Blog postings by CEPR staff and updates on the latest briefings and activities at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

In 2007, the employment rate – the percentage of all Americans 16 and older who have a job – averaged 63.0 percent. The rate fell as low as 58.2 percent during the recession, and has since recovered to just 59.7 percent.

There are significant questions about how much of the drop reflects weakness in the economy as opposed to just an aging population. Between 2007 and 2015, the share of the population aged 25 to 54 – the ages when we expect people to be employed – fell from 54 to 50 percent. Over the same period, the share of the population 55 and older increased 5 percentage points from 30 to 35 percent.

However, it’s also the case that employment has fallen within most age groups. The employment rate of the 25-54 population dropped 5.2 percentage points during the recession and has risen just 3.0 percentage points since then. The employment rate for 55-64 year-olds is close to where it was before the recession, while the employment rate of Americans 65 and older is actually up.

We are not left with an “either-or” proposition. The employment rate has fallen due to cyclical weakness and the aging of the population. So it’s worth asking: how much higher could the employment rate be given the demographic composition of the population?

Add a comment

This is a bonus blog post in a series of profiles of the members of the Federal Reserve Board’s Open Market Committee [FOMC]. The profiles focus on their writings, public statements, and voting records as members of the FOMC.

Last Monday, CEPR released a FedWatch piece on William Dudley’s views on monetary policy. Dudley is the head of the New York Federal Reserve (one of the Fed’s 12 regional banks) and the Vice-Chairman of the FOMC. The New York Fed is different from the other regional banks because, along with fulfilling normal regional bank functions, it also serves as a regulator of the Wall Street banks.

As part of CEPR’s ongoing FedWatch series looking at the views of FOMC members, we are releasing an extra “bonus” post examining Dudley’s views on the financial sector.

Add a comment

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) recently came out with projections on the economic effects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. The USITC’s report is the third major study on the TPP from the past two years. The USITC is legally required to provide this report.

The USITC report shows that the TPP would have relatively little impact on the volume of trade. This is consistent with the projections from a study by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (which only examined the impact on agriculture), but is far out of line with the projections by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the producer of the third major study.

Add a comment

This is the fourth in a series of profiles of the members of the Federal Reserve Board’s Open Market Committee [FOMC]. The profiles will focus on their writings, public statements, and voting records as members of the FOMC.

Since assuming office in January 2009, New York Federal Reserve Bank President William Dudley has been considered one of the Fed’s more dovish members. With some exceptions, Dudley has generally been a supporter of stimulus measures such as quantitative easing (QE) and low interest rates.

In a November 2010 New York Times article titled Under Attack, Fed Officials Defend Buying of Bonds, Dudley argued that QE was lowering long-term interest rates and raising employment.[1] He also said that high inflation was a non-existent problem and that policymakers should be worried instead about deflation.[1] In a speech the previous month, Dudley stated that “low and falling inflation is a problem for several reasons,” most notably because low inflation makes it hard for borrowers to pay off their debts and because low inflation in the short-term leads to declining expectations for future inflation.[2] The latter factor, he argued, can actually push down present inflation.[2] In discussing a possible drop in inflation expectations, Dudley made it clear that he viewed joblessness as a far more significant problem than inflation:

“Such a tightening would clearly be highly undesirable at a moment when unemployment is too high, inflation is too low and the economy has only moderate forward momentum.”[2]

Dudley also went on to state that “inflation being ‘too low’ (just like inflation being ‘too high’) is an impediment to achieving the full employment objective of the [Fed's] dual mandate.”[2] He furthermore argued that if the Fed were to target a given rate of inflation (it was not targeting 2 percent inflation at the time of Dudley’s speech), it should allow the economy to go over the target inflation rate for a given period of time in order to offset the time spent below the target rate.[2] Dudley continued making these same arguments in 2011, stating that the Fed shouldn’t withdraw monetary stimulus, as such a move would hinder the Fed’s dual mandate of full employment and price stability.[3] He reiterated that inflation was running problematically low and said that the labor market was well short of full employment; he also stated that in order to return to full employment in 2012, the economy would have to add 300,000 jobs per month.[3]

Add a comment

The Federal Reserve Board, along with most economists, has been closely tracking the rate of increase in the average hourly wage reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its monthly employment report. This series has shown a modest uptick in growth over the last two years. While the current pace (2.5 percent over the last year) is only slightly above the Fed’s 2.0 percent inflation target, it actually overstates the extent to which workers are benefiting from the recovery.

While wage growth has accelerated modestly from its pace earlier in the recovery, the rate of growth in benefits, most importantly healthcare, has slowed. As a result, there has been almost no change in the rate of growth in total compensation.

Add a comment

This is the fourth in a series of profiles of the members of the Federal Reserve Board’s Open Market Committee [FOMC]. The profiles will focus on their writings, public statements, and voting records as members of the FOMC.

Since assuming office in April 2008, St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President James Bullard has generally been considered of the more hawkish members of the FOMC. However, his speeches, interviews, and lone dissenting FOMC vote since 2013 show that he is quite moderate. If there is a central theme to Bullard’s views on monetary policy, it’s that he favors inflation targeting. But unlike many who view the Fed’s 2 percent target as a ceiling – that is, inflation is not supposed to surpass 2 percent – Bullard clearly views it as a legitimate target, such that 1 percent inflation is just as problematic as 3 percent inflation. This means that when Bullard anticipated less-than-two-percent inflation, he generally favored monetary stimulus; when he anticipated over-two-percent inflation, he favored tightening.

In 2010, Bullard warned that the U.S. might be on the verge of a Japan-like deflationary spiral, and came out in favor of quantitative easing as a remedy.[1,2] His support for quantitative easing was full-throated – Bullard stated that quantitative easing (QE)offers the best tool to avoid such an outcome (pg. 339).[1] The New York Times noted that only three out of ten FOMC members at the time had expressed such strong worries about deflation:

“Of 10 current members on the committee, two are openly concerned about inflationary risks; three, now including Mr. Bullard, are somewhat worried about deflation; and five centrists, including Mr. Bernanke, have not expressed a firm leaning either way.

Mr. Bullard, in a conference call with reporters on Thursday, said that if any new ‘negative shocks’ roiled the economy, the Fed should alter its position that interest rates would remain exceptionally low for ‘an extended period,’ or resume buying long-term Treasury securities to stimulate the economy.”[2]

Add a comment

As ThePressProject reported in March, a memo in Hillary Clinton’s declassified emails reveals that the German government had been preparing for the possibility of the anti-austerity Syriza party being elected in Greece as early as May 2012. The memo, viewable through WikiLeaks’ Clinton email archive, illustrates the concern with which German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble viewed the prospect of a Greek exit from the eurozone (a “Grexit”) ahead of the June 2012 legislative election. Questioning Syriza’s commitment to the euro, Schäuble laid out two contingency plans to manage the scenario, neither of which would be favorable for Germany.

According to the memo, Schäuble and “other financial officials in Berlin, London, and Brussels” increasingly viewed the elections as a “plebiscite on whether or not Greece wants to remain in the Euro-zone” despite Syriza’s insistence on keeping Greece in the eurozone if elected. Schäuble, seeking to avoid a Grexit at all costs, proposed that Greek voters should “bear the consequences of their actions” if they ever elected a Syriza-led government. This was because Germany’s two options in the event of a Grexit would consist of either a “European Redemption Pact,” which the Merkel administration had long vehemently opposed, or a drastic shrinkage of the eurozone to expel every member with a budget deficit.

The first option would entail taking all debts owed by eurozone members that exceeded 60 percent of GDP and transferring them into a redemption fund financed by joint bonds issued by the currency union as a whole. As former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis points out, the plan would almost certainly have been rejected by Italy and Spain, who would have been forced to carry out austerity on the same scale as Greece for at least 20 years in order to meet target budget surpluses. Schäuble, viewing the proposal as the lesser of two evils, had warmed slightly to it and was attempting to persuade Merkel to consider it.

Add a comment

This Friday morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will release the latest jobs figures for the month of April. The unemployment rate and the number of jobs created will likely be the major focuses of most reporting.

But there is an important and less noticed problem in today’s economy. Specifically, the weakness of the current labor market has less to do with high unemployment and more to do with high underemployment.

