The BLS is back! Employment rose 119,000 in September, neither high enough nor low enough to change anyone’s mind about the state of the economy, although it was more than twice as high as the Dow Jones consensus of 50,000. In August employment fell by 4,000 after a downward revision.
The private sector added 97,000 jobs and the government sector added back 22,000 jobs after shedding 22,000 jobs in August. The service sector added the bulk of jobs, growing 87,000.
The unemployment rate ticked up from 4.32% to 4.40% but still remains relatively low but has increased substantially for African Americans and spiked for those without a high school degree.
At the end of the day, the report will most likely not change anyone’s opinion about their view of the current stance of the economy or monetary policy.
The BLS announced that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased 4.69% on an annualized basis. There is little doubt that inflation is moving in the wrong direction from the Fed’s 2% target. The year-over-year measure grew 2.94%. Our preferred trend measure jumped more than a half percentage point, from 2.42% in July to 3.18% in August. All measures have shown a distinct upward trend since April.
The core measure (excluding food and energy) shows a similar pattern. The annualized increase for August jumped to 4.23%, the year-over-year measure grew 3.11% and the trend measure popped to 3.38%.
While there is, and will be, considerable chatter over the effects of tariffs on goods prices, one would imagine that service sector prices may be more immune to the tariffs compared to goods prices. Unfortunately, the news is not good for service sector prices either. All of the measures are well above the 3% mark: 3.69% for trend, 3.90% annualized and 3.81% year-over-year.
what does this mean for policy?
Obviously, the inflation numbers have put the Fed in even more of a quandary. If it were not for the increase in the service sector prices some people could claim that the tariffs have increased the price level but may not have future inflation effects. While the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation comes from the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index (to be released on September 26, after the upcoming FOMC meeting next week), the two price indices tend to move together.
Although there has been some weakness in the real side of the economy, the labor market more than GDP, the FOMC certainly does not want to see an inflationary episode similar to what happened a few years ago. Here is a longer time series of the core CPI:
The high CPI inflation during 2022 meant that real purchasing power was eroding because prices were outpacing hourly earnings growth.
However, initial claims for unemployment insurance, released today, showed a decidedly upward tick, providing some more evidence of a weakening labor market.
Overall, it is our view that the inflation risks outweigh the real-side risk. There’s already chatter that maybe 3% is the new 2%.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced that the establishment survey showed that payroll employment was little changed, rising 22,000. In addition, June was revised down 27,000 and July up slightly, 6,000, for a net decline over the previous two months of 21,000. The government sector declined by 16,000.
The goods producing sector shed 25,000 and has declined in each of the last four months. Since July of 2000 employment in that sector has declined by about 3 million jobs. There has been a lot of research on what is known as the “China shock” that occurred when China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. Here is an article discussing some of the findings of the research.
Policy Outlook
At this stage, there is little doubt that the FOMC will cut the Fed funds rate at its upcoming September meeting. The big question is: How will markets respond? If the Fed is seen as capitulating to the White House, inflation expectations will rise, and so will market interest rates. However, those on the FOMC who are calling for a rate cut can make plausible arguments unrelated to any pressure from the White House. Our view is that inflation is still not under control and has been increasing of late and so cuts to the fed funds rate is premature.
The BEA announced that inflation as measured by the annualized month-over-month change in the Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) price index fell from 3.49% (June) to 2.40% (July) on an annualized basis. Our corresponding measure of trend inflation also fell, from 2.63% to 2.55%. However, the annual (year-over-year) measure rose slightly, from 2.56% to 2.60%.
As is well known, the FOMC concentrates more on core PCE inflation (that is, excluding the “volatile” food and energy components). Core inflation rose across the three measures we regularly report. The annualized month-over-month rate rose from 3.20% to 3.33%; the year-over-year from 2.77% to 2.88%; and our measure of trend from 2.80% to 2.98%.
The PCE inflation results were foreshadowed by the earlier CPI release.
Earlier this week, the BEA also released its second estimate for quarter 2 Gross Domestic Product. In brief, output growth was revised up from 3% to 3.3%.
Policy Outlook
We’ll organize our discussion of the policy outlook around the Taylor rule which prescribes setting the FOMC’s policy rate, the Federal funds rate, based on: (1) the “neutral” Fed funds rate, given by the sum of the real interest rate and the inflation rate; (2) how much the inflation rate exceeds target; and (3) some measure of real activity like the output gap (potential output less actual) or the unemployment rate gap (the actual unemployment rate less its natural rate). (For those wishing to play around with different scenarios, the Atlanta Fed has a web page for that.)
