Economics (Theory and Philosophy)

Latest story

113 Shares149 Views

Have Paychecks Kept Up With the Cost of Living?

by

On average, pay has risen faster than prices in recent years. But the overall picture is complicated — and it’s not just facts versus “vibes.”Have Americans’ paychecks kept up with the cost of living over the past several years?It is a surprisingly difficult question to answer.According to most Americans, the answer is a clear “no.” In polls and interviews ahead of the presidential election, people of virtually all ideologies and income levels say inflation has made it harder to make ends meet, eclipsing whatever raises they have managed to win from their employers.According to economic data, the answer appears, at least on the surface, to be “yes.” Income and earnings have outpaced inflation since the start of the pandemic, according to a variety of both government and private-sector sources. That is especially true for the lowest earners — a partial reversal of the rising inequality of recent decades.But this is not a simple case of facts versus “vibes.” Economic statistics are based on broad averages. Dig deeper, and the story becomes more complicated. How a given family or individual has fared over the past five years depends on a litany of factors: whether the earners own their home or rent; whether they had to buy a car or send a child to day care; whether they were able to change jobs or demand a raise.“I feel like some people are being very dismissive, saying, ‘Oh, people are wrong — there has been all this real wage growth,’ but that is a simple average,” said Stefanie Stantcheva, a Harvard economist who has studied how people experience inflation. “It’s actually very, very hard to say people are wrong — I would almost never say that.”The bottom line: Most American workers are probably making more money today, adjusted for inflation, than they were in 2019. But not all have seen their pay keep up with their own cost of living, and many — perhaps most — are lagging behind where they would be if prepandemic trends had continued unabated. Those complications may help explain why so many Americans believe they have fallen behind.

.dw-chart-subhed {
line-height: 1;
margin-bottom: 6px;
font-family: nyt-franklin;
color: #121212;
font-size: 15px;
font-weight: 700;
}

Change since end of 2019 in various earnings measures
Notes: After-tax income is per capita and excludes government transfer payments and is adjusted for inflation by the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index. Hourly earnings are for production and nonsupervisory workers and are adjusted for inflation by the CPI-W. Median weekly earnings are for full-time workers and are adjusted for inflation using the CPI-U. Average weekly earnings are for all workers and are also adjusted using the CPI-U. All series are monthly except for median weekly earnings, which are quarterly.Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve Bank of New YorkBy The New York Times

.dw-chart-subhed {
line-height: 1;
margin-bottom: 6px;
font-family: nyt-franklin;
color: #121212;
font-size: 15px;
font-weight: 700;
}

Change in inflation-adjusted weekly earnings by wage level, 2019-2024
Note: Change is measured in the third quarter of each year, not seasonally adjusted.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York Times

.dw-chart-subhed {
line-height: 1;
margin-bottom: 6px;
font-family: nyt-franklin;
color: #121212;
font-size: 15px;
font-weight: 700;
}

Median weekly earnings vs. prepandemic trend
Notes: Earnings are shown in 2023 dollars and are for full-time workers. Data is seasonally adjusted. Trend line is based on 2014 to 2019 data.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 150 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    The Best Books About the Economy to Read Before the 2024 Election

    by

    Voters are forever worried about the economy — the price of homes and groceries, the rise and fall of the stock market, and, of course, taxes — but the economic policies that affect these things often seem unapproachable. Donald Trump wants to cut taxes and raise tariffs. Kamala Harris wants to raise taxes on high-income households and expand the social safety net. But what does that mean? And what are they hoping to achieve?Part of what makes economic policy difficult is the need to understand not just the direct impact of a change but also its many indirect effects. A tax credit to buy houses, for example, might end up benefiting home sellers more than home purchasers if a surge in demand drives up prices.The mathematics and jargon that economists use in journals facilitate precise scientific communication, which has the indirect effect of excluding everyone else. Meanwhile, the “economists” you see on TV or hear on the radio are more often telling you (usually incorrectly) whether the economy will go into recession without explaining why.But some authors do a good job of walking the line between accessibility and expertise. Here are five books to help you crack the nut on the economy before Election Day.The Little Book of EconomicsBy Greg IpThe best way to understand things like the causes of recessions and inflation and the consequences of public debt is to take an introductory economics course and do all the problem sets. The second-best way? Read “The Little Book of Economics.” Don’t be fooled by its compact form and breezy writing: This book, by the Wall Street Journal chief economics commentator Greg Ip, manages to pack in just about everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask about the gross domestic product.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Nobel Economics Prize Awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson

    by

    Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson shared the award for their work on explaining the gaps in prosperity between nations.Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson received the prize for their work on explaining inequality between countries.Christine Olsson/TT News Agency, via Associated PressThe Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded on Monday to Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, both of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and to James Robinson of the University of Chicago.They received the prize for their research into how institutions shape which countries become wealthy and prosperous — and how those structures came to exist in the first place.The laureates delved into the world’s colonial past to trace how gaps emerged between nations, arguing that countries that started out with more inclusive institutions during the colonial period tended to become more prosperous. Their pioneering use of theory and data has helped to better explain the reasons for persistent inequality between nations, according to the Nobel committee.“Reducing the huge differences in income between countries is one of our times’ greatest challenges,” Jakob Svensson, chairman of the economics prize committee, said while announcing the award. Thanks to the economists’ “groundbreaking research,” he said, “we have a much deeper understanding of the root causes of why countries fail or succeed.”According to the researchers, prosperity today is partly a legacy of how a nation’s institutions evolved over time — which they studied by looking at what happened to countries during European colonization.Countries with “inclusive” institutions that protected personal property rights and allowed for widespread economic participation tended to end up on a pathway to longer-term prosperity. Those that had what the researchers called “extractive” institutions — ones that helped elites to maintain control, but which gave workers little hope of sharing in the wealth — merely provided short-term gains for the people in power.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Why Low Layoff Numbers Don’t Mean the Labor Market Is Strong

    by

    Past economic cycles show that unemployment starts to tick up ahead of a recession, with wide-scale layoffs coming only later.As job growth has slowed and unemployment has crept up, some economists have pointed to a sign of confidence among employers: They are, for the most part, holding on to their existing workers.Despite headline-grabbing job cuts at a few big companies, overall layoffs remain below their levels during the strong economy before the pandemic. Applications for unemployment benefits, which drifted up in the spring and summer, have recently been falling.But past recessions suggest that layoff data alone should not offer much comfort about the labor market. Historically, job cuts have come only once an economic downturn was well underway.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Layoffs per month
    Data is seasonally adjusted.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesThe Great Recession, for example, officially began at the end of 2007, after the bursting of the housing bubble and the ensuing mortgage crisis. The unemployment rate began rising in early 2008. But it was not until late 2008 — after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the onset of a global financial crisis — that employers began cutting jobs in earnest.The milder recession in 2001 offers an even clearer example. The unemployment rate rose steadily from 4.3 percent in May to 5.7 percent at the end of the year. But apart from a brief spike in the fall, layoffs hardly rose.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Harris and Trump Have Differing Plans to Solve Housing Crisis

    by

    The two presidential nominees are talking about their approaches for solving America’s affordability crisis. But would their plans work?America’s gaping shortage of affordable housing has rocketed to the top of voter worry lists and to the forefront of campaign promises, as both the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, and the Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump, promise to fix the problem if they are elected.Their two visions of how to solve America’s affordable housing shortage have little in common, and Ms. Harris’s plan is far more detailed. But they do share one quality: Both have drawn skepticism from outside economists.Ms. Harris is promising a cocktail of tax cuts meant to spur home construction — which several economists said could help create supply. But she is also floating a $25,000 benefit to help first-time buyers break into the market, which many economists worry could boost demand too much, pushing home prices even higher. And both sets of policies would need to pass in Congress, which would influence their design and feasibility.Mr. Trump’s plan is garnering even more doubt. He pledges to deport undocumented immigrants, which could cut back temporarily on housing demand but would also most likely cut into the construction work force and eventually limit new housing supply. His other ideas include lowering interest rates, something that he has no direct control over and that is poised to happen anyway.Economist misgivings about the housing market policy plans underline a somber reality. Few quick fixes are available for an affordable housing shortfall that has been more than 15 years in the making, one that is being worsened by demographic and societal trends. While ambitious promises may sound good in debates and television ads, actual policy attempts to fix the national housing shortfall are likely to prove messy and slow — even if they are sorely needed.Here’s what the candidates are proposing, and what experts say about those plans.Harris: Expand Supply Using Tax Credits.Ms. Harris is promising to increase housing supply by expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, providing incentives for state and local investment in housing and creating a $40 billion tax credit to make affordable projects economically feasible for builders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Kamala Harris Blames ‘Price Gouging’ for Grocery Inflation. Here’s What Economists Say.

    by

    Price increases when demand exceeds supply are textbook economics. The question is whether, and how much, the pandemic yielded an excess take.In detailing her presidential campaign’s economic agenda, Vice President Kamala Harris will highlight an argument that blames corporate price gouging for high grocery prices.That message polls well with swing voters. It has been embraced by progressive groups, which regularly point to price gouging as a driver of rapid inflation, or at least something that contributes to rapid price increases. Those groups cheered the announcement late Wednesday that Ms. Harris will call for a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries in an economic policy speech on Friday.But the economic argument over the issue is complicated.Economists have cited a range of forces for pushing up prices in the recovery from the pandemic recession, including snarled supply chains, a sudden shift in consumer buying patterns, and the increased customer demand fueled by stimulus from the government and low rates from the Federal Reserve. Most economists say those forces are far more responsible than corporate behavior for the rise in prices in that period.Biden administration economists have found that corporate behavior has played a role in pushing up grocery costs in recent years — but that other factors have played a much larger one.The Harris campaign announcement cited meat industry consolidation as a driver of excessive grocery prices, but officials did not immediately respond on Thursday to questions about the evidence Ms. Harris would cite or how her proposal would work.There are examples of companies telling investors in recent years that they have been able to raise prices to increase profits. But even the term “price gouging” means different things to different people.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Stock Markets Signal Recession Fears. Here’s the Economic Outlook.

