Unemployment, Inflation, and Interest Rates

Last updated 4 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Unemployment, inflation, and interest rates affect job security, savings values, and national prosperity. The shape everything from mortgage rates to grocery bills.

Before exploring the relationships between them, it helps to understand how economists measure the economy.

How Economic Data Gets Measured

The monthly numbers reported in the news come from massive statistical efforts designed to capture snapshots of a complex, dynamic system.

The Real Story Behind Unemployment Numbers

The official unemployment rate goes far beyond simply counting people without jobs. It comes from the Current Population Survey, a monthly effort by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that samples about 60,000 households chosen to represent the entire U.S. population.

The BLS sorts everyone aged 16 and over into three categories based on their activities during a specific week each month:

Employed includes anyone who did any work for pay during the survey week, from full-time employees to part-time and temporary workers.

Unemployed requires meeting three criteria: being jobless, having actively looked for work in the past four weeks, and being available to start a job immediately. “Active looking” means specific activities like contacting employers, sending resumes, interviewing, or checking job listings.

Not in the Labor Force covers people who are neither employed nor unemployed, including students, retirees, homemakers, or those with health issues preventing work.

The headline unemployment rate (officially called U-3) divides unemployed people by the total labor force. But this doesn’t tell the complete story.

The BLS also publishes the U-6 rate, which provides a broader view of labor market problems. U-6 starts with the officially unemployed and adds two groups: “marginally attached workers” who want jobs and have looked in the past year but not recently, and people working part-time who want full-time work.

This distinction matters enormously. During prolonged recessions, many people become discouraged and stop actively job searching. When they do, they’re no longer counted as “unemployed” in the official statistic—they drop out of the labor force entirely. This can make the U-3 rate fall even while the number of people who want jobs but can’t find them remains high. The U-6 rate captures these individuals, often painting a more complete picture of employment struggles.

Understanding Inflation Through Price Tracking

Inflation measures how fast prices for goods and services rise, eroding purchasing power over time. The most common measure is the Consumer Price Index, which tracks price changes for a fixed “market basket” of items that urban consumers buy.

Creating the CPI involves meticulous work:

Building the Basket: The contents aren’t arbitrary. They come from detailed Consumer Expenditure Surveys where thousands of families report what they actually buy. This creates a basket representing the array of consumer purchases, from groceries and gasoline to haircuts and concert tickets.

The basket includes over 200 categories across eight major groups: food and beverages, housing, apparel, transportation, medical care, recreation, education and communication, and other goods and services. It also includes government fees and sales taxes.

Monthly Price Checks: Every month, BLS data collectors visit or call thousands of retail stores, service establishments, rental units, and doctors’ offices nationwide. They record prices for about 80,000 specific items to track changes.

Weighting and Calculation: Not all price changes matter equally. The CPI weights items based on their share of the average consumer’s budget. A 10% housing cost increase has much more impact than a 10% candy price increase because housing takes up more of household budgets.

While the CPI gets the most attention, the Federal Reserve prefers the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index when setting policy. A key difference: the CPI uses a fixed basket while the PCE accounts for consumer substitution. If beef prices rise sharply and consumers buy more chicken instead, the PCE captures this shift while the CPI continues tracking beef in its fixed basket. This often makes the PCE show slightly lower inflation than the CPI.

Policymakers also watch “core” inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices. Since food and energy can swing dramatically due to weather or geopolitical events, core inflation provides clearer signals of underlying price trends.

Like unemployment, inflation represents an average experience, not universal reality. Personal inflation rates vary significantly based on income, geography, and lifestyle. A rural family with long commutes gets hit harder by gas price spikes than city dwellers using public transit. Renters feel housing cost increases immediately while homeowners with fixed mortgages are insulated. This explains why official inflation reports can feel disconnected from individual shopping experiences.

The Federal Reserve’s Economic Management Role

The Federal Reserve serves as America’s central bank, tasked with managing the delicate balance between unemployment and inflation.

