Tag: bureau of labor statistics
First-Quarter Productivity Decline Is A Grim Economic Portent

First-Quarter Productivity Decline Is A Grim Economic Portent

The Bureau of Labor Statistics today released its first estimate of productivity in the first quarter. It showed productivity falling at a 0.8 percent annual rate. This is really bad news.

Productivity matters a lot for both inflation and living standards. In the five years from 2019 to 2024, productivity growth averaged 1.9 percent annually. That is up from 1.1 percent annually in the decade before the pandemic.

The faster rate of productivity growth most immediately translates into lower inflation. As a first approximation, inflation will be equal to nominal wage growth minus productivity growth. If nominal wages are growing at a 4.0 percent annual rate, and productivity is rising at a 1.9 percent annual rate, inflation will be roughly 2.1 percent. (We could have some redistribution from profits to wages, reversing the rise in profit shares in the pandemic, but we’ll leave that one for another time.)

To take the other side of the same coin, real wages can sustainably increase at the rate of productivity growth. The 1.9 percent rate of productivity growth meant that real wages could rise at roughly a 1.9 percent annual rate. By contrast, the 1.1 percent rate for the decade before the pandemic could only support a 1.1 percent annual rate of real wage growth. Over the course of a decade that’s the difference between a 20 percent rise in real wages and an 11 percent rise.

For these reasons, the productivity slowdown reported for the first quarter is a big deal. Having said this, it is necessary to throw out two important caveats about the first quarter productivity data.

First these data are subject to revisions. Both the numerator or this equation (output) and the denominator (hours) will be revised in subsequent months. When we have the data in June, after two rounds of revisions, the picture may look very different.

The other important caveat is that productivity data are notoriously erratic. For example, productivity shrank at a 2.4 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2015. It rose at a 1.7 percent annual rate in the first quarter of 2016. Reversals like this are very common. This means that even if the first quarter weakness holds up through revisions to the data, it is entirely possible that we see a sharp reversal in the second quarter or the second half of 2025.

First and foremost, the negative productivity growth reported for the first quarter should be seen a warning. We have pursued a number of policies that are likely to do both near-term and lasting damage to the economy. Tariffs, mass deportations, reckless layoffs in the federal government, and slashing research budgets, are all likely to hurt economic growth. Much of the impact will only be seen over the long term, but some may already be showing up in the data.

For example, if ships from China are not coming due to 145 percent tariffs, we will see fewer workers unloading goods, at the ports, fewer truck drivers transporting goods, and before long, empty shelves at the stores. The firings at the federal level, coupled with layoffs elsewhere due to cutbacks of federal support, could show up in higher unemployment rates.

The fall in productivity reported for the first quarter should be taken as a flashing yellow. Maybe all will be okay, but it’s not a good start.

Dean Baker is an economist, author, and co-founder of the Center for Economic Policy and Research. His writing has appeared in many major publications, including The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and The Financial Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack Dean Baker.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Trump

Inflation Ticks Up -- And Trump Tariffs Will Make It Worse

In January, inflation rose three percent from a year earlier, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced on Wednesday, making for the biggest one-month increase since August 2023 and a warning sign for President Donald Trump.

Last month’s inflation was higher than economists expected, with the cost of shelter, food, and gasoline driving the price increases. In fact, the BLS said that the price of eggs alone rose 15.2 percent in January, amounting to “the largest increase in the eggs index since June 2015.”

Inflation rose even though Trump promised he would lower costs “immediately” upon taking the White House, saying at the Republican National Convention in July, "I will end the devastating inflation crisis immediately, bring down interest rates, and lower the cost of energy—we will drill, baby, drill. … But by doing that, we will lead a large-scale decline in prices."

It was an absurd promise to make in the first place, but it’s one that experts say will age poorly. The ten percent tariff that Trump is imposing on China—as well as the 25 percent tariffs currently on pause for Mexico and Canada)—and the new 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports are expected to exacerbate price increases.

“This is a warning for President Trump and his team as they ready hefty tariffs,” Washington Post economics columnist Heather Long wrote in a post on X. “Americans remain very sensitive to price increases. When Trump launched his last trade war in 2018, inflation was 2 %. Now the starting point is 3%.”

Industries that rely on steel and aluminum are increasing their prices.

Nucor, a major U.S. steel producer, sent a letter to its customers on Monday saying they are increasing prices on all steel rebar prices by $40 per ton due to the "significant rise in input costs" caused by Trump's tariffs.

Meanwhile, the CEO of Ford said at a Tuesday investor's conference that Trump's tariffs will be "devastating" for the auto industry, leading to possible layoffs.

