US applications for jobless benefits rise last week, but layoffs remain historically low
Applications for unemployment benefits for the week ending Aug. 16 rose by 11,000 to 235,000, the Labor Department reported Thursday. That's slightly more than the 229,000 new applications that economists had forecast.
Weekly applications for jobless benefits are seen as a proxy for layoffs and have mostly settled in a historically healthy range between 200,000 and 250,000 since the U.S. began to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic more than three years ago.
While layoffs remain low by historical comparisons, there has been noticeable deterioration in the labor market this year and mounting evidence that people are having difficulty finding jobs.
U.S. employers added just 73,000 jobs in July, well short of the 115,000 analysts forecast. Worse, revisions to the May and June figures shaved 258,000 jobs off previous estimates and the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2% from 4.1%.
That report sent financial markets spiraling, spurring President Donald Trump to fire Erika McEntarfer, the head of Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tallies the monthly employment numbers. The BLS does not contribute to the weekly unemployment benefits report except to calculate the annual seasonal adjustments.
The BLS reported earlier this week that the unemployment rate in Washington, D.C. eclipsed 6% in July, the third straight month that it was the highest in the U.S.
The rising D.C. jobless rate is a reflection of the mass layoffs of federal workers by Trump's Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. An overall decline in international tourism — a main driver of D.C.'s income — is also expected to have an impact on the climbing unemployment rate in the District.
Neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia, where many federal employees reside, also saw an uptick in unemployment rates in July.
Since the beginning of Trump's second term, federal workers across government agencies have been either laid off or asked to voluntarily resign, spurring lawsuits from labor unions and advocacy groups.
Another recent report on the U.S. labor market showed that employers posted 7.4 million job vacancies in June, down from 7.7 million in May. The number of people quitting their jobs — a sign of confidence in finding a better job — fell in June to the lowest level since December.
Some major companies have announced job cuts this year, including Procter & Gamble, Dow, CNN, Starbucks, Southwest Airlines, Microsoft, Google and Facebook parent company Meta. Intel and The Walt Disney Co. also recently announced staff reductions.
Many economists contend that Trump's erratic rollout of tariffs against U.S. trading partners has created uncertainty for employers, who have grown reluctant to expand their payrolls.
The Labor Department's report Thursday showed that the four-week average of claims, which softens some of the week-to-week swings, rose by 4,500 to 226,500.
The total number of Americans collecting unemployment benefits for the previous week of Aug. 9 jumped by 30,000 to 1.97 million, the most since November 6, 2021.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
3 minutes ago
- CBS News
Who qualifies for credit card debt forgiveness this September?
As we inch closer to the end of 2025, the numbers tell a sobering story about the credit card debt issues Americans are facing. Case in point? The total amount of credit card debt nationwide surpassed $1.2 trillion in the second quarter of 2025, yet another new record high, while the average cardholder owes nearly $8,000 on their unpaid balances. What's perhaps even more concerning, though, is that delinquency rates have climbed steadily over the past year. For borrowers already stretched thin, that means late fees, mounting interest charges and increasing stress as the bills pile up. At the same time, the cost of borrowing remains steep. Average credit card APRs are hovering around 22%, one of the highest levels in decades. At that rate (or higher), even a modest balance can quickly snowball into a hefty burden that can't easily be paid off, and when the debt gets too overwhelming, some cardholders may have no choice but to search for other ways to get rid of what's owed. That's where credit card debt forgiveness comes in. This strategy, typically facilitated by a debt relief company, involves negotiating directly with creditors to settle debts for less than the full amount owed. Unfortunately, though, it's not a fix for everyone. When it comes to having credit card debt forgiven, not all borrowers will qualify, as lenders and debt relief companies look for specific conditions that make a consumer a viable candidate. So what are those conditions, and who could qualify this September? Find out more about the debt relief options you could qualify for now. While debt forgiveness may sound appealing, not everyone meets the requirements to pursue this path. If you're wondering whether you might qualify, here are three borrower profiles that tend to meet