Raphael Bostic
President and Chief Executive Officer
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
December 2, 2024
Key Points
At its November meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee reduced the target for its benchmark interest rate, the federal funds rate, by a quarter percentage point—to a range of 4-1/2 to 4-3/4 percent. That came after we lowered the policy rate by a half percentage point in September, so it has come down three-quarters of a percentage point, or 75 basis points, from its high.
I voted for both moves because I believe inflation remains on a path, albeit a bumpy one, toward the Committee's objective of 2 percent, per the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index. The risks to achieving the Committee's dual mandates of maximum employment and price stability have shifted such that they are roughly in balance, so we likewise should begin shifting monetary policy toward a stance that neither stimulates nor restrains economic activity.
Conditions on both sides of the Fed's mandate—price stability and maximum employment—appear to be broadly healthy. Nevertheless, a continuation of the positive string of macroeconomic developments is not assured. Uncertainties persist on various fronts and risks loom both for the health of the labor market and price stability. As always, I am paying close attention to all the risks and uncertainties.
Which way forward for labor markets?
Let's start with the labor market. From a big-picture perspective, the labor market is cooling from a red-hot state in which demand for workers far exceeded supply for multiple years. Through October 2024, monthly payroll growth has averaged 170,000 jobs this year, lower than the three previous years of blockbuster job gains, yet still stronger than the last prepandemic year of 2019 (chart 1).
The salient question for me today is whether the labor market is cooling more dramatically than I had imagined when I developed my outlook for the economy. The answer has important implications for monetary policy, because if conditions in the labor market are in fact worse than my Committee colleagues and I thought a few months ago, then that probably bolsters the case for continuing to remove policy restrictiveness, and perhaps argues that we should do so more aggressively.
Our research team here in Atlanta is exploring this question from various angles.
For one, we are looking at a trend that could potentially exacerbate any existing labor market weakness. Economists Tao Zha and Jon Willis have noted that the difference between the number of net jobs created from new businesses opening and the number of jobs lost from businesses closing has declined recently. This has occurred during a time when the burst of new-business formation we observed coming out of the pandemic has dissipated. Taken together, it is clear that a key jobs generator has lost strength, which implies labor markets may weaken more sharply in coming quarters.
Furthermore, during much of 2022 and 2023 when the Fed was tightening monetary policy, there were far more job openings than workers to fill them. This suggested that a cooling labor market could help reduce inflation without threatening a damaging spike in unemployment, because these so-called "excess vacancies" would need to be eliminated before actual employed people would be laid off.
Excess vacancies have, indeed, fallen steadily since peaking in early 2022 and our economists argue that we may be nearing a point where further declines in job openings could make it considerably harder for workers to find employment. In other words, further slowing in the labor market, measured by the ratio of unemployment-to-job vacancies, could mean higher future unemployment without a payoff in the form of a big downward push on inflation.
By contrast, a different look at job openings suggests the labor market could be in a less precarious state. Economist David Wiczer has been exploring a concept called vacancy yield—that is, the rate at which a job opening gets filled. Using data on job openings, as reported in the US Bureau of Labor Statistics' Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, he shows that the vacancy yield has declined substantially since the pandemic.
We don't fully understand why job openings are translating to fewer hires than before. It could be that firms are more frequently posting vacancies they don't truly plan to fill. Or perhaps the existence of a smaller pool of available workers has allowed them to be more selective, which may prolong the hiring process. If filling an opening takes two months instead of one, to use a simple example, then the opening remains in the data twice as long, and we measure twice as many vacancies in a given month even though firms' desired hires are not twice as high.
Regardless of why this is happening, lower vacancy yields potentially put a different spin on the record levels of job openings observed in 2022 and 2023. Instead of the high number of openings reflecting increased demand by employers, which has been conventional wisdom in many circles, it could be that the elevated openings were a recognition by employers that they needed to post more jobs to yield the same number of workers. If so, then labor markets may not have been as tight as one might have believed, and the inflationary pressures coming from labor markets may not have been as acute one may have believed. The takeaway: policy might need to do less than originally thought.
