On September 29, the BEA released data for the August PCE price index. On an annual basis, PCE inflation was up marginally, from 3.4% in July to 3.5% in August. More concerning: the annualized monthly inflation rate rose from 2.6% to 4.8%. Even our preferred 3 month measure is up, from 2.0 (the Fed’s stated target value) to 3.1%.
Of course, our loyal readers know that the Fed focuses on core PCE inflation which excludes the volatile food and energy components. By this measure, the outlook is decidedly brighter: The annual inflation is down from 4.3% in July to 3.9% in August. At an annual rate, the monthly inflation rate dropped from 2.6% to 1.8% (below the Fed’s target). Finally, the somewhat smoother 3 month inflation rate also fell, from 2.7% to 2.2%.
What are we to make of this? First, this reading on inflation is nearly a month old. CPI inflation, released 2 weeks ago, already told us that August inflation was up. So, the PCE numbers are hardly a surprise.
Second, while we’re not big fans of core or even supercore inflation measures, there is useful information to be had by looking at these other measures. In particular, the increase in overall inflation is driven in part by higher food and energy price inflation. To the extent that these increases are driven by transitory factors (the reason to look at core or our 3 month average in the first place), the increase in overall inflation in August may prove ephemeral.
Was it wise for the Fed to hold rates steady at their last meeting? Certainly the headline number makes it more difficult to discern the underlying trend in inflation; however, the core measures have all come down. Given that the Fed looks past some of the transitory measures, it seems the core measures have responded to the rate increases.
At an annualized rate, monthly inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 7.8% in August, up from 2.0% in July. Our preferred measure of trend CPI inflation (the 3-month annualized) increased from 1.9% in July to 4.6% in August.
While we prefer to look at the overall CPI when looking to its trend, others prefer to look at core CPI inflation. Excluding food and energy, monthly inflation rose from 1.9% in July to 3.4% in August. However, the 3-month core CPI inflation rate actually fell, from 3.1% in July to 2.4% in August
What to make of all this? CPI inflation in August is up and well above the Fed’s 2% target for inflation. Comparing the overall CPI inflation with core CPI inflation shows that part of August’s increase in inflation is due to food and energy. The BLS specifically pointed to gasoline prices and the cost of shelter. Some commentators look at so-called `supercore’ CPI inflation, and that some of these supercore measures specifically exclude the cost of shelter. (What’s the end game for all these core measures? Will commentators be watching the price of bananas?)
August PPI
Producer Price Index (PPI) inflation for August similarly accelerated, from 4.9% in July to 9.3% in August (annualized monthly percent changes). The 3-month annualized PPI inflation rate also increased, from -0.1% (July) to 4.3% (August).
Looking instead at the PPI for personal consumption paints a more alarming picture: its monthly inflation rate rose from an annualized 4.3% in July to 40% in August! Its 3-month annualized counterpart also shows a marked increase, from -6.1% (July) to 15.4% (August).
It seems intuitive that producer prices should, eventually, be reflected in consumer prices. Looking across many years of data, the pattern that emerges is simply that inflation rates tend to move together. It seems difficult to make a case that higher PPI inflation is the harbinger of higher CPI inflation.
PCE for July
The PCE price index is released nearly a month after the CPI, and so August PCE inflation is not yet available. At an annualized rate, monthly PCE inflation rose slightly from 2.5% in June to 2.6% in July. On the other hand, the 3-month annualized PCE inflation rate fell from 2.5% (June) to 2.1% (July). Core PCE inflation shows a similar pattern.
Policy Outlook
Fed watchers know that its preferred measure of inflation is the PCE. The key question is: Will the large increases in CPI inflation in August also show up in the PCE inflation measures? It’s tempting to think that they must since the prices of individual items used in these indices are, presumably, essentially the same – the chief difference, then, being the weights associated with the prices of individual items. While PCE inflation generally tracks both CPI and core CPI inflation, these various measures of inflation exhibit considerable disparity.
Will the Fed take a pause, or continue raising its target for the Federal Funds Rate? If we knew the answer to this question, we’d probably be working on Wall Street. Answering this question probably means getting inside the heads of the voting members of the FOMC. Do they think that inflation is continuing to trend down? Or are the August CPI and PPI numbers the harbinger of an increase in inflation that needs to be nipped in the bud? Does the FOMC wish to avoid getting “behind the curve” as seems to have happened during the pandemic when they kept repeating that it was likely that the inflation was transitory due to supply chain issues?
