Resources

Chief Economist Eugenio Alemán and Economist Giampiero Fuentes examine why U.S. labor force participation still hasn’t fully caught up to pre-pandemic levels.

To read the full article, see the Investment Strategy Quarterly publication linked below.

Key Takeaways:

• Labor force participation refers to the percentage of the population who are either employed or actively seeking employment. Overall, labor force participation has declined in the U.S. over the past several decades.
• The COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant drop in labor force participation; we are still 0.8% lower than what it was pre-pandemic, so where did all these people go?
• Most of these missing workers are likely a combination of early retirees, individuals who passed away from COVID-19, those with long COVID, a reduced number of immigrant visas, and those who worked from home during the pandemic and don’t want to return to the office.
• The question of whether there is more or less slack in the U.S. labor market is one of the most consequential questions for monetary policy going forward, as it will determine how high and for how long the Federal Reserve (Fed) is expected to remain hawkish/dovish on the inflation front.

Labor force participation refers to the percentage of the population who are either employed or actively seeking employment. Overall, labor force participation has declined in the U.S. over the past several decades. Labor force participation for men has been steadily declining since the 1960s, and only the staggering number of women joining the workforce has allowed labor force participation to increase over the years. Labor force participation peaked at 67.3% in 2000, when women’s participation also peaked, and steadily declined until 2015, when real wages and sala­ries seemed to have worked their magic to bring more individuals into the labor force. That is, higher real wages incentivized workers to join the workforce and brought labor force participation up slightly. The COVID-19 pan­demic caused a significant drop in labor force participation; we are still 0.8% lower than what it was pre-pandemic, so where did all these people go?

There are many hypotheses surrounding the whereabouts of the missing workers, and it’s unlikely that economists will have a more precise answer for years to come. However, we believe that most of these missing workers are a combination of early retirees, individuals who passed away from COVID-19, those with long COVID, a reduced number of immigrant visas, men/women working from home during the pandemic who resigned and left the workforce once asked to go back to the office, as well as workers whose opportunity cost to return to work out­paced the monetary benefits.

Although a federal funds rate of 4.75% to 5.00% is not very high historically, it is very high compared to what markets and inves­tors have seen over the last several decades. Thus, the biggest problem today is that economic actors (i.e., individuals, busi­nesses, the external sector as well as the U.S. government) are trying to adjust to these new levels of interest rates. And the way in which these economic actors adjust to higher interest rates will determine the economy’s path forward in 2023.

Early Retirees: The stock market rally in 2021 is likely to have boosted retirement savings for many Americans at and nearing retirement age. This sudden and unexpected boost in wealth has probably allowed many to weigh their options and consider leaving the workforce early. Some people, especially those with pre-existing medical conditions, may have had health concerns about returning to workplaces and catching the virus. On the other hand, others might have just opted to downsize and move to a location with a lower cost of living rather than spending additional years accumulating wealth.

Long COVID: In addition to those who passed away from COVID-19, there are many estimates of how many people are suffering from long COVID and are unable to work. We have seen estimates of this number at between one and five million Americans. How­ever large or small this number is, it is clear that long COVID may be a contributor to today’s still low labor force participation rate.

Immigration: The U.S. has issued well over eight million visas yearly between 2012 and 2018. However, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant decline in immigrants legally able to work in the U.S. Overall, in the last three calendar years combined, there have been between eight and 10 million fewer legal immigrants added to the workforce.

Opportunity cost: For those who were able to work remotely, returning to an in-person job can be costly, especially for families with young children, older parents, or those in other circum­stances where a worker’s presence at home would be beneficial.

What is the importance of the labor force for monetary policy?

A study by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in 2014 concluded that “the results from our models suggest that there may indeed be greater slack in the labor market than is sig­naled by the unemployment rate.” The importance of this finding at the time was that “the existence of such extra slack might imply that it would be appropriate for monetary policy to remain highly accommodative for longer than would otherwise be the case.” In fact, the view that there was a larger labor slack during the pre-COVID-19 pandemic period kept the Fed highly dovish even in the face of very low rates of unemployment, as this greater slack in the labor market reduced the possibility of experiencing increases in wages and salaries that would have jeopardized the pursuit of the Fed’s inflation target of 2.0%.

Today, the question of whether there is more or less slack in the U.S. labor market is one of the most consequential questions for monetary policy going forward, as it will determine how high and for how long the Fed is expected to remain hawkish/dovish on the inflation front.

The Fed has allowed the rate of inflation to overshoot its 2% target for two years and they need to push this ‘over the longer-run’ average down as fast as possible. In fact, as we have said before, the Fed will probably have to undershoot the 2.0% target on inflation for several years in order to achieve its 2.0% target ‘over the longer run.’ Thus, one of the factors potentially threatening this strategy is the strong U.S. labor market. For this reason, we expect the Fed’s stance to remain hawkish for longer, rather than return to a more accommoda­tive stance in the short to medium term. Although many of the reasons for individuals not coming back into the labor force are almost impossible for policymakers to affect, the immigra­tion issue is one of those partial solutions that could help increase the labor force participation rate and is in the purview of the political establishment to achieve.

Read the full
Investment Strategy Quarterly

All expressions of opinion reflect the judgment of the Chief Investment Office, and are subject to change. This information should not be construed as a recommendation. The foregoing content is subject to change at any time without notice. Content provided herein is for informational purposes only. There is no guarantee that these statements, opinions or forecasts provided herein will prove to be correct. Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Asset allocation and diversification do not guarantee a profit nor protect against loss. The S&P 500 is an unmanaged index of 500 widely held stocks that is generally considered representative of the U.S. stock market. Keep in mind that individuals cannot invest directly in any index, and index performance does not include transaction costs or other fees, which will affect actual investment performance. Individual investor’s results will vary. Investing in small cap stocks generally involves greater risks, and therefore, may not be appropriate for every investor. International investing involves special risks, including currency fluctuations, differing financial accounting standards, and possible political and economic volatility. Investing in emerging markets can be riskier than investing in well-established foreign markets. Investing in the energy sector involves special risks, including the potential adverse effects of state and federal regulation and may not be suitable for all investors. There is an inverse relationship between interest rate movements and fixed income prices. Generally, when interest rates rise, fixed income prices fall and when interest rates fall, fixed income prices rise. If bonds are sold prior to maturity, the proceeds may be more or less than original cost. A credit rating of a security is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold securities and may be subject to review, revisions, suspension, reduction or withdrawal at any time by the assigning rating agency. Investing in REITs can be subject to declines in the value of real estate. Economic conditions, property taxes, tax laws and interest rates all present potential risks to real estate investments. The companies engaged in business related to a specific sector are subject to fierce competition and their products and services may be subject to rapid obsolescence.