

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The index of aggregate hours rose 0.9 in September, the largest rise since March.
The number of jobs added in September came in far below most forecasts, with the establishment survey showing just 194,000 new jobs. However, the household survey showed the unemployment rate falling by 0.4 percentage points to 4.8 percent. This decline was not due to people dropping out of the labor market, as the survey showed a rise in employment of 526,000, and the employment-to-population ratio rose 0.2 percentage points to 58.7 percent.
The Establishment Survey is Not as Bad as it First Appears
It is not clear that the weak story in the establishment survey should be seen as primarily a demand issue. First, private sector employment rose by a respectable 317,000, which follows a sharp upward revision to the August number to 332,000. The biggest surprise in this report is a drop of 123,000 in state and local government employment, putting the September level 874,000 below the pre-pandemic level. This drop, following weak growth in August, is hard to understand since most schools are open and state and local governments are mostly in decent fiscal shape.
Hours Rise Rapidly
The other reason the establishment data is better than it first appears is that there was a substantial increase in the length of the average workweek from 34.6 hours to 34.8 hours. As a result, the index of aggregate hours rose 0.9 in September, the largest rise since an increase of 1.5 in March. This is consistent with the idea that, facing a labor shortage, employers are increasing hours for the workers they have.
Wage Growth Remains Strong
The rapid wage growth we are seeing, especially for low-paid workers, is consistent with this picture. The average hourly wage for production and nonsupervisory workers increased at a 6.7 percent annual rate comparing the last three months (July August, September) with the prior three months (April, May, June). In the leisure and hospitality sector, the annual rate of wage growth over this period has been 18.1 percent.
Low-Paying Industries Shedding Jobs
Consistent with the idea that weak job growth is largely a supply-side story, many of the lowest-paying industries are losing jobs. Nursing home employment fell by 15,800. It is now down 241,000 (15.2 percent) from its pre-pandemic level. Temporary employment dropped 5,200, putting it 257,000 (8.7 percent) from its pre-pandemic level. Employment in child care was up 17,800 in September, but still down 109,000 (10.4 percent) from its pre-pandemic level. Restaurants added 29,000 jobs, but with a drop in August, this put employment just 4,300 above the July level. September employment is 931,000 (7.6 percent) below the pre-pandemic level.
Manufacturing and Construction Have Strong Growth
The manufacturing sector added 26,000 jobs, following a gain of 31,000 in August. Construction added 22,000 jobs after a flat August. The retail sector was a big gainer, adding 56,100 jobs, in spite of a loss of 12,300 jobs in grocery stores, the third-straight monthly decline. The big gainer was clothing stores, which added 27,300 jobs.
Ending Unemployment Insurance (UI) Supplements Had Little Obvious Effect
There was no evidence in this report that ending the $300 weekly UI supplements, and the pandemic unemployment programs, had a notable impact on job growth. Many states had ended their programs in June or July, but the national program ended in early September. It is hard to find evidence in this report of any upsurge in people seeking jobs.
Picture in the Household Survey Is Overwhelmingly Positive
The drop in the unemployment rate was considerably larger than most analysts had expected. The unemployment rate didn't fall to 4.8 percent following the Great Recession until January of 2016. There is now a large gap in unemployment rates for men and women over age 20, as the unemployment rate for women fell by 0.6 percentage points to 4.2 percent, 0.5 percentage points below the unemployment rate for men.
The share of long-term unemployed (more than 26 weeks) dropped 2.9 percentage points to 34.5 percent. This is still unusually high but far below pandemic peaks hit earlier this year.
The Number of Unincorporated Self-Employed Fell but is Still Well Above the 2019 Average
The number of people reported as being unincorporated self-employed fell by 123,000 in September, but it is still 619,000 above the 2019 level.
Black Unemployment Fell 0.9 Percentage Points
The unemployment rate for Black workers fell to 7.9 percent. The rate for Black men over age 20 was 8.0 percent, and 7.3 percent for Black women. The unemployment rate for Black workers did not get this low following the Great Recession until January of 2017.
