Job openings ticked up more than anticipated in April, as layoffs also rose
Job openings saw an unexpected rise for the month of April. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, available jobs rose by 191,000 from the previous month to nearly 7.4 million.
The increase was higher than the 7.1 million jobs FactSet economists had anticipated for the time period. The percentage of unemployed workers dropped from 1.03% to 1%, and hiring rose by 169,000 to 5.6 million.
Federal job openings are up
Somewhat surprisingly, given the Department of Government Efficiency's mass layoffs, federal job openings also rose. In March, there were 121,000 federal jobs open. In April, that number was up to 134,000. Federal layoffs also fell to 4,000 from 8,000 in March. That was down from a staggering 19,000 in February.
While DOGE cut at least 280,000 jobs during President Trump's first several months in office, according to recent estimates from Yahoo Finance, thousands more likely lost jobs indirectly due to cuts to federal funding. The Trump administration has cut billions in funding to national parks, disease research, national security, and more.
April's uptick in federal job openings could be at least partially due to the fact that several federal departments scrambled to hire employees back after conducting mass layoffs.
An uncertain moment for workers
In spite of an increase in job openings more generally, layoffs also rose, jumping to 1.79 million—an increase of 196,000. And the number of people leaving their jobs by choice, a good predictor of worker confidence, fell by 150,000 to 3.2 million, showing workers may be becoming weary about their ability to find new employment.
Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, told Reuters that the latest report is a sign that companies are retaining employees while awaiting the impact of new Trump-era policies. 'Once companies are more certain that bad times are coming, they will start to shed workers.'
Weinberg continued, 'However, the economy is still near full employment. We suspect companies are still hoarding workers until they are very, very sure about an economic downturn.″
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
10 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to hear case on IQ tests and death penalty next term
The Supreme Court will hear a case next term centered on the role of multiple IQ scores in determining an Alabama murderer's eligibility for the death penalty, according to a list issued by the court late Friday. In Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama is arguing that Joseph Smith — who was sentenced to death for a murder in 1997 — should be executed because he has not proved that his IQ is 70 or below, as required by state law. However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after ruling he is intellectually disabled because the score on one of his IQ tests could fall below 70 when accounting for margin of error. Smith had obtained five IQ scores that ranged from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Hamm v. Smith to determine a limited question: 'Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim,' referring to the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing those with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In November, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision to remand the case for further consideration. In it, the justices said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which had affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence — had been unclear in why it had issued that decision. In February, the state of Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the Eleventh Circuit 'watered down the most objective prong of the test, overrode Alabama's definition of intellectual disability, and shattered Atkins's promise to leave meaningful discretion to the States.' 'This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below,' the state of Alabama argued, also adding that evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'complicated' and that the Supreme Court has not specified how to do it. 'Smith could take hundreds of IQ tests, score 75 on all of them, yet his IQ still 'could be' 70, according to the panel [the Eleventh Circuit], because every test could have erred by 5 points. The panel failed to appreciate that multiple tests together can provide a more accurate estimate than each test alone,' the state argued. The Supreme Court's next term is scheduled to begin in October. The list of new cases was not expected until Monday morning, but email notifications about the list were inadvertently sent Friday evening because of a technical glitch, so the court chose to release the list of cases earlier than scheduled. In a statement that accompanied the early release, court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said the notifications were sent prematurely because of an 'apparent software malfunction.' Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Ultimate Father's Day Gift: Give Dad Confidence with a Full Head of Hair. Thursday's Hair Solutions Offers Complimentary First Service for Dads All June!
