Economics-Watching: Where Could Reshoring Manufacturers Find Workers?

[from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, 9 October, 2025]

by Stephan D. Whitaker, Senior Policy Economist

The United States has lost millions of manufacturing jobs in recent decades, but a variety of policies have been enacted to incentivize the creation of manufacturing jobs in America. This District Data Brief analyzes where manufacturers might find US workers to fill these roles.

Introduction

The announcement of new tariffs this year has reignited the discussion of whether the United States can expand its manufacturing employment by millions of workers. Reversing decades of manufacturing job losses is one explicit goal of the new higher tariffs. This District Data Brief presents measures of employment and demographics as context around the current and potential employment in US manufacturing. Raising manufacturing employment by 4 to 6 million workers would constitute a large increase relative to current levels. However, an increase of this scale would not be large relative to the global growth of manufacturing employment in recent decades, the current US labor force size, or the number of US adults not engaged in high-paying work.

With different priorities and approaches, policymakers have spent much of the past decade addressing issues related to the loss or absence of manufacturing in the United States. For example, America’s dependence on imported manufactured goods was highlighted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic as supply chain disruptions led to shortages of medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, microchips, and other products. The CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act featured tax breaks and subsidies to expand US manufacturing capacity for semiconductors, electric vehicles, and renewable energy equipment.

At the same time, economists have been documenting the loss of work opportunities and earning power by workers without college degrees as manufacturing employment has declined. In 2013, David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson published a study that estimated the labor market impacts resulting from increased trade competition following China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization, an effect often referred to as the “China shock.” Dozens of studies have since used the regional variation in job and income losses caused by the China shock to measure the adverse impacts of job displacement on family structures, crime, health, and other social indicators. Some supporters of industrial subsidies and higher tariffs have expressed the hope that these dynamics can be put into reverse.

Read the full article [archived PDF].

Economics-Watching: Estimating the Effects of Monetary Policy: An Ongoing Evolution

New monetary policy tools have lengthened the interval over which policy news is transmitted and processed.

[from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 2 October 2025]

by Karlye Dilts Stedman, Amaze Lusompa & Phillip An

Disentangling how the economy responds to a monetary policy decision from its response to macroeconomic conditions at the time of the decision is an ongoing challenge. One popular method researchers use to measure the effect of a monetary policy announcement—high-frequency identification—analyzes the reaction of fast-moving financial variables immediately following the policy announcement, using a time window long enough for markets to respond but not so long that the response is contaminated by other information.

Since high-frequency identification was introduced in the early 2000s, policymakers have introduced tools such as forward guidance and large-scale asset purchases. Karlye Dilts Stedman, Amaze Lusompa, and Phillip An examine how the evolution of monetary policy has changed high-frequency identification and assess whether additional changes might be necessary to better capture the effect of modern monetary policy surprises. Although researchers have continually updated the asset mix used in high-frequency identification over time, they have not updated the measurement window. Because the timing of monetary policy communication has changed significantly in recent years, refining the length of this measurement window may be necessary going forward.

Read the full article [archived PDF].

Economics-Watching: Tracking the Economy in Real‑Time Through Regional Business Surveys

[from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s The Teller Window, 23 September 2025]

by Richard Deitz and Kartik Athreya

Federal Reserve policymakers need current information about economic conditions to make well-informed monetary policy decisions. But hard data, such as GDP and the unemployment rate, is released with a significant lag, making it difficult to get a precise, real-time read on the economy, especially during times of rapid change.

To help fill the gap, the New York Fed conducts two monthly regional business surveys: the Empire State Manufacturing Survey of manufacturers in New York state and the Business Leaders Survey, which covers service sector firms in New York state, northern New Jersey, and Fairfield County, Conn. These surveys provide timely soft data, available well before hard data is released.

Hard data is based on precise quantitative measurements, such as sales figures or the specific prices firms are charging. By contrast, soft data is qualitative, focusing on trends, expectations, and sentiment around economic activity. And while hard data looks backward, soft data from the regional surveys can look forward—providing important information about expectations for the future and emerging trends.

Gathering soft data quickly can be impactful—for example, the Empire State Manufacturing and Business Leaders surveys signaled a sharp downturn in economic activity in early March 2020 [archived PDF], providing a warning weeks before official statistics captured the full extent of the COVID pandemic’s economic impact.  

How the Surveys Work

The New York Fed launched the Empire State Manufacturing Survey in 2001. It was modeled after the Philadelphia Fed’s Business Outlook Survey, a long-running manufacturing survey that has historically been watched by financial markets and policymakers as an early signal about national manufacturing conditions. The Business Leaders Survey was launched later in 2004 and was among the first regional business surveys to target the service sector.

The surveys are sent to over 300 business executives and managers at firms across industries during the first week of every month. While about two-thirds of participating firms have 100 or fewer employees, some have hundreds or thousands of workers.

