Has the US tax and transfer system reached an egalitarian ideal? That’s one reading of this new working paper “How Progressive is the U.S. Tax System?” by Coleman and Weisbach. After accounting for all taxes and transfers (red lines in the charts), Americans across the income distribution saw roughly 250% real gains in income since 1966:
While market income has grown faster at the top of the income distribution (especially the top 1%), we also tax the rich heavily and use much of that tax revenue to fund direct transfers to poorer Americans and fund programs (such as Medicaid) which benefit poorer Americans. Put it all together, and everyone has seen similar gains over the past five decades, and these gains are fairly large: no Great Stagnation!
Inflation continues to remain stubbornly high in the US. While Core CPI is down to 3.6%, the lowest it has been in 3 years, this is still well above the Fed’s 2% target (the Fed’s preferred Core PCE is a bit lower at 2.8%). But consumers are tired of the cumulative inflation, which, depending on your preferred gauge of inflation, is somewhere around 20% in the past 4 years. Consumers want to know: will prices ever go down again?
The answer is: Yes, and some prices already have declined!
For example, you can look at broad categories of consumer purchases, such as durable goods, which are down almost 5 percent since the peak in August 2022. Durable goods include items such as used cars (down 17.3 percent since February 2022), furniture (down 6 percent since August 2022), and appliances (down 7.2 percent since March 2023).
We can even jump into the nondurables category and look at specific items, such as groceries which seem to be on everyone’s mind. Here’s a list of items and the price decrease since their peak (I ignore a few items where it is only a purely seasonal cycle that made them cheaper in April 2024):
Spaghetti and macaroni: -4.3% (Feb 2023)
Bacon: -12.8% (Oct 2022)
Chicken legs: -10.6% (Aug 2023)
Chicken breasts: -14.4% (Sept 2022)
Eggs: -40.6% (Jan 2023)
Milk: -8.3% (Nov 2022)
Cheddar cheese: -9.4% (Sep 2022)
Bananas: -2.6% (Sept 2022)
Oranges: -14.7% (Sept 2022)
Lemons: -12.3% (May 2022)
Strawberries: -12.9% in the past year (and down 34.6% since seasonal peak in Dec 2022)
Ground coffee: -6.2% (Dec 2022)
It’s true that this is a cherry-picked list: lots of items are at all-time highs! My goal here is to show that, Yes!, some prices will fall. Others may too in the near future. And while it’s also true that most prices are still well above 2019 levels, that’s not universally true. The April 2024 prices of lemons, strawberries, and tomatoes are roughly equal to their April 2019 prices.
And it’s not just food. Natural gas this January was 20% cheaper than January 2023. Regular unleaded gasoline is down 11.6% from 2 years ago (and down 25% from the peak in Summer 2022, but we’ll wait to see what this summer looks like). Even some services, such as airline fares, are down 6.7% from 2 years ago (and down 16% from June 2022).
Some of these price decreases could be due to factors specific to the production and supply of those goods, but another factor is monetary policy. Broad measures of the money supply such as M2 show a decline of about 4 percent in the past 2 years. That hasn’t yet produced overall deflation, but it has probably contributed to the decline in the goods and services mentioned.
Looking at price changes can only tell us so much though, especially focusing on individual item prices. The big picture is that over the past 4 years, wages have increased more than prices overall across most of the income distribution (only the highest quintile lost out on the race between wages and prices). Falling prices would certainly help this trend continue, but most consumers have more buying power than they did in 2019, even if they don’t feel like they do.
I’m in the process of writing a review of Jon Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation. I wrote some preliminary thoughts a few weeks ago, but I’m diving a lot deeper now, so watch for that review soon. But one of the main startling pieces of data in the book is the dramatic rise in suicides among young girls. Haidt isn’t the first to point this out, but in large part his book is an attempt to explain this rise (as well as the rise among boys and slightly older girls).
This got me thinking a bit more broadly about not just suicides, but all causes of mortality among young Americans. So in the style of my 2022 post about the leading causes of death among men ages 18-39, let’s look at the historical trends for deaths among girls 10-14 in the US.
Data comes from CDC WONDER. The top dark line shows total deaths, and the scale for total deaths is the right-axis. Notice that for total deaths, there is a U-shaped pattern. From 1999 to about 2012, deaths for girls aged 10-14 are falling. Then, the bottom out and start to rise again. While the end point in 2022 is lower than 1999 (by about 9 percent), there is a 22 percent increase from 2010 to 2022.
What’s driving those trends? A fall in motor vehicle accidents (blue line, the leading cause of death in both 1999 and 2022) is driving the decline. This category fell 41 percent over the entire time period: a big drop for the leading cause of death!
But the rise in suicides (thick red line) starting in 2013 is the clear driver of the reversal of the overall trend. Suicides for this demographic in 2022 were 268 percent higher than 1999, and 116 percent higher than 2010. Haidt and others are right to investigate the causes of this trend (I’m not convinced they have the complete answer, but more on that in my forthcoming book review).
There has been no clear trend in cancer deaths over this time period, and the combination of all the three of these trends means that roughly equal number of girls ages 10-14 die from car accidents, suicide, and cancer.
What can we learn from this data? First, we should acknowledge just how rare death is for girls ages 10-14. At 14.8 deaths per 100,000 population, it is the lowest 5-year age-gender cohort, other than the ages just below it (ages 5-9, for both boys and girls). But just because it is small doesn’t mean we should ignore it. The big increase, especially in suicides, in the past decade is worrying and could be indicative of broader worrying social trends (and suicides have risen for almost every age group too, see my linked post above).
If a concern, though, is that we are over-protecting our kids and this is leading them to retreat into a world of social media, we might want to see if there are any benefits of this overprotection in addition to the costs. The decline in motor vehicle accidents is one candidate. Is this decline just a result of the overall increase in car safety? Or is there something specific going on that is leading to fewer deaths among young teens and pre-teens?
As we know from other data, a lot fewer young people are getting driver’s licenses these days, especially compared to 1999 (and engaging in fewer risky behaviors across the board). Of course, 10-14 year-olds themselves usually weren’t the ones getting licenses — they are too young in most states — but their 15 and 16 year-old siblings might be the ones driving them around. Is fewer teens driving around their pre-teen siblings a cause of the decline in motor vehicle deaths? We can’t tell from this data, but it is worth investigating further (note: best I can tell, only about 23 percent of the decline is from fewer pedestrian deaths, though in the long-run this is a bigger factor).
Social tradeoffs are hard. If there really is a tradeoff between fewer car accident deaths and more suicides, how should we think about that tradeoff? Or is the tradeoff illusory, and we could actually have fewer deaths of both kinds? I don’t think I know the answer, but I do think that many others are being way too confident that they have the answer based on what data we have so far.
One final note on suicides. For all suicides in the US, the most common method is suicide by firearm: about 55% of suicides in the US were committed with guns in 2022, with suffocations a distant second at about 25%. For girls ages 10-14, this is not the case, with suffocation being by far the leading method: 62% versus just 17% with firearms. I only mention this because some might think the increasing availability of firearms is the reason for the rise in suicides. It could be true overall, but it’s not the case for young girls.
If we have learned anything in the past 2 years, it’s that people don’t like inflation. Well, you probably already knew that. But I guess we learned that they really, really don’t like inflation. Polls of various sorts still indicate that Americans are upset about inflation, even though the worst of it was happening in June 2022, almost 2 full years ago.
But how much inflation do Americans want? The answer: almost 0%. In fact, the median preference is exactly 0% according to a new working paper titled simply “Inflation Preferences.” The mean preference was 0.2%.
