
Job Numbers Look Strong – But They Aren't; The Fed's Political Dilemma
The most anticipated economic news for the week was the jobs numbers. At the headline level, job growth in the Establishment Survey was +139K which came in above the +126K consensus estimate. The financial markets reacted with their typical 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality and the major indexes all gained a healthy +1% on Friday (June 6), bringing all but the Russell 2000 into positive territory for the year (see table). Nevertheless, because the headline was higher than expected, bond yields rose with the 10-year Treasury up 12 basis points for the week (from 4.39% to 4.51%).1 4
Equity Markets
Universal Value Advisors
For the week, the table below shows that five of the Magnificent 7 were positive. The exceptions were Apple and Tesla. It appears that the Trump/Musk falling out played a significant role in Tesla's market performance, while Apple was essentially at breakeven for the week. For the year, the table shows huge variance among the seven with four down for the year and three up.
Magnificent 7
Universal Value Advisors
In truth, markets were expecting a much weaker jobs number given the weak results from both the JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) and ADP surveys. The JOLTS indicated that layoffs were greater than new hires, now the case in three of the last four months.2 The ADP May new jobs number, at +37K, was the lowest count in more than two years and well below the consensus expectation of +110K.3 Digging deeper into the ADP report, the -13K job loss in the small business sector was the largest loss in jobs in that classification in more than three years; small business is supposed to be the backbone of the economy, so this is definitely concerning.3
But the real story, all but ignored by the financial media, was the drop of -696K in the sister Household Survey, most of which was in full-time jobs (-623K).14 Ignored by the media were the downward revisions to the jobs numbers which totaled -138K for April and May.4 If one was looking at employment 'levels' and began with the aggregate number known on Thursday, the net difference between that known aggregate and today's updated number was +1K (i.e., +139K from the Establishment Survey -138K in revisions).4
Readers of this blog know that we are skeptical of the headline Establishment Survey number (+139K) because of the automatic add-on from the small business Birth-Death model. Half or more of the +139K gain came from the Birth/Death Model uncounted add-on. We are even more skeptical given the -696K number in the Household Survey.1 4
The U3 Unemployment Rate held its ground at 4.2%. Since that rate is calculated from the Household Survey (-696K), one can legitimately ask why the U3 didn't rise. The answer to that lies in the fact that the Labor Force Participation Rate, the denominator, declined, i.e., the labor force shrank, likely because jobs are not as easy to find as they were several quarters ago. With a labor force falling faster than jobs, even a small shrinkage in the number of jobs can work to keep the employment rate up and the unemployment rate down.5
Example:
From the example, with a lower labor force, while there are fewer people employed, the unemployment rate is the same. In May, the large shrinkage in the labor force kept the U3 Unemployment Rate the same as April's 4.2% rate. According to Wall Street economist David Rosenberg (June 6 Comment 'Was Employment Up +139K…Or Down -696K?') had the Labor Force Participation Rate stayed constant instead of shrinking, the U3 Unemployment Rate would have risen to 4.6%. The question is: Why did the labor force shrink so dramatically?
