對于塑造公眾對美國經(jīng)濟(jì)看法的悲觀主義者來說,2023年的經(jīng)濟(jì)走勢并不友好。盡管人們一致預(yù)測經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退“不可避免”,但美國經(jīng)濟(jì)的韌性使得經(jīng)濟(jì)增長預(yù)測在臨近年底時被不斷上調(diào),上調(diào)幅度達(dá)到了驚人的2個百分點(diǎn)。同樣,他們的看法也極其悲觀,一致認(rèn)為美國經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退的可能性在今年的大部分時間都保持在65%的水平,但隨著勞動力市場不斷升溫,美國經(jīng)濟(jì)從未接近于衰退。
如今,值得注意的是,那些押注美國經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退的悲觀人士在2024年加倍下注。他們一致預(yù)測經(jīng)濟(jì)增長率將維持在1.2%(經(jīng)濟(jì)低迷,低于一年前的水平),經(jīng)濟(jì)陷入衰退的可能性為50%。
這是無可救藥的悲觀主義嗎?或者說,2023年的超預(yù)期表現(xiàn)并非基于基本面優(yōu)勢,而是拉動需求帶來的僥幸事件——衰退推遲了,而不是避免了——這種觀點(diǎn)是否有道理?
我們認(rèn)為悲觀情緒過甚,有理由堅(jiān)持一年多來所持的更為樂觀的立場。是的,明年的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長將是溫和的,而且伴隨著脆弱性和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。但否認(rèn)2023年的基本面優(yōu)勢能夠持續(xù)下去,并無視通脹的大幅放緩(通脹本身曾一度被視為結(jié)構(gòu)性失控問題),在我們看來是一種頑固的悲觀主義。悲觀的經(jīng)濟(jì)預(yù)測符合經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的傳統(tǒng),但我們應(yīng)該提醒自己,每一次真正的危機(jī)背后,都有許多虛假警報(bào)。
對“軟著陸”的反常否認(rèn)
盡管經(jīng)濟(jì)強(qiáng)勁,但人們?nèi)匀徊辉赋姓J(rèn)美國經(jīng)濟(jì)會實(shí)現(xiàn)軟著陸。今年早些時候,有人斷然否定了通脹率會下降、勞動力市場會在美聯(lián)儲一系列激進(jìn)加息措施的影響下得到緩解的觀點(diǎn)。拉里·薩默斯等持懷疑態(tài)度的人說,失業(yè)率保持在6%的情況下需要5年時間才能降低通脹,因此美國經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)現(xiàn)軟著陸與理論和經(jīng)驗(yàn)“相?!薄?/p>
事實(shí)上,美國經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)現(xiàn)軟著陸已有一年半的時間了。通脹率下降了6個百分點(diǎn),由于雇主填補(bǔ)職位空缺和刪除招聘信息,導(dǎo)致職位空缺減少了330萬,勞動力市場明顯降溫。從歷史上看,職位空缺的大幅減少意味著失業(yè)率的大幅上升,這也是那些預(yù)測經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退的人的主要論據(jù)。然而,失業(yè)率一直保持在幾十年來的低點(diǎn)附近。
這并不意味著軟著陸會持續(xù)下去——但它實(shí)際上是可以持續(xù)下去的。悲觀主義者喜歡把矛頭指向利率水平,認(rèn)為高利率帶來的影響正在顯現(xiàn),通脹將被證明是頑固的。這都是有可能的——但我們應(yīng)該認(rèn)識到,2023年面臨的挑戰(zhàn)比2024年預(yù)期面臨的挑戰(zhàn)更為嚴(yán)峻。整個2023年,通脹率要高得多,政策利率持續(xù)大幅走高。相比之下,2024年的通脹率可能會接近2%的政策目標(biāo),并最終實(shí)現(xiàn)降息。
這看起來更像是軟著陸的第三階段,而不是揮之不去的軟著陸是否會到來的問題。將軟著陸定義為經(jīng)濟(jì)的永久擴(kuò)張是在轉(zhuǎn)移目標(biāo)。當(dāng)然,總會有“下一次衰退”。但事實(shí)仍然是,美國經(jīng)濟(jì)已經(jīng)度過了軟著陸的第一階段(利率快速上升),并有望度過第二階段(利率受到限制期)。第三階段的成功意味著,利率正?;呄蛑行运?,從而實(shí)現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)持續(xù)增長。這遠(yuǎn)非不可能。
韌性“耗盡”?
