until last year. Moreover, the labor productivity number reflects far more than the amount of physical and/or mental effort workers put into their jobs. It’s also a function of how well business owners perform – e.g., in terms of giving their employees the equipment and training they need to do their jobs effectively, and of organizing their companies in ways that maximize performance.

In addition, labor productivity isn’t the only gauge of efficiency monitored by the Labor Department. Multifactor productivity (also known as total factor productivity) is tracked, too. This data series, as its name implies, tries to determine efficiency by examining all the inputs that go into corporate operations – including not just person hours worked, but capital, energy, materials, and all the services that are used to produce goods and, yes, other services.

I haven’t compared the trends in the ECI and multifactor productivity, though, for one big reason: Because it depends on collecting so much more information, the multifactor productivity results come out much more slowly than the labor productivity reports. And the 2021 figures don’t seem to be due out for several months.

Finally, as I’ve also noted (see, e.g., here), most economists believe that productivity is one of the most difficult features of the economic landscape to measure. So the wage and productivity comparisons should be viewed with some non-trivial amount of caution. 

Yet if worker compensation is indeed rising faster than productivity, that’s a story that’s unlikely to end well for the U.S. economy. Maybe those multifactor productivity figures – whenever the heck they’re released – will provide some much needed further clarity. 

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Transitory Inflation Story Endures

Tags

CCP Virus, consumer price index, core inflation, coronavirus, COVID 19, CPI, energy prices, Federal Reserve, food prices, inflation, Jay Bhattacharya, Jerome Powell, lockdowns, mandates, shortages, stimulus, supply chains, vaccine mandates, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Rather than presenting a good news/bad news story, today’s official U.S. figures on one key measure of inflation (bringing the story through December) put into pretty clear focus an important old news/new news story. And its main implication is that the current version of lofty inflation looks considerably different from the standard versions that have hit the nation previously. Therefore, it’s looking more “transitory” (at least in terms of stemming mainly from developments specific to the CCP Virus epidemic) than ever.

This distinction of course matters because evaluating the nature of today’s inflation will greatly influence how American policymakers (especially the Federal Reserve) respond, and how they should respond. If today’s price increases stem from standard sources, then a standard response – tighter monetary policy, less government spending – make sense. If current inflation is distinctive, more austere economic policies stil may be needed for any number of reasons, but inflation-fighting won’t be a strong one.

The new news? The U.S. government tracks two main measures of inflation: Overall price increases, and price increases for “core” goods and services. The latter gauge strips out food and energy prices – because ordinarily they’re supposed to be extraordinarily volatile for reasons mainly unrelated to the economy’s underlying inflation prone-ness.

But today’s inflation data (for what’s called the Consumer Price Index, or CPI), demonstrates that during the virus era, the core price increases have been more volatile than their overall counterparts.

Let me make clear two crucial points right at the outset, though: First, as I’ve written previously, “transitory” (a term used for months but “retired” recently by the Federal Reserve) doesn’t necessarily mean “short-lived.” That’s because the virus itself and its effects may well not be short-lived. Indeed, because of the unusually rapid spread of the Omicron variant, pandemic-related and inflation-fueling economic disruptions could well last for months more.

Second, viewing today’s inflation as transitory doesn’t mean that the Biden administration and Congress may not have made a serious mistake in supporting a major round of economic stimulus earlier this year – and therefore greatly boosting Americans’ spending power while the amount of goods and services remained limited for all sorts of (CCP Virus-related and other) reasons.

At the same time, precisely because the last stimulus bill was explicitly linked to the the pandemic’s effects, because the infusion of new money has been running out, and because President Biden’s Build Back Better bill looks pretty dead in Congress, this fiscal policy mistake’s effects are looking transitory, too.

Don’t forget, moreover, the immense monetary policy support for the economy provided by the Fed. It’s virus-related, too, and yesterday, Chair Jerome Powell made clearer than ever his view that the case for such emergency assistance no longer holds, and that the central bank’s decision to start withdrawing it is firmly on track.

