Inflation and Unemployment: Understanding Their Relationship

Search Fintrev

Search our guides, reviews and glossary.

Inflation and unemployment have traditionally moved in opposite directions. When unemployment is low, employers compete for scarce workers and push wages up, and higher labor costs tend to feed into higher prices. When unemployment is high, wage growth stalls and price pressure eases. Economists draw this tradeoff as the Phillips curve. The link is real in the short run, but it is weaker and less reliable than it first looks. It has broken down several times over the past half century, most visibly in the 1970s, when both rates were high together.

For workers, the relationship shows up as tradeoffs. A tight job market can bring raises and more bargaining power, but if prices rise faster than pay, those raises buy less. A cooling economy can slow inflation, but it can also make jobs harder to find and keep.

Why Low Unemployment Can Cause Inflation

The mechanism starts in the labor market, where wages are the price of labor and respond to supply and demand like other prices.

When unemployment is low, employers want more workers than are available. To fill openings they have to offer more: higher starting pay, larger raises, signing bonuses, better hours or benefits. Workers who already have jobs gain leverage too, because they can credibly leave for a better offer. Economists call this a tight labor market, and its typical result is wage inflation, meaning a faster rate of increase in pay.

Higher wages then pass into prices through two channels:

• Cost channel. Wages and salaries are among the largest costs for most businesses, especially in services. When labor costs rise, firms often raise prices to protect their margins.
• Demand channel. Workers with bigger paychecks spend more. If the economy is already near capacity, extra spending lets sellers raise prices instead of simply selling more.

This is why low unemployment is often associated with rising inflation. The labor market runs hot, pay rises faster than productivity, and businesses pass part of the higher cost on to customers.

The speed of change matters as well as the level. In a booming economy, where demand for labor is growing quickly, employers bid more aggressively for workers than they would if hiring were flat or growing slowly. A falling unemployment rate can therefore put more pressure on wages than a low but stable one.

Why High Unemployment Holds Wages Down

The reverse happens when unemployment is high. Many more people are looking for work than there are jobs available, so the supply of labor exceeds demand. Employers can fill positions without raising pay, and workers who might otherwise ask for a raise are less likely to push or to quit.

Wages tend to stagnate in these periods rather than fall sharply. Workers resist accepting less than the going rate, and employers know pay cuts hurt morale and productivity. So high unemployment usually slows wage growth more than it reverses it. With little upward pressure from labor costs and weaker consumer spending, price increases across the economy tend to slow as well.

Unemployment can also cause prices to drop in particular sectors when demand collapses during a severe downturn. Broad, sustained falling prices (deflation) are less common in modern economies, partly because central banks act to prevent them.

The Phillips Curve

The best-known description of the tradeoff comes from A.W. Phillips, a New Zealand-born economist working in Britain. Phillips studied U.K. data from 1861 to 1957, nearly a century, and found that the rate of change in money wages could be explained by two things: the level of unemployment and the rate at which unemployment was changing. His paper was published in 1958.

His interpretation followed the labor market logic above. When labor demand is strong and few people are unemployed, employers bid wages up quickly. When demand is weak and unemployment is high, workers are reluctant to accept pay below the prevailing rate, so wages fall only very slowly. The result is a curve that is steep at low unemployment and flat at high unemployment: cutting unemployment from an already low level produces a big jump in wage growth, while cutting it from a high level produces little change.

Phillips’s original work concerned wage inflation. Because rising wages tend to lift prices, economists soon applied the same idea to general price inflation, and the version most people learn today plots the inflation rate against the unemployment rate. Both versions are called the Phillips curve.

In the United States, consumer price inflation is most often measured by the rate of change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Our U.S. inflation rate by year page covers the historical CPI record. The standard unemployment measure is the headline unemployment rate (often referenced by its data code, UNRATE), which counts people without a job who are available and actively looking for work as a share of the labor force.

The Phillips Curve as a Policy Menu

Modern central banks aim for low, stable inflation and high employment. The Federal Reserve’s mandate from Congress covers maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates, and the Fed has defined price stability as 2% inflation over the longer run.

In the 1960s, the Phillips curve looked like a practical tool for hitting those goals. If each unemployment rate came with a predictable inflation rate, policymakers could choose a point on the curve and use monetary or fiscal policy to reach it.

