Evelyn Reynolds

Job openings totaled nearly 11 million in December, more than 4.6 million above the total unemployment level, according to the Labor Department.
The so-called quits level declined, signaling a slowdown in a trend known as the Great Resignation.
Elsewhere, the ISM Manufacturing Index showed a big gain in prices, reflecting ongoing inflation pressures.

A woman walks past a “Now Hiring” sign in front of a store on January 13, 2022 in Arlington, Virginia.
Olivier Douliery | AFP | Getty Images

Job openings totaled nearly 11 million in December while the Great Resignation cooled off, according to Labor Department data Tuesday.
Reflecting a tightening labor market, vacancies rose to 10.92 million, well above the FactSet estimate for 10.28 million and an increase of 1.4% from November. The rate of job openings as a share of the labor force was unchanged at 6.8%.

The “quits” level, which had soared to record highs in recent months amid a confluence of factors, slowed to 4.34 million, a decrease of 3.6%, while the quits rate edged down 0.1 percentage point to 2.9%.

At the same time, layoffs and discharges tumbled to 1.17 million, a decline of 10.7% from a month ago and a tumble of nearly 36% from the same month in 2020 to easily the lowest level on record.
The discharges level is “a sign that workers now have more job security than ever before,” said ZipRecruiter lead economist Sinem Buber. “Given the trouble businesses are having in finding and attracting new hires, employers are hanging onto the workers they’ve got.”
The JOLTS report is considered a particularly important gauge when measuring labor market slack.
December’s numbers further pointed to how close the economy is to full employment. There were 4.6 million more vacancies than workers considered unemployed for the month.

January, however, is expected to be a tricky month for job data as the Covid omicron variant sent millions of workers to the sidelines during the month.
“[Tuesday’s] report suggests that the latest wave of the pandemic brought on by the omicron variant didn’t fully hit the labor market in December,” said Nick Bunker, director of research for Indeed Hiring Lab.
“Demand for workers, as measured by job openings, remained robust and layoffs hit a new all-time low. But while the data suggest no major impact in December, the outlook for January is less optimistic,” Bunker said.
In other economic news Tuesday, the ISM Manufacturing survey for January came in at 57.6%, a decline of 1.2 percentage points from December but slightly ahead of the 57.4% Dow Jones estimate. The number represents the share of businesses reporting expansion for the month.
Federal Reserve officials are watching the latest data closely as they prepare to embark on their first tightening cycle since 2018.
Policymakers say they feel the economy is close to fulfilling the Fed’s mandate of full employment, while inflation remains higher than its 2% benchmark.
Indeed, the ISM index reflected inflation pressures in the pipeline, as the Prices Index in January hit 76.1%, up 7.9 percentage points from December.
The numbers come at a time when other inflation gauges are running at their highest levels in nearly 40 years.
In response to the inflationary pressures, markets are expecting the Fed to raise benchmark short-term interest rates five times this year, which would amount to 1.25 percentage points. Several central bank officials on Monday said that the timing is appropriate for policy tightening, and markets are expecting the first quarter-percentage point increase to come in March.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