"Let's be real honest: Long term, a 25% tariff across the Mexico and Canada borders would blow a hole in the U.S. industry that we've never seen," CEO Jim Farley said, according to the Detroit Free Press. "Frankly, it gives free rein to South Korean, Japanese and European companies that are bringing 1.5 million to 2 million vehicles into the U.S. that wouldn't be subject to those Mexican and Canadian tariffs. It would be one of the biggest windfalls for those companies ever."

Ford donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund.

Bharat Ramamurti, an economist who served as the deputy director of the National Economic Council under former President Joe Biden, said the fact that inflation is accelerating under Trump is a bad sign for his presidency.

“Inflation reaccelerating. Consumer confidence plunging. Trump approval rating historically low for a presidential honeymoon period. Legislative efforts still stuck in neutral. For all the bluster, the new admin is off to a brutal start,” Ramamurti wrote in a post on X.

Trump, of course, is taking no responsibility for the rise in inflation in January.

"BIDEN INFLATION UP!" Trump wrote in an all-caps rage-post on his Truth Social platform.

Meanwhile, The New York Timesreported that Trump’s administration is starting to temper expectations about their ability to lower prices.

And that could spell trouble for his approval rating. In a recent YouGov poll for CBS News, 66 percent of Americans said Trump isn’t focused enough on lowering prices.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

'Fox & Friends' Just Couldn't Handle That Huge February Jobs Report

'Fox & Friends' Just Couldn't Handle That Huge February Jobs Report

A strong monthly jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) beat expectations last week, but Fox & Friends struggled to characterize it, absurdly claiming that the numbers reported by the government had missed expectations while arguing with no evidence that the data were unreliable.

On March 4, the BLS released its initial jobs report for February 2022, which showed the economy creating 678,000 jobs last month as the national unemployment rate fell slightly to 3.8 percent. The report also included substantial positive revisions to the jobs estimates for December 2021 and January 2022, showing job creation over that period to be “92,000 higher than previously reported.” The topline job creation number for February easily exceeded expectations reported by MarketWatch and Reuters, which forecast 400,000-440,000 jobs created last month.

None of these facts were good enough for the team at Fox News, which honestly seemed almost unprepared to discuss the breaking news. The Fox & Friends studio at first struggled with audio issues when returning from commercial break, and then flashed a red upward arrow on screen seeming to indicate that the unemployment rate had climbed last month (the rate actually fell 0.1 points). After correspondent Carley Shimkus finished reporting the numbers, noting twice that the monthly jobs report beat expert expectations, all three co-hosts — Pete Hegseth, Brian Kilmeade, and Ainsley Earhardt — fumbled their transition to discussing the jobs report with Fox Business host Charles Payne.

The absurdity continued during Payne’s supposedly expert commentary, as he claimed without any evidence or reasoning that he “thought it was going to be a higher number,” saying the report was “really weird.” When pressed by co-host Pete Hegseth about the fact that the report actually beat expectations, Payne doubled down, falsely claiming “everyone thought it was going to be higher.” As Payne listed off made-up expectations and unnamed sources who thought the economy would add 770,000 or more jobs last month, a graphic again flashed on-screen demonstrating that the 678,000 jobs added last month were more than the 400,000 “predicted” by economists.


PETE HEGSETH (CO-HOST): Charles Payne is here, host of Making Money on Fox Business, who is going to help us break down these numbers. Your reaction, Charles?

CHARLES PAYNE (FOX BUSINESS HOST): I thought it was going to be a higher number, I really did. Now, this is not unusual that they missed, and this is really weird. Let me just explain to the audience.

HEGSETH: Okay now, higher number – this is a higher number than expected?

PAYNE: Than consensus, right. But, everyone thought it was going to be higher. I saw some folks on Wall Street at 770, and some even higher than that. Just so you understand how this consensus things [sic] works. Last month, it was 300,000 better, but the month before that they missed it by 200,000, the month before that they missed it by 340,000. In August of last year, they missed it by 515,000. Forget about it, go back to April 2020, and they missed it by 2.2 million. You know, so, the consensus thing, let's look past that for a moment.

We’ve got almost 11 million job openings, we’re still not at the participation rate we were at just before the pandemic. So, this is a good number, but it could have been even better than this. For me, what’s more important is participation, I don’t know what that is just yet, because we want people coming back to the labor force, right. Also, wages. Now, wages were expected to go up 5.8 percent. Normally that’s good, but we’re going to find out next week that inflation, during this same time period, probably up more than 8 percent. So that means any raise you got was evaporated.


Throughout Payne’s commentary, he seemed confused about how the BLS reporting process works, and he ignored a key component of the entire process by which numbers are revised over time. For example, Payne said that the previous jobs report for August 2021 had missed its expectations by 515,000 jobs, totally ignoring the fact that subsequent revisions had made up for half that gap.

Payne also struggled to explain how economic forecasters form “consensus” expectations, and complained about low labor force participation rates, even though the report he held in his hand showed an increase in that rate from month-to-month.

