WEBVTT - Finally, Some Good News on US Jobs

0:00:02.720 --> 0:00:09.880
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. The headline is the

0:00:09.960 --> 0:00:12.879
<v Speaker 1>labor market appears to be stabilizing.

0:00:12.600 --> 0:00:15.560
<v Speaker 2>Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics came out with one

0:00:15.560 --> 0:00:19.200
<v Speaker 2>of the year's most anticipated data dumps, a report on

0:00:19.360 --> 0:00:22.840
<v Speaker 2>hiring and firing in January and a revision of the

0:00:22.920 --> 0:00:26.880
<v Speaker 2>jobs numbers from last year. Molly Smith, a Bloomberg US

0:00:26.920 --> 0:00:32.519
<v Speaker 2>Economy editor, says that heading into today, economists' expectations had

0:00:32.520 --> 0:00:33.320
<v Speaker 2>been low.

0:00:33.520 --> 0:00:36.680
<v Speaker 1>We keep seeing these huge job cut announcements coming out

0:00:36.720 --> 0:00:39.080
<v Speaker 1>of big companies, and that seems to be making a

0:00:39.120 --> 0:00:42.200
<v Speaker 1>lot of big news and making people really anxious.

0:00:41.800 --> 0:00:44.440
<v Speaker 3>About the job market. But you get a report like

0:00:44.479 --> 0:00:45.320
<v Speaker 3>this and it's.

0:00:45.159 --> 0:00:48.000
<v Speaker 1>Like, well, there was a lot of really positive things

0:00:48.000 --> 0:00:48.600
<v Speaker 1>that happened.

0:00:48.720 --> 0:00:51.840
<v Speaker 2>The US economy added one hundred and thirty thousand jobs

0:00:51.920 --> 0:00:55.279
<v Speaker 2>last month, according to the BLS report, far more than

0:00:55.360 --> 0:00:59.880
<v Speaker 2>economists were projecting, and the unemployment rate actually dropped to

0:01:00.120 --> 0:01:04.800
<v Speaker 2>four point three percent. The takeaway the twenty twenty six

0:01:04.920 --> 0:01:07.280
<v Speaker 2>labor market could be stronger than we thought.

0:01:07.720 --> 0:01:10.560
<v Speaker 1>To see the way that the January numbers came in,

0:01:10.959 --> 0:01:13.560
<v Speaker 1>not just the beat and hiring, but also the drop

0:01:13.600 --> 0:01:16.760
<v Speaker 1>and the unemployment rate, which was not expected. Really just

0:01:16.840 --> 0:01:19.880
<v Speaker 1>showed that the labor market seems to be gaining its footing.

0:01:20.080 --> 0:01:23.160
<v Speaker 2>But Mollie says, the other takeaway is that the labor

0:01:23.200 --> 0:01:27.320
<v Speaker 2>market of twenty twenty five was weaker than originally reported.

0:01:27.680 --> 0:01:31.120
<v Speaker 1>The pace of hiring originally last year was around forty

0:01:31.200 --> 0:01:34.039
<v Speaker 1>nine thousand jobs added per month on average.

0:01:34.480 --> 0:01:37.040
<v Speaker 3>The revisions today show that was just fifteen thousand.

0:01:37.160 --> 0:01:39.920
<v Speaker 1>In the world of economics, that's of basically nothing, so

0:01:40.120 --> 0:01:42.520
<v Speaker 1>that's really not a great number.

0:01:43.480 --> 0:01:46.240
<v Speaker 2>The Federal Reserve will be weighing all these numbers as

0:01:46.240 --> 0:01:49.400
<v Speaker 2>it sets rates in the months ahead, and Mollie says

0:01:49.640 --> 0:01:52.240
<v Speaker 2>the odds are now looking better that it will stay

0:01:52.320 --> 0:01:53.120
<v Speaker 2>the course.

0:01:53.120 --> 0:01:53.760
<v Speaker 3>For the Fed.

0:01:54.280 --> 0:01:57.760
<v Speaker 1>This means that they're fairly justified in holding interest rates

0:01:57.960 --> 0:02:00.280
<v Speaker 1>right now. You know, there really is no rush to

0:02:00.320 --> 0:02:03.000
<v Speaker 1>cut interest rates when you have an economy, a job

0:02:03.040 --> 0:02:05.800
<v Speaker 1>market that seems to be studying the way that it is,

0:02:06.120 --> 0:02:08.400
<v Speaker 1>and it looked like in hindsight that the time that

0:02:08.520 --> 0:02:11.480
<v Speaker 1>the cuts that they already made were fairly well timed.