It was a pretty busy week for incoming data. Bottom line: The economy continues to reveal strong economic growth and maybe we have not “landed” at all, we are still flying.
Employment Situation
The BLS establishment survey showed that employment rose 187,000 in August. Although the gain was higher than in the previous two months, the June employment numbers were revised down by 80,000 and July down 30,000…employment was 110,000 less than previously reported entering August. The gain was less than the 271,000 average gain over the previous 12 months. Private employment gains led the charge at 179,000 with the service sector adding 143,000. The biggest gain came in health care, up 97,000.
Average hours of work increased from 34.3 to 34.4. That, combined with the 179,000 increase in private employment led to a large increase in total hours of work.
The household survey showed an increase in the unemployment rate from 3.50% to 3.79%. The number of people unemployed did rise by 514,000, however, there was also a 736,000 increase in the labor force. The labor force participation rate has been steadily increasing but is still below the pre-pandemic level. Basically, once the effects of the pandemic have receded there has not been much of a change in the reasons for showing up as unemployed.
Since the unemployment rate is the ratio of the number of people unemployed divided by the labor force (the number of people employed and unemployed), the unemployment rate can increase either because the numerator (the number unemployed) increased, or because the denominator (the labor force) decreased. Which one accounts for the 0.29 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate in August? According to the Household Survey, the number of unemployed rose by 514 thousand in August while employment rose 222 thousand. In other words, the labor force increased by 736 thousand. For August, the increase in the unemployment rate came about due to an increase in the number of individuals unemployed.
The figure below digs deeper into the labor market flows. The arrows reflect flows of people between employment (E), unemployment (U), and not-in-the-labor force (N). The change in employment is obtained by adding the numbers with arrows pointing into E, and subtracting the flows associated with arrows out of E: a net increase in employment of 146 thousand. This number is different from the 222 thousand obtained directly from the employment data from the Household Survey. The reason being that there are some additional inflows and outflows found in this table that have to do with adjustments to population, teenagers turning 16, etc. We can similarly compute the change in the number of unemployed by looking at the flows in and out of U: an increase of 512 thousand (rather closer to the actual change of 514 thousand obtained from the number unemployed with the adjustments). Relative to the flows in and out of unemployment, 512 thousand is not a huge number: the total flows (regardless of sign) sum to 6,180 thousand, and so 512 thousand is 8.3% of the total flows.
The charts below show that the number unemployed rose by 99 thousand due to an increased number of people out of the labor force moving into unemployment, by 75 thousand owing to a decrease in those transiting between unemployment and out of the labor force, by 175 thousand by virtue of more employed people becoming unemployed, and by 281 thousand as a result of fewer unemployed shifting into employment.
Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey
The JOLTS data came out 8/29 and showed the number of job openings declined to 8.8 million in July from 9.2 million and 11.4 million in July of 2022. Having said that, the difference between the number of people unemployed and the available jobs are still much higher than any time pre-pandemic. The quit rate has come down somewhat, but, like the openings rate, still higher than its pre-pandemic level. One interpretation of the quit rate is that quitting and moving to better jobs helps one climb the job and income ladder. Said differently, quit rates fall during recessions as there are fewer opportunities to move. Layoffs remain very subdued as well. The rate of job hiring as fallen considerably over the past year or so and now back to the average rate since 2014 (excluding the pandemic).
Output, Income and Consumption
The second estimate for Q2 real GDP was released by the BEA on August 30, and showed a downward revision from 2.4% to 2.1%. Consumption was revised up from 1.6% to 1.7%.
While the downward revision in Q2 real GDP was not small, the monthly consumption data released on 8/30 by the BEA showed a large increase in consumption for July. Consumption expenditures increased 0.8% in current dollars (9.9% annualized) and 0.6% in chained 2012 dollars, the largest increase since January. The personal savings rate as a fraction of disposable income declined by nearly a full percentage point, from 4.3% to 3.5%
Takeaways
The data describe a growing economy with little, if any, signs of braking. Looking at the headline numbers and article titles, such as this in the 9/1 WSJ: “Job Gains Eased in Summer Months; Unemployment Increased in August,” might suggest a faltering labor market. However, a deeper dive into the underlying data suggests no such thing.
