5 ms·

America is in a serious jobs slump

122 points by paulpauper 1y ago

cranberryturkey 1y ago
Has been for more than two years.
- trod1234 1y ago
  That leaves us in solid stagflation territory.
  - javanissen 1y ago
    Sub-3% inflation [0] and 3% annualized GDP growth [1] sure doesn’t seem like stagflation to me. Not everything is sunshine and flowers but we shouldn’t throw around terms when they don’t apply. [0] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
    - Supermancho 1y ago
      > Not everything is sunshine and flowers but we shouldn’t throw around terms when they don’t apply. It seems to apply, despite your dismissal. Inflation is an ongoing and pressing concern, as stated by the Federal Reserve. The tightening of monetary policy has contributed to unemployment. GDP is irrelevant, as stagflation is a paradox, not a goalpost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation To whit: > In economic theory, there are two main explanations for stagflation: supply shocks, such as a sharp increase in oil prices, and misguided government policies that hinder industrial output while expanding the money supply too rapidly.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- quantified 1y ago
  No it hasn't. [https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/04/september-2024-us-jobs-report.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/04/september-2024-us-jobs-repor...]
  - nickff 1y ago
    It seems to depend on what data you look at, and exactly how you look at it: https://i0.wp.com/mishtalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Nonfarm-Payrolls-and-Employment-Level-2025-08.png?resize=1024%2C656&quality=80&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/mishtalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/No...
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - m00x 1y ago
    Almost all of these reports have now been revised down. https://www.semafor.com/article/08/21/2024/us-job-growth-weaker-than-originally-thought https://www.semafor.com/article/08/21/2024/us-job-growth-wea... It's strange that CNBC here decided to use the unrevised numbers instead of the more accurate revised numbers, especially when leading into the election.
  - cranberryturkey 1y ago
    The official numbers are pure bullshit.
- Supermancho 1y ago
  > Has been for more than two years. Tech and Manufacturing have been.
TesterVetter 1y ago
We are already in a recession. The S&P500 is propped up by a few companies, Gold is crushing stocks, job numbers are horrendous, and the private rate markets are telling us rates are going lower, fast. Gold, a static commodity, outperforming stock indices is practically a shout from the top of a mountain that companies are doing terribly because they cannot produce returns greater than the inflation of commodity prices. Look at how many treasuries the large banks are buying in anticipation of lower rates. The corporate media and the Federal Reserve (of Public Relation) just want to paper over it long enough for the large players to get positioned before the rest of the market realizes it.
- carabiner 1y ago
  More likely, we're in a dual economy. Even McDonalds is noticing it: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/mcdonalds-high-prices-tariffs-inflation-what-to-know-economy-rcna228650 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/mcdonalds-high-pri... For the next 50 years or so, we have to accept that the US is a housing-anchored gerontocracy, with younger people expected to be the underclass serving the elderly. There are no checks and balances against the elderly in the US government, and of course there never will be.
baggy_trough 1y ago
[flagged]
- avmich 1y ago
  > Progressives do everything they possibly can to make it expensive and risky to hire people. Could you provide some evidence? Please avoid workers rights cases.
- AvAn12 1y ago
  you sure about that? Lots of progressive policies stimulate job growth e.g. infrastructure act, CHIPS act, Obamacare, support for public transit, etc. are all make it easier and less risky to hire people. I do agree with you about the disadvantages of the mad king routine, which injects uncertainty, risk, and chaos...
  - baggy_trough 1y ago
    Yes, I am sure. Progressive policies such as raising the minimum wage, mandating benefits such as paid leave, and making it easier for workers to sue for various infractions, some of an extremely technical nature, has the effect of making it more expensive and legally risky to hire workers. There's an enormous laundry list of such policies and progressives never seem to get tired of inventing new ones. The result will be that less workers are hired than otherwise.
    - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