0:02:14.760 --> 0:02:16.960
<v Speaker 2>I'm Sarah Holder, and this is the big take from

0:02:16.960 --> 0:02:20.880
<v Speaker 2>Bloomberg News Today. On the show, the US labor market

0:02:20.960 --> 0:02:25.320
<v Speaker 2>shows signs of stabilizing after a really slow year. What

0:02:25.360 --> 0:02:29.280
<v Speaker 2>today's jobs numbers mean for job seekers, employers, and the

0:02:29.360 --> 0:02:37.840
<v Speaker 2>fet So let's talk about what the report revealed about

0:02:37.919 --> 0:02:42.000
<v Speaker 2>the state of the labor market right now. Those January numbers.

0:02:42.040 --> 0:02:44.360
<v Speaker 2>Where are the bright spots and where are there areas

0:02:44.440 --> 0:02:46.720
<v Speaker 2>of concern in the January jobs report?

0:02:46.880 --> 0:02:48.440
<v Speaker 3>So I guess you.

0:02:48.440 --> 0:02:50.320
<v Speaker 1>Could call this a bright spot, but also an area

0:02:50.320 --> 0:02:53.840
<v Speaker 1>of concern was that healthcare continues to dominate hiring and

0:02:53.880 --> 0:02:56.519
<v Speaker 1>actually have like the most amount of jobs added since

0:02:56.560 --> 0:03:00.919
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty, and healthcare dominated hiring last too, really was

0:03:00.960 --> 0:03:03.880
<v Speaker 1>the majority of all job growth. Ideally, you'd want to

0:03:03.880 --> 0:03:07.839
<v Speaker 1>see more breadth of hiring and seeing this across more industries.

0:03:08.160 --> 0:03:10.959
<v Speaker 1>There were some other industries though, that did add jobs,

0:03:11.000 --> 0:03:14.000
<v Speaker 1>Manufacturing notably first time in a long time that we

0:03:14.040 --> 0:03:17.440
<v Speaker 1>saw job gains there. We saw federal government continued to

0:03:17.440 --> 0:03:20.760
<v Speaker 1>cut jobs, not really surprising. That's more or less the

0:03:20.800 --> 0:03:25.080
<v Speaker 1>industry breakdown. Looking to some other positive aspects, we also

0:03:25.160 --> 0:03:28.600
<v Speaker 1>get another survey in the jobs report, that is the

0:03:28.680 --> 0:03:32.680
<v Speaker 1>Survey of households that showed that more people voluntarily quit

0:03:32.760 --> 0:03:34.920
<v Speaker 1>their jobs, which usually is a sign that you feel

0:03:34.960 --> 0:03:37.240
<v Speaker 1>pretty confident in your ability to find a new one.

0:03:37.400 --> 0:03:38.160
<v Speaker 3>That number has been.

0:03:38.080 --> 0:03:40.240
<v Speaker 1>Pretty low for the most part. You know, people will

0:03:40.280 --> 0:03:43.360
<v Speaker 1>feel fairly insecure, don't really think this is a good time,

0:03:43.400 --> 0:03:44.880
<v Speaker 1>and you know, just up and leave.

0:03:44.720 --> 0:03:47.280
<v Speaker 2>Your job, right the big freeze, Right, that's what people

0:03:47.320 --> 0:03:49.600
<v Speaker 2>were talking about. People too afraid to leave their jobs.

0:03:49.680 --> 0:03:51.160
<v Speaker 2>That seems to be changing perhaps.

0:03:51.280 --> 0:03:53.720
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you know, another thing economists will always tell

0:03:53.760 --> 0:03:56.400
<v Speaker 1>you is only one month of data, but if sustained,

0:03:56.560 --> 0:03:58.920
<v Speaker 1>that could be a sign that maybe things are turning.

0:03:59.200 --> 0:04:02.360
<v Speaker 1>You saw far less people reported that they're working part

0:04:02.360 --> 0:04:05.440
<v Speaker 1>time for economic reasons, so that's something that had been climbing.

0:04:05.840 --> 0:04:08.360
<v Speaker 1>Also a sign, you know, of some financial distress. So

0:04:08.440 --> 0:04:10.160
<v Speaker 1>that was positive to see that fall.

0:04:10.680 --> 0:04:12.400
<v Speaker 2>And one of the other things that was on people's

0:04:12.400 --> 0:04:14.680
<v Speaker 2>mind hetting into this jobs report, where are these headline

0:04:14.680 --> 0:04:18.360
<v Speaker 2>grabbing layoffs? Amazon announced it would be cutting about sixteen

0:04:18.360 --> 0:04:21.880
<v Speaker 2>thousand jobs in January. The Washington Post, also owned by

0:04:21.920 --> 0:04:25.600
<v Speaker 2>Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, fired more than three hundred journalists.

0:04:25.920 --> 0:04:29.480
<v Speaker 2>How are those layoffs showing up in the job market

0:04:29.520 --> 0:04:32.839
<v Speaker 2>right now and are there signs of some industries contracting

0:04:32.920 --> 0:04:35.120
<v Speaker 2>or were these kind of outliers.