Leaders at the firms fill out a short questionnaire asking if business activity has increased, decreased, or stayed the same compared to the prior month. The surveys ask about indicators such as prices–yielding insights into inflationary pressures–as well as employment, orders, and capital spending. Respondents answer questions about how they expect these indicators to change over the next six months, offering a forward-looking perspective on the economy’s trajectory.

From the responses, New York Fed researchers construct diffusion indexes by calculating the difference between the percentage of firms reporting increased activity and those reporting decreased activity. Positive values indicate that more firms say activity increased than decreased, suggesting activity expanded over the month. Higher positive values indicate stronger growth, while lower negative values indicate stronger declines.

The surveys include local businesses, like restaurants and car dealerships, as well as firms with national and global reach, such as software manufacturers and shipping enterprises. As a result, the economic indicators derived from the surveys are often early predictors of national economic patterns, frequently aligning with hard data released later.

Getting Answers on Current Issues

The surveys regularly ask supplemental questions about current economic issues to get real-time answers. Over the last few years, the surveys have asked about firms’ experience with tariffsinflation expectations, if the use of AI is leading to a reduction in employment, how often employees work from home [archived PDF], and whether supply availability was affecting their businesses.

Going Beyond the Indicators

In addition to providing data to track economic conditions, the regional surveys also provide a channel to hear directly from local business leaders. Every month, survey respondents are asked for their comments, offering the opportunity for businesses to share their thoughts, concerns, and experiences with the New York Fed. This helps researchers and policymakers understand how businesses are being affected by economic conditions.

The surveys act as one of the bridges between the New York Fed and the business community, ensuring the voices of regional businesses are considered in economic assessments and policy discussions as well as enhancing the ability of policymakers to make informed decisions to respond effectively to economic challenges.

Executives, owners, or managers of businesses in New York, northern New Jersey, or Fairfield County, Conn., interested in participating in the New York Fed’s monthly business surveys can find more information here. The next survey results will be released on Oct. 15 and 16.

Economics-Watching: SF FedViews: September 4, 2025

[from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco]

Andrew Foerster, senior research advisor at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, shared views on the current economy and the outlook from the Economic Research Department as of September 4, 2025.

While economic activity in the United States has remained resilient, recent data show some softening in the labor market. Swings in net exports affected GDP in the first half of 2025, with imports surging in the first quarter followed by imports declining in the second quarter. Inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% goal, and a near-term rise from tariffs appears likely. Job gains in recent months have slowed. Downward revisions for recent job growth estimates have been large, but the magnitudes of these revisions are not out of line with historical values. Job growth estimates remain reliable despite data collection challenges. With the balance of risks surrounding the Fed’s dual mandate now shifting, market participants are projecting an easing of monetary policy in coming months.

Read the full article [archived PDF].

Economic-Watching: Fourth District Beige Book

[from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, 3 September 2025]

Summary of Economic Activity

Fourth District contacts reported a slight increase in overall business activity in recent weeks and expected activity to rise modestly in the months ahead. Consumer spending was flat, with retailers noting continued affordability concerns among consumers. Manufacturers also reported flat demand for goods, citing trade policy uncertainty as the main driver. Demand for professional and business services grew moderately, albeit at a slower pace than in the past three reporting periods. Contacts generally reported flat employment levels and modest wage pressures. Nonlabor cost pressures remained robust, and selling prices continued to grow modestly.

Read the full report [archived PDF].

Economics-Watching: Neutral Interest Rates and the Monetary Policy Stance

[from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, 2 September 2025]

by Taylor Horn & Saeed Zaman

The neutral interest rate (r-star) is an important input in monetary policy discussions and is commonly used to assess the stance of monetary policy. This Economic Commentary presents estimates of the neutral interest rate from a recently developed model and provides a high-level description of this new model. With data through 2025:Q2, the model estimates the implied (medium-run) nominal neutral interest rate to be 3.7 percent, with a 68 percent coverage band ranging from 2.9 percent to 4.5 percent. Given that the effective nominal federal funds rate is currently in the range of 4.25 percent to 4.5 percent, this model estimates with a high level of certainty (77 percent probability) that the policy stance is in restrictive territory.

Read the full article [archived PDF].

Economics-Watching: Will Tariffs Touch Off an Inflationary Impulse? Business Execs Think So.

[from Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 21 August 2025]

Summary

Following the inflationary surge from 2021 to 2023, which was touched off by supply chain constraints and shipping bottlenecks, we evaluate a new panel of own-firm price and unit cost growth expectations in the Atlanta Fed’s Survey of Business Uncertainty for signs that the anticipated impact from tariffs is broadening beyond directly affected firms. We find evidence for the potential of tariffs to touch off another bout of high inflation. First, firms that are directly exposed to tariffs have increased their year-ahead price growth expectations sharply (by 0.7 percentage points). Second, firms that are not directly exposed to tariffs but are operating in industries that are highly exposed to tariffs anticipate a moderately higher trajectory for year-ahead price growth (0.3 percentage points). Third, this broadening of overall price pressures—a key feature of the pandemic-era inflationary impulse—is only partially offset by lower price increases from tariff-exposed firms that are operating largely in industries not exposed to tariffs.