      This is such a nothingburger of a point that gets trotted out every time these discussions happen. No business I have ever worked for in my entire career has given a wet shit about the "regulatory burden" of hiring. We hire the minimum number of people we think can do a given job effectively, and then products end prices are based on those expenses, raw materials, with an amount on top for profit. The regulatory and compliance burden is an expense, sure, but it was an expense the second we hired one person. The work is more for 150 people vs 1, sure. But that's literally why you have an HR department, that's their entire reason to exist. If your business can't employ people without abusing them you don't belong in business, period, paragraph. Stop bellyaching about the work you have to do to run a business and do your fucking job.
exabrial 1y ago
* reduce liability to hire people to businesses * eliminate taxes on employing people * stop runaway inflation
HumblyTossed 1y ago
[flagged]
jimt1234 1y ago
> Employment gains were so weak in the July jobs report that President Donald Trump fired the head of the bureau charged with collecting the data, baselessly claiming it was rigged. That first sentence really sets the tone, not just of the article, but also of the current political climate.
- itsoktocry 1y ago
  Well, it's not even true. Trump did (baselessly?) fire the BLS head, but it was because of revisions that looked convenient for the last administration.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Revisions which were regular standard practice. About ~50% of the revisions made the previous administration look good, and about 50% made them look bad.
    - itsoktocry 1y ago
      You are only half reading the news. Yes, revisions are valid and happen. Yes, a look at historical revisions don't show any bias. But where are you seeing that half made Trump look good? https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm
      - axus 1y ago
        Biden was the previous administration.
      - teemur 1y ago
        The whole of trumps first stint? For this year's numbers there are two possible stories that come to my mind: 1. The jobs are going ~constantly downhill and any new, revised number is going to be worse than previous 2. There is a conspiracy and initially the numbers are systematically inflated and/or afterwards deflated because reasons... that are completely incomprehensible to me. I don't even understand if this conspiracy theory should be pro or against trump.
nzeid 1y ago
I haven't read anything comprehensive about how much damage the tarriffs have done to businesses, especially those that rely on procurement contracts that suffered compounded price increases. But a sudden drop in jobs would be a pretty good indicator of the collapse of those businesses.
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  From what I know from friends in a few different industries, it's fucking brutal right now. Raw materials/parts costs from China have all increased and not by a bit, but by huge amounts. Finished product prices all have to go up to compensate which means sales of... everything not completely essential are falling. All the lost jobs also means less money to go around for consumers, which of course means even fewer sales which means more layoffs. And that's not even going into sectors that are dependent on migrant labor and all the downstream industries from THEM. Truly just masterstrokes of policy from the current administration. Well maybe people will finally start paying attention when what's left of American manufacturing eats shit. You'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical though. Huge swathes of the American public are so utterly underwater in propaganda that they've lost the ability to reason entirely.
  - cheema33 1y ago
    We have create a massive cult at the national level. There is no reasoning with them. There is nothing that this administration can do to offend them or shake their confidence.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    > Huge swathes of the American public are so utterly underwater in propaganda that they've lost the ability to reason entirely. They're right here on HN as well. And they're accusing the rest that they are the ones that are drinking the kool aid. It's a pretty weird time, tbh, I never ever thought it would get this bad. But I've seen some glimpses of it, a Dutch guy I know emigrated to the USA, got married to a woman in one of the heartland states and within a short few months he was completely on the Trump bandwagon and saying and writing stuff that his previous incarnation would be horrified at.
Ericson2314 1y ago
Time for Americans to suffer as we deserve. (I am also American, living in America.)
- deafpolygon 1y ago
  No Americans deserve to suffer for the greed of the few.
  - 11101010001100 1y ago
    How about just a few Americans then.
    - throwway120385 1y ago
      But only the ones I disagree with.
      - yibg 1y ago
        How about only the ones that voted for exactly what is happening?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - gtowey 1y ago
    What if we didn't stop them because we were also benefitting from their greed?
  - dragon-hn 1y ago