0:04:35.720 --> 0:04:39.960
<v Speaker 1>It's hard to reconcile the two because you see these

0:04:40.240 --> 0:04:43.719
<v Speaker 1>announcements of layoffs from these big companies you mentioned Amazon

0:04:43.880 --> 0:04:48.799
<v Speaker 1>Ups was another, and they haven't really translated into actual

0:04:49.040 --> 0:04:52.360
<v Speaker 1>layoffs in the aggregate for the most part. One thing

0:04:52.400 --> 0:04:56.000
<v Speaker 1>to note is that announcements are simply announcements. They're not

0:04:56.080 --> 0:04:59.400
<v Speaker 1>necessarily meaning that people are going to be fired right

0:04:59.400 --> 0:05:02.040
<v Speaker 1>then and there. Course at the post they unfortunately were.

0:05:02.760 --> 0:05:05.040
<v Speaker 1>But in a lot of these other companies that can

0:05:05.080 --> 0:05:08.479
<v Speaker 1>be spread out for months, you know when those actual

0:05:08.600 --> 0:05:12.120
<v Speaker 1>layoffs might happen. So even though we have had a

0:05:12.120 --> 0:05:15.480
<v Speaker 1>lot of these announcements, they haven't in the data shown

0:05:15.560 --> 0:05:16.279
<v Speaker 1>up as far as.

0:05:16.200 --> 0:05:19.479
<v Speaker 3>Actual layoffs will go. Yeah, that's that's really helpful.

0:05:19.520 --> 0:05:22.760
<v Speaker 2>So those kinds of announcements could show up in you know,

0:05:22.880 --> 0:05:25.360
<v Speaker 2>a March report or an April.

0:05:25.000 --> 0:05:26.800
<v Speaker 3>Report, or they might not show up at all.

0:05:26.880 --> 0:05:29.640
<v Speaker 1>Maybe it was an announcement that was you know, at

0:05:29.720 --> 0:05:31.800
<v Speaker 1>one point in January. Who knows, maybe things change and

0:05:31.839 --> 0:05:33.000
<v Speaker 1>they weren't actually enacted.

0:05:33.880 --> 0:05:34.680
<v Speaker 3>When you look back.

0:05:34.560 --> 0:05:37.440
<v Speaker 2>Over decades, job creation has often been tied to a

0:05:37.440 --> 0:05:41.560
<v Speaker 2>growing economy. Right, is the dynamic any different now? Given

0:05:41.560 --> 0:05:44.160
<v Speaker 2>the growth of AI, worries that AI is coming for

0:05:44.240 --> 0:05:48.360
<v Speaker 2>Americans jobs, should these numbers be viewed through a different lens?

0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:48.720
<v Speaker 2>At all.

0:05:49.120 --> 0:05:51.479
<v Speaker 1>I mean, obviously we had a great report today, but

0:05:51.520 --> 0:05:54.480
<v Speaker 1>I think in general it's absolutely fair to say that,

0:05:54.600 --> 0:05:57.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, the labor market has absolutely slowed down from

0:05:57.440 --> 0:05:59.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, those post pandemic peaks, and that we have

0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:02.560
<v Speaker 1>seen one that has been gradually cooling now for a

0:06:02.640 --> 0:06:06.039
<v Speaker 1>number of years. Today's does not change that, and it's

0:06:06.120 --> 0:06:10.000
<v Speaker 1>difficult to then reconcile that with what has been really

0:06:10.040 --> 0:06:13.520
<v Speaker 1>strong GDP numbers. That you see an economy that is

0:06:13.560 --> 0:06:17.440
<v Speaker 1>expanding at some of the fastest paces in years, yet

0:06:17.520 --> 0:06:21.440
<v Speaker 1>the labor market has been fairly slow. The reason why

0:06:21.480 --> 0:06:23.200
<v Speaker 1>you can look at those things is because the way

0:06:23.240 --> 0:06:25.839
<v Speaker 1>that GDP is actually calculated has nothing to do with

0:06:25.880 --> 0:06:29.480
<v Speaker 1>the chop market, which is also why it's a difficult

0:06:29.480 --> 0:06:33.840
<v Speaker 1>way to measure the US economy. So the economy has

0:06:33.880 --> 0:06:37.000
<v Speaker 1>been growing as fast as it is in the last

0:06:37.080 --> 0:06:41.160
<v Speaker 1>few quarters largely because of a virtual in trade policy.

