On measuring trend inflation

One of the challenges over the past couple of years has been measuring trend inflation. As shown in the figure below, monthly inflation rates are volatile; 12-month inflation rates are much smoother, but only slowly reflect changes in trend inflation. Previously, we’ve focused on the 3-month inflation rate.

As shown below, the 3-month inflation rate is approximately the average of three 1-month inflation rates. This means that each month, the 3-month inflation rate adds the current 1-month inflation rate, and drops the 1-month inflation rate from 4 months ago. Consequently, the 3-month inflation rate can drop precipitously if the inflation rate being dropped is relatively high.

A different way of putting the issue is that the calculation for the 3-month inflation rate assigns a weight of 1/3 to each of the past 3 months’ inflation rates, and a weight of 0 to inflation rates 4 or more months ago. Why such a discrete change in weights? Why not a more gradual decline in weights?

The remainder of this post gets into the guts of an alternative measure of trend inflation in which the weights on monthly inflation rates decline with their age. Readers uninterested in the details should feel free to jump to the end which presents our new measure of trend inflation.

The 3-month inflation rate as an average of 1-month inflation rates

Consider the calculation of the gross 3-month (non-annualized) inflation rate for November,

1+\tilde\pi^{(3)}_{November} = \frac{P_{November}}{P_{August}}

where P is the price level (for a given month), and the superscript indicates the horizon over which the inflation rate is computed (3 months in this case). The `tilde’ over \pi indicates that the measure of inflation is not annualized. Similarly, 1-month (non-annualized) inflation rates are given by

1+\tilde\pi^{(1)}_{September} = \frac{P_{September}}{P_{August}}

1+\tilde\pi^{(1)}_{October} = \frac{P_{October}}{P_{September}}

1+\tilde\pi^{(1)}_{November} = \frac{P_{November}}{P_{October}}

From the above, it follows that

1+\tilde\pi^{(3)}_{November} = \left(1+\tilde\pi^{(1)}_{September}\right) \left(1+\tilde\pi^{(1)}_{October}\right) \left(1+\tilde\pi^{(1)}_{November}\right)

The gross 3-month inflation rate is the product of the three immediate past 1-month inflation rates. Taking the natural logarithm,

\ln\left(1+\tilde\pi^{(3)}_{November}\right) = \ln\left(1+\tilde\pi^{(1)}_{September}\right) + \ln\left(1+\tilde\pi^{(1)}_{October}\right) + \ln\left(1+\tilde\pi^{(1)}_{November}\right)

we obtain

\tilde\pi^{(3)}_{November} \simeq \tilde\pi^{(1)}_{September} + \tilde\pi^{(1)}_{October} + \tilde\pi^{(1)}_{November}

where the approximation arises from \ln(1+x) \simeq x for x close to zero.

If we wish to work with annualized inflation rates, then

1+\pi^{(3)}_{November} = \left(\frac{P_{November}}{P_{August}}\right)^{4}

Again taking the natural logarithm, we obtain

 \pi^{(3)}_{November} \simeq 4 \tilde\pi^{(3)}_{November}

The 1-month inflation rates will have “12” in the place of “4”. We now have

\pi^{(3)}_{November} \simeq \frac{1}{3} \left[\pi^{(1)}_{September} + \pi^{(1)}_{October} + \pi^{(1)}_{November}\right]

In other words, the 3-month annualized inflation rate for November is (approximately) the average of the three 1-month annualized inflation rates.

A related problem: computing an average

Given 3 observations on some variable, the sample average or mean is

\overline x^{(3)} = \frac{1}{3} \left[x_{1} + x_{2} + x_{3}\right]

Now, if we add a fourth observation,

\overline x^{(4)} = \frac{1}{4} \left[x_{1} + x_{2} + x_{3} + x_{4}\right]

However, computing \overline x^{(4)} as above discards the “work” done in calculating x^{(3)}. From the calculation of \overline x^{(3)},

x_{1} + x_{2} + x_{3} = 3 \overline x^{(3)}

Substituting into the formula for \overline x^{(4)},

\overline x^{(4)} = \frac{1}{4} \left[ 3 \overline x^{(3)} + x_{4} \right]

or,

\overline x^{(4)} = \frac{3}{4} \overline x^{(3)} + \frac{1}{4} x_{4}

This leads to a well-known formula for recursively computing an average:

\overline x^{(t)} = \frac{t-1}{t} \overline x^{(t-1)} + \frac{1}{t} x_{t}

where t is the number of observations. It says that the mean at date t is a weighted average of the previous mean, and the current (date t) observation.

This is all well and good if the population average is constant. But what if the population average changes periodically. If we knew when these changes in population average occur, we would simply discard all the old observations, and start computing the average afresh. When we don’t know when changes in the population average occur, an alternative approach is to apply a constant “gain” or weight to new observations:

\overline x^{(t)} = w x_{t} + (1-w) \overline x^{(t-1)}

where w is the constant weight.

Application: Trend inflation

The discussion above suggests measuring trend inflation via

\pi^{T}_{t} = w \pi^{(1)}_{t} + (1-w) \pi^{T}_{t-1}

In words: trend inflation is a weighted average of the current one-month inflation rate (with weight w), and the previous trend inflation rate (with weight 1-w). Solving this equation backwards gives

\pi^{T}_{t} = w \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} (1-w)^{j} \pi^{(1)}_{t-j}

That is to say, the measure of trend inflation at t is a weighted average of all past inflation rates, and that the weights decline geometrically with time. Put differently, there is a smooth drop off in the importance attached to previous inflation rates. By way of example, for w=1/3, the weight associated with the current inflation rate is 1/3 = 0.333; with the previous month’s inflation rate, 2/9 = 0.222; with the inflation rate 2 months ago, 4/27 = 0.148; and with inflation 12 months ago, roughly 0.00257 — very small.

Our new measure of trend inflation

The figure below plots our `constant-gain’ measure of trend core PCE inflation for a weight of 1/3 on the latest observation, along with the monthly, 3-month, and annual inflation rates. Relative to the 3-month inflation rate, this measure of trend inflation is somewhat smoother while still responding in a timely fashion to apparent changes in trend inflation.

December Employment

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The BLS announced that payroll employment increased 216,000 between November and December, the private sector contributed 164,000 to the total. Private service producing jobs accounted for 142,000 of the total, despite a 33,300 decline in temp workers and a 22,600 decline in transportation and warehousing jobs. October employment was revised down 45,000 and November down 26,000.

Average weekly hours fell from 34.4 to 34.3 and with the 142,000 increase in private sector employment, total hours of work fell 2.0%.

Average hourly earnings increased 0.4%, from $34.12 to $34.27. Earnings growth has been outpacing price growth over the past few months with the big declines in inflation even though wage growth has slowed somewhat.

A different way to visualize what’s happening to hourly earnings relative to prices is to plot both in logarithms. For current purposes, there are two useful facts regarding logarithms. First, a straight line represents a constant growth rate. In other words, if the Fed hit its target for core PCE inflation, then when core PCE is plotted in logarithms, we would see a straight line. As shown in the chart below, core PCE inflation may have been constant between 2011 and 2015, and again from 2016 to 2020. The second useful property of logarithms is that a constant gap between two lines means that they are growing at the same rate. Of particular interest is comparing the gap between average hourly earnings and a price level since this gap represents real average hourly earnings (that is, after accounting for changes in the price level). In the chart below, the gaps between average hourly earnings and either the CPI or PCE were roughly constant from 2011 to 2013 which means that earnings grew at about the same rate as prices. Perhaps more interesting is these gaps are changing. By way of example, from 2015 to just prior to the pandemic, the gaps between earnings and the price levels increased meaning that real earnings (the quantity of goods and services that can be purchased) increased. During the pandemic-induced recession, real earnings blipped up as nominal earnings rose and prices fell. However, starting in mid-2020, prices grew faster than earnings: the gap between the two shrank. Then, starting in 2022, the gaps between earnings and prices started opening up again. In other words, despite all the concern about inflation, real earnings grew. Indeed, as measured against the CPI, real earnings in late 2023 were close to what they were just prior to the pandemic; against the PCE, real earnings are higher.

The household survey paints a much different picture of the December employment situation. The labor force participation rate fell from 62.8 to 62.5. Employment declined by 683,000 leading to a 0.3 percentage point decline in the employment to population ratio. The number of unemployed rose 6,000 and the unemployment rate rose slightly from 3.72% to 3.74%.

