Job openings fell by more than 1 million in August, down to 10 million. Quits edged up (but July was revised down). #JOLTS bls.gov/news.release/j…
This was the largest one-month drop in openings on record other than in April 2020. Openings still high by historical standards, but this sure looks like the drop in labor demand we've been watching for. #JOLTS
There were 1.7 jobs per unemployed worker in August, down from a 2-to-1 ratio in July. Consistent with other evidence that the labor market has been cooling. cc @melbournecoalnytimes.com/2022/09/30/bus…
Voluntary quits ticked up in August, but July was revised down, and the trend appears to be downward. Quits are a big deal because they're a sign of confidence among workers, and a source of wage pressure for employers.
One place we are not seeing any significant sign of a cooldown is in layoffs. They rose trivially in August but remain well below prepandemic levels (which were already low).
Openings are still elevated in most industries relative to their prepandemic level, but they're down vs a year ago, especially in some of the industries where hiring had been hardest (e.g. leisure & hospitality).
Bit of a different story when we look at the number of hires per job opening. Leisure and hospitality generating fewer hires per job opening than a year ago. A sign of hiring struggles? Or reduced hiring effort? Hard to say
Meanwhile, quits are still *super* elevated in leisure and hospitality (and jumped up in August), even as they're falling some in retail.
One source of mystery in the job market lately had been that job openings in JOLTS had barely fallen, even as private-sector measures (such as from Indeed) had trended down. With today's data and revisions, they now look much more aligned.
Note that a position only counts as an opening in JOLTS if an employer is actively trying to fill it. Indeed's data is just a count of postings. So it's possible for the measures to diverge for "real-world" reasons. But my default assumption is that any divergence is noise.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Following last week's GDP benchmark revisions, there's been a bunch of discussion about how Americans are spending down their "excess savings" faster than previously believed. I think that narrative is missing some important context.
A (quite belated) 🧵:
First, very quick recap: During the early months of the pandemic, Americans cut back their spending (since they couldn't go anywhere). We also gave out a lot of money in pandemic aid, much of which wasn't immediately spent. The result was a big increase in the saving rate.
This was a LOT of money in the aggregate. Depending on the assumptions you use, these "excess savings" (savings beyond what we'd expect without Covid) topped $2.5 trillion by the end of last year.
Here's what that chart looked like before the latest revisions:
Quits are falling. Wage growth is slowing. Companies are finding it easier to fill positions.
The job market has proved more resilient than almost anyone expected. But there are signs that it may be coming off the boil.
With @melbournecoal nytimes.com/2022/10/03/bus…
@melbournecoal From the Fed's perspective, this is pretty close to an ideal scenario (albeit not nearly enough yet). Less job-hopping by employees and less poaching by employers (combined with increased labor force participation) means softer wage growth without lots of layoffs/unemployment.
But for workers, especially low-wage workers, this still suggests that the moment of power they have enjoyed for the past year may be passing, and that employers may be regaining leverage.
There were 11.2 million job openings at the end of July, UP slightly from June (though down from the spring). Quits down a hair. Layoffs basically flat (at a very low level). #JOLTS bls.gov/news.release/j…
Job openings are down from their peak, but they are still extraordinarily high by historical standards. The Fed is hoping it can cool the job market by bringing down openings without leading to more layoffs. Not a lot of evidence of that happening so far.
On the other hand, layoffs also remain extremely low, despite some high-profile job cuts in tech.
@jeannasmialek Powell: "While the lower inflation readings for July are welcome, a single month's improvement falls far short of what the Committee will need to see before we are confident that inflation is moving down."
Powell is very direct: "While higher interest rates ... will bring down inflation, they will also bring some pain to households and businesses. These are the unfortunate costs of reducing inflation. But a failure to restore price stability would mean far greater pain.
July data on income/spending. All numbers vs. June:
Personal income: +0.2% (vs 0.7% in June)
Consumer spending: +0.1% (vs 1.0%)
Real spending: +0.2% (vs flat)
Consumer prices: -0.1% (+1.0%)
Prices ex. food/energy: +0.1% (0.6%) bea.gov/news/2022/pers…
Yes, that's right: Consumer prices *fell* (slightly) in July, per the PCE price index.
I didn't do a full chart-a-palooza today (too much other work!), but this is notable: Inflation adjusted spending is falling further below its trend line. That's probably pretty much what the Fed is aiming for: positive but below-trend growth.
I see a lot of confused commentary around the GDP vs GDI divergence, with people offering explanations based on real-world trends, when in fact the gap must be the result of measurement issues.
I don't know if this analogy will help or confuse the situation, but going to give it a go anyway: Suppose you're trying to keep track of how much your kid is growing. Every three months, mom measures junior from the floor up, and dad measures from the ceiling down.
Neither of you has a tape measure, so you're measuring by hands. Not very precise! You'll probably come up with different numbers.