Connect with us

Business

Fed’s rate strategy stymied by stubborn housing cost inflation on November 8, 2023 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

on

The Federal Reserve is facing questions about its ability to tame one of the largest drivers of inflation: the cost of housing.

Housing costs, measured as both rental costs within the consumer price index (CPI) and as mortgage rates, are one of the most interest rate-sensitive sectors of the economy, generally getting more expensive as rates go up and cheaper as rates go down.

But with the Fed now expected to keep rates higher for longer, a reprieve in shelter costs, which constitute a major portion of monthly expenditures for U.S. households, could still be a ways away.

Consumers remain hobbled by housing costs

Americans spend about 30 percent of their income on rent, according to research from Moody’s Analytics published over the summer, a record threshold initially reached last year.

Advertisement

Moody’s has described Americans as “rent-burdened,” arguing in April that “rent-to-income levels remain uncomfortably high.” In 2021, 20 million households that pay rent met the 30-percent income threshold and were “cost burdened,” according to the Census Bureau, an increase of about 1 million households since 2019.

“If you look at the consumer price index, the big contributor to high inflation is the shelter, both rents and owner-occupied rents,” Claudia Sahm, founder of Sahm Consulting and a former Federal Reserve economist, told The Hill.

“The increases in shelter costs have absolutely slowed down in the past six to eight months, but they take time to work their way through. … Frankly, we’ve gotten surprised at how long it’s taken and how bumpy it’s been.”

Fed faces pressure to cool down housing market

Inflation has been coming down over the past year as the Fed has been raising rates, falling to an annual rate of 3.7 percent in September from a high of 9.1 percent in June of last year.

Advertisement

But annual housing inflation is still around 7 percent and accounts for the vast majority of all the inflation left in the economy.

The CPI’s shelter index accounted for more than 70 percent of the total increase in all items less food and energy, the Labor Department reported earlier this month.

“The Fed needs to study the housing market at this moment very carefully, because it’s at the point where it really starts to have an effect,” Sahm said. “[Fed Chair Jerome Powell] pointed to the housing market, because it’s clear that activity there is slowing down.”

While one of the fastest Fed tightening cycles on record has driven housing costs higher, an underlying shortage of affordable, multifamily housing has also dogged the housing market.

Advertisement

Realtor.com puts the shortage at between 2.3 and 6.5 million homes.

Can Powell tame property owners?

Tenants-rights activists say that focusing on the financial system or even the physical supply of housing is shortsighted and neglects the fact that landlords and property owners simply have too much power over tenants, allowing them to drive up prices at will.

“Federal housing policy is designed in a way that prioritizes the industry that profits from providing housing, rather than the people who need homes,” argued the Homes Guarantee advocacy group, which wants to see rent control limitations placed on all national housing subsidy programs.

The group also wants to see the Biden administration enact a national tenants bill of rights to protect against profiteering in the housing sector as a matter of public policy.

Advertisement

Powell said Wednesday that effects of housing costs on the economy were becoming “significant.”

“We’re getting reports from housing that the effects of this could be quite significant,” he said, noting that activity in the housing sector has flattened out and remains well below levels of a year ago.

Housing remains in the Fed’s sights

The Fed’s latest anecdotal survey of the U.S. economy is riddled with complaints about the affordability of housing.

“Housing affordability remained extremely low, and rents remained high in the current period. Requests for assistance with housing and utility bills continued to dominate 211 [hotline] requests in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Roughly one-third of all requests in the two states were related to housing,” the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported in the October “Beige Book,” the Fed’s monthly summary of regional economic conditions.

Advertisement

Rental and home ownership affordability as measured in September by the Department of Housing and Urban Development are both near 23-year lows, while month-to-month house prices were near 20-year highs.

“Rising rents and a shortage of affordable housing continued to impact low- and moderate-income households’ ability to secure housing. Moreover, some landlords stopped accepting housing choice vouchers in order to get higher rents in the open market,” the Cleveland Fed observed.

Despite elevated levels, shelter prices have been declining in recent months, with owners’ equivalent rent falling to 7.1 percent in September off a high of 8.1 percent in April.

The shelter component of the CPI also stands at 7.1 percent, off a March peak of 8.2 percent.

Advertisement

But that descent has been touch-and-go and has been a source of surprise for economists.

“It was clear this was coming, but last month forecasters were surprised; it didn’t come down as much as we’d expected. We don’t know exactly how the translation goes between new rents and the CPI,” Sahm said.

“We know the direction of this, but exactly when it happens is not clear, and shelter makes a bigger contribution to the CPI in general, so it’s not like this inflation is just going away.”

Thirty-year fixed-rate mortgages are near their highest levels in 23 years, at 7.86 percent.

Advertisement

“The impact of higher rates continued to be felt across both purchase and refinance markets. Purchase applications decreased to their lowest level since 1995 and refinance applications to the lowest level since January 2023,” Joel Kan, Mortgage Bankers Association vice president, wrote in a note Wednesday.

Economists sound the alarm on bond yields

Soaring bond yields, which are closely correlated with mortgage rates, especially for longer-term maturities, were also a concern for economists watching the outcome of the Fed’s meeting.

“Powell’s focus on persistent conditions, especially regarding the rise in Treasury yields and the near-8% mortgage rate, suggests that the Fed is closely monitoring the broader economic indicators,” Jon Maier, head of investments at financial firm Global X, wrote in an analysis.

Despite the high cost of housing, home ownership rates for moderate earners rose to some of their highest levels ever during the pandemic, boosted by trillions in stimulus sent out by both the Trump and Biden administrations.

Advertisement

In the first quarter, the homeownership rate for Americans earning less than the median family income of $74,580 hit 53.4 percent, a number surpassed in recent decades only during the second and third quarters of 2020, when the government was helicoptering emergency cash onto households during the pandemic, according to Census Bureau data.

Powell stressed Wednesday that Fed bankers had not yet made up their mind about future rate hikes or whether Fed policy was now sufficiently “restrictive.”

“We’re not confident at this time that we’ve reached such a stance. We’re not confident that we haven’t, but we’re not confident that we have,” Powell said.

​Business, Administration, News, Policy, Technology, bonds, federal reserve, Federal reserve rate hikes, housing market, Jerome Powell The Federal Reserve is facing questions about its ability to tame one of the largest drivers of inflation: the cost of housing. Housing costs, measured as both rental costs within the consumer price index (CPI) and as mortgage rates, are one of the most interest rate-sensitive sectors of the economy, generally getting more expensive as…  

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

Pros and Cons of the Big Beautiful Bill

Published

on

The “Big Beautiful Bill” (officially the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) is a sweeping tax and spending package passed in July 2025. It makes permanent many Trump-era tax cuts, introduces new tax breaks for working Americans, and enacts deep cuts to federal safety-net programs. The bill also increases spending on border security and defense, while rolling back clean energy incentives and tightening requirements for social programs.

Pros

1. Tax Relief for Middle and Working-Class Families

2. Support for Small Businesses and Economic Growth

  • Makes the small business deduction permanent, supporting Main Street businesses.
  • Expands expensing for investment in short-lived assets and domestic R&D, which is considered pro-growth.

3. Increased Spending on Security and Infrastructure

4. Simplification and Fairness in the Tax Code

  • Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and raises marginal rates on individuals earning over $400,000.
  • Closes various deductions and loopholes, especially those benefiting private equity and multinational corporations.

Cons

1. Deep Cuts to Social Safety Net Programs

  • Cuts Medicaid by approximately $930 billion and imposes new work requirements, which could leave millions without health insurance.
  • Tightens eligibility and work requirements for SNAP (food assistance), potentially removing benefits from many low-income families.
  • Rolls back student loan forgiveness and repeals Biden-era subsidies.

2. Increases the Federal Deficit

  • The bill is projected to add $3.3–4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years.
  • Critics argue that the combination of tax cuts and increased spending is fiscally irresponsible.

3. Benefits Skewed Toward the Wealthy

  • The largest income gains go to affluent Americans, with top earners seeing significant after-tax increases.
  • Critics describe the bill as the largest upward transfer of wealth in recent U.S. history.

4. Rollback of Clean Energy and Climate Incentives

5. Potential Harm to Healthcare and Rural Hospitals

6. Public and Political Backlash

  • The bill is unpopular in public polls and is seen as a political risk for its supporters.
  • Critics warn it will widen the gap between rich and poor and reverse progress on alternative energy and healthcare.

Summary Table

ProsCons
Permanent middle-class tax cutsDeep Medicaid and SNAP cuts
No tax on tips/overtime for most workersMillions may lose health insurance
Doubled Child Tax CreditAdds $3.3–4T to deficit
Small business supportBenefits skewed to wealthy
Increased border/defense spendingClean energy incentives eliminated
Simplifies some tax provisionsThreatens rural hospitals
Public backlash, political risk

In summary:
The Big Beautiful Bill delivers significant tax relief and new benefits for many working and middle-class Americans, but it does so at the cost of deep cuts to social programs, a higher federal deficit, and reduced support for clean energy and healthcare. The bill is highly polarizing, with supporters touting its pro-growth and pro-family provisions, while critics warn of increased inequality and harm to vulnerable populations.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump Threatens to ‘Take a Look’ at Deporting Elon Musk Amid Explosive Feud

Published

on

The escalating conflict between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk reached a new peak this week, as Trump publicly suggested he would consider deporting the billionaire entrepreneur in response to Musk’s fierce criticism of the president’s signature tax and spending bill.

FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO Elon Musk arrives on the red carpet for the automobile awards “Das Goldene Lenkrad” (The golden steering wheel) given by a German newspaper in Berlin, Germany, November 12, 2019. REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke/File Photo

“I don’t know, we’ll have to take a look,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday when asked directly if he would deport Musk, who was born in South Africa but has been a U.S. citizen since 2002.

This threat followed a late-night post on Trump’s Truth Social platform, where he accused Musk of being the largest recipient of government subsidies in U.S. history. Trump claimed that without these supports, Musk “would likely have to shut down operations and return to South Africa,” and that ending such subsidies would mean “no more rocket launches, satellites, or electric vehicle production, and our nation would save a FORTUNE”.

Trump also invoked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—a federal agency Musk previously led—as a potential tool to scrutinize Musk’s companies. “We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? The DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,” Trump remarked, further intensifying the feud.

Background to the Feud

The rupture comes after Musk’s repeated attacks on Trump’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill,” a comprehensive spending and tax reform proposal that Musk has labeled a “disgusting abomination” and a threat to the nation’s fiscal health. Musk, once a Trump ally who contributed heavily to his election campaign and served as a government advisor, has called for the formation of a new political party, claiming the bill exposes the need for an alternative to the current two-party system.

Advertisement

In response, Trump’s allies have amplified questions about Musk’s citizenship and immigration history, with some suggesting an investigation into his naturalization process. However, legal experts note that deporting a naturalized U.S. citizen like Musk would be extremely difficult. The only path would involve denaturalization—a rare and complex legal process requiring proof of intentional fraud during the citizenship application, a standard typically reserved for the most egregious cases.

Political Fallout

Musk’s criticism has rattled some Republican lawmakers, who fear the feud could undermine their party’s unity ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Meanwhile, Musk has doubled down on his opposition, warning he will support primary challengers against Republicans who back Trump’s bill.

Key Points:

As the dispute continues, it has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over government spending, corporate subsidies, and political loyalty at the highest levels of American power.

Continue Reading

Business

Diddy Faces Life Sentence as Jury Deliberates

Published

on

Sean “Diddy” Combs, the influential music mogul and entrepreneur, is facing the possibility of spending the rest of his life behind bars as a New York federal jury continues deliberations in his high-profile sex trafficking and racketeering trial.

After more than five hours of deliberation on Monday, the 12-member jury—composed of eight men and four women—had not reached a verdict and is set to resume discussions today. The panel is tasked with deciding whether prosecutors have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Combs orchestrated a criminal enterprise that trafficked women for sex and engaged in other serious crimes over a period spanning nearly two decades.

Prosecutors allege that Combs, 55, used his wealth, celebrity, and network of employees to coerce and intimidate two former romantic partners—singer Cassie Ventura and another woman identified as “Jane”—into participating in what were described as drug-fueled “freak offs,” involving commercial sex acts with male escorts while Combs watched or filmed. They further claim he maintained control through threats of violence, kidnapping, and arson, and that he used his business empire as a front for these illicit activities.

Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges, which include:

  • One count of racketeering conspiracy
  • Two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion
  • Two counts of transportation for the purpose of prostitution

If convicted of the most serious charges, Combs faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years and a maximum of life in prison. The racketeering charge alone could result in a life sentence if the jury finds he committed at least two of the eight underlying crimes alleged by prosecutors, including sex trafficking, kidnapping, bribery, and narcotics distribution.

The defense argues that the government is unfairly criminalizing Combs’ private sexual conduct, characterizing the events as consensual and part of a swinger lifestyle rather than criminal acts. Combs chose not to testify in his own defense, with his legal team focusing on cross-examining dozens of prosecution witnesses, including former employees who testified under immunity.

Deliberations have not been without drama. The jury sent a note to Judge Arun Subramanian expressing concern that one juror was struggling to follow instructions, prompting the judge to remind all members of their duty to deliberate fairly and according to the law. The panel also sought clarification on the legal standards surrounding narcotics distribution, a key element in the racketeering charge, which the judge is expected to address today.

As the world watches, Combs’ fate now rests in the hands of the jury. There is no set timeline for a verdict, and the deliberations could continue for several days. If acquitted, Combs would be released immediately; if convicted, he could face a life sentence, marking a dramatic fall for one of hip-hop’s most prominent figures.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending