Coin Press - U.S. Jobs stall, gdp slows

NYSE - LSE
RBGPF 0% 69.99 $
NGG 1.48% 77.17 $
GSK 0.95% 50.77 $
CMSC 1.16% 20.72 $
RIO 2.15% 97.89 $
RYCEF 2.1% 20 $
AZN 1.41% 165.22 $
RELX 0.17% 34.33 $
BCE 0.55% 22.625 $
VOD 0.26% 17.505 $
BTI -0.59% 55.76 $
JRI 0.56% 11.565 $
BP -0.34% 45.225 $
BCC -0.51% 74.93 $
CMSD 0.83% 20.46 $

U.S. Jobs stall, gdp slows




The phrase “the economy is suffocating” is the sort of provocation normally reserved for campaign platforms and market panic. Yet the latest hard numbers offer a more unsettling reality: not a dramatic plunge, but a steady constriction—growth that is still positive, but markedly weaker; job creation that continues, but increasingly narrow; and a labour market whose stress is showing up less in flashy headlines than in the quiet arithmetic of participation, long-term unemployment, and where the jobs are actually being created.

A recent widely circulated economic video framed the moment as an economy running short of oxygen—employment “collapsing” while output slows. The language is blunt; the underlying diagnosis is harder to dismiss. The newest official releases describe an economy that is not in freefall, but is plainly losing momentum and breadth. The risk is not merely slower growth; it is the kind of slowdown that changes behaviour—when employers delay hiring, households postpone big purchases, and confidence erodes long before the data formally declares a downturn.

Growth is still growth—until it isn’t
The advance estimate for output in the final quarter of 2025 delivered a sharp deceleration. Real GDP expanded at an annual rate of 1.4% in Q4 2025, down from 4.4% in Q3 2025. The economy, in other words, did not contract; it slowed—dramatically. That distinction matters, but so does the direction of travel. A drop of roughly three percentage points in the growth rate over a single quarter is not statistical noise; it is a meaningful loss of speed.

This matters because headline GDP is not merely a retrospective scorecard. It shapes expectations—about profits, wages, tax receipts, and the room policymakers have to manoeuvre. When growth cools this quickly, the question is no longer whether the economy can keep expanding; it is what must happen for it to re-accelerate, and whether those conditions are present.

Slower GDP growth also changes the “feel” of the economy even when employment remains positive. Households experience it as fewer hours, fewer opportunities to switch jobs for better pay, and a rising sense that prices and borrowing costs are harder to outrun. Businesses experience it as cautious demand, more price sensitivity, and a higher bar for investment.

Employment: the headline number hides the squeeze
The labour market’s newest monthly snapshot carries an apparent contradiction. On the surface, payrolls rose by 130,000 in January, a respectable gain by pre-pandemic standards. Beneath the surface, the more telling line is what came next: in 2025, payroll employment “changed little,” averaging only about 15,000 jobs per month. That is not a vibrant labour market; it is a near-stall—an economy still creating jobs, but only just.

The pattern of January’s hiring sharpens the point. The gains were heavily concentrated:
- Health care added 82,000 jobs.
- Social assistance rose by 42,000.
- Construction added 33,000.

Together, those three categories total 157,000—more than the entire headline increase of 130,000. The implication is straightforward: outside those pockets, the rest of the economy collectively shed around 27,000 jobs on net. This is the anatomy of a late-cycle labour market: hiring that persists, but in sectors that are either structurally supported (health care demand driven by demographics and backlogs) or buffered by ongoing projects and contracts (construction), while many other industries hover near flat, or quietly contract.

A labour market that is “working” can still be weakening
The unemployment rate is not at crisis levels. Yet it is drifting higher than the unusually low rates of the earlier post-pandemic expansion, and the composition of unemployment is becoming more concerning. Long-term unemployment—people out of work for 27 weeks or more—stood at 1.8 million in January, accounting for one quarter of all unemployed people. More strikingly, the long-term unemployed count is up by 386,000 from a year earlier. That is a classic indicator of a labour market that is tightening its grip: when hiring slows, jobless spells lengthen, and the pathway back into work becomes steeper. At the same time, the labour force participation rate remained around 62.5%, with the employment-population ratio at 59.8%—figures that suggest limited progress in drawing more people into work. If job growth is slowing while participation is steady, the economy can absorb shocks less easily. A weaker quarter of hiring, a pullback in investment, or a reduction in public-sector employment can then translate into a faster rise in unemployment.

