Friday's jobs report could show how much US employers will bend before they break
Last June, after almost a full year on the job hunt, Jordan Williams landed a role at a high-growth, United Kingdom-based outdoor apparel brand that was looking to build out its US operations.
Passenger Clothing was well-positioned for expansion: The company landed orders with REI, Scheels and others, and Williams, an outdoor industry veteran, was excited for the ride.
Until April.
'Upon Liberation Day,' Williams said, nodding to the moniker President Donald Trump assigned to his blowout tariff announcement on April 2, 'I was liberated from employment.'
Overnight, the US went from being Passenger's biggest potential growth driver to its biggest existential threat. For every $1 million of recycled fabrics, organic clothing and other products that landed in the US from countries such as India and China, Passenger was responsible for an additional $500,000 of duties, the company said in a mid-April statement announcing the pause of its US operations.
Williams officially lost his job on April 11.
Economists have warned early layoffs like Williams' could be the first signs of labor market fallout from Trump's steep (and shifting) tariffs, which have ramped up uncertainty testing the nimbleness of businesses of all sizes.
Friday's jobs report will provide some hints as to how much US employers are able to bend before they break.
'The labor market is good, but it's not exceptional, and we're in the process of putting some real strain on the economy,' Claudia Sahm, New Century Advisors chief economist, told CNN in an interview.
Economists expect that the May jobs report, slated for release Friday morning, could show the labor market is softening. The consensus forecast is for the economy to have added 130,000 jobs, slowing from a stronger-than-expected 177,000 gain in April, and for the unemployment rate to hold at 4.2% for the third consecutive month, according to FactSet estimates.
The Labor Department's weekly jobless claims report has shown higher numbers of first-time claims last month as well as people who have remained on unemployment for multiple weeks.
Continuing claims, which are filed by people who have received unemployment insurance for at least a week or more, continue to bump up against a three-and-a-half-year high.
'This is a market where there are stops and starts, and there are pullbacks in hiring,' Nela Richardson, chief economist for payroll giant ADP, said Wednesday 'With establishments, especially small establishments, when there's a lot of uncertainty — it doesn't mean that the demand isn't there but the timing may be off — and firms would rather wait and see than hire aggressively.'
The hiring rate, the number of hires as a percentage of total employment, ticked higher in April to 3.5% but remains below pre-pandemic levels, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data released earlier this week.
And by ADP's count (which doesn't always correlate with the official jobs report) hiring dropped off precipitously in April and May, when the private sector gained 60,000 and 37,000 jobs, respectively.
'The weak numbers we're seeing now does not point to a labor market that's collapsing, but there is hiring hesitancy,' Richardson said Wednesday.
'It's like driving through fog for some of our firms here,' she added.
Though the ripple effects from various Trump policies could take longer to show up in the data, the federal workforce reductions have already started appearing. The federal government posted job losses for three consecutive months, dropping 13,000 jobs in February, 4,000 in March and 9,000 in April, BLS data shows.
More losses could be spread over many months to come: Not all federal workers were laid off immediately, and other actions are being challenged in court.
Through May, announced job cuts are running significantly higher than in recent years; however, the lion's share of the cutbacks have come from the federal government.
Department of Government Efficiency-related cost-cutting and its downstream effects have led to more than 294,000 announced job cuts, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas data released Thursday. Another 131,257 announced cuts have been attributed to 'market/economic conditions,' while 2,097 have been directly tied to tariffs.
'Tariffs, funding cuts, consumer spending, and overall economic pessimism are putting intense pressure on companies' workforces,' Andrew Challenger, senior vice president of the outplacement and coaching firm, said in a statement. 'Companies are spending less, slowing hiring, and sending layoff notices.'
DOGE's actions and economic uncertainty have driven job cut announcements significantly higher than last year: Through the first five months of the year, employers have announced 696,309 job cuts, an 80% increase from the comparable year-ago period, according to the Challenger report.
Despite the increase in announcements, layoffs appear to be shrinking. In May, employers announced 93,816 job cuts, a decrease of 12% from April.
Also, jobless claims (a proxy for layoffs) and the rate of layoffs and discharges remain below pre-pandemic levels, Labor Department data shows.
Still, the impacts from tariffs might very well by a slow burn, economist Claudia Saum said.
'We are still early days,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
33 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Direct pay to college athletes starts July 1. Some key dates tied to implementation of settlement
It took five years for the $2.8 billion antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and five major conferences to reach a settlement. Now comes the process for implementing it. Following are significant dates: Settlement approved; settlement-related NCAA rules are effective, as adopted by the NCAA Division I Board on April 21, 2025. NIL Go portal launches. Opt-in deadline for non-defendant schools to fully commit to revenue sharing. First date for direct institutional revenue-sharing payments to student-athletes. Opt-in schools must 'designate' student-athletes permitted by the settlement to remain above roster limits. With the exception of the 'designated' student-athletes, fall sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition. With the exception of 'designated' student-athletes, winter and spring sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition or Dec. 1, whichever is earlier. ___ AP college sports:
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump dumps the Federalist Society — and even Republicans are shooketh
In a major about-face, Donald Trump is turning on the conservative powerhouse that built his judicial legacy, the Federalist Society. Yale Law professor Akhil Reed Amar warns that this break with the very group that helped propel him to power marks a dangerous shift. 'He just wants loyalty to himself—thugs and hacks,' Amar says, adding that Federalist Society judges are principled and loyal to the Constitution, not to Trump. 'The Senate needs to play a really important role now—especia
Forbes
34 minutes ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
