WEBVTT - Neil Dutta, Claudia Sahm, and Mark Zandi Talk Jobs Report

0:00:02.440 --> 0:00:06.760
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.840
<v Speaker 2>Neil Data joins us. And now, Neil, what does this

0:00:10.000 --> 0:00:11.520
<v Speaker 2>signal for Chairman.

0:00:11.280 --> 0:00:12.559
<v Speaker 3>Paul get Going.

0:00:13.200 --> 0:00:16.639
<v Speaker 4>That's what it says, go fifty with a promise to

0:00:16.720 --> 0:00:20.599
<v Speaker 4>do as much as necessary to stabilize labor market conditions.

0:00:20.840 --> 0:00:24.000
<v Speaker 5>So again, Neil, I mean, and you think about these

0:00:24.079 --> 0:00:27.000
<v Speaker 5>numbers and the revisions. As Tom was just summarizing here,

0:00:27.400 --> 0:00:29.640
<v Speaker 5>the labor market, I guess it kind of falls into

0:00:29.640 --> 0:00:32.000
<v Speaker 5>what we were just saying many minutes ago, not nearly

0:00:32.000 --> 0:00:33.159
<v Speaker 5>as strong as people think it is.

0:00:33.400 --> 0:00:36.320
<v Speaker 4>No, I mean, the three month trend on non farm

0:00:36.360 --> 0:00:39.559
<v Speaker 4>private perils is running below one hundred thousand. I mean,

0:00:39.600 --> 0:00:44.920
<v Speaker 4>that's not a good number, you know, that's barely break even.

0:00:45.159 --> 0:00:48.120
<v Speaker 4>And I think it's arguably actually worse than that because

0:00:48.560 --> 0:00:50.479
<v Speaker 4>one of the reasons why the number even looked as

0:00:50.520 --> 0:00:52.360
<v Speaker 4>good as it did is because we saw an uptake

0:00:52.400 --> 0:00:58.520
<v Speaker 4>in construction employment among I think civil engineer contractors. And

0:00:58.600 --> 0:01:01.760
<v Speaker 4>so that's not going to last because everything we know

0:01:01.840 --> 0:01:05.080
<v Speaker 4>about construction right now is that units under constructure are

0:01:05.400 --> 0:01:08.800
<v Speaker 4>under construction collapsing. So why are we hiring all these

0:01:08.840 --> 0:01:12.679
<v Speaker 4>people to build one exactly? That's that implies a margin

0:01:12.720 --> 0:01:15.080
<v Speaker 4>squeeze for builders, which I don't think they can tolerate

0:01:15.160 --> 0:01:19.840
<v Speaker 4>right now. So I think it's the goods producing side.

0:01:19.880 --> 0:01:23.800
<v Speaker 4>I mean Tom mentioned manufacturing. I think that's notable because

0:01:23.800 --> 0:01:25.560
<v Speaker 4>a lot of people were thinking maybe you'd see some

0:01:25.680 --> 0:01:28.920
<v Speaker 4>uptake and manufacturing because of the unwind of the retooling.

0:01:29.760 --> 0:01:31.840
<v Speaker 4>It just didn't happen. Right on the good side of

0:01:31.880 --> 0:01:37.240
<v Speaker 4>the economy's week, cyclically sensitive industries are sluggish, and you

0:01:37.240 --> 0:01:39.640
<v Speaker 4>know this is all about the FED trying to create

0:01:39.640 --> 0:01:43.480
<v Speaker 4>a handoff from income le growth to credit led growth.

0:01:43.880 --> 0:01:45.600
<v Speaker 4>That's what this is about. So they need to keep

0:01:45.640 --> 0:01:48.440
<v Speaker 4>cutting until the credit sensitive areas of the economy.

0:01:48.080 --> 0:01:51.000
<v Speaker 2>Term joining us worldwide, Neil Dotta, we are commercial free

0:01:51.080 --> 0:01:54.520
<v Speaker 2>to the nine o'clock hour. Claudia sam Mark Zandi will

0:01:54.560 --> 0:01:57.000
<v Speaker 2>join in a moment. Ben Ladler will join us on

0:01:57.040 --> 0:02:00.560
<v Speaker 2>the equity market reaction in the view forward here later

0:02:01.240 --> 0:02:05.080
<v Speaker 2>in these twenty minutes. Futures at negative seventeen, the vixers

0:02:05.120 --> 0:02:08.359
<v Speaker 2>A twenty two level comes in nicely twenty point seven

0:02:08.520 --> 0:02:13.600
<v Speaker 2>six major bond market adjustments, making eight basis points two

0:02:13.720 --> 0:02:16.440
<v Speaker 2>year yield three point sixty six thirty year bond well

0:02:16.520 --> 0:02:20.400
<v Speaker 2>under four percent three point nine eight percent ten year

0:02:20.440 --> 0:02:24.160
<v Speaker 2>yield three point sixty seven percent, Neil, I want you

0:02:24.240 --> 0:02:29.120
<v Speaker 2>to frame out for us what inflation will do given

0:02:29.160 --> 0:02:33.680
<v Speaker 2>a depressed GDP in the job market, moving the second

0:02:33.760 --> 0:02:37.880
<v Speaker 2>derivative here is moving to a worser space. What does

0:02:37.919 --> 0:02:40.720
<v Speaker 2>inflation then do further disinflation?

