Federal Reserve Economic Data

The FRED® Blog

When initial claims, unemployment, and payroll employment clash

Not long ago, the FRED Blog discussed several details about the construction and interpretation of the data for initial weekly claims for unemployment benefits. As of May 30, FRED shows that the four-week moving average was 2.3 million new claims. Yet, the FRED graph above shows that for the entire month of May 2020, there was a decrease in the number of persons unemployed. And there was also a simultaneous increase in the level of payroll employment. How is all this possible?

First of all, data related to the labor market come from different sources: The U.S. Employment and Training Administration reports the number of initial weekly claims for unemployment benefits; and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, through the Current Employment Statistics (Establishment Survey), reports the payroll employment and unemployment figures.

Also, the data series have similar names but represent different concepts. Even if you file an initial claim for unemployment benefits, for example, it does not necessarily mean that you will be counted as unemployed.

Finally, keep in mind that changes in the number of persons listed on payrolls do not correspond to changes in the number of persons employed or unemployed. The FRED graph below shows that during May, June, July, and October of 2019 there were simultaneous increases in the level of payroll employment and increases in the number of persons unemployed.

How these graphs were created: Search for and select “All Employees, Total Nonfarm” anuse the “Edit Graph” menu to add two more lines: “Unemployment Level” and “Employment Level.” Next, change the units of any of the three series to “Change, Thousands of Persons” and click on “Copy to all.” Lastly, change the graph format to “Bar,” edit the colors to taste, and change the date range to match the time periods of each graph.

Suggested by Diego Mendez-Carbajo.

View on FRED, series used in this post: CE16OV, PAYEMS, UNEMPLOY

The lockdown’s effect on the alcoholic beverage market

March's "last call for alcohol" boosted demand but only nudged prices

As U.S. cities and states started locking down in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, retail alcohol sales spiked. And they did so despite various additional restrictions for retailers and their customers.

Clearly, consumers were at least in part shifting from consumption in restaurants and bars to consumption at home. (The FRED Blog previously reported a similarly strong substitution from meals in restaurants to meals at home.) So, given this spike in retail purchases, what happened to prices?

If demand shoots up like this, market forces should increase prices as well. And prices paid by consumers did rise, but only moderately, as shown by the consumer price index (CPI). This moderate increase is even more surprising given the much larger increase in prices paid by retailers, as shown by the producer price index (PPI). That is, the data suggest retailers did not pass the full increase in costs on to their customers.

Why would retailers reduce their profit margins despite such a boost in demand? Price gouging in times of distress can damage a business’s reputation and is even illegal in some U.S. states. The demand shock may also have been perceived as temporary, so retailers may have been willing to forgo a large amount of quick profit to reinforce better long-term prospects with their regular customers.

How this graph was created: Search for and select the “retail sales beer” series. From the “Edit Graph” panel, use the “Add Line” tab to search for and select “PPI beer.” Repeat with “CPI beverages.” Choose units “Index (scale value to 100 for chosen date)” for 2020-02-01 and select “Apply to all.” Finally, limit the graph to the past 10 years.

Suggested by Christian Zimmermann.

View on FRED, series used in this post: CUSR0000SAF116, MRTSSM4453USS, PCU44534453

Dating a recession

FRED marks the spot

A recession is a significant decline in general economic activity extending over a period of time. During recessions, unemployment increases and real income decreases.

FRED helps provide context to the data by showing when these recessions have occurred: Since 2006, every FRED series of U.S. data has included the option to display shaded areas on the graph to indicate the peaks and troughs of business cycles, as dated by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

The Business Cycle Dating Committee at the NBER dates the start of each recession after a lag of several months and dates the end of a recession after an even longer lag: According to the NBER, business cycle peaks are announced an average of 7.8 months after their dating and business cycle troughs are announced an average of 15.8 months after their dating.

The FRED team quickly updates its database with any new information. In fact, the recession that started in February 2020 is now visible on the FRED graph above. In graphs with data at a daily frequency, the peak of the business cycle is marked by a bar set on February 1, 2020. In graphs with monthly data, it is marked by a vertical line.

FRED can’t yet set a recession end date, so from February 2020 onward the graph is shaded. But if you want to gauge when the current recession may be over (ahead of official word from the NBER), consult these FRED series: a recession probability index computed by Marcelle Chauvet and Jeremy Piger and the real-time Sahm Rule Recession Indicator. When the recession probability index has substantially decreased or the Sahm indicator has peaked, the recession has likely ended. Check the FRED data regularly so you get that good news asap.

How this graph was created: Search for “10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Minus 2-Year Treasury Constant Maturity” and expand the date range to include the recession that lasted from December 3, 2007, to June 3, 2009.

Suggested by Keith Taylor, Yvetta Fortova, and Diego Mendez-Carbajo.

View on FRED, series used in this post: T10Y2Y


Back to Top