Haver Analytics
Haver Analytics

Introducing

Charles Steindel

Charles Steindel has been editor of Business Economics, the journal of the National Association for Business Economics, since 2016. From 2014 to 2021 he was Resident Scholar at the Anisfield School of Business, Ramapo College of New Jersey. From 2010 to 2014 he was the first Chief Economist of the New Jersey Department of the Treasury, with responsibilities for economic and revenue projections and analysis of state economic policy. He came to the Treasury after a long career at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he played a major role in forecasting and policy advice and rose to the rank of Senior Vice-President. He has served in leadership positions in a number of professional organizations. In 2011 he received the William F. Butler Award from the New York Association for Business Economics, is a fellow of NABE and of the Money Marketeers of New York University, and has received several awards for articles published in Business Economics. In 2017 he delivered Ramapo College's Sebastian J. Raciti Memorial Lecture. He is a member of the panel for the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia's Survey of Professional Forecasters and of the Committee on Research in Income and Wealth. He has published papers in a range of areas, and is the author of Economic Indicators for Professionals: Putting the Statistics into Perspective. He received his bachelor's degree from Emory University, his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and is a National Association for Business Economics Certified Business EconomistTM.

Publications by Charles Steindel

  • State labor markets again showed little change in July. Four states did report statistically significant increase in payrolls. However, the increases in New York and Missouri—both .6 percent--were heavily influenced by unusually sharp gains in government, probably reflecting some seasonal anomalies. Maryland’s .4 percent increase also owed a lot to government, though South Carolina’s comparable increase owed little to the public sector. The sum of job changes across the states was somewhat larger than the reported national increase of 73,000.

    The unemployment rate fell a significant .2 percentage points in Alabama and Colorado, while increasing .1 percentage point in California. The highest unemployment rates were in DC (6.0%), California (5.5%), Nevada (5.4%), and Michigan (5.3%). Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont had unemployment rates under 3.0%, while South Dakota’s 1.9% was yet again the lowest in the nation.

    Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.5% and the island’s job count rose 2,600.

  • The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s state coincident indexes in June were again generally lackluster. In the one-month changes, no state had an increase as large as .5 percent (Illinois was up .49 percent). Six states saw declines. These were spread across the nation, with Massachusetts down .52 percent. Over the three months ending in June nine states were down, with Massachusetts on the bottom (down .84 percent) here as well. Indiana’s 1.48 percent was the largest gain, while only three other states had increases above 1 percent. Over the last twelve months, Massachusetts and Iowa were down, and five others saw increases of less than one percent. South Carolina was the only state with an increase higher than four percent (Idaho was up 3.62 percent), and six others were at or higher than three percent.

    The independently estimated national estimates of growth over the last three and twelve months were, respectively, .74 and 2.56 percent. Both measures appear to be roughly in line with what the state numbers would have suggested.

  • State labor markets were very little-changed to soft in June. Alaska reported a statistically significant increase in jobs (3,100, or .9 percent) while there was no statistically significant change anywhere else. However, many states reported declines, and the sum of job changes among the states was only 3,100, compared to the national increase of 147,000. No state reported a statistically significant change in jobs. The unemployment rate fell a significant .2 percentage points in Illinois, and one percentage point in Maine, while increasing .1 percentage point in Virginia. The highest unemployment rates were in DC (5.9%), Nevada (5.4%), California (5.4%), and Michigan (5.3%),and Kentucky (5.0%), though Kentucky’s rate is not deemed statistically different than the national average of 4.2%. Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont had unemployment rates under 3.0%, while South Dakota’s 1.8% was yet again the lowest in the nation.

    Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.5% and the island’s job count edged down by 800.

  • The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s state coincident indexes in May were generally lackluster. In the one-month changes, Kentucky’s index did rise a reasonably hefty .71 percent, and Indiana, Idaho, New York, and South Carolina had increases above .5 percent. In contrast, 10 states saw declines. These were spread across the nation, with Massachusetts down .52 percent. Over the three months ending in May seven states were down, with Massachusetts on the bottom (down 1.0 percent) here as well. Indiana’s 1.71 percent was the largest gain, while 6 other states had increases above 1 percent. Over the last twelve months, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Iowa were down, and seven others saw increases of less than one percent. No state had an increase higher than four percent (Idaho was up 3.62 percent), and only four were at or higher than three percent.

    The independently estimated national estimates of growth over the last three and twelve months were, respectively, .62 and 2.40 percent. Both measures appear to be a bit weaker than the state numbers would have suggested.

  • State real GDP growth rates in 2025:1 were weak, ranging from -6.1% in Iowa and Nebraska to 1.7% in South Carolina. Farm output is estimated to have dropped sharply in the nation’s midsection, which explains very weak numbers in the Plains (in reality, of course, excluding seasonal adjustment, farm output is minimal in that section in the winter and estimates are problematic). Other areas were soft, most notably the Pacific Coast and the Northeast (a pronounced drop in financial output weighed heavily in New York, for instance). It is, of course, a bit hard to blame losses in output in Plains state agriculture on the surge in imports, which adds further to the puzzle of understanding the national GDP decline.

    Personal income was stronger with growth rates ranging from Washington’s 3.2% to North Dakota’s 12.7%. In this case, the Plains states were the leaders, greatly aided by higher federal payments to farmers. Increases in transfer payments were unusually rapid, in part reflecting the annual Social Security COLA, as well as ACA tax credits.