There are well known trends in male and female labor force participation, as well as by race. The chart below digs deeper into the overall labor force participation rate by looking at finer groupings. At the start of the pandemic, labor force participation fell across all groups. Looking since mid-2020, participation by white men has leveled off at a lower level; for white women, it’s hard to tell whether there has been a downward level shift. The participation rate for Hispanic men has trended down since 2007. More recently, their participation rate seems to be leveling off, with no obvious level shift. On the other hand, the participation rates for Hispanic women, Black women and Black men are all back to their pre-COVID levels.

Data for JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) were released on January 3. JOLTS gives information concerning worker flows in and out of jobs. As shown below, since 2021 the layoff rate has been fairly stable; since 2022, the rates for openings, hires and quits have trended down. Indeed, the hiring and quit rates are close to their pre-pandemic values.

JOLTS data is also useful because it allows us to plot the Beveridge curve, the relationship between vacancies and unemployment. Indeed, the Beveridge curve is central to Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides search model of unemployment. In essence the Beveridge Curve is behind the notion of a “tight” labor market: high vacancy rates and low unemployment tend to lead to a growing, or healthy economy. In the figure below, we have color-coded points corresponding to: the Great Recession, pre-Great Recession, post-Great Recession, and since the onset of the COVID pandemic. Visually, the pre-Great Recession and Great Recession periods lie on a relatively stable Beveridge Curve. However, there is a shift in the Beveridge Curve after the Great Recession, and the pandemic period does not fit either of the previous periods. However, over the past couple of years, the unemployment rate has remained fairly stable while the vacancy rate has fallen (see also above). It’s hard to tell where the US labor market will end up, but recent observations are getting close to the post-Great Recession Beveridge curve.

Overall, the reports show a continued strong labor market. The latest reports shouldn’t change Fed calculus.

November PCE Inflation

Bottom line: core PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditure) inflation is down. The monthly annualized inflation rate fell from 1.8% in October to 0.7% in November; the year-over-year rate fell from 3.4% to 3.2%; and our preferred three month annualized rate fell from 2.3% to 2.2%. Ignoring the very noisy monthly rate, these declines are in keeping with our “prediction” of small changes in core PCE inflation based on the earlier CPI (Consumer Price Index) report for November.

Looking at overall PCE price inflation, the three month annualized rate plunged from 3.1% in October to 1.4% in November; the year-over-year rate fall was more modest, from 2.9% to 2.6%. These declines are in line with those of the earlier CPI report.

Given the continued decline in almost all measures of inflation it seems that the Fed will be looking closely at the “real” side of the economy. In fact, the recent revision of GDP by the BEA showed that the third (and final) estimate came in at 4.9%, down from 5.2% in the second estimate. According to the BEA the downward revision primarily reflected a decline in consumer spending, from 3.6% to 3.1%.

In its most recent announcement, the Fed noted,

Recent indicators suggest that growth of economic activity has slowed from its strong pace in the third quarter. Job gains have moderated since earlier in the year but remain strong, and the unemployment rate has remained low. Inflation has eased over the past year but remains elevated.

The latest revision to the third quarter tells us that the third quarter wasn’t quite as strong as previously reported. The Fed puts a lot of resources into nowcasting the US economy, so FOMC’s statement about slowing growth in the fourth quarter is probably a good read on the economy. The downward revision in the third quarter suggests that the fourth quarter may be even weaker than the Fed thought. With core PCE inflation edging closer to the Fed’s 2% target, and a weaker real side to the US economy, further hikes in the Fed funds rate seem unlikely.

November CPI inflation

According to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics release, CPI (Consumer Price Index) inflation fell between October and November. While the one month annualized rate rose from 0.5% to 1.2%, the three month rate plunged from 4.4% to 2.2% and the 12 month rate was down marginally, from 3.2% to 3.1%.

Core CPI inflation was unchanged at the three month (3.4%) and 12 month (4%) horizons; the one month rate rose from 2.8% to 3.5%.

The FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) focuses on inflation as measured by the core PCE deflator. However, November data for that measure of prices will not be released for two weeks. The scatter plot below shows that there’s a positive correlation between 3-month core CPI inflation and 3-month core PCE inflation. Given the marginal declines in 3-month and 12-month core CPI inflation, our best guess is that the corresponding core PCE inflation measures will also fall slightly. With the October 3-month core PCE inflation rate having come in at 2.4%, prospects look promising for core PCE inflation to settle in near the Fed’s 2% target.

The Federal Reserve held the policy rate steady and the median projections pointed to three rate cuts in 2024 and more the next few years, ending with: 4.6% in 2024, 3.6% in 2025 and 2.9% in 2026. The financial markets went bonkers: Dow up 500 points crossing the 37,000 mark to set a record.

