logo
The under-the-radar number that's a huge red flag for America's job market

The under-the-radar number that's a huge red flag for America's job market

Business Insider13 hours ago
Wall Street bigwigs, major investors, stock analysts, and economists agree on very little these days. Whether it's about technical levels, recession indicators, or the yield curve, everyone seems to have a different outlook for the economy and markets. One of the few points of consensus, however, is the fundamental importance of the job market.
It's not a particularly revelatory stance: A vast majority of Americans rely on employment as their primary income, and when Americans make money, they spend money. Given that about 70% of economic output is generated through consumer spending, if a bunch of people lose their jobs, spending will fall and, in turn, crush the economy.
This is why many economists and analysts focus on the unemployment rate. Surging unemployment is both the hallmark of a recession and a painful event in people's lives. It hits Wall Street and Main Street equally hard. That's why many of us think about the job market through the lens of unemployment. When your best friend gets laid off, you rush to their side with ice cream and a pep talk.
Given this focus on unemployment, you may think that economists would have a fairly sanguine view of the current job market. The headline jobless rate is 4.2%, up from record lows set in 2023, but hardly at a catastrophic level. And beyond the uber-popular rate, there are a few other signs of a resilient job market: Layoffs aren't swallowing corporate America's workforce, and claims for unemployment benefits have leveled out recently.
Still, there is one number that is just under the hood of these well-watched statistics that represents a serious cause for concern. The official US labor force, which measures the number of working-age Americans actively working or looking for work, is shrinking at a rate normally seen during the depths of economic crises. In fact, the pool of available workers has now stalled for three straight months, the first such streak since 2011.
Labor supply may be an overlooked metric, but it points to a troubling economic chasm. The reasons for this shrinkage point to worrying shifts in America's job market, and the consequences could be perilous. Over time, a smaller labor force presents a set of pernicious challenges: lower growth, lower tax revenue, and lower productivity.
Turning around this decline requires better economic fortunes and a change in policy, but reversing the trend is necessary to keep the US moving in the right direction.
The issue with a shrinking labor force goes back to a concept from Econ 101: supply and demand. We usually think about supply and demand in terms of shopping, whether sellers have enough toys, TV, or whatever goods they provide to meet the desires of buyers, but these dynamics show up everywhere, including the job market. When it comes to the workforce, the supply side of the equation is you (if you're working or looking for a job) and your fellow employees, while the demand is businesses that currently employ people or are looking for more employees via open jobs.
When the labor supply falls, the number of workers available to take a job also decreases. This leaves businesses scrambling to find people to staff their positions. While this scenario may seem ideal for the workers whom employers are fighting over, the job-hunting bliss may be temporary. If these struggles are prolonged, then companies operate at less than full capacity, missing out on growth and shrinking the country's overall economic pie.
The slowdown can also filter over to the demand side of the business — if there are fewer workers to buy things, then companies may slash their production and slow their hiring. For much of the 2020s, the job market narrative has been all about low-wage workers finding pay increases and better positions because of the desperate demand for more employees across the spectrum. If demand drops, this story can reverse. Even with a smaller pool of workers available, contraction on the part of businesses would force higher-skilled workers to accept lower-skilled positions.
A smaller labor force also increases the likelihood that there aren't enough of a certain type of experienced worker that certain industries need.
Take homebuilding, for example. Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies has found that the shortage of skilled construction workers — an issue since the housing market meltdown in the mid-2000s — has led to longer project times and unexpected delays nearly two decades later. Not only is this bad for the homebuilders themselves, but it slows down the number of new homes that can be built, leading to fewer opportunities for homebuyers and higher home prices.
This hasn't been much of a fear for the US over the decades. The supply of workers usually grows as more Americans enter the employment age. Yes, older workers offset this as they retire (or die), but since 2007, the number of new entrants has outweighed those exiting in 63% of monthly jobs reports. That trend has reversed over the past three months as the total number of people in the labor force has declined by 790,000 workers from April to July.
Another way to look at the change in the pool of workers available in America is the prime-age labor force participation rate — or the percentage of people ages 25—54 who are either employed or looking for work. A higher participation rate shows that working-age Americans have enough faith in their job prospects to apply for positions and that businesses are able to meet their employment needs.
The participation rate plummeted during the global financial crisis and stayed toward the lower end of the historical range for much of its aftermath, a sign that people were so discouraged with job prospects that they stopped looking entirely. Fast forward to today, and we're starting to see some worrying signs again. The labor force participation rate has dropped for four straight months, aligning with the drastic slowdown in hiring.
There are a few big reasons for this shrinking. Perhaps the most significant is the precipitous drop in immigration — evidenced by a 90% drop in border encounters over the past year. The lack of immigration has clearly dealt a big blow to the labor force. Immigration may be a political hot-button issue, but there's no doubt that the flow of immigrants was a necessary source of workers. Over the past two decades, four of the five strongest years for hiring have coincided with higher-than-average growth in immigrants as a share of the labor force.
The effects of this immigration slowdown are evident in the widening gap between the supply of native-born and foreign-born (immigrant) workers. Over the past four months, the share of foreign-born employees in the labor force has slid nearly one percentage point, the biggest drop on record.
The immigration crackdown and a rough hiring environment are only part of the story. Other long-term trends could be depressing the number of people willing to jump into the workforce. Labor force participation among women has yet to recover from pre-COVID levels given steep childcare costs and return-to-office mandates and the cost of childcare. The participation rate among teenagers 16 to 19 years old has also plummeted over the past few months, likely a product of fewer entry-level opportunities.
This shrinking of the labor supply means that there simply aren't as many people for American businesses to hire, which can distort other highly followed measures of economic health. Over the past three months, the unemployment rate has barely budged, despite corporate America adding a measly 35,000 jobs a month. Ironically, that seemingly good news is another weird downstream effect of the stalling labor supply. Unemployment is calculated by dividing the number of people who don't have a job but are actively looking by the number of people in the labor force. A smaller overall labor force can therefore shrink the denominator in that equation, keeping the unemployment rate low while masking weakness in the underlying economy.
As the job market weakens, Wall Street desperately wants a salve for higher unemployment. And if hiring totals decelerate, you'll likely see some economists hand-wave the data as a symptom of this labor force anomaly.
Neither trend is healthy, though. A short-term relief might be what ultimately holds our economy back for years to come. Crack open your Econ 101 textbook again, and you'll see that population growth times higher consumption per capita equals growth in GDP. In other words, for the country to grow, we need to grow the number of working people and grow the amount that they spend on homes, meals, and the variety of activities that keep our economic engine running. For every worker we lose in supply, we also lose a motivated spender and a source of revenue. If this impact compounds over the years, we may find ourselves in an economy that can't shift into a higher gear.
The labor force supply challenge is insidious and complicated. Thoughtful policy can help stem the bleeding from immigration, and a stronger economy could further improve the balance in the job market. For now, neither outcome seems to be on the horizon.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Novo Nordisk, GoodRx selling Ozempic at half cost for customers paying cash
Novo Nordisk, GoodRx selling Ozempic at half cost for customers paying cash