    by

    The economy has repeatedly defied predictions of a downturn since the pandemic recovery began. Now signs of strength contend with shakier readings.The U.S. economy has spent three years defying expectations. It emerged from the pandemic shock more quickly and more powerfully than many experts envisioned. It proved resilient in the face of both inflation and the higher interest rates the Federal Reserve used to combat it. The prospect many forecasters once considered imminent — a recession — looked increasingly like a false alarm.Until now.An unexpectedly weak jobs report on Friday — showing slower hiring in July, and a surprising jump in unemployment — triggered a sell-off in the stock market as investors worried that an economic downturn might be underway after all. By Monday, that decline had turned into a rout, with financial markets tumbling around the world.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    The number of jobs added in July was the second smallest monthly gain in years.
    Note: Data is seasonally adjustedSource: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York Times

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    The unemployment rate in July rose to the highest level since October 2021.
    Note: Data is seasonally adjustedSource: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesSome economists said investors were overreacting to one weak but hardly disastrous report, since many indicators show the economy on fundamentally firm footing.But they said there were also reasons to worry. Historically, increases in joblessness like the one in July — the unemployment rate rose to 4.3 percent, the highest since 2021 — have been a reliable indicator of a recession. And even without that precedent, there has been evidence that the labor market is weakening.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    The Sahm Rule indicator suggests a recession might have already begun.
    Data is seasonally adjusted and shows the change in the U.S. unemployment rate compared with the low point in the previous 12 months. All calculations based on three-month moving average.Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. LouisBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    What Forecasters Say About Interest Rates (and Why They Disagree)

    by

    Hopes for a steep drop in borrowing costs for consumers and businesses have been dashed. But some experts predict modest reductions in coming months.How soon is soon? Or exactly how much later is later?As the year started, there was a widespread view among economists and on Wall Street that the Federal Reserve would lower interest rates in the first half of the year. Maybe in March, maybe in May, but sooner rather than later.That long-awaited moment, two years after the Fed began ratcheting up rates to their highest level in decades, held the prospect of brightening consumer sentiment, increasing company valuations and improving corporate financing opportunities. It was called “the pivot party,” and everyone was invited.But three months of hotter-than-expected inflation data followed. Financial markets then projected that the Fed would lower rates once, near the end of the year, or not at all — based on a view that the central bank will see little merit in such a move as long as inflation remains a bit elevated and employment is growing.Interest rates for home and car loans tilted up again. And it seems the pivot party has been canceled. But some experts argue that it has only been postponed, leaving forecasters divided about what the rest of the year will bring.Camp 1: Inflation Is Coming Under ControlSome market analysts and bank economists are making the case that rate cuts are still on the table. The April jobs report, which implied a cooling labor market and softer wage growth, gave them some fodder.These analysts generally contend that current measures of inflation are overstated because of lagging indicators, reflecting cost pressures from over a year ago, that will ebb in summer. And they believe that while the diffuse process of stabilizing prices, formally called disinflation, may face setbacks (especially any oil shock), it is on track.After a wild ride, inflation has dropped back to lower levels, according to the Fed’s preferred measure.The annual percent change in the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index

    Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis By The New York TimesA measure of U.S. inflation that excludes an estimate of homeownership costs suggests that price increases are less rapid.The annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index compared with the change in the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices. H.I.C.P. is an inflation measure commonly used in other countries that excludes “owners’ equivalent rent,” an estimate of how much it may cost homeowners to rent a similar home.

    Source: Eurostat and Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 75 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Is the Boom-and-Bust Business Cycle Dead?

    by

    There is a growing view that the U.S. business cycle has changed (for better) in a more diversified economy. To some, that sounds like tempting fate.For much of modern history, even the richest nations have been subject to big perennial upswings and crashes in commercial activity almost as fixed as the four seasons.Periods of economic growth get overstretched by increased risk-taking. Hiring and investment crest and fall into a contraction as consumer confidence wanes and spending craters. Sales fall, bankruptcies and unemployment rise. Then, in the depths of a recession, debts are settled, panic abates, green shoots appear, and banks begin lending more easily again — fueling a recovery that enables a new upswing.But a brigade of academic economists and prominent voices on Wall Street are asking if the unruly business cycle they learned in school, and witnessed in practice, has fundamentally morphed into a tamer beast.Rick Rieder, who manages about $3 trillion in assets at the investment firm BlackRock, is one of them.“There is a lot of ink spilled on what type of landing we will see for the U.S. economy,” he wrote in a note to clients last summer — employing the common metaphor for whether the U.S. economy will crash or achieve a “soft landing” of lower inflation, slower growth and mild unemployment.“But one point to keep in mind,” Mr. Rieder continued, “is that satellites don’t land and maybe that is a better analogy for a modern advanced economy” like the United States. In other words, dips in momentum will now happen within a steadier orbit.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More