Thread by @IrvingSwisher

#FloorGLI Update! Full disclosure: my preferred method for measuring GLI does get revised but retains most of its usefulness even when evaluating growth in real-time.
April Income growth on BBG ECO screen looked good. The details and the revisions were not; GLI growth downshifted

You don't have to convince me of the importance of looking at data that isn't vulnerable to revision. It's why the household survey is better than the establishment survey on Jobs Friday (NFP/AHE are overrated)

Luckily, GLI reflects much of the real-time info from the HH survey

Our framework sees value in fwd-looking policy, instead of purely reacting to realized data (the optimal mix is an art, not science).
But the last 2 quarters of GLI growth now look to be running well below the floor. YoY readings are likely to stay below the floor for some time

Nominal growth rates are slowing sharper than what the Fed previously saw at its April/May Meeting. Without full knowledge of the Fed's current forecast toolkit, I'm still willing to bet that the Fed staff is taking some downward revisions to its compensation projections (GLI).

We just saw the as-reported 4-quarter GLI growth rate decline by 60bps. The as-reported 2-quarter GLI growth rate declined by 130bps. We can endlessly debate optimal policy rules and forecasting methods, but regardless of framework, the downshift in nominal growth warrants attn

While we put forth a first-difference rule in our article, we're not wedded to it (meant to show the reax function, see 1st img). Other specifications (more similar to standard Taylor Rule) can still satisfy our goals; they too would likely suggest easing. medium.com/@skanda_97974/…

Of course the Fed hasn't adopted our preferred framework (we're trying to show how it would work in practice). Fine-tuning the future decimal points of core PCE just because the unemployment rate is low misses the forest for the trees.

I suspect some @ the Fed realize this...