The Hill

time24 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Novo Nordisk, GoodRx selling Ozempic at half cost for customers paying cash

Novo Nordisk and GoodRx announced a partnership this week to sell products Ozempic and Wegovy at half their normal cost to patients who pay for the medications with cash. Starting this week, customers will be able to buy a month's supply of Novo Nordisk's semaglutide pen products for $499 through GoodRx. The list price for a monthly supply of a product like Ozempic is normally around $1,000 or more without insurance. 'Demand for GLP-1 medications is at an all-time high, but too many Americans still face barriers accessing them,' GoodRx CEO and President Wendy Barnes said in a statement. 'By partnering with Novo Nordisk, we're taking a significant step forward in making these innovative brand-name treatments more accessible for millions of people who need them,' added Barnes. 'It's a powerful example of how the GoodRx platform can deliver savings at scale—bridging gaps in coverage and ensuring more people can get the care they deserve.' This is the most recent in similar moves Novo Nordisk has made to make its popular diabetes and weight loss medication more widely available. Earlier this year, the company announced a direct-to-patient program called NovoCare® Pharmacy for uninsured and underinsured individuals who can pay $499 a month for Wegovy. Novo Nordisk also partnered with online telehealth companies like Ro and LifeMD to sell its pens at the same price point. The telehealth company Hims & Hers was also originally included in the partnership, but Novo Nordisk ended it after accusing the company of illegally selling compounded versions of semaglutide. Hims & Hers maintains it is providing personalized, compounded products within regulatory guidelines. 'Improving access to effective FDA-approved treatment is central to our mission, and our collaboration with GoodRx allows us to reach those who seek savings and support from their trusted and established platform,' Dave Moore, executive vice president of U.S. operations of Novo Nordisk, said in a statement. 'This initiative enables us to meet GoodRx patients where they are with our authentic GLP-1 medicines in addition to supporting the launch of the new Ozempic® self-pay offer for type 2 diabetes patients at an unprecedented price.' Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a prominent critic of high drug costs, called the announcement a 'modest step forward.' 'Novo Nordisk's move to cut the price of Ozempic to $499 for the uninsured is a modest step forward, but let's not forget,' Sanders said on the social media platform X. 'Ozempic costs just $59 in Germany while it costs less than $5 to make. The U.S. must no longer pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.

