

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.

In advance of Friday’s highly anticipated jobs report, CEPR Senior Economist Dean Baker released the following statement:
“It is remarkably dangerous to treat economic policy like a reality TV show. This jobs report could signal a rapid turn in the labor market. We went from perhaps the strongest labor market in half a century to one marked by uncertainty in almost every sector. While we are not likely to pick up much of the effect of the DOGE cuts, we should see some impact, particularly on the hiring side. Many businesses have put hiring plans on hold; this is especially true in the healthcare sector, but we could see similar trends with state and local governments, universities, and other sectors that rely on federal support. It is not out of the question for job growth to be close to zero in February, and we may also see a modest uptick in the unemployment rate.”
Baker’s full analysis appears below. Read it online here.
February 2025 Jobs Preview: What to Expect in the Jobs Report
The February employment report is the first of the Trump administration. While we are not likely to pick up much of the effect of the DOGE cuts, we should see some impact. Remember, the reference period is the week/pay period that includes the 12th. This is before most of the firings went into effect, and there was no noticeable uptick in the unemployment insurance claims at that point (although we did see an uptick later in the month).
However, we are likely to see an effect on the hiring side. Many businesses have put hiring plans on hold, as they wait to see what DOGE will try to cut and what the courts will uphold. This is especially the case in the healthcare sector, which had been the largest source of job growth in the recovery, averaging over 50,000 new jobs a month in the last year. A large portion of the funding for hospitals, doctors’ fees, and nursing homes comes from Medicaid and other programs that may be in DOGE’s crosshairs. As a result, we can expect employers in the sector to be very cautious in taking on new workers.
There is a similar story with state and local governments, which also were a leading source of job growth in the last year. They are concerned that they will not be seeing federal grants that had been promised. Universities are also looking at large cutbacks in federal support and feel the need to be cautious about hiring.
With the key sectors supporting job growth sharply slowing hiring, job growth is likely to be close to zero in February. This may also lead to a modest uptick in the unemployment rate, as people entering the labor force or losing jobs find themselves unable to find new ones. The unemployment rate may tick up to 4.1 percent, or even 4.2 percent.
Sharp Slowing in Immigrant Employment
The new population controls make it difficult to do year-over-year comparisons (the data are not seasonally adjusted) of employment of immigrants, but it is possible to do a crude workaround to get ballpark numbers. If we assume that the increase in the number of people identified as Hispanic or Asian added by the population controls are immigrants, and we apply the employment-to-population ratio for immigrants to this number, we can get a rough estimate of the increase in employment that is due to the population controls.
The new population controls added a total of 2,121,000 people identified as either Hispanic or Asian. Applying the 63.0 percent employment-to-population ratio to this number implies that it added 1,336,000 to the employment number for non-native workers in January. Correcting for this, employment of non-native workers would have been 727,000 higher in January 2025 than in January 2024. The year-over-year increase had been well over 1,000,000 for most months in 2024, peaking in February at 1,694,000.
With this adjustment, the year-over-year figure is likely to show a far smaller increase in February, due both to Trump’s deportation threats and also the sharp slowing in immigration by the change in the Biden administration’s policy last June.
Wage Growth Could Slow
The strong labor market of the Biden years led to healthy wage growth, which was translating into strong real wage growth in the last year and a half as inflation slowed. The unemployment rate will still be low in February, even if there is a modest uptick, but workers fearful about future job prospects may be reluctant to push for pay increases. The monthly data on wages are erratic, but it is likely we will see some evidence of slowing wage growth in the February report.
Share of Unemployment Due to Voluntary Quits
One of the measures reflecting workers’ confidence in the state of the labor market is their willingness to leave a job before they have a new one lined up. This measure had already been relatively low given the near 4.0 percent unemployment rates we have been seeing, but that could reflect the fact that workers were relatively satisfied with their jobs after massive shifting in 2021-2023. We may see a notable fall in this number from the 13.2 percent share in January.
Hours and Productivity
The index of aggregate weekly hours fell 0.2 percent in January. This was due to a possibly weather-related (or LA fire related) reduction in the length of the average workweek. With weak employment growth, we are likely to see at best a modest increase in aggregate weekly hours in February.
This would ordinarily imply a good story for productivity growth, which has been strong since the pandemic. However, the most recent data on consumption, trade, and housing imply weak and possibly negative GDP growth for the quarter. We are still early in the quarter, but if the economy is actually shrinking, we are not likely to have a strong quarter for productivity.
Manufacturing and Construction
These highly cyclical sectors are both likely to show weakness in February. Manufacturing employment had already been trending slightly downward, losing 105,000 jobs over the last year, as high interest rates took a toll on durable goods purchases and investment.
Construction has also weakened in recent months, adding an average of just 6,000 jobs a month since September, down from 18,000 a month in the prior 12 months. Employment could turn negative in February as housing remains weak, the factory construction boom has peaked, and many projects in both the private and public sector are put on hold.
