Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobility”, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 104(5): 141–147. Chetty, Raj and Nathaniel Hendren. 2015. “The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility: Childhood Exposure Effects and County-Level Estimates”. Harvard University and NBER. Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline and Emmanuel Saez. 2014. “Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4): 1553–1623. Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz. 2015. “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment” Harvard University and NBER. Deming, David. 2009. “Early Childhood Intervention and Life-Cycle Skill Development: Evidence from Head Start”, American Economic Journal Applied Economics, 1:3, 111–134. Deming, David. 2011. “Better Schools, Less Crime?” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4): 2063–2215. Deming, David, Justine Hastings, Thomas Kane and Douglas Staiger. 2011. “School Choice, School Quality and Postsecondary Attainment”. NBER Working paper No. 17438. Dobbie, Will and Roland Fryer. 2011. “Are High-Quality Schools Enough to Increase Achievement Among the Poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(3): 158–187. Dobbie, Will and Roland Fryer. 2015. “The Medium-Term Impacts of High-Achieving Charter Schools,” Journal of Political Economy, 123(5): 985–1037. Heckman, James J. 2006. “Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children”, Science, 312, 1900. 6  BIS central bankers’ speeches  Hellerstein, Judith K., Melissa McInerney and David Neumark. 2011. “Neighbors and CoWorkers: The Importance of Residential Labor Market Networks,” Journal of Labor Economics, 29(4): 659–695. Hoxby, Caroline. 2003.

The FOMC's decision to start the process of reducing monetary support for the economy reflected the strength and resilience the economy has displayed early this year, as well as the very high inflation readings of the past several months. In addition to the decision to raise the target range for the federal funds rate, the FOMC communicated two important messages about the likely future course of monetary policy. First, the FOMC indicated that it expects that ongoing increases in the target range will be appropriate.4 Although the FOMC did not make any decisions about future policy actions, its Summary of Economic Projections is informative regarding the thinking on the Committee at the time of the March meeting. The median assessment of the appropriate level of the federal funds rate at the end of next year is expected to be somewhat above the median assessment of its longer-run level.5 Of course, these are only forecasts. Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains extraordinarily high, and risks to the inflation outlook are particularly acute. One of the things we've learned from the pandemic is to expect the unexpected. The actual path for policy will depend on the evolution of economic conditions, the outlook, and risks to the achievement of our price stability and maximum employment goals. 3/5  BIS - Central bankers' speeches  Second, the FOMC indicated that it expects to decide at a coming meeting when to begin reducing its holdings of securities.