While in theory each of these components is well defined, in practice they are not. Start with inflation. Measuring inflation seems pretty straightforward, particularly since the FOMC has stated its preference for core PCE inflation. At what horizon should inflation be measured? As we’ve harped on in the past, the month-over-month rate is too volatile while the year-over-year rate takes a long time to capture changes in trend. Suppose that the FOMC uses something conceptually similar to our measure of trend inflation. We still face the problem of accounting for transitory phenomena like Trump’s tariffs. Some folks (including some members of the FOMC) argue that these tariffs have pushed up the price level without changing the underlying trend. As a result, measured inflation will be higher, but this does not reflect a change in trend. As always, the devil is in the details: How much of current inflation is due to these transitory factors?
Next, measuring gaps is hard and subject to measurement error. The output gap requires knowing potential output which is the level of aggregate output that the economy could produce with current resources (labor force, capital, etc.) used at typical intensities. Similarly, the unemployment rate gap depends on the natural rate of unemployment: the rate that would prevail in the long run absent shocks. Both potential output and the natural rate of unemployment need to be estimated and so are subject to uncertainty. Further, the current environment is sending mixed signals regarding the real side of the economy. Output growth for the second quarter is humming along quite nicely, but this growth comes on the heels of a disappointing first quarter. The revised job creation data suggest an anemic labor market, but the unemployment rate is still low.
Finally, the neutral Fed funds rate suffers not only from the inflation issues discussed above, but also problems in measuring the real interest rate. The problem for those arguing that the current Fed funds rate is too restrictive — meaning that it’s above its neutral rate — is that we don’t really know that neutral rate.
Those advocating cuts to the Fed funds rate argue some combination of: (1) monetary policy is too tight: the Fed funds rate is well above its neutral level; (2) while inflation is above target, this is due to transitory factors like Trump’s tariffs; and (3) the real side of the economy is weak as evidenced by the job creation numbers.
The case for no change is built on: inflation is too high (and increasing of late) and therefore a restrictive monetary policy is appropriate, and there are mixed signals from the real side of the economy.
The political pressure being applied to the FOMC adds yet another complication. To grasp the nature of this problem, keep in mind that the Fed controls one interest rate: the Federal funds rate which is an overnight rate relevant to banks. The following discussion also makes use of the Fisher equation which states that the nominal interest rate is the sum of the real interest rate and expected inflation. Given that inflation is above target, the risk of cutting the Fed funds rate is that market participants may view the Fed as caving to political pressures to lower interest rates. In turn, market participants may well question the Fed’s credibility and its commitment to low, stable inflation. As a result we would expect a rise in inflation expectations. Then, via the Fisher equation, such an increase in expected inflation will lead to a rise in market interest rates in order to compensate investors for the higher inflation they anticipate. Paradoxically, the political pressures on the Fed make it important for the Fed to keep the current level of the Fed funds rate in order to maintain the Fed’s political independence and credibility. No one wants to be painted as the second coming of Arthur Burns. Here is a fascinating podcast describing how Arthur Burns capitulated to Richard Nixon, bringing about the worst inflationary episodes in recent U.S. history.
The BLS announced that inflation as measured by the consumer price index fell to 2.38% on an annualized basis, down from 3.5% in June. The year-over-year number climbed to 2.73%, the highest reading since February, and an increase from June’s 2.67%. The annualized core CPI jumped from 2.77% to 3.74%. Our preferred trend measure for the CPI fell slightly from the previous month, from 2.44% to 2.42%. And our core trend measure rose to 2.95% from 2.45%.
The Fed’s preferred measure is the Personal Consumption Expenditure price level and will be released on August 29, providing more information on the direction of prices in the economy. While the two measures, CPI and PCE, do not move in lock-step over longer periods of time they tend to move in the same direction. If PCE inflation for July is similarly higher than in June (as seems likely given CPI inflation), it will be difficult for those FOMC members advocating for a rate cut to make a compelling case.
There were several data releases as well as a Fed meeting this week. The Jobs Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) was released on Tuesday. The release reported that there was little change in job openings, hires and total separations. The graph below shows that there are still slightly more jobs available, 7,437,000 than unemployed persons, 7,015,000.
Another useful statistic is the rate of job openings, determined by the number of openings divided by the number employed plus openings, that is, filled and unfilled jobs. This number has been steady over the past year once the outsized rates in the post-pandemic period eased. The other rates in the graph are found by dividing the level by total employment. The quit and layoff rates have been flat in 2025.
On Wednesday the BEA announced that real GDP increased 3.0% on an annulaized basis in the second quarter. Consumption increased 1.4%, investment fell 15.6% and government consumption and investment increased 0.4%. Exports and imports declined, 1.8% and 30.3%, respectively.