  • State labor markets were very little changed in May. No state reported a statistically significant change in jobs. Three states (Iowa, Massachusetts, and Virginia) had statistically significant increases in their unemployment rates, while two (Indiana and New York) had statistically significant declines. None of these moves were larger than .2 percentage points. The highest unemployment rates were in DC (5.9%), Nevada (5.5%), Michigan (5.4%), California (5.3%), and Kentucky (5.0%), though Kentucky’s rate is not deemed statistically different than the national average of 4.2%. Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont had unemployment rates under 3.0%, while South Dakota’s 1.8% was yet again the lowest in the nation.

    Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.5% and the island’s job count moved up by 2,000.

  • The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s state coincident indexes in April were rather soft. In the one-month changes, Nevada’s fairly modest .55 percent increase was the largest, with Indiana the only other state with a gain higher than .5 percent. 12 states showed declines; all except Arkansas were in the Northeast and Middle West. Massachusetts had the largest decline (.47 percent). Over the three months ending in April seven states were down (again, all except Arkansas in the Northeast and Middle West), with Massachusetts on the bottom (down .67 percent) here as well. West Virginia’s 1.54 percent was the largest gain, while 9 other states had increases above 1 percent. Over the last twelve months, Iowa and Michigan were down, and eight others saw increases of less than one percent. No state had an increase higher than four percent (Utah was up 3.55 percent), and only three were at or higher than three percent.

    The independently estimated national estimates of growth over the last three and twelve months were, respectively, .46 and 2.34 percent. Both measures appear to be a bit weaker than the state numbers would have suggested.

  • April saw little change in state labor markets. Five states saw statistically significant gains in jobs in March, with none larger than .4 percent. Texas’s .3 percentage point gain amounted to 37,700 jobs. A number of states had insignificant declines.

    Four states (DC, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Virginia) had statistically significant increases in their unemployment rates, with DC and Massachusetts up .2 percentage points and Iowa and Virginia up .1 percentage point. Nevada’s rate fell .1 percentage point and Indiana was down .2. The highest unemployment rates were in DC (5.8%), Nevada (5.6%), Michigan (5.5%) California (5.3%), and Kentucky (5.2%). Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont had unemployment rates under 3.0%, while South Dakota’s 1.8% was yet again the lowest in the nation.

    Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate was again unchanged at 5.3% and the island’s job count moved up by 1,100.

  • The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s state coincident indexes in March were a touch firmer than in February, but not robust. In the one-month changes, West Virginia was on top with a .77 percent gain, while South Dakota, Indiana, Montana, and South Carolina were also up more than .5 percent. Nine states were down, with Connecticut’s .23 percent drop being the largest. Over the three months ending in March, five states were down, with Massachusetts off .48 percent (Connecticut and Rhode Island also showed declines, obviously suggesting some softness in southern New England). West Virginia was up 2.06 percent, and South Carolina, Montana, Indiana, and South Dakota also rising more than 1 percent. Over the last twelve months, Iowa and Michigan were down, and twelve others saw increases of less than one percent. No state had an increase higher than four percent, and only four were at or higher than three percent. Utah’s index rose 3.33 percent, while Michigan was down 1.48 percent.

    The independently estimated national estimates of growth over the last three and twelve months were, respectively, .61 and 2.44 percent. Both measures appear to be a bit weaker than the state numbers.

  • March was another month of little change in state labor markets. The sum of payroll changes among the states was close to the national result, and revisions eliminated most of the gap initially seen for February. Six states saw statistically significant gains in jobs in March, with Pennsylvania increasing by 20,900 and Missouri up .5% (Texas reported a larger, not statistically significant, gain than Pennsylvania). A few states had insignificant declines.

    Three states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Virginia) had statistically significant changes in their unemployment rates, with Connecticut’s .2 percentage point rise being the larges. Indiana reported a significant .2 percentage point drop. The highest unemployment rates were in Nevada (5.7%), DC (5.6%), Michigan (5.5%) California (5.3%), and Kentucky 5.2). Hawaii, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont had unemployment rates under 3.0%, while South Dakota’s 1.8% was yet again the lowest in the nation.

    Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.3% and the island’s job count moved up by 800.

  • The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s state coincident indexes in February were similar to January, generally on the soft side in January. In the one-month changes, West Virginia led with a .62 percent gain, with no other state up as much as .5 percent. Nine states were down, with Washington’s .2 percent drop being the largest. Over the three months ending in February, four states were down, all by small amounts West Virginia and South Carolina were the only states seeing gains above 1 percent. Over the last twelve months, three states were down, and twelve others saw increases of less than one percent. No state had an increase higher than four percent, and only two were higher than three percent. Utah’s index rose 3.32 percent, while Michigan was down 1.64 percent.

    The independently estimated national estimates of growth over the last three and twelve months were, respectively, .81 and 2.51 percent. Both measures appear to be somewhat stronger than the state numbers. These indexes are very dependent on payroll employment numbers, and in both January and February the sum of state payroll employment changes was less than the national figure.

  • The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s state coincident indexes continued to be on the soft side in January (February numbers will be released on April 9). In the one-month changes, Montana led with a .66 percent gain, while West Virginia and South Carolina had increases above .5 percent. 13 states registered declines, none greater than North Dakota’s .34 percent. Over the three months ending in January, only two states (Missouri and Wyoming) were down, both by small amounts. The gains were also somewhat muted, with only five (South Caroilina, Washington, Idaho, Utah, and Maryland) showing increases above 1 percent, topping off at South Carolina’s 1.35 percent. Over the last twelve months, three states were down, and eleven others saw increases of less than one percent. No state had an increase higher than four percent, and only three were higher than three percent. Washington’s index rose 3.66 percent, while Michigan was down 1.34 percent.

    The independently estimated national estimates of growth over the last three and twelve months were, respectively, .61 and 2.41 percent. These both appear to be roughly in line with the state numbers.