“What’s the Problem with Low Inflation?”

That’s the title of a new EconoFact article by Michael Klein.

Today’s low inflation has some economists puzzled. The Federal Reserve has persistently undershot its inflation target of 2 percent since 2012, when it established this level of inflation as one of its policy goals.


Low inflation can be a signal of economic problems because it may be associated with weakness in the economy. When unemployment is high or consumer confidence low, people and businesses may be less willing to make investments and spend on consumption, and this lower demand keeps them from bidding up prices.


There have been calls for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates because the ongoing recovery from the Great Recession represents the third-longest recovery on record and the current low unemployment rate would usually lead the Federal Reserve to set its policy course towards preventing the economy from overheating. It is striking, however, that this recovery has not been accompanied by increasing inflation, even with unemployment rates of 4.3 percent in June and July, the lowest string of two-month unemployment rates in more than 15 years.

This figure from the article highlights the anomalous nature of recent inflation behavior.



Source: Klein.

What are the prospects for accelerated inflation? The market’s expectation inferred from Treasury spreads is shown below:



Figure 1: Five year nominal Treasury yield minus five year TIPS yield, % (blue). July 2017 observation (dark blue +). Source: Federal Reserve Board.

As noted, such quiescent current and expected inflation at (what is widely acknowledged to be) near full employment does pose something of a mystery.

In the past, I’ve argued that the inflation target should be higher than the current 2%. [1] [2] I still believe that’s the case.

9 thoughts on ““What’s the Problem with Low Inflation?”

  1. PaulS

    In the bigger picture, what’s wrong with low inflation or even deflation? Due to process automation, lots of things are cheaper to make than they used to be, which puts downward pressure on prices. Plus, politicians (and economists of some schools) constantly berate the public for not saving enough – but why should they save, when they know full well that the Fed will relentlessly confiscate their savings via inflation?

    And we need to devote less and less (aggregate) paid time even to “creative” activities, not just production. “Creative” work product – designs, writings, and so on – is reproduced automatically at ever-exponentially-increasing scale, someitmes billions of times nowadays instead of hundreds or thousands as in the not-all-that-distant past. As efficiencies and automation saturate markets, why not simply react as in the past, namely by reducing the socially-expected standard of working hours per unit of calendar time? What’s so sacred about 40 hours/week?

    Reply
  2. PeakTrader

    It seems, wage growth of the top 20% are rising faster than inflation, while the other 80% have slower, stagnant, or falling real wage growth. I suspect, a lot of businesses want to pay their workers more, but can’t, because of regulations, taxes, and competition. I don’t know how so many people can live on $8 to $12 an hour, particularly when full-time or overtime work is unavailable.

    Reply
    1. baffling

      “I suspect, a lot of businesses want to pay their workers more, but can’t, because of regulations, taxes, and competition.”
      if that were true, then why does the top group of workers continue to see significant wage increases. profits are at record levels. money is available. it seems that management has explicitly chosen not to increase pay for the majority of their workers. regulations and taxes are not making managers direct their profits to a select group of high pay workers. this is an accounting choice.

      Reply
      1. PeakTrader

        When relatively few people can perform a job, demand is stronger and they’re paid more. Management wants to keep production costs low and attract investors, who benefit from shareholder value. It’s very competitive. Smaller businesses pay a disproportionately higher percentage to comply with regulations. The top 20% pay almost all the income taxes, which include business owners, and corporate taxes are high.

        Businesses, particularly smaller firms, can absorb a higher minimum wage with reduced regulations and lower income and corporate taxes.

        Reply
        1. baffling

          “When relatively few people can perform a job, demand is stronger and they’re paid more.”
          except that i have seen limited evidence that these folks are as efficient and desirable as your argument would imply. it is just as likely a breakdown in oversight of upper management. for instance, corporate boards should provide oversight to ceo’s and upper management. but many many boards fail to provide this oversight. often times because the upper management and boards operate in a closed loop system, with a given ceo serving on another corporate board.

          “The top 20% pay almost all the income taxes”
          and this would be expected if all of the income gains were collected by the top tier as well. you cannot complain about paying too much in taxes if you rig the system to collect all of the profits.

          Reply
  3. mike shupp

    Conservatives traditionally have a great horror of inflation, likely because it cuts into the yield from bonds and other investments with fixed payoff rates. This distress becomes increasingly evident whenever inflation rises to levels appreciated by economists. Now that they have control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, it’s not hard at all to imagine distraught panic-stricken Republicans casting about wildly for cuts in government spending which might be blamed for rising inflation rates, cutting into Medicaid, whacking off much of the Affordable Care Act, etc.

    Perhaps we should be happy with things as they are?

    Reply
  4. joseph

    I’m wondering about the crazy world of economics in which half the economists say that wages are low because robots are taking over jobs and the other half at the Fed say that they have to raise interest rates because there are too many jobs which will cause inflation.

    Hey, instead of the Fed raising interest rates, why don’t they demand or scold Congress to raise taxes on the rich. It seems that the Fed is working hand in hand with Republicans when they raise interest rates to slow the economy just so that Republicans can lower taxes on the rich to speed up the economy. Why is the Fed acting to help Republicans increase income inequality? This is why we can’t trust an “independent” Federal Reserve Bank.

    Reply
    1. baffling

      corporate profits are at near record levels. money is available, but it is not being redirected into the real economy. it stays with the higher earners, who simply use it to drive up the asset bubbles in bonds, stocks and real estate. if more of that money made it back into the real economy, through raises for the working class, then inflation would occur. but it is effectively held out of the economy. while i do not like deflation (negatively impacts the middle class who are saddled with debt), i do not see the need for much inflation. unless you get the current environment, where money is not going back into the real economy. higher inflation may help combat this problem, but it is probably better addressed through higher taxes on those profits to begin with.

      Reply
  5. pgl

    One of the problems with defining the US to be at full employment as the reliance on the unemployment rate even as labor force participation rates are still low. Yea – some of this may be “demographics” but not all. Ten years ago Brad DeLong and I were suggesting that the natural rate of the employment to population ratio was 64%. I would argue we need to revise this number to 62%. But the current rate is only 60.2%.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.