A different way of thinking through the above National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) data is in terms of contributions to output growth. The 3% growth in output can, then, be decomposed as: 1 percentage point due to consumption, 0.1 percentage points due to government spending and 5.1 points due to imports. Investment exerted a 3 percentage point drag on output growth while exports contributed -0.2 percentage points. Of particular importance is the 30.3% decline in imports following a 37.9% increase in Q1. A reasonable interpretation of this data is that Trump’s promised tariffs boosted imports in the first quarter (as businesses imported goods ahead of the tariffs). The large negative growth of imports in the second quarter then reflects an “unwinding” of the first quarter hike in imports.
On Thursday of this week the BEA announced the PCE price index from the Personal Income and Outlays release. The release showed an increase in the PCE price index of 3.42% on annualized basis after rising 2.03% in May. Our preferred trend measure increased to 2.66% from 2.28%. The PCE core measure cruised past the 3% mark to 3.12%, about half a percentage point higher than the previous month. Our trend measure of PCE core inflation rose from 2.69% to 2.83%. These PCE inflation numbers were largely foreshadowed by the CPI data released over 2 weeks ago.
Finally, at the end of the week, the BLS announced that payroll employment increased 73,000. Even worse, there were also downward revisions totaling 258,000; 125,000 in May and 133,000 in June. There was one small positive bit in the report, average hours of work increased to 34.3 from 34.2.
The goods producing sector shed 13,000 jobs for the third consecutive month. The service sector, however, saw continued growth, increasing 96,000. Interestingly, the diffusion index (indicating the fraction of firms increasing increasing or not changing employment) rose to 51.2, meaning that more firms increased employment than decreased it.
The household survey also showed considerable weakness, employment fell 260,000 and the labor force participation rate declined to 62.2 from 62.3. The unemployment rate inched up slightly from 4.12% to 4.25%.
Policy Outlook
The FOMC now finds itself in an unenviable position of seeing inflation well above target and a weakening real side of the economy. It may seem strange to describe the real side as “weak” when output recorded a 3.0% increase. The problem is the effect of tariffs on imports. We don’t want to make too much of the decline in exports, but will be watching to see if U.S. trade partners respond to U.S. tariffs by pulling back on their imports of U.S. goods and services – which will be reflected in lower U.S. exports. The -15.6% growth in investment similarly looks bad except that it comes on the heels of a very robust 23.8% growth rate in the first quarter.
On the real side, labor market developments are starting to turn down. We were comforted by the solid job gains in April and May, but the revised data suggests a more anemic job market. While the 73,000 jobs added in June look better than the revised numbers for April and May, that’s not saying much. The weak labor market would seem the best case for those pushing for a Fed funds rate cut.
On the other hand, inflation continues to run higher than the FOMC’s 2% target and is now moving in the wrong direction (that is, away from 2%). Some policymakers are arguing that the effect of tariffs will be a level shift in prices that will have no lasting effects on inflation. While this is plausible, this case would be stronger if there were evidence in its favor. We’ve yet to see such evidence. Remember that policymakers also argued that the effect of the pandemic would similarly be a left shift in prices with no lasting effects on inflation. As Montgomery Scott famously said, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Over the past few years, the FOMC has tried to engineer a so-called soft landing in which inflation is brought under control without causing a recession. The Committee now faces rising inflation and a potential recession. Since the Fed only has one instrument (the Fed funds rate), it cannot address the two targets, inflation and unemployment. Job one for monetary policymakers is to keep inflation in check. Let fiscal policymakers handle the real side.
In its advance estimate, the BEA announced that Q1 GDP declined 0.3% on an annualized basis. Total output (GDP) is the sum of consumption, investment, government spending and net exports (exports – imports). Given the turmoil from Washington, DC, investment and imports saw outsized gains, 21.9% and 41.3%, respectively. But one needs to be careful here in interpreting these numbers. Imports do not add or subtract from GDP. Those who claim that imports are a drag on GDP are simply wrong. When someone imports a $1,000 TV (imports go up but enter the GDP calculation with a negative sign), someone buys that TV so consumption goes up by that same amount. It seems that most journalists reporting on this make the mistake that it was, in fact, imports driving down GDP. Here is a nice explanation that goes deeper.
Consumption grew 1.8% and government consumption fell 1.4%.
A different way to view the GDP numbers is in terms of contributions of the major components to output growth (that is, weighting the growth rates of the various components by their shares of GDP). Recall that output growth was -0.28% (annualized). Investment contributed 4.01 percentage points to output growth while consumption added 1.24 points. Exports chipped in a meager 0.2 percentage points. Negative contributions were recorded by government spending (-0.25 percentage points) and -6.48 points due to the surge in imports.