The record red ink, fueled by spending to combat the coronavirus, comes as interest rates are expected to rise, which could add to America’s costs.WASHINGTON — America’s gross national debt topped $30 trillion for the first time on Tuesday, an ominous fiscal milestone that underscores the fragile nature of the country’s long-term economic health as it grapples with soaring prices and the prospect of higher interest rates.The breach of that threshold, which was revealed in new Treasury Department figures, arrived years earlier than previously projected as a result of trillions in federal spending that the United States has deployed to combat the pandemic. That $5 trillion, which funded expanded jobless benefits, financial support for small businesses and stimulus payments, was financed with borrowed money.The borrowing binge, which many economists viewed as necessary to help the United States recover from the pandemic, has left the nation with a debt burden so large that the government would need to spend an amount larger than America’s entire annual economy in order to pay it off.Some economists contend that the nation’s large debt load is not unhealthy given that the economy is growing, interest rates are low and investors are still willing to buy U.S. Treasury securities, which gives them safe assets to help manage their financial risk. Those securities allow the government to borrow money relatively cheaply and use it to invest in the economy.For years, presidents have promised to limit federal borrowing and bring down the nation’s budget deficit, which is the gap between what the nation spends and what it takes in. Under President Bill Clinton, the United States actually ran a budget surplus between 1998 and 2001.But taming deficits had fallen out of fashion in recent years, including during the Trump administration, when lawmakers blew through budget caps and borrowed money to fund tax cuts and other federal spending.Now, deficit concerns have resurfaced, helping to stall negotiations over President Biden’s $2 trillion safety net and climate spending proposal. Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a Democrat whose vote is key to passing Mr. Biden’s package, cited “staggering debt” as a reason he could not support the legislation.Senator Joe Manchin on Capitol Hill last month.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesThe lingering pandemic has slowed the momentum of the economic recovery, fueling inflation rates unseen since the early 1980s and raising the prospect of higher interest rates, which could add to America’s fiscal burden.“Hitting the $30 trillion mark is clearly an important milestone in our dangerous fiscal trajectory,” said Michael A. Peterson, the chief executive officer of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which promotes deficit reduction. “For many years before Covid, America had an unsustainable structural fiscal path because the programs we’ve designed are not sufficiently funded by the revenue we take in.”Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.The gross national debt represents debt held by the public, such as individuals, businesses and pension funds, as well as liabilities that one part of the federal government owes to another part.Renewed concerns about debt and deficits in Washington follow years of disregard for the consequences of big spending. During the Trump administration, most Republicans ceased to be fiscal hawks and voted along party lines in 2017 to pass a $1.5 trillion tax cut along with increased federal spending.While Republican lawmakers helped run up the nation’s debt load, they have since blamed Mr. Biden for putting the nation on a rocky fiscal path by funding his agenda. After a protracted standoff in which Republicans refused to raise America’s borrowing cap, threatening a first-ever federal default, Congress finally agreed in December to raise the nation’s debt limit to about $31.4 trillion.In January 2020, before the pandemic spread across the United States, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the gross national debt would reach $30 trillion by around the end of 2025. The total debt held by the public outpaced the size of the American economy last year, a decade faster than forecasters projected.The nonpartisan office warned last year that rising interest costs and growing health spending as the population ages would increase the risk of a “fiscal crisis” and higher inflation, a situation that could undermine confidence in the U.S. dollar.The Biden administration has said the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package the Democrats passed last year was a necessary measure to protect the economy from further damage. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen has argued that such large federal investments are affordable because interest costs as a share of gross domestic product are at historically low levels thanks to persistently low interest rates.But that backdrop could start to change as the Federal Reserve prepares to raise interest rates, which have been set near-zero since the start of the pandemic, to curb inflation.The Fed indicated last week that it was on track to begin increasing rates at its next meeting in March. Investors are predicting the central bank could usher in five rate increases this year, bringing rates to a range of 1 to 1.25 percent.Trillions in federal spending has left the United States approaching levels of red ink not seen since World War II.Sarah Silbiger/ReutersThe Fed has also been keeping long-term interest rates low by buying government-backed debt and holding those securities on its balance sheet. Those purchases are set to wrap up next month, and last week, the Fed signaled it planned to “significantly” shrink its bond holdings.Esther L. George, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, suggested during a speech this week that the Fed’s big bond holdings might be lowering longer-term interest rates by as much as 1.5 percentage points — nearly cutting the interest rate on 10-year government debt in half. While shrinking the balance sheet risks roiling markets, she warned that if the Fed remained a big presence in the Treasury market, it could distort financial conditions and imperil the central bank’s prized independence from elected government.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

The U.S. economy last year grew at its fastest pace since 1984, but that momentum isn’t carrying into 2022.
An inventory build fueled most of the second-half growth that put annualized GDP up 5.7% for the year.
In the first quarter, the economy may not show any gain at all and possibly show a loss in GDP.
The pandemic, along with declining help from fiscal and monetary policy, will keep growth in check.

Free food is handed out by the Brooklyn community organization PASWO during a weekly food distribution on December 08, 2021 in New York City.
Spencer Platt | Getty Images

Spurred by a massive inventory rebuild and consumers flush with cash, the U.S. economy last year grew at its fastest pace since 1984.
Don’t expect a repeat performance in 2022.