Eventually, the Fox & Friends team got their footing and returned to the bread and butter misinformation we’ve come to expect from Fox News. Unable to coherently describe the economic data in front of their eyes, the team pivoted to complaining about President Joe Biden’s energy policies and mocking teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg for somehow contributing to both increased gas prices and Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Fox’s almost comical hot takes on the routine data release stand as a reminder that the Fox News propaganda machine will never miss an opportunity to cast the economy in a negative light, so long as it reflects poorly on Democrats.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Economy Soars While Media Repeats Jobs 'Expectations' Narrative

Economy Soars While Media Repeats Jobs 'Expectations' Narrative

Reprinted with permission from PressRun

The U.S. economy just set the record for the most jobs created in one year, but you’d never know it from the continuing doomsday economic coverage under President Joe Biden.

The new jobs report, released last Friday, offered the latest evidence of the purposeful disconnect the media maintain, and specifically how journalists rely on consistently unreliable “expectations” for job report numbers in order to portray the results as “disappointing,” and to paint a picture of a faltering U.S. economy even as it shatters growth records.

The U.S. economy just posted 199,000 new jobs in December, during a pandemic surge. That sounds like a good thing, right? Especially considering that in December 2020, under Trump and during another wintertime pandemic surge, the U.S. lost 140,000 jobs. Instead, the press was uniformly pessimistic about Friday’s news.

It was a “major disappointment,” CNN announced, despite the fact employee wages hit record heights and the unemployment rate tumbled to 3.9 percent. (Last winter, the CBO predicted it would take five years for the U.S. to reach an unemployment rate that low.) NPR stressed the US added “only” 199,000 jobs. Hiring had “faltered” the New York Times reported. All because the key number failed to meet estimates.

The expectations game is set by economists and banks which publish their estimates on the eve of each job survey. It’s an easy-to-use model the press has employed for decades to analyze monthly results. But economists’ expectations no longer work during the pandemic. They’ve been wildly inaccurate during the Biden recovery and should no longer serve as the determining factor in how jobs reports are presented by the press.

“During one of the most volatile periods in recent memory, private and public-sector economists have a less firm grasp of what the labor market is doing,” the Wall Street Journal recently conceded. During 2021, economists cumulatively missed the jobs mark by well over 1 million jobs. And that’s in a year when the U.S. created more than 6 million jobs, the most since records began in 1939.

The expectations model often produces dubious journalism. When last November’s job report was released, NPR quickly announced it was a “bust” because just 210,000 jobs had been created. But back in January of 2020, NPR cheered that the U.S. economy was “revved up” because 225,000 positions had been added.

Why the drastically different NPR spin for the Biden and Trump years? Expectations. Trump’s 225,000 job gains surpassed that month’s modest expectations, while Biden’s 210,000 fell short of estimates.

Another key hurdle is that the government has shown for the last year that it chronically undercounts, by large margins, the job gains data that are released to the public, and when it goes back and quietly post revisions they’re mostly ignored by the media.

August was a perfect example. That month’s initial jobs report claimed 235,000 jobs were added, which prompted lots of “disappointing” news coverage based on the established expectations. That total was soon revised all the way up to 483,000 new jobs, a development that received little press attention. Look at last September. The initial report announced 194,000 jobs. (“Lackluster,” announced NBC News.) After two revisions, the job total nearly doubled to 379,000.

Why the big revisions lately? Each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys 145,000 employers, extrapolates data, and produces an initial estimate of monthly job gains or losses. Lots of employers don’t initially reply, so the BLS goes back a second time, which produces the revised number. The problem is that during the pandemic, the percentage of employers who are responding to the survey has dropped dramatically, which means the initial numbers are less reliable. Yet those numbers are still the ones the press blasts out in headlines the first Friday of every month, when the unemployment figures are released.

It’s a one-two combo: The BLS is regularly undercounting jobs, which is bad news for the White House, and economists are regularly overestimating what the monthly BLS jobs number will be, which is also bad news for the White House. Then when the BLS revises the monthly gains, the media are nowhere to be found.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

That means Biden just oversaw a stunning jobs-creation year, while consumers were constantly fed headlines about “disappointing” jobs reports because the initial reports didn’t align with skewed “expectations.”

There’s also the lingering suspicion that the press simply likes to tell bad economic news — and hide upbeat newsflashes — during the Biden years. Just look at this pretzel-logic headline from the Washington Post on January 9, “2021 Shattered Job Market Records, But It’s Not as Good as it Looks.”

When last summer’s blockbuster July jobs report showed a jaw-dropping gain of nearly one million jobs, “NBC Nightly News” completely ignored the development. NBC did the same thing for the October survey, which announced a robust 531,000 jobs. It certainly feels like there’s a preferred media narrative in play.

The current approach for how the press handles monthly jobs reports isn’t functioning as it should. So why do journalists stick to the broken model?

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World