0:06:41.520 --> 0:06:43.920
<v Speaker 1>You know that there had been such a huge rush

0:06:44.200 --> 0:06:47.520
<v Speaker 1>at the beginning of twenty twenty five to import as

0:06:47.560 --> 0:06:50.520
<v Speaker 1>much as companies could ahead of those expected tariffs that

0:06:50.560 --> 0:06:54.560
<v Speaker 1>did come in April, and the way that GDP is calculated,

0:06:54.800 --> 0:06:57.840
<v Speaker 1>that would then add to growth when you don't have

0:06:58.360 --> 0:07:01.960
<v Speaker 1>import activity as strong all else equal, So that's been

0:07:02.000 --> 0:07:06.120
<v Speaker 1>a lot of what's been keeping GDP so elevated, and

0:07:06.160 --> 0:07:08.400
<v Speaker 1>that's why it's hard to then look at the job

0:07:08.440 --> 0:07:11.840
<v Speaker 1>market next to that and see how the two compare well.

0:07:11.880 --> 0:07:13.920
<v Speaker 2>I also want to look closer at some of the revisions.

0:07:14.440 --> 0:07:17.560
<v Speaker 2>Annual revisions are released every January. The report we got

0:07:17.600 --> 0:07:20.640
<v Speaker 2>today showed that last year's job market was weaker than

0:07:20.800 --> 0:07:24.160
<v Speaker 2>originally reported. How much weaker and how do we know?

0:07:24.680 --> 0:07:27.880
<v Speaker 1>So this is where it gets. Also, there's just so

0:07:27.920 --> 0:07:30.440
<v Speaker 1>many layers to this. There's a few different kinds of

0:07:30.480 --> 0:07:34.520
<v Speaker 1>revisions that BLS carries out. There's one that was the

0:07:34.560 --> 0:07:37.720
<v Speaker 1>main headline revision. We call it the benchmark revision, and

0:07:37.760 --> 0:07:41.480
<v Speaker 1>that has to do with basically incorporating a more accurate,

0:07:41.480 --> 0:07:46.120
<v Speaker 1>but less timely employment series that is based on actual.

0:07:45.920 --> 0:07:48.640
<v Speaker 3>Unemployment insurance records. So that's it just has a bit

0:07:48.680 --> 0:07:49.080
<v Speaker 3>of a lag.

0:07:49.120 --> 0:07:53.000
<v Speaker 1>It's a quarterly series, so that one updated payrolls through

0:07:53.120 --> 0:07:55.800
<v Speaker 1>March of twenty twenty five, and then there's another set

0:07:55.800 --> 0:07:59.760
<v Speaker 1>of revisions that updates how BLS accounts for businesses that

0:07:59.840 --> 0:08:02.800
<v Speaker 1>own open and close. The net number between those two

0:08:03.120 --> 0:08:05.840
<v Speaker 1>that impacts the rest of twenty twenty five, as well

0:08:05.840 --> 0:08:08.880
<v Speaker 1>as you know, a model that then influenced payrolls beyond that,

0:08:09.440 --> 0:08:13.320
<v Speaker 1>and then there's also an adjustment of how BLS factors

0:08:13.320 --> 0:08:14.760
<v Speaker 1>for seasonal adjustment factors.

0:08:15.120 --> 0:08:17.560
<v Speaker 3>So all of those things combined, it's a lot going on.

0:08:17.920 --> 0:08:19.360
<v Speaker 3>I think the easiest way to think.

0:08:19.240 --> 0:08:22.640
<v Speaker 1>About this is that over the course of twenty twenty five,

0:08:23.320 --> 0:08:26.560
<v Speaker 1>the average pace of monthly job growth was now fifteen

0:08:26.640 --> 0:08:31.840
<v Speaker 1>thousand versus initially reported forty nine thousand. That essentially incorporates

0:08:32.200 --> 0:08:34.200
<v Speaker 1>all of the revisions together, and I think that's the

0:08:34.200 --> 0:08:35.520
<v Speaker 1>easiest way to think about it.

0:08:35.880 --> 0:08:38.840
<v Speaker 2>How does that stack up historically? How should we think

0:08:38.880 --> 0:08:40.160
<v Speaker 2>about that number?

0:08:40.240 --> 0:08:42.559
<v Speaker 3>How low is that? It's low?

0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:46.000
<v Speaker 1>It's like I'm trying to that's essentially like the same

0:08:46.000 --> 0:08:49.040
<v Speaker 1>as like there really was no hiring, Like that's what

0:08:49.080 --> 0:08:54.760
<v Speaker 1>we would call anemic, you know, un dynamic, barely chugging

0:08:54.840 --> 0:08:57.600
<v Speaker 1>along like there was like not really a whole lot happening.

0:08:57.960 --> 0:09:00.840
<v Speaker 2>Molly, you've walked us through all the different kinds of

0:09:01.080 --> 0:09:03.680
<v Speaker 2>revisions that we're looking at in conversation right now. Can

0:09:03.760 --> 0:09:06.720
<v Speaker 2>you remind us why these revisions happen every year? What

0:09:06.880 --> 0:09:10.840
<v Speaker 2>new information does the BLS incorporate in this data, right.

