
Labor Market Still Strong In March - Calm Before The Storm?
The jobs report for March, just released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is stronger than expected.
Payroll growth was 228,000. Most economists had predicted a number of about 140,000. The numbers of new payroll jobs in January and February were revised downward to 111,000 and 117,000 respectively, but the 3-month average is 152,000 - very close to what it was for all of 2024. Payroll growth was strongest in health care (54,000) a leisure and hospitality (43,000).
In the survey of households, the unemployment rate ticked up very modestly to 4.2 percent, but it stays within the small range of just above 4 percent where it has been for months. The slight bump in unemployment was more due to a rise in labor force participation that declining employment.
Are DOGE cutbacks in federal government employment, as well as among contractors and grantees, visible yet? Federal employment declined by 4,000, bringing the total over the last 2 months to 25,000. These numbers surely understate the magnitudes of federal job loss, perhaps because many took severance pay or are appealing their discharges and view themselves as still employed.
Professional services employment also rose by just 3,000. The very small jobs gain in this category might well reflect workers whose contracts or research grants have been cancelled by DOGE.
Overall, this is a quite strong jobs report; the US labor market and economy have been resilient to date, as employment and consumer spending have remained strong. But there is good reason to believe that this month will be an outlier in an otherwise weaker job market this spring and summer.
For one thing, DOGE cutbacks will no doubt be more visible in the coming months. More broadly, consumer sentiment has declined and retail sales growth has weakened, reflecting the uncertainty of customers over where the economy is headed. This, in turn, will likely generate weak or negative job growth in consumer sectors like retail trade and leisure and hospitality in the coming months, as will our new trade war.
The chaos and negative forecasts generated by the large new tariffs imposed earlier this week by President Trump have yet to be felt in the job market. But financial markets have reacted very negatively, with the S and P 500 now down by nearly 12 percent from its recent peak and likely to continue falling. Other countries are beginning to retaliate against Trump's tariffs by raising their own, which will weaken employment in export sectors as well as those based on imports whose prices will rise quite substantially. Inflation rates that have stubbornly remained in the vicinity of 3 percent will likely rise.
Forecasts of an economic slowdown or even recession are rising. Of course, if Congress passes and Trump signs another major tax cut later this year, it will counteract some of the negative effects of DOGE cuts and tariffs. On the other hand, inflation might further increase, as will concern over an ever-rising level of federal debt.
Thus, to say that the economic outlook for 2025 and beyond is uncertain is a great understatement. The road ahead will no doubt be very bumpy for some time. The Federal Reserve faces a challenging economic environment, in which both inflation and economic activity could worsen, creating a dilemma over where to set interest rates. In recent weeks they have been falling, as forecasters predict a weaker economy and investors head to the bond market to find more stability than in stocks (since more investor demand for bonds raises bond prices, which lowers interest rates); future trends are less clear.
Stay tuned to see how all of this plays out in the labor market in the months ahead.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Steel Stocks Soar After Trump's Bombshell Tariff Announcement
President Trump said tariffs on imported steel would go to 50% from 25%. That has investors excited early Monday.


Newsweek
20 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Net Approval Positive on Only One Key Issue
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's net approval rating is negative on a range of issues except immigration, a new poll shows. According to political analyst and statistician Nate Silver, writing in his Silver Bulletin Substack, Trump has a net negative approval rating on trade, the economy and inflation but a slightly positive rating on immigration. Why It Matters Taking the temperature of the nation, approval ratings are good measures of the public's response to Trump's policies and his actions as president. In the first few months of his second term, Trump's popularity has fluctuated, with some polls more favorable than others. Sustained backlash to his policies could persuade the president to change his approach. Trump, who made immigration a central part of his campaign, has vowed to crack down on border security, carry out mass deportations and end federal benefits for people residing in the country illegally. President Donald Trump speaking with reporters in the rain after arriving on Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on May 30. President Donald Trump speaking with reporters in the rain after arriving on Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on May 30. AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson What To Know Silver aggregated dozens of recent polls and found that Trump's approval rating on immigration was +2.5 percent. The president did not fare as well on other issues, with a -9.5 percent approval rating on trade, -11.3 percent on the economy and -17.5 percent on inflation. May polling conducted by Verasight U.S. for Strength in Numbers found similar results, with Americans disapproving of the president's handling of all the policy areas they were asked about except border security. That poll also found that 49 percent disapproved of his immigration policy, while 47 percent approved. Overall, Silver found that when analyzing the polls, Trump had a -5.4 net approval rating. An RMG Research/Napolitan News poll, conducted between May 14 and 21 among 3,000 registered voters, showed Trump's approval rating at 48 percent, with 50 percent disapproving. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 1.8 percentage points. Other polls have found a more positive response to the president. According to a recent Rasmussen survey, 53 percent of respondents said they approved of Trump, while 46 percent said they disapproved. What People Are Saying Scott Lucas, a professor in international politics at University College Dublin, previously cautioned against reading too much into any one poll, telling Newsweek: "Opinion polls have their own biases." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on April 20: "We are, together, going to make America bigger, better, stronger, wealthier, healthier, and more religious, than it has ever been before!!!" What Happens Next The midterm elections, scheduled for November 2026, may offer a clearer indication of voters' attitudes toward the president's policies.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: South Africa's visit to the US shows how diplomacy has changed
Diplomacy is an art that has often most effectively been practiced behind closed doors. But the 47th president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, has changed that. Diplomacy is now practiced in the full glare of the world's TV cameras and media, leaving very little room to wriggle — but an ocean of opportunity for disaster. The net effect has been a total recalibration of the practice of diplomacy, with May 21 being a perfect case in point when South African President Cyril Ramaphosa led his entourage to the White House. The fact that the meeting even took place was a triumph of old-school diplomacy given the unprecedented depths that the historic relationship between the two nations has plunged, especially since the advent of the 47th administration in January this year. There was massive trepidation back home in South Africa about just how this meeting would evolve, especially after the public dressing down that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was forced to endure in February. This time, the tactics were the same: The White House presented unvarnished beliefs about the situation in South Africa, which Trump has held very firmly, this time via a video pastiche. Ramaphosa's party was astutely selected, blending key political leaders, including organized labor, with officials, business leaders and golf champions, who were neither politicians nor administrators. It was an example once again of how much has changed in the last six months — and even beyond — in Africa and in the world. South Africa has moved from declaring itself neutral in the war in Ukraine to actively protecting Russia from censure to inviting Zelenskyy to a state visit in April. The U.S. has moved from actively, and sometimes unquestioningly, backing Kyiv and sanctioning Moscow to actively engaging with President Vladimir Putin rather than isolating him. Both countries' approaches seem poles apart and inherently contradictory — and yet they share very similar motivations and characteristics. Washington and Pretoria want the war to end, both are working hard to do just that and both are using nontraditional, sometimes disruptive, methods. The Black Sea Grain Initiative was the first seed in a bid to reap a harvest of peace. It was sown by an initiative under South Africa's leadership to get Ukraine and Russia — or their proxies — to a table. The first hoped-for outcome was to prevent Africans from starving after they were cut off from the breadbasket of Eastern Europe and the fertilizers produced there to grow their own crops. But the bigger prize was to forge swords into ploughshares because the geopolitical tensions of an increasingly volatile and multipolar world were playing out in African countries as they became substitute battlegrounds in the war for global influence. Private individuals, business leaders and philanthropists helped to bring the different parties together by leveraging their networks and stepping in where normal diplomatic channels had failed. The Black Sea Grain Initiative led to a previously unthinkable invitation: Pretoria offered to host Zelenskyy. Previously, Pretoria had earned Washington's ire for refusing to back a United Nations General Assembly resolution censuring Russia. The intervention of unorthodox players happened in Washington, too, as Ramaphosa sat in the Oval Office with Trump. It was no surprise that some at the meeting were golfers themselves, stepping in where diplomats and political leaders could not, to help drive through Pretoria's message. South Africa came to the U.S. to recalibrate a relationship that has been increasingly under threat for months; a growing ideological gulf in the majority party of its unity government has been a contributor. Coming to America forced a timely reappraisal of South Africa's issues, and in the process, the South African delegation did much to disabuse the U.S. administration of some of its most firmly held views. South Africa does have serious societal issues to contend with, including high levels of violent crime — and no one shied away from this problem, but white South Africans are not disproportionately affected by it. To properly address the issue is not a matter of being a supplicant who begs for international aid, but rather of building the economy, creating jobs and instilling hope in new generations of South Africans. To achieve that, the U.S. must be an active trade partner with South Africa — continuing with the current trade agreements and even boosting investment in the country, to everyone's benefit. There is no doubt that the recent meeting between U.S. and South African officials was an inflection point in Washington-Pretoria relations. Taking a cue from Trump, it was akin to sinking a 3-foot putt in the full glare of the cameras, which isn't an easy thing to do — and yet, I think the South Africans, together, might just have done it. _____ Ivor Ichikowitz is a South African-born global industrialist and African philanthropist. He chairs the Ichikowitz Family Foundation, which played a leading role in facilitating the talks that led to the Black Sea Grain Initiative. _____