U.S. data from that decade appeared to support the idea. Reading the relationship from 1960s CPI and unemployment figures, cutting unemployment from 6% to 5% came with almost no extra inflation. Cutting it further, from 6% to 4%, came with inflation rising from about 1% to about 3%. The curve’s shape mattered: the first point of lower unemployment was cheap in inflation terms, and each additional point cost more.

The policy conclusion many drew was that society faces a lasting tradeoff. A government willing to tolerate somewhat higher inflation could, in principle, keep unemployment lower indefinitely.

Expectations and the Natural Rate of Unemployment

That conclusion was challenged in the late 1960s by economists led by Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps, working from a monetarist and expectations-based view. Their argument was that the tradeoff exists only in the short run.

The key is inflation expectations. Workers care about what their pay can buy, not just the dollar amount. If they expect prices to rise, they demand higher wages to keep their real, inflation-adjusted pay constant. (The same nominal versus real distinction applies to output; see real vs. nominal GDP.)

Their reasoning runs in stages:

1. Policymakers stimulate demand to push unemployment below its natural level.
2. Firms raise prices faster to meet the extra demand, and nominal wages rise.
3. In the short run, workers see bigger paychecks and more of them take jobs, so unemployment falls.
4. Over time, workers realize prices have risen as much as their pay. Their real wages have not improved, so they adjust their expectations and wage demands, and the extra incentive to work fades.
5. Unemployment returns to the natural rate, but inflation stays higher than before.

If policymakers keep trying to hold unemployment below the natural rate, they have to keep surprising people with ever faster inflation. This is why the natural rate is sometimes called the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU): pushing unemployment below it is associated with accelerating inflation.

The long-run implication is that higher inflation does not buy permanently lower unemployment, and lower inflation does not permanently cost jobs. Plotted over the long run, the Phillips curve becomes a vertical line at the natural rate of unemployment. The short-run curve still exists, but it shifts as expected inflation changes. Because this version includes expected inflation as a determinant of current inflation, it is called the expectations-augmented Phillips curve. Phelps received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2006, with the prize citation recognizing this work on the tradeoff.

The natural rate changes over time

The natural rate is the unemployment rate that remains after short-term cyclical effects fade and wages have adjusted so labor supply and demand are balanced. It is not zero, because people are always changing jobs, entering the labor force or finding that their skills do not match available openings.

It also moves. Technology, minimum wage levels, the degree of unionization and the makeup of the workforce all influence it. U.S. estimates put the natural rate at about 5.3% in 1949, rising steadily to a peak of about 6.2% in 1978 to 1979 and declining after that. Estimates for the remainder of the 2020s are around 4.5%. Because the natural rate cannot be observed directly, policymakers work from estimates, and a mistaken estimate can lead them to tighten too early or too late.

How Interest Rates Connect Inflation and Unemployment

Interest rates are the main lever linking the two in practice. When a central bank believes inflation is too high, it raises its policy rate. Borrowing becomes more expensive for households and businesses, spending and investment slow, hiring cools, and unemployment tends to rise. With less demand and less wage pressure, inflation eases.

When unemployment is high and inflation is low, the central bank cuts rates to encourage borrowing, spending and hiring. Expectations are part of the transmission too: if workers and businesses believe the central bank will keep inflation near its target, they set wages and prices accordingly, which makes the target easier to hit.

These effects work with long and variable lags. A rate increase may take many months to show up in hiring and prices, which is one reason policymakers can overshoot in either direction.

When the Relationship Breaks Down

The monetarist argument did not win much support at first, because it arrived when the Phillips curve was at the height of its popularity. The decades that followed made it hard to ignore. At many points since the 1960s, the data have shown no clear inverse relationship.

The 1970s: stagflation

The 1970s brought high inflation and high unemployment at the same time, a combination called stagflation. Two oil supply shocks drove much of it. The 1973 embargo by Arab oil producers caused crude oil prices to roughly quadruple within about a year. Then the 1979 Iranian Revolution cut Iranian output, and crude prices roughly doubled from 1979 to 1980.

A supply shock works differently from the demand story behind the Phillips curve. Higher energy costs raise prices across the economy while also squeezing businesses and consumers, so output and hiring fall even as inflation climbs. Inflation expectations had also risen after the late 1960s, as Friedman and Phelps predicted, so the short-run curve itself had shifted upward.