I see a couple of implications from this research. First, the falling number of job vacancies would seem to validate that monetary policy has been truly restrictive. At the same time, none of these trends send a strong signal that the labor market is rapidly deteriorating nor extremely tight. Instead, they suggest that the labor market is cooling in a largely orderly fashion in the face of higher interest rates, a perspective we also hear from our business contacts. This is welcome news. That said, an important question remains: Just how strong is the labor market? I will be working with my team to gain greater clarity on this moving forward.
The path to 2 percent inflation, while bumpy, looks sustainable
So, what about price stability? The downward trajectory of inflation has been bumpy of late. Looking at the PCE index, the overall year-over-year inflation rate has gradually declined over the past six months, but not in a rapid, straight-line fashion (chart 2). The "core rate" that excludes more volatile food and energy prices has stubbornly hovered around 2.6–2.7 percent.
There are certainly upside risks to price stability. Indeed, our Underlying Inflation Dashboard shows that many measures of inflation remain well above target. Still, weighing the totality of the data, I do not view the recent bumpiness as a sign that progress toward price stability has completely stalled.
Why not? There are several reasons.
For one, a major factor contributing to the continued stubbornness of elevated inflation has been housing prices.1 If one excludes the influence of shelter prices on the core consumer price index (CPI) figure for October, for instance, underlying inflation rose at 2.3 percent at an annual rate, far more quiescent than the 3.3 percent reading when housing is included. If one excludes the volatile energy and food prices in addition to shelter prices from calculations, the CPI has risen by just 2 percent.2
The main reason I am not alarmed by the relative strength of shelter prices is that pure market-based measures of rental price growth from services like Zillow or CoreLogic have been much more muted than what has been calculated in the CPI and PCE. The softening in market rents over the past year to 18 months should eventually filter through to the official inflation statistics and lead to lower readings.
A second reason why I remain confident that inflation will continue its movement toward 2 percent is that I'm not seeing signs that a surge in economic energy, which could spark inflationary pressures, is imminent. Economic growth has been stronger than expected in recent quarters, yes. But the data and our contacts tell us that economic growth, like the labor market, is cooling, and I expect that to continue.
Along similar lines, aggregate savings rates are lower, as are bank balances for many families. In short, the fuel that could reignite economic activity and inflation seems to be drying up.
A fourth source of comfort lies in measures of inflation expectations, which many economists view as one of the most important factors influencing spending and investment decisions. These measures, some of which we produce via our surveys, have remained quite stable and more or less in line with prepandemic norms.
Finally, information collected from our board members, advisory councils, and grassroots network of business and community contacts reinforces this message. Overall, contacts tell us operating costs continue to stabilize and pricing power continues to diminish.
To be sure, I'm mindful of inflationary risks. Elevated inflation does exist for some services in addition to housing. Despite the conclusion of a tense presidential election, geopolitical uncertainties linger at home and abroad, and could generate renewed inflationary pressures. Given the many twists and turns of the past few years, we need to be on alert for whatever surprises emerge.
That said, my base case on inflation remains that we are on track to reach the 2 percent objective, and I will do whatever it takes to make sure we get there.
Much to untangle as we enter a new year
Looking back on 2024, it has definitely been an eventful economic year. Bumpy data early in the year made it hard to know what was really going on regarding the path of inflation. Consumers remained remarkably resilient. The recalibration of monetary policy commenced in response to the rebalancing of inflation and employment risks. Locally, hurricanes Helene and Milton devastated communities in and near the Atlanta Fed's District and resulted in the most storm-related deaths since Hurricane Katrina. It will take some communities years to recover, if ever.
Through the final weeks of this year and into 2025, the various signals and questions I've highlighted here make clear that monetary policymakers have a great deal to ponder.
A few core questions frame my policy thinking. How restrictive is monetary policy? How restrictive does it need to be to keep inflation declining toward 2 percent? On the flip side, how quickly and by how much do we need to lower the federal funds rate to ensure we don't seriously damage labor markets and inflict undue pain on the American people? The research I've described in this message, along with other research my team is producing, will help me answer these questions as well as others that may arise.
