This is a guest post by Bob Eisenbeis, Cumberland Advisors’ Vice Chairman and Chief Monetary Economist.
Janet Yellen has given her widely anticipated opening speech at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s Jackson Hole Conference. As expected, she devoted her remarks to the labor market, which is the subject of this year’s conference. Her discussion covered a wide range of issues and questions concerning current conditions in the labor market and how they might or might not be changing. To be sure, she emphasized that while current market conditions are clearly improving, in some cases they are changing more rapidly than the Committee anticipated, there is significant room for more improvement.
Yellen’s presentation set up the remaining panels of the conference by highlighting what we currently know and don’t know about labor market dynamics and how those answered and unanswered questions are impacting the FOMC’s assessment of current market conditions. She not only explained why the headline unemployment rate is not capturing what is truly happening in labor markets but also moved beyond that simple measure to consider a host of other issues. These included: labor market slack and difficulties in measuring it; the recent changes in the labor market participation rate; the problem of the chronically unemployed; the role of people who are employed part-time but want full-time jobs; labor market flows in terms of quits and hires; workforce demographics and the impact of an aging workforce; the disappearance of so-called middle-skill jobs; the impact of disability rates, retirements, and school enrollments; and finally, the effects of the recession on wages and productivity gains.
But she also moved beyond just that discussion of key labor market issues to devote attention to how they are shaping the formulation of monetary policy. Implicit in her discussion was the dual role that labor market conditions and the measurement of slack are playing from a policy perspective. Her attention focused mostly on the Fed’s dual employment/inflation mandate, and here she emphasized the goal of promoting full employment in a way that broadly improves labor market conditions, rather than just seeking to lower the unemployment rate.
At the same time, there is also a second implicit role that labor market slack is playing in the policy debate, and that involves its impact on inflation. Most contemporary macro models focus on measurements of labor market slack and deviations of real GDP from its potential as indicators of possible inflation pressures. Tight labor markets and wage inflation – combined with an economy growing above trend – signal that inflation is or soon will be a problem. In the framework of such models, there is no financial sector and no role for money in the dynamics of inflation. Inflation is viewed as being driven solely by real-side factors. So, in this view, slack in labor markets combined with an economy growing at or slightly below trend is evidence that inflation is not a near term problem nor is likely to become one, so accommodative policy is not an issue. What the press and markets took away from the presentation was Yellen’s observation that, despite the labor market improvements that have occurred, considerable slack in remains, and hence, rates will remain low until greater improvement is evident. To be sure, Yellen and other Federal Reserve officials took great pains to emphasize that policy will definitely depend upon incoming data, so any inference about when the FOMC will begin policy normalization cannot be made at this time.
Where does the Fed’s posture leave those people who are now arguing that a policy move is now likely as soon as the end of the first quarter of 2015? Their conclusion is based largely on two considerations: first, on their optimistic forecasts that real GDP growth will exceed 3% for the second half of this year, further lowering the unemployment rate and putting upward pressure on wages, and, second, on the observation that the minutes of the most recent FOMC meeting suggested that there is growing talk of policy normalization.
Is this view reasonable? We won’t comment here on GDP projections, but we will comment on the minutes and the inferences being drawn. A careful reading of the minutes suggests a number of observations and conclusions.
First, the FOMC is initiating a discussion of how policy will be normalized is simply good planning but tells us little about how far off such a policy move actually is. Second, it is clear that there is no consensus as to how policy should be normalized, when the FOMC should stop rolling over its securities, how the four relevant policy rates (discount rate, interest rate on reserves, federal funds rate, and reverse repo rate) should be set relative to each other, what role forward guidance will play or what the timing will be. Indeed, the FOMC has just formed yet another committee to consider its communications policy. Given this lack of consensus – and the minutes make it clear that there are widely divergent views on all these issues – it is not realistic to assume that views will coalesce on these critical issues in just the next few months so as to enable a shift in policy as soon as March.
