Subscriptions
No ideology, no agenda, just a straight take on breaking economic data.
Each week as we scrutinize incoming data, we will send you a graph and a concise note on anything new that’s worth your time, 4 – 5 times a week. Our perspective allows you to make intelligent decisions no matter what political or economic outlook you embrace.
Subscribe for $27 a month > More Info... Subscribe > More Info... Subscribe >Archive
- March 2024 (3)
- November 2023 (1)
- September 2023 (2)
- August 2023 (1)
- May 2023 (2)
- April 2023 (3)
- January 2023 (3)
- December 2022 (1)
- November 2022 (1)
- June 2022 (2)
- February 2022 (1)
- November 2021 (1)
- June 2021 (2)
- May 2021 (5)
- April 2021 (3)
- March 2021 (3)
- February 2021 (2)
- January 2021 (5)
- June 2020 (2)
- April 2020 (1)
- March 2020 (4)
- February 2020 (3)
- September 2019 (1)
- August 2019 (2)
- May 2019 (4)
- April 2019 (2)
- January 2019 (9)
- December 2018 (2)
- November 2018 (4)
- September 2018 (7)
- August 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (2)
- April 2018 (2)
- February 2018 (1)
- December 2017 (2)
- November 2017 (2)
- October 2017 (3)
- September 2017 (9)
- August 2017 (3)
- July 2017 (2)
- June 2017 (2)
- April 2017 (1)
- February 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (2)
- September 2016 (1)
- August 2016 (3)
- July 2016 (3)
- June 2016 (3)
- May 2016 (7)
- April 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (3)
- January 2016 (2)
- September 2015 (7)
- July 2015 (1)
- May 2015 (5)
- March 2015 (1)
- February 2015 (2)
- December 2013 (1)
- June 2013 (1)
- October 2012 (1)
- May 2012 (1)
- March 2012 (2)
- March 2011 (2)
- December 2010 (1)
- September 2010 (1)
- August 2010 (1)
- April 2010 (1)
- March 2010 (1)
- August 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (2)
- January 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (1)
- November 2008 (1)
- October 2008 (1)
- September 2008 (1)
- August 2008 (1)
- July 2008 (5)
- June 2008 (9)
- May 2008 (1)
Trade: it’s complicated
With trade & tariffs much in the news, Colin J. Hoffman & Ryan Monarch, both in the International Finance Division of the Fed’s Board of Governors, just released the paper “Distributional Consequences of Trade for U.S. Consumers: Estimating Group-Specific Import Price Inflation.”
They work to shift the focus from the effects of international trade on different groups of workers to different groups of consumers, and want to know if changes in prices driven by increased international integration exacerbate or ameliorate real income inequality, driven by nominal income changes.
The authors reference a 2016 paper, “Measuring the Unequal Gains from Trade,” in which Pablo D. Fajgelbaum & Amit K. Khandelwal (of UCLA and Columbia) review the effects of import price disparity on high- and low-income consumers. Their scenario involves closing down trade, which is extreme and we don’t expect, but their work is still worth a look. Using the elasticity of imports, incorporating both trade costs and income, they find that such a closing off of trade would be about twice as hard on lower income groups than on the top decile: lower-income consumers spend more on traded goods, with lower elasticities, whereas higher income groups spend more on services. This bias extends around the world, but in countries with lower elasticity of exports, fewer gains would accrue to the poor from opening trade.
Hoffman and Monarch find that low- and high-income groups have about the same share of expenditures on imports, and both have increased to about 10% as of 2014 from around 7% in 1998. However, the 1st decile’s share of imports excluding food and fuel is about 70%. That share falls to about 66% for the second decile, and then rises through the deciles to 77% for the top. But all goods are not equal. Those much disparaged washing machines are about 1.8% of expenditures for the lowest decile, steadily falling to just 0.8% for the highest, whereas spending on imported sporting goods rises from about 0.5% for the lowest to 2.2% for the highest decile.
We can see where this is going. Although inflation in imported goods has risen for all groups, the lower income groups have faced higher inflation in import prices. Using prices for 228 Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System sectors—let’s stick with HS—the authors find statistically significant differences in price changes across income groups. As the graph on p. 2 shows, import inflation was up 24% for the first decile, and 15% for the ninth.
And China held yearly changes in import inflation down for all deciles. Without China, yearly import inflation would have been up an additional 0.5–0.6 percentage points.
Since the method used to produce the results allows the authors to see different expenditure shares of the deciles within the same sector, and different expenditure shares across product varieties, the authors were able to demonstrate that taking out cross-sector differences aligns yearly increases for all deciles at 1%. That indicates to the authors that high-income consumers gravitated to sectors with lower inflation, and leads them to conclude that nominal income inequality that has risen owing to trade in the last decades, was not mitigated by changes in import prices across income groups. This is pretty specific information, but it underscores how much more specific the debate should be.