面對消費(fèi)者今年表現(xiàn)出的非凡韌性,許多末日論者將其歸因于疫情期間積累的過剩儲蓄,而這些儲蓄將不可避免地耗盡。按照這種說法,占美國國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值約70%的消費(fèi)者支出將在2023年逼近懸崖邊緣。但消費(fèi)者支出下降從未出現(xiàn)過,悲觀主義者已經(jīng)悄然將“懸崖邊緣”移到了2024年。
但是,將韌性視為一種可耗盡的儲備存在嚴(yán)重缺陷。它還與再生流動有關(guān)。家庭儲蓄并不像一個塞滿現(xiàn)金的鞋盒,會被花光。就此而言,(總)儲蓄率必須為負(fù)值。如今,盡管儲蓄率可能很低,但它仍是正值,達(dá)到了3.8%。
儲蓄率低有充分的理由:家庭財(cái)富接近歷史最高水平。財(cái)富越多,家庭儲蓄越少(反之亦然)。相對于異常強(qiáng)勁的財(cái)富水平,如今的儲蓄率并不罕見。當(dāng)然,總量數(shù)據(jù)掩蓋了個人超額儲蓄的分布情況,因此,我們有理由認(rèn)為儲蓄的逐漸消失會導(dǎo)致經(jīng)濟(jì)增長放緩,但將其視為突然中止則不太合理。
因此,風(fēng)險(xiǎn)并不在于消費(fèi)者會因?yàn)閯佑脙π疃w耗盡資金。相反,風(fēng)險(xiǎn)在于他們開始增加儲蓄,從而減少支出。然而,我們發(fā)現(xiàn)很難相信,家庭自主緊縮有一個具體的時間表,而且緊縮強(qiáng)度大到導(dǎo)致2024年出現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退。請牢記勞動力市場的強(qiáng)勁勢頭:就業(yè)人數(shù)仍在增長,總薪酬也在增長。
至關(guān)重要的是,2024年還將出現(xiàn)越來越多的韌性來源。目前,通貨膨脹率低于工資增長,從而帶來了實(shí)際工資增長(勞動力市場緊縮也往往使勞動力市場中的低收入階層受益最大)。這種影響可能會超過釋放過剩儲蓄帶來的阻力。是的,存量很重要,但資金流也很重要。2023年伊始,實(shí)際工資在下降(通脹高于工資增長),但超常水平的招聘抵消了這一影響(新發(fā)工資)。到2024年,招聘將更加溫和,但實(shí)際工資增長將更加重要。
軟著陸的硬傷
盡管經(jīng)濟(jì)具有韌性,但軟著陸也有硬傷。經(jīng)濟(jì)的許多領(lǐng)域都受到了傷害。這并不一定是矛盾的:總體和組成部分并不一定是亦步亦趨的。事實(shí)上,近年來各組成部分之間的差異比有史以來任何一次經(jīng)濟(jì)擴(kuò)張都要大。
實(shí)物商品的消費(fèi)大幅放緩(盡管是與后疫情時期的超高峰值相比)。與此同時,約為商品消費(fèi)規(guī)模兩倍的服務(wù)業(yè)仍在增長,以恢復(fù)到疫情前的趨勢。這種多元化推動了整體的韌性——即使這與許多經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域的痛苦并存。
軟著陸也帶來了更多的硬傷。通脹率(綜合指標(biāo))下降的另一面意味著經(jīng)濟(jì)主體企業(yè)的定價(jià)能力減弱。通脹并不是結(jié)構(gòu)性的制度轉(zhuǎn)變,而是需求(過多)和供給(過少)的明顯錯配。所有企業(yè)都可以在不失去市場份額的情況下提高價(jià)格。但隨著供需正?;▋r(jià)能力逐漸減弱,這是因?yàn)槠髽I(yè)重新開始保護(hù)和爭奪市場份額。這也會影響到利潤率和利潤。利潤曾以兩位數(shù)強(qiáng)勁增長,因此利潤負(fù)增長也會(即使利潤水平處于歷史高位)讓人感覺是一種挫敗。
雖然這些硬傷在很大程度上已被消化,但其他一些硬傷卻更加頑固:較高的利率推高了家庭和企業(yè)的借貸成本,可能會繼續(xù)保持相對較高的水平。即使即將降息,2024年的利率也將遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于疫情前的水平。事實(shí)上,除非出現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退,否則利率仍將遠(yuǎn)高于近期的(人們認(rèn)為的)“中性”水平(約2.5%)。
這將繼續(xù)給一些家庭(想想抵押貸款利率超過7%)和企業(yè)帶來痛苦,企業(yè)的破產(chǎn)率正在上升。但我們不能草率地根據(jù)這些不利因素進(jìn)行推斷。請記住,加息的目的是減緩經(jīng)濟(jì)增長。經(jīng)濟(jì)活動減少才是關(guān)鍵。即使破產(chǎn)率上升也是一種預(yù)期結(jié)果:借貸成本提高將促使資源(包括勞動力)得到更好的配置。雖然美國的破產(chǎn)案例有所增加,但這仍是歷史最低水平,遠(yuǎn)未達(dá)到目前的困境水平。
下一次衰退總是在路上
悲觀主義者有一點(diǎn)是對的:經(jīng)濟(jì)會再次陷入衰退。在足夠長的時間內(nèi),這一預(yù)測終將實(shí)現(xiàn)。然而,2024年是否會出現(xiàn)衰退還遠(yuǎn)不確定,而且在我們看來,衰退的可能性比持續(xù)增長的可能性要小。
此外,考慮衰退的可能性不如考慮衰退的類型更有助益。衰退有三種類型。首先是所謂的“政策失誤”,即央行加息速度過快,幅度過大,導(dǎo)致經(jīng)濟(jì)崩盤。盡管這種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)依然存在,但最糟糕的時期顯然已經(jīng)過去。其次,當(dāng)銀行體系陷入危機(jī),信貸停止流向經(jīng)濟(jì)時,就會出現(xiàn)金融衰退。今年春天硅谷銀行(Silicon Valley Bank)的倒閉有力地提醒了我們,金融體系蘊(yùn)藏著無數(shù)不透明的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),但這也提醒我們,強(qiáng)有力的政策能夠取得什么樣的效果。
這就剩下了第三種類型的衰退——沖擊或?qū)嶓w投資泡沫破裂導(dǎo)致周期結(jié)束。由于經(jīng)濟(jì)增長緩慢,2024年當(dāng)然不能排除這種可能性,但沒有理由將其作為基本情況。在2024年,我們將更看好經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展前景。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
菲利普·卡爾松-斯萊扎克(Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak)是波士頓咨詢公司(BCG)紐約辦事處的董事總經(jīng)理兼合伙人,也是該公司的全球首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家。保羅·斯沃茨(Paul Swartz)是位于紐約的波士頓咨詢公司亨德森研究所(BCG Henderson Institute)的董事兼高級經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家。
譯者:中慧言-王芳
對于塑造公眾對美國經(jīng)濟(jì)看法的悲觀主義者來說,2023年的經(jīng)濟(jì)走勢并不友好。盡管人們一致預(yù)測經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退“不可避免”,但美國經(jīng)濟(jì)的韌性使得經(jīng)濟(jì)增長預(yù)測在臨近年底時被不斷上調(diào),上調(diào)幅度達(dá)到了驚人的2個百分點(diǎn)。同樣,他們的看法也極其悲觀,一致認(rèn)為美國經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退的可能性在今年的大部分時間都保持在65%的水平,但隨著勞動力市場不斷升溫,美國經(jīng)濟(jì)從未接近于衰退。
如今,值得注意的是,那些押注美國經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退的悲觀人士在2024年加倍下注。他們一致預(yù)測經(jīng)濟(jì)增長率將維持在1.2%(經(jīng)濟(jì)低迷,低于一年前的水平),經(jīng)濟(jì)陷入衰退的可能性為50%。
這是無可救藥的悲觀主義嗎?或者說,2023年的超預(yù)期表現(xiàn)并非基于基本面優(yōu)勢,而是拉動需求帶來的僥幸事件——衰退推遲了,而不是避免了——這種觀點(diǎn)是否有道理?
我們認(rèn)為悲觀情緒過甚,有理由堅(jiān)持一年多來所持的更為樂觀的立場。是的,明年的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長將是溫和的,而且伴隨著脆弱性和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。但否認(rèn)2023年的基本面優(yōu)勢能夠持續(xù)下去,并無視通脹的大幅放緩(通脹本身曾一度被視為結(jié)構(gòu)性失控問題),在我們看來是一種頑固的悲觀主義。悲觀的經(jīng)濟(jì)預(yù)測符合經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的傳統(tǒng),但我們應(yīng)該提醒自己,每一次真正的危機(jī)背后,都有許多虛假警報(bào)。
對“軟著陸”的反常否認(rèn)
盡管經(jīng)濟(jì)強(qiáng)勁,但人們?nèi)匀徊辉赋姓J(rèn)美國經(jīng)濟(jì)會實(shí)現(xiàn)軟著陸。今年早些時候,有人斷然否定了通脹率會下降、勞動力市場會在美聯(lián)儲一系列激進(jìn)加息措施的影響下得到緩解的觀點(diǎn)。拉里·薩默斯等持懷疑態(tài)度的人說,失業(yè)率保持在6%的情況下需要5年時間才能降低通脹,因此美國經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)現(xiàn)軟著陸與理論和經(jīng)驗(yàn)“相?!?。
事實(shí)上,美國經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)現(xiàn)軟著陸已有一年半的時間了。通脹率下降了6個百分點(diǎn),由于雇主填補(bǔ)職位空缺和刪除招聘信息,導(dǎo)致職位空缺減少了330萬,勞動力市場明顯降溫。從歷史上看,職位空缺的大幅減少意味著失業(yè)率的大幅上升,這也是那些預(yù)測經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退的人的主要論據(jù)。然而,失業(yè)率一直保持在幾十年來的低點(diǎn)附近。
這并不意味著軟著陸會持續(xù)下去——但它實(shí)際上是可以持續(xù)下去的。悲觀主義者喜歡把矛頭指向利率水平,認(rèn)為高利率帶來的影響正在顯現(xiàn),通脹將被證明是頑固的。這都是有可能的——但我們應(yīng)該認(rèn)識到,2023年面臨的挑戰(zhàn)比2024年預(yù)期面臨的挑戰(zhàn)更為嚴(yán)峻。整個2023年,通脹率要高得多,政策利率持續(xù)大幅走高。相比之下,2024年的通脹率可能會接近2%的政策目標(biāo),并最終實(shí)現(xiàn)降息。
這看起來更像是軟著陸的第三階段,而不是揮之不去的軟著陸是否會到來的問題。將軟著陸定義為經(jīng)濟(jì)的永久擴(kuò)張是在轉(zhuǎn)移目標(biāo)。當(dāng)然,總會有“下一次衰退”。但事實(shí)仍然是,美國經(jīng)濟(jì)已經(jīng)度過了軟著陸的第一階段(利率快速上升),并有望度過第二階段(利率受到限制期)。第三階段的成功意味著,利率正?;?,趨向中性水平,從而實(shí)現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)持續(xù)增長。這遠(yuǎn)非不可能。
韌性“耗盡”?
面對消費(fèi)者今年表現(xiàn)出的非凡韌性,許多末日論者將其歸因于疫情期間積累的過剩儲蓄,而這些儲蓄將不可避免地耗盡。按照這種說法,占美國國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值約70%的消費(fèi)者支出將在2023年逼近懸崖邊緣。但消費(fèi)者支出下降從未出現(xiàn)過,悲觀主義者已經(jīng)悄然將“懸崖邊緣”移到了2024年。
但是,將韌性視為一種可耗盡的儲備存在嚴(yán)重缺陷。它還與再生流動有關(guān)。家庭儲蓄并不像一個塞滿現(xiàn)金的鞋盒,會被花光。就此而言,(總)儲蓄率必須為負(fù)值。如今,盡管儲蓄率可能很低,但它仍是正值,達(dá)到了3.8%。
儲蓄率低有充分的理由:家庭財(cái)富接近歷史最高水平。財(cái)富越多,家庭儲蓄越少(反之亦然)。相對于異常強(qiáng)勁的財(cái)富水平,如今的儲蓄率并不罕見。當(dāng)然,總量數(shù)據(jù)掩蓋了個人超額儲蓄的分布情況,因此,我們有理由認(rèn)為儲蓄的逐漸消失會導(dǎo)致經(jīng)濟(jì)增長放緩,但將其視為突然中止則不太合理。
因此,風(fēng)險(xiǎn)并不在于消費(fèi)者會因?yàn)閯佑脙π疃w耗盡資金。相反,風(fēng)險(xiǎn)在于他們開始增加儲蓄,從而減少支出。然而,我們發(fā)現(xiàn)很難相信,家庭自主緊縮有一個具體的時間表,而且緊縮強(qiáng)度大到導(dǎo)致2024年出現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退。請牢記勞動力市場的強(qiáng)勁勢頭:就業(yè)人數(shù)仍在增長,總薪酬也在增長。
至關(guān)重要的是,2024年還將出現(xiàn)越來越多的韌性來源。目前,通貨膨脹率低于工資增長,從而帶來了實(shí)際工資增長(勞動力市場緊縮也往往使勞動力市場中的低收入階層受益最大)。這種影響可能會超過釋放過剩儲蓄帶來的阻力。是的,存量很重要,但資金流也很重要。2023年伊始,實(shí)際工資在下降(通脹高于工資增長),但超常水平的招聘抵消了這一影響(新發(fā)工資)。到2024年,招聘將更加溫和,但實(shí)際工資增長將更加重要。
軟著陸的硬傷
盡管經(jīng)濟(jì)具有韌性,但軟著陸也有硬傷。經(jīng)濟(jì)的許多領(lǐng)域都受到了傷害。這并不一定是矛盾的:總體和組成部分并不一定是亦步亦趨的。事實(shí)上,近年來各組成部分之間的差異比有史以來任何一次經(jīng)濟(jì)擴(kuò)張都要大。
實(shí)物商品的消費(fèi)大幅放緩(盡管是與后疫情時期的超高峰值相比)。與此同時,約為商品消費(fèi)規(guī)模兩倍的服務(wù)業(yè)仍在增長,以恢復(fù)到疫情前的趨勢。這種多元化推動了整體的韌性——即使這與許多經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域的痛苦并存。
軟著陸也帶來了更多的硬傷。通脹率(綜合指標(biāo))下降的另一面意味著經(jīng)濟(jì)主體企業(yè)的定價(jià)能力減弱。通脹并不是結(jié)構(gòu)性的制度轉(zhuǎn)變,而是需求(過多)和供給(過少)的明顯錯配。所有企業(yè)都可以在不失去市場份額的情況下提高價(jià)格。但隨著供需正常化,定價(jià)能力逐漸減弱,這是因?yàn)槠髽I(yè)重新開始保護(hù)和爭奪市場份額。這也會影響到利潤率和利潤。利潤曾以兩位數(shù)強(qiáng)勁增長,因此利潤負(fù)增長也會(即使利潤水平處于歷史高位)讓人感覺是一種挫敗。
雖然這些硬傷在很大程度上已被消化,但其他一些硬傷卻更加頑固:較高的利率推高了家庭和企業(yè)的借貸成本,可能會繼續(xù)保持相對較高的水平。即使即將降息,2024年的利率也將遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于疫情前的水平。事實(shí)上,除非出現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退,否則利率仍將遠(yuǎn)高于近期的(人們認(rèn)為的)“中性”水平(約2.5%)。
這將繼續(xù)給一些家庭(想想抵押貸款利率超過7%)和企業(yè)帶來痛苦,企業(yè)的破產(chǎn)率正在上升。但我們不能草率地根據(jù)這些不利因素進(jìn)行推斷。請記住,加息的目的是減緩經(jīng)濟(jì)增長。經(jīng)濟(jì)活動減少才是關(guān)鍵。即使破產(chǎn)率上升也是一種預(yù)期結(jié)果:借貸成本提高將促使資源(包括勞動力)得到更好的配置。雖然美國的破產(chǎn)案例有所增加,但這仍是歷史最低水平,遠(yuǎn)未達(dá)到目前的困境水平。
下一次衰退總是在路上
悲觀主義者有一點(diǎn)是對的:經(jīng)濟(jì)會再次陷入衰退。在足夠長的時間內(nèi),這一預(yù)測終將實(shí)現(xiàn)。然而,2024年是否會出現(xiàn)衰退還遠(yuǎn)不確定,而且在我們看來,衰退的可能性比持續(xù)增長的可能性要小。
此外,考慮衰退的可能性不如考慮衰退的類型更有助益。衰退有三種類型。首先是所謂的“政策失誤”,即央行加息速度過快,幅度過大,導(dǎo)致經(jīng)濟(jì)崩盤。盡管這種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)依然存在,但最糟糕的時期顯然已經(jīng)過去。其次,當(dāng)銀行體系陷入危機(jī),信貸停止流向經(jīng)濟(jì)時,就會出現(xiàn)金融衰退。今年春天硅谷銀行(Silicon Valley Bank)的倒閉有力地提醒了我們,金融體系蘊(yùn)藏著無數(shù)不透明的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),但這也提醒我們,強(qiáng)有力的政策能夠取得什么樣的效果。
這就剩下了第三種類型的衰退——沖擊或?qū)嶓w投資泡沫破裂導(dǎo)致周期結(jié)束。由于經(jīng)濟(jì)增長緩慢,2024年當(dāng)然不能排除這種可能性,但沒有理由將其作為基本情況。在2024年,我們將更看好經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展前景。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
菲利普·卡爾松-斯萊扎克(Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak)是波士頓咨詢公司(BCG)紐約辦事處的董事總經(jīng)理兼合伙人,也是該公司的全球首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家。保羅·斯沃茨(Paul Swartz)是位于紐約的波士頓咨詢公司亨德森研究所(BCG Henderson Institute)的董事兼高級經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家。
譯者:中慧言-王芳
2023 has not been kind to the pessimists who shape the public’s perception of the U.S. economy. Despite a widely predicted “inevitable” recession, the resilient U.S. economy forced growth forecast to be revised higher and higher by a staggering 2 percentage points as the year nears its end. Similarly, consensus odds of a U.S. recession were far too negative, remaining at 65% for most of the year, but the economy never came close to one as the labor market went from strength to strength.
Now, remarkably, those who bet on pessimism are doubling down for 2024. Consensus growth forecast remains at a sluggish 1.2% (below where they were a year ago) and recession odds are seen at 50%.
Is this a case of incorrigible pessimism? Or is there merit in the idea that 2023’s outperformance was not grounded in fundamental strengths but rather a lucky fluke of demand pulled forward–a recession delayed, not averted?
We think there is too much pessimism, and we see reason to double down on our own far more optimistic stance we’ve held for over a year. Yes, growth next year will be modest and that comes with vulnerabilities and risks. But to deny that the fundamental strengths of 2023 can persist, and to look past the significant easing of inflation (itself once cast as a structural runaway problem), strikes us as recalcitrant pessimism. Dour economic predictions are in keeping with the discipline’s tradition, but we should remind ourselves that for every true crisis, there are many false alarms.
The curious denial of the ‘soft landing’
Despite the economy’s strength, there remains a reluctance to recognize a soft landing. The idea that inflation could fall and the labor market ease graciously in the face of the Fed’s blistering series of rate hikes was flatly dismissed earlier this year. Skeptics such as Larry Summers said it would take 5 years of 6% unemployment to bring inflation down, and that a soft landing was “at odds” with theory and empirics.
In fact, we are over a year and a half into a soft landing. Inflation has fallen 6 percentage points, the labor market has cooled significantly as seen in 3.3 million fewer job openings as employers filled roles and removed job postings. Historically, a significant decline in job openings has meant a significant rise in the unemployment rate–a key argument of those predicting a recession. However, the unemployment rate has remained near its multi-decade low.
That doesn’t mean the soft landing will persist–but it can. Pessimists like to point to the level of interest rates, that their bite is waiting to take hold, and that inflation will prove stubborn. That’s all possible–but it should be recognized that the challenges of 2023 were more significant than the challenges expected in 2024. Inflation was far higher and policy rates continued to move sharply higher throughout 2023. In contrast, 2024 looks likely to deliver inflation closer to the policy target of 2% and, eventually, enable rate cuts.
That looks more like the third stage of a soft landing than the lingering question if there will be one. Framing a soft landing as a perpetual expansion is moving the goalposts. Of course, there will always be a “next recession.” But the fact remains that the economy has survived stage 1 of the soft landing (rapidly rising rates) and looks set to survive stage 2 (a period when rates are restrictive). The successful completion of a third stage is about continued growth as interest rates normalize towards neutral levels. That is far from impossible.
‘Running out’ of resilience?
Faced with consumers’ remarkable resilience this year, many doomsayers ascribed it to excess savings, amassed during the pandemic, that would inevitably run out. In this telling, consumer spending, which represents around 70% of U.S. GDP, was approaching the cliff edge in 2023. But the fall never happened–and the pessimists have quietly moved the cliff edge into 2024.
