Each gauge below is one the dashboard tracks. The point is not to crown a winner. It is to see
what each one shows, and what it leaves out.
The total value of goods and services produced, inflation-adjusted.
What it's good for
- One comparable number across countries and decades.
- Captures real production broadly.
- Standardized, and revised on a schedule.
What it misses
- Silent on who receives the gains.
- Counts cleanup and rebuilding as positive.
- Whippy quarter to quarter, and distorted by one-offs.
Latest $24.3T, Apr 2026 · FRED GDPC1 · full history →
National output per person, adjusted for inflation.
What it's good for
- Puts growth on a per-person basis, so population does not flatter it.
- Inflation-adjusted, so older figures stay comparable.
- A standard yardstick for living standards over time.
What it misses
- An average; it says nothing about distribution.
- Output is not income or well-being.
- Revised, and whippy from quarter to quarter.
Latest $70,812, Apr 2026 · FRED A939RX0Q048SBEA · full history →
How much output the economy produces per hour of work.
What it's good for
- Over the long run, what lets living standards rise.
- Captures gains from technology and know-how.
- Decades of consistent measurement.
What it misses
- Silent on who gets the gains.
- Hard to measure in services.
- An index, not dollars or wages.
Latest 119.4, Jan 2026 · FRED OPHNFB · full history →
The share of the economy that takes the form of after-tax corporate profit.
What it's good for
- One read on corporate profitability against the whole economy.
- After-tax and adjusted, so it reflects economic profit.
- Quarterly, with history back to 1947.
What it misses
- A share of output, not a dollar amount or a growth rate.
- An aggregate; it hides which industries or firms earn it.
- One slice of how output is divided; it does not show the rest.
Latest 11.4%, Jan 2026 · FRED CPATAX/GDP · full history →
The output of US factories, mines, and utilities, as an index.
What it's good for
- A monthly read on the physical economy.
- Long history, back to 1919.
- Sensitive to the manufacturing cycle.
What it misses
- Manufacturing is a shrinking share of a service economy.
- An index, not dollars or jobs.
- Weather and strikes can swing it.
Latest 102.6, Jun 2026 · FRED INDPRO · full history →
How many months of sales businesses hold in inventory.
What it's good for
- A read on the business cycle from the supply side.
- Turning points often lead production changes.
- Decades of monthly data.
What it misses
- A high reading can mean stockpiling or weak demand; the direction is ambiguous.
- Aggregates very different industries into one number.
- Best read alongside sales and output, not alone.
Latest 1.28, May 2026 · FRED ISRATIO · full history →
The share of people who want work and cannot find it.
What it's good for
- Monthly and timely; it often moves first.
- Tied closely to how people feel.
- Intuitive and widely understood.
What it misses
- Leaves out discouraged and underemployed workers.
- Early job counts get revised hard.
- Can look fine while job quality erodes.
Latest 4.2%, Jun 2026 · FRED UNRATE · full history →
A broad jobless rate that also counts discouraged and involuntary part-time workers.
What it's good for
- Captures slack the headline U-3 rate leaves out.
- A fuller read on underemployment.
- Defined consistently and reported monthly.
What it misses
- The series starts in 1994.
- Still one rate; it hides who is underemployed.
- Always higher than U-3, so the two are not interchangeable.
Latest 7.9%, Jun 2026 · FRED U6RATE · full history →
The total number of jobs on US payrolls outside farming.
What it's good for
- A broad monthly count of where the jobs are.
- Deep history, back to 1939.
- The figure the Fed and markets watch closely.
What it misses
- Counts jobs, not people; two part-time jobs count twice.
- The first print is revised for two more months.
- Says nothing about pay or hours.
Latest 159.0M, Jun 2026 · FRED PAYEMS · full history →
The number of unfilled jobs employers are trying to fill.
What it's good for
- A direct read on labor demand.
- Paired with unemployment, it gauges how tight hiring is.
- Comes from the monthly JOLTS survey.
What it misses
- Survey-based, and revised.
- A posting is not a hire; some openings are never filled.