In fact, the year is starting with little growth signs at all as the late-year spread of omicron coupled with the ebbing tailwind of fiscal stimulus has economists across Wall Street knocking down their forecasts for gross domestic product.
Combine that with a Federal Reserve that has pivoted from the easiest policy in its history to hawkish inflation-fighters, and the picture has suddenly changed substantially. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow gauge is currently tracking a first-quarter GDP gain of just 0.1%.
“The economy is decelerating and downshifting,” said Joseph LaVorgna, chief economist for the Americas at Natixis and former chief economist for the National Economic Council under then-President Donald Trump. “It’s not a recession, but it will be if the Fed tries to get too aggressive.”
GDP surged at an impressive 6.9% in the fourth quarter of 2021 to close out a year in which the measure of all goods and services produced in the U.S. increased 5.7% on an annualized basis. That came after a pandemic-induced 3.4% decline in 2020, a year that saw the steepest but shortest recession in U.S. history.
But the path ahead is less certain.

Much of that end-of-year gain was fueled by an inventory rebuild that contributed fully 4.9 percentage points, or 71% of the total. Inventories were responsible for almost all of the third quarter’s 2.3% GDP increase.
At the same time, Tuesday’s ISM Manufacturing survey showed that the pace of new orders, while still showing gains, is slowing substantially.
Taken together, that’s not much of a recipe for sustained growth.
“Inventories are roughly back to where they should be,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “Then you’ve got growing headwinds from fiscal and monetary policy. So, yeah, growth starting the year will be very soft.”

Economists playing catchup

Wall Street economists have been marking down their growth projections quickly.
Goldman Sachs slashed its first-quarter GDP outlook to 0.5%, down from 2%. The bank also cut its full-year view to 3.2%, well below the current 3.8% consensus.
“Growth is likely to slow abruptly in 2022, as fiscal support fades and, in the near term, virus spread weighs on services spending and prolongs supply chain disruptions,” Goldman economist Ronnie Walker said in a note for clients. “Q1 growth is likely to be particularly soft because the fiscal drag will be accompanied by a hit from Omicron.”
Likewise, Bank of America knocked down its first-quarter number to 1% from 4% and cut its full-year forecast to 3.6% from 4%, with risks to that forecast seemingly tilting to the downside.
Bank of America’s head of global economics research Ethan Harris cited four reasons for the downbeat outlook: omicron, the retreat in inventory build, less fiscal support, and a tighter Fed as well.
“We now expect a fiscal package about half the size of the Build Back Better Act, with less front-loaded fiscal stimulus. We think it will boost 2022 growth by just 15-20 [basis points], compared to our earlier estimate of 50bp,” Harris wrote. “Risks of a negative growth [first] quarter are significant, in our view.”
A basis point is 1/100th of a percentage point.
Bank of America has another wrinkle in its forecast: a call for seven 25-basis-point rate hikes this year. That’s considerably more aggressive than anywhere else on the Street, which is currently pricing in five hikes with about a 31% chance of a sixth, according to the CME.
Zandi said the Fed needs to be careful it doesn’t go too far in its fight against inflation, which is running at its highest rate in nearly 40 years.
“They run the risk of getting ahead of themselves and overdoing it. They have pivoted very hard here,” he said. “Market expectations are for five increases. Six is now entering into the debate and discussions. That feels like that could be a rate hike or two too far, given the growing headwinds in the economy.”

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

The Omicron variant of the coronavirus has disrupted business and kept millions of people home from work. But in December, at least, it did little to cool off the red-hot job market.Employers posted 10.9 million open jobs in the last month of 2021, the Labor Department said Tuesday. That was up modestly from November, and close to the record 11.1 million openings in July. There were roughly 1.7 job openings for every unemployed worker in December, the most in the two decades the government has been keeping track.Lots of jobs, not enough workersThere were nearly 11 million jobs posted in December and fewer than 7 million unemployed workers, the highest ratio in the two decades the government has been keeping track.