0:02:42.840 --> 0:02:44.680
<v Speaker 4>I mean absolutely, I think so. I mean, if you

0:02:44.720 --> 0:02:49.440
<v Speaker 4>look at core goods, non housing services, and housing rents,

0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:51.320
<v Speaker 4>I mean, those are those are the three ways to

0:02:51.360 --> 0:02:56.400
<v Speaker 4>slice the inflation data. The entire shortfall relative to the

0:02:56.440 --> 0:02:58.720
<v Speaker 4>FEDS target is in housing rents, which we know will

0:02:58.760 --> 0:03:01.880
<v Speaker 4>continue to normalize give the lagged you know, sort of

0:03:01.960 --> 0:03:05.520
<v Speaker 4>nature of that indicator relative to market based rents. Everything

0:03:05.520 --> 0:03:10.160
<v Speaker 4>else is basically normalized. So you know, again, I mean,

0:03:11.240 --> 0:03:13.760
<v Speaker 4>what's the upside risk for inflation if growth is running

0:03:13.760 --> 0:03:16.760
<v Speaker 4>below potential and the momentum under the unemployment rate is higher.

0:03:17.040 --> 0:03:18.600
<v Speaker 4>I mean that's kind of it's kind of I mean,

0:03:18.639 --> 0:03:23.600
<v Speaker 4>unit labor costs are running basically flat for the last year,

0:03:24.160 --> 0:03:26.600
<v Speaker 4>so there's no more of an inflationary impulse coming out

0:03:26.600 --> 0:03:30.800
<v Speaker 4>of the job market. That story is completely over, and

0:03:30.880 --> 0:03:33.880
<v Speaker 4>the FED continues to run a very very restrictive policy stance.

0:03:34.800 --> 0:03:36.680
<v Speaker 5>Paul get one more in here, and Neil just and

0:03:36.920 --> 0:03:38.640
<v Speaker 5>you know, the unemployment rate, just for those that are

0:03:38.640 --> 0:03:40.960
<v Speaker 5>going to be watching the headlines, stay steady at four

0:03:41.000 --> 0:03:43.880
<v Speaker 5>point two percent here, right in line with expectations. What

0:03:43.960 --> 0:03:46.080
<v Speaker 5>does the FED think about an unemployment rate of four

0:03:46.080 --> 0:03:46.800
<v Speaker 5>point two percent?

0:03:46.800 --> 0:03:47.240
<v Speaker 2>Do you think?

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:49.440
<v Speaker 4>I don't think they should think about an unemployment rate

0:03:49.480 --> 0:03:51.200
<v Speaker 4>of four point two percent. I think they should think

0:03:51.240 --> 0:03:53.840
<v Speaker 4>about what's gone on over the last six months here,

0:03:54.160 --> 0:03:54.960
<v Speaker 4>which is what's gone out.

0:03:55.280 --> 0:03:56.640
<v Speaker 5>It's absolutely Neil dudd.

0:03:56.480 --> 0:03:58.200
<v Speaker 2>I know you got a publish, will feature that out

0:03:58.240 --> 0:04:00.480
<v Speaker 2>on Twitter. Neil Douta with Ren Mack will publish and

0:04:00.560 --> 0:04:04.760
<v Speaker 2>we thank him for careful market economic analysis. We now

0:04:04.760 --> 0:04:08.760
<v Speaker 2>bringing Claudia Sam chief economists New Century Advisors, and doctor

0:04:08.800 --> 0:04:12.400
<v Speaker 2>Mark Zandi, chief economists at Moody's. We had them on here,

0:04:12.720 --> 0:04:15.240
<v Speaker 2>oh thirty or sixty days ago, can't remember. It was

0:04:15.320 --> 0:04:18.680
<v Speaker 2>just lights out, great, great analysis, Claudia. I want to

0:04:18.720 --> 0:04:21.360
<v Speaker 2>get this out of the way so we can move

0:04:21.400 --> 0:04:23.640
<v Speaker 2>on to the real Claudia Sam, I'm sick of the

0:04:23.760 --> 0:04:28.760
<v Speaker 2>Palm recession. Pinata, Can you just give us an update

0:04:29.080 --> 0:04:32.880
<v Speaker 2>without tire and feathering your reputation? Are we close to

0:04:32.920 --> 0:04:33.600
<v Speaker 2>a recession?