Weak Job Growth in Most Sectors
With the health care and state and local government sectors both likely showing weak growth in February, it is difficult to see what sectors can pick up the slack. Retail added a very strong 34,300 jobs in January, but this was likely a fluke of seasonal adjustment as fewer workers hired for the holiday season meant that fewer were laid off in January.
Restaurant employment may see a bounce back after being depressed by the LA fires and unusually bad weather in January. Employment in professional and technical services is likely to be weak, as many companies put hiring plans on hold. There could be a good story for the temp help sector as employers look to get additional labor without making long-term commitments.
Uncertainty Takes a Big Hit to Labor Market in February
Apart from the pandemic, most of us have probably never seen such a rapid turn in the labor market as we are likely witnessing now. We went from perhaps the strongest labor market in half a century to one marked by uncertainty in almost every sector. Perhaps we will get a clearer picture of the economy’s direction in the months ahead, but for now, much is up in the air and it is not a good environment for businesses to make plans.
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“The only reason to move it there is to use it against Venezuela,” said one policy expert of the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford.
White House officials have sought to walk back President Donald Trump's repeated threats against Venezuela in recent days—even as the Department of Defense has continue to strike boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—but officials in the South American country on Tuesday took the arrival of a US aircraft carrier in the region seriously despite the administration's claims that it won't target Venezuela directly.
As the USS Gerald R. Ford entered waters near Latin America, accompanied by three warships, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López said Venezuela's entire military arsenal had been placed on "full operational readiness," with President Nicolás Maduro ordering the deployment of nearly 200,000 soldiers.
The government also approved the “massive deployment of ground, aerial, naval, riverine, and missile forces," López announced.
Venezuela's military deployment comes weeks after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Ford to relocate from Europe to Latin America following several military strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that the Trump administration has claimed are meant to stop drug trafficking out of Venezuela—despite the fact that US intelligence agencies and United Nations experts agree that the country plays virtually no role in the trafficking of fentanyl, the top cause of drug overdoses in the US.
At least 76 people have been killed in the strikes so far, and the Associated Press reported last week that the victims have included an out-of-work bus driver and and a struggling fisherman—people who in some cases had turned to helping drug traffickers transport cocaine across the Caribbean, but were hardly the high-level "narco-terrorists" that Hegseth and Trump have insisted they've killed in the region.
With the carrier strike group entering the Caribbean region, the US now has about 15,000 troops in the area where tensions have escalated since the boat strikes began in September.
Mark Cancian, a senior defense adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Washington Post that Venezuelan officials had good reason to mobilize forces.
“The only reason to move it there is to use it against Venezuela,” Cancian said of the Ford deployment. "The shot clock has started because this is not an asset they can just keep there indefinitely. They have to use it or move it."
Since beginning the boat bombings, Trump has signaled the US attacks could move to Venezuela directly, with the Wall Street Journal reporting late last month that the administration was preparing to target "ports and airports controlled by the military that are allegedly used to traffic drugs, including naval facilities and airstrips."
Trump also authorized Central Intelligence Agency operations last month, falsely claiming the country has "emptied" its prisons into the US and again asserting that "we have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela."
Democratic senators have introduced two war powers resolutions aimed at stopping the US from striking inside Venezuela and at halting the boat-bombing campaign—but Republicans have voted them down after administration officials assured the caucus that the White House was not currently planning to attack Venezuela.
Maduro said last month that Trump's actions in the region in recent months amount to attempts at "regime change," adding that "if Venezuela did not possess oil, gas, gold, fertile land, and water, the imperialists wouldn’t even look at our country."
Trump himself said publicly in 2023 that if he had won the 2020 presidential election, "we would have taken [Venezuela] over, we would have gotten all that oil."
Trump: When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over, we would have gotten all that oil. pic.twitter.com/5q3Jr1j1Ho
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 10, 2023
On Tuesday, both the United Kingdom and Colombia announced that they were halting intelligence sharing with the US in the region, saying that working with the US as it attacks small vessels in the Caribbean could make the countries complicit in violations of international law.
“All levels of law enforcement intelligence are ordered to suspend communications and other agreements with US security agencies,” Colombian President Gustavo Petro said. “This measure will remain in place as long as missile attacks on boats in the Caribbean continue. The fight against drugs must be subordinate to the human rights of the Caribbean people.”
"At COP30, governments must reject this nightmare fantasy, uphold a just transition, and choose a fast, fair, and funded fossil fuel phaseout," said one climate campaigner.
An International Energy Agency report published Wednesday underscores that world leaders are at a crossroads and must decide whether to embrace an ambitious transition to renewable energy or succumb to the agenda of US President Donald Trump and others bent on propping up the planet-wrecking fossil fuel industry.
The IEA said in its flagship World Energy Outlook that under a so-called "current policies scenario," oil and fracked gas demand could continue to grow until the middle of the century, complicating the organization's earlier projections that global fossil fuel demand could peak by 2030.
The change came amid pressure from the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers in the United States, the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. The New York Times noted Wednesday that "Republicans in Congress have been threatening to cut US government funding to the IEA if it does not change the way it operates."