Overall Report is Mixed
It is likely that this report will be seen as negative because of the lower-than-expected job growth in the establishment survey. That take is wrong. If we pull out the government sector, (which is hard to understand) job growth in the private sector increased by 317,000 after a rise of 332,000 in August. Also, the rise in hours and the rapid increases in wages, indicates that employers are having a hard time finding workers. If we only had looked at the household side of this report, we would be seeing it as a very strong jobs report for September.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380"Trump's energy and climate policies, including his heedless preoccupation with exploiting Greenland and the rest of the Arctic for oil and gas resources, risk a far more rapid meltdown of the Arctic."
As warnings about the dangers of President Donald Trump's Greenland threats mount, experts are sounding the alarm over what his takeover of the self-governing Danish territory that straddles the Arctic Circle would mean for a world that is already heating up due to humanity's continued reliance on fossil fuels.
Since returning to office last January—in part thanks to campaign cash from fossil fuel giants—Trump has called climate change "the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world" in a UN speech and constantly prioritized big polluters over working people and the planet, including by ditching dozens of international organizations and treaties, such as the Paris Agreement. The president's first year back in power was also among the hottest on record, according to his own government and various scientific institutions.
"His fixation on Greenland is an admission that climate change is real," John Conger, a former Pentagon official in the Obama administration who is now an adviser to the Center for Climate and Security, a research institute, told the New York Times earlier this month.
The Arctic is warming 2-4 times faster than most of the Earth. As reflective sea ice melts and is replaced by darker land or water, more heat from the sun is absorbed, causing a temperature increase that further accelerates melting. Atlantic Council distinguished fellow Sherri Goodman recently told the Washington Post that "it's partly the melting of sea ice making it more attractive for the economic development that he'd pursue in Greenland."
"It's partly the melting of sea ice making it more attractive for the economic development that he'd pursue in Greenland."
Regional warming is opening up potential shipping routes and access to natural resources, from minerals needed for renewable energy technologies to oil. While the Trump administration is now engaged in talks with Greenland and Denmark, the president has said he wants the island—whose people don't want to join the United States—because of "national security" concerns, claiming that if he doesn't take it over, China or Russia will.
"Climate change is a significant national security risk," said Goodman, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for environmental security during the Clinton administration. "The openings of sea lanes, the changing ice conditions, are contributing to the intense geopolitical situations we're experiencing."
Fears eased a bit last week, when Trump backed off threats to impose tariffs on European countries opposed to his Greenland takeover and potentially use US military force to seize the territory. While in Switzerland for the Davos summit, he also announced the "framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region."
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels on Thursday that negotiations between his country, Greenland, and the United States the previous day had a "very constructive atmosphere and tone, and new meetings are planned," according to CNBC.
"It's not that things are solved, but it is good because now we are back to what we agreed in Washington exactly two weeks and a day ago. After that, there was a major detour. Things were escalating, but now we are back on track," Rasmussen said. "It's not that we can conclude anything, but I am slightly more optimistic today than a week ago."
Even so, Trump has made clear that the plans to deliver on his campaign pledge to "drill, baby, drill," and as Politico detailed:According to an assessment by the US Geological Survey, Greenland "contains approximately 31,400 million barrels oil equivalent (MMBOE) of oil" and other fuel products, including around 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
"That's the kind of reserves that if they were discovered in Saudi Arabia or Qatar, businesses would be jumping for joy," said Ajay Parmar, a senior crude markets analyst with commodities intelligence firm ICIS.
"Of course, given it's in Greenland, there would be technical challenges putting in place the piping to extract it and get it around the world," he said. "But there's still a major commercial opportunity there, even if it would require a lot of time and effort to make it work."
However, in 2021, Greenland introduced a moratorium on oil and gas exploitation after the socialist, pro-independence Inuit Ataqatigiit party took power, vowing to "take the climate crisis seriously."