- The survey only began in December 2000.
Latest 7.6M, May 2026 · FRED JTSJOL · full history →
New applications for unemployment benefits, filed each week.
What it's good for
- One of the most timely labor signals, reported weekly.
- Rises early when layoffs pick up.
- An administrative count, not a survey.
What it misses
- Volatile week to week; read the trend, not one print.
- Misses workers who do not file or do not qualify.
- Counts layoffs, not the pace of hiring.
Latest 197K, Jul 2026 · FRED ICSA · full history →
The share of working-age adults either holding a job or looking for one.
What it's good for
- Counts people the unemployment rate sets aside, including those who stopped looking.
- A read on the size of the workforce, not just who is hired.
- Monthly, with history back to 1948.
What it misses
- Demographics move it; an aging population pulls it down on its own.
- Silent on whether the available jobs are good ones.
- A national rate hides who is in the workforce and who is out.
Latest 61.5%, Jun 2026 · FRED CIVPART · full history →
The share of 25-to-54-year-olds who are employed.
What it's good for
- Strips out schooling and retirement, so demographics do not muddy it.
- A cleaner read on the core working-age job market than the headline rate.
- Monthly, with history back to 1948.
What it misses
- Leaves out everyone under 25 and over 54.
- A ratio, so it says nothing about pay or hours.
- Cannot tell a good job from a bad one.
Latest 80.2%, Jun 2026 · FRED LNS12300060 · full history →
How many people 65 and older there are for every 100 of working age.
What it's good for
- A simple read on the aging of the population.
- A standard input to pension and budget projections.
- Comparable across countries and decades.
What it misses
- A head count by age, not a measure of who actually works.
- Treats everyone 65 and older as dependent, which fewer are.
- Annual and slow-moving; it does not track the cycle.
Latest 28.5%, Jan 2025 · FRED SPPOPDPNDOLUSA · full history →
Whether the typical weekly paycheck is growing faster than prices, after inflation.
What it's good for
- Cuts through nominal raises to what a paycheck actually buys.
- Speaks to living standards, not just national output.
- One read on whether work is getting people ahead.
What it misses
- A median; it hides who got the raise and who did not.
- Swings hard when inflation moves, even if pay holds steady.
- Says nothing about hours, benefits, or job security.
Latest +0.5%, Apr 2026 · FRED LES1252881600Q · full history →
What the household in the middle of the income ladder earns in a year.
What it's good for
- Speaks to the typical household, not the average the top end lifts.
- A direct read on living standards over time.
- Comparable year to year, and widely understood.
What it misses
- Annual and slow; it lags the cycle.
- A national median hides gaps between places and groups.
- Pre-tax and pre-transfer; not take-home pay or wealth.
Latest $83,730, Jan 2024 · FRED MEHOINUSA646N · full history →
The federal wage floor set under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
What it's good for
- A clear, sourced policy number with deep history.
- Its real value over time shows what inflation does to a fixed figure.
- A reference point for the bottom of the pay scale.
What it misses
- Many states and cities set higher floors, so few are paid exactly this.
- Says nothing about how many workers earn at or near it.
- Nominal unless adjusted; the level alone hides lost buying power.
Latest $7.25, Jan 2026 · FRED STTMINWGFG · full history →
How fast consumer prices are rising compared with a year ago.
What it's good for
- Measures the cost squeeze households feel.
- Monthly and granular.
- Drives Federal Reserve policy.
What it misses
- Falling inflation is not falling prices; the level stays high.
- One basket cannot match every household.
- Energy swings can swamp the signal short-term.
Latest 3.5%, Jun 2026 · FRED CPIAUCSL · full history →
The national average price of a gallon of regular gasoline.
What it's good for
- A price people see weekly, so it shapes how inflation feels.
- Fast and frequent.
- A read on energy costs that ripple into other prices.
What it misses
- Volatile, and swung by global oil and geopolitics.
- A national average; pump prices vary by state and taxes.
- Nominal dollars; some of any rise is just inflation.