The BEA also released the Personal Income and Outlays report that showed an annualized decline of 0.53% in the personal consumption expenditures price index in March (down from 5.47% in February) while our preferred trend measure came in at 2.46% (a drop from February’s 3.96%). On a year-over-year basis, PCE inflation slipped from 2.69% to 2.29%. The core PCE inflation remained positive at 0.33%, a plunge from 6.14% in the previous month); our trend measure dropped from 4.03% to 2.80%; and the year-over-year rate dipped from 2.96% to 2.65%. Interestingly, these declines in PCE inflation were largely foreshadowed by similar declines in CPI inflation (released two weeks ago).
The large spike in imports could plausibly be caused by buying before the tariffs kick in and so would likely be transitory. The same might be said for investment as the largest component was equipment investment, rising 22.5% on an annualized basis. With the large effect from imports driving the decline in GDP and the fact that inflation remains above the Fed’s target presents a case for the Fed to keep the fed funds rate at its current level.
The BLS announced that the CPI fell 0.60% on an annualized basis in March, down from 2.62% in February. The year-over-year inflation fell from 2.81% (February) to 2.40% (March) while our trend measure dropped from 3.62% to 2.21%.
Inflation as measured by core CPI inflation (excluding food and energy) similarly fell. The annualized month-over-month rate tumbled from 3.49% to 2.55% while the year-over-year rate dipped from 3.14% to 2.81%. Our trend measure of core CPI inflation dropped even more, from 3.49% to 2.55%.
What does the CPI portend for the PCE deflator (to be released in a couple of weeks) and so monetary policy? Frankly, it’s hard to tell. While CPI and PCE inflation move together when looking at long periods of time, at much shorter horizons there’s a much looser link. For example, February’s CPI inflation fell relative to January, yet PCE inflation rose.
The good news for the policy outlook is that, at the time we are writing, President Trump has put a 90 day pause on his plan to raise tariffs on most countries. The one exception is China: both countries have raised their bilateral tariffs to prohibitively high values.
The BLS announced that payroll employment rose 228,000 in March after January and February’s lackluster performance. The private sector added the bulk of the jobs, 209,000, with the government sector adding 19,000. The federal government, however, lost 4,000 jobs in March having already lost 11,000 in February.
The manufacturing sector continues to struggle, adding only 1,000 jobs in March and only 4,000 jobs over the past three months. The service sector, on the other hand, grew 197,000.
Average weekly hours remained at 34.2 and average hourly earnings rose from $35.91 to $36.00.
The household survey showed an employment increase of 201,000. The number of unemployed persons increased by 31,000. The labor force participation rate increased from 62.4 to 62.5. The unemployment rate ticked up very slightly, from 4.14% to 4.15%. Note that the unemployment rate as well as those marginally attached are still near their all time lows.
The Jobs Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) was released on April 1. Overall, there was very little change in any of the metrics: openings, hires and separations. As of March, there are still slightly more job openings that unemployed individuals.
On April 2, 2025, President Trump announced drastic increases in U.S. tariffs. While uncertainty over these tariffs may have affected March job creation, the effects of the actual tariffs will only be reflected in the data starting with April data. The full effects of the tariffs will depend on things like: (1) Whether U.S. trade partners respond with their own tariffs; (2) Whether U.S. trade partners can come to an agreement to end the tariff war; and (3) How quickly U.S. firms can adapt their supply chains to the new tariff environment, including reshoring manufacturing jobs. A murky monetary policy outlook is even murkier.
The BLS announced that the CPI rose 2.62% on an annualized basis, the lowest reading since August, 2024. Year over year inflation came in at 2.81%. Our preferred trend measure of inflation was 3.62%. The report offers some good news given the CPI spike in January. The biggest decline came from energy commodities (gasoline and fuel oil), down 10.1% on an annualized basis, down 3.17% year over year; however, our trend measure rose 8.53% due to outsized increases in January (13.8%) and February (17.9%). Energy prices are extremely volatile as can be seen in the magnitude of the scale in the energy graph.
Given the volatility mentioned above, policy makers often remove food (including the price of eggs) and energy from the index, namely, core CPI. The monthly core number fell from 5.49% to 2.75% on an annualized basis, and from 3.29% to 3.14% year over year. Our trend measure fell from 5.85% to 3.49%.
While there is a small sigh of relief given January’s spike in inflation, the core numbers are still solidly above the Fed’s 2% target. Moreover, these numbers from February do not reflect the recent tariff measures put in place and may take many months before we see any price effects. Looking at future inflation expectations, however, reveals a marked increase in prices. The breakeven inflation rate represents a measure of expected inflation derived from 5-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Securities and 5-Year Treasury Inflation-Indexed Constant Maturity Securities. The latest value implies what market participants expect inflation to be in the next 5 years, on average.
Meeting next week, the Fed will almost surely stay the course with no change in rates as they wait to see how current policies play out over the next few months.
