Financial markets have sustained themselves for nearly two years now on the hope that within 1-2 quarters, the Fed will finally relent and start lowering interest rates. This hope gets dashed again and again by data showing stubbornly persistent high employment, high GDP growth, and high inflation, but the hope refuses to die.
Long-term interest rates had been falling nicely for the last month, based on expectations of rate cuts in the fall. Then came Friday’s jobs report, and, blam, up went 10-year rates again. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) published its “Establishment” survey of data gleaned from employers. Non-farm payrolls rose by US 272k. This was appreciably higher than the 180k consensus expectation.
The plot below indicates that this number fits into a trend of essentially steady, fairly high employment gains (suggesting ongoing inflationary pressures):

There are fundamental reasons to take the BLS Establishment figures with a grain of salt. They have a history of significant revisions some months after first publication. Also, BLS uses a “birth/death” model for small businesses, which can account for some 50% (!) of the job gains they report. [1]
Another factor is that all of the net “jobs” created in recent quarters are reported to be part-time. According to Bret Jensen at Seeking Alpha, “Part-time jobs rose 286,000 during the quarter, while full-time jobs fell by just over 600,000. This is a continuation of a concerning trend where over the past year, roughly 1.5 million part-time positions were created while approximately one million full-time jobs were lost. This difference is that the BLS survey does not account for people working two or three jobs, which are now at a record as many Americans have struggled to maintain their standard of living during the inflationary environment of the past couple of years.”

It seems, then, that this week’s huge “jobs added” figure is not to be taken as indicating that the economy is overheated. However, it is still warm enough that rate cuts will be postponed yet again. A different BLS survey (“Household”) showed unemployment creeping up from 4.0% to 4.1%, which again suggests a more or less steady and fairly robust employment picture.
As far as drivers of inflation, I would look especially at wage growth. That is fitfully slowing, but not nearly enough to get us to the Fed’s 2% annual inflation target. My sense is that ongoing enormous federal deficit spending will keep pumping money into the economy fast enough to keep inflation high. High inflation will prevent significant interest rate cuts, assuming the Fed remains responsible. The interest payments on the federal debt will balloon due to the high rates, leading to even more deficit spending. If we actually get an economic downturn, leading to job insecurity and a willingness of workers to accept slower wage growth in the private sector, the federal spending floodgates will open even wider.
This makes hard assets like gold look attractive, to hedge against inflating U.S. dollars. This is one reason China has been quietly selling off its dollar hoard, and buying gold instead.
[1] For more in-depth treatments of employment statistics, see posts by fellow blogger Jeremy Horpedahl, e.g. here.
Thanks for the interesting article. The jobs report may prove to be a “head fake”, but…
I agree that the preliminary employment numbers may be revised downward, as indicated by Jeremy Horpedahl’s report. Preliminary data of all sorts should be taken with a grain of salt. In the case of BLS, the revisions are usually pretty small (despite the birth-death model which lots of folks love to beat up on)–in the latest case, March 2023 estimate was revised downward by 0.2%, and the average revision over the past decade was +0.1%. Considering the craziness of COVID, BLS has done remarkably (surprisingly?) well.
When it comes to types of jobs, you (and many others) have mistaken “jobs” for “people”. The full-time/part-time day is from the household survey, and refers to the number of people usually working 35+ hours per week (full-time) or <35 (part-time). You can’t equate people (household survey) with jobs (establishment survey/QCEW). So saying all the net job growth in the past year has been in part-time work is simply not valid.
It is true that the percent of employed people who work full-time has dropped over the past year, from 83.6% to 82.7%. About half of that drop was for people who wanted but couldn’t find full-time work (or had their hours cut). Half was due to “non-economic” reasons (maybe, for example, taking care of the kids or parents). Go back to May 2019 and the percentage was 82.8%. So this may be things trending back to normal, especially since part-time workers were hardest-hit by COVID.
And looking at the establishment survey, the average work week has hardly changed in the past year (34.3 hours this May vs. 34.4 last May). If the economy were only creating part-time jobs, wouldn’t that be falling?
Your quoted source is also incorrect that the percent of the workforce working multiple jobs is at a record high. The May figure was 5.2%, only slightly above the 5.0% from May 2019; it was over 6% back in the 1990s.
LikeLike
Thanks for the further clarifications. (I don’t claim to be subject matter expert here, hence I defer to folks like you and Jeremy if the sources I ran across are misleading).
LikeLike