Part of this underemployment can be attributed to the rise of involuntary part-time employment. In 2007, involuntary part-time employment constituted about 3 percent of total employment. It spiked during the recession and reached a peak of 6.7 percent in March 2010. While involuntary part-time employment has come down significantly since then, it still represented over 4 percent of total employment last month — a rate that is over one-third higher than the pre-recession average.

Add a comment

This is the third in a series of profiles of the members of the Federal Reserve Board’s Open Market Committee [FOMC]. The profiles will focus on their writings, public statements, and voting records as members of the FOMC.

Since assuming office in 2007, Boston Federal Reserve Bank President Eric Rosengren has been considered one of the Fed’s more dovish members. Although he has recently lent tepid support to the idea of raising rates, Rosengren’s stances on quantitative easing (QE), the federal funds interest rate, the Fed’s dual mandate, and the 2 percent inflation target show that he has normally advocatedfor monetary stimulus.

Add a comment

GDP grew at just a 0.5 percent annual rate in the first quarter. This weak quarter, combined with the 1.4 percent growth rate in the 4th quarter, gave the weakest two quarter performance since the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2012 when the economy grew at just a 0.3 percent annual rate.

Growth was held down by both a sharp drop in non-residential investment and a further rise in the trade deficit. Equipment investment fell at an 8.6 percent annual rate, while construction investment dropped at a 10.7 percent annual rate. The latter is not a surprise, given the overbuilding in many areas of the country. The rise in the trade deficit was due to a 2.6 percent drop in exports, as imports were nearly flat for the quarter. Trade subtracted 0.34 percentage points from growth for the quarter.

Consumption continued to grow at a modest 1.9 percent annual rate, adding 1.27 percentage points to growth. Housing grew at a 14.8 percent annual rate, adding 0.49 percentage points to growth.

On the whole this is a weak report. The headline 0.5 percent figure probably overstates the weakness somewhat, but it is not a good sign when two consecutive quarters have an average growth rate of less than 1.0 percent.

Add a comment

Between 2007 and 2009, real GDP and real GDP per capita fell 3.1 and 4.8 percent, respectively. Since then, the economy has been growing at about a 2.1 percent annual rate, and income per person is now about $1,500 higher than it was before the recession. However this income has not been evenly distributed, with a disproportionate share of income growth going to the top 1 percent of the income distribution.  

This is relevant to tax policy because it tells us that there are real benefits to be had from taxing the rich — precisely for the reason that their incomes have gone up so much. This can be seen in the tax filings data posted to the World Wealth and Income Database. In 1978 — right when the income share of the 1 percent began rising — the top 1 percent of income earners made less than 9 percent of national income. In 1978, taxing the top 1 percent at an effective tax rate of 50 percent would’ve generated revenue equivalent to almost 4.5 percent of GDP, assuming no behavioral effects. By contrast, in 2014 the top 1 percent of income earners made 21.2 percent of national income. (At least part of this growth is due to higher incomes in finance.) Given this much larger share of national income, taxing the top 1 percent at a 50 percent tax rate would’ve generated 10.6 percent of GDP, assuming no behavioral effects. Therefore, there actually is a substantial amount of revenue to be gained from taxing the rich, mostly because the rich control such a large share of all taxable income.

Add a comment

This is the second in a series of profiles of the members of the Federal Reserve Board’s Open Market Committee [FOMC]. The profiles will focus on their writings, public statements, and voting records as members of the FOMC.

Since her appointment as President of the Cleveland Federal Reserve (Fed) Bank in June 2014, Loretta Mester has been considered one of the Fed’s more hawkish members. Due to the voting structure of the FOMC, Mester has only been able to cast votes during the second half of 2014 and the early meetings of 2016. However, her public statements indicate that Mester has been more anxious than her colleagues to raise interest rates.

Mester’s most dovish moment came in 2014, when she supported the Fed’s decision to not raise the Federal Funds interest rate. In a September 2014 interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Mester stated[1]:

“At this point, now, there is still more progress we need to make (before we raise rates)...I do believe it's appropriate to keep interest rates at the zero to 0.25 percent range.”