In addition, some of the old news (at least for RealityChek readers) about today’s inflation still holds – and further reenforces the case for “transitory-ness.” And this old news concerns the baseline effects phenomenon – by which unusual results recorded at the beginning of a period of time in which comparisons are made exercise powerful, but intrinsically, misleading results at the end of that period. In this instance, the unusually low annual inflation numbers of 2019-2020 have been bound to play a significant role in generating abnormally strong increases for 2020-2021. (BTW, savvy investors take these baseline effects into account when evaluating stock performance, too. Just Google “easy comps.”)

Nevetheless, even this old news now reflects some of the new news. Meaning that for overall inflation, the baseline effect is fading and will continue to fade for the next two data months. For the core, however, the baseline effect will stay strong through March.

The month-by-month and year-by-year figures for both overall and core CPI illustrate all of these points nicely. First, let’s review the monthly changes in overall CPI for this calendar year:

Dec-Jan:                          0.26 percent

Jan-Feb:                          0.35 percent

Feb-March:                     0.62 percent

March-April:                  0.77 percent

April-May:                     0.64 percent

May-June:                      0.90 percent

June-July:                      0.47 percent

July-Aug:                      0.27 percent

Aug-Sept:                      0.41 percent

Sept-Oct:                      0.94 percent

Oct-Nov:                       0.78 percent

Nov-Dec:                      0.47 percent

That new December figure represents both the smallest such increase since July, and a big slowdown from November. So that’s a noteworthy sign of transitory-ness right there.

Yet on a monthly basis, as shown below, core inflation actually quickened a bit in December:

Dec-Jan:                      0.03 percent

Jan-Feb:                       0.10 percent

Feb-March:                  0.34 percent

March-April:                0.92 percent

April-May:                   0.74 percent

May-June:                    0.88 percent

June-July:                     0.33 percent

July-Aug:                     0.10 percent

Aug-Sept:                    0.24 percent

Sept-Oct:                     0.60 percent

Oct-Nov:                     0.53 percent

Nov-Dec:                    0.55 percent

A closer look, however, shows that the core’s ups and downs have been greater than that for overall inflation, and that was especially true early in the pandemic. From January through April, it skyrocketed from 0.03 percent to 0.92 percent, whereas overall price increases went up more slowly (though still impressively), from 0.26 percent to 0.74 percent.

Similar increase patterns are revealed in the annual overall and core inflation increases, but the volatility trends are somewhat different. First, the overall data:

Jan:                             1.37 percent

Feb:                            1.68 percent

March:                       2.64 percent

April:                         4.16 percent

May:                          4.93 percent

June:                          5.32 percent

July:                           5.28 percent

Aug:                           5.20 percent

Sept:                          5.38 percent

Oct:                            6.24 percent

Nov:                           6.88 percent

Dec:                           7.12 percent

Here the nation has experienced not only accelerating annual inflation, but a fourth straight month of acceleration.

Ditto for annual core inflation:

Jan:                            1.40 percent

Feb:                            1.28 percent

March:                       1.65 percent

April:                         2.96 percent

May:                          3.80 percent

June:                          4.45 percent

July:                          4.24 percent

Aug:                          3.98 percent

Sept:                          4.04 percent

Oct:                           4.58 percent

Nov:                          4.96 percent

Dec:                           5.49 percent

But rather than being more volatile early in the pandemic period, these prices sung the most between last June and September, and during December. Still, if the volatility of overall and core inflation have been in the same ballpark lately, that’s an indication that this most recent burst of inflation has broken the mold.

The baseline effects are also signaling the recent outsized volatility of core inflation. Since it was so unusually depressed early in the first pandemic year 2020, these effects, as mentioned above, will stay prominent in January and February, too. But the baseline effect for regular inflation is already fading and will continue on that path. 