    Maybe I am missing something but ~1/3 of voting age Americans voted for this. Trump was very clear that tariffs were coming, and even warned that Americans should be prepared for some tough times. And another ~1/3 were comfortable enough with this to not bother voting. I think people deserve what they vote for.
    - 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rwyinuse 1y ago
"For the first time in more than four years, there are fewer open jobs than there are job seekers." Americans still have it pretty good in that respect. Over here in EU my country gets to enjoy 9% unemployment rate and many times more job seekers than jobs.
- Varelion 1y ago
  Key difference being the social safety nets in place around the jobless and under-employed.
- KoolKat23 1y ago
  I suspect if you had to only count decent jobs, the numbers might look a bit different.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  The USA is a continent-sized-country it would be better to list states vs EU countries, which have a considerable spread. Or you could compare the whole of the Eurozone or the whole of the EU with the USA. That would be a better comparison.
- HumblyTossed 1y ago
  If I lose my job, I lose my healthcare. I only have unemployment benefits for a period of time. We have almost no social safety nets.
alfalfasprout 1y ago
One thing I don't see much research into (maybe I'm wrong) is whether the US has major data quality issues with labor data. Jobs reports just don't seem at all to square away with the vast anecdotal accounts from both employed and unemployed individuals across a swath of industries. It's no secret that companies put up job listings they either have no intention of filling or are simply H1B fraud (impossible listings used to justify an eventual H1B hire). This would make the "true" number of open jobs within a sector far, far worse than reported. Comparing jobseekers to job openings is also a very imprecise approach. For certain industries, the gap is bound to be far worse than for others. And the same is true when you look at it by level, experience, etc. The US is thus in a weird position where equity markets look OK... largely boosted by gains in a small selection of companies (in what's perhaps an AI fueled bubble) and the economy looks a tad rough but not horrible. The real impact of tariffs + broader economic policy is being underrepresented in the data. This can only last so long. Eventually, inventories will be depleted and tariff impacts will rear their head. Eventually, the true unemployment rate will result in increased eviction rates, lower savings rates, and lower median consumption.
- dotnet00 1y ago
  I think the reasoning behind why you can mostly look past the fake listings is that the numbers are treated as meaningful relative to each other, and so, the ratio of false listings should be relatively similar.
- alexpotato 1y ago
  > Jobs reports just don't seem at all to square away with the vast anecdotal accounts from both employed and unemployed individuals across a swath of industries. Agreed and on multiple fronts. e.g. I can imagine that white collar workers may not claim unemployment due to a combination of embarrassment/"I don't need it as much as other folks" so the numbers are probably under-reported there. I've also heard it's bad for recent grads but then a recent grad I know sent me the below: "I’ve been hearing this a lot lately, and honestly, it’s pretty silly. Yes, tech majors are definitely over saturated, but in my opinion, you shouldn’t be able to go to school for four years, do the bare minimum the entire time, and get a great job after college. From my experience, everyone who worked really really hard and knew their stuff got to a place that they’re happy with" The above could have been what I said back in 2002 right after the dotcom boom. In other words, it's unclear if companies are hiring fewer junior folks, junior folks were benefiting from ZIRP/boom market or a combination of both.
jauntywundrkind 1y ago
The Financial Times coverage is particularly terrifying, pinning almost all economic growth to "a handful of states, artificial intelligence, healthcare and the wealthy". It also notes that health care isnt productive. It's a measure of societal overhead, basically. Yet that was by far one of the largest sources for new jobs. https://archive.ph/2025.09.08-053701/https://www.ft.com/content/e9be3e3f-2efe-42f7-b2d2-8ab3efea27a8 https://archive.ph/2025.09.08-053701/https://www.ft.com/cont...
- alephnerd 1y ago