the criteria: Debt forgiveness generally applies only to unsecured debts, such as credit cards, personal loans or medical bills. Secured debts like mortgages or auto loans are off the table since they're tied to collateral, and most debt relief firms also set a minimum balance threshold before they'll accept a client. Right now, that number is typically $7,500 or more in total unsecured debt, though it could be as high as $10,000 depending on the debt relief company you work with. The logic is simple for this requirement is simple: Creditors are more likely to negotiate if the amount owed is substantial enough to warrant the process, and debt relief companies need enough debt to make their services effective. If you only have a few thousand dollars in debt, pursuing a settlement probably isn't the best fit. But if you're carrying balances well above that threshold, you're likely to qualify. Explore the debt relief strategies available to you now. Creditors generally won't agree to settle if they believe you can pay your bills in full. That's why borrowers who are experiencing real financial hardship are prime candidates for debt forgiveness. This could mean a job loss, reduced income, medical emergency or another major life change that has left you unable to keep up with minimum payments. Debt relief firms often require proof of hardship, such as documentation of unemployment, medical bills or other financial challenges, to demonstrate to creditors that repayment at the full balance is unrealistic. If your situation shows that you genuinely can't pay what you owe, you're more likely to see settlement offers on the table. Finally, borrowers who are significantly delinquent on their accounts often qualify for debt forgiveness more quickly. Creditors are generally less motivated to negotiate with someone who is still current on payments since they're still collecting interest and fees. But once a borrower has fallen 90 days or more past due, lenders start to worry about getting nothing back on the account, especially if the borrower ends up filing for bankruptcy down the line. At that point, being paid for a portion of the balance becomes more appealing to them than risking a total loss. So, while being behind on payments will damage your credit score, it also signals to creditors that you're in financial distress, which is a key factor in making the settlement process possible. Debt forgiveness isn't for everyone, but for the right borrower, this type of debt relief can provide a path out of overwhelming credit card debt. And, this September, those with large amounts of unsecured debt, significant financial hardships and past-due accounts are the most likely to qualify. If you fall into one of these categories, it's important to carefully weigh the pros and cons of pursuing this type of relief. Credit card debt forgiveness can reduce your balances dramatically, but it will also impact your credit and may involve fees from the debt relief company you work with. Still, for borrowers facing the very real possibility of not being able to pay at all, it can be the difference between drowning in debt and getting a fresh start.
Forbes
3 minutes ago
- Forbes
Are Gas Prices Falling Because U.S. Oil Production Is Surging?
Simple answers are easy, but often wrong. The real ones take context, and a little more work. Below I provide the context for the question in the title, if you put in the work to read and understand. I was recently forwarded a link to a story at an NBC affiliate in Montana--'Drill, baby, drill': Gas prices might drop below $3 by end of 2025--that purports to connect the recent drop in gasoline prices with President Trump's pro-energy policies. The first line of the article states: "There has recently been a surge in oil and gas production thanks to President Donald Trump's pro-energy policies." Before we zoom in on recent oil production, it may be helpful to step back and look at the major oil production events of the past 24 years, shown in the following graphic. There were many events that have impacted oil production since 2000. During President George W. Bush's two terms, oil production continued that gradual decline that had been ongoing since the early 1970s. However, oil and gas producers were perfecting the marriage of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, which would usher in the 'shale boom', or 'fracking boom' that would soon follow. The price of oil steadily rose during Bush's presidency--cracking $100 a barrel in February 2008--and that provided significant economic incentive for the fracking boom. President Obama's two terms oversaw the largest expansion of U.S. oil and natural gas production in history. Even though Obama was largely seen as being hostile to oil and gas, technology and market forces were the most significant factor in driving oil production higher during his presidency. One exception during his term took place in late 2014, when Saudi Arabia led OPEC in increasing output despite falling prices, aiming to undercut U.S. shale producers and defend market share. This led to an oil price collapse in 2015 and 2016 from over $100 to below $30 per barrel. U.S. shale ultimately cut costs and improved efficiency, but U.S. oil production was negatively impacted for a while. Nevertheless, by November 2016 it was clear that the U.S. shale industry would survive, so OPEC reached a landmark agreement with Russia and other non-OPEC producers to cut production by 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd), marking the end of the price war and the birth of the OPEC+ alliance. This subsequently led to a price recovery, and a rebound of U.S. oil production growth. President Trump took office in January 2017, and oil production returned to the growth mode seen during Obama's first seven years in office. Producers broke the previous monthly oil production record set in 1970 in October of Trump's first year in office. Trump did pass pro-oil policies, but the OPEC+ production cuts that began raising oil prices were the biggest factor that returned growth back to pre-OPEC price war levels. Often lost in the discussion is that as a result of rising oil prices, the average gasoline price in the U.S. actually increased during Trump's first three years in office--until the COVID-19 pandemic arrived. The pandemic famously collapsed both oil prices--which briefly turned negative as stay-at-home orders were implemented--and oil production, which dropped by a staggering 3 million barrels per day in April and May 2020. When people fondly remember gasoline prices that dropped below $2.00 a gallon under President Trump, that was the only time it happened. When President Biden assumed office in January 2021, oil production had recovered back to 11.2 million bpd, which was still 1.8 million bpd below the pre-pandemic peak. But oil production growth would resume in Biden's second year. In each of his last two years in office, the U.S. would again set production records for both oil and natural gas production. Oil production growth was significantly helped by the price surge that took place in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, demonstrating once again the power of macro factors to move production. Before we zoom in on President Trump's second term, let's review. There have been major factors moving the oil markets over the past 24 years, but few of them are related to actions by the president. It is true that Presidents Obama and Biden passed green policies, and were generally hostile to oil and gas production. Nevertheless, Obama saw the greatest expansion of oil and gas production in U.S. history, while Biden oversaw production records in natural gas all four years he was in office, and oil production records his last two years in office. Note that this isn't to give credit but rather highlight the importance of macro factors in setting oil prices and influencing oil production. Yes, each president, including President Trump, passed policies that likely had some impact on oil and gas production. But those policies have relatively small impacts against macro factors like a fracking boom or an OPEC price war. The one exception one could argue would be the long-term implications of fracking that were primarily developed under George W. Bush. President Trump's Second Term 'Surge' Returning to the claim from the NBC affiliate, let's zoom in on the first seven months of President Trump's second term, and contrast this with President Biden's term. If there is a surge, we should see it in the following graphic, which starts in February 2021--Biden's first full month in office--and extends through mid-August 2025. Supporting data can be found at the EIA here and here. The first thing to note is that there are a number of weather-related impacts. The jump right at the beginning of Biden's term was recovery from the impacts of Winter Storm Uri. Thus, the initial surge was really just bouncing back to where production was just before the storm. Likewise, in January 2024, a severe winter storm drastically slashed oil production in Texas. And in January 2025, cold weather once again negatively impacted production in North Dakota and Texas. Following each of these events, production bounced back. The first full month of President Trump's second term was February 2025. Production rebounded that month from the previous decline, as it had following previous bad weather events. But even if you want to give President Trump credit for the February bump--when his policies hadn't had time to take effect--there's still no surge when viewed over the course of the past 4.5 years. In fact, you see significantly larger 'surges' during serious periods of Biden's presidency. Oil production in 2023 set a record that was 7.9% higher than 2022 production, and 5.0% higher than the previous 2019 record. The new record in 2024 was 2.1% higher than in 2023. Production did rise slightly to a new monthly record in March 2025, and year-to-date production is running about 2.0% ahead of last year's record pace (although it has fallen over the past two months). So, indeed we are on pace to set a new production record this year, but the pace of