Add a comment

Private equity (PE) operated without oversight until the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act gave the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) authority to examine PE fund advisors. Regular audits, which began in 2012, turned up widespread and serious abuses. PE firms collect fees from the companies that PE funds buy with investors’ money – so-called portfolio companies. The SEC found that PE firms made unauthorized charges and failed to share fees collected from the portfolio companies with their investors as required in the investment agreements. Recently, two major PE firms – Blackstone and KKR –settled enforcement actions with the SEC for $39 million and $30 million respectively over failure to disclose fees collected from portfolio companies to PE fund investors.

Despite these revelations, PE investors remain in the dark about how much private equity firms collect from their portfolio companies. They are not privy to the contracts between PE firms and portfolio companies, and fees are paid directly to the PE firm without passing through the PE fund. The result is that pension funds and other PE investors cannot determine whether portfolio company fees are reasonable or excessive, and whether they have received their fair share.

The private equity business model operates at multiple levels. The private equity firm raises capital from pension funds and other investors for its private equity funds. These funds then acquire companies for fund portfolios. All too often, PE firms fail to provide a clear accounting of fees collected at these levels – management fees paid by PE fund investors, monitoring fees paid by portfolio companies as well as PE firm expenses allocated to PE funds and portfolio companies.

Add a comment

One of the primary explanations we’ve heard for today’s low employment rate is that workers don’t have the right skills to land jobs in today’s economy. This line of thinking is often employed by people who argue that monetary and fiscal stimulus are unnecessary since the problem can’t really be lack of demand.

There are a host of reasons to suspect that this explanation is wrong. One such reason is the decline in prime-age (25 to 54) employment for both men and women since 2000.

Add a comment

We've been making some changes to our website, cepr.net. As this project is still a work in progress, we need input from our loyal readers: you! 

survey button

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options. To accomplish this goal, we need a site that presents information in a way that’s accessible, understandable, and compelling.

Please fill out this 3-minute (or less) anonymous survey so we can improve your user experience.

Thank you,

The Center for Economic and Policy Research

* No pennies will be actually given for your thoughts, but if you'd like to submit a penny for our thoughts...

Add a comment
buffie vacancies 2016 04 11 fig1

The figure above compares the average 2015 rental vacancy rate with the percent increase in owner’s equivalent rent for 30 metropolitan areas. Although the relationship is imperfect, there is a clear trend to the data: higher vacancy rates are associated with lower inflation. The concept here is relatively simple: when a large number of rentals are vacantrentiers must set prices relatively low in order to compete for potential renters.

This becomes clear when you look at specific metropolitan areas. The three areas with the highest vacancy rates also happened to have the three lowest inflation rates. Two areas in Ohio  Akron and Cincinnati  had 12.1 and 10.2 percent vacancy rates, respectively. Increases in rents were just 1.5 and 1.1 percent in those two areas, compared to the sample median of 3.4 percent. St. Louis, Missouri had a 9.7 percent vacancy rate  3 percentage points above the median vacancy rate of 6.7 percent  and saw just a 2.0 percent increase in rental prices.

Add a comment

Over the past three decades, the top 1 percent’s share of national income has more than doubled. In 1978, the richest 1 percent of income earners made less than 9 percent of total income; by 2014, their share was over 21 percent.

The growth of the financial sector has been one of the primary drivers of this increase. During the 1940s to 1970s, finance typically accounted for about 3 to 4 percent of GDP; by 2005 and 2006, just before the financial crisis, finance claimed 7.6 percent of GDP. While the industry’s share of national income fell during the recession, it is back above 7 percent today.

Add a comment

Professor Andrew Levin (Dartmouth College), the former special advisor to Fed Chair Ben Bernanke and then-Vice Chair Janet Yellen, released a proposal for reform of the Federal Reserve Board’s governing structure in a press call sponsored by the Fed Up Campaign. The proposal has a number of important features, but the main point to make the Fed more accountable to democratically elected officials and to reduce the power of the banking industry in monetary policy.

Under its current structure, the banks largely control the twelve Federal Reserve district banks. This matters because the presidents of these banks are part of the Federal Reserve Board’s Open Market Committee (FOMC) which determines monetary policy. At any point in time five of twelve district bank presidents will be voting members of the FOMC, but all twelve take part in the discussion. The voting presidents will typically be outnumbered by the seven Federal Reserve Board governors, who appointed by the president and approved by the Senate, although there have been just five sitting governors for the last two years, as the Senate has refused to consider President Obama’s nominees.