November Employment Report

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The BLS reported that nonfarm payroll employment increased 199,000 in November, 150,000 of which came from the private sector. September employment numbers were revised down 34,000 with no revisions in October.

The service sector accounted for the bulk of the employment gains, increasing 121,000. Retail employment continues to suffer, falling for the fourth consecutive month. Health care and social assistance continues to show strong growth.

Average weekly hours increased from 34.3 to 34.4 leading to an increase in total private hours of work.

Average hourly earnings increased from $33.98 to $34.10 and has increased 4.0% year over year.

The household survey showed considerable strength with the labor force increasing 532,000, the participation rate increased to 62.8, the number employed rose 747,000 and the number unemployed fell 215,000, all leading to the unemployment rate falling from 3.88% to 3.74%.

Princeton economist and former FOMC vice-chair Alan Blinder defines a “soft landing” as one in which, following a tightening of monetary policy, inflation is either stabilized or reduced either without a recession, or a mild one. In a recent article, Blinder identifies 11 monetary policy tightenings in the US since 1965. He characterizes 3 as hard landings, and 2 further episodes ending with a hard landing that was not the Fed’s fault. That leaves 6 soft(ish) landings. The lessons are: first, soft landings are not that uncommon, representing about half of recent episodes; and second, lowering inflation need not end with a recession, although economic activity slows. Predicting a recession in advance is notoriously difficult. Looking at the recent data, what we can say is that the slowing employment growth in 2023 is consistent with a soft landing scenario. Until recently, the same could be said of GDP (output) growth; the 4.9% annual growth recorded in the 3rd quarter being the notable outlier. On the other hand, why land at all? Just keep flying!! Stay tuned.

October PCE inflation and GDP revision

On November 30, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditure) data for October 2023. The BEA notes a small monthly change in the PCE deflator (0.6% at an annual rate, down from 4.5% in September), and that the 12-month PCE inflation rate came in at 3.0% (down from 3.4% in September). These numbers largely mirror the earlier CPI (Consumer Price Index) release: the annualized monthly change fell from 4.8% to 0.5%; the 12-month rate from 3.7% to 3.2%. We prefer to look at the 3-month annualized inflation rate which also fell, from 3.7% to 3.2%; CPI inflation fell from 4.9% to 4.4%.

The cognoscenti know that the Fed’s preferred inflation measure is so-called core PCE inflation (taking out the food and energy components). By this measure, the monthly inflation rate fell from 3.8% to 2.0%, a larger decline than recorded by core CPI (3.9% to 2.8%). The 12-month inflation rate fell by 0.2 percentage points, to 3.5%; core CPI inflation fell by 0.1 percentage point to 3.0%. While our preferred 3-month annualized inflation rate fell, it was essentially unchanged at 2.4%. In contrast, the 3-month annualized change in core CPI rose in October, from 3.1% to 3.4%

In summary, the PCE inflation numbers for October confirm what was seen in the CPI inflation reported about two weeks earlier: inflation is down. How much depends on which series you focus upon. Keeping in mind that CPI inflation tends to run about 0.5 percentage points higher than PCE inflation, the data for October suggest that the US economy is approaching the Fed’s 2.0% inflation target.

Gross Domestic Product (Second Estimate)

On November 29 the BEA announced that real GDP for Q3 was revised up from 4.9% to 5.2%. While revisions to nonresidential fixed investment and state and local government spending were the leading causes of the increase, consumer spending was revised down.

Policy outlook

Given the continued decline in the inflation numbers and the continued strength in the output numbers, it appears the economy has digested the record increases in the Fed Funds rate without roiling the real side of the economy. There seems little doubt at this point that Fed policy is achieving its inflation reduction goal and may have reached the peak of the Fed Funds rate during this cycle. That is, nothing in the data points to the need for further increases in the rate and the market is suggesting some rate declines in 2024.

October Employment and CPI

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The BLS announced that payroll employment increased by 150,000 according to the establishment survey. As we have argued about inflation, the one month change can be quite volatile. Looking at the three month average change, the picture shows a slowing trend for employment growth. The private sector added only 99,000, meaning the the government sector was responsible for about 1/3 of the overall gain. The payroll numbers for the previous 2 months were revised down 101,000; down 62,000 in August and 39,000 in September.