The BLS announced that the all items CPI increased 0.2% over the month and 3.2% year over year. It is interesting to observe the various measures of “inflation” that appear in the media. For example, Bloomberg highlights the monthly change:
CNBC highlights the year over year change:
A New York Times columnist spotlights food prices:
Of course there are many others including the median CPI, trimmed mean CPI and the new “supercore” measure. What all of these analysts are trying to decipher is whether “inflation” has slowed enough to warrant a pause in the FED’s tightening spree. While there are many ways to parse the underlying data, such as the cost of eggs, milk and chicken, the preferred measure of the Econsnapshot is to look at the CPI over a 3-month horizon. Month to month the data is very volatile (hence the notion of core CPI that removes two very volatile components, food and energy) and year-over-year is very slow moving. As seen in the graph below, the annualized 3 month inflation is a bit under the FED’s 2.0% target at 1.9%. The year-over-year ticked up slightly.
The BEA recently released the July PPI (Producer Price Index). While the annualized one month change popped up from -0.5% to 3.6%, this series is very noisy; the annualized 3-month change came in at -0.2% for July, up from -0.6% in June.
In our May post on prices, we noted that the BEA points to the PPI for Consumption Expenditures as being closest in coverage to the CPI. Over the past three months, the annualized growth in this index was -6.8% indicating that by this measure, consumer prices are falling. Looking back a year, the index grew at a rate of -2.7%.
However, as we noted in May, there does not appear to be a very tight relationship between the growth of either of the PPI measures and either the CPI or core CPI.
Both the CPI and PPI measures point to a moderation in prices. Given that, it seems likely that the Fed will take a pause and let the economy speak a little more before a move in either direction.
The BLS announced the employment situation for July. The establishment data showed a 187,000 increase in total nonfarm employment, 172,000 of which was in the private sector. Private service producing employment gained 154,000. Employment gains in May were revised down by 25,000 to 281,000 while June was revised down by 24,000 to 185,000.
Roughly 1/3 of July’s employment gains were in health care (63,000); the rest was fairly evenly distributed across sectors. There were a few declines in employment: nondurable goods, transportation and warehousing, information, to name a few, but the largest came in temporary help services that has seen eight out of the last nine months with a decline.
Average hours of work fell from 34.4 to 34.3 and combining that with the smallish increase in employment led to a fall in total hours of work. Average hourly earnings rose by $0.14 to $33.74
The household survey data from the BLS revealed a 268,000 increase in employment and 116,000 fewer people unemployed. There was almost no change in the labor force participation rate and the employment to population ratio increased slightly. The unemployment rate declined from 3.57% to 3.50%.
The Jobs Openings and Labor Turnover Summary showed almost no change in the rate of job openings, hires and separations. The number of job openings is still much higher than the number of people unemployed. There are roughly 1.64 job openings for each unemployed person.
The fairly weak recent jobs data does not provide much guidance as to how the Fed might respond. Had the reports been very strong it would have likely given reasons to continue to jack up the funds rate. Conversely had the reports been really weak, a pause would be likely. The decision will become clearer as the price data come in.
The BEA release of the advance estimate of Q2 Real GDP showed an increase of 2.4% at a seasonally adjusted annual rate. The BEA noted:
The increase in real GDP reflected increases in consumer spending, nonresidential fixed investment, state and local government spending, private inventory investment, and federal government spending that were partly offset by decreases in exports and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, July 27, 2023
The 1.6% increase in Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) represented nearly half of the contribution to overall growth, due to the fact that consumption is about 70% of total output. Real non-residential fixed investment increased 7.7% while real residential fixed investment declined 4.2%.
On a year-over-year basis, inflation as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index is the lowest since mid-2022, rising 3.0%, a full percentage point over the Fed’s 2% target. However, as emphasized in earlier posts to this blog, year-over-year measures are quite sluggish. Our preferred measure, the 3-month annualized inflation rate, is 2.5% in June, slightly higher than the 2.3% recorded in May. For what it’s worth, the 1-month annualized PCE inflation rate in June was 2.0%, up from May’s 1.5%.
As an aside, it seems curious to us that commentators are quite comfortable annualizing quarterly growth rates (as emphasized by the headline numbers for GDP growth), but are reticent to do the same with price data (for which headlines compute 12-month growth rates). Perhaps consistency is too much to ask.
