Stagflation in the numbers

Stagflation is a combination of inflation and economic stagnation. It’s tough for the Federal Reserve to handle because stimulating the economy with lower interest rates exacerbates inflation. That was a problem in the late 1970s.

Today’s news shows the hint of stagflation in the employment and inflation numbers.

The July jobs number was lower than expected and the previous two months were revised downward.

Now that both the CPI and PCE are in for July the Cleveland Fed’s Inflation Nowcast shows inflation well above their 2% goal and rising.

The options market is now predicting an 80% likelihood of a 0.25% fed funds cut in September. Plus cuts in October and December for a fed funds rate of 3.5% - 4.0% by the end of the year.
https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/interest-rates/cme-fedwatch-tool.html

The inflationary impact of the tariffs hasn’t yet hit.
Wendy

13 Likes

Any thoughts on why the job report revisions were so large?

“Revisions for May and June were larger than normal. The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for May was revised down by 125,000, from +144,000 to +19,000, and the change for June was revised down by 133,000, from +147,000 to +14,000. With these revisions, employment in May and June combined is 258,000 lower than previously reported.”

3 Likes

I don’t know why anyone would be surprised by this. With historically low unemployment, immigration is the only practical way to increase job gains. With immigration locked down, the job gains that were reported in May and June would have only been possible with more dramatic decreases in unemployment…which we didn’t see.

We’re at the point that any reduction in unemployment will only be accomplished through serious wage increases. With many businesses already experiencing labor shortages, and more to come, there’s an additional upward pressure on wages.

Higher wages drive inflation. Maxed out labor resources drags on the economy. Seems like conditions are ripe for a stagflation DOOM loop! Er, I mean, challenge loop.

15 Likes

fantasy for illustrative purposes

Say a new government had recently come into power. A number doesn’t look good. So “artfully” lower preceding numbers, and blame them on the predecessor. Then the current head can crow about the “huge improvement” in the most recent number, for which he takes credit.

any resemblance to current events is probably only a coincidence

Steve

4 Likes

Another way to increase the number of jobs is increasing Labor Force Participation. This peaked in April 2000 at 67.3%, and is now 62.2%.

Working age population has dropped about 6% since 2000.
Labor Force Participation / working-age population is about the same:
April 2000: 67.3% / 84% = 80%
July 2025: 62.2% / 78% = 80%

3 Likes

Because the labor statistics chief is incompetent! TFG just fixed that -

All the numbers will be better going forward.

True dat, which also puts upward pressure on wages.

Or…we could assume that a lot of working age people are just milking it on the government’s dime and we need to make their life as miserable as possible to push them back to work. Look at me, I could work for Project 2025!

Let’s see how they’re doing -

8 Likes

Those are some interesting links for these interesting times (firing the jobs reporter, and tracking Project 2025). Less than 1% of the U.S. population directly works for the federal government.

The types of federal government jobs are changing. There will be fewer scientists and more police. Seems like 1984 might have finally arrived.

2 Likes

There have been previous large revisions (2020, 2002, 1992, and 4 times in the 1980s), and recently these were close to recessions (2020, 2001, 1990).

Mean revision (3rd - 1st) Not seasonally adjusted

year MeanRevision Recession SPY return
2025ytd -44 8
2024 -15 24
2023 -6 26
2022 20 -20
2021 59 26
2020 -64 2020 21
2019 10 31
2018 19 -5
2017 4 21
2016 0 13
2015 -12 0
2014 11 13
2013 9 33
2012 30 16
2011 16 1
2010 21 17
2009 9 29
2008 12 2008 -37
2007 36 5
2006 41 16
2005 26 6
2004 0 13
2003 2 31
2002 -50 -21
2001 49 2001 -11
2000 13 -11
1999 31 24
1998 46 23
1997 17 31
1996 92 21
1995 53 36
1994 81 0
1993 65 10
1992 -42 10
1991 -20 34
1990 17 1990 -6
1989 -38 29
1988 57 18
1987 -77 2
1986 -44 16
1985 31 32
1984 46 4
1983 6 22
1982 -64 21
1981 1 1981 -4
1980 51 32
1979 -22 23
5 Likes

And Trump just fired the person in charge of labor statistics. What kind of data will we be getting in the future and can we trust it.

8 Likes

SZ

No! and a partridge in a pear tree!

JimA

5 Likes

You beat me to it. Just like life at the pump seal company: don’t ever tell the honchos something they don’t want to hear.

Steve

We’re all losers in this game.

3 Likes

So, lets impose the Medicaid work requirement NOW, not wait until after the midterms. Drive people into the arms of the “JCs”, to take any job, at any lousy pay.

Here’s a thought, suspend the minimum wage, as, we are told, it would “create jobs”.

Steve

1 Like

Why? There will only be good labor reports from now on. That’s what we want, isn’t it?

5 Likes

Everything will be the biggest and bestest ever, in the history of the world. What an amazing turnaround for a country that had been so victimized by everyone else in the world for so long.

Typical “JC” delusion.

Steve

7 Likes

So, Steve, what is your fantasy for January of last year where the BLS made significant job growth revisions (over -200K)?

1 Like

I don’t see a 90% change in early 2024 seasonally adjusted numbers. Was someone fired, for the numbers they reported, at that time? I see a really punk “job creation” number for October 24. Was anyone fired for reporting that number?

Steve

7 Likes

That is not my conclusion.

We are going to see layoffs begin soon in earnest. The labor market is trending towards that.

Immigration is not the central feature.

Product costs are rising, while service costs are softening. The collective wallet can only do so much. 80% of the economy is the service sector.

We need to produce more to get higher wages with a deflationary pressure on domestic production.