Still, broadly speaking, I judge the economy to be on solid footing. The labor market appears stable at or around maximum employment. And we are nearing price stability.
Though my baseline outlook is positive, we cannot afford to be sanguine. The path ahead for monetary policy is not preset. In making judgments about what this path should look like, my strategy will be to look to the incoming data, information from our portfolio of surveys, the balance of risks, and input from our business contacts. Much hard work lies before us. We stand ready.
1 Shelter prices account for about a third of the CPI index; and a smaller but still significant roughly 15 percent of the PCE.
2 This measure of inflation is often referred to as the core CPI excluding shelter.
Dr. Raphael W. Bostic took office June 5, 2017, as the 15th president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. He is responsible for all the Bank's activities, including monetary policy, bank supervision and regulation, and payment services. He serves on the Federal Open Market Committee, the monetary policymaking body of the Federal Reserve System.
From 2012 to 2017, Bostic was the Judith and John Bedrosian Chair in Governance and the Public Enterprise at the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California (USC).
He arrived at USC in 2001 and served as a professor in the School of Policy, Planning, and Development. His research has spanned many fields, including home ownership, housing finance, neighborhood change, and the role of institutions in shaping policy effectiveness. He was director of USC's master of real estate development degree program and was the founding director of the Casden Real Estate Economics Forecast.
Bostic also served USC's Lusk Center for Real Estate as the interim associate director from 2007 to 2009 and as the interim director from 2015 to 2016. From 2016 to 2017, he was the chair of the center's Governance, Management, and Policy Process Department.
From 2009 to 2012, Bostic was the assistant secretary for policy development and research at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In that role, he was a principal adviser to the secretary on policy and research, helping the secretary and other principal staff make informed decisions on HUD policies and programs, as well as on budget and legislative proposals.
Bostic worked at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors from 1995 to 2001, first as an economist and then as a senior economist in the monetary and financial studies section, where his work on the Community Reinvestment Act earned him a special achievement award.
He serves on many boards and advisory committees, including Georgia's Partnership for Inclusive Innovation. He is also a member of Harvard University's Board of Overseers. He previously served as the chair of the board of directors of the United Way of Greater Atlanta and chair for the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Bostic graduated from Harvard University in 1987 with a combined major in economics and psychology. He earned his doctorate in economics from Stanford University in 1995.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta serves the Sixth Federal Reserve District, which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, and parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The Bank has branches in Birmingham, Jacksonville, Miami, Nashville, and New Orleans.
Updated February 2024Bostic, Raphael W. April 18, 2020. "Opinion: Fed's Working to Aid Economy, Post-Pandemic Recovery." Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Bostic, R. and Johnson, M. January 15, 2020. "BankThink: How to keep community banks thriving." American Banker.
Boarnet, M. G.; Bostic, R. W.; Rodnyansky, S.; Burinskiy, E.; Eisenlohr, A.; Jamme, H.; and Santiago-Bartolomei, R. 2020. "Do High Income Households Reduce Driving More When Living near Rail Transit?" Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 80.
Bostic, R. W.; Jakabovics, A.; Voith, R.; and Zielenbach, S. 2019. "Mixed-Income LIHTC Developments in Chicago: A First Look at Their Income Characteristics and Spillover Impacts." In What Works to Promote Inclusive, Equitable Mixed-Income Communities, edited by Mark L. Joseph and Amy T. Khare, cluster #1, section A, no. 6.
Boarnet, M. G.; Bostic, R. W.; Burinskiy, E.; Rodnyansky, S.; and Prohofsky, A. 2018. "Gentrification near Rail Transit Areas: A Micro-Data Analysis of Moves into Los Angeles Metro Rail Station Areas." Research Reports, University of California National Center for Sustainable Transportation.
Bostic, R. W. and Molaison, D. Forthcoming. "Hurricane Katrina: Devastation, Possibilities and Prospects." In Economic and Risk Assessment of Hurricane Katrina, University of Southern California Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events.
Bostic, R.; Kim, A.; and Valenzuela, A. 2016. "An Introduction to the Special Issue: Contesting the Streets 2: Vending and Public Space in Global Cities." Cityscape 18(1): 3–10.