As has been the case for nearly two years now, however, the wild card remains the CCP Virus and now its Omicron variant and even more particularly, government reactions to its stunning transmissability. Moreover, it’s not just the Biden administration that may contribute to inflation-boosting supply chain bottlenecks and shortages due to vaccine mandates, other curbs, and their impact on individual fears and behavior. China’s ongoing Zero Covid policy looms as a major threat, too.     

All of which brings up a point made by Stanford University medical school professor Jay Bhattacharya, a leading public health authority. He’s repeatedly written that “The end of the pandemic is primarily a social and political decision” because although “we have no technology to eradicate the virus,”`the knowhow and strategies for reopening safely and sustainably are already available. If, as I believe, he’s right, then ending virus-induced inflation and making it truly transitory is well within reach, too.  

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Case for Inflation Optimism Survives!

Tags

consumer price index, core inflation, CPI, Federal Reserve, inflation, inflation-adjusted wages, Jerome Powell, Labor Department, real wages, stimulus, transitory, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Call me a cockeyed optimist, but today’s official U.S inflation figures (for November) still leave me uncertain as to how lasting recent strong price increases are going to be. One obvious (at least to me) reason: Whereas the release of the October Consumer Price Index (CPI) figures showed major month-to-month acceleration of inflation, the November results show some easing.

That’s the case, moreover, both for the overall inflation numbers and for so-called core inflation, which strips out food and energy prices supposedly because they can be volatile for reasons unrelated to the economy’s overal prone-ness to inflation (like bad weather or the policies of foreign cartels).

Acceleration was still displayed by the annual results for both inflation gauges. But the speedup between October and November was somewhat slower than that between September and October. And here we get to the second reason for my continued (though tempered) optimism: This year-on-year pickup still looks partly due to baseline effects created by the unusually weak price increases of last year, when the CCP Virus pandemic was holding back economic activity more than this year. In other words, inflation may still be playing catch-up, and even more frustrating, this kind of distortion could affect the inflation figures for a few more months.

So let’s take a look at the data to see the basis for my arguments. First, this year’s monthly increases in overall inflation:

Dec-Jan:                          0.26 percent

Jan-Feb:                          0.35 percent

Feb-March:                     0.62 percent

March-April:                  0.77 percent

April-May:                     0.64 percent

May-June:                      0.90 percent

June-July:                      0.47 percent

July-Aug:                      0.27 percent

Aug-Sept:                     0.41 percent

Sept-Oct:                      0.94 percent

Oct.-Nov:                     0.78 percent

As is clear, the November rise is still high, but it’s down not trivially from October’s rate – which was the fastest since June, 2008’s 1.05 percent.

The same pattern is apparent for core inflation:

Dec-Jan:                       0.03 percent

Jan-Feb:                       0.10 percent

Feb-March:                  0.34 percent

March-April:                0.92 percent

April-May:                   0.74 percent

May-June:                    0.88 percent

June-July:                     0.33 percent

July-Aug:                     0.10 percent

Aug-Sept:                    0.24 percent

Sept-Oct:                     0.60 percent

Oct-Nov:                     0.53 percent

As mentioned, the year-on-year overall CPI continues to accelerate, though November’s speedup was smaller than October’s. Here are those statistics:

Jan:                             1.37 percent

Feb:                            1.68 percent

March:                       2.64 percent

April:                         4.16 percent

May:                          4.93 percent

June:                          5.32 percent

July:                           5.28 percent

Aug:                           5.20 percent

Sept:                          5.38 percent

Oct:                            6.24 percent

Nov:                           6.88 percent

Ditto for annual core inflation:

Jan:                            1.40 percent

Feb:                            1.28 percent

March:                       1.65 percent

April:                         2.96 percent

May:                          3.80 percent

June:                          4.45 percent

July:                          4.24 percent

Aug:                          3.98 percent

Sept:                          4.04 percent

Oct:                           4.58 percent

Nov:                          4.96 percent

But for me, those baseline effects make both annual inflation rates look a good deal less alarming. Here are the monthly year-on-year overall CPI inflation rates for 2019-2020:

Jan:                            2.47 percent

Feb:                            2.31 percent

March:                       1.51 percent

April:                         0.34 percent

May:                          0.22 percent

June:                          0.73 percent

July:                          1.05 percent

Aug:                          1.32 percent

Sept:                         1.41 percent

Oct:                          1.19 percent

Nov:                         1.14 percent

November’s read was the lowest since August, and represents the third straight month of slowdown that year. And as I wrote last month, percentages with “ones” in front of them had last been seen in the summer of 2017, and these were well above 1.50 percent. So yes, the total annual inflation figures for this year have been rising each month, but these percentage change continue to result partly from 2019 rates that were abnormally low.