Private sector average weekly hours fell from 34.4 to 34.3. That, along with the jobs number drove total hours of work down by 2.6%, that largest decline in over a year.

Private sector average hourly earnings rose from $33.93 to $34.00, a 0.2% increase. Real wages continue to rise as the year over year wage increase is outpacing CPI inflation.

The household survey data paints a slightly darker picture. Employment fell 348,000 and the employment to population ratio fell from 60.4 to 60.2. The labor force declined 201,000. The number of people unemployed rose by 146,000. Those changes combined to increase the unemployment rate from 3.79% to 3.88%. The unemployment rate for men has increased faster than that for women since the beginning of 2023.

CPI

On an annualized basis, monthly CPI inflation plunged from 4.9% in September to 0.5% in October. As we have previously noted, monthly inflation is extremely volatile. One way to smooth out these fluctuations is to look at the annual inflation rate which fell from 3.7% (September) to 3.2% (October). However, the 12-month inflation rate sluggishly reflects changes in underlying inflation which is why we prefer to look at the three-month inflation rate. The good news is that this measure also dropped, from 4.9% to 4.4%.

Others prefer to look at core CPI inflation (removing the volatile food and energy components). The annualized monthly change in core CPI inflation is down, from 3.9% to 2.8%; the annual core CPI inflation rate dropped marginally, from 4.1% to 4.0%. However, the three-month annualized core CPI inflation rate rose, from 3.1% to 3.4%.

Remember that we at econsnapshot prefer the annualized three-month inflation rate over both the monthly inflation rate (too noisy) and the annual (12-month) inflation rate (too smooth and sluggish). Those who look to core inflation measures presumably think that it’s a better measure of trend inflation. But, what exactly is trend inflation? A minimal requirement is that over longer horizons, it tracks actual inflation, sort of like drawing a line through the monthly inflation numbers. One issue with core CPI inflation is that it often persistently deviates from overall CPI inflation.

Policy Outlook

The employment report did little to suggest either an increase or decrease in the Fed funds rate at the next meeting. Employment growth shows a slight decreasing trend over the last year or so. For the most part, CPI inflation for October was down relative to September; however, it is still well above the Fed’s stated 2% target. Keep in mind that the Fed’s target applies to core PCE inflation, not CPI inflation. At the end of the month, the BEA will release the October PCE price index data. However, there’s useful information to be gleaned from the CPI numbers. Since 1990, headline CPI inflation and core PCE inflation have outstripped core PCE inflation by roughly half a percentage point. This suggests that CPI inflation of around 2.5% is consistent with core PCE inflation of 2%. That CPI inflation is down in October suggests that PCE inflation will also be down. Given the current levels for CPI inflation, it seems doubtful PCE inflation will be close to the Fed’s target. The case for further tightening of monetary policy is that inflation remains stubbornly above target. The case against lies in Milton Friedman’s observation that the effects of monetary policy operate with long and variable lags — suggesting that the Fed should wait to see whether they have already built in sufficient tightening. Only time will tell whether Jerome Powell will manage the elusive soft landing.

Q3 GDP

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The BEA announced that real GDP for 2023Q3 rose 4.9% on an annualized basis, according to the advance estimate. This was the highest reading since the pandemic-related data in 2021Q4. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones expected 4.7%. Consumers continued to spend: real personal consumption expenditures increased 4.0% with consumption of durable goods increasing 7.6%.

Real domestic private investment rose 8.4%. Residential investment rose 3.9% after falling for 9 straight quarters.

Real government consumption spending continued to rise, with Q3 increasing 4.6%, the fifth consecutive quarter of increases after five consecutive quarters of decline.

One way to parse GDP growth is to compute the contributions made by its constituent parts. For example, in 2023Q3, real investment rose 8.4% on an annualized basis, far higher than GDP (4.9%). The contribution of the growth in investment is computed by taking its growth rate and weighting (multiplying) by investment’s share of output. The result is that investment contributed 1.5 percentage points to the 4.9% growth in output. The remaining major components are summarized in the figure below. The largest contributions to the headline 4.9% output growth were consumption at 2.8 percentage points, and investment, 1.5 percentage points.