Notes: Unemployment figures adjusted to account for workers misclassified as employed. Data is seasonally adjusted.Source: Labor DepartmentBy The New York TimesForecasters had expected the jump in coronavirus cases to lead to a pullback in recruiting, and a slowdown is still possible. Nationally, coronavirus cases did not reach their peak until mid-January, and they are still rising in some parts of the country. Job postings on the career site Indeed, which tend to track the government’s data relatively closely, remained high through much of December but fell in January.The virus kept millions of workers home in December and January, leaving many businesses short staffed and forcing some to close or limit their hours. That probably forced some companies to postpone hiring. Employers might have also found it harder to hire because some people were unwilling to look for or start new jobs as virus cases rose, or unable to do so because of child care obligations.But there is little evidence so far that Omicron has derailed a strong job market. Employers laid off or fired just 1.2 million workers in December, the fewest on record. The difficult hiring environment may have led some companies that normally shed temporary workers after the holidays to hold on to them this year, said Diane Swonk, chief economist for the accounting firm Grant Thornton.“Companies kept their seasonal hires,” she said. “One, because it’s already a labor shortage. And two, because they had so many people out sick that they wanted to keep people on.”Many workers are taking advantage of their leverage by seeking out better jobs. More than 4.3 million workers quit their jobs voluntarily, down a bit from November but still near a record.With workers scarce and employees in the driver’s seat, companies are raising pay. Wages and salaries rose 4.5 percent in the final three months of 2021, according to separate data released by the Labor Department last week. Wages are rising fastest in sectors where labor is particularly scarce, such as leisure and hospitality.Economists will get a more up-to-date snapshot of the labor market on Friday, when the Labor Department releases data on job growth and unemployment in January. Forecasters surveyed by FactSet expect the report to show that employers added 165,000 jobs. But Omicron has created an unusual amount of uncertainty, and some economists believe the report could show a net loss of jobs last month. More

In 2021, single-family housing starts reached 1.123 million, the highest since 2006.
Detached homes have occupied large amounts of land near lucrative job markets.
The limited supply of buildable residential land is pushing lower-income Americans out of the housing market.

