As we close out the first half of the year, we know a couple of things. First, the U.S. economy is almost entirely reopened following the pandemic shutdown. Although we are not yet fully back, the healing process continues. The story for the rest of the year in the U.S. will be about managing the risks, staying open, and growing our economy. As we are largely past the pandemic, the challenge ahead will be keeping the progress going.

As with the rest of the world, the COVID-19 pandemic had a devastating effect on the European economy, not to mention the continued uncertainty regarding Brexit. The U.S. and China were among the first countries on the path to economic recovery, while Europe struggled to emerge from the lockdowns and had a rough start to its vaccination program.

Yesterday, we looked closely at how the labor market has changed over the past couple of decades. Briefly, the number of job openings kept growing with the economy, while the number of unemployed people stayed roughly constant. As a result, the number of jobs available per unemployed person hit new highs and the number of excess workers—available workers less the job openings—went into deficit. Before the pandemic, there were more job openings than workers to fill them, for the first time. Currently, although the pandemic changed things temporarily, the labor market is back to worker shortage. As we look ahead to the next decade, will this trend continue?

So, let’s get back to the labor market discussion we started last week. Today, I want to take a deeper look at the key assumptions we referenced the other day, specifically that there will end up being more workers than jobs. As we discussed then, this has been the case for decades. But, in recent years, that dynamic has been changing as employment rose to new highs and unemployment dropped to multi-decade lows.

With the ongoing improvement in the medical news, this will be the last of the regular coronavirus updates. I had hoped it would also be the end of the need to cover the pandemic as a separate topic. But with the potential rise of the delta variant of COVID and the possibility of new outbreaks, that may not be the case. I will be providing updates as needed in the future.

Today, I’ll take a break from focusing on the labor market to look at a related, but shorter-term issue—shocks versus trends. This topic has current relevance, as well as wider applicability, so it is worth thinking through.

At the start of 2020, I did a piece on inflation versus wage growth where I looked at a bunch of different indicators. The short version of that post is that, for working people, wage growth had generally been higher than inflation over the preceding five years or so.

One of the biggest questions for the economy right now is the job market. The headlines are doing a good job covering the immediate issues—labor shortages, wage increases, and so forth. But the more I look at it, there are a couple of implicit assumptions in how we view the job market that need more consideration. For example, much of the analysis has taken what is going on now as something that is happening without any warning and for no apparent reason. But is that really the case?

Last week, the FDA approved Biogen’s Alzheimer’s drug candidate, aducanumab (marketed as Aduhelm). This approval looks likely to be a watershed moment for the biotech industry. The shares of Biogen were halted for the announcement. And as anticipated, they popped once trading resumed.

Yesterday, the Fed concluded its regular meeting and came out with the following shocking news: it might start to raise rates in the next two and a half years, instead of the next three years. Markets dropped, interest rates rose, and headlines highlighted the shift in Fed thinking. What’s behind this apparent change in plans? Let’s start by taking a look at what didn’t happen.