It's unclear whether that ban will survive current negotiations, or if Trump will return to threats of taking Greenland by force.
Paul Bledsoe a lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy who held various roles in the Clinton administration, wrote in a Thursday opinion piece for the Hill that "Trump's energy and climate policies, including his heedless preoccupation with exploiting Greenland and the rest of the Arctic for oil and gas resources, risk a far more rapid meltdown of the Arctic, with disastrous consequences for nations and people around the world."
"More than half of the Arctic's reflective ice has melted in the last 50 years, and a recent study in the journal Nature found that the Arctic will be free of sea ice entirely for at least a day before 2030," he noted. "Should Arctic sea ice be allowed to melt, which may happen within just two decades or even sooner, absorption of the sun's heat by the newly open northern ocean will add the equivalent of 25 years of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions, pushing already dangerous global temperatures of 2.7°F above preindustrial levels toward climatic instability."
"This loss of Arctic sea ice is just one of more than a dozen temperature-sensitive tipping points scientists have now identified, including in ocean currents and the Amazon rainforest, that risk unleashing super-heating around the globe," Bledsoe continued. He also highlighted that "huge new shipping traffic in the Arctic and industrial development of oil and gas in the region will greatly increase the amount of climate pollution, including from carbon dioxide, methane, and especially black carbon soot, which is already washing out onto Arctic ice and increasing melting rates tremendously."
"Huge new shipping traffic in the Arctic and industrial development of oil and gas in the region will greatly increase the amount of climate pollution, including from carbon dioxide, methane, and especially black carbon soot."
US planet-heating emissions "are now rising again under Trump," thanks to him abandoning key climate agreements and imposing policies on close coal-fired power plants, methane regulations, carbon dioxide standards, and more, the expert added. Given that the president's "anti-climate policies have already been damaging to the Arctic and global climate protection," Bledsoe warned against letting his quest for Greenland "increase the chances of disastrous, runaway climate change."
Bledsoe's warning coincided with a Thursday letter from over 120 civil society groups—including Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace International, Oil Change International, Public Citizen, and Zero Hour—urging European Union leaders to resist Trump's "fossil-fueled imperialism" in solidarity with Latin America and Greenland.
The coalition called on the bloc's leaders to introduce a United Nations motion condemning Trump's violations of international law, cancel the US-EU trade deal, renew the European Green Deal, end contracts for importing or financing US liquefied natural gas, create a roadmap to phase out gas, defend EU methane rules, and support for the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels.
"As long as the EU accedes to Trump's demands," the coalition wrote, "it will be switching one dangerous dependency for another, giving up its sovereignty bit by bit, losing the competitiveness battle, deepening the climate crisis which will be putting its own people's lives at even higher risk from extreme weather, and jeopardizing its ambitions to be seen as a global climate leader."
We're not to going create conditions, said the billionaire president who inherited his wealth, "so that somebody that didn't work very hard can buy a home."
President Donald Trump in recent weeks has vowed to make living in the US more affordable, as polls have consistently shown voters are giving him low marks on both his handling of the economy and inflation.
However, Trump undercut this pledge during a Cabinet meeting on Thursday in which he said he wanted—despite a nationwide housing crisis—to actively make housing even more expensive than it is today.
"Existing housing, people that own their home, we're going to keep them wealthy, we're going to keep those prices up," Trump said. "We're not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody that didn't work very hard can buy a home."
Trump: I don’t want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people who own their homes. You can be sure that will happen pic.twitter.com/9BupkUmXss
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 29, 2026
Trump added that his administration wanted to "make it easier to buy" a house by lowering interest rates, but then reiterated that he wanted to make houses themselves more expensive.
"There's so much talk of, 'Oh, we're going to drive housing prices down,'" Trump said. "I don't want to drive housing prices down, I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes. And they can be assured that's what's going to happen."