"In an essay posted online, the authors of this year’s report said they were restoring the current policies scenario because it was appropriate to consider multiple possibilities for the way the future might unfold," the Times added. "They did not say they were responding to pressure from the United States."
Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director, said in a statement that the scenarios outlined in the new report "illustrate the key decision points that lie ahead and, together, provide a framework for evidence-based, data-driven discussion over the way forward."
Under all of the scenarios examined by the IEA, "renewables grow faster than any other major energy source" even as the Trump administration works to roll back clean energy initiatives in the US and promote fossil fuel production.
China, the report states, "continues to be the largest market for renewables, accounting for 45-60% of global deployment over the next ten years across the scenarios, and remains the largest manufacturer of most renewable technologies."
The analysis was released as world leaders gathered in Belém, Brazil for the COP30 climate talks, which the Trump administration is boycotting while lobbing attacks from afar.
David Tong, global industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, said the IEA report "sets out a stark and simple choice: We can protect people and communities by safeguarding 1.5ºC [of warming], settle for a disastrous business-as-usual 2.5ºC, or choose to backslide into a nightmare future of much higher warming."
"This year's report also shows Donald Trump's dystopian future, bringing back the old, fossil-fuel intense, high-pollution current policies scenario, charting an unrealistic pathway where governments drag their energy policies backwards and rates of renewable energy adoption stall, leading to high energy prices and unmitigated climate disaster," said Tong. "At COP30, governments must reject this nightmare fantasy, uphold a just transition, and choose a fast, fair, and funded fossil fuel phaseout."
"Make no mistake, people will die from these skyrocketing healthcare costs, paired with Republicans’ brutal Medicaid cuts," said Rep. Ilhan Omar.
As the US House appears likely to vote Wednesday to reopen the government, House progressives issued a scathing rebuke to their Democratic colleagues in the Senate who voted for a funding bill with no guarantee to protect the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans.
With the backing of leadership, the continued resolution was advanced by a group of eight Senate Democrats this weekend to end what has been the longest shutdown in US history.
In a joint statement, the 94-member Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) announced its opposition to the stopgap funding bill, which it said "includes no provisions to guarantee affordable healthcare and protect tens of millions of Americans from massive price spikes to their premiums, and imposes no strong guardrails to prevent the Trump administration from violating appropriations laws."
The bill agrees to fund the government until the end of 2026, without a deal to extend ACA subsidies that, if allowed to expire at the end of the year, will result in more than 20 million Americans seeing their insurance premiums more than double, according to analysis by KFF. It also introduces no new provisions to prevent President Donald Trump from refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress, nor does it address the nearly $1 trillion worth of Medicaid cuts passed in July’s GOP spending bill.
"The Senate-passed bill is a betrayal of working people and massively fails to address the urgent needs of the American people,” said CPC Deputy Chair Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). “Instead of working toward a fair deal, House Republicans refused to negotiate and abdicated their duty to serve the American people."
"The Senate-passed bill is morally bankrupt. It is indefensible to allow more than 20 million Americans to see their premiums double and let millions lose their healthcare coverage. Healthcare is a human right, and this bill contradicts that fundamental principle," Omar continued. "Make no mistake, people will die from these skyrocketing healthcare costs, paired with Republicans’ brutal Medicaid cuts."
After over a month of holding out, Democrats ultimately cracked under the White House's use of the shutdown to punish segments of the American public: Government workers hit with mass layoffs, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients illegally denied this month’s benefits, and residents of blue states and cities stripped of congressionally appropriated funding for critical infrastructure.
While Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) voted no on the deal to break the Democratic filibuster, he is widely understood to be the driving force behind the agreement, supporting the clique of eight Democratic senators who voted with the GOP—none of whom face reelection in 2026—to take the fall.
In the aftermath of the cave, Schumer has faced calls from several House Democrats to step down from leadership, including Reps. Ro Khanna (Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Mike Levin (Calif.). However, none in the Senate, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have joined in that push, even though any one of them could force a vote on his leadership within seven days.
As part of the Senate deal, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) promised that Republicans would hold a vote to extend healthcare subsidies within 40 days. But CPC chairman Greg Casar dismissed it as "nothing but a pinky promise."
“A deal that doesn’t reduce healthcare costs is a betrayal of millions of Americans counting on Democrats to fight for them,” Casar said. “Millions of families would pay the price.”
The CPC has said it will vote no when the bill comes to the House for a vote on Wednesday, as have most other Democrats.
“I will not support any deal that doesn’t improve the lives of working Americans,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the co-chair of the CPC political action committee. “End of story.”
In the GOP-controlled chamber, Democrats cannot stop the bill on their own. But Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) can only afford to lose two Republicans, and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has already signaled that he will vote no.
While others, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), have expressed concern and disgust toward her GOP colleagues over the bill's lack of a solution to the looming healthcare apocalypse, there's no indication that enough Republicans will defect to kill the resolution.
On Tuesday, Republicans in the House voted down a Democratic amendment that would have extended ACA subsidies for three years.