Jobs Hard to Get Survey
Universal Value Advisors
The likely answer is that jobs are not as easy to get as they were a year or two ago which discourages people from entering the labor force. (Note the uptrend in the 'Jobs hard to Get' chart).5
The ISM Manufacturing Index fell to 48.5 in May (50 is the demarcation line between expansion and contraction). The chart shows that manufacturing in the U.S. has been contracting since November 2022 with only one recent brief period of expansion in this year's first quarter. The latest reading, in May, is 48.5.7 In addition, ISM's Non-Manufacturing Index also showed up in contraction territory at 49.9 in May. While this is barely contractionary, the major focus here is that it is falling, as it was 51.6 the prior month.8
Other economic indicators reinforce the slowdown story. Construction spending fell in April by -0.4%, further adding to March's -0.5% result. Factory Orders fell -3.7% in April, reversing March's +3.5% gain. In May, total car/truck sales fell to an annual rate of 15.6 million units from 17.3 million in April, a sure sign of economic slowing.4 In addition, single-family housing starts, retail sales volumes, and core capex shipments all showed lower readings sequentially in their latest releases. Policy uncertainty certainly looks to have played a major role.4 6
ISM Manufacturing PMI Index
Universal Value Advisors
The ISM Services Index also fell into contraction territory at 49.9 in May. While this is barely in contraction (i.e., below 50), it was a surprise to the markets as the consensus had forecasted this to be solidly in expansion territory at 52.0, slightly above April's 51.6 reading.8 When the composite index falls into contractionary territory, history tells us that there is a very low probability that the economy is growing.7 8
Given the level of unease and uncertainty in the economy, validated in the Fed's latest Beige Book, and despite the slowing economy as we have chronicled above and in these blogs over the past few months, market odds of a Fed rate cut at June's FOMC meeting are 0%. At July's meeting set: a mere 16.5%. Markets believe that, despite the slowing economy, the Fed is likely to wait until September (59.8%) to lower rates, and it isn't highly certain that it will do so by then.4 (Imagine what Trump's Truth Social posts will have to say about Chairman Powell!!)3
Given that other major central banks have lowered their rates (the European Central Bank several times), and from our observations above and in the last several of these blogs regarding a slowing economy, we think the Fed should be lowering rates and performing other easing actions. We wonder where the Fed would be in the absence of Trump's political pressure and Powell's insistence on preserving the Fed's independence from such pressure.3 4
Despite the seemingly 'strong' jobs numbers in the Establishment (headline) Survey, upon further analysis, it turns out that the reported jobs number wasn't so strong after all with households, in the sister Household Survey, reporting a near -700K of job losses.1 4 Most of those job losses were full-time, confirming what was reported in the JOLTS and seen in Wednesday's ADP report. Layoffs are now occurring faster than new jobs are being created.2 3
The U3 Unemployment Rate held steady at 4.2% because jobs, now 'hard to get,' caused job seekers to drop out of the labor force at a high rate causing a drop in the labor force participation rate. The combination of a lower number of jobs and a lower number of both job holders + job seekers resulted in no change in the U3 unemployment rate. But clearly, fewer jobs are a big issue. Had the labor force participation rate stayed the same as it was in April, the U3 Rate would have been significantly higher (4.6%), and markets would be expecting Fed action soon.5
Manufacturing is in contraction and now the ISM's Non-Manufacturing Index has joined it.7 8 Construction spending fell in April. Consumer purchases of autos took a big dip in May. The housing industry, both new and existing homes, is declining.4 All of this, plus continuing policy uncertainty , indicates that the economy will continue to slow in the near-term.4 6
The Fed has a dilemma. Inflation, as measured by the CPI, is well on its way to the Fed's 2% target. And a slowing economy desperately needs lower interest rates. But Chair Powell doesn't want to appear to be 'bullied' by President Trump into lowering rates given that the Fed is supposed to be 'independent' from the rest of government. So, likely, despite the urgent need for lower rates in the U.S., the Fed will 'pass' at its upcoming June meeting, and if Trump's political pressure continues, they are likely to also 'pass' at their July conclave.3 4