The implications of the president's remarks were obvious to those concerned about the nation's affordable housing crisis and the struggle of working people trying to get by.
As Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director for the Campaign for New York Health, put it: "54% of Americans struggle to afford housing, and over 770,000 Americans are homeless—and Trump doesn't think those numbers are high enough."
A Fox News poll released on Wednesday found that 54% of Americans think the US is worse off now than it was a year ago, while just 31% say the country is in better shape. Just 25% of voters surveyed said they are better off now than they were a year ago, and more than 40% said that Trump's economic policies have personally hurt them.
Given Trump's already low numbers on economic performance, many observers were quick to ridicule him for his pledge to make existing houses less affordable for prospective buyers.
"Hello Donald this is your political strategist speaking," George Pearkes, global macro strategist for Bespoke Investment Group, sarcastically wrote. "I am advising you today to please keep saying this stuff."
Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) argued that Trump's views on housing prices put him well out of touch with most US voters.
"Trump only sees the world as a rich developer," she wrote in a social media post. "He has never, and will never, care about creating affordable homeownership for working and middle class Americans."
Vox writer Eric Levitz posted a not-so-subtle dig at Trump for straying so easily off message.
https://t.co/qnR9wJiaBX pic.twitter.com/zrafC50Bea
— Eric Levitz (@EricLevitz) January 29, 2026
Polling analyst G. Elliott Morris, meanwhile, said that Trump's inability to stay on message was entirely predictable given his notorious unpredictability.
"Trump launched an affordability-focused midterm campaign for Republicans this week, traveling to Iowa to give a speech about how good his presidency has been for the cost of living," he wrote. "That's going about as well as you'd think. Here POTUS is saying he is going to keep housing prices high."
The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress "have allowed a hugely profitable corporation to avoid paying even a dime of federal income tax on their 2025 US profits."
Tesla, the electric car company led by former Trump administration special government employee Elon Musk, released its annual financial report Thursday, showing that it doubled its yearly income in 2025 over the previous year and brought in $5.7 billion.
The company, whose CEO spent several months rooting out what he claimed was fraud and waste across the federal government, reported "precisely zero current federal income tax" on the billions it made, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).
The group explained that Tesla used accelerated depreciation, reducing the value of its capital assets, while also slashing its tax bill with tax breaks for its executive stock options.
Research and development tax credits netted $352 million in additional tax savings, and the company used "net operating losses stored up from previous years to offset current year income, although it’s hard to know how much of that affects US income rather than foreign income," said ITEP.
Analyzing the financial report, ITEP found that Tesla received over $1.1 billion in federal income tax breaks, paid for by US taxpayers, last year alone—after paying 0.4% of its US profits in federal income taxes over the previous three years.
Over that time period, said ITEP, "the Elon Musk-led company reported $12.58 billion of U.S. income on which its current federal tax was just $48 million... The company reported an effective federal income tax rate of 0.4%. This is a tiny fraction of the 21% tax rate profitable corporations are supposed to pay under the law."
The most it paid in taxes over the past three years was in 2023, when Tesla paid $48 million, at the federal effective tax rate of 1.2%. That was still just a fraction of the $823 million it would have paid if it had paid the federal corporate tax rate. In 2023, the company enjoyed $775 million in tax breaks.
The company's income tax payments worldwide in 2025 totaled $1.2 billion, with more than $1 billion going to China and other foreign governments. Tesla paid $28 million to the US government, "presumably related to tax years before 2025," said ITEP.
The organization noted that the "billion-dollar tax break" enjoyed by Tesla does not appear to be illegal.
However, ITEP said, it illustrates how the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress, by passing changes to corporate tax laws in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) last summer, "have allowed a hugely profitable corporation to avoid paying even a dime of federal income tax on their 2025 US profits."
The organization warned last summer that special business tax breaks included in the OBBBA, including a reinstatement of bonus depreciation and new international rules, would cost the US government $165 billion in revenue in 2026.