Anyone know how to get current dollars out of FRED? — March 5, 2014

Anyone know how to get current dollars out of FRED?

The Disposable Personal Income(DPI) graph counts total DPI across the whole U.S. in nominal dollars. I can transform it to per-capita nominal DPI easily enough. And there’s a CPI graph, so that’s cool. But now I want to combine the two to get DPI in current dollars. I could divide the nominal DPI by (CPI/100). The CPI equals 100 in some base year (1982-84, as it happens), so CPI/100 there would tell us how much dollars have deflated from the base year to now; if CPI = 200 today, dollars are worth half what they were in 1982-84. So then dividing DPI by CPI/100 would give us everything in 1982-1984 dollars.

I’d like to get everything in 2014 dollars. I can’t think of any obvious way to get that out of FRED. Am I just not thinking straight? If the CPI index in year x was 150, and it’s 200 now, then I want to multiply disposable income from year x by 200/150 to get everything in 2014 dollars.

I’d really like median DPI, but that doesn’t seem to be available. In fact I’d also like post-tax, post-transfer income (which should be basically DPI with Social Security, food stamps, etc. added in), but I don’t think that’s in FRED; I’ve not looked around much, but at least the CBO measures this stuff; I could probably mine their sources for the raw data.

The Census Bureau has real DPI in 2005 dollars, measured from 1980 to 2000, apparently derived “U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business, April 2011, earlier reports and unpublished data”. So I’ll look there, too. And if worse comes to worst, I’ll find various people at the Census Bureau and the BEA.

This concludes your daily data-mongering.

__P.S.__: I mean, I could just grab the most recent CPI number from the CPI raw-data series, and divide by that rather than by 100. But I’d like whatever graph I form here to auto-update as new current-day CPI numbers come in.

__P.P.S.__: Ah. Disposable Personal Income: Per capita: Current dollars (A229RC0). That was easy.

How low an unemployment rate can we tolerate? — November 20, 2013

How low an unemployment rate can we tolerate?

On the occasion of Jared Bernstein’s and Dean Baker’s publishing an essay on how low an unemployment rate we can tolerate before inflation spirals out of control, it’s worth linking back to a something I wrote in 2010 about James Galbraith’s views on the matter.

Even supposing that there actually is a NAIRU (i.e., a level of unemployment below which inflation will start accelerating), and even supposing that something bad will happen if we cross below that line, it’s not as though we lose control of the ship right then. At that point we know what happens: the Federal Reserve jacks up interest rates, unemployment skyrockets (particularly as mortgage rates rise and employment in the housing sector collapses), and inflation drops back down. It’s happened before. We have control over this. Doesn’t the Federal Reserve just need to signal that it takes its dual mandate seriously? If everyone believes that the Federal Reserve will bring the hammer down if inflation rises too high, what’s the big deal? Better to let inflation rise too high because unemployment was allowed to drop too low, and correct the problem later, than allow millions of people to remain involuntarily idle.

Jamie Galbraith and the NAIRU — September 10, 2010

Jamie Galbraith and the NAIRU

I linked on Twitter to Jamie Galbraith’s old NAIRU paper, but explaining why it’s important to people who don’t care about economics, in 140 characters or fewer, turns out to be really hard. Here’s a quick note.

Basically, economists envision that there’s a tradeoff between the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation. Suppose unemployment is very low. Now workers have more bargaining power. So they can demand higher wages. Enough of them do this, and prices rise. Eventually one can even end up with the dread “embedded inflation”: workers anticipate lots of inflation in forthcoming years, so they ask for wage contracts that guard against that inflation. Let’s say inflation was 10% per year. Now their contracts command, say, 11% raises per year. Now, inasmuch as prices depend on the costs of labor, prices will rise even more. And so the spiral goes.

There’s supposed to be a “natural rate” of inflation, an idea which apparently goes back to Milton Friedman’s 1968 presidential address to the American Economic Association and Phelps’s paper from the preceding year. This natural rate corresponds to a particular rate of unemployment called the NAIRU, for the “non-accelerating-inflation rate of unemployment”. As the name suggests, it’s supposed to be the rate of unemployment at which inflation stays where it is.

The only problem, says Galbraith, is that no one knows where the NAIRU is, and what economists say about it changes over time. Oh wait, there’s another problem: it’s not clear that labor costs have actually been responsible for inflation; it may just be that we got inflation when an “external shock” like a war or an oil embargo intervened. [1]

Most importantly, the focus on the tradeoff between inflation and unemployment takes our eyes off other, more-important things, like the unemployment-inequality tradeoff. Galbraith presents an alternative to Friedman’s “natural” rate of unemployment, which, again, is a rate above which inflation is supposed to start accelerating; Galbraith’s “natural” rate is the one above which inequality is supposed to start increasing, and he estimates it “quite stably” at 5.5 percent.

I need to emphasize just how important this is. The Federal Reserve emphasizes one goal — price stability — to the exclusion of others. Which would be fine — price stability is in the Congressional mandate — if the Fed weren’t using a phantom to achieve that goal. And the Fed is too cautious, too worried about the effects of labor costs, which likely keeps unemployment higher than it needs to be. Which, in turn, is a weapon to maintain increasing inequality.

[1] — It’s oddly unremarked-upon that the U.S. government took very active control over the U.S. economy during World War II. With the government printing so much money and dumping so much of it into the economy to get war production going, inflation would be inevitable. To avoid that end, the government had to enforce strict price controls. Jamie Galbraith’s father, the great John Kenneth Galbraith, was one of the folks in charge of these controls; he writes a bit about this in [book: Money: Whence It Came, Where It Went], and probably in other works.

At another time, I will write about how silly I find the usual American mythologizing of World War II. Yes, maybe it had something to do with “Americans coming together, as never before, to defeat a common enemy.” A more straightforward explanation is that World War II was the natural endpoint of two centuries of capitalist development, centralized control, and the deployment of industrial processes toward warmaking. “Total war,” the idea that an entire nation’s resources are devoted toward destroying one’s enemies, and that war should naturally be brought to bear against the civilians of other countries, helped. There may be room for patriotically beating hearts in here, but these other explanations seem more fruitful.