0:04:33.680 --> 0:04:37.320
<v Speaker 1>Doctor Sam so the increase unemployment rate is in a

0:04:37.560 --> 0:04:40.960
<v Speaker 1>range where we have historically been in recessions, right, But

0:04:41.040 --> 0:04:43.320
<v Speaker 1>that's a history, that's a past. We're not in a

0:04:43.360 --> 0:04:47.240
<v Speaker 1>recession right now, but we do have a weakening labor market, right,

0:04:47.279 --> 0:04:49.880
<v Speaker 1>So that's the important takeaway. But like, not a recession

0:04:49.960 --> 0:04:51.599
<v Speaker 1>right now, but a risk, always risk.

0:04:51.680 --> 0:04:53.640
<v Speaker 2>And what I remember from two thousand and eight is

0:04:53.640 --> 0:04:56.680
<v Speaker 2>a Zandy rule. There's a Psalm rule, but there's also

0:04:56.760 --> 0:05:00.160
<v Speaker 2>the Zandy rule, which is to be optimistic about America,

0:05:00.320 --> 0:05:03.320
<v Speaker 2>Mark Sandy. If we get the decor cards I hear

0:05:03.360 --> 0:05:06.400
<v Speaker 2>from Neil and others in you frankly at Moodies as well.

0:05:07.240 --> 0:05:12.760
<v Speaker 2>Can corporations adjust and sustain off of a lower nominal

0:05:12.839 --> 0:05:17.240
<v Speaker 2>GDP decent revenue and decent earnings or do you just

0:05:17.240 --> 0:05:18.800
<v Speaker 2>suggest everything goes down?

0:05:19.520 --> 0:05:22.159
<v Speaker 6>Tom, I think they're doing just fine. I mean, looking

0:05:22.240 --> 0:05:24.920
<v Speaker 6>at corporate earnings, I feel pretty good. I mean, through

0:05:25.000 --> 0:05:29.000
<v Speaker 6>Q two of twenty twenty four, double digit ear ear growth,

0:05:29.040 --> 0:05:31.840
<v Speaker 6>and you know, expectations of analysts always are on the

0:05:31.960 --> 0:05:34.360
<v Speaker 6>high side, but they're still pretty good as well. So

0:05:34.839 --> 0:05:39.279
<v Speaker 6>I think the economy's doing fine and producing enough enough

0:05:39.600 --> 0:05:42.680
<v Speaker 6>revenue growth to keep profitability going strong.

0:05:42.760 --> 0:05:44.760
<v Speaker 3>So yeah, I'm not worried about that.

0:05:44.839 --> 0:05:47.920
<v Speaker 6>And you know, just broadly, you know, I'm all on

0:05:47.960 --> 0:05:50.320
<v Speaker 6>board with the view that the BET you be cutting

0:05:50.400 --> 0:05:54.159
<v Speaker 6>rates and normalizing them very quickly. But today's report I

0:05:54.160 --> 0:05:57.159
<v Speaker 6>thought pretty much down the strike zone. I mean, you know,

0:05:57.240 --> 0:06:00.000
<v Speaker 6>the kind of right underlying job growth is one hundred

0:06:00.080 --> 0:06:02.160
<v Speaker 6>hundred and fifty k that's kind of where you want it.

0:06:02.680 --> 0:06:05.279
<v Speaker 6>Four point two percent unemployment, that's kind of where you

0:06:05.320 --> 0:06:07.839
<v Speaker 6>want it. You saw a tick up an hour's work

0:06:07.920 --> 0:06:10.719
<v Speaker 6>per week. That's, you know, feels pretty good. Wage growth

0:06:10.800 --> 0:06:13.839
<v Speaker 6>is almost exactly where you want it. I mean, yeah,

0:06:13.839 --> 0:06:16.280
<v Speaker 6>you can just put airs. But come on, what are

0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:18.160
<v Speaker 6>we going to say this is this is a good report,

0:06:18.200 --> 0:06:20.480
<v Speaker 6>This was a This felt like a really good report

0:06:20.520 --> 0:06:20.720
<v Speaker 6>to me.

0:06:21.320 --> 0:06:23.640
<v Speaker 5>Is it to the point there mark where the FED

0:06:23.720 --> 0:06:26.120
<v Speaker 5>can stay at twenty five basis points or is this

0:06:26.160 --> 0:06:28.800
<v Speaker 5>something that some are suggesting may push them to a

0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:30.480
<v Speaker 5>fifty basis point cut in September?

0:06:30.720 --> 0:06:33.960
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, I think it's twenty five. I mean, I would

0:06:34.120 --> 0:06:37.480
<v Speaker 6>expect the FED to cut fifty only in emergency, if

0:06:37.600 --> 0:06:40.120
<v Speaker 6>you know, markets are really evaporating or there really was

0:06:40.200 --> 0:06:43.800
<v Speaker 6>some serious deterioration in the economy job market.

0:06:43.800 --> 0:06:46.240
<v Speaker 3>But I don't see any of that, So I think

0:06:46.240 --> 0:06:47.040
<v Speaker 3>it's a cooler point.