What’s significant is that output growth accelerated from 2.0% in the first quarter of 2023 to 2.4% in the second quarter. In this context, the BEA’s discussion of the second quarter, quoted above, is strange. The BEA focused on the fact that GDP increased, listing off the major components that contributed to this increase (consumption, investment, government spending and imports) while noting those that detracted from the increase (exports and residential investment); see the following table.
Quarter 1
Quarter 2
Output
2.0%
2.4%
Consumption
4.2%
1.6%
Investment
-11.9%
5.7%
– Non-residential
0.6%
7.7%
– Structures
15.8%
9.7%
– Equipment
-8.9%
10.8%
– Intellectual Property
3.1%
3.9%
– Residential
-4.0%
-4.2%
Government
5.0%
2.6%
Exports
7.8%
-10.8%
Imports
2.0%
-7.8%
But why did output growth increase? The answer lies principally in the swings in investment and imports growth. Investment growth rose from -11.9% to 5.7%, transforming it from a drag on output growth to a contributor. Drilling deeper into investment, the growth rate of residential investment was largely unchanged (-4.0% to -4.2%). The big increase in non-residential investment growth was driven principally by investment in equipment, rising from -8.9% to 10.8%. To be sure, the growth in non-residential structures was very strong (9.7%), but it grew even faster in the first quarter (15.8%).
The growth rate of imports fell from 2.0% to -7.8%. However, since imports enter with a negative sign in the output identify, Y=C+I+G+X-M, the lower growth rate of imports contributed positively to output growth.
As noted by the BEA, growth of exports was negative in the second quarter (-10.8%) while it was positive in the first quarter (7.8%). While growth of consumption and government spending were both positive, their growth rates fell which has the effect of lowering quarter two output growth relative to the first quarter.
Overall, the strong growth in GDP coupled with the subdued (though still above the 2% target) price change shows a still-resilient real economy that is disregarding the increases in the Fed Funds rate. Based on available data, it is hard to make the case for a nascent recession in the U.S.
Personal Income
On Friday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis released personal income data. Real personal income growth fell from 8.5% in the first quarter to 2.5% in the second (both at annualized rates).
Disposable income data is also available on a monthly basis. The chart below shows that the first quarter was driven by very strong growth in January (21.9%) while the second quarter was hampered by negative growth in April (-0.4%).
Employment Cost Index
On Friday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis also released updated employment cost index data. Growth in the wages and salaries component fell from 4.9% in the first quarter to 4.1% in the second.
Overall, the current data suggest that the real economy continues to chug along at a respectable clip and the price numbers indicate that Fed policy is helping push down inflation. The Fed has indicated that the round of tightening is not yet over and the strength of the real economy gives no reason to alter that view.
The BLS announced the CPI and PPI for June. The CPI rose 0.18% from May to June on a seasonally adjusted basis, 2.18% when annualized, and was up 3.1% year over year. Rather than strip out a lot of goods that comprise the CPI, we look at the CPI on a three month average basis. As shown in the graph, the year over year continues to decline while both the annualized monthly and the 3 month ticked up slightly. The CPI-X (ex food and energy) differs, however. The annualized monthly rate grew 1.91%, below the Fed’s 2% target.
Of course, the question the Fed faces comes down to: What has been happening to the trend in inflation? Given the 2% target, the Fed hopes to see progress toward that goal. But, as we have commented on in several previous posts, what measure of inflation is the best indicator? Headline CPI (PCE)? Core CPI (PCE)? The Fed’s new Supercore CPI (PCE) (the price of services excluding energy and housing services)? Paul Krugman (NYT, July 11) has his own measure of supercore: “My preferred measure these days is “supercore,” which excludes food, energy, used cars and shelter (because official measures of housing costs still reflect a rent surge that ended a year ago.)” And goes on to say he is not a fan of the Fed’s measure, “The Fed has a different measure of supercore — non-housing services — but when you look at the details of that indicator, it’s a dog’s breakfast of poorly measured components that I find hard to take seriously.” Here is a graph of the Fed’s supercore measure:
So what are we to make of all of this? The main problem is that all of these measures are purely arbitrary; there is no underlying theory as to how, or what to measure. The BLS states, “Inflation can be defined as the overall general upward price movement of goods and services in an economy. The U.S. Department of Labor’s BLS has various indexes that measure different aspects of inflation.” These new so-called supercore measures omit various categories of goods that are purchased in the market. The overall CPI is comprised of 243 commodities and services measured in 32 different geographic areas. To show just how big these omissions are, the following table recreates a subset of the BLS table where the relative importance is the share of total expenditure used to weight the respective change and the May 2023-June 2023 column gives the monthly change:
Expenditure category
Relative importance
May 2023-June 2023
All items
100%
0.2
Food
13.4%
0.1
Energy
6.9%
0.6
All items less food and energy
79.7%
0.2
Services less energy services
58.3%
0.3
Shelter
34.7%
0.4
The table above shows that the core CPI includes about 79.7% of all expenditures. Removing shelter from the core means the price measure includes only 45% of the things we buy. If only services prices are included that would vastly reduce the set of prices used to calculate inflation.