But this paper does more than just survey people on their preferences. It also presents to them several “narratives” about inflation, and to see whether people who have considered those narratives have different preferences. Given my many blog posts about the relationship between wages and inflation (or rather, the race between them), this narrative was interesting to me:
T4 (Wage inflation) When prices increase over time (inflation), worker’s wages may not immediately adjust in proportion. Inflation, therefore, affects the amount of goods and services that workers can buy with their wages. By keeping inflation low, workers can buy a similar amount of goods and services over time.
People who had considered that narrative (wages increases trail price increases) tended to prefer even lower inflation rates, by about 0.7 percentage points. Again, perhaps this is obvious, but it is important to understand how different individuals think about inflation (it was the only one of five narratives that had a statistically significant negative impact on inflation preferences).
Finally, as one final interesting tidbit, survey respondents that were also Economics Majors in college reported higher inflation preferences, by about 1 percentage point.
In January 2023 I had a post looking at the different ways that the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment. Those who follow the data closely probably know about the difference between the household and establishment surveys, which the monthly jobs report data is based on. But these are just surveys.
The more comprehensive data (close to the universe of workers, roughly 95%) is the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. While more comprehensive, this data comes out with a much longer lag, and is only released once per quarter. The QCEW is just the raw count of workers, which is useful in some ways, but we also know that there are normal seasonal fluctuations, which the QCEW doesn’t adjust for. Therefore, year-over-year changes in jobs are the best way to look at trends in this data. In September 2023 (latest month available), the US had 2.25 million more workers than in the previous September. For comparison, the establishment survey showed an increase of 3.13 million jobs that month, and the household survey showed a change of 2.66 million — suggesting they both might be overstating job growth.
Still with me? Here’s one more set of jobs data: the Business Employment Dynamics data. This dataset is built on the QCEW data, but allows more fine detailed insights into what types and sizes of firms are gaining or losing jobs. Like the QCEW, the most recent data is for the 3rd quarter of 2023 (just released today), but when looking at the aggregate data, it has one advantage over the QCEW: it is seasonally adjusted, so we can look at the most recent quarterly change (not really useful for not-seasonally-adjusted data). The BED data also looks only at private sector jobs, so it is looking at the health of the private labor market (and ignoring changes in government employment).
The latest BED data do show a possibly worrying trend: the 3rd quarter of 2023 showed a net loss of 192,000 private-sector jobs. That’s the first loss since the height of the pandemic, and ignoring the first half of 2020, the only quarterly decline since 2017. Here’s the chart (note: y-axis is truncated because the 2020q2 job loss is so large it makes the chart unreadable):
I should note that this data is subject to revisions, even though the QCEW is mostly complete. The second quarter of 2022 originally showed a decline, but that was later revised upwards as QCEW is updated and seasonal adjustment factors are updated. Still as, this data stands, it is a worrying jobs number that differs from the monthly surveys. For the change from 2023q2 to 2023q3, the establishment survey shows a gain of 640,000 jobs and the household survey also shows a gain of 546,000. Like the QCEW raw data, the BED seasonally adjusted data suggests that the monthly surveys may be overstating job growth.
While there are many factors to consider, ultimately whether living standards are rising is a race between prices and income. What does that race look like if we start the clock in December 2019, just before the pandemic?
Whether we use median weekly earnings (the purple line) or average hourly earnings for non-management workers (the blue line), they have clearly won the race with two commonly used price indexes (the CPI-U and the PCEPI). That’s good news, and probably not something you hear very often in the discourse about the economy (unless you spend a lot of time reading this blog).
Thankfully for US consumers, grocery prices have leveled off. They haven’t fallen, of course, which will still lead to viral complaints about egg prices, etc. But over the past 4 years, wages have almost caught up with grocery prices.
Not so with fast food prices (“limited service meals”), which have definitely outpaced wages over the past 4 years, and continue to grow at an annual rate of about 5 percent (also more than wages).
Furthermore, if we go back to 2014, we see it’s not just a post-pandemic effect on fast food. Prices since 2014 are up 54 percent for fast food according to the BLS, more than the 31 percent overall CPI-U increase and more than average wages (46 percent).