production is slowing. There's certainly no surge as claimed. Further, the NBC article linked previously cites former White House economic advisor Steve Moore as stating, 'Trump is into, as you called it, 'Drill, baby, drill,' and we're seeing some of the fruits of that.' In fact, the number of rigs drilling for oil has steadily fallen this year, which is the exact opposite of what Moore implies. He is correct that we are likely to set another production record this year, but it should be clear that this is a continuation of a long-term trend that appears to be slowing. Note that I didn't address natural gas, but the trends are much the same. Production has grown steadily since about 2005, but there has been no surge at any point. Why Are Gasoline Prices Falling? Gasoline prices have slipped noticeably this year, tracking the broader decline in crude oil. That's raised a familiar political talking point: some Trump supporters insist the drop is thanks to a surge in drilling unleashed by the president's policies. But the reality is more complicated. Energy markets are global, and prices move according to supply, demand, and inventories—factors that rarely hinge on the occupant of the White House. The biggest driver right now is surging global supply. OPEC+ announced that it will fully unwind its 2.2 million barrels per day of voluntary production cuts by September 2025—a full year earlier than planned. At the same time, non-OPEC producers like the U.S., Brazil, and Guyana continue to ramp up output. Altogether, global supply is set to rise by 2.5 million barrels per day this year, outpacing demand and putting clear downward pressure on prices. On the demand side, growth has been softer than expected. Consumption in China, India, and Brazil has underwhelmed, while in the OECD countries, demand is essentially flat. Japan is hitting multi-decade lows, and U.S. GDP growth has slowed to just 1.4%, which has translated into weaker fuel consumption at home. Finally, oil inventories are swelling. Stockpiles have risen for five straight months, hitting a 46-month high of 7.8 billion barrels worldwide. Rising inventories are a textbook sign of oversupply, and history shows that sustained builds like this often precede sharper price declines. In short, today's lower gasoline prices aren't the result of any single politician's actions. They're the outcome of a global supply surge colliding with tepid demand growth and rising stockpiles. The political spin may be irresistible, but the market forces at work are far larger than any administration. In the past, falling oil prices were a clear win for the U.S. economy. Back in 2005, the country imported around 12.5 million barrels per day of crude oil, so cheaper oil meant a smaller import bill and more money in consumers' pockets. But the U.S. has since flipped from being the world's largest importer to a net exporter of crude and refined products. That changes the calculus. Lower oil prices still benefit consumers at the pump, but they also strain one of America's most important industries, reduce export revenues, and widen the trade deficit. For a country that now relies on energy exports as a pillar of economic strength, cheap oil is a double-edged sword. Conclusion It's tempting to give too much credit or blame to a president for what's happening at the pump. But the reality is that gasoline prices are dictated by forces much bigger than any one administration. Technological shifts like fracking, geopolitical decisions by OPEC+, weather disruptions, and global demand trends shape oil markets far more decisively than executive orders or campaign slogans. That doesn't mean policy is irrelevant—it can tilt the playing field at the margins. But the recent slide in prices is a reminder that energy is a global business, and the U.S. is both a beneficiary and a casualty of its volatility. Consumers welcome relief at the gas station, yet as an energy-exporting nation, we also absorb the downside of weaker prices. The bottom line: partisans may spin the price of gasoline, but the true story lies in the global interplay of supply, demand, and investment. And that story is always bigger—and more complicated—than Washington.
Forbes
3 minutes ago
- Forbes
Alina Habba Isn't Lawfully Serving As U.S. Attorney, Judge Rules
Ex-Trump attorney Alina Habba's role as the U.S. attorney in New Jersey is unlawful, a federal judge ruled Thursday, suggesting any prosecutions she's brought since July are void and striking down the Justice Department's gambit to keep the longtime Trump ally on as the state's top prosecutor after a panel of federal judges declined to extend her tenure. Alina Habba, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, arrives at the courthouse in Newark, New Jersey, on May 15. Getty Images Pennsylvania Judge Matthew Brann ruled against Habba's appointment in response to a petition by two criminal defendants being prosecuted in New Jersey, who argued the charges against them should be thrown out because Habba wasn't lawfully serving as U.S. attorney. This story is breaking and will be updated.