America’s suburbs are sprawling again.Last year, single family housing starts rose to 1.123 million, the highest since 2006, according to the National Association of Home Builders, however, options for prospective homebuyers remain lean.
Experts say the problems of America’s housing market relate to past policy decisions. In particular, they say restrictive zoning codes are limiting housing supply. These codes are based on 1930s-era Federal Housing Administration guidelines for mortgage underwriting. That includes “no sidewalks and curvy dead-end streets,” according to Ben Ross, author of “Dead End: Suburban Sprawl and the Rebirth of American Urbanism.”Ross and others believe that more must be done to manage residential real estate development. Ross lives in Montgomery County, Maryland, which recently revised its zoning code to bring more population density to the area. The county didn’t have many alternative options — 85% of build-worthy land is already developed.Strict zoning laws favoring single-family homes have limited the supply of land available for multifamily construction and hampered production of more affordable housing. With land limited for multifamily projects, the price of that land has jumped and made those projects unaffordable for builders.Today’s homebuyers are paying for past sprawl by drawing on credit to finance their lifestyles. Meanwhile, the cost of public infrastructure maintenance is weighing on depopulating towns across the country.How else does suburban sprawl shape the U.S. economy? Watch the video above to find out.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Over the past two months, Brenda Garcia, who works at a Chipotle in Queens, has struggled to land more than 20 hours per week, making it difficult to keep up with her expenses. When she confronts her manager, he vows to try to find her more work, but the problem invariably persists. In one recent week, the store scheduled her for a single 6.25-hour shift.“It’s not enough for me — they’re not giving me a stable job,” said Ms. Garcia, whose work involves chopping vegetables and other tasks before burritos are assembled. “They’re not giving me the hours and the days I’m supposed to be getting.”Ms. Garcia’s limited hours are not unusual at Chipotle, which has a largely part-time work force. A weekly schedule at her store from early January showed at least a dozen workers with fewer than 20 hours and several with fewer than 15.With workers nationwide quitting at high rates and companies complaining that they can’t fill jobs, employers might be expected to rethink their dependence on part-time scheduling. While some employees prefer the flexibility, many say it leaves them with too few hours, too little income or erratic hours.But that rethinking does not appear to have happened. Government data show that in retail businesses, the portion of workers on part-time schedules last year stood about where it was just before the pandemic, and that it increased somewhat in hospitality industries like restaurants and hotels.In a twice-yearly survey by Daniel Schneider, a Harvard sociologist, and Kristen Harknett, a sociologist at the University of California, San Francisco, one-quarter of workers at large retailers and restaurant chains said they were scheduled 35 hours a week or less and wanted more hours. That was down from about one-third in 2019, but the change was driven by a decline in the number of workers wanting more hours, most likely because of pandemic health risks and work-life conflicts, not because employers were providing more hours.Even as employers complain of having to scramble to fill vacancies, there is little evidence that service workers are winning any meaningful, long-term gains. While businesses have raised wages, those increases can be easily eroded by inflation, if they haven’t been already. The overall national rate of membership in unions — which can obtain wage increases for workers even absent labor shortages — matched its lowest level on record last year.Limited work hours are not unusual at Chipotle, which has a largely part-time work force.Brandon Bell/Getty ImagesAnd the unpredictable schedules that arise when employers constantly adjust staffing in response to customer demand, something that is common among part-timers, are roughly as prevalent as before the pandemic. The survey by Dr. Schneider and Dr. Harknett found that about two-thirds of workers continue to receive less than two weeks’ notice of their schedules.“Companies are doing all they can not to bake in any gains that are difficult to claw back,” Dr. Schneider said. “Workers’ labor market power is so far not yielding durable dividends.”The changes that make work lower paying, less stable and generally more precarious date back to the 1960s and ’70s, when the labor market evolved in two key ways. First, companies began pushing more work outside the firm — relying increasingly on contractors, temps and franchisees, a practice known as “fissuring.”Second, many businesses that continued to employ workers directly began hiring them to part-time positions, rather than full-time roles, particularly in the retail and hospitality industries.According to the scholars Chris Tilly of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Françoise Carré of the University of Massachusetts Boston, the initial impetus for the shift to part-time work was the mass entry of women into the work force, including many who preferred part-time positions so they could be home when children returned from school.Before long, however, employers saw an advantage in hiring part-timers and deliberately added more. “A light bulb went on one day,” Dr. Tilly said. “‘If we’re expanding part-time schedules, we don’t have to offer benefits, we can offer a lower wage rate.’”By the late 1980s, employers had begun using scheduling software to forecast customer demand and staffed accordingly. Having a large portion of part-time workers, who could be given more hours when stores got busy and fewer hours when business slowed, helped enable this practice, known as just-in-time scheduling.But the arrangement subjected workers to fluctuating schedules and unreliable hours, disrupting their personal lives, their sleep, even their children’s brain development.Nonetheless, the model continued to spread, and the shift to a heavily part-time work force was largely complete across retail by the mid-1990s.A recent study commissioned by Kroger found that about 70 percent of the supermarket company’s nearly 85,000 store employees in California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington State were part time. A survey of more than 10,000 Kroger workers on behalf of four union locals by the Economic Roundtable, a nonprofit research group, found widespread evidence of just-in-time scheduling, with more than half of workers reporting that their schedules changed at least weekly.Kroger, one of the nation’s largest employers, said in a statement that many of its employees sought part-time jobs for their flexibility and for health care benefits that competitors didn’t offer, as well as for opportunities for upward mobility. “We provide hundreds of thousands of people with first jobs (think baggers, cashiers, stockers, etc.), second chances, retirement employment, college gigs,” the statement said.The company added that locals of the United Food and Commercial Workers union had negotiated and agreed to the relevant provisions of its labor contracts for decades.A spokeswoman for Chipotle, where Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ is helping workers organize, likewise said that managers and employees mutually agreed on hours and that the company enabled employees to pick up additional shifts at other New York City stores when they were available.But the practices remain contentious. In mid-January, more than 8,000 Denver-area workers at King Soopers, a supermarket chain owned by Kroger, went on strike, citing the lack of full-time employment as a key issue.Workers picketing during a strike at King Soopers in Denver. A key issue was the lack of full-time employment.Michael Ciaglo/Getty ImagesRenae Vigil, who works in the meat department at a King Soopers in Denver and serves as a union steward, said many of her colleagues would like to work full time so that “they wouldn’t be worried about how to pay bills, how to get this or that paid, but at King’s, it’s like winning a lotto.”The frustrations suggest a relatively straightforward way for employers to reduce labor shortages: Offer more full-time positions.But Kim Cordova, president of U.F.C.W. Local 7, which represents the King Soopers workers, said employers like Kroger were rarely moved by this logic. “They’ve told us they think the market is going to correct itself, this is temporary and they don’t want to lock themselves into changing permanently,” she said. The food workers union estimated that King Soopers had 2,400 unfilled Denver-area jobs early this year.While the strike ended last month, after the company committed to raise pay, contribute more to health benefits and add at least 500 full-time positions, a majority of King Soopers workers are likely to remain on part-time schedules. Most retail and restaurant workers, who lack a union to organize a strike and provide strike pay, may have a harder time winning such changes.Susan Lambert, a social work scholar at the University of Chicago who studies employers’ scheduling practices, said she and a colleague had recently interviewed store managers in Seattle and Chicago and found that some had, in fact, sought to provide more consistent schedules during the pandemic.The change was driven by a combination of data, showing that more humane scheduling practices need not undermine profitability, and a desire by some employers to retain workers amid labor shortages, Dr. Lambert said. But she conceded that the changes were mostly at the margins.“There are not major investments in changing major systems,” she said.Data collected by the Labor Department indicate that the amount of part-time work in the retail and hospitality industries remains far above where it stood in the early 1970s. The same appears to be true of companies’ reliance on contractors and temps, which scholars say has helped weaken wage growth over the past several decades.Employers who outsource work to contractors or temps do not appear to have rethought those arrangements as a result of the pandemic, said Susan Houseman, a labor economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. She pointed to the temporary help industry’s return to close to its prepandemic share of employment and an increase in self-employment during the past two years.Gig companies whose apps allow people to find work as independent contractors say they have had an increase in workers over the last year or two. According to Uber, the number of drivers and couriers working through its service in a given month grew roughly 70 percent from January to October last year, or nearly 640,000.DoorDash said the number of people working through its delivery app as of the fall quarter had more than doubled during the pandemic, to over three million, and Instacart said the number of full-service shoppers on its service — those who shop for and deliver groceries — had increased by more than two and a half times, to over 500,000.The companies say that workers who use their apps value the flexibility of gig work, and that it helps sustain people during fallow periods or in places where work can be hard to find, such as rural communities. But gig jobs typically lack a variety of benefits and protections, like a minimum wage, and can reinforce economic insecurity.To Dr. Schneider, the Harvard sociologist, the insecurity that service workers continue to face during the pandemic, supposedly a period of unusual leverage, shows how resistant their industries are to changing.“I think it exposes something about how attached employers are to this just-in-time model,” he said. “This is something that goes to the heart of their business models.” More

Federal Reserve officials are preparing to pull back their economic help as inflation remains stubbornly high and the labor market swiftly heals, and they are signaling clearly that the last business cycle is a poor template for what comes next.During the economic expansion that stretched from the global financial crisis to the start of the pandemic, the Fed acted very gradually — it slowly dialed back bond buying meant to help the economy, then only ploddingly shrank its balance sheet of asset holdings. Central bankers increased borrowing costs sporadically between 2015 and the end of 2018, raising them at every other meeting at the very fastest.But inflation was muted, the labor market was slowly crawling out of an abyss, and business conditions needed the Fed’s support. This time is different, a series of Fed presidents emphasized on Monday — suggesting that the pullback in policy support is likely to be quicker and more decisive.Four of the central bank’s 12 regional presidents spoke on Monday, and all suggested that the Fed could soon begin to cool off the economy. Central bankers are widely expected to make a series of interest rate increases starting in March, and could soon thereafter begin to fairly rapidly shrink their balance sheet holdings. The pace of policy retreat is still up for debate and officials reiterated that it will hinge on incoming data — but several also noted that economic conditions are unusually strong.“The economy is far stronger than it has been, during any of my time in this role, and certainly, during any of the recoveries that we’ve been trying to navigate our policy through in recent memory,” Raphael Bostic, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said in an interview with Yahoo Finance. Any risks “that our policies are going to lead to a contraction in the economy, I think they’re relatively far off.”Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.While it took the Fed a long time to begin shrinking its balance sheet last time, the central bank will probably move more promptly in 2022, Esther George, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, suggested during a speech.“With inflation running at close to a 40-year high, considerable momentum in demand growth, and abundant signs and reports of labor market tightness, the current very accommodative stance of monetary policy is out of sync with the economic outlook,” said Ms. George, who votes on monetary policy this year.Tricky questions lie ahead about how big the balance sheet should be, she noted. The Fed’s holdings have swollen to nearly $9 trillion, more than twice its size before the pandemic.Ms. George estimated that the Fed’s big bond holdings were weighing down longer-term interest rates by roughly 1.5 percentage points — nearly cutting the interest rate on 10-year government debt in half. While shrinking the balance sheet risks roiling markets, she warned that if the Fed remains a big presence in the Treasury market, it could distort financial conditions and imperil the central bank’s prized independence from elected government.“While it might be tempting to err on the side of caution, the potential costs associated with an excessively large balance sheet should not be ignored,” she said. She suggested that shrinking the balance sheet could allow policymakers to raise rates, which are currently set near-zero, by less.Mary C. Daly, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, also argued for an active — albeit still gradual — path toward removing policy help.The Fed is not behind the curve, she said on a Reuters webcast, but it needs to react to the reality that the labor market appears at least temporarily short on workers and inflation is running hot. Prices picked up by 5.8 percent in the year through December, nearly three times the 2 percent the Fed aims for on average and over time.“We’re not trying to combat some vicious wage-price spiral,” Ms. Daly said. Still, she said she could support a rate increase as soon as March, and hinted that four rate increases could be reasonable, a path that would slow things down while “not pulling away the punch bowl completely and causing disruptions.”Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