An article from FinanceBuzz puts together some more specific data on a dozen fast-food chains in the US. Consumer favorites for a quick, cheap bite to eat like Taco Bell and McDonald’s have seen menu prices increase by 80 or even 100 percent!
Check out the article for even more specific food item data at each of these restaurants. For example, the most famous of fast-food sandwiches is the Big Mac, which is up from $3.99 in 2014 to $5.99 in 2024, a 50 percent increase. A Whopper meal at Burger King is up 79 percent. All the more reason to seek out deals in the apps, or just good-old in-store discounts, like the “buy one get one for $1” promo at most McDonald’s. This deal would get you two Big Macs for $7, or $3.50 each… less than in 2014! Or since today is Wednesday, you might want to head to Burger King, where Whoppers are $3 at most locations (regular price: around $6).
Price discrimination is alive and well at the drive-thru window, and if you are just ordering from the menu without any discounts, you are really going to feel the pain of inflation.
What’s the connection between social media use and mental health, especially among young people? You’ve probably heard a lot about this recently, in the media, by politicians, and among friends chatting about their kids. Lots of assertions are made, but there is also a bit of research on this topic. As someone who frequently uses social media myself, as well as a parent of young children, and a teacher that works every week with young college students, I am particularly interested in this topic.
Jonathan Haidt and various co-authors have been trying to catalog all the research on the topic and figure out if there is a connection between the decline in teenage mental health and the rise of social media use. Haidt also has a new book on this topic, as well as the decline of “free play” among kids, which I have not yet read but I’ve looked through his documents that contain all of the underlying and summaries of the research he is citing. I’ll read the book soon, as I’m certainly part of the intended audience (see the last sentence of the above paragraph). And while this research is very much outside of my area of expertise, my training as an economist has taught me how to read academic papers and to be convinced by evidence, so once again I’m very much the intended audience on this score as well.
Please read this post as my attempt to understand the evidence and start to form conclusions and/or critique what Haidt is saying. It’s a work in progress, and I’ll write more as I read and think more about it.
Christians across the world are observing the season of Lent right now, concluding this week. This important period of religious observance involves personal sacrifice of some sort, and for Western Christians a common form of sacrifice is abstaining from consuming meat on Fridays during Lent. But there is one exception: most Christians allow consumption of fish on Fridays, in lieu of other kinds of meat.
But abstaining from meat on Fridays was not always a practice reserved for Lent. Catholics used to abstain from meat for the entire year prior to a 1966 decree by Pope Paul VI. This decree relaxed the rules on fasting and decentralized them. In the US, Catholic Bishops chose to eliminate meatless Fridays, except during Lent.
No doubt this was an important religious change, but it was also an important economic change. And the first question an economist would ask is: how did this impact the price of fish? In our simple supply and demand framework, this should result in a decrease in demand, which would lower the price of fish. Did that happen?
In 1968, economist Frederick Bell asked just that question in an article published in the American Economic Review titled “The Pope and the Price of Fish.” The short answer is that yes, the price of fish did indeed decline!
Lately on Twitter this chart has been going around:
The chart comes from Bloomberg journalist Justin Fox, who always puts together interesting economic data. You can read his interpretation of the data at Bloomberg, but the folks posting it on Twitter all seem to have the same shock and awe: Detroit was the richest big city in 1949. And of course we all know that today it isn’t. Still, the Detroit MSA has done OK since 1949, even though it is no longer anywhere near the top.
How well has Detroit done? Despite industrial decline and many other major problems, median household income of the Detroit MSA was around $71,000 in 2022 according to the Census Bureau. How does this compare to the $3,627 median income in 1949? It’s about double in real terms: you can multiply it by about 10 using the Census’ preferred inflation adjustment for household incomes since 1949 (the C-CPI-U since 2000, and the R-CPI-U-RS before that).
Economist Writing Every Day 