0:09:10.720 --> 0:09:13.040
<v Speaker 1>So the big one is what I had referred to

0:09:13.280 --> 0:09:16.160
<v Speaker 1>as that series that is more accurate but less timely.

0:09:16.200 --> 0:09:20.120
<v Speaker 1>It's called the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages QCW

0:09:20.360 --> 0:09:23.640
<v Speaker 1>for sure, and that is really what a lot of

0:09:23.679 --> 0:09:26.520
<v Speaker 1>people would say is probably like the one of the

0:09:26.559 --> 0:09:29.840
<v Speaker 1>more accurate series of employment that we get. You know,

0:09:29.920 --> 0:09:33.240
<v Speaker 1>this is just how statistics work, and that if you

0:09:33.280 --> 0:09:37.120
<v Speaker 1>want to balance speed and accuracy, you have to accept

0:09:37.200 --> 0:09:41.280
<v Speaker 1>that as you get more data, that numbers are going

0:09:41.320 --> 0:09:44.600
<v Speaker 1>to be different. And that's just a trade off that

0:09:44.679 --> 0:09:47.080
<v Speaker 1>you have to be comfortable with. You want to see

0:09:47.080 --> 0:09:49.600
<v Speaker 1>the first Friday of the following month what the job's

0:09:49.640 --> 0:09:52.880
<v Speaker 1>number was. People don't have the patience to wait longer

0:09:53.120 --> 0:09:56.080
<v Speaker 1>for when more data will come in. So if you're

0:09:56.080 --> 0:09:58.560
<v Speaker 1>going to demand that kind of speed, you have to

0:09:58.600 --> 0:10:03.080
<v Speaker 1>then accept that as more data comes in in subsequent months, quarters,

0:10:03.200 --> 0:10:06.280
<v Speaker 1>even years, that the numbers are going to be revised,

0:10:06.320 --> 0:10:09.680
<v Speaker 1>and in time that does make the numbers more accurate.

0:10:10.080 --> 0:10:12.439
<v Speaker 2>I mean that speaks to something else that's significant about

0:10:12.440 --> 0:10:15.400
<v Speaker 2>this report is that the data is backward looking at

0:10:15.400 --> 0:10:17.040
<v Speaker 2>this point. So what does it mean for how we

0:10:17.080 --> 0:10:20.000
<v Speaker 2>should be viewing the labor market today? That there was,

0:10:20.320 --> 0:10:23.200
<v Speaker 2>you know, barely chugging along job growth in twenty twenty five.

0:10:23.320 --> 0:10:24.720
<v Speaker 2>What does that mean for twenty twenty six.

0:10:25.120 --> 0:10:26.840
<v Speaker 1>Well, it sets the bar a little low for where

0:10:26.840 --> 0:10:29.600
<v Speaker 1>we're starting from, that's for sure. But if you look

0:10:29.640 --> 0:10:32.400
<v Speaker 1>at say that now, the average pace of monthly job

0:10:32.440 --> 0:10:36.080
<v Speaker 1>growth in twenty twenty five was fifteen thousand compared to

0:10:36.080 --> 0:10:39.600
<v Speaker 1>today's number was one hundred and thirty thousand. Just comparing

0:10:39.640 --> 0:10:41.840
<v Speaker 1>those two, obviously there's a lot more going on that

0:10:41.880 --> 0:10:44.120
<v Speaker 1>seems like more than stabilizing to me. I mean, that's

0:10:44.120 --> 0:10:45.880
<v Speaker 1>like a pretty huge search.

0:10:46.000 --> 0:10:48.800
<v Speaker 2>But guess we'll know next year how that number is revised.

0:10:48.800 --> 0:10:50.920
<v Speaker 1>Well, even see next month how that number is revised

0:10:50.920 --> 0:10:54.040
<v Speaker 1>and the following month, and again this happens multiple times,

0:10:54.280 --> 0:10:57.320
<v Speaker 1>so we'll see how that one thirty numbers sticks.

0:10:57.400 --> 0:11:00.760
<v Speaker 3>But as it stands today, I think you can say that.

0:11:00.760 --> 0:11:03.000
<v Speaker 1>Powell did have the right idea when he spoke at

0:11:03.000 --> 0:11:06.160
<v Speaker 1>the January FED meeting that the labor market does appear

0:11:06.200 --> 0:11:09.400
<v Speaker 1>to be stabilizing. It's not just the unemployment rate that

0:11:09.520 --> 0:11:12.479
<v Speaker 1>perhaps hiring two is maybe picking.

0:11:12.280 --> 0:11:13.200
<v Speaker 3>Up a little bit as well.