0:06:47.120 --> 0:06:50.479
<v Speaker 6>And there's you know, I think there's good arguments to

0:06:50.560 --> 0:06:53.800
<v Speaker 6>cut and cut in a consistent way, but I don't

0:06:53.839 --> 0:06:57.640
<v Speaker 6>think we need to dramatically cut all at once, because

0:06:57.960 --> 0:07:00.960
<v Speaker 6>there's a lot of uncertainty as to reasonable and certainty

0:07:00.920 --> 0:07:03.040
<v Speaker 6>as to you know, where the FED should be going here.

0:07:03.080 --> 0:07:06.520
<v Speaker 6>What is the so called equilibrium federal funds rate? What's

0:07:06.560 --> 0:07:09.240
<v Speaker 6>the rate where policy is either supporting or restraining growth?

0:07:09.240 --> 0:07:12.680
<v Speaker 6>That is very uncertain and I think given that, I'd

0:07:12.760 --> 0:07:14.880
<v Speaker 6>go cautiously unless push to do otherwise.

0:07:14.920 --> 0:07:18.120
<v Speaker 3>And in this report, I don't see any reason to

0:07:18.720 --> 0:07:21.160
<v Speaker 3>feel like they have to move very quickly.

0:07:20.960 --> 0:07:23.600
<v Speaker 5>Here, Claudia. Over the weekend, you'll be at some fancy

0:07:23.640 --> 0:07:26.400
<v Speaker 5>cocktail party and somebodys can come up to you and say, hey, Claudia,

0:07:26.400 --> 0:07:29.040
<v Speaker 5>how's the US labor market. What's your response?

0:07:29.520 --> 0:07:32.400
<v Speaker 1>It's not headed in the right direction. This is the

0:07:32.480 --> 0:07:35.080
<v Speaker 1>thing I am most concerned about. Again, just you know,

0:07:35.160 --> 0:07:39.240
<v Speaker 1>the numbers, like the numbers themselves. Okay, fine, it's just

0:07:39.480 --> 0:07:42.040
<v Speaker 1>things have been slowing and we can and not because

0:07:42.280 --> 0:07:45.480
<v Speaker 1>I am you know, hair on fire. That are recessions

0:07:45.520 --> 0:07:49.400
<v Speaker 1>around the corner I'm really concerned that we're losing a

0:07:49.560 --> 0:07:52.920
<v Speaker 1>slipping away of a really good labor market and we

0:07:53.000 --> 0:07:55.920
<v Speaker 1>need this as good as it gets and there should

0:07:55.960 --> 0:07:58.560
<v Speaker 1>be nothing weaker than what it takes to get inflation down.

0:07:58.600 --> 0:08:01.400
<v Speaker 1>And we are like the t is still moving and

0:08:01.600 --> 0:08:02.760
<v Speaker 1>is not in the right direction.

0:08:03.280 --> 0:08:05.120
<v Speaker 2>I mean to both of you, and then folks, we've

0:08:05.120 --> 0:08:07.600
<v Speaker 2>got huge academic caliber here. Mark, I'm gonna go to

0:08:07.600 --> 0:08:10.640
<v Speaker 2>you first, and then Claudia the same question the ECB

0:08:10.880 --> 0:08:14.160
<v Speaker 2>is trying to teach us about being non measured? Are

0:08:14.160 --> 0:08:20.840
<v Speaker 2>we slaves Mark Sandy to a green spanny and measured approach? Careful, careful, careful?

0:08:21.200 --> 0:08:23.920
<v Speaker 2>Why can't we go X beeps or why beeps or

0:08:24.000 --> 0:08:28.320
<v Speaker 2>Z beeps and see what happens? Why can't we do that?

0:08:28.400 --> 0:08:29.640
<v Speaker 2>Mark Sandy?

0:08:29.880 --> 0:08:31.840
<v Speaker 3>Well, I don't know Tom that you need to.

0:08:32.960 --> 0:08:35.360
<v Speaker 6>I mean, if the you know, the labor market was

0:08:35.360 --> 0:08:40.560
<v Speaker 6>falling apart, yeah, absolutely, If you financial system was in turmoil, yeah,

0:08:41.200 --> 0:08:45.120
<v Speaker 6>i'd move quit more quickly. But you know the economy

0:08:45.200 --> 0:08:48.839
<v Speaker 6>is it's throttling back. But that's exactly what you'd want

0:08:48.880 --> 0:08:52.160
<v Speaker 6>to see, to throttle back for, to throttle back here.