(Joshua Barone and Eugene Hoover contributed to this blog.)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


News24
15 minutes ago
- News24
Green hydrogen opportunities key to unlocking economic growth: Ramokgopa
@GovernmentZA / X Ramokgopa highlighted green hydrogen as a key driver for South Africa's economic growth, addressing structural challenges in energy and logistics while creating downstream value from mineral resources like platinum and vanadium. He emphasised green hydrogen's dual role in decarbonising hard-to-electrify sectors, such as transport and heavy industry, while boosting energy security and supporting the mining sector's revival through demand for transition minerals. Ramokgopa stressed the importance of continental policy alignment to unlock Sub-Saharan Africa's renewable energy potential, which could attract greater global investment and foster industrial development. At the media launch of the Africa Green Hydrogen Summit on Tuesday, electricity and energy minister Dr Kgosientsho Ramokgopa emphasised that South Africa's future energy mix must be strategically aligned to solve economic challenges, with green hydrogen positioned as a central lever. Speaking at Isondo Precious Metals in the OR Tambo Special Economic Zone, Kempton Park, Ramokgopa said the country's energy problems are not simply technical but economic at their core. 'We are resolving an economic problem with energy manifestations,' he said. South Africa cannot grow if electricity is unreliable or unaffordable. Kgosientsho Ramokgopa Ramokgopa spoke candidly about how the government is treating the energy crisis as a matter of national importance. Drawing from his engineering background, he argued that solving the crisis requires a deep understanding of the root problem, namely, that South Africa's economy has stagnated due to structural constraints, primarily in logistics and energy. 'The structural constraint to the South African economy can be identified as twofold: inefficiencies in logistics and challenges related to the electricity deficit,' Ramokgopa said, echoing views previously raised by President Cyril Ramaphosa and Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana. As part of the state's plan to respond to these constraints, green hydrogen has emerged as a potential contributor to both energy diversification and economic development. Ramokgopa pointed to the dual importance of this emerging industry: on one hand, green hydrogen could help decarbonise sectors like transport and heavy industry; on the other, it opens doors for South Africa to beneficiate its mineral resources and create downstream value. Cabinet has already approved a Critical Minerals Strategy, led by Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe, aimed at identifying and leveraging minerals essential to the global energy transition. The strategy identifies minerals such as platinum, vanadium, manganese and rare earth elements that are critical to producing green hydrogen and associated technologies like fuel cells. Ramokgopa described the potential as a 'resurgence of the battery and fuel cell economy', which he believes could revitalise the mining sector's contribution to GDP and employment. Mining has contracted in recent years, but the demand for energy transition minerals offers a chance to reposition it. Kgosientsho Ramokgopa On the sidelines of the launch, Ramokgopa expanded on these themes in an interview. 'Green hydrogen is a big part of South Africa's growth story because it allows us to beneficiate our upstream endowments. Mining, particularly for minerals like platinum, has one of the highest employment absorption capacities,' he said. He added that green hydrogen supports not only the decarbonisation of electricity, which remains South Africa's largest source of emissions, but also transport, where traditional renewables like solar are less effective. 'Green hydrogen gives us diversification in energy sources and could play a role in sectors where electrification is difficult,' he said. However, Ramokgopa acknowledged that the current cost of green hydrogen remains prohibitive. 'The technology is still maturing, and we're not yet competitive, but over time we expect costs to come down.' He also noted the need for regional alignment across the continent. 'Sub-Saharan Africa has the potential to produce 60% of the world's renewable energy, but currently receives less than 1% of global investment. He said that the summit, taking place 12-13 June at the Century City Conference Centre & Hotel, is about aligning policies and coordination to change that.


