Durable Goods Prove a Drag on Inflation

Monday, December 05, 2016

Durable Goods Inflation
Thinkstock/AndreyPopov

By Fernando Martin, Senior Economist

For the past three decades, consumer prices in the U.S. have grown at an average pace of 2 percent per year. Despite several recessions, various stock market crashes and a severe financial crisis, prices have shown none of the volatility that characterized the 1970s and the early 1980s. The figure below shows the average consumer price level, as measured by the personal consumption expenditures price index, normalized at 100 for January 1990.

Since January 2012, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has explicitly interpreted its price stability mandate as meaning 2 percent annual inflation, thus matching stated policy with previous performance. However, inflation has fallen well short of this target since then. The dotted line in the figure above shows the path the price level would have followed since January 2012 had it grown at 2 percent annually. As we can see, prices have been diverging away from target, growing at only 1.1 percent annually. Even after “liftoff” in December 2015, inflation seems to be underperforming.

Not All Components Are Moving the Same

Digging under the surface reveals that not all prices move in tandem. In fact, there are significant differences in trend and volatility. To see this, I divided consumer expenditures into the three major components:

  • Nondurable goods
  • Durable goods
  • Services

The figure below shows the price level for each of these categories, again normalized at 100 for January 1990.

Nondurable Goods

The price of nondurable goods (e.g., food and gas), which account for roughly one quarter of consumer expenditures, has been growing at about 1.7 percent annually, a slightly slower pace than the average price level. Interestingly, there was a marked slowdown after the last recession. In fact, prices for nondurables have remained roughly constant since mid-2011.

Much of the behavior of prices for nondurable goods, especially fluctuations in the short term, are determined by energy prices. The steady decline in oil prices since 2014 explains the recent drop in the nondurables price index.

Durable Goods

In contrast, the price of durable goods has been steadily declining since the mid-1990s, averaging a contraction of 1.3 percent annually over the sample period. This trend, largely driven by the ongoing decline in the price of consumer electronics, does not show any signs of reversing or slowing down. Note, however, that expenditures in durable goods represent only about 10 percent of consumer expenditures.

Services

Finally, the average price of services has been growing at a faster rate than the overall price level. Over the sample period, the price of services grew at 2.7 percent annually, although this rate decreased markedly after the last recession to about 2.1 percent annually.

Services currently account for roughly two-thirds of all consumption expenditures, and this proportion has been increasing steadily over time. Housing and health care are two categories that are widely responsible for the fast rise in the cost of services.

As the relative weight of expenditures continues to shift away from goods and into services, the trends described above suggest a light upward pressure on inflation in the future. However, this shift in weights alone would not be enough to raise inflation back to its 2 percent target.

Additional Resources

Posted In Inflation  |  Tagged fernando martininflationpersonal consumption expenditures price indexpcedurable goodsnondurable goodsservices
Commenting Policy: We encourage comments and discussions on our posts, even those that disagree with conclusions, if they are done in a respectful and courteous manner. All comments posted to our blog go through a moderator, so they won't appear immediately after being submitted. We reserve the right to remove or not publish inappropriate comments. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that are:
  • Vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise disrespectful or discourteous
  • For commercial use, including spam
  • Threatening, harassing or constituting personal attacks
  • Violating copyright or otherwise infringing on third-party rights
  • Off-topic or significantly political
The St. Louis Fed will only respond to comments if we are clarifying a point. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters, so please edit your thinking before posting. While you will retain all of your ownership rights in any comment you submit, posting comments means you grant the St. Louis Fed the royalty-free right, in perpetuity, to use, reproduce, distribute, alter and/or display them, and the St. Louis Fed will be free to use any ideas, concepts, artwork, inventions, developments, suggestions or techniques embodied in your comments for any purpose whatsoever, with or without attribution, and without compensation to you. You will also waive all moral rights you may have in any comment you submit.
comments powered by Disqus

The St. Louis Fed uses Disqus software for the comment functionality on this blog. You can read the Disqus privacy policy. Disqus uses cookies and third party cookies. To learn more about these cookies and how to disable them, please see this article.

Subscribe to
On the Economy

Get notified when new content is available on our On the Economy blog.

Subscribe

About the Blog

The St. Louis Fed On the Economy blog features relevant commentary, analysis, research and data from our economists and other St. Louis Fed experts.


Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or of the Federal Reserve System.

Contact Us

For media-related questions, email mediainquiries@stls.frb.org. For all other blog-related questions or comments, email on-the-economy@stls.frb.org.

Categories