Latest $4.10, Jul 2026 · FRED GASREGW · full history →
The consumer-price index for rent of a primary residence.
What it's good for
- Tracks rent inflation for the typical renter over time.
- Monthly, with long history.
- Feeds the cost-of-living comparison against income.
What it misses
- An index, not a dollar rent or a share of income.
- A national average; local rents vary widely.
- Captures rent charged, not what people can afford.
Latest 447, Jun 2026 · FRED CUUR0000SEHA · full history →
The Federal Reserve's policy rate, which sets borrowing costs across the economy.
What it's good for
- Shows the Fed's read of the economy in one number.
- Drives mortgage, card, and loan rates.
- Signals whether policy is fighting inflation or weakness.
What it misses
- A blunt tool; it hits the whole economy at once.
- Effects arrive with long and variable lags.
- Says nothing about who feels the rate most.
Latest 3.63%, Jun 2026 · FRED FEDFUNDS · full history →
The market yield on a 10-year US Treasury.
What it's good for
- A live read on expected growth, inflation, and rates.
- Anchors mortgage and long-term borrowing costs.
- Set by buyers and sellers, not an agency.
What it misses
- Moves on expectations, which can be wrong.
- Blends several forces into one number.
- Says nothing about who borrows at it.
Latest 4.67%, Jul 29, 2026 · FRED DGS10 · full history →
The gap between the 10-year and 2-year Treasury yields, the slope of the yield curve.
What it's good for
- A negative reading has come before most recent recessions.
- Set by the market, distilling rate and growth expectations into one number.
- Daily, and watched closely as a warning gauge.
What it misses
- It has led recessions, not caused them; the lag has run from months to years.
- It gives false alarms; not every inversion is followed by a downturn.
- Signals roughly when, never how deep or why.
Latest +0.45 pp, Jul 30, 2026 · FRED T10Y2Y · full history →
The average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.
What it's good for
- The price of the most common US home loan.
- Drives affordability and housing demand.
- Surveyed weekly, with history back to 1971.
What it misses
- An average; the rate offered depends on credit and points.
- It tracks the 10-year Treasury, so the Fed does not set it directly.
- Says nothing about home prices themselves.
Latest 6.66%, Jul 2026 · FRED MORTGAGE30US · full history →
Federal debt held by the public, measured against the size of the economy.
What it's good for
- Scaled by GDP, so it compares across decades.
- A read on the federal borrowing position.
- Excludes money the government owes itself.
What it misses
- Leaves out the interest cost, which depends on rates.
- Silent on what the borrowing paid for.
- A stock of past borrowing, not the current-year gap.
Latest 122.6%, Jan 2026 · FRED GFDEGDQ188S · full history →
The yearly gap between what the federal government spends and what it collects.
What it's good for
- Scaled by GDP for comparability.
- Shows the flow that adds to or pays down the debt.
- Below zero is a deficit, above zero a surplus.
What it misses
- One year only, not the accumulated debt.
- Swings with the business cycle, not just policy.
- Silent on which spending or taxes changed.
Latest -5.8%, Jan 2025 · FRED FYFSGDA188S · full history →
The portion of the publicly-held federal debt that is owed to foreign investors.
What it's good for
- Shows how much of the debt is held outside the country.
- Built from Treasury data, reported through FRED.
- Quarterly Treasury figures since 1970.
What it misses
- A share of the publicly-held debt, not its dollar size.
- Does not separate foreign governments from private holders.
- Silent on the maturity or terms of what is held.
Latest 30.0%, Oct 2025 · FRED FDHBFIN/FYGFDPUN · full history →
The value of goods and services US producers sell to the rest of the world.
What it's good for
- A read on global demand for US output.
- Ties to factory, farm, and service jobs.
- Long history in the national accounts.
What it misses
- Nominal dollars, so inflation lifts it on its own.
- Silent on which industries or states gain.
- A gross flow, not net of imports.
Latest $3.75T, Apr 2026 · FRED EXPGS · full history →
The value of goods and services US buyers purchase from abroad.
What it's good for
- A read on US demand and on supply chains.
- Rises with a strong consumer and a strong dollar.
- Pairs with exports to show the balance.
What it misses
- Nominal dollars, not inflation-adjusted.
- More imports is not inherently good or bad.
- Hides which products and partners are involved.
Latest $4.62T, Apr 2026 · FRED IMPGS · full history →
Exports minus imports: whether the US sells more to the world than it buys.
What it's good for
- One number for the trade position.
- Part of how GDP is built up.
- A long, consistent history.
What it misses
- An accounting balance, not a win-or-lose scorecard.
- A deficit is financed by capital inflows the number does not show.
- Nominal dollars, with no direct read on jobs.
Latest -$0.87T, Apr 2026 · FRED NETEXP · full history →
The dollar's value against a basket of trading-partner currencies.
What it's good for
- One number for the dollar abroad, trade-weighted.
- Ties to import prices and export competitiveness.
- Reported daily by the Federal Reserve.
What it misses
- Its value abroad, not what a dollar buys at home.
- A stronger dollar helps some and hurts others, so it carries no verdict.
- A basket; it hides moves against any single currency.
Latest 120.7, Jul 2026 · FRED DTWEXBGS · full history →
What Americans spent at stores and restaurants in a month.
What it's good for
- A fast read on consumer demand, which is most of the economy.
- Monthly, and released early.
- Broad coverage of spending.
What it misses
- Nominal dollars, so inflation alone can lift it.
- The advance estimate is revised.
- Counts spending, not whether people can afford it.
Latest $769B, Jun 2026 · FRED RSAFS · full history →
The share of after-tax income households do not spend.
What it's good for
- A read on household caution and financial cushion.
- Moves with confidence and the business cycle.
- Decades of monthly history.
What it misses
- A residual of other estimates, so it gets revised.
- An aggregate; it hides who is saving and who cannot.
- A rising rate can reflect either caution or hardship.
Latest 2.7%, Jun 2026 · FRED PSAVERT · full history →
After-tax income per person, adjusted for inflation.
What it's good for
- Captures the income left to spend or save, net of taxes.
- Inflation-adjusted, and per person.
- Reported monthly.
What it misses
- An average lifted by high earners, not the typical household.
- Includes government transfers, so it can rise without wage gains.
- Silent on cost-of-living differences across places.
Latest $52,669, Jun 2026 · FRED A229RX0 · full history →
Required debt payments as a share of after-tax household income.
What it's good for
- A read on how stretched household budgets are by debt.
- Income-scaled, so it is comparable over time.
- A consistent Federal Reserve estimate.
What it misses
- An aggregate average across all households.
- An estimate of minimum payments, not actual ones.
- The series goes back only to 2005.
Latest 11.2%, Jan 2026 · FRED TDSP · full history →
The total net worth of US households and nonprofits, assets minus debts.
What it's good for
- A broad read on the household balance sheet.
- Long history, back to the early 1950s.
- Captures wealth, which income data misses.
What it misses
- An aggregate; it says nothing about how wealth is split.
- Swings with stock and home prices.
- Folds nonprofits in with households.
Latest $183.0T, Jan 2026 · FRED TNWBSHNO · full history →
The share of credit-card balances that are past due.
What it's good for
- An early sign of household financial stress.
- Drawn from bank data, not a survey.
- Reported quarterly, with long history.
What it misses
- Credit cards are one slice of household debt.
- It lags the squeeze; people fall behind only after a while.
- Bank-reported, so it can shift with lending standards.
Latest 2.9%, Jan 2026 · FRED DRCCLACBS · full history →
How confident households feel about the economy and their own finances.
What it's good for
- Captures felt experience that output data cannot.
- Predicts spending and mood.
- Decades of consistent monthly history.
What it misses
- Noisy, and swayed by the news cycle.
- Feelings are not a substitute for output data.
- Can diverge from how people actually behave.
Latest 44.8, May 2026 · FRED UMCSENT · full history →
The number of new homes builders broke ground on, at an annual rate.
What it's good for
- A leading indicator; building responds early to rates.
- Ties to jobs, materials, and confidence.