0:08:52.160 --> 0:08:55.240
<v Speaker 6>It's been growing too strongly and it's kind of coming

0:08:55.320 --> 0:09:00.800
<v Speaker 6>right into where you want it and no reason to

0:09:00.440 --> 0:09:03.280
<v Speaker 6>to move quickly otherwise. And again I keep going back

0:09:03.280 --> 0:09:06.960
<v Speaker 6>to I don't think anyone knows reasonably, so where we're

0:09:06.960 --> 0:09:10.080
<v Speaker 6>headed here. You know, it feels like it feels like

0:09:10.080 --> 0:09:13.120
<v Speaker 6>the equilibrium rate is higher than it has been typically

0:09:14.280 --> 0:09:17.520
<v Speaker 6>and it's moving, so you know, why not go cautiously

0:09:17.960 --> 0:09:20.959
<v Speaker 6>And you know, if things start to really deteriorate, if

0:09:21.080 --> 0:09:23.679
<v Speaker 6>you know, we do, you start to see really significant

0:09:23.760 --> 0:09:27.240
<v Speaker 6>job loss or even very weak job growth.

0:09:27.400 --> 0:09:31.440
<v Speaker 3>Hey, one other quick point I wanted to make you know.

0:09:31.640 --> 0:09:33.480
<v Speaker 3>The August data is always weak.

0:09:34.040 --> 0:09:36.920
<v Speaker 6>You know, we get very low response rates, initial response

0:09:36.960 --> 0:09:39.240
<v Speaker 6>rates in the month of August, I think for obvious reasons,

0:09:39.240 --> 0:09:42.360
<v Speaker 6>people are on vacation, and we always get an initial

0:09:42.400 --> 0:09:46.360
<v Speaker 6>print that's on the sauce side. And almost invariably, if

0:09:46.400 --> 0:09:47.920
<v Speaker 6>you cast me back a year from now, we're going

0:09:47.960 --> 0:09:50.480
<v Speaker 6>to be talking about upward efficients to the data. So

0:09:51.640 --> 0:09:53.960
<v Speaker 6>you know, you just have to take that into consideration.

0:09:54.120 --> 0:09:56.600
<v Speaker 2>Claudia, I got a s free month moving average of

0:09:56.640 --> 0:10:00.280
<v Speaker 2>one hundred and sixteen thousand, three hundred and thirty three

0:10:00.440 --> 0:10:04.200
<v Speaker 2>one one six three three three. I'm sorry, but that's

0:10:04.280 --> 0:10:06.679
<v Speaker 2>way below anything I've seen as a normal rate of

0:10:06.760 --> 0:10:09.640
<v Speaker 2>unemployment if you take this three month moving average. Jason

0:10:09.679 --> 0:10:13.040
<v Speaker 2>furmanal help out on this at Harvard. I'm sorry, Claudia

0:10:13.240 --> 0:10:16.520
<v Speaker 2>is measured in place? Or is this a FED that's

0:10:16.520 --> 0:10:18.320
<v Speaker 2>got to go and hoc forward.

0:10:20.200 --> 0:10:22.320
<v Speaker 1>Well, I think again, it's like looking at how the

0:10:22.400 --> 0:10:25.319
<v Speaker 1>variables are changing. The unemployment rate has been rising. Yes,

0:10:25.400 --> 0:10:28.160
<v Speaker 1>it is still relatively low historically. We also have an

0:10:28.160 --> 0:10:30.560
<v Speaker 1>older workforce. Four point three percent is not that far

0:10:31.120 --> 0:10:35.520
<v Speaker 1>from and experienced and esteemed right, And so there's no

0:10:35.679 --> 0:10:39.600
<v Speaker 1>magic number with the unemployment rate. It's watching the dynamics.

0:10:39.640 --> 0:10:43.720
<v Speaker 1>It's watching the change and knowing that once that changes

0:10:43.800 --> 0:10:47.280
<v Speaker 1>in place. The FED has been trying for two years

0:10:47.280 --> 0:10:49.839
<v Speaker 1>to cool off the labor market. That's why the funds

0:10:49.920 --> 0:10:53.320
<v Speaker 1>rate is at five percent and other types of demand. Right, So, yes,

0:10:53.400 --> 0:10:55.960
<v Speaker 1>things are cooling off, and now it's like, okay, now

0:10:56.320 --> 0:10:59.120
<v Speaker 1>we need to we need to turn that around. Take

0:10:59.320 --> 0:11:02.720
<v Speaker 1>we don't need that slow wing. I think that changes everything.

0:11:02.920 --> 0:11:05.120
<v Speaker 2>Wander will Zamon Sandy with us right now? They move

0:11:05.200 --> 0:11:09.040
<v Speaker 2>the market higher. Futures negative thirty now negative twelve, deterioration

0:11:09.160 --> 0:11:12.160
<v Speaker 2>and the Sweeney yield two year yield from negative seven

0:11:12.240 --> 0:11:15.720
<v Speaker 2>basis points down to negative nine those levels three sixty five,

0:11:16.040 --> 0:11:19.080
<v Speaker 2>two year, three sixty eight, ten year, thirty year bond

0:11:19.120 --> 0:11:21.959
<v Speaker 2>hun or four percent. Paul you home shopping this weekend.