There is no obvious reason that the banking industry should have special input into the country’s monetary policy. This would be comparable to reserving seats on the Federal Communications Commission’s board for the cable television industry. While there is no way to prevent an industry group from trying to influence a government regulatory body, in all other cases they at least must do so from the outside. It is only the Fed where we allow the most directly affected industry group to actually have a direct voice in the policies determined by its regulatory agency.

Add a comment

The following newsletter highlights CEPR’s latest research, publications, events, and much more.

• CEPR’s international program joined the rest of the world in condemning the assassination of Honduran environmentalist and indigenous rights activist Berta Cáceres, who was murdered on March 3rd. CEPR issued this press release soon after the news of her killing had been announced, calling for an independent, international investigation to bring the perpetrators to justice. CEPR was also mentioned in this article in The Nation by Greg Grandin titled “The Clinton-Backed Honduran Regime Is Picking Off Indigenous Leaders.” Grandin writes of Hillary Clinton’s role in the Honduran coup: “Later, as Clinton’s emails were released, others, such as Robert Naiman, Mark Weisbrot and Alex Main, revealed the central role she played in undercutting Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president, and undercutting the opposition movement demanding his restoration. In so doing, Clinton allied with the worst sectors of Honduran society.” CEPR’s Honduras work was also cited in this post on NPR’s Latino USA, and this post on the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting blog.

CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot discussed Clinton’s role in the coup in this video by the Campaign for America’s Future, and CEPR International Intern Ming Chun Tang summarized Mark’s points in this post for CEPR’s Americas Blog.

CEPR International Communications Director Dan Beeton wrote this post for the Verso Books blog on Berta Cáceres’ legacy, while CEPR Senior Associate for International Policy Alexander Main accompanied members of Cáceres’ family to meetings on Capitol Hill and with various officials, including OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro and U.S. State Department staff.  CEPR co-sponsored a congressional briefing on March 23rd hosted by Representative Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) featuring Cáceres’ daughter, Laura Zúñiga Cáceres and Gaspar Sánchez, Member of the General Coordination of the organization Berta co-founded (COPINH) and its Coordinator for LGBTQ Rights. CEPR International Program Assistant Becca Watts wrote this post on the briefing for the Americas Blog, which includes video of the briefing.

Add a comment

The following reports on labor market policy were recently released:

Political Economy Research Institute

Assessing the Jobs-Environment Relationship with Matched Data from US EEOC and US EPA
Michael Ash, James K. Boyce

Urban Institute

Context on the Six Work Support Strategies States: Supplement to WSS Evaluation Publications
Heather Hahn, Monica H. Rohacek, Julia B. Isaacs

Improving Business Processes for Delivery Work Supports for Low-Income Families: Findings from the Work Support Strategies Evaluation
Heather Hahn, Ria Amin, David Kassabian, Maeve E. Gearing

States’ Use of Technology to Improve Delivery of Benefits: Findings from the Work Support Strategies Evaluation
Pamela J. Loprest, Maeve E. Gearing, David Kassabian

Add a comment

In March of last year, CEPR released a series of five measures tracking the rate of recovery from the 2008 recession. The series was created in order to show that the labor market is much weaker than the unemployment rate implies.

The five measures have been updated every month at CEPR’s Graphic Economics page after each new jobs report. However, we have modified the series in two ways for the latest jobs figures. These modifications are described below.

Using 2007 Annual Data as Our Starting Point

In CEPR’s “Real Rate of Recovery” series, we determine both the degree to which the economy weakened during the recession and also the extent of recovery since then. In our original series, we used December 2007 — officially the first month of the recession, according to NBER — as our starting point for the pre-recession state of the economy. However, it appears that the economy began weakening even before December 2007. For example, the prime-age employment rate averaged 79.9 percent during 2007 as a whole, but had fallen to 79.7 percent by December. The unemployment rate itself exhibits this tendency, as it jumped from 4.7 to 5.0 percent between November and December.

December 2007 is a flawed starting point, as the economy had already begun shedding jobs by then. Therefore, we have updated our series by taking the average annual data for 2007 as our starting point. This changes our calculations somewhat, as it means that the economy worsened more significantly between 2007 and the recession’s trough than we had originally estimated.

Add a comment