And those previous annual rates remained abnormally low in December (1.30 percent) and even into January (1.37 percent). So the baseline effect will start fading, but won’t be reduced to insignificance until March (because by then the previous annual rate had hit 2.64 percent).

The same baseline argument holds for core inflation. Here are its 2019-2020 annual rates of change for each month:

Jan:                           2.26 percent

Feb:                          2.36 percent

March:                      2.10 percent

April:                        1.44 percent

May:                         1.24 percent

June:                         1.20 percent

July:                         1.56 percent

Aug:                         1.70 percent

Sept:                        1.72 percent

Oct:                          1.63 percent

Nov:                         1.63 percent

Most of the absolute numbers are higher, but you see the same very low figures starting in April. And if you still doubt that they’ve been out of the ordinary, as also noted last month, these increases had stayed above two percent since March, 2018. Moreover, similar to the overall CPI, the annual baseline for the core won’t pierce that level until spring (in this case, in Apri. Indeed, before then, this baseline’s set to drop even furtherthrough Febuary, as shown here:

Dec:                         1.61 percent

Jan:                          1.40 percent

Feb:                         1.28 percent

March:                    1.65 percent

April:                      2.96 percent

Please don’t get the idea that I’m slighting the seriousness of recent inflation. There are plenty of reasons for Americans to be angry. The particularly high levels of overall CPI indicate that inflationary pressures are concentrated significantly in food and energy – categories that are not only highly visible to consumers, but essential.

In addition, the cumulation effect has to be kept in mind. Whether it comes to monthly or annual inflation rates, when they come down, that doesn’t mean that prices are actually falling in absolute terms. It simply means that they’re rising more slowly – and for most of this year from levels that are high by recent standards. For example, if prices are up one percent sequentially one month and half a percent the next, they’ve risen a total of 1.505 percent in a two-month span alone. That can really add up over time.

Finally, due to the fall in real wages, the typical American is seeing his and her purchasing power and living standards drop. In fact, in addition to issuing the CPI figures, the Labor Department also came out with the inflation-adjusted wage numbers. In November, they declined by 0.45 percent for all private sector workers, and by 0.41 percent for production and non-supervisory workers. (As known by RealityChek regulars, the Labor Department doesn’t monitor wage data for government workers because their pay is set largely by politicians’ decisions, not by economic fundamentals.)

And since January, real wages for the entire private sector are down 2.45 percent, and for latter, down 1.93 percent.

Warnings that inflation tends to feed on itself certainly shouldn’t be discounted. But even though today’s inflation has stayed higher for longer than many leading economists and analysts (like Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell) have expected, the November numbers increase my confidence that the economy is moving closer to its ebbing.  And this progress should be reenforced by the end of stimulus payments individuals and families, signs that the supply chain crisis is (slowly, to be sure) coming to an end, the diminishing likelihood that Congress will pass President Biden’s Build Back Better spending bill, and the Fed’s own decision to reduce the stimulus it’s long been injecting into the economy in the form of bond buying. 

Further, as noted just above, the much-feared wage-price spiral, which fueled damaging inflation most recently in the 1970s, hasn’t taken off.

But a waning of inflation could well be accompanied by some genuinely bad news – involving a waning of growth. And sustaining an economic expansion strong enough to keep employment and wages at healthy levels but that doesn’t depend heavily on artificial government crutches is a test that U.S. leaders haven’t passed in decades.