Third, even if there were a consensus, great uncertainty remains as to how markets will react to any policy move or even to a hint that a policy move is imminent. A sharp market reaction – and it is not unreasonable to fear that rates could jump precipitously as holders of large portfolios of low-yielding bonds dump them abruptly to avoid capital losses – could destabilize markets and derail the recovery. This point was raised as a possibility by former Fed Vice Chair, Alan Blinder, in an interview he gave at Jackson Hole on Thursday.
Fourth, both the U.S. economy and economies in the rest of the world are facing various headwinds that could pose problems for growth. Housing still hasn’t recovered. External demands for exports could slow because of slow growth worldwide. Then there numerous and significant geo-political issues, any one of which could further contribute to increased market volatility and threaten the recovery.
Finally, one must also consider the fact that the bulk of the FOMC voting members– which comprises the seven governors and President Dudley – control the policy vote. Only one clearly more hawkish voice, represented by President Lacker, will even have a vote next year. Thus, it appears from all the FOMC participants’ public utterances, including Chair Yellen’s speech at Jackson Hole, that the probability is extremely high that the Fed will wait rather than act preemptively. Thus it is likely that, in terms of labor market issues, conditions for a rate move will not be in place until at least the end of the third quarter of next year.
Photo credit: FMJ
Recommended for You
Greeks are being asked whether to support the terms for further financial assistance offered to their government a little over a week ago by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is calling on them to say no. He promises that if they do, he can get…Bloomberg
Here are seven big mistakes house hunters often make when shopping for their dream home.USA TODAY
A regular paycheck isn't the only way to ensure a steady flow of income. Whether you are already retired or simply planning ahead for retirement, by carefully selecting stocks that pay dividends on the ...Kiplinger
Munchery is aiming to be a standout dish on a menu crowded with food startups.USA TODAY
This summer has not been calm for the global economy. In North America, meanwhile, the governor of Puerto Rico claimed last week that the island would be unable to pay off its debts, raising unsettling questions about the health of American municipal bonds. Since June 12, the Shanghai stock…The Atlantic
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Forget Fort Knox or the Federal Reserve. Texas has decided to start keeping its gold holdings within in its own borders. But what makes sense politically in such a sovereignty-loving place is creating a logistical conundrum.Associated Press
Congrats! You saved for retirement. Now, follow these rules, or pay the price.USA TODAY
BOSTON (AP) — New Balance thinks the U.S. military is dragging its feet.Associated Press
The ongoing crisis in Russia’s economy would be greatly exacerbated by a Greek default and subsequent destabilization of the Eurozone, but there may be a silver lining…Oilprice.com
Despite a short week for trading, and the kind of volatility that is akin to riding on a roller coaster, insiders continued to lay down the capital required to buy stocks.24/7 Wall St.
Women typically save about half the amount of money that men stash away.USA TODAY
Sunday's referendum in Greece will set a new course for the country after a tumultuous half year of negotiating between Athens and its international creditors. A "Yes" vote could mean a new government, a news series of negotiations and Greece's continued membership of the euro zone. A "No" vote…Reuters
The confrontation between competing tour bus operators on Hollywood Boulevard escalated quickly.Los Angeles Times
It has been nearly a decade since investors have had to contend with the Federal Reserve raising interest rates. Or, from savers' viewpoint, it has been that long since the Fed did them a favor.Los Angeles Times
Chinese stocks tumbled again on Friday, taking the week's losses to more than 10 percent, as the securities regulator said it was investigating suspected market manipulation and announced a slew of measures aimed at heading off a full-blown crash. After a slump of nearly 30 percent in Chinese…Reuters
Happy July Fourth. Pour yourself a tall glass of iced coffee, and settle in for our longer form weekend reads: American Failure: The 401(k) is hailed as the future, but it’s horribly flawed. A select few ...Bloomberg
This isn't your Daddy's Caddy — it's a race car with Cadillac crests.Los Angeles Times
“The market right now hasn’t priced in a potential ‘no’ vote,” said David Joy, the Boston-based chief market strategist at Ameriprise Financial Inc., which oversees $815 billion. The Euro Stoxx 50 Index tumbled 4.2 percent on June 29 and the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index had its biggest plunge in…Bloomberg