The Dual Mandate

Congress gave the Fed a “dual mandate” through the Federal Reserve Act: conduct monetary policy that promotes maximum employment and stable prices. A third goal, moderate long-term interest rates, generally follows from achieving the first two.

Maximum Employment doesn’t mean zero unemployment. Economists recognize that some unemployment is natural as people transition between jobs or enter the workforce. The Fed aims for the highest employment level the economy can sustain without causing unhealthy inflation acceleration. This “natural rate of unemployment” depends on structural factors like technology, demographics, and regulations.

Stable Prices means keeping inflation low, stable, and predictable. The Fed explicitly targets an average inflation rate of 2% per year using its preferred PCE index. When prices are stable, households and businesses can make sound decisions about saving, borrowing, and investing without worrying about rapid money value erosion.

These goals often conflict in the short term. Policies to stimulate the economy and boost employment—like lowering interest rates to encourage borrowing and spending—can fuel higher inflation as demand outstrips supply. Conversely, policies to combat high inflation—like raising rates to slow the economy—can reduce business investment and increase unemployment.

This tension puts the Fed in a perpetual balancing act. Its decisions rarely perfectly achieve one goal but instead involve constant trade-offs seeking optimal equilibrium. As a result, Fed actions almost always face criticism. When it raises rates to fight inflation, critics claim it harms workers and risks recession. When it lowers rates to support jobs, critics say it’s irresponsible and risks future price instability.

How Interest Rates Work as the Primary Tool

The Fed’s main tool for managing its dual mandate is influencing interest rates, particularly the federal funds rate. This is the interest rate banks charge each other for overnight loans of reserve balances held at the Fed.

The Fed doesn’t set this rate by decree. Instead, the Federal Open Market Committee sets a target range, then uses several tools to steer the actual market rate into that range:

Interest on Reserve Balances is the rate the Fed pays banks on their reserves. It acts as a floor for the federal funds rate since banks have little incentive to lend reserves for less than the risk-free rate they can earn at the Fed.

Overnight Reverse Repurchase Agreement Facility offers risk-free interest to a broader range of financial institutions, further reinforcing the rate floor.

The Discount Rate is the rate at which banks can borrow directly from the Fed’s “discount window.” Since banks are unlikely to borrow from each other at rates higher than what the Fed offers, this acts as a ceiling.

Changes in the federal funds rate trigger ripple effects throughout the financial system and broader economy through the monetary policy transmission mechanism:

Short-Term Rates: The federal funds rate directly influences other short-term borrowing costs like commercial paper and Treasury bills.

Consumer and Business Loans: The most direct public impact comes through the prime rate, a benchmark banks use for many consumer products including credit cards, auto loans, and variable mortgages. Typically set 3% above the federal funds rate, the prime rate follows Fed changes almost immediately.

Long-Term Rates: Fed policy influences long-term rates like fixed mortgages and corporate bonds largely through expectations about future economic and inflation paths.

Asset Prices: Interest rate changes affect stock and bond values. Higher rates can make safer bonds more attractive relative to riskier stocks, potentially affecting stock prices and household wealth.

Aggregate Demand: By making borrowing more or less expensive, the Fed can brake or accelerate the economy. Higher rates discourage spending and investment, cooling an “overheating” economy to curb inflation. Lower rates encourage spending and investment, stimulating a sluggish economy to boost employment.

The Phillips Curve Theory and Its Evolution

For decades, the Federal Reserve’s thinking about trading off between its two mandates was guided by the Phillips Curve theory.

The Classic Trade-Off

In 1958, economist A.W. Phillips published a study identifying a consistent inverse relationship in British data: when unemployment was low, wage growth was high, and when unemployment was high, wage growth was low. This relationship was soon applied to price inflation.

The logic seems intuitive. In a strong economy with low unemployment, the labor market is “tight”—many open jobs but few available workers. Businesses must compete by offering higher wages to attract and retain employees. To protect profit margins, companies often pass higher labor costs to consumers through higher prices, leading to inflation.