The BLS announced that the Producer Price Index (PPI) for final demand increased 0.1% from May to June or 1.65% annualized. Year over year it increased 0.24%. Our 3 month measure fell -0.69%, the third consecutive month with a decline.
Trend Inflation
What we (the writers of this blog) mean by “trend inflation” is a series that tracks the movements of actual monthly inflation but somewhat smoothed (taking out the more extreme fluctuations). As we’ve discussed before, this is a signal-extraction problem. Every month, we get a new CPI number from which we want to make an inference concerning the current trend inflation rate. Trend inflation is the “signal”. However, the news (the new CPI number) is a noisy indicator of this signal, both because the CPI is reported in levels and because of transitory factors affecting monthly inflation. Further, the nature of the data is such that we cannot easily extract the signal (trend inflation) from the data. With all of this in mind, the reason for looking at core or supercore CPI inflation is that it has a higher signal-to-noise ratio than CPI inflation. Both seem promising in that they omit the more volatile price components of CPI: in the case of core CPI, food and energy; in the case of super core CPI, lots of other stuff. However, the charts above show that over the past couple of years, core CPI inflation has been running well above actual CPI inflation while the Fed’s supercore inflation has been well below actual.
An alternative to slicing and dicing CPI is to compute inflation over a horizon longer than a month. The idea in this case is that the monthly noise is an independent draw (in the jargon of economics, it’s independently and identically distributed) while trend inflation has memory and changes relatively slowly over time. Consider headline inflation. Typically, it’s calculated as the 12 month percentage change in the CPI. But a different way to think about this calculation is as the average of the 12 one month inflation rates. If there is no change in trend inflation over this period of time, the 12 noise terms will have a mean of roughly zero, and the year-over-year inflation rate will provide a good estimate of trend inflation. The rub is that there have been changes in trend inflation over the past couple of years. Consequently, the year-over-year inflation rate also takes an average of trend inflation over the past year. This is why, in the chart above, year-over-year inflation has consistently exceeded the monthly inflation rate for the last year and a half.
But there’s nothing magic about year-over-year inflation rates, and we’ve previously advocated for annualizing the three month inflation rate as a good compromise between capturing changes in trend in a timely fashion, and seeing through the noise in monthly inflation rates. By construction, the three month inflation rate tracks movements in monthly inflation while removing much of the noise – as can be seen in the chart above. One thing that the three month inflation rate lacks is a fancy name like supercore; oh, and the NYT soap box.
The BLS released the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) for May on July 6. The data reveal a pretty mixed view. Job openings fell 496,000 and now stands at 9.8 million vacancies. The number of unemployed workers in May was 6.1 million so that there were 1.6 jobs available for each unemployed worker.
The JOLTS data also contains information on the rate at which workers are hired, laid off, quit and job openings. The rates are determined by dividing by the level of employment. The JOLTS covers about 95% of all nonfarm payroll jobs in the US. While the openings rate declined the hiring rate and the quit rate rose. The layoff rate remains at one of its lowest rates since the inception of the JOLTS in December of 2000. Note that all of the other rates are well above their historic average.
The JOLTS data provides some evidence for those looking for nascent signs of a recession. Quit and hiring rates fell through the March-November 2001 and December 2007-June 2009 recessions, and both series started falling prior to the latter recession. The declining quit and hiring rates since early 2022 fit this pattern. Unfortunately, JOLTS only covers three recessions, so it’s tough to make much of the historic precedents, particularly since the February-April 2020 recession was due to COVID-19. Another potentially confounding factor is that both quits and hires are at historically high rates, and the recent declines may be due to reversion to the mean.
The data on initial and continued claims for unemployment insurance also came out on July 6. Initial claims rose slightly but remain relatively subdued. Continued claims have been trending down over the past few months.
