Why is the Fed hesitant to raise interest rates, despite low unemployment?

In the 1990s, an unemployment rate below 6 percent would be a sure sign of rising interest rates. Today, the calculus has changed.

Mike Groll/AP/File
An employment application form on a table during a job fair at Columbia-Greene Community College in Hudson, N.Y., in 2014.

Despite a falling unemployment rate in the United States that landed at 4.9 percent last month, the Federal Reserve is expected to leave interest rates undisturbed again this week.

The central bank had been expected to raise rates as many as four times in 2016 to stave off inflation as the economy continues its long recuperation. But the Fed has deferred repeatedly for fear a rate hike could erode economic progress to date.

“Mistiming a rate increase has consequences,” Kevin Granville and Binyamin Appelbaum wrote for The New York Times on Sunday. “If the Fed moves too soon, it could derail what remains a relatively weak economic expansion. If it waits too long, it could be forced to hit the brakes even harder.”

Conventional wisdom in the 1990s held that the Fed should consider raising rates if unemployment fell below 6 percent. That was believed at the time to be the the threshold of “full employment,” according to Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C.. Officials said unemployment figures below that threshold could send the inflation rate spiraling upward. As labor markets tighten, wages rise and tend to push prices up too. 

“That proved to be wrong,” Dr. Baker tells The Christian Science Monitor, pointing to the peaceful coexistence of low unemployment rates and relatively stable inflation at the turn of the century.

Baker co-authored the 2013 book “Getting Back to Full Employment” with Dr. Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington. The two argued that 4-percent unemployment, which was the average rate in 2000, constitutes a target worth aiming for.

Digging below the surface of the jobless rate reported each month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, however, reveals a more complicated story.

“I think right now the unemployment rate is not giving us the same information about labor market tightness as it did two decades ago,” Baker says. The figure fails to account for Americans who have given up looking for work or those who are under-employed.

From a postwar peak of 98 percent, the share of men aged 25 to 54 in the workforce has fallen to 88 percent, as The Christian Science Monitor has reported.

“It’s not something you would expect in a strong labor market,” Baker adds, noting he would be surprised if the Fed takes action this week, especially since inflation remains comfortably below the Fed's 2-percent target average, despite a recent bump in consumer prices.

Fed chair Janet Yellen has cited persistently low oil prices and a strong dollar as temporary restraints on inflation. 

Still, others are ready for higher interest rates. “Let’s get on with it already,” Michael Arone, chief investment strategist at State Street Global Advisors, told Reuters on Monday. “It will cause some challenges to the market, but I think that is healthy in context of a normal business cycle.”

Mr. Arone said a hike would raise the cost of capital and “flush out some riskier assets in the short term” is “probably the right thing to do.”

Quincy Krosby, a market strategist at Prudential Financial, told CNBC that she expects the Feds to hold off again on raising rates, “but it will be a more hawkish hold,” meaning the governors could signal a future hike, perhaps in December.

Material from Reuters was used in this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why is the Fed hesitant to raise interest rates, despite low unemployment?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today