  I posted that article yesterday on HN, but got no engagement [0]. It is absolutely worrisome, and does connect with my own personal experience visiting other states for work - there is a slowdown in most states aside from those with large diversified economies like CA, TX, NY, FL, and NC that also benefited from the IRA [1], IIJA, and CHIPS [2] act. Those states with moderate expansion like PA, OH, IN, AZ, and SC are also those that had manufacturing industries that benefited from the IRA [0], IIJA, and CHIPS [2] act. The states marked as "Treading Water" or "In Recession" didn't receive significant economic stimulus on a per capita basis (eg. Clean energy jobs created in GA vs IN were similar despite GA receiving double the amount of IRA funding and GA having almost 1.7x the population of Indiana) and lack diversified or semi-diversified economies [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45160699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45160699 [1] - https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/map-which-states-are-attracting-clean-energy-investments-and-jobs https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/map-which-states-ar... [2] - https://www.eiu.com/n/us-election-its-impact-on-industrial-policy/ https://www.eiu.com/n/us-election-its-impact-on-industrial-p...
- blackjack_ 1y ago
  Yeah, reading the FT article, it claims “Healthcare, technology and real estate are expanding, while financial services, retail and hospitality are treading water”. Much of real estate is also a net drag that isn't productive...
  - alephnerd 1y ago
    Most of the Real Estate capex over the last few years has been in manufacturing real estate such as factories, or infra spending such as data centers. Both those have value at a macro-level, and are largely a result of IIJA, IRA, and CHIPS act era subsidies, though CHIPS act adjacent spend was "AI-washed" which helped extend adjacent industries capex. I've previously called out this kind of AI-washing as well [0] - it reminds me of the Telecom Bubble during the 1990s-2000s. [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44069086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44069086
jacquesm 1y ago
I have a strong feeling this is just the opening stages. The damage done to the US economy and to the trust image of the US abroad is still very hard to get a grip on. And with every passing day it is still getting worse.
lisbbb 1y ago
I hate CNN--Trump didn't fire the BLS head because the numbers were bad, he fired them because the BLS has been cooking those numbers for 35 years or more! Such HORRIBLE reporting!
- lisbbb 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - m00x 1y ago
    He's not wrong that the BLS is terrible at projecting these numbers, and the media is even worse and presents these guesses as facts. https://www.semafor.com/article/08/21/2024/us-job-growth-weaker-than-originally-thought https://www.semafor.com/article/08/21/2024/us-job-growth-wea... But he's wrong that it's new: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bls-jobs-report-revision-trump-fires-commissioner/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bls-jobs-report-revision-trump-... Who knows if it'll end up improving with someone new. The BLS is using pretty outdated and poor data collection methods, but it hasn't changed in decades. My guess is that nothing will change with someone new, but who knows.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Trump didn't fire the BLS head because the numbers were bad Yes, in fact, he did. > he fired them because the BLS has been cooking those numbers for 35 years or more! He fired them because the numbers were bad. He also publicly stated what he described as his “opinion” that the reason that the numbers were bad was that they were “rigged” for partisan reasons, but he has provided no evidence that that ever occurred, and I have no idea where the 35 years claim comes from.
mikert89 1y ago
Most of the biden job growth was: 1. From money printing 2. From the federal government employing some huge percentage of the usa population. Any job growth numbers and conclusions about the economy need to take the above into account.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Trump is printing money faster than Biden did. How come it's not helping him?
  - mikert89 1y ago
    have you seen interest rates? also, the FED prints money
    - bryanlarsen 1y ago
      Deficits print money too.
- dragon-hn 1y ago
  But none of that really changed. The money printer is still going ant the same pace, and will only be going faster in the coming year. And the Federal layoffs from the DOGE nonsense haven’t even started to hurt since so many are still getting paid. Something else is the source of this…
  - mikert89 1y ago
    which money printer?
- drooby 1y ago
  Reminder that Trump signed two (of three) Covid stimulus checks
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  huge percentage? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-data-says-about-federal-workers/sr_25-01-07_federal-workers_2/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-...
KoolKat23 1y ago
It's scary the reported number could change so much with so much else depending on it. Optimistically, the drop could be from temporary higher employment due to folks rushing to import additional goods before the tariffs came into effect. This might dissipate as excess stock levels reduce. How much though remains to be seen, as tariffs generally will make things tougher, unless something else compensates (unlikely).

