The unemployment rate is modestly lower and private non-farm payroll growth a bit higher than earlier in 2012, which is certainly welcome. However, other important indicators including the employment-to-population ratio and job-finding rates are essentially unchanged (Exhibit 10). This suggests that the labor market is far from healthy. Moreover, our policy is based on the outlook for the labor market, not the level of employment or unemployment today. In this context I note that the recent improvement in payroll employment growth, which gets much of the attention, is out-sized relative to the growth rate of economic activity that supports it. We have seen this movie before. When this happened in 2011 and 2012, employment growth subsequently slowed (see Exhibit 11). 8  It avoids the ambiguity of what a change in the forward rate guidance would signal. Is the date being moved out, for example, because the FOMC wants to provide additional accommodation or is the move just due to deterioration in the economic forecast? 9  I draw a distinction here between efficacy and benefit. In my view, the benefit of additional accommodation would diminish as we get closer to our dual mandate objectives and become more confident in the forecast of a strengthening recovery, even if the assessment of the efficacy and cost of the tool were unchanged. 10  Of course, this expectation assumes no new information on efficacy and costs emerges that fundamentally changes my assessment of the merits of the program.
11  Assuming that the improvement in the outlook is not endogenous to the chosen policy setting to the extent that it would disappear if purchases were slowed. 4  BIS central bankers’ speeches  Because growth this year will be constrained by fiscal consolidation, there is a risk that this could happen again. As a result, it is premature to conclude that we will soon see a substantial improvement in the labor market outlook. Efficacy of the asset purchase program exceeds the costs Our asset purchases are also conditional on our ongoing evaluation that the efficacy of the program exceeds the costs. That clearly has been the case to date – affirmed by our policy decisions. Since we put the outcome-based approach in place in September, my assessment is that efficacy has been as high or higher than I expected at the onset of the program, and costs the same or lower. Efficacy has two components: the effect of the purchases on financial conditions and the effect of financial conditions on the economy. Our latest purchase program has been associated with a substantial easing in financial conditions, higher equity prices, and narrower credit spreads. The resumption of additional agency MBS purchases in September pushed down MBS yields. With some lag, much of the drop in yields has been passed through to primary mortgage rates. Meanwhile, the impact of the improvement in financial conditions on the real economy has been somewhat stronger than I had expected.