0:11:17.480 --> 0:11:20.360
<v Speaker 2>So the January jobs report held good signs about the

0:11:20.440 --> 0:11:23.319
<v Speaker 2>labor market in the year ahead. But with layoffs in

0:11:23.400 --> 0:11:28.200
<v Speaker 2>the news and affordability a growing concern, how will the public, politicians,

0:11:28.400 --> 0:11:41.800
<v Speaker 2>and the Fed respond that's next. This month's sunny jobs

0:11:41.800 --> 0:11:46.920
<v Speaker 2>report doesn't address Americans' persistent concerns about inflation and affordability,

0:11:47.760 --> 0:11:50.160
<v Speaker 2>and it's not likely to diminish the sense of a

0:11:50.280 --> 0:11:53.440
<v Speaker 2>vibe session the idea that many people feel like the

0:11:53.480 --> 0:11:57.120
<v Speaker 2>economy isn't working for them, regardless of what the economic

0:11:57.200 --> 0:12:00.880
<v Speaker 2>data show. So I asked Bloomberg US econom editor Mollie

0:12:00.920 --> 0:12:05.320
<v Speaker 2>Smith how she reconciles the strong January jobs numbers with

0:12:05.440 --> 0:12:08.360
<v Speaker 2>people's current perceptions of the labor market.

0:12:09.520 --> 0:12:14.160
<v Speaker 1>This is what's been really challenging about squaring survey data

0:12:14.200 --> 0:12:17.640
<v Speaker 1>with what we call hard data, and that the surveys

0:12:17.679 --> 0:12:21.680
<v Speaker 1>are consistently far more negative than what the actual numbers show.

0:12:22.160 --> 0:12:24.840
<v Speaker 1>There is a survey that the government conducts that it's

0:12:24.880 --> 0:12:28.080
<v Speaker 1>a hypothetical. It asks if you had to pay for

0:12:28.120 --> 0:12:30.840
<v Speaker 1>an emergency four hundred dollars expense, could you do it?

0:12:31.320 --> 0:12:33.320
<v Speaker 1>And that's something that people have tracked for a long

0:12:33.360 --> 0:12:36.240
<v Speaker 1>time and how that share has like declined by and

0:12:36.320 --> 0:12:39.720
<v Speaker 1>large for a while. But there was another survey provider

0:12:39.760 --> 0:12:43.640
<v Speaker 1>who actually asked people, did you have an expense and

0:12:43.720 --> 0:12:45.560
<v Speaker 1>were you able to pay it? Now do you think

0:12:45.600 --> 0:12:48.240
<v Speaker 1>you can? But were you able to? What actually happened?

0:12:48.760 --> 0:12:50.960
<v Speaker 1>And by and large people were able to pay it.

0:12:51.040 --> 0:12:53.760
<v Speaker 1>So I think some of that just goes to show

0:12:53.800 --> 0:12:57.200
<v Speaker 1>that people maybe are more resilient than they report to

0:12:57.240 --> 0:12:59.640
<v Speaker 1>be and will find a way, you know, we did.

0:12:59.679 --> 0:13:02.280
<v Speaker 2>The other serve that I always look at is how

0:13:02.480 --> 0:13:04.920
<v Speaker 2>likely do you think it would be to find another

0:13:05.040 --> 0:13:07.600
<v Speaker 2>job if you were fired tomorrow?

0:13:07.840 --> 0:13:08.040
<v Speaker 3>Right?

0:13:08.200 --> 0:13:13.840
<v Speaker 2>And that number when it's low, feels really anxiety inducing

0:13:13.880 --> 0:13:15.600
<v Speaker 2>about the state of the economy. But as you said,

0:13:15.640 --> 0:13:18.720
<v Speaker 2>you need to kind of match that with the actual

0:13:18.800 --> 0:13:21.959
<v Speaker 2>odds of finding another job, or people's actual success rates

0:13:22.000 --> 0:13:22.840
<v Speaker 2>and finding a job.

0:13:22.720 --> 0:13:24.920
<v Speaker 1>Right, like did you actually quit your job and try

0:13:24.920 --> 0:13:27.440
<v Speaker 1>to find another one or that's just your case sitting

0:13:27.520 --> 0:13:30.200
<v Speaker 1>here employed today, if you took a guess if you

0:13:30.240 --> 0:13:32.120
<v Speaker 1>were in that situation. And I think that's where you

0:13:32.160 --> 0:13:35.040
<v Speaker 1>see a huge divergence in some of these numbers. That's

0:13:35.080 --> 0:13:37.960
<v Speaker 1>also why the economy as a whole is also still

0:13:37.960 --> 0:13:41.000
<v Speaker 1>doing really well. That we look at these sentiment surveys,

0:13:41.040 --> 0:13:44.360
<v Speaker 1>particularly for what it means for consumer spending, which you

0:13:44.400 --> 0:13:47.760
<v Speaker 1>would think based on these surveys that people aren't spending

0:13:47.760 --> 0:13:50.080
<v Speaker 1>any money at all, but that's not at all what

0:13:50.120 --> 0:13:53.480
<v Speaker 1>the actual data suggest, and that spending is still holding

0:13:53.559 --> 0:13:56.199
<v Speaker 1>up really well, as is the overall economy.