Conversely, in a weak economy with high unemployment, workers have less bargaining power, wage growth stagnates, and price pressures subside. The Phillips Curve, depicted as a downward-sloping line, seemed to offer policymakers a clear menu: accept higher inflation as the cost of lower unemployment, or vice versa.

The 1970s Game Changer

This simple trade-off seemed to work through the 1960s when U.S. data largely followed Phillips Curve predictions. But the relationship broke down spectacularly in the 1970s when the United States experienced “stagflation”—stagnant growth, high unemployment, and high inflation simultaneously. This scenario contradicted what the original Phillips Curve suggested was possible.

This crisis forced profound theoretical rethinking, led by economists Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps. Their crucial insight involved inflation expectations. They argued the unemployment-inflation trade-off exists only short-term. Long-term, there is no trade-off—the long-run Phillips Curve is vertical at the economy’s “natural rate of unemployment.”

The mechanism works through human behavior. If government tries pushing unemployment below its natural rate by stimulating the economy, it might initially work. Prices rise but wages lag, making hiring cheaper for firms and reducing unemployment. However, workers aren’t fooled long. They realize their higher dollar wages buy less due to inflation. They expect higher future inflation and demand higher wage increases to protect purchasing power. Businesses raise prices to cover higher wage costs. The economy returns to its natural unemployment rate but with permanently higher inflation.

This evolution revealed that fighting inflation is as much psychological as economic. A central bank’s effectiveness depends on managing public expectations. If people and businesses believe the central bank isn’t serious about controlling inflation, their expectations become “unanchored.” They assume high inflation is normal, creating self-fulfilling prophecy: expecting high inflation leads to behaviors that create high inflation.

This makes credibility a central bank’s most valuable asset. It must convince the public through actions and words that it’s committed to its inflation target. When a central bank is credible, inflation expectations remain anchored, making actual inflation control much easier and less economically painful.

The Phillips Curve appeared to “flatten” in decades leading up to COVID-19—large unemployment swings had less effect on inflation. Many economists see this as testament to the Fed’s success in anchoring inflation expectations around its 2% target.

Three Economic Crises Show the Relationship in Action

Examining how unemployment, inflation, and interest rates interacted during three distinct crises reveals the evolution of economic challenges and policy responses.

The Great Inflation and Stagflation of the 1970s

After the long post-World War II economic boom, the 1970s delivered a harsh reality check. The economy faced a perfect storm: years of deficit spending for Vietnam War and Great Society programs, the collapse of the Bretton Woods currency system, and two massive oil price shocks.

The first oil shock came in 1973 when OPEC declared an embargo, causing oil prices to nearly quadruple. The second followed Iran’s 1979 revolution.

The result was previously unthinkable stagflation: economic stagnation, unemployment exceeding 7%, and double-digit inflation. This simultaneous rise in unemployment and inflation directly contradicted Phillips Curve theory and left policymakers struggling for responses. With inflation expectations deeply entrenched, a vicious wage-price spiral took hold.

In 1979, President Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Fed Chairman. Volcker believed the only way to save the economy was breaking inflation’s back and crushing public expectations of future inflation, regardless of short-term pain. The Fed embarked on radical monetary tightening, raising the federal funds rate to unprecedented levels. The prime lending rate surged above 21%.

The “Volcker Shock” worked, but the cure was brutal. High interest rates plunged the country into deep early-1980s recession, and unemployment climbed to a post-war high of 10.8%. Businesses failed and farms were foreclosed. Yet the policy succeeded: inflation fell from nearly 15% in 1980 to under 3% by 1983.

The 1970s and painful Volcker-led disinflation fundamentally reshaped modern central banking. It discredited the simple unemployment-inflation trade-off notion and established that maintaining price stability and anchoring inflation expectations is a central bank’s paramount responsibility.

The 2008 Financial Crisis and Great Recession

The 2008 crisis presented policymakers with the exact opposite problem. Triggered by housing bubble collapse fueled by risky subprime mortgage lending, the crisis cascaded through the global financial system, causing catastrophic aggregate demand collapse.