- Decades of monthly history.
What it misses
- Volatile month to month.
- Weather-sensitive.
- Starts are not completions; plans change.
Latest 1.43M, Jun 2026 · FRED HOUST · full history →
The price of the home in the middle of those sold.
What it's good for
- A read on housing costs and household wealth.
- Long history, back to 1963.
- Ties to affordability, rates, and construction.
What it misses
- The mix of homes sold shifts, so it is not a quality-constant price.
- A national median hides hot and cold local markets.
- Nominal dollars; inflation lifts it on its own.
Latest $410,700, Apr 2026 · FRED MSPUS · full history →
The share of all US household net worth held by the wealthiest 1%.
What it's good for
- A single, sourced read on how concentrated wealth is.
- From the Federal Reserve, quarterly back to 1989.
- Captures wealth, which income and wage figures leave out.
What it misses
- Wealth is not income or wages; it is a stock (assets minus debts), not a flow.
- Says nothing about who is in the top 1% or how they got there.
- Net worth at the very top is hard to measure, so estimates carry uncertainty.
Latest 31.6%, Jan 2026 · FRED WFRBST01134 · full history →
The share of US household net worth held by the wealthiest 0.1% of households.
What it's good for
- Isolates the very top, finer than the top 1%.
- Tracks concentration at the peak over time.
- Fed distributional accounts, quarterly.
What it misses
- A share, not a count of people or a dollar figure.
- Swings with asset prices, since the top holds mostly stocks.
- Silent on how the wealth was built or taxed.
Latest 14.4%, Jan 2026 · FRED WFRBSTP1300 · full history →
The share of US household net worth held by the least-wealthy half of households.
What it's good for
- Shows how much the bottom half holds, in one number.
- A read on wealth at the lower end, which income data misses.
- Fed distributional accounts, quarterly since 1989.
What it misses
- A share of the whole, not a dollar amount per household.
- Net worth nets out debt; some here hold little or below zero.
- Says nothing about income or mobility.
Latest 2.5%, Jan 2026 · FRED WFRBSB50215 · full history →
The share of corporate equities and mutual-fund shares held by the top 1%.
What it's good for
- Shows who owns the stock market.
- Helps explain why market gains and typical wealth diverge.
- Fed distributional accounts.
What it misses
- Direct holdings; stock held inside pensions is counted elsewhere.
- A share, not a dollar amount.
- Owning shares is not the same as realized income.
Latest 50.2%, Jan 2026 · FRED WFRBST01122 · full history →
Income inequality on one scale, from 0 (everyone equal) to 100 (one household holds it all).
What it's good for
- One comparable number across countries and years.
- Summarizes the whole distribution in a figure.
- Widely used and understood.
What it misses
- One number hides where the gap sits, at the top, middle, or bottom.
- Pre-tax and post-tax versions differ; check which.
- Two very different distributions can share a score.
Latest 41.8, Jan 2024 · FRED SIPOVGINIUSA · full history →
The share of US net worth held by the Silent generation and earlier (born before 1946).
What it's good for
- Shows the oldest cohort handing wealth down over time.
- The top of the generational handoff, in one line.
- Fed distributional accounts.
What it misses
- Falls over time as the cohort ages and shrinks, by design.
- A share of the whole, not wealth per household.
- Silent on inheritance flows between generations.
Latest 11.3%, Jan 2026 · FRED dfa-generation-shares · full history →
The share of US net worth held by Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964).
What it's good for
- Shows how much one generation holds of the whole.
- Tracks the wealth handoff between generations over time.
- Fed distributional accounts.
What it misses
- Compare generations at the same age, not the same date; a younger group always starts lower.
- A share that shifts as cohorts grow and shrink.
- Hides the spread within a generation.
Latest 51.6%, Jan 2026 · FRED dfa-generation-shares · full history →
The share of US net worth held by Generation X (born 1965 to 1980).
What it's good for
- The generation in the middle of the handoff.
- Comparable over time and against other cohorts.
- Fed distributional accounts.