0:11:21.679 --> 0:11:25.800
<v Speaker 5>I might be absolutely red headline crossing the Bloomberg terminal.

0:11:25.840 --> 0:11:29.160
<v Speaker 5>Traders pricing fifty percent chance of half point fed cut

0:11:29.520 --> 0:11:33.199
<v Speaker 5>this month, crossing the Bloomberg terminal Mark Sandy. Given the

0:11:33.679 --> 0:11:36.080
<v Speaker 5>labor outlook here in some of the data we got today,

0:11:36.080 --> 0:11:39.640
<v Speaker 5>as it relates to total payrolls and wages, what's your

0:11:39.720 --> 0:11:42.959
<v Speaker 5>view of the US consumer here? How healthy or how

0:11:43.000 --> 0:11:44.319
<v Speaker 5>at risk is the US consumer?

0:11:45.200 --> 0:11:48.280
<v Speaker 6>I think and aggregate, you know, looking across all Americans,

0:11:48.320 --> 0:11:49.640
<v Speaker 6>they're continue to do their part.

0:11:49.679 --> 0:11:50.480
<v Speaker 3>They're hanging tough.

0:11:51.240 --> 0:11:53.280
<v Speaker 6>I mean, the train is being driven by folks in

0:11:53.320 --> 0:11:55.440
<v Speaker 6>the top part of the income distribution. And you know,

0:11:55.520 --> 0:11:57.360
<v Speaker 6>I don't know, I don't think it's hyperperctly, but their

0:11:57.360 --> 0:11:59.959
<v Speaker 6>financial situation is probably as good as it's ever been.

0:12:00.040 --> 0:12:00.720
<v Speaker 3>And you know, got a.

0:12:00.800 --> 0:12:04.760
<v Speaker 6>Job, strong, real wage gains, They own stocks, stocks or

0:12:04.800 --> 0:12:07.640
<v Speaker 6>near record high zone home home vows or near record highs.

0:12:07.640 --> 0:12:09.960
<v Speaker 6>If they've got any debt at all, it's a thirty

0:12:10.080 --> 0:12:12.320
<v Speaker 6>or fifteen year or fixed rate mortgage locked in. And

0:12:12.360 --> 0:12:14.400
<v Speaker 6>it seems like everyone I talked to us mortgage is

0:12:14.400 --> 0:12:16.880
<v Speaker 6>a two and a half or three percent kind of

0:12:16.880 --> 0:12:18.960
<v Speaker 6>locked in. So I and they get and in my

0:12:19.480 --> 0:12:22.320
<v Speaker 6>by my calculation, they still have some excess cash that

0:12:22.640 --> 0:12:25.080
<v Speaker 6>they build up during the pandemic when they couldn't spend

0:12:25.320 --> 0:12:28.640
<v Speaker 6>that they're spending down now. So I think they're fine.

0:12:28.720 --> 0:12:32.400
<v Speaker 6>I do think the soft spot, obviously is lower income households.

0:12:32.400 --> 0:12:35.880
<v Speaker 6>They clearly are struggling. You know, they got nailed by

0:12:35.920 --> 0:12:37.840
<v Speaker 6>the high inflation. They took on a lot of debt

0:12:38.040 --> 0:12:41.120
<v Speaker 6>to supplement their income to maintain their purchasing power. And

0:12:41.240 --> 0:12:43.160
<v Speaker 6>it's one thing when rates are low, but when rates

0:12:43.160 --> 0:12:45.880
<v Speaker 6>are really high. They mean, the credit card rate is

0:12:45.880 --> 0:12:47.480
<v Speaker 6>twenty two percent, a record high.

0:12:47.520 --> 0:12:48.520
<v Speaker 3>That's very painful.

0:12:48.559 --> 0:12:51.400
<v Speaker 6>They don't own stocks, they don't own a home, they rent, so,

0:12:52.160 --> 0:12:54.440
<v Speaker 6>you know, very different kind of perspectives. But you know,

0:12:54.480 --> 0:12:56.160
<v Speaker 6>at the end of the day, it's the folks in

0:12:56.200 --> 0:12:58.360
<v Speaker 6>the top middle parts of the distribution that here we

0:12:58.640 --> 0:12:59.640
<v Speaker 6>are critical here.

0:13:00.040 --> 0:13:02.120
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I can't keep up. Did I tried to

0:13:02.120 --> 0:13:06.040
<v Speaker 2>get John Williams on the show Claudius Mark Sandy, John Williams.

0:13:06.320 --> 0:13:09.160
<v Speaker 2>That would have been good New York FED President John

0:13:09.200 --> 0:13:13.640
<v Speaker 2>Williams says, now appropriate to lower FED funds rate. Claudia,

0:13:13.679 --> 0:13:17.400
<v Speaker 2>when you were studying this at Michigan, this this this

0:13:17.600 --> 0:13:22.280
<v Speaker 2>ex post lag. Is this unusual the way our FED

0:13:22.760 --> 0:13:23.400
<v Speaker 2>is acting.