On July 7, the employment situation report for June was released by the BLS and showed a payroll employment increase of 209,000 but downward revisions for April and May totaling 110,000 for the two months. One way to think about these changes is that roughly half of the employment gains reported for June were offset by the downward revisions in the previous two months. The employment change in the private sector was the smallest increase over the past couple of years.
The phrase “little changed” was peppered throughout the press release for the Employment Situation Report. The report highlighted gains in employment in government (60,000), health care (41,000), social assistance (24,000) and construction (23,000). Yet the gains in professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality (both 21,000) were described as “little changed”. It would seem that the difference between a gain warranting notice, and “little changed” is 22,000.
Average hours worked in the non-farm sector inched up 0.1 hours to 34.4. That increase, combined with the increase in private employment led to about a 5% in total hours of work in the private sector. There was little change in average hourly earnings.
One way to combine data from JOLTS and the employment report is through the Beveridge curve which plots the vacancy rate (from JOLTS) against the unemployment rate (the household survey). As seen in the chart below, the data up to and including the Great Recession (2007-09) appears to lie on a stable Beveridge curve. After the Great Recession, the Beveridge curve shifted out. And after the pandemic, the Beveridge curve shifted out yet again, with the most recent data in the north west quadrant. One interpretation of an outward shift in the Beveridge curve is that it reflects lower efficiency in the matching process between jobs and workers. Under this interpretation, at a given level of unemployment, firms need to post more vacancies in order to fill jobs. An alternative interpretation is that the outward shifts in the Beveridge curve are due to lower costs of recruiting workers: firms post more vacancies because doing so is simply much cheaper that in the past. One way to distinguish between these two alternative interpretations is to look at how quickly vacancies are filled: less efficient matching says it should take longer while lower job posting costs implies a shorter period of time. Unfortunately, the speed at which vacancies are filled is no longer available.
According to the BLS household survey, employment increased 273,000, the number of people unemployed fell by 140,000 and the labor force increased by 133,000. The participation rate and employment to population ratio were unchanged. The unemployment rate fell from 3.65% to 3.57%.
The BEA announced May PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditure) data that reinforces the earlier CPI (Consumer Price Index) report: Inflation continues to creep down. Annualizing the month-over-month change in the PCE, inflation for May was 1.55%, well below the Fed’s 2% target. As we have commented before, these month-to-month changes contain a lot of noise and our preferred measure is the annualized 3 month change. By this measure, inflation for May was 2.45% – somewhat higher than the 2.2% reported earlier for the CPI. The headline year-over-year PCE inflation rate for May was 3.85%. As we have emphasized in previous posts, this year-over-year measure of inflation is slow to respond to changes in trend which means it will take some time for the year-over-year inflation rates to reflect the lower inflation rates that have come in over recent months.
Less rosy is the inflation picture coming from core PCE (that is, excluding food and energy). While the month-over-month rate was down in May – from 4.65% to 3.84% – the year-over-year and 3 month measures fell by roughly 0.1 percentage points. Presumably, the reason to look at core PCE inflation is that it provides a better gauge of underlying trend inflation than non-core PCE measures. But for our money, the 3 month PCE inflation rate does a good job capturing developments in trend inflation.
For June, expected inflation is now running below 2% at all horizons. Collectively, the results for CPI, PCE and expected inflation suggest that the tightening of monetary policy over the past year-and-a-half has brought down both actual and expected inflation. In this context, the Fed’s decision in June to pause its tightening of monetary policy seems like a good one, especially if one takes into account the well-known long and variable lags of the effects of monetary policy on the economy.
Finally, while we at Economic Snapshot usually do not comment on GDP (Gross Domestic Product) revisions, we are making an exception for the data released on Thursday by the BEA. The output revision was a very large 0.7 percentage points, from 1.27% to 2.00%. This upward revision of output can be attributed to upward revisions in consumption and exports, and a downward revision of imports (which has a positive effect on output since imports are subtracted from output). These effects were partially offset by small revisions in investment and government spending.
Second Revision
Third Revision
Difference
Output
1.27
2.00
+0.73
Consumption
2.65
2.93
+0.28
Investment
-2.10
-2.17
-0.07
Government
0.88
0.85
-0.03
Exports
0.66
1.00
+0.33
Imports
-0.75
-0.37
+0.38
GDP growth for the first quarter of 2023, and contributions to GDP growth by its major components.
