How Many Jobs Does The Economy Really Need?
The U.S. economy needs to add 10,000 to 40,000 jobs per month to maintain the current unemployment rate, according to recent estimates.
That "breakeven" job creation rate is far less than the 73,000 jobs added in July.
As recently as 2024, economists estimated the job market needed to add as many as 230,000 jobs a month to keep the unemployment rate steady.
President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigration has reduced the number of job seekers, leading to a lower bar for breakeven employment.
When reading about the health of the economy in the coming months, don't be surprised if you hear more about a relatively obscure statistic: the "breakeven" job creation level.
Economists and policymakers have paid increasing attention to the number of jobs the U.S. economy needs to add every month to keep the unemployment rate from spiking. That is especially important in the wake of last month's shock labor market report, which showed job growth slowed to a crawl in May, June, and July.
As recently as 2024, the breakeven unemployment rate was considered to be six figures. But now, the number may be far lower. Researchers at two think tanks, the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, estimated in a paper last month that it could be as low as 10,000 to 40,000.
To put that in context: the economy has added an average of 147,000 jobs every month for the past 10 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 73,000 jobs added in July were below expectations and widely seen as a red flag for the health of the labor market, which is slowing down amid President Donald Trump's wide-ranging campaign of raising import taxes.
The breakeven number has plunged suddenly because of one of Trump's major policies: his crackdown on immigration. With fewer immigrants entering the country and some being deported, fewer people are looking for work. That means the economy needs to add fewer jobs to maintain the current unemployment rate, which has been hovering between 4% and 4.2% for months, a historically low level.
Why Does the Breakeven Rate Matter?
The breakeven rate is important for anyone evaluating the health of the economy, especially for Federal Reserve policymakers.
Central bankers are currently weighing whether to cut their benchmark interest rate to boost the job market or keep it high to fight inflation. If the breakeven rate is lower than previously thought, Fed Chair Jerome Powell and other decision-makers might feel less urgency to cut interest rates.As Powell put it last month at a press conference:"Demand for workers in the form of payroll jobs—that number has come down, but so has the breakeven number, kind of in tandem," Powell said. "That puts the labor market in balance."
Powell could explore the topic again later this week at the Fed's highly anticipated Jackson Hole economic conference, which is themed 'Labor Markets in Transition: Demographics, Productivity, and Macroeconomic Policy."
Read the original article on Investopedia
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
a few seconds ago
- Los Angeles Times
The U.S. and EU release a bare-bones account of their trade deal, but it's a work in progress
American and European Union officials released a bare-bones account Thursday of their trade deal that imposes a 15% import tax on 70% of European goods exported to the United States, but they left blank key areas such as wine and spirits, as well as steel and indicated that talks would continue on those and a slew of other important sectors. The two sides said the document was only 'a first step in a process that can be further expanded to cover additional areas.' They are dealing with the vast range of goods traded between the two economies in what is the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, involving $2 trillion in annual trans-Atlantic business. The 3 1/2-page text represents a political commitment and is not legally binding. It contrasts with the typical format for trade agreements, which can be hundreds of pages long and carry legal force. The key provisions are the 15% tariff on most EU goods, a zero rate on U.S. cars and other industrial goods exported to the 27-member EU, and a range of exceptions to the 15% rate for aircraft and aircraft parts, generic pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients, with other sectors to be added for goods crucial to each other's economies. Those goods would face lower tariffs from before President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught. 'The EU has agreed to open its $20 Trillion market,' Trump's commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, said on X. 'The second largest in the world behind the great USA.' He said the deal was 'a major win for American workers, US industries, and our national security. Tariffs should be one of America's favorite words.' European officials have had to defend the deal against dismay from businesses and member governments at the higher tariffs and criticism that the EU gave away too much. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sold the deal as granting quick relief from the even higher U.S. tariff on EU cars of 27.5% and as opening the way for further negotiations that could exclude more goods from the 15% tariffs. The deal provides that the lower tariff on cars would apply retroactively from Aug. 1 if the EU can introduce legislation to implement its part of the deal by then, which EU officials say they will do. 'Faced with a challenging situation, we have delivered for our member states and industry and restored clarity and coherence to transatlantic trade,' von der Leyen said. 'This is not the end of the process.' The chief EU trade negotiator, Maros Sefcovic, echoed those sentiments. 'The alternative was a trade war with sky high tariffs ... it builds confidence. It brings stability,' he said. Economists say higher tariffs slow economic growth and will be reflected in higher consumer prices. One category of goods not excluded from tariffs on EU goods was wine and spirits, which had enjoyed zero tariffs on both ends since a 1997 trade deal. Sefcovic, said EU officials had not won an exemption 'yet' but hoped to in future talks and that 'doors are not closed forever' on that issue. That means American distillers face zero tariffs in Europe the short term, but also the possibility of EU retaliation down the line, said Chris Swonger, president and CEO of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. 'Without a permanent return to zero-for-zero tariffs on spirits, American distillers do not have the certainty to plan for future export and job growth without the fear of retaliatory tariffs returning,' Swonger said in a statement. The EU has suspended retaliatory tariffs on US goods, including wine and spirits, until Feb. 5, 2026. Proposals to exempt a certain amount of EU steel imports, known as a tariff rate quota, have been left unresolved pending more talks. The 15% tariff is much higher than tariff levels on both sides from before Trump began imposing his tariffs, when they averaged in the low single digits. The tariffs are paid on the U.S. end, either absorbed by American businesses importing the goods, lowering their profits, or passed on to U.S. consumers in the form of higher prices at the cash register. The deal also includes nonbinding EU commitments to purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and for EU companies to invest $600 billion in the U.S. In both cases, the money would come from private companies and is based on an assessment by the European Commission on what companies were planning to spend. McNeil, McHugh and Hussein write for the Associated Press.