Bostic, R. W. and Ellen, I. G. 2014. "Introduction: Special Issue on Housing Policy in the United States." Journal of Housing Economics 24: 1–3.
Bostic, R. 2014. "CDBG at 40: Opportunities and Obstacles." Housing Policy Debate 24(1): 297–302. doi:10.1080/10511482.2013.866973.
Bostic, R. W. 2014. "Resilient Economic Development: Challenges and Opportunities." In University of Illinois Chicago Urban Forum, edited by M. Pagano. University of Illinois Press.
Bostic, R. W. and McFarlane, A. 2013. "The Proposed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Regulatory Impact Analysis." Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 15(3): 257.
Bostic, R. W.; Thornton, R. L.; Rudd, E. C.; and Sternthal, M. J. 2012. "Health in All Policies: The Role of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Present and Future Challenges." Health Affairs 31(9): online.
Graddy, E., with Bostic, R. W. 2010. "The Role of Private Agents in Affordable Housing Policy." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20, special issue: 81–99.
Bostic, R.; Gabriel, S.; and Painter, G. 2009. "Housing Wealth, Financial Wealth, and Consumption: New Evidence from Micro Data." Regional Science and Urban Economics 39(1): 79–89.
Bostic, R. W., with Engel, K.; McCoy, P.; A. Pennington-Cross; and Wachter, S. 2008. "State and Local Anti-Predatory Lending Laws: The Effect of Legal Enforcement Mechanisms." Journal of Economics and Business 60(1–2): 47–66.
An, X. and Bostic, R. W. 2008. "GSE Activity, FHA Feedback, and Implications for the Efficacy of the Affordable Housing Goals." Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 36(2): 207–31.
An, X.; Bostic, R. W.; Deng, Y.; and Gabriel, S. 2007. "GSE Loan Purchases, the FHA, and Housing Outcomes in Targeted, Low-Income Neighborhoods." In Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, edited by G. Burtless and J.R. Pack. Brookings Institute Press.
Sloane, D. C., with Bostic, R. W. and Lewis, L. B. 2007. "The Neighborhood Dynamics of Hospitals as Land Owners." Lincoln Land Institute publication.
Bostic, R. W., with Longhofer, S. D. and Redfearn, C. 2007. "Land Leverage: Decomposing Home Price Dynamics." Real Estate Economics 35 (2): 183–208.
Bostic, R. W. and Prohofsky, A. 2006. "Enterprise Zones and Individual Welfare: A Case Study of California." Journal of Regional Science 46 (2): 175–203.
Bostic, R. W. and Gabriel, S. A. 2006. "Do the GSEs Matter to Low-Income Housing Markets? An Assessment of the Effects of GSE Loan Purchase Activity on California Housing Outcomes." Journal of Urban Economics 59: 458–75.
Black, H.; Bostic, R. W.; Robinson, B.; and Schweitzer, R. 2005. "Do CRA-Related Events Affect Shareholder Wealth? The Case of Bank Mergers." The Financial Review 40(4): 575–86.
Bostic, R. W. with Robinson, B. 2004. "Community Banking and Mortgage Credit Availability: The Impact of CRA Agreements." Journal of Banking and Finance 28: 3069–95.
Bostic, R. W., with Calem. P. S. and Wachter, S. M. 2004. "Hitting the Wall: Credit as an Impediment to Homeownership." In Building Assets, Building Credit: Creating Wealth in Low-Income Communities, edited by N. Retsinas and E. Belsky. Joint Center for Housing Studies and Brookings Institution Press.
Bostic, R. W., with Redfearn, C. 2004. "Book Review [The Color of Credit: Mortgage Discrimination, Research Methodology and Fair Lending Enforcement, by Stephen L. Ross and John Yinger]." Journal of Regional Science 44(1):162–65.
Bostic, R. W., with Aaronson, D.; Huck, P.; and Townsend, R. 2004. "Supplier Relationships and Small Business Use of Trade Credit." Journal of Urban Economics 55(1): 46–67.
