About


The Atlanta Fed's macroblog provides commentary and analysis on economic topics including monetary policy, macroeconomic developments, inflation, labor economics, and financial issues.

Authors for macroblog are Dave Altig, John Robertson, and other Atlanta Fed economists and researchers.


« December 2019 | Main

January 16, 2020


Do Higher Wages Mean Higher Standards of Living?

Editor's note: We have updated macroblog's location on our website, although archival posts will remain at their original location. Readers who use RSS should update their feed's URL to https://www.frbatlanta.org/rss/macroblog.aspx. Also, we are implementing a new commenting system for posts.

A recent macroblog post used Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker data to observe that the hourly wage of the lowest-paid workers has rebounded in recent years after declining for a decade. The chart below depicts this finding, showing the median hourly wage of the lowest-paid 25 percent of workers in the Tracker sample relative to the median for all workers.

Rate of Employer-to-Employer Transitions (12-month moving average)

Moreover, the post showed that this recovery was not just a story about states and localities increasing their minimum wages. It also appears that there has been a significant tightening in the labor market for unskilled or low-skilled jobs.

Taken at face value, this is good news for workers employed in low-wage jobs. But here's the rub: the median wage in the first quartile is still low—$11.50 in 2019, or 55 percent of the overall median wage. Moreover, these are hourly wages before taxes and transfers (we'll get back to this shortly). They don't represent what is happening to these workers' ability to make ends meet, which depends crucially on income after taxes and transfers.

For households at the bottom of the income distribution, means-tested transfers can play an especially important role. Means-tested transfers—cash payments and in-kind benefits from federal, state, and local governments designed to assist individuals and families with low incomes and few assets to meet their basic living needs—represent about 70 percent of income before taxes and transfers for households in the bottom quintile of the income distribution, according to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office. However, the size of the transfers tends to decrease as earnings increase, and they stop altogether when a worker exceeds income- and asset-eligibility thresholds.

The interaction between changes in earnings and various means-tested public assistance programs is an important public policy issue, and it is one that staff at the Atlanta Fed are studying. In a March 2019 macroblog post, David Altig and Laurence Kotlikoff reported that this interaction results in low-income households facing a higher median effective marginal tax rate than high-income households. For low-income households with children, this effect can be especially severe because the presence of children increases the value of programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP, formerly known as the food stamp program) and the likelihood of enrollment in additional programs such as federally subsidized child care. (You can read further research on the effective or implicit marginal tax rates of low-income households at Congressional Budget Office (2016), Romich and Hill (2018), and Chien and Macartney (2019).)

To illustrate the point, the Atlanta Fed team studied the case of a hypothetical single mother with two young children who works in a near-minimum-wage, full-time job and whose basic living expenses are helped by various transfer programs. One avenue to improving her family's standard of living is if she were to return to school and pursue a higher-paying career as a nurse. Over the long term, the net gains from education and career advancement are unambiguous. However, the Atlanta Fed's analysis shows that as long as her children still require care, the reduction in payments from various benefit programs could partially or even completely offset the gains. Look for an Atlanta Fed paper discussing this very real dilemma coming soon on the Bank's Economic Mobility and Resilience webpage.

What do findings like this mean for interpreting the Wage Growth Tracker's evidence that people in the bottom part of the wage distribution are experiencing relatively larger wage gains? Perhaps there is a bit less to celebrate than meets the eye. Around 46 percent of these individuals are in households with children. To the extent that they also participate in means-tested public assistance programs, the relative increase in their family's standard of living could be much less than the size of their pay raise would suggest.

January 16, 2020 in Employment, Labor Markets, Wage Growth | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

January 08, 2020


Is There a Taylor Rule for All Seasons?

In September 2016 we introduced the Taylor Rule Utility, a tool that allows a user to plot the federal funds rate against the prescription from an equation called the Taylor rule, shown below:

equation called the Taylor rule

Broadly speaking, the Taylor rule translates readings of inflation (πt) and resource slack (gapt)—often measured by comparing real gross domestic product (GDP) or the unemployment rate to some measure of its "potential" or "natural" level—into a recommended setting for the fed funds rate. The default settings of the rule as of September 2016 (incorporated in the blue dashed line in the chart below) were, apart from some minor differences in variable choices, consistent with the settings used in John Taylor’s landmark 1993 paper that introduced the Taylor rule.

Actual Federal Funds Rate and Taylor Rule Prescriptions

As the chart shows, for most of this decade, the funds rate prescription from this original Taylor rule consistently exceeded the actual rate by 1 to 3 percentage points, and as Wall Street Journal columnist Michael Derby noted last August, the prescription was well above the actual funds rate in the third quarter of 2019. Much of this difference can be explained by the setting of the natural (real) interest rate, or r*, in the above equation. Taylor set r* at 2 percent in his original rule based on average real GDP growth since 1984 and, according to estimates from the Laubach-Williams (LW) model, 2 percent continued to be a reasonable, if slightly low, estimate of r* up until the 2007–09 recession. Since 2009, estimates of r* from the LW model have generally hovered between 0 and 1 percentage point. Since July 2017, the semiannual Monetary Policy Report from the Board of Governors to Congress has included a section on monetary policy rules. And in these sections, r* has been estimated with the consensus long-run projection of a short-term interest rate from Blue Chip Economic Indicators. Since 2015, these Blue Chip interest rate projections have also been consistent with estimates of r* between 0 and 1 percent.  

Setting r* to the LW model estimate (instead of 2 percent) in the Taylor rule results in a prescription corresponding to the solid blue line in the above chart. We can see this line is much closer to the actual fed funds rate for most of this decade. Nevertheless, it’s not clear that rules using LW-model estimates of r* and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates of potential GDP or the natural unemployment rate are the most relevant for monetary policymakers. For example, in the December 2019 Summary of Economic Projections (SEP), the central tendency of Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) participants’ longer-run projections of the unemployment rate was 3.9 to 4.3 percent. Conversely, the CBO’s latest estimate of the natural unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2019 rounds up to 4.6 percent, while its latest estimate of the natural rate in 2025 rounds up to 4.5 percent. The orange line in the chart above uses the FOMC/SEP longer-run projections of the fed funds rate and the unemployment rate.

Both the LW/CBO and FOMC/SEP variants of the Taylor 1993 rule prescribed an earlier "liftoff" of the fed funds rate than actually occurred. Former Fed chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen have sometimes referred to an alternative rule known as Taylor 1999. The FOMC/SEP Taylor 1999 rule, which puts twice as much weight on the resource gap as the FOMC/SEP Taylor 1993 rule, is the green line in the above chart that is identical to the orange line apart from a doubling of the resource gap coefficient in the above equation. This rule prescribed a later liftoff date than the other rules depicted in the chart. Because of the low unemployment rate, its current funds rate prescription is now above the rate that the FOMC/SEP 1993 rule prescribes.

By now, it’s probably clear that the answer to the question I posed in this blog post’s title is no, there is not a Taylor rule for all seasons—or at least not one that would satisfy everybody. For this reason, we have modified the interactive chart in our Taylor Rule Utility to show prescriptions from up to three versions of the Taylor rule. The default settings of these three rules in the interactive chart coincide exactly with the solid blue, orange, and green lines in the above figure. But you can modify all of the rules to generate, for example, the dashed blue Taylor 1993 line shown above. We hope that users find this a useful enhancement to the tool.

January 8, 2020 in Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, Monetary Policy | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search



Recent Posts


Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad