Google Analytics

Sunday, 22 September 2024

Inflation

The minute Starmer gets in to power, prices go up. Just what you would expect. The Conservatives were getting inflation under control and it was coming down, but as soon as Labour gets in, it goes up again. And we have not seen the effects of the public pay rises yet. Did people realise what they were voting for? 

This is what I hear Conservative supporters saying. But is it really true that prices have risen since Labour was elected, and were going down until? 

On the face of it, yes. The monthly inflation figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that inflation rose to 2.2% in July 2024, up from 2% the month before, and remained at 2.2% in August. That was much lower than a year earlier when it was 6.8%. 

I do not find the percentage rate all that meaningful on its own. If a bag of oranges went up to £2.10 from £2 the previous month, most of us would say they had gone up by 10p, not that they had gone up by 5%. If that continued with 10p increases each month for a year, so that oranges were then £3.20, few would say they had gone up 60%, or that the annual rate of increase had slowed from 5% per month to only 3.1%. We would say “Bloody hell! They’re expensive compared to what they used to be”, and think twice before buying than. 

We need to know about prices as well as inflation to properly understand what is happening. Prices are measured by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI). ONS calculates this each month by statistically combining the prices in a typical shopping basket. The percentage as usually reported is not the index. It is the change in the index over the previous year. The index itself is rarely reported. It is as if journalists think it would confuse us, or maybe they are confused about it themselves. 

The CPI was set at 100 in 2015. In August, 2024, it was 134.3. In August the previous year it was 131.3. The increase of 3.0 over the year is an increase of 2.2%, which is the inflation figure reported in the media. (Actually, it works out nearer 2.3 than 2.2, but let us not get paranoid). 

Finding the political point scoring irritating, I wanted to understand the figures better. This is my attempt to do so. 

I plotted prices against inflation over the past three years. What is most obvious is that they do not always move together. While prices over the last three years marched relentlessly upwards from 112.4 to 134.3, inflation increased and then decreased again, varying between 11.1% in October, 2022, and 2.0% in May and June, 2024. 

To see why, I imagined a scenario in which the price index remains unchanged at 100 for over a year, resulting in an inflation rate of 0%. The index then jumps suddenly to 130, causing an immediate rise in inflation to 30%. It then fluctuates between 100 and 130 in steps of 10 for the next 24 months. This is shown in the blue graph below. 

The red graph shows the effects upon annual inflation. 

As one might expect, for the 12 months after the first price rise, inflation and prices rise and fall together (A). This is because prices over the second 12 months are being compared with prices over the 12 months before, when they remained steady at 100. 

But the effects then become less intuitive. In week 25 (B), despite prices climbing back to their highest level, inflation falls to 0%. And in week 28 (C), as prices begin to go down again, inflation jumps back up. 

Another quirk is that inflation becomes negative in week 31 (D), and then falls further in week 34 (E), but this second fall is only marginal (from -8.3% to -9.1%) despite a fall of 10 in the index, and much less then the further fall in week 37 when the index is unchanged (F).

The scenario shows that prices can go up when inflation goes down, or down when inflation goes up, and when they do move in the same direction, one can change by a large amount while the other only changes a bit. Prices and inflation do not always change in the same direction, or to the same extent.

These effects occur because they compare current prices with those of 12 months earlier. There can be a time-lag between price changes and their effects. The percentage rate of inflation reflects what was happening a year ago as much as what is happening today. 

Are such month-by-month fluctuations found in the real ONS data? Indeed they are, but they are harder to see because the CPI goes up and down in small steps. You have to look more closely. This third pair of graphs shows the monthly changes in CPI and inflation in the ONS data. 

The largest CPI increase was in April, 2022, when it went up by 2.9. The smallest, actually a fall of 0.8, was in January, 2023. The large increase immediately showed in the inflation figure, which shot up by nearly 2%, but the fall had little impact. Most monthly changes are much smaller, but it is still fairly easy to find contrary movements, as in January and February, 2024, or movements of different sizes, as in October, 2023. 

Returning to the original questions, did inflation come down under the previous government, and will it go up under Labour? Yes and yes. But this begs the question as to whether this is caused by governments, or is it a simple statistical side-effects? 

Statistics plays its part. Inflation was bound to decrease as it fell from the previous highs, and if the CPI continues to increase at its current rate, inflation will climb to over 3% by the end of the year as the earlier falls drop out of the numbers. One reason for the July increase in inflation was that prices did not fall as much as they had twelve months earlier. 

Prices are also influenced by other events and phenomena beyond government control. The peak in inflation in October, 2022, was largely caused by international events. The new public sector pay awards will be inflationary, as would have been the costs to not awarding them. 

Political point scoring will no doubt continue on both sides, but it might be helpful to report monthly inflation changes as well as the annual retrospective. 

I think I understand it slightly better, now.

25 comments:

  1. I think realistically we are heading for stagflation with higher wages in the public sector, faltering economic growth due to higher taxation for businesses, and high unemployment on the horizon. With likely demand for wage increases in the private sector and pressure on businesses to at least match the public sector, cost of living rises looming, it is a recipe for economic slippery slope to disaster seen in the 1970s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope not, but definitely possible. ONS publish data about public and private sector too. It is complex, and public tends to be better qualified, but my reading is that public sector pay growth had fallen behind private by quite a lot, which explains the dissatisfaction. However, no one is getting richer.

      Delete
    2. Economists rarely agree on the causes of inflation but simplistically speaking rising production costs and supply and demand are agreed upon. I cannot agree that costs arising from not awarding public sector pay rises of 22% would have led to inflation. What is your reasoning here?

      Delete
    3. The costs of people not getting to work and the general unhappiness, unquantifiable, holding back the hoped for recovery. I might be wrong because that's depression not inflation, but there would be costs.

      Delete
  2. Thanks Tasker...it is now as clear as mud. 🀣

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As said to JayCee, I tried. Didn't think many would read it. It was mainly to try to clarify the statistical effects for myself.

      Delete
  3. Thanks for doing the homework Tasker - in a brave attempt to elucidate complicated fiscal processes. I must admit that I am way behind you so I appreciate your fair-minded deliberations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thant you for trying to read it. I hope you are not one of those who say "Prices have gone up 2.4% this month". A lot think it's the month's inflation, not the year's"

      Delete
  4. Good explanation of one section of economics. Most people have no idea of how things are calculated. they're also to lazy to read and try to understand economics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did this mainly to try to understand it better myself.

      Delete
  5. Thank you, Tasker. 😢😫

    ReplyDelete
  6. Missing from the recent public sector pay increases is the knock-on effects down the line in terms of massively increased pension entitlements, and the uncosted bills that they represent. In general, public sector workers receive around 35-40% higher pay than the notional "take home" pay through these pension provisions compared to a private sector worker. It is about time that this deferred pay is taken into account when the public sector complain about being underpaid

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A point often made. I'm not sure it is as high as 30%. I worked roughly half and half. When I moved private to public, it was calculated at around 20% - a further 10% is by salary deduction. My previous employer offered me 40% more to stay, but I took the pension into account among other things. I considered it part of the deal. Many public sector employees could earn more in the private sector, although I would agree not all.

      Delete
    2. My wife was a member of a defined contribution pension scheme, and she and her employer would have needed to put at least 35-40% of her pay into that scheme to come even close to the public sector pension outcomes, and would have had capped inflation protection, not the open-ended promise available to the public sector.

      Delete
    3. A pensions expert worked out what the difference was worth to me, although I would concede that when I moved, private pensions were more generous. My private pension has actually done embarrassingly well, mainly because it's in SIPP drawdown invested in international funds - I bet against Britain.

      Delete
    4. Really, though, Will, I see the whole lot of it as an unaffordable PONZI scheme, including the triple lock and other state pensioner payments. We were warned decades ago we could not rely on the state pension, and needed to make supplementary provision, but few did, continuing to spend like it would never run out. I don't know what the answer is, but once given as short-term vote-catching concessions, they are difficult to take away, as we have seen with the winter fuel payments. But this was really about inflation, not pensions, which would be another blog post.

      Delete
  7. I feel like I should have more to say about this subject, being a former journalist, but to be honest I never reported on economics (beyond broad generalities related to other stories) so this is not my strong suit. I don't pay much attention to reported percentages. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having thought about it through writing this, it seems strange that the annual percentage figure is reported each month when it is such a slippery concept. Prices could stay the same but the annual figure could would change if they weren't the same a year ago. I don't think that is widely understood, and is misleading.

      Delete
  8. I admit to not understanding but thank you for working it out. Simplistically I have seen the price of food arise and more people in poverty. So statistics or otherwise, it is the same old story, some people make too much money others do not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it was Sue in Suffolk who produced figures a year or so ago that showed that although the official figure was around 8%, her personal shopping had increased by about 30%. The way the figure is made up creates more anomalies. See also response to Steve immediately above.

      Delete
  9. You'd lost me by the 7th paragraph. I struggle to understand economics. In the past I have even bought GCSE books on the subject and abandoned them after a couple of chapters. They languish in dust on my bookshelves. I'd obviously never make Chancellor Exchequer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, well. What it boils down to is that inflation can go up or down even if prices stay the same for several months running, which is not what we might expect.

      Delete

I welcome comments and hope to respond within a day or two, but my condition is making this increasingly difficult. Some days I might not look here at all. Also please note that comments on posts over two weeks old will not appear until they have been moderated.