122 points by paulpauper 1y ago

cranberryturkey 1y ago

Has been for more than two years.

trod1234 1y ago
That leaves us in solid stagflation territory.
- javanissen 1y ago
  Sub-3% inflation [0] and 3% annualized GDP growth [1] sure doesn’t seem like stagflation to me. Not everything is sunshine and flowers but we shouldn’t throw around terms when they don’t apply. [0] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
  - Supermancho 1y ago
    > Not everything is sunshine and flowers but we shouldn’t throw around terms when they don’t apply. It seems to apply, despite your dismissal. Inflation is an ongoing and pressing concern, as stated by the Federal Reserve. The tightening of monetary policy has contributed to unemployment. GDP is irrelevant, as stagflation is a paradox, not a goalpost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation To whit: > In economic theory, there are two main explanations for stagflation: supply shocks, such as a sharp increase in oil prices, and misguided government policies that hinder industrial output while expanding the money supply too rapidly.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
quantified 1y ago
No it hasn't. [https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/04/september-2024-us-jobs-report.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/04/september-2024-us-jobs-repor...]
- nickff 1y ago
  It seems to depend on what data you look at, and exactly how you look at it: https://i0.wp.com/mishtalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Nonfarm-Payrolls-and-Employment-Level-2025-08.png?resize=1024%2C656&quality=80&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/mishtalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/No...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- m00x 1y ago
  Almost all of these reports have now been revised down. https://www.semafor.com/article/08/21/2024/us-job-growth-weaker-than-originally-thought https://www.semafor.com/article/08/21/2024/us-job-growth-wea... It's strange that CNBC here decided to use the unrevised numbers instead of the more accurate revised numbers, especially when leading into the election.
- cranberryturkey 1y ago
  The official numbers are pure bullshit.
Supermancho 1y ago
> Has been for more than two years. Tech and Manufacturing have been.

TesterVetter 1y ago

We are already in a recession. The S&P500 is propped up by a few companies, Gold is crushing stocks, job numbers are horrendous, and the private rate markets are telling us rates are going lower, fast. Gold, a static commodity, outperforming stock indices is practically a shout from the top of a mountain that companies are doing terribly because they cannot produce returns greater than the inflation of commodity prices. Look at how many treasuries the large banks are buying in anticipation of lower rates. The corporate media and the Federal Reserve (of Public Relation) just want to paper over it long enough for the large players to get positioned before the rest of the market realizes it.

carabiner 1y ago
More likely, we're in a dual economy. Even McDonalds is noticing it: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/mcdonalds-high-prices-tariffs-inflation-what-to-know-economy-rcna228650 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/mcdonalds-high-pri... For the next 50 years or so, we have to accept that the US is a housing-anchored gerontocracy, with younger people expected to be the underclass serving the elderly. There are no checks and balances against the elderly in the US government, and of course there never will be.

baggy_trough 1y ago

[flagged]

avmich 1y ago
> Progressives do everything they possibly can to make it expensive and risky to hire people. Could you provide some evidence? Please avoid workers rights cases.
AvAn12 1y ago
you sure about that? Lots of progressive policies stimulate job growth e.g. infrastructure act, CHIPS act, Obamacare, support for public transit, etc. are all make it easier and less risky to hire people. I do agree with you about the disadvantages of the mad king routine, which injects uncertainty, risk, and chaos...
- baggy_trough 1y ago
  Yes, I am sure. Progressive policies such as raising the minimum wage, mandating benefits such as paid leave, and making it easier for workers to sue for various infractions, some of an extremely technical nature, has the effect of making it more expensive and legally risky to hire workers. There's an enormous laundry list of such policies and progressives never seem to get tired of inventing new ones. The result will be that less workers are hired than otherwise.
  - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
    This is such a nothingburger of a point that gets trotted out every time these discussions happen. No business I have ever worked for in my entire career has given a wet shit about the "regulatory burden" of hiring. We hire the minimum number of people we think can do a given job effectively, and then products end prices are based on those expenses, raw materials, with an amount on top for profit. The regulatory and compliance burden is an expense, sure, but it was an expense the second we hired one person. The work is more for 150 people vs 1, sure. But that's literally why you have an HR department, that's their entire reason to exist. If your business can't employ people without abusing them you don't belong in business, period, paragraph. Stop bellyaching about the work you have to do to run a business and do your fucking job.