LOS ANGELES, June 07, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--This Father's Day, Thursday's Hair Solutions honors the men in our lives with more than just a card or tie. In celebration of dads everywhere, the trusted Los Angeles hair restoration salon is offering a complimentary first service for new male clients during June. At Thursday's Hair Solutions, hair loss isn't just a cosmetic issue; it's an emotional one. Losing hair can feel like losing a piece of your identity, leading to lower self-esteem and confidence. For over 22 years, the Los Angeles hair replacement salon has specialized in safe, non-surgical, customized hair replacement solutions for anyone experiencing hair loss, hair thinning, a receding hairline, male pattern baldness, and female pattern hair loss due to genetics, age, stress, or medical conditions. Thursday's enables people to reclaim the hair they used to have or want today via customized, human hair systems that blend seamlessly with their biological hair. "Our goal is to provide an experience that restores not only hair but also self-confidence. Whether it's a new dad, a grandfather, or a father figure—every man deserves to feel great about the way he looks," stated Michael Garfinkel, owner of Thursday's Hair Solutions. The Father's Day promotion includes a free consultation and first service for new male clients, providing them the opportunity to explore personalized hair replacement options in a comfortable, judgment-free setting. Thursday's non-invasive systems are designed to be breathable, secure, and virtually undetectable—allowing clients to swim, sweat, and live fully without compromise. Thursday's serves clients from across Los Angeles and Ventura Counties and beyond, with many returning for years, thanks to the personalized attention and transformative results. Dads interested in claiming their free first service should call 818.225.2000 or This Father's Day, give the gift of renewed confidence and let Thursday's Hair Solutions help the dads in your life look and feel like the best version of themselves. About Thursday's Hair Solutions Thursday's, a leader in non-surgical hair restoration solutions in Los Angeles, helps people with hair loss, balding, alopecia, receding hairline, and hair thinning reclaim the hair they used to have or want today. View source version on Contacts Michael GarfinkelOwnerThursday's Hair Solutions818 225 Sign in to access your portfolio
Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
How Justice Clarence Thomas led SCOTUS to kill DEI
Clarence Thomas has spent his professional life trying to return American law to the Declaration of Independence's founding promise that individuals should be judged as individuals rather than as members of racial, gender, or ethnic groups. It seems that his peers on the high court have been listening. Thomas' belief in individual rights precedes his time on the court. For example, in a 1985 law review article, Thomas discussed his daily responsibilities of enforcing the nation's civil rights laws as chairman of the EEOC. He wrote: "I intend to take EEO enforcement back to where it started by defending the rights of individuals who are hurt by discriminatory practices. … Those who insist on arguing that the principle of equal opportunity, the cornerstone of civil rights, means preferences for certain groups have relinquished their roles as moral and ethical leaders in this area." SUPREME COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF STRAIGHT OHIO WOMAN WHO CLAIMED DISCRIMINATIONJustice Thomas has reiterated that American law protects individual rather than groups rights throughout his three-and-a-half decades on the nation's highest court. In 1995's Missouri v. Jenkins, for instance, Thomas became the first Supreme Court justice to directly criticize Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although he called state-mandated segregation "despicable," he said that the Court was wrong in 1954 to rely on disputable social science evidence to declare segregation unconstitutional rather than invoking the "constitutional principle" that "the government must treat citizens as individuals, and not as members of racial, ethnic or religious groups." Justice Thomas has made similar pronouncements in many other judicial opinions. His concurring opinion in 2007's Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 is perhaps the strongest articulation of his conception of equality: "The dissent attempts to marginalize the notion of a colorblind Constitution by consigning it to me and Members of today's plurality. … But I am quite comfortable in the company I keep. My view of the Constitution is Justice Harlan's view in Plessy: 'Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.'" More recently, Justice Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion in the Supreme Court's 2023 decisions holding that colleges and universities cannot consider race in admissions decisions that "While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law." Last week's Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services signals that proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs should stop pretending that they are complying with the law. After all, one of the most liberal members of the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in an opinion for a unanimous Court that the "background circumstances" rule imposed by several lower courts of appeal requiring members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII discrimination claim is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and the Supreme Court's anti-discrimination precedents. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONJustice Jackson's opinion for the Court reversing the lower courts might as well have been penned by Justice Thomas himself. Justice Jackson quoted the text of Title VII that makes it illegal to take an adverse employment action against "any individual." She further quoted a 2020 Supreme Court decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, that held that the "law's focus on individuals rather than groups [is] anything but academic." She added: "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone."Justice Thomas joined Justice Jackson's opinion for the Court "in full." But he also issued a concurring opinion in which he suggested that the "background circumstances" rule is not only inconsistent with the statutory text of Title VII but is "plainly at odds with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection." Most important for present purposes, Thomas made clear that if proponents of DEI are hoping that the Ames decision has nothing to do with their DEI programs, they are sorely mistaken. "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans," he wrote. "Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPWhen Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Court watchers openly speculated about who would replace him as the intellectual leader of the conservative legal movement. Clarence Thomas has unquestionably filled that role. After all, in Ames even Justice Thomas's liberal colleagues on the nation's highest court conceded that American law protects individual rather than group rights.
