Bill Overview
Title: Price Stability Act of 2022
Description: This bill removes maximum employment as a goal of the monetary policy set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee.
Sponsors: Rep. Hill, J. French [R-AR-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals reliant on the US economy and monetary policy
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The monetary policy of the Federal Reserve influences inflation rates, which impacts the cost of living for all individuals who rely on US currency.
- Removing maximum employment as a goal could lead to higher unemployment, affecting individuals who are seeking jobs or may become unemployed.
- Individuals whose income is directly tied to economic activity in the United States would be the most affected, as employment levels could be deprioritized in pursuit of price stability.
- The legislation could affect consumers who are sensitive to price changes, as well as businesses relying on employment levels for their operations.
Reasoning
- The population most affected includes people who are sensitive to employment opportunities and price levels.
- The budget limits indicate the scale at which the policy could be actively measured and influenced.
- Considering the total US population and those directly affected by economic shifts, a sample that covers various socio-economic backgrounds is chosen.
- Individuals with stakes in sectors heavily reliant on monetary policy would show varied impacts on their wellbeing scores.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not overly concerned yet, but if this leads to inflation control at the cost of significant unemployment, there might be ripple effects on the tech sector.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Single Mother, Part-time Retail Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how I'd find more work if employment was no longer a priority at the national level.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 3 |
Small Business Owner (Houston, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might stabilize some costs but I'm anxious about losing customers if employment dips.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Retired School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about my fixed income, this change doesn't sound reassuring for stable income and living costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 3 |
Graduate Student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 19/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As long as prices for essentials stay stable, it might be manageable, but job prospects after graduation are my worry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Real Estate Agent (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Economic shifts like these can negatively impact housing market stability, which is worrying.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might see a drop in clients if there's a downturn, making freelancing even more precarious.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Healthcare Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My job feels stable, but if inflation worsens, personal expenses could increase.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Finance Professional (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From an investment perspective, the policy could maintain growth, but personal asset values might fluctuate more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Unemployed Recent Graduate (Denver, CO)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the job market potentially taking a hit, my job search might get longer and harder.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 3: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 5: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Key Considerations
- Monitoring unemployment metrics becomes more crucial as a separate measure not explicitly targeted by monetary policy.
- The potential trade-off between inflation control and employment levels needs careful political and economic balancing.
- Long-term effects on economic inequality could arise if employment is consistently lower.