exabrial 1y ago

* reduce liability to hire people to businesses * eliminate taxes on employing people * stop runaway inflation

HumblyTossed 1y ago

[flagged]

jimt1234 1y ago

> Employment gains were so weak in the July jobs report that President Donald Trump fired the head of the bureau charged with collecting the data, baselessly claiming it was rigged. That first sentence really sets the tone, not just of the article, but also of the current political climate.

itsoktocry 1y ago
Well, it's not even true. Trump did (baselessly?) fire the BLS head, but it was because of revisions that looked convenient for the last administration.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Revisions which were regular standard practice. About ~50% of the revisions made the previous administration look good, and about 50% made them look bad.
  - itsoktocry 1y ago
    You are only half reading the news. Yes, revisions are valid and happen. Yes, a look at historical revisions don't show any bias. But where are you seeing that half made Trump look good? https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm
    - axus 1y ago
      Biden was the previous administration.
    - teemur 1y ago
      The whole of trumps first stint? For this year's numbers there are two possible stories that come to my mind: 1. The jobs are going ~constantly downhill and any new, revised number is going to be worse than previous 2. There is a conspiracy and initially the numbers are systematically inflated and/or afterwards deflated because reasons... that are completely incomprehensible to me. I don't even understand if this conspiracy theory should be pro or against trump.

nzeid 1y ago

I haven't read anything comprehensive about how much damage the tarriffs have done to businesses, especially those that rely on procurement contracts that suffered compounded price increases. But a sudden drop in jobs would be a pretty good indicator of the collapse of those businesses.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
From what I know from friends in a few different industries, it's fucking brutal right now. Raw materials/parts costs from China have all increased and not by a bit, but by huge amounts. Finished product prices all have to go up to compensate which means sales of... everything not completely essential are falling. All the lost jobs also means less money to go around for consumers, which of course means even fewer sales which means more layoffs. And that's not even going into sectors that are dependent on migrant labor and all the downstream industries from THEM. Truly just masterstrokes of policy from the current administration. Well maybe people will finally start paying attention when what's left of American manufacturing eats shit. You'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical though. Huge swathes of the American public are so utterly underwater in propaganda that they've lost the ability to reason entirely.
- cheema33 1y ago
  We have create a massive cult at the national level. There is no reasoning with them. There is nothing that this administration can do to offend them or shake their confidence.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  > Huge swathes of the American public are so utterly underwater in propaganda that they've lost the ability to reason entirely. They're right here on HN as well. And they're accusing the rest that they are the ones that are drinking the kool aid. It's a pretty weird time, tbh, I never ever thought it would get this bad. But I've seen some glimpses of it, a Dutch guy I know emigrated to the USA, got married to a woman in one of the heartland states and within a short few months he was completely on the Trump bandwagon and saying and writing stuff that his previous incarnation would be horrified at.

Ericson2314 1y ago

Time for Americans to suffer as we deserve. (I am also American, living in America.)

deafpolygon 1y ago
No Americans deserve to suffer for the greed of the few.
- 11101010001100 1y ago
  How about just a few Americans then.
  - throwway120385 1y ago
    But only the ones I disagree with.
    - yibg 1y ago
      How about only the ones that voted for exactly what is happening?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- gtowey 1y ago
  What if we didn't stop them because we were also benefitting from their greed?
- dragon-hn 1y ago
  Maybe I am missing something but ~1/3 of voting age Americans voted for this. Trump was very clear that tariffs were coming, and even warned that Americans should be prepared for some tough times. And another ~1/3 were comfortable enough with this to not bother voting. I think people deserve what they vote for.
  - 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

rwyinuse 1y ago

"For the first time in more than four years, there are fewer open jobs than there are job seekers." Americans still have it pretty good in that respect. Over here in EU my country gets to enjoy 9% unemployment rate and many times more job seekers than jobs.

Varelion 1y ago
Key difference being the social safety nets in place around the jobless and under-employed.
KoolKat23 1y ago
I suspect if you had to only count decent jobs, the numbers might look a bit different.
jacquesm 1y ago
The USA is a continent-sized-country it would be better to list states vs EU countries, which have a considerable spread. Or you could compare the whole of the Eurozone or the whole of the EU with the USA. That would be a better comparison.
HumblyTossed 1y ago
If I lose my job, I lose my healthcare. I only have unemployment benefits for a period of time. We have almost no social safety nets.

alfalfasprout 1y ago

One thing I don't see much research into (maybe I'm wrong) is whether the US has major data quality issues with labor data. Jobs reports just don't seem at all to square away with the vast anecdotal accounts from both employed and unemployed individuals across a swath of industries. It's no secret that companies put up job listings they either have no intention of filling or are simply H1B fraud (impossible listings used to justify an eventual H1B hire). This would make the "true" number of open jobs within a sector far, far worse than reported. Comparing jobseekers to job openings is also a very imprecise approach. For certain industries, the gap is bound to be far worse than for others. And the same is true when you look at it by level, experience, etc. The US is thus in a weird position where equity markets look OK... largely boosted by gains in a small selection of companies (in what's perhaps an AI fueled bubble) and the economy looks a tad rough but not horrible. The real impact of tariffs + broader economic policy is being underrepresented in the data. This can only last so long. Eventually, inventories will be depleted and tariff impacts will rear their head. Eventually, the true unemployment rate will result in increased eviction rates, lower savings rates, and lower median consumption.

dotnet00 1y ago
I think the reasoning behind why you can mostly look past the fake listings is that the numbers are treated as meaningful relative to each other, and so, the ratio of false listings should be relatively similar.
alexpotato 1y ago
> Jobs reports just don't seem at all to square away with the vast anecdotal accounts from both employed and unemployed individuals across a swath of industries. Agreed and on multiple fronts. e.g. I can imagine that white collar workers may not claim unemployment due to a combination of embarrassment/"I don't need it as much as other folks" so the numbers are probably under-reported there. I've also heard it's bad for recent grads but then a recent grad I know sent me the below: "I’ve been hearing this a lot lately, and honestly, it’s pretty silly. Yes, tech majors are definitely over saturated, but in my opinion, you shouldn’t be able to go to school for four years, do the bare minimum the entire time, and get a great job after college. From my experience, everyone who worked really really hard and knew their stuff got to a place that they’re happy with" The above could have been what I said back in 2002 right after the dotcom boom. In other words, it's unclear if companies are hiring fewer junior folks, junior folks were benefiting from ZIRP/boom market or a combination of both.

jauntywundrkind 1y ago

The Financial Times coverage is particularly terrifying, pinning almost all economic growth to "a handful of states, artificial intelligence, healthcare and the wealthy". It also notes that health care isnt productive. It's a measure of societal overhead, basically. Yet that was by far one of the largest sources for new jobs. https://archive.ph/2025.09.08-053701/https://www.ft.com/content/e9be3e3f-2efe-42f7-b2d2-8ab3efea27a8 https://archive.ph/2025.09.08-053701/https://www.ft.com/cont...