Federal Reserve officials are preparing to pull back their economic help as inflation remains stubbornly high and the labor market swiftly heals, and they are signaling clearly that the last business cycle is a poor template for what comes next.During the economic expansion that stretched from the global financial crisis to the start of the pandemic, the Fed acted very gradually — it slowly dialed back bond buying meant to help the economy, then only ploddingly shrank its balance sheet of asset holdings. Central bankers increased borrowing costs sporadically between 2015 and the end of 2018, raising them at every other meeting at the very fastest.But inflation was muted, the labor market was slowly crawling out of an abyss, and business conditions needed the Fed’s support. This time is different, a series of Fed presidents emphasized on Monday — suggesting that the pullback in policy support is likely to be quicker and more decisive.Four of the central bank’s 12 regional presidents spoke on Monday, and all suggested that the Fed could soon begin to cool off the economy. Central bankers are widely expected to make a series of interest rate increases starting in March, and could soon thereafter begin to fairly rapidly shrink their balance sheet holdings. The pace of policy retreat is still up for debate and officials reiterated that it will hinge on incoming data — but several also noted that economic conditions are unusually strong.“The economy is far stronger than it has been, during any of my time in this role, and certainly, during any of the recoveries that we’ve been trying to navigate our policy through in recent memory,” Raphael Bostic, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said in an interview with Yahoo Finance. Any risks “that our policies are going to lead to a contraction in the economy, I think they’re relatively far off.”Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.While it took the Fed a long time to begin shrinking its balance sheet last time, the central bank will probably move more promptly in 2022, Esther George, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, suggested during a speech.“With inflation running at close to a 40-year high, considerable momentum in demand growth, and abundant signs and reports of labor market tightness, the current very accommodative stance of monetary policy is out of sync with the economic outlook,” said Ms. George, who votes on monetary policy this year.Tricky questions lie ahead about how big the balance sheet should be, she noted. The Fed’s holdings have swollen to nearly $9 trillion, more than twice its size before the pandemic.Ms. George estimated that the Fed’s big bond holdings were weighing down longer-term interest rates by roughly 1.5 percentage points — nearly cutting the interest rate on 10-year government debt in half. While shrinking the balance sheet risks roiling markets, she warned that if the Fed remains a big presence in the Treasury market, it could distort financial conditions and imperil the central bank’s prized independence from elected government.“While it might be tempting to err on the side of caution, the potential costs associated with an excessively large balance sheet should not be ignored,” she said. She suggested that shrinking the balance sheet could allow policymakers to raise rates, which are currently set near-zero, by less.Mary C. Daly, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, also argued for an active — albeit still gradual — path toward removing policy help.The Fed is not behind the curve, she said on a Reuters webcast, but it needs to react to the reality that the labor market appears at least temporarily short on workers and inflation is running hot. Prices picked up by 5.8 percent in the year through December, nearly three times the 2 percent the Fed aims for on average and over time.“We’re not trying to combat some vicious wage-price spiral,” Ms. Daly said. Still, she said she could support a rate increase as soon as March, and hinted that four rate increases could be reasonable, a path that would slow things down while “not pulling away the punch bowl completely and causing disruptions.”Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More