The 1990s: low inflation and low unemployment

The boom of the 1990s produced the opposite surprise: low unemployment alongside low inflation. Explanations include:

• Global competition, which limited how much U.S. producers could raise prices.
• Lower expectations of future inflation, after more than a decade of tight monetary policy had brought inflation down.
• Productivity gains from widespread adoption of technology, which let wages rise without forcing equivalent price increases.
• Demographic shifts in the labor force, with more older baby boomers and fewer teenagers working, which lowered unemployment without the usual wage pressure.

The 2000s to the 2020s

Since 2000, the inverse link has reappeared at times and faded at others:

• In 2001, a mild recession pushed unemployment to around 6% while inflation fell below 2.5%, consistent with the classic relationship.
• During the Great Recession, unemployment rose to nearly 10% and CPI inflation fell sharply, also consistent.
• From 2012 to 2015, inflation and unemployment at times moved in the same direction.
• From 2016 to 2019, unemployment fell to its lowest levels in about 50 years, yet inflation stayed around 2%. A very tight labor market did not produce the inflation the old curve would predict, leading some economists to describe the curve as having flattened.
• In April 2020, pandemic shutdowns pushed unemployment to nearly 15% without a corresponding drop in prices. Starting in 2021, prices rose sharply, driven largely by supply shocks, with labor shortages in essential industries likely adding pressure.
• In 2022, inflation surged while unemployment fell to about 3.5% and held near that level. Inflation began to slow after the Fed raised interest rates aggressively.

The pattern across these episodes is that the Phillips relationship works best when inflation expectations are stable and the economy is driven by changes in demand. Supply shocks, shifts in expectations and structural changes in the labor market can overwhelm it.

How Inflation and Unemployment Affect Workers

For a worker, the two rates matter less as an abstract tradeoff and more for three practical questions: whether jobs are available, how much pay is rising, and whether pay is keeping up with prices.

Real wages decide purchasing power

A raise only improves living standards if it beats inflation. A simple approximation is:

Real wage growth ≈ nominal wage growth − inflation rate

Hypothetical example: a worker earns $50,000 and gets a 4% raise to $52,000. If prices rise 3% over the same year, real pay growth is roughly 1%, so the raise buys a little more than last year’s salary. If prices instead rise 6%, real pay falls by roughly 2%, even though the paycheck is larger. The approximation works for small rates; for an exact figure, divide (1 + wage growth) by (1 + inflation) and subtract 1.

This is the gap at the heart of the expectations argument. In the short run, workers may respond to higher nominal pay before they notice that prices have risen just as fast.

Tight labor markets shift bargaining power

When unemployment is low, workers have more options. Job switching becomes easier, and switching often brings larger pay gains than staying put. Employers may also hire people they would previously have passed over, which can pull discouraged workers and those with less experience into jobs. If inflation is also running high, though, much of that extra pay can be absorbed by higher living costs.

Fighting inflation can cost jobs

When a central bank raises rates to cool inflation, the intended slowdown in demand usually means slower hiring and, in some cases, layoffs. Workers in interest-rate-sensitive industries such as construction, manufacturing and finance-related businesses may feel this first. A worker deciding whether to change jobs, ask for a raise or build savings is in effect reading where the economy sits in this cycle.

Inflation affects workers’ debts and savings differently

Unexpected inflation redistributes money between borrowers and savers. A worker with a fixed-rate mortgage or other fixed-rate debt repays it with dollars that are worth less than the dollars borrowed, which is a benefit. Cash savings held in an account paying less than the inflation rate lose purchasing power. Higher interest rates during inflationary periods can help savers who move money into higher-yielding accounts, while raising costs for anyone carrying variable-rate debt or taking out new loans.

Fixed incomes and wage contracts

Workers whose pay is set by multi-year contracts without inflation adjustments can fall behind when inflation rises unexpectedly. Retirees and others on fixed incomes face the same problem unless their income is indexed to prices, as U.S. Social Security benefits are through annual cost-of-living adjustments.

FAQs

The Bottom Line

Workers, savers and borrowers feel the inflation and unemployment tradeoff through job availability, pay growth and the value of their money. Because the link often breaks down during supply shocks or shifts in expectations, the useful test is the real wage: a raise improves living standards only if it beats inflation. Fixed-rate debt gains from unexpected inflation, while low-yield cash savings and unindexed incomes lose ground.