The increase in real GDP was widespread according to the state GDP estimates. Real GDP increased in all 50 states in Q1. The largest increase came in North Dakota, 12.4% at annual rate and the lowest in Rhode Island and Alabama at 0.1%. Personal income increased in all but two states, Indiana (-1.0%) and Massachusetts (-0.9%).
The BLS announced that the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) rose 0.1% in May on a seasonally adjusted basis. This 0.1% rise translates into an annualized 1.5%, well below the Fed’s 2% inflation target (the grey line in the figure below). Over the last 12 months it rose 4.13%. The preferred measure of Econsnapshot is a measure of inflation based on a 3 month interval. We prefer this measure because the year-over-year number moves very slowly while the month to month number is very volatile as seen in the graph below. This 3 month inflation rate grew at an annual rate of 2.2%, just above the Fed’s 2% target.
The bad news from the CPI report is that core CPI inflation — which strips out the more volatile food and energy prices — continues to run at 5% or more, much higher than the Fed’s target. Indeed, energy prices have declined significantly, down almost 12% year over year. When looking at core CPI over the last month it is the shelter component that was the largest contributor to the rise in prices, accounting for about 60% of the overall increase. One reason to look at core CPI inflation is that it may be a better measure of trend inflation than headline CPI. If so, the Fed still has work to do to bring inflation back to target.
Of course, Fed watchers know that the Fed focuses on inflation as measured by the personal consumption expenditure (PCE) price index. Over long periods of time, PCE and CPI inflation generally move together. That said, on average PCE inflation runs below both the CPI and core CPI. The PCE for May won’t be released until June 30. Consequently, the recent CPI inflation rates may provide useful information regarding the direction for PCE inflation.
Producer Price Index
Hard on the heels of the CPI report came that for the Producer Price Index (PPI). Inflation as measured by the PPI has been trending down since early 2022. Indeed, at an annual rate, the monthly and 3 month inflation rates are negative meaning that the price index has recently been falling.
Roughly speaking, the CPI reflects prices paid by the typical urban household while the PPI captures prices received by domestic producers of goods and services. Since the PPI captures prices received by domestic producers while the CPI measures prices paid by consumers, it’s tempting to conjecture that changes in the PPI will eventually be reflected in the CPI. However, there are differences in coverage which mean that this logic does not necessarily hold. For example, since the PPI measures prices received by US producers, it does not include prices of imports; the CPI does. Also, nearly 1/4 of the CPI includes the imputed rent of owner-occupied housing; this imputed rent is not included in the PPI. Finally, only some of the goods and services covered by the PPI represent purchases by consumers; the remainder are goods and services used by other producers, capital investment, exports and government. The Bureau of Economic Activity says that the PPI for Personal Consumption comes closest to the coverage of the CPI. Yet, the chart below shows that inflation as measured by this last measure is much more volatile than the CPI. The chart also shows that there is no obvious tendency for PPI inflation to lead CPI inflation.
Automotive Prices
Since the onset of the pandemic, much has been said and written about supply chain problems, with the automotive sector receiving particular attention, such as this article that makes several blunders and left out some important economics as well. Anyone who has tried to buy a new car knows that there are very long delivery lags, especially for electric vehicles. These issues in the new car market has spilled over into the used car market where prices have also risen. Keep in mind that a one time increase in the price of, say, new cars is not what we typically mean by `inflation’. To be sure, such a one time increase will, for a time, lead to an increase in measured inflation. However, this effect will dissipate with time. The chart below is based on price indices from the CPI. The used car inflation rate was much higher than that of new cars from mid-2020 to mid-2022. Recently, used car prices have been falling, and new car price inflation is moderating. Automotive maintenance and repair price inflation continues to increase.
Finally, turn again to the difference between the PPI and other price indices. From the PPI, prices received by domestic automotive producers grew rapidly through 2021 and 2022, with an inflation rate as high as 30%. While those prices have started to decline, the price level has risen 28.5% since May 2020. Granted, automotive inflation as measured by either the CPI or PCE price index also rose, but not nearly as much as recorded by the PPI, and the recent decline in PPI automotive prices has translated into a slowing of these prices as measured by the CPI and PCE.
The June 13-14 meeting of the Fed revealed a pause in rate hikes. As the graphs above show, there are certainly signs that the Fed’s early moves have worked in their favor. As we remarked above, given the core CPI numbers there still may be more work to do…and the Fed made it clear in the statement that more rate hikes are likely.