CNBC
2 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump half-billion dollar civil penalty thrown out by appeals court
A New York state appeals court on Thursday threw out a more than $500 million civil fraud penalty imposed on President Donald Trump. The appeals court said that while "injunctive relief" ordered by the trial judge in the case was "well crafted to curb defendants' business culture" at the Trump Organization, the monetary penalty, "which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution." This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
Miami Herald
28 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Voters Sue Elon Musk, Say They Were Defrauded by $1M Petition Giveaway
A federal judge has ordered Elon Musk to face a proposed class-action lawsuit from voters who say they were misled into signing a petition in the buildup to the 2024 election by promises of a chance to win $1 million in a daily giveaway. The lawsuit, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, invokes the Class Action Fairness Act and alleges that the total value of all class members' claims exceeds $5 million. It seeks damages and injunctive relief on behalf of petition signers who say they were wrongly induced to provide personal identifying information when signing the petition. Newsweek contacted lawyers for Musk and America PAC for comment via email on Thursday outside regular office hours. The case centers on whether Musk's America PAC promotion-announced in the run-up to the election to support Donald Trump's 2024 campaign in seven battleground states-was a genuine, random lottery or whether signers suffered harm when they supplied contact details later used for political targeting. Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has faced several legal challenges over America PAC and the $1 million petition giveaway. In October, the Department of Justice warned Musk that the promotion might violate federal election laws. If the lawsuit succeeds, Musk could face millions in damages, and the case could spur similar suits in other states where voters signed the petition. The complaint names Arizona resident Jacqueline McAferty as lead plaintiff and alleges that America PAC and Musk induced voters in seven battleground states-Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina-to sign a petition supporting free speech and Second Amendment positions by promising $1 million daily prizes chosen "randomly" until Election Day. The suit said petition signers were required to provide names, addresses, emails and phone numbers and that the defendants benefited by driving traffic to X, Musk's social platform, and by collecting valuable political contact data. It also alleges that the lottery was not random, giving voters no real chance to collect. In November, Musk's lawyers told a Pennsylvania judge that winners were not chosen at random but were selected in advance-contradicting Musk's own statements when he launched the contest. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled that McAferty plausibly alleged that she had been misled and that an expert could testify about the commercial value of battleground voters' contact information. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman told Reuters on Wednesday: "It is plausible that plaintiff justifiably relied on those statements to believe that defendants were objectively offering her the chance to enter a random lottery-even if that is not what they subjectively intended to do." Jarrett L. Ellzey of EKSM LLP told Newsweek: "We are pleased with the Court's ruling and agree with Judge Pitman's careful reasoning. This decision affirms that our client and the proposed class have viable claims and deserve the opportunity to pursue justice." Elon Musk said at a Trump campaign event in Pennsylvania on October 19: "We are going to be awarding $1 million randomly to people who have signed the petition, every day, from now until the election." Christopher Peterson, a University of Utah law professor, told NBC News on November 5, 2024: "You cannot lawfully lie to the public about conducting a random sweepstakes, lottery, or contest and then rig the results to hand-select the winners. It really is not complicated. This is just fraud; a simple, ugly fraud on the public." The case, McAferty v. Musk et al., remains before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Pitman has denied dismissal, allowing discovery and further proceedings to go forward. Related Articles Elon Musk and JD Vance's Relationship Under Scrutiny Amid 2028 TalkElon Musk Responds to Report He's 'Pumping the Brakes' on Third Party PlansJudges Hand Elon Musk Double Legal BlowAshley St. Clair Launches 'Bad Advice' Podcast, Says She's Being Evicted 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