0:13:58.360 --> 0:14:00.360
<v Speaker 2>So, I mean, given the fact that how people feel

0:14:00.400 --> 0:14:04.640
<v Speaker 2>about the economy really matters politically, I'm wondering what this

0:14:04.760 --> 0:14:07.280
<v Speaker 2>report means for the Trump administration.

0:14:07.600 --> 0:14:09.959
<v Speaker 1>Well, he did just tweet a post that, you know,

0:14:10.120 --> 0:14:13.400
<v Speaker 1>great job numbers today, you know, the Golden Ages upon us,

0:14:13.480 --> 0:14:16.120
<v Speaker 1>everything looks great, which you know is a little bit

0:14:16.160 --> 0:14:19.040
<v Speaker 1>of like selective attention. I would say on his part.

0:14:19.160 --> 0:14:22.080
<v Speaker 2>He was president all last year that too, but we

0:14:22.160 --> 0:14:24.320
<v Speaker 2>had a positive aspect of the report to focus on it.

0:14:24.320 --> 0:14:26.280
<v Speaker 1>I'm not saying that he was wrong to focus on that,

0:14:26.320 --> 0:14:28.800
<v Speaker 1>but I'm saying it's a little bit selective and maybe

0:14:29.280 --> 0:14:32.120
<v Speaker 1>excluding the part of where he presided over twenty.

0:14:31.920 --> 0:14:34.160
<v Speaker 2>Twenty five, right, right, I mean in August, the Bureau

0:14:34.200 --> 0:14:37.480
<v Speaker 2>of Labor Statistics revised some of its data downward, saying

0:14:37.480 --> 0:14:40.520
<v Speaker 2>the US economy added fewer jobs than it had previously said,

0:14:40.680 --> 0:14:44.239
<v Speaker 2>and Trump called the numbers rigged. He fired the BLS commissioner.

0:14:44.320 --> 0:14:46.560
<v Speaker 2>We talked about it on the podcast, but he hasn't

0:14:46.560 --> 0:14:47.320
<v Speaker 2>had that kind.

0:14:47.200 --> 0:14:49.760
<v Speaker 3>Of reaction this time, not that I've seen so far.

0:14:49.840 --> 0:14:51.480
<v Speaker 3>I mean, the day is young. Who knows.

0:14:51.520 --> 0:14:53.640
<v Speaker 1>There's a lot of positives to take from this. But

0:14:54.320 --> 0:14:57.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, for somebody who has been very critical of

0:14:57.520 --> 0:15:00.200
<v Speaker 1>this data agency, of the revisions that they make, what

0:15:00.240 --> 0:15:03.640
<v Speaker 1>it says about the labor market as a whole, it

0:15:03.720 --> 0:15:05.600
<v Speaker 1>seems to be omitting that entire chunk.

0:15:05.400 --> 0:15:05.920
<v Speaker 3>Of the equation.

0:15:06.320 --> 0:15:09.360
<v Speaker 2>So we're also getting a report on the consumer Price Index,

0:15:09.640 --> 0:15:14.360
<v Speaker 2>which measures inflation this Friday. How do today's jobs numbers,

0:15:14.400 --> 0:15:17.600
<v Speaker 2>which are generally better than expected for January change, How

0:15:17.600 --> 0:15:19.840
<v Speaker 2>we're going to view those inflation numbers? How are you

0:15:19.840 --> 0:15:21.760
<v Speaker 2>going to put those two numbers in conversation.

0:15:22.120 --> 0:15:24.920
<v Speaker 1>Well, something else that we saw in this job's report

0:15:24.960 --> 0:15:27.600
<v Speaker 1>today that we didn't get into was wage growth, which

0:15:27.720 --> 0:15:31.160
<v Speaker 1>was a bit stronger than expected. So you know, usually

0:15:31.160 --> 0:15:34.240
<v Speaker 1>that is the real engine of course, of like consumer spending,

0:15:34.280 --> 0:15:37.000
<v Speaker 1>of like what your pay is, and to see then

0:15:37.280 --> 0:15:41.000
<v Speaker 1>how that might factor into demand for goods and services

0:15:41.080 --> 0:15:43.720
<v Speaker 1>and how that could infect their prices in January.

0:15:43.760 --> 0:15:45.840
<v Speaker 3>I think that would be the correlation we would look for.

0:15:46.440 --> 0:15:48.200
<v Speaker 2>And I mean a body that will be looking very

0:15:48.240 --> 0:15:50.880
<v Speaker 2>closely at the CPI data and the jobs data.

0:15:50.840 --> 0:15:52.360
<v Speaker 3>Is the Federal Reserve.