alephnerd 1y ago
I posted that article yesterday on HN, but got no engagement [0]. It is absolutely worrisome, and does connect with my own personal experience visiting other states for work - there is a slowdown in most states aside from those with large diversified economies like CA, TX, NY, FL, and NC that also benefited from the IRA [1], IIJA, and CHIPS [2] act. Those states with moderate expansion like PA, OH, IN, AZ, and SC are also those that had manufacturing industries that benefited from the IRA [0], IIJA, and CHIPS [2] act. The states marked as "Treading Water" or "In Recession" didn't receive significant economic stimulus on a per capita basis (eg. Clean energy jobs created in GA vs IN were similar despite GA receiving double the amount of IRA funding and GA having almost 1.7x the population of Indiana) and lack diversified or semi-diversified economies [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45160699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45160699 [1] - https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/map-which-states-are-attracting-clean-energy-investments-and-jobs https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/map-which-states-ar... [2] - https://www.eiu.com/n/us-election-its-impact-on-industrial-policy/ https://www.eiu.com/n/us-election-its-impact-on-industrial-p...
blackjack_ 1y ago
Yeah, reading the FT article, it claims “Healthcare, technology and real estate are expanding, while financial services, retail and hospitality are treading water”. Much of real estate is also a net drag that isn't productive...
- alephnerd 1y ago
  Most of the Real Estate capex over the last few years has been in manufacturing real estate such as factories, or infra spending such as data centers. Both those have value at a macro-level, and are largely a result of IIJA, IRA, and CHIPS act era subsidies, though CHIPS act adjacent spend was "AI-washed" which helped extend adjacent industries capex. I've previously called out this kind of AI-washing as well [0] - it reminds me of the Telecom Bubble during the 1990s-2000s. [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44069086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44069086

jacquesm 1y ago

I have a strong feeling this is just the opening stages. The damage done to the US economy and to the trust image of the US abroad is still very hard to get a grip on. And with every passing day it is still getting worse.

lisbbb 1y ago

I hate CNN--Trump didn't fire the BLS head because the numbers were bad, he fired them because the BLS has been cooking those numbers for 35 years or more! Such HORRIBLE reporting!

lisbbb 1y ago
[flagged]
- m00x 1y ago
  He's not wrong that the BLS is terrible at projecting these numbers, and the media is even worse and presents these guesses as facts. https://www.semafor.com/article/08/21/2024/us-job-growth-weaker-than-originally-thought https://www.semafor.com/article/08/21/2024/us-job-growth-wea... But he's wrong that it's new: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bls-jobs-report-revision-trump-fires-commissioner/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bls-jobs-report-revision-trump-... Who knows if it'll end up improving with someone new. The BLS is using pretty outdated and poor data collection methods, but it hasn't changed in decades. My guess is that nothing will change with someone new, but who knows.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Trump didn't fire the BLS head because the numbers were bad Yes, in fact, he did. > he fired them because the BLS has been cooking those numbers for 35 years or more! He fired them because the numbers were bad. He also publicly stated what he described as his “opinion” that the reason that the numbers were bad was that they were “rigged” for partisan reasons, but he has provided no evidence that that ever occurred, and I have no idea where the 35 years claim comes from.

mikert89 1y ago

Most of the biden job growth was: 1. From money printing 2. From the federal government employing some huge percentage of the usa population. Any job growth numbers and conclusions about the economy need to take the above into account.

bryanlarsen 1y ago
Trump is printing money faster than Biden did. How come it's not helping him?
- mikert89 1y ago
  have you seen interest rates? also, the FED prints money
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Deficits print money too.
dragon-hn 1y ago
But none of that really changed. The money printer is still going ant the same pace, and will only be going faster in the coming year. And the Federal layoffs from the DOGE nonsense haven’t even started to hurt since so many are still getting paid. Something else is the source of this…
- mikert89 1y ago
  which money printer?
drooby 1y ago
Reminder that Trump signed two (of three) Covid stimulus checks
bryanlarsen 1y ago
huge percentage? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-data-says-about-federal-workers/sr_25-01-07_federal-workers_2/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-...

KoolKat23 1y ago

It's scary the reported number could change so much with so much else depending on it. Optimistically, the drop could be from temporary higher employment due to folks rushing to import additional goods before the tariffs came into effect. This might dissipate as excess stock levels reduce. How much though remains to be seen, as tariffs generally will make things tougher, unless something else compensates (unlikely).