What it misses
- Read it at the same age as older cohorts, not the same date.
- A share of the whole, not per household.
- Silent on the gap within the generation.
Latest 26.1%, Jan 2026 · FRED dfa-generation-shares · full history →
The share of US net worth held by Millennials and younger (born 1981 or later).
What it's good for
- A read on what younger households have built so far.
- Tracks their share as they age toward peak earning years.
- Fed distributional accounts.
What it misses
- Read it at the same age as older generations, not the same date; the cohort is younger.
- A large group holding a small share is partly an age effect.
- Hides the spread within the generation.
Latest 11.0%, Jan 2026 · FRED dfa-generation-shares · full history →
The share of US household net worth held by White, non-Hispanic households.
What it's good for
- Shows how the total is split across race and ethnicity.
- Tracks the split over time, since 1989.
- Fed distributional accounts.
What it misses
- A group's share reflects its size as well as its wealth; this is the largest group.
- A share of the total is not wealth per household.
- Four broad groups; Asian and Native American households are not broken out.
Latest 82.9%, Jan 2026 · FRED dfa-race-shares · full history →
The share of US household net worth held by Black, non-Hispanic households.
What it's good for
- A direct read on one group's slice of the total.
- Comparable over time and against other groups.
- Fed distributional accounts.
What it misses
- Read it against the group's share of the population, not alone.
- A share is not wealth per household.
- A broad group; it hides the spread within.
Latest 3.3%, Jan 2026 · FRED dfa-race-shares · full history →
The share of US household net worth held by Hispanic households, of any race.
What it's good for
- Tracks one group's slice of the total over time.
- Comparable against the other groups.
- Fed distributional accounts.
What it misses
- A share reflects the group's size as well as its wealth.
- Not the same as wealth per household.
- Defined by ethnicity, so it spans races.
Latest 2.4%, Jan 2026 · FRED dfa-race-shares · full history →
The share of US household net worth held by households of other or multiple races (the Fed labels this group "Other").
What it's good for
- Captures the households the three named groups leave out.
- Comparable over time.
- Fed distributional accounts.
What it misses
- A mixed group, including Asian, Native, and multiracial households, so it hides large differences within.
- A share, not wealth per household.
- Its share partly tracks the group's growth in number.
Latest 11.4%, Jan 2026 · FRED dfa-race-shares · full history →
The average share of income the lowest-earning fifth pay in federal taxes.
What it's good for
- Includes payroll and excise taxes, not just income tax.
- Comparable across groups and over time.
- From the Congressional Budget Office.
What it misses
- An average; it hides variation within the group.
- Federal only; state and local taxes weigh more here.
- Net of refundable credits, which can pull it low.
Latest 1.4%, Jan 2022 · FRED cbo-dhi-table9 · full history →
The average share of income the top 1% actually pay in federal taxes.
What it's good for
- What is actually paid, after deductions and the mix of income types.
- Comparable across income groups and back to 1979.
- From the Congressional Budget Office.
What it misses
- An average across the group, not any one household.
- Runs below the top statutory rate, which hits only the last dollar.
- Federal only; it leaves out state and local taxes.
Latest 31.5%, Jan 2022 · FRED cbo-dhi-table9 · full history →
The highest-bracket federal income-tax rate set in law.
What it's good for
- A clear, sourced policy number with a century of history.
- Shows the top rate on paper over time.
- A reference point in tax-policy debates.
What it misses
- The rate on the last dollar, not what anyone pays on average.
- Effective rates run well below it.
- Income tax only; it ignores payroll and capital-gains rates.
Latest 37.0%, Jan 2018 · FRED IITTRHB · full history →
Independent expenditures by outside groups in presidential election cycles.
What it's good for
- Tracks money spent outside the campaigns, before and after Citizens United.
- Traceable, FEC-reported dollars.
- Comparable across presidential cycles.
What it misses
- Excludes dark money, which is not disclosed by definition.
- Spending is not the same as influence or results.
- Presidential cycles only; midterms run lower.
Latest $4.43B, Nov 2024 · FRED schedule_e · full history →