0:13:24.120 --> 0:13:27.600
<v Speaker 1>Yes, particularly in the way monetary policy is quote unquote

0:13:27.720 --> 0:13:30.560
<v Speaker 1>supposed to be done like in the theories, right, but

0:13:30.640 --> 0:13:34.040
<v Speaker 1>that's a very clean, not realistic state. I understand why

0:13:34.080 --> 0:13:37.920
<v Speaker 1>the FED. When tools start breaking down and data don't

0:13:37.920 --> 0:13:40.880
<v Speaker 1>make as much sense, then you kind of you, you know,

0:13:40.960 --> 0:13:43.800
<v Speaker 1>crawl your way along and you want evidence. I think

0:13:43.800 --> 0:13:46.640
<v Speaker 1>this FED did lean into a very FED like tendency

0:13:46.679 --> 0:13:49.520
<v Speaker 1>of being super super cautious, and they have been kind

0:13:49.559 --> 0:13:51.880
<v Speaker 1>of greedy in terms of how much data they wanted

0:13:51.920 --> 0:13:55.120
<v Speaker 1>on inflation. And if I had to hear so many times.

0:13:55.120 --> 0:13:57.280
<v Speaker 1>We have the luxury of time because the labor market

0:13:57.320 --> 0:13:59.840
<v Speaker 1>is so strong, it's like, well, guess what, it actually

0:13:59.880 --> 0:14:03.320
<v Speaker 1>wasn't as strong, and so there's a cost that they

0:14:03.360 --> 0:14:07.760
<v Speaker 1>took time to get comfortable with inflation. But that probably

0:14:07.800 --> 0:14:10.719
<v Speaker 1>means they do not have time to get right. Is

0:14:10.760 --> 0:14:12.880
<v Speaker 1>the lever market really weak and like they may need

0:14:12.920 --> 0:14:15.800
<v Speaker 1>to recalibrate some and get going I think would be

0:14:15.800 --> 0:14:19.000
<v Speaker 1>the appropriate But this this is really outside of their playbook.

0:14:19.040 --> 0:14:22.040
<v Speaker 1>So I understand why this is a hard case to make.

0:14:22.200 --> 0:14:25.240
<v Speaker 2>Doctor Xandy your opiniata for the Gloom Crew. I mean

0:14:25.520 --> 0:14:28.400
<v Speaker 2>seven eight oh nine, you said, everybody shut up, We're

0:14:28.400 --> 0:14:32.120
<v Speaker 2>going to fix this Zandy pandemic. Everybody shut up, We're

0:14:32.120 --> 0:14:35.560
<v Speaker 2>going to fix this. Give us an optimistic touch here

0:14:35.760 --> 0:14:41.640
<v Speaker 2>on how America will clear these traumas post pandemic. China

0:14:41.680 --> 0:14:46.160
<v Speaker 2>is slowing down, Claudia Sam's cats are miserable. Mark Zandy,

0:14:46.600 --> 0:14:49.440
<v Speaker 2>just as directly as you can give us. I need

0:14:49.480 --> 0:14:52.360
<v Speaker 2>some Xandy optimism now, or I can't get through the

0:14:52.360 --> 0:14:53.760
<v Speaker 2>weekend early.

0:14:53.800 --> 0:14:54.800
<v Speaker 3>I've got that reputation.

0:14:54.880 --> 0:14:58.600
<v Speaker 6>I didn't know that I'm that optimistic. Well look, uh,

0:14:58.960 --> 0:15:01.200
<v Speaker 6>I just look at a number. I mean, top four

0:15:01.240 --> 0:15:04.720
<v Speaker 6>point two percent unemployment. I mean, okay, maybe be nicer

0:15:04.760 --> 0:15:06.920
<v Speaker 6>if it were four. I'm I'm on board with that.

0:15:07.080 --> 0:15:09.400
<v Speaker 6>I mean, it's maybe on the soft side of one

0:15:09.440 --> 0:15:12.840
<v Speaker 6>point four point two percent unemployment. We're creating a lot

0:15:12.840 --> 0:15:15.200
<v Speaker 6>of jobs across lots of different industries and have been

0:15:15.240 --> 0:15:19.240
<v Speaker 6>for you know, quite some time. Inflation that's back in

0:15:19.280 --> 0:15:23.280
<v Speaker 6>the bottle almost no matter how you measure it, So

0:15:23.840 --> 0:15:26.320
<v Speaker 6>you know, we're growing at a potential. And by the way,

0:15:26.360 --> 0:15:29.760
<v Speaker 6>here's the thing that's really you know, makes me encouraged.

0:15:30.160 --> 0:15:33.480
<v Speaker 6>The economy's potential is very strong. I mean, we're seeing

0:15:33.480 --> 0:15:35.440
<v Speaker 6>a lot of labor force growth. That's one of the

0:15:35.520 --> 0:15:38.120
<v Speaker 6>that's the key reason why unemployment is not tired here

0:15:38.160 --> 0:15:41.160
<v Speaker 6>over the past year. That goes to immigration, and you know,

0:15:41.200 --> 0:15:43.400
<v Speaker 6>there's a lot of costs there. But the benefit, obviously

0:15:43.480 --> 0:15:45.440
<v Speaker 6>is the strong libor force growth. And look at those

0:15:45.440 --> 0:15:49.360
<v Speaker 6>productivity growth numbers, and you know, I mean it's hard

0:15:49.400 --> 0:15:52.040
<v Speaker 6>to argue that whether it's sustainable or not, but it

0:15:52.040 --> 0:15:54.120
<v Speaker 6>feels like there's a lot of good things happening underneath

0:15:54.120 --> 0:15:56.640
<v Speaker 6>all the business formation we beginning since the pandemic hit.

0:15:56.920 --> 0:15:59.280
<v Speaker 6>It's probably reaping benefit. And this is all before AI

0:15:59.440 --> 0:16:01.320
<v Speaker 6>kind of kicks in. So you add up all the

0:16:01.560 --> 0:16:04.040
<v Speaker 6>productivity gains, you add in the labor force growth, and

0:16:04.040 --> 0:16:08.000
<v Speaker 6>that's a strong growing economy and the FED. The trick

0:16:08.040 --> 0:16:10.360
<v Speaker 6>for the FED here is, you know, let the economy

0:16:10.720 --> 0:16:13.360
<v Speaker 6>take the foot off the breaks sufficiently to allow the

0:16:13.400 --> 0:16:16.120
<v Speaker 6>economy to grow at its higher potential. That's a very

0:16:16.120 --> 0:16:19.240
<v Speaker 6>different issue or problem. If demand we're evaporating, that's not

0:16:19.360 --> 0:16:22.600
<v Speaker 6>what's going on here. So you know, objectively, take a

0:16:22.640 --> 0:16:24.760
<v Speaker 6>step back and take a look around.

0:16:25.040 --> 0:16:26.080
<v Speaker 3>This economy is good.

0:16:26.320 --> 0:16:29.000
<v Speaker 2>Paul. One quick question to Claudia sim because futures just

0:16:29.000 --> 0:16:32.880
<v Speaker 2>went green, which is a signal. Go Ben Ladler, so

0:16:32.960 --> 0:16:35.280
<v Speaker 2>quickly here go to Claudia. And then we got to

0:16:35.360 --> 0:16:36.240
<v Speaker 2>drag Ben Laidler.

0:16:36.280 --> 0:16:38.640
<v Speaker 5>An here Claudia Sam, I mean again, how do you

0:16:38.680 --> 0:16:40.280
<v Speaker 5>just when you sit back, you've had a few minutes

0:16:40.320 --> 0:16:42.400
<v Speaker 5>of the digestis how's the FED? How do you think

0:16:42.400 --> 0:16:44.000
<v Speaker 5>they're going to digest these numbers today?

0:16:44.240 --> 0:16:47.640
<v Speaker 1>I think the payroll numbers are going to be the concern.

0:16:47.880 --> 0:16:50.000
<v Speaker 1>And frankly, the piece of it that I found most

0:16:50.080 --> 0:16:54.720
<v Speaker 1>is concerning you are the July revision, the earlier revisions. Right,

0:16:54.800 --> 0:16:57.880
<v Speaker 1>that's the hiring rate has gotten to too low of

0:16:57.880 --> 0:17:00.160
<v Speaker 1>a place, and we're seeing it in the job and

0:17:00.520 --> 0:17:03.520
<v Speaker 1>then to see it, you know, July was actually even

0:17:03.560 --> 0:17:06.720
<v Speaker 1>a little worse than we thought on the job's number,

0:17:07.280 --> 0:17:09.800
<v Speaker 1>and so that I think that takes some pause.

0:17:10.040 --> 0:17:12.280
<v Speaker 2>She said, So I'm supposed to have dinner with Claudia

0:17:12.280 --> 0:17:15.800
<v Speaker 2>and Jackson hole. You know what they served elk and

0:17:15.880 --> 0:17:19.040
<v Speaker 2>the health's food was venison. I mean there's no fish

0:17:19.160 --> 0:17:21.520
<v Speaker 2>or nothing. Claudia Sam we gotta go. Thank you so much,

0:17:21.560 --> 0:17:24.680
<v Speaker 2>Claudia Sam just nailing these revisions. I want to want

0:17:24.680 --> 0:17:27.879
<v Speaker 2>to mention Anna Wong as well at Bloomberg and Mark Zandi,

0:17:28.040 --> 0:17:31.080
<v Speaker 2>thank you so much for being with us. Really appreciate

0:17:31.119 --> 0:17:35.000
<v Speaker 2>from Moody's his optimism on the American economic experiment.