The whole thing really does unravel at the unemployment rate. If it indicates the correct view of the economy, even close to “full employment”, then what follows is fairly typical and orthodox stuff. In the context of what the Fed is doing, short-term rate hikes are leading the longer end of the yield curve toward a more hopeful future (though not necessarily one that is like full recovery).

If the unemployment rate is instead wrong, then: wages aren’t going to accelerate; inflation is in no danger of picking up because significant labor slack remains; meaning that the 15 or 16 (or more) million Americans left out of the official ratio do matter; and therefore after ten years the US and global economy still has much bigger problems than the ridiculous dots. For the Fed, it would be huge, failing on both of its statutory mandates in a very big way.

Given these stakes, it’s no wonder the word “transitory” has been used as much as it has. Janet Yellen has to be right about this one, or it all falls apart. That’s why more and more there are publicly voiced dissents, the latest from influential San Francisco Fed President John Williams who now questions some very basic policy assumptions (though not nearly basic enough for actual answers).

Vice President Stanley Fischer abruptly retired last month, cryptically citing only “personal reasons” for his departure. Perhaps he was upset his name wasn’t forwarded into final consideration for the Fed Chairmanship, or that Yellen maybe wasn’t being taken seriously enough; or perhaps Fischer doesn’t like where the evidence is really taking the Fed, the now non-trivial risk that there could eventually be blowback due to present policymakers’ unraveling worldview.

Fischer has been joined just recently at the exit door by FRBNY President Bill Dudley. Though he moves up his retirement by only six months, it places the Fed in an unusual position of very public churn.