Bostic, R. W., with Barakova, I.; Calem, P.; and Wachter, S. 2003. "Does Credit Quality Matter for Homeownership?" Journal of Housing Economics 12(4): 318–36.
Bostic, R. W. 2003. "A Test of Cultural Affinity in Home Mortgage Lending." Journal of Financial Services Research 23(2): 89–112.
Bostic, R., with Robinson, B. 2003. "Do CRA Agreements Increase Lending?" Real Estate Economics 31(1): 23–51.
Bostic, R. W., with Calem, P. S. 2003. "Privacy Restrictions and the Use of Data at Credit Repositories." In Credit Reporting Systems and the International Economy, edited by Margaret J. Miller. Boston: MIT Press.
Bostic, R. W., with Martin, R. 2003. "Black Homeowners as Gentrifying Force? Neighborhood Dynamics in the Context of Minority Homeownership." Urban Studies 40(12).
Bostic, R. W. 2002. "Equal Access to Credit." In 25 Years of Credit Research, edited by Mike Staten. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bostic, R., with Canner, G. B. 2000. "Consolidation in Banking: How Recent Changes Have Affected the Provision of Banking Services." The Neighborworks Journal.
Bostic, R., with Avery, R. B. and Canner, G. B. 2000. "Highlights of a Survey of the Performance and Profitability of CRA-Related Lending." Housing America Update.
Bostic, R., with Avery, R. B. and Canner, G. B. 2000. "CRA Special Lending Programs." Federal Reserve Bulletin 86: 711–31.
Bostic, R., with Avery, R. B.; Calem, P. S.; and Canner, G. B. 2000. "Credit Scoring: Statistical Issues and Evidence from Credit Bureau Files." Real Estate Economics 28: 523–47.
Bostic, R., with Canner, G. B. 1998. "New Information on Small Business and Small Farm Lending: The 1996 CRA Data." Federal Reserve Bulletin 84(1): 1–21.
Bostic, R., with Avery, R. B. and Samolyk, K. A. 1998. "The Role of Personal Wealth in Small Business Finance." Journal of Banking and Finance 22: 1019–61Bostic, Raphael W. May 6, 2024. "How the Fed Goes Beyond the Data to Try to Make the Economy Work for Everyone." FedCommunities.
Bostic, R.; Bower, S.; Shy, O.; Wall, L.; and Washington, J. September 2020. "Digital Payments and the Path to Financial Inclusion." Promoting Safer Payments Innovation Series no. 20-1.
Raphael Bostic. "Quantitative Frightening?" macroblog. January 16, 2019.
Raphael Bostic. "What Does the Current Slope of the Yield Curve Tell Us?," macroblog. August 23, 2018.
Raphael Bostic. "Thoughts on a Long-Run Monetary Policy Framework" macroblog series:
"Framing the Question." March 26, 2018.
"Part 2: The Principle of Bounded Nominal Uncertainty." March 27, 2018.
"Part 3: An Example of Flexible Price-Level Targeting." March 28, 2018.
"Part 4: Flexible Price-Level Targeting in the Big Picture." April 2, 2018.
Raphael Bostic. "A Big-Picture Look at the Economy . " ECONversations. February 21, 2018.
Raphael Bostic (interviewer) and Anthony Orlando. "'These Local Problems Do Have Some National Solutions': A Conversation about Inequality." February 27, 2020.
Raphael Bostic (interviewer) and James Fallows. "Wings over America: A Conversation with Author James Fallows." . January 2, 2020.
Raphael Bostic (interviewer) and Alessandro Acquisti. "Speaking Publicly on Privacy: A Conversation about Digital Privacy." April 2, 2019.
Raphael Bostic (interviewer) and Jerome Adams. "Health Is Wealth": A Conversation with the U.S. Surgeon General." January 3, 2019.
Raphael Bostic (interviewer) and Raj Chetty. "'A Kid Should Have a Fair Shot': A Discussion of Economic Mobility." October 22, 2018.
Raphael Bostic (interviewer) and David Lusk. "'It's a Really Dramatic Change': A Discussion of the Economics of Food." October 12, 2018.
Raphael Bostic. "'It's a Special Job': A Conversation with Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic." April 27, 2018.