The economic fallout was severe. The Great Recession, officially lasting from December 2007 to June 2009, was the longest and deepest downturn since the Great Depression. Real GDP fell 4.3%, and unemployment more than doubled from 5% to 10.0% by October 2009. The primary fear wasn’t inflation but deflation—a destructive spiral of falling prices and wages that can paralyze economies.

The Federal Reserve under Chairman Ben Bernanke responded with unprecedented aggressive action. First, it used traditional tools, slashing the federal funds rate from 5.25% in September 2007 to 0-0.25% by December 2008. With rates at the “zero lower bound,” the Fed deployed unconventional tools:

Quantitative Easing: The Fed began large-scale asset purchases, buying trillions in government bonds and mortgage-backed securities. Goals included directly pushing down long-term rates to encourage borrowing and investment and injecting massive liquidity into a frozen financial system.

Forward Guidance: The Fed began explicitly communicating future policy intentions, promising to keep rates “exceptionally low… for an extended period.” This managed expectations and convinced markets that borrowing costs would remain low, encouraging immediate spending and investment.

The Great Recession and Fed response marked another turning point. It demonstrated that in severe crises, central bank toolkits must expand beyond managing short-term rates. It highlighted deflation’s real danger and showed that in deep downturns, the primary challenge could be persistent lack of inflation, forcing the Fed to fight to get inflation up to its 2% target.

The Post-COVID-19 Economy (2022-2024)

COVID-19 unleashed an economic crisis unlike any other—a simultaneous supply and demand shock. A sharp, deep 2020 spring recession saw unemployment spike to 14.9%. This met unprecedented response: the Fed cut rates to zero, and Congress passed trillions in fiscal stimulus, including direct household payments.

The economy recovered with surprising speed, but this unique combination created new problems. By 2022, while unemployment had fallen to historic lows, inflation surged to a 40-year high, with CPI peaking at 9% in June. This inflation came from complex factors: supply chains snarled by lockdowns, dramatic consumer spending shifts from services to goods, and massive government stimulus boosting household demand.

Faced with persistent high inflation, the Fed under Chairman Jerome Powell executed one of the most rapid monetary tightening cycles in its history. It raised the federal funds rate from near zero in March 2022 to over 5% by mid-2023, holding rates high through much of 2024. The goal was cooling demand and bringing inflation back to the 2% target.

By late 2024, this aggressive policy appeared successful. Inflation had fallen significantly to around 2.4-2.7% without triggering the deep recession and massive unemployment spike many economists feared. Unemployment remained low around 4.2%. This outcome raised hopes for a “soft landing”—the historically elusive feat of taming high inflation without crashing the economy.

The post-pandemic period continues being debated, with economists analyzing whether successful disinflation was primarily due to Fed’s decisive actions, natural global supply chain healing, or factor combinations. This episode provides a new, complex case study on fiscal policy, monetary policy, and unique global shock interactions.

Alternative Economic Perspectives

The mainstream framework centered on the Fed managing short-run unemployment-inflation trade-offs guided by the Phillips Curve isn’t the only perspective. Several other schools offer different, often sharply critical, interpretations.

The Monetarist View

Monetarism, most famously associated with Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, offers a clear inflation explanation. Its central tenet: the primary long-run inflation driver isn’t unemployment levels but money supply growth rates.

The core argument comes from quantity theory of money, often expressed as M×V=P×T, where M is money supply, V is velocity (how fast money changes hands), P is price level, and T is transaction volume. Monetarists argue that if velocity and transaction volume are relatively stable, any money supply increase outpacing real economic growth will inevitably raise the price level—creating inflation.

From this perspective, 1970s stagflation wasn’t mysterious but the predictable result of the Fed’s excessively expansionary monetary policy in preceding years. Monetarists are deeply skeptical of Fed attempts to “fine-tune” the economy through discretionary policy changes. They argue that because monetary policy affects the economy with long and variable lags, Fed interventions are as likely to destabilize as help the economy.