Key Findings

  1. Firms, en masse, have increased their year-ahead price growth expectations since the end of 2024. This is especially true for firms directly exposed to tariffs.
  2. We find evidence of a broadening out of the influence of tariffs beyond those directly exposed. Unexposed firms in exposed industries anticipate a moderately higher trajectory of year-ahead price growth.
  3. The broadening of anticipated price growth is only partially offset by lower price growth expectations among tariff-exposed firms that are operating in largely unexposed industries.

Read the full article [archived PDF]

Economics-Watching: Drewry Container Shipping Financial Insight, August 2025

[from Drewry Shipping Consultants, 22 August 2025]

Container shipping companies have reported mixed 2Q25 results. Read the article [archived PDF] for key takeaways from 2Q25 results and other key developments shaping the container shipping sector.

About Drewry Maritime Financial Research

Drewry Maritime Financial Research (DMFR), is the marketing name of Drewry Financial Research Services Ltd. DMFR, is an independent equity research service focused on the maritime industry. DMFR’s parent organisation, Drewry Shipping Consultants Holdings Limited was established more than 50 years ago and is now widely regarded as one of the leading independent sources of global industry analysis and insight. This in-depth industry knowledge is fully applied in our analysis of quoted maritime companies.

Economics-Watching: BIS Alerts for 18 August 2025

[from the Bank for International Settlements]

An Approach to Anti-Money Laundering Compliance for Cryptoassets

BIS Bulletin № 111 (13 August 2025)

by Iñaki Aldasoro, Jon Frost, Sang Hyuk Lim, Fernando Perez-Cruz & Hyun Song Shin

Key takeaways
  • Existing anti-money laundering (AML) approaches relying on trusted intermediaries have limited effectiveness with decentralized record-keeping in permissionless public blockchains.
  • The public transaction history on blockchains can enable AML and other compliance efforts, such as FX regulations, by leveraging the provenance and history of any particular unit or balance of a cryptoasset, including stablecoins.
  • An AML compliance score based on the likelihood that a particular cryptoasset unit or balance is linked with illicit activity may be referenced at points of contact with the banking system (“off-ramps”), preventing inflows of the proceeds of illicit activity and supporting a culture of “duty of care” among crypto market participants.

Read the full article [archived PDF]

Macroeconomic Impact of Tariffs and Policy Uncertainty

BIS Bulletin № 110 (12 August 2025)

by Emanuel Kohlscheen, Phurichai Rungcharoenkitkul, Dora Xia & Fabrizio Zampolli

Key takeaways
  • Tariffs affect economies most directly through trade volume and prices. Tariffs lower output growth everywhere, though the magnitude varies by country and scenario. They also tend to raise inflation, most notably in the imposing countries.
  • Tariffs have indirect effects, including exchange rate shifts, supply chain disruptions, trade diversion and heightened uncertainty. These could worsen growth and inflation effects as well as the policy trade-offs central banks face.
  • If it proves persistent, trade policy uncertainty could depress domestic demand and put global growth at risk.

Read the full article [archived PDF]

Economics-Watching: Why Businesses Say Tariffs Have a Delayed Effect on Inflation

[from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 8 August, 2025]

by R. Andrew BauerRenee Haltom and Matthew Martin

Regional Matters

Ever since new tariffs were enacted in early 2025, a key policy question has been what is the extent to which businesses will pass tariff costs through to prices, and when? The effects of a tariff are rarely straightforward, given, among other things, competitive dynamics and the challenges of implementation, but the historically large and changing nature of these tariffs have created additional levels of uncertainty over the effects.

In uncertain times, anecdotal evidence from businesses can be especially insightful. We are learning how businesses are reacting to tariffs through the Richmond Fed’s business surveys as well as through hundreds of one-on-one conversations with Fifth District businesses since the start of 2025.

These conversations showcase that navigating tariffs is a complex and sometimes protracted process for firms, particularly when there is uncertainty. Firms describe several reasons they may not have experienced the full impact of proposed tariffs yet (even when goods and countries they deal with are subject to them), as well as reasons that even when they have incurred tariff-related cost increases, there can be a delayed impact on pricing decisions.

Reasons Firms May Not Have Incurred Tariffs Yet

Business contacts describe several strategies or circumstances that can delay or reduce the tariffs on inputs or other imported items. These include the following:

As our monthly business surveys have found, many firms report deploying more than one strategy to delay tariffs. Notably, many of these delays are only temporary.