Grant Cardone Insists A Home Is 'Not An Investment, It's An Expense, By Definition' — 'I'd Rather Pay $2400 in Rent Than $2400 in Mortgage'
Grant Cardone Insists A Home Is 'Not An Investment, It's An Expense, By Definition' — 'I'd Rather Pay $2400 in Rent Than $2400 in Mortgage'

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Grant Cardone Insists A Home Is 'Not An Investment, It's An Expense, By Definition' — 'I'd Rather Pay $2400 in Rent Than $2400 in Mortgage'

Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. Grant Cardone has built a multibillion-dollar real estate empire, but he has no interest in owning the roof over his head. The outspoken investor, known for buying and managing thousands of rental units, chooses to rent his primary residence—and says you should, too. "I'd rather pay $2,400 in rent than $2,400 in mortgage," he said in an interview with YouTuber Kevin Cooney, a clip that's since made the rounds on TikTok. "Because I can get out of that rent every 10 months. That mortgage is 30 years." For most Americans, owning a home is the cornerstone of the American Dream. For Cardone, it's just a liability wrapped in granite countertops. He doesn't see the place you live in as a financial asset at all. Don't Miss: The same firms that backed Uber, Venmo and eBay are investing in this pre-IPO company disrupting a $1.8T market — and you can too at just $2.90/share. Warren Buffett once said, "If you don't find a way to make money while you sleep, you will work until you die." Here's how you can earn passive income with just $100. "If you live in your home and you pay the expenses of the home, that is not an investment," he told Cooney. "That is an expense by definition. And by the way, your home should not even go on your net worth statement." Cooney agreed, pointing out the hidden costs that often blindside homeowners. "Our refrigerator breaks, I put a little thing in our portal; new fridge is getting dollied up there," he said. "It's a fixed cost." He added that a friend of his always busts his chops for paying $4,700 in rent while the friend pays $3,500 on a mortgage—but for him, not having to deal with repairs or surprise expenses is worth the premium. Cardone backed him up, saying that friend isn't doing the full math. "He's not counting his HOA fees, he's not counting property taxes, he's not counting out-of-control insurance, he's not counting maintenance," he said. "It's 1% a year. Property taxes 2% a year. So that's 3 points every year." And then there's the mortgage interest. "Pick a number. They all suck dude," he added, referring to rates that can range from 3 to 7 percent. Those costs aren't imaginary. According to Bankrate, the hidden expenses of owning a single-family home now average over $21,000 per year—before mortgage payments. From property taxes to repairs, it's a long list of things that drain your wallet without building equity. Cardone's stance isn't about avoiding debt—it's about who's paying it. "I would rather pay 7% on a mortgage that a renter pays than 3% on my home that I pay," he said. In other words, he's fine with high interest—as long as someone else is covering it. It's a mindset he's repeated for years. In a 2019 interview with DJ Vlad, Cardone delivered one of his most memorable one-liners: "I treat houses like hospitals—you get in, you get out." His reasoning was blunt. "You could live in a house for 15 years with a 30-year mortgage and still owe what the house was worth when you bought it—or worse." Critics are quick to point out that Cardone profits directly from this philosophy. By encouraging the public to rent, he widens the pool of tenants for the very properties he owns. The cash flow goes to him, not the renters. But even if his motives are self-serving, the model is hard to argue with—own the asset, rent it out, and let someone else build your wealth. That formula used to be reserved for moguls with deep pockets and a Rolodex of property managers. Arrived lets regular people get in on the game—owning slices of rental homes without lifting a wrench or hunting down tenants. You can get started with as little as $100, while they handle the headaches and you collect the passive income. Cardone isn't dismissing the value of homeownership—if buying a house aligns with your goals, that's great. He's simply pointing out that renting doesn't deserve the stigma it often carries. For some, it's the smarter financial move. For others, it's about flexibility, avoiding repair headaches, or not wanting to chase down contractors every time something breaks. Maybe it's about not being tied to a mortgage when life changes. Whatever the reason, owning isn't the only path—and renting doesn't make you any less savvy for choosing it. See Next: This HELOC lender lets you borrow, repay, and borrow again —. 'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. You can invest today for just $0.30/share. This article Grant Cardone Insists A Home Is 'Not An Investment, It's An Expense, By Definition' — 'I'd Rather Pay $2400 in Rent Than $2400 in Mortgage' originally appeared on

Robinhood app now comes with NFL, college football predictions
Robinhood app now comes with NFL, college football predictions

Miami Herald

time2 hours ago

  • Miami Herald

Robinhood app now comes with NFL, college football predictions

Aug. 19 (UPI) -- Financial marketplace Robinhood said Tuesday its newly launched predictive market in its app will allow customers to trade on a series of different professional and college football outcomes. Robinhood Derivatives LLC said that, within the Robinhood app via the Prediction Markets Hub, its U.S.-based customers now can trade on outcomes of the most popular pro and college football games, which includes all regular-season matchups and college Power 4 schools and independents, according to company officials. "Adding pro and college football to our prediction markets hub is a no-brainer for us as we aim to make Robinhood a one-stop shop for all your investing and trading needs," JB Mackenzie, Robinhood's VP & GM of Futures and International, said in a statement. Mackenzie described American football as "the most popular sport" in the nation. Robinhood officials said pro and college football prediction markets are "rolling out now" and will be available to eligible customers in the next few days. Robinhood Derivatives is a separate but wholly-owned entity of Robinhood Markets. According to Robinhood, its customers can access contracts in real time and manage risk "by adjusting -- or exiting -- their positions up to and throughout a game before a contract expires." In February, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ended its investigation into Robinhood Crypto, saying it will not pursue further action with company officials adamant it never should have been opened to start. A report the same month indicated that millions of Americans sought help for gambling addiction in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling that allowed states to legalize sports betting. Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store