But thinking of resilience as a depletable stock has serious flaws. It is also about regenerative flows. Household savings are not like a shoebox stuffed with cash that is being spent down. For that, the (aggregate) savings rate would have to be negative. Today, while the savings rate may be low, it is positive at 3.8%.
And there is a good reason for the savings rate to be low: household wealth is near record highs. When wealth is high, households save less (and vice versa). The savings rate today is not unusual relative to these extraordinarily strong wealth levels. Of course, the aggregates hide the distribution of individual excess savings and it is reasonable to expect their gradual disappearance to be slowing growth–but it is less reasonable to see it as a sudden stop.
The risk, then, is not that consumers would collectively run out of money because they were dissaving. Rather, the risk is that they start saving more and therefore spending less. Yet, we find it hard to believe that self-directed household austerity will occur on a timeline and with an intensity that spells a 2024 recession. Remember the strength of the labor market: employment is still growing and so is total compensation.
Critically, 2024 will also see growing sources of resilience. Inflation is now lower than wage growth, delivering real wage growth (tight labor markets also tend to benefit the lower-income segments of the labor market most). This effect can outweigh the drag from unwinding excess savings. Yes, stocks matter, but so do flows. As 2023 began, real wages were falling (inflation was higher than wage growth) but extraordinary levels of hiring offset that (new paychecks). In 2024, hiring will be more modest, but rising real wage growth will matter more.
The hard edges of the soft landing
Resilience notwithstanding, the soft landing comes with hard edges. Many parts of the economy have been hurting. This need not be contradictory: The aggregate and the components don’t have to agree. In fact, in recent years the components have been more divergent than in any expansion on record.
The consumption of physical goods has seen a significant slowdown (albeit measured against the exalted peaks of the post-pandemic overshoot). Meanwhile, services, which are roughly twice the size of goods consumption, are still growing their way back to their pre-pandemic trend. That diversification has driven aggregate resilience–even if that coexists with pain in many parts of the economy.
And the soft landing comes with additional hard edges. The flipside of declining inflation (an aggregate measure) means waning pricing power for the firms making up the economy. Inflation wasn’t a structural regime shift–it was a brutal mismatch of (too much) demand and (too little) supply. All firms could raise prices without losing market share. But as demand and supply normalized, pricing power waned because firms returned to protecting and fighting for market share. That also feeds through to margins and profits. Profits had grown by strong double digits, so negative profit growth (even if the level of profit was historically strong) feels like a failure.
While these hard edges are largely being digested, others are more persistent: Higher interest rates that have pushed up borrowing costs for households and firms are likely to stay relatively high. Even with rate cuts on the horizon, interest rates will be far higher in 2024 than we were used to before the pandemic. In fact, barring a recession, they will remain far above recent perceptions of “neutral” (around 2.5%).
That will continue to drive pain for some households (think mortgage rates above 7%) and for firms, where bankruptcies are on the rise. But we must not extrapolate carelessly from these headwinds. Remember, the purpose of rising rates was to slow down the economy. Less activity is the point. Even higher bankruptcies are an intended outcome: more expensive capital will nudge toward better allocation of resources (including labor). And though bankruptcies in the U.S. are up, they are so from record-low levels and nowhere near distress levels today.
The next recession is always on its way
The pessimists are right in one way: There will be another recession. Over a long enough period, that prediction will eventually be fulfilled. Yet whether it arrives in 2024 is far from certain, and in our view, less likely than continued growth.
Additionally, thinking of the odds of a recession is less helpful than thinking of its type. Recessions come in three flavors. First, the so-called “policy error” where central banks push up rates too fast too far and the economy cracks. And while that risk remains, the worst is clearly behind us. Second, financial recessions occur when the banking system is in crisis and credit stops flowing to the economy. The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank last spring was a powerful reminder of the myriad and opaque risks the financial system harbors–but it was also a reminder of what forceful policy can achieve.
That leaves the third type of recession–when shocks or bursting real investment bubbles end the cycle. With growth slow, this certainly can’t be ruled out in 2024, but there is little reason to make it the base case. We are doubling down on economic optimism in 2024.
Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak is a managing director and partner in BCG’s New York office and the firm’s global chief economist. Paul Swartz is a director and senior economist at the BCG Henderson Institute in New York.