Instead of constant adjustments, Friedman advocated a simple, fixed “k-percent rule” under which the central bank would increase money supply by a small, steady percentage each year, aligned with long-run economic growth.

Like modern mainstream economists, Monetarists believe in a “natural rate of unemployment” and reject long-run unemployment-inflation trade-offs. Any Fed attempt to use monetary expansion holding unemployment below this natural rate will fail and result only in accelerating inflation.

The Austrian School Critique

The Austrian school, with key figures like Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, offers more radical critique, arguing that boom-bust business cycles aren’t natural market features but result from central bank intervention.

The Austrian argument centers on interest rate distortion. In unhampered markets, interest rates are determined by individual time preferences—the balance between desires to save for the future versus consume presently. This “natural” interest rate coordinates production and consumption over time. However, when central banks like the Fed intervene and push rates below this natural level, they send false signals throughout the economy.

These artificially low rates encourage borrowing waves and investment in long-term, capital-intensive projects (like real estate development or complex manufacturing) not justified by actual savings pools. This creates unsustainable booms characterized by “malinvestment.” Booms inevitably turn to busts when credit expansion slows or stops, revealing these investments were unprofitable. Subsequent recessions, in Austrian view, aren’t the problem but necessary, painful cures. They’re the market’s way of liquidating malinvestments and reallocating capital and labor from unproductive sectors back to where consumers genuinely demand them.

Austrian economists therefore reject the Phillips Curve entirely. They see inflation not as a trade-off for lower unemployment but as the very source of distortions leading to boom-bust cycles. Central bank easy money policy creates inflation that distorts relative prices, fuels malinvestment, and ultimately causes higher unemployment during inevitable busts.

Modern Monetary Theory

Modern Monetary Theory presents a recent and highly debated perspective challenging conventional thinking foundations about government finance and monetary policy.

MMT’s core tenet: governments issuing their own sovereign currency, like the United States, cannot be compared to households or businesses. Households must earn or borrow money before spending. The U.S. government, as dollar monopoly issuer, faces no such financial constraint. It can never involuntarily run out of money or be forced to default on debt denominated in its own currency because it can always create needed money.

According to MMT, the true government spending constraint isn’t lack of money but lack of real resources—available labor, capital, and raw materials. The real excessive government spending risk isn’t bankruptcy but inflation. If total economy spending (government plus private sector) exceeds productive capacity, it will bid up limited resource prices, causing inflation.

This framework leads to radically different policy prescriptions. MMT proponents argue fiscal policy (government spending and taxation), not monetary policy, should be the primary economic management tool. They believe government should use spending power to ensure full employment, often advocating federal job guarantee programs offering living wage jobs to anyone wanting them.

If this spending begins causing inflation, the correct response in MMT view isn’t central bank interest rate increases (seen as blunt tools creating unnecessary unemployment) but Congress raising taxes. Taxation’s role isn’t “paying for” government spending but withdrawing money from the private sector to create “fiscal space” and reduce aggregate demand controlling inflation.

The MMT versus mainstream economics debate represents fundamental disagreement about proper government and central bank roles. The mainstream view, shaped by 1970s experience, is wary of giving politicians direct money creation control, fearing inevitable political use leading to runaway inflation. MMT counters this fear is misplaced and it’s more democratic and effective for elected officials (Congress) to have primary control over achieving economic goals like full employment rather than ceding power to unelected central bankers.

MMT reframes the central economic question from “How do we pay for it?” to “Do we have real resources to accomplish it, and what’s the inflation risk?” This provides profoundly different lenses for viewing major policy debates about government debt, social programs, and infrastructure investment.

These alternative perspectives remind us that while the Fed-centered, Phillips Curve-guided framework dominates current policy discussions, economics remains a field with genuine intellectual debate about fundamental questions. Each school offers insights that have influenced policy at different times, and understanding these diverse viewpoints provides richer context for evaluating economic events and policy proposals.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.