Reasons Tariffs May Have a Delayed Impact on Prices

Even when firms have incurred tariffs, they give several reasons why tariffs may not be immediately reflected in the prices they charge for their products. These include the following:

  • Waiting for tariff policy to clarify. Higher prices could reduce demand for goods and services and/or lead firms to lose market share, so many firms said they are hesitant to increase prices until they’re sure tariffs will remain in place. For example, a large national retailer said if tariffs are finalized at a sufficiently low level, they’ll absorb what they’ve incurred to date, but if high tariffs stick, they’ll have to raise prices. A steel fabricator for industrial equipment described being reluctant to raise prices on the 10 percent cost increases they’d seen thus far but would have to raise prices should the increases reach 12 to 13 percent. A grocery store chain was reluctant to raise prices and instead might reduce margins, which had recovered in recent years, to maintain their customer base. Some firms explicitly noted a strategy to both raise prices over time and pursue efficiency gains to cut costs and completely restore margins within a year or two.
  • Elasticity testing. Firms reported testing across goods whether consumers will accept price increases. A furniture manufacturer said he’s seen competitors pass along just 5 percentage points of the tariffs at a time so it isn’t such a huge shock to customers, though in that sector, “We all end in the same place which is the customer bearing most of it.” A national retailer said most firms are doing a version of stair-stepping tariffs through, e.g., raising prices a small amount once or twice to see if consumer demand holds, and if so, trying again two months later. This retailer said prices were going up very marginally in early summer, would increase more in July and August, and would be up by 3 to 5 percent by the end of Q4 and into 2026. Another national retailer said they would start testing the extent to which demand falls with price increases, e.g., when the first items that were subject to tariffs—in this case back to school items—hit shelves in late July.
  • Blind margin. Some firms reported attempting to pass through cost in less noticeable ways. While any price increase to consumers will be captured in measures of aggregate inflation, the fact that price increases may occur on non-tariffed goods might make it difficult to directly relate price increases to tariffs. An outdoor goods retailer said, “Unless it’s a branded item where everyone knows the price, if something goes for $18, it can also go for $19.” A national retailer plans to print new shelf labels with updated pricing, which will be less noticeable for consumers compared to multiple new price stickers layered on top. This takes time (akin to a textbook “menu cost” in economics), so it will not be reflected in prices until July and August. A grocery store said their goal was to increase average prices across the store but focus on less visible prices.
  • Selling out of preexisting inventory: Many firms noted they still have production inventory from before tariffs were announced, so they do not need to raise prices as long as they still sell these lower cost goods. A national retailer noted they have at least 25 weeks of inventory on hand for most imported products. A firm that produces grocery items said they will decide how much to raise prices as they get closer to selling tariff-affected products. Similarly, retailers order seasonal items quarters in advance. Many were receiving items for fall and winter when the new tariffs were going into effect in the spring. They paid the tariff then, but we won’t see the price increase until those items hit the shelves in the fall or winter. One retailer speculated that seasonal décor items will look the most like a one-time increase.
  • Pre-established prices. Many firms face infrequent pricing due to factors like annual contracts or pre-sales. For example, a dealer of farm equipment gets half its sales through incentivized pre-sales to lock in demand and smooth around crop cycles. They noted that while it would be difficult to retroactively ask those customers to pay for part of the tariff, they will pass tariffs directly through on spare parts. A steel fabricator for industrial equipment has a contract for steel through Q3, so they haven’t been impacted yet by price increases. However, they will face new costs once that contract expires.

In general, compared to small firms, large firms have more ability to negotiate with vendors, temporarily absorb costs, burn cash, wait for strategic opportunity, and test things out. This matters because large firms often lead pricing behavior among firms, so these strategic choices may influence the response of inflation to tariffs more generally. Even within firm size, one often hears that negotiations on price vary considerably by relationship and item.

Conclusion

A key question surrounding tariffs is whether any effects on inflation will resemble a short-lived price increase—as in the simplest textbook model of tariffs—or a more sustained increase to inflation that may warrant tighter Fed monetary policy. When asked in May what will determine the answer, Fed Chair Jerome Powell cited three factors [archived PDF]: 1) the size of the tariff effects; 2) how long it takes to work their way through to prices; and 3) whether inflation expectations remain anchored. The insights shared above suggest the process from proposed tariffs to the prices set by firms is far from instantaneous or clear-cut, particularly when tariff policy is changing.

Sensing from businesses suggests that the impact of tariffs on their price-setting [archived PDF] has been lagged, but it is starting to play out. Nonetheless, it remains highly uncertain how tariffs will impact consumer inflation. The discussion above makes clear that firms are nimble and innovative in the face of challenge, and they are concerned about losing customers in the current environment, particularly consumer-facing firms. We will continue to learn from our business contacts and share their insights.


Views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond or the Federal Reserve System.