0:15:52.600 --> 0:15:57.640
<v Speaker 2>Of course, what does this job's report mean for the

0:15:57.720 --> 0:16:00.680
<v Speaker 2>chances that they cut rates next meeting?

0:16:00.880 --> 0:16:03.600
<v Speaker 1>Oh, that was already about zero to say, like a

0:16:03.640 --> 0:16:06.360
<v Speaker 1>cut form March. That wasn't going to happen coming into

0:16:06.440 --> 0:16:10.600
<v Speaker 1>this report. The expectation was more around June for the

0:16:10.640 --> 0:16:13.400
<v Speaker 1>cut tappen at that meeting, But after today, basically that

0:16:13.520 --> 0:16:16.320
<v Speaker 1>shows that again that like what Pale has been saying

0:16:16.320 --> 0:16:18.800
<v Speaker 1>that like policy is well positioned right now, we feel

0:16:18.800 --> 0:16:20.960
<v Speaker 1>like we're in a good place, we can adjust if needed,

0:16:21.000 --> 0:16:23.000
<v Speaker 1>and that there is no urgency to cut.

0:16:23.440 --> 0:16:25.560
<v Speaker 3>All of that very much validated today.

0:16:25.880 --> 0:16:28.080
<v Speaker 1>You see that the way Trump reacted to the numbers,

0:16:28.120 --> 0:16:30.640
<v Speaker 1>saying that you know, we had such great job numbers,

0:16:30.640 --> 0:16:32.560
<v Speaker 1>as you know, we should be playing among the lowest

0:16:32.600 --> 0:16:35.240
<v Speaker 1>interest rates in the world. It's a little bit more

0:16:35.320 --> 0:16:37.960
<v Speaker 1>complicated than that that. You know, if you're seeing the

0:16:38.040 --> 0:16:40.640
<v Speaker 1>job market grow that the way it is, you wouldn't

0:16:40.640 --> 0:16:43.080
<v Speaker 1>think you would need lower interest rates to support it.

0:16:43.560 --> 0:16:44.960
<v Speaker 1>And that's how the FED is looking at this.

0:16:45.720 --> 0:16:48.800
<v Speaker 2>In May, we could see a new FED chair. Kevin

0:16:48.840 --> 0:16:53.240
<v Speaker 2>worsh is Trump's pick for the job. Has worsh responded

0:16:53.280 --> 0:16:55.960
<v Speaker 2>to these numbers at all. How might this change his thinking?

0:16:56.120 --> 0:16:58.960
<v Speaker 3>I think it's going to make things very complicated for him.

0:16:59.000 --> 0:16:59.400
<v Speaker 3>You know that.

0:17:00.080 --> 0:17:02.360
<v Speaker 1>Again, there's a lot of time between now and May.

0:17:02.720 --> 0:17:05.640
<v Speaker 1>He also has to be confirmed first. But basically, he

0:17:05.760 --> 0:17:08.720
<v Speaker 1>took this job with the understanding that the president wants

0:17:08.760 --> 0:17:11.520
<v Speaker 1>him to cut interest rates. Obviously it's not just his decision.

0:17:11.560 --> 0:17:16.159
<v Speaker 1>There's a whole body of policy makers. But certainly the

0:17:16.240 --> 0:17:19.439
<v Speaker 1>chair tries to rally a consensus and speaks for the

0:17:19.600 --> 0:17:23.600
<v Speaker 1>entire Central Bank. So Trump did say like that the

0:17:23.720 --> 0:17:26.120
<v Speaker 1>understanding of like warshaking this job is that he's going

0:17:26.119 --> 0:17:28.440
<v Speaker 1>to cut rates, and of course Warsh knows that too.

0:17:28.640 --> 0:17:30.560
<v Speaker 1>The whole country knows that. The whole world knows that

0:17:30.880 --> 0:17:34.119
<v Speaker 1>this is what Trump wants. The numbers make that again,

0:17:34.640 --> 0:17:37.480
<v Speaker 1>as we said here today, a bit more complicated. This

0:17:37.520 --> 0:17:39.720
<v Speaker 1>doesn't look like an economy right now that is calling

0:17:40.200 --> 0:17:42.399
<v Speaker 1>for any immediate cut to interest rates.

0:17:47.560 --> 0:17:50.520
<v Speaker 2>This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm Sarah Holder.

0:17:50.880 --> 0:17:53.480
<v Speaker 2>To get more from the Big Take and unlimited access

0:17:53.520 --> 0:17:57.400
<v Speaker 2>to all of Bloomberg dot com, subscribe today at Bloomberg

0:17:57.440 --> 0:18:01.479
<v Speaker 2>dot Com Slash Podcast Offer. Thanks for listening. We'll be

0:18:01.480 --> 0:18:02.080
<v Speaker 2>back tomorrow,