The figure above can also be used to dissect the increase in GDP growth, from 2.1% in Q2 to 4.9% in Q3. By far, the largest contributor to this 2.8 percentage point increase in output growth was consumption at 2.2 (= 2.8 – 0.6) percentage points. Exports also made a sizable contribution, 1.8 (= 0.7 -(-1.1)) points, which was more than offset by that of imports, -2.1 (= -0.9 – 1.2) points. The contributions of investment (0.6 points) and government (0.2 points) were more modest. It is of interest to note that while some in the media talk about the decline in consumer confidence surveys, consumers were the largest contributors to the Q3 growth.

The personal consumption expenditure (PCE) price index climbed to 2.9%, up from 2.5% in Q2, the lowest readings since 2020Q4. In a sense, this uptick in inflation as measured by the PCE price index is old news: this series is also reported monthly, and our recent post on this index already noted that this measure of inflation, measured at the three month horizon, has been moving up and away from the Fed’s 2% inflation target.

Bottom Line

GDP growth was broadbased and the economy continues to defy the doom crowd. PCE inflation has moderated of late while consumption and investment show considerable strength. Will we enter a recession? You bet, see the graph below. When? Who knows…no one has been able to consistently forecast turning points.

The data remain unconvinced that we are currently in recession territory.

September CPI and PPI

The recently released CPI (Consumer Price Index) numbers for September are a bit of a mixed bag for the inflation outlook. Our preferred 3-month annualized change in CPI rose from 4.0% in August to 4.9% in September. However, the monthly inflation rate fell from 7.8% to 4.9% at an annual rate. On a year-over-year basis, CPI inflation was essentially unchanged at 3.7%.

Those who prefer core CPI also confront a mix. On a 3-month basis, core CPI inflation rose form 2.4% to 3.1% (annualized) and the monthly inflation rate was up from 2.4% to 3.1%. On the other hand, the 12-month inflation rate was down from 4.4% to 4.1%.

Producer Price Index (PPI)

October 11 saw the release of PPI data for September. While the monthly rate of PPI inflation fell, from 9.4% to 6.3% at an annual rate, the 3-month rate rose from 5.6% to 7.7% while the 12-month change was up modestly, from 1.9% to 2.2%.

For what it’s worth, the monthly change in the personal consumption component of PPI fell from 39.2% to 16.9% (annualized) while its 3-month inflation rate rose from 15.2% to 19.3% (also annualized). On an annual basis, this measure of inflation rose from 1.4% to 2.1%.

Policy Implications

To be sure, there is good news from the CPI report: On a monthly basis, overall CPI inflation is down while the annual inflation rate is unchanged. Core CPI inflation is down at on an annual basis, but not at shorter horizons. However, both CPI and core CPI inflation are running hotter than the Fed’s 2% inflation target (granted, for (core) PCE inflation). PPI inflation tells much the same story as CPI inflation: down on a monthly basis, but up when measured over longer horizons. However, it’s not clear that PPI inflation signals future CPI inflation — particularly for the PPI for personal consumption. It seems unlikely that the PPI and CPI releases for September will change policyholders’ predilections.

September Employment Report

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The BLS announced that total nonfarm payroll employment increased 336,000 of which 263,000 came from the private sector as the government sector added 73,000 more workers. In addition, revisions to the two previous months increased employment by another 119,000.

This was a very strong jobs report that seems to have taken those prone to making predictions by surprise:

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones expect that September will show a 170,000 net gain in nonfarm payrolls.

CNBC

Looking back at the January 472,000 number (was 517,000 before revisions) here is what economists forecast:

The January jobs report showed nonfarm payrolls increased by 517,000, far higher than the 187,000 market estimate.

CNBC

Evidently, forecasting the US economy, or any economy for that matter, is not a simple task.

Total nonfarm employment has rebounded strongly from the depths of the pandemic and is now close to where it would have been had it stayed on the trend line post Great Recession.

The service sector added the bulk of jobs, up 234,000; 96,000 coming from Leisure and Hospitality that was obviously slammed during the pandemic and is still below its pre-pandemic level by 184,000 employees.

Average weekly hours remained at 34.4 and so the increase in total hours of work came solely from the new employees. Average hourly earnings increased from $33.81 to $33.88.

The household survey was remarkable as there was very little movement in any measure. Employment increased by only 86,000, there was no change in the employment to population ratio (60.4) or in the unemployment rate (3.8%).

Looking forward, it appears that what policy makers consider “inflationary pressures” are still hanging around given the strength of the labor market and the overall economy pretty much running on all cylinders. Although many of the price numbers have declined they still remain above the Fed’s 2% target indicating that more weight is likely being put on another rate hike than a continued pause.