Digital Trends
16 minutes ago
- Digital Trends
Tesla's robotaxi service is almost here, but it's not the car you want to see
Tesla chief Elon Musk has said that the automaker is aiming to launch its robotaxi service on June 22, in Austin, Texas. 'Tentatively, June 22,' Musk said in a post on X on Tuesday, adding: 'We are being super paranoid about safety, so the date could shift.' Recommended Videos But take note, the vehicle used for the upcoming robotaxi service won't be the futuristic Cybercab — sans steering wheel and pedals — that Musk unveiled at Tesla's flashy We, Robot event in October last year. Instead, the company will deploy regular Model Y vehicles using a version of the automaker's Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology. A team will monitor the fleet remotely, checking for anomalies as the cars make their way around the streets of Austin. Earlier on Tuesday, the Tesla boss shared a video clip taken in the Texas city that showed a Model Y vehicle being tested without a human safety driver behind the wheel. Lettering on the side of the car reads: 'Robotaxi.' Electrek reported that the video shows a second Tesla vehicle right behind the driverless car, 'likely with a remote teleoperator ready to take control or activate a kill switch.' Tesla has only been operating its cars without a safety driver since the end of May, raising concerns among some about a lack of testing time before taking paying passengers later this month … if Tesla hits its target date, that is. According to comments made by Musk in a recent interview with CNBC, Tesla will begin its robotaxi service with between 10 and 20 vehicles. The company has yet to reveal how folks interested in jumping inside a Tesla robotaxi will be able to do so. During Tesla's proposal stage toward the end of last year, the company worked with the authorities in Austin to establish safety regulations prior to testing. Preparation included training the city's first responders on how to interact with vehicles that may be empty when they show up. When Tesla's robotaxis hit the streets of Austin, they could find themselves driving alongside other autonomous vehicles operated by Alphabet-owned Waymo and Amazon-owned Zoox. Both have been testing their driverless cars on the city's roads for some time, with Waymo now offering rides to paying customers. The robotaxi market is a highly competitive one, with a number of prominent players — Cruise and Argo AI among them — being forced to drop out due to various pressures. With that in mind, Tesla is keen to get off to a good start so that it can build out its service in a timely fashion. Safety will be key. One slip-up and the project could face serious delays.


Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
U.S. Business Leaders Say Cutting DEI Programs Is Risky
The vast majority of top executives across corporate America believe that companies should maintain—or even expand—initiatives to promote DEI, despite the government's executive orders designed to compel them to do the opposite, a new survey shows. The national survey—conducted by Catalyst, a consultancy focused on creating inclusive workspaces, in conjunction with the NYU School of Law's Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging—found that 83% of C-suite leaders and 88% of legal leaders said that they believe maintaining or expanding DEI is essential to mitigating legal risk. Some 77% of the executives surveyed said that they believe DEI initiatives are positively correlated with improved financial performance, and 81% said that a focus on DEI was likely to bolster customer loyalty. 'Inclusion has never been a liability — it's a competitive advantage and a business imperative,' said Jennifer McCollum, president and CEO of Catalyst. 'The data proves that organizations committed to the principles of opportunity and fairness behind DEI will be the ones that outperform their peers, retain talent, and build lasting trust.' The latest research—based on surveys conducted in January and February—was based on 2,500 employees, executives, and legal leaders across U.S. companies with active workplace inclusion programs. According to Catalyst, it represents the largest and most comprehensive workplace inclusion survey since the Trump administration in January issued executive orders designed to dismantle corporate DEI initiatives. The survey also found that support for DEI efforts extend beyond the C-suite. More than eight in 10 employees questioned said that they support practices like inclusive hiring, employee resource groups, and bias training (88%). And almost all employees questioned agreed with the statement that 'all workers should feel respected and welcomed at work, regardless of background or identity.' 'Opting out of DEI is not a neutral act — it's a choice with consequences,' Christina Joseph, project director of the Advancing DEI Initiative at the Meltzer Center, commented. 'That's because these programs help root out harmful policies that especially affect marginalized groups. This report reminds us that without those safeguards, organizations face more, not less, legal exposure.' In January, almost immediately after taking office, President Donald Trump issued a slew of executive orders targeting DEI programs both in the public and private sector. In response, many companies across the U.S. and beyond, announced that they were rolling back such initiatives or pausing programs. Meanwhile, references to diversity, equity and inclusion in Fortune 100 company reports dropped 72% between 2024 and 2025, according to an analysis by Gravity Research. This latest research, however, indicates that there could be some reversal of the initial reactions to the executive orders. 'Successful leaders understand that even in times of pressure and polarization, it is important to resist knee-jerk reactions and quick fixes and instead lean on decades of research-based solutions and practices that drive results,' added McCollum. 'Organizations that stay true to their values will emerge stronger as we evolve through these uncertain times.' Research from both an array of academic institutions and the private sector over the last decade has provided evidence of a positive correlation between diversity in an organization's workforce and that organization's financial performance. A 2020 McKinsey & Company report, for example, found that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 25% more likely to have above-average profitability than those in the fourth quartile.