A further sign of pressure appears among those on the margins of the labour force. The number of people not in the labour force who still want a job fell to 5.8 million, a sizeable decline from the previous month. That drop can be read in two ways. Optimistically, it could mean fewer people want work because more have found it. Less optimistically, it can reflect discouragement—people who want employment, but see too few viable opportunities to keep searching actively enough to be counted as unemployed.

Meanwhile, the number of marginally attached workers—those who want work, are available, and have looked in the last year, but not in the most recent month—stood at 1.7 million, including 475,000 discouraged workers. These are not fringe statistics; they are the shadow edge of the labour market, where strain appears earlier than in headline payrolls.

Where the jobs are—and where they are disappearing
In a broad-based expansion, employment gains are distributed across industries: goods and services, cyclical and defensive sectors, private and public. That is not the pattern now. Health care remains the engine of job growth, and it is not subtle. It added 82,000 jobs in January alone, with gains in ambulatory services, hospitals, and nursing and residential care facilities. These are vital jobs—but they are not, by themselves, a signal that the private economy is surging. They speak to an underlying demand for care, not necessarily rising discretionary spending or business investment.

Construction’s gain of 33,000 suggests ongoing activity, but the same report notes that construction employment was essentially flat over 2025 as a whole. That is consistent with a sector that can post strong months but is not in a sustained upswing. Perhaps most politically and economically sensitive is what is happening in government payrolls. Federal government employment fell by 34,000 in January, continuing a broader decline linked to earlier workforce changes. Since a peak in October 2024, federal employment is down by 327,000, a drop of 10.9%. Regardless of one’s view of public-sector size, a reduction of that scale is large enough to ripple through local economies, contracting, and household spending in affected regions.

Financial activities are also under pressure. The sector lost 22,000 jobs in January and is down 49,000 since a recent peak in May 2025. A shrinking financial sector can be both a symptom and a cause of slower growth: it reflects weaker deal flow and lending activity, and it can reinforce tightening conditions as firms reduce capacity and risk appetite. Beyond these moves, many major industries showed little change. That “quiet” is itself a signal. When the labour market is humming, “little change” across many sectors would be unusual. In a cooling economy, it becomes the norm.

Wages are rising—but that does not mean households feel relief
Average hourly earnings increased 0.4% in January to $37.17, putting year-on-year wage growth at 3.7%. For production and non-supervisory workers, earnings also rose 0.4%, to $31.95. Steady wage growth can be a sign of resilience. But it can also coexist with an increasingly anxious labour market. When job switching slows, wage gains are more likely to be incremental rather than transformational. Workers may see pay rising, but feel less able to negotiate, less willing to take risks, and more concerned about job security. In practical terms, an economy can “suffocate” not because wages collapse, but because the combination of slower hiring, slower output growth, and elevated costs squeezes households from multiple angles at once: fewer opportunities to move up, less confidence in future income, and higher sensitivity to shocks.

The GDP slowdown and the labour stall are reinforcing each other
GDP and employment are intertwined, but they are not the same. Output can slow while jobs still rise, particularly if productivity changes, if hiring lags the cycle, or if growth is supported by a narrow band of sectors. But the current combination—sharp GDP deceleration and a labour market that barely expanded through 2025—creates an uncomfortable feedback loop.

When GDP slows, businesses become cautious. When businesses become cautious, hiring slows. When hiring slows, consumer confidence weakens. When confidence weakens, spending and investment soften further. This is how expansions age—not with a single catastrophic event, but with an accumulation of small “no’s”: no new hires, no new factories, no major purchases, no expansions into new markets. The economy can stay in that state for some time. But it becomes fragile. In a fragile state, the difference between “slow growth” and “recession” is often a short list of triggers: a credit shock, an external disruption, a sharp fall in business confidence, or policy uncertainty that prompts firms to protect cash rather than pursue growth.

Why dramatic language resonates now
Calling the economy “suffocating” is emotive, and official statistics rarely oblige the drama. Yet the phrase captures something real: the sensation of constraint. An economy does not need to be shrinking for people to feel worse off. It only needs to be less forgiving—less able to offer second chances, wage upgrades, or quick re-employment.

The latest data points towards an economy in which job creation is not broad, long-term unemployment is rising, and output growth is cooling quickly. That combination can be experienced as a squeeze even if the top-line numbers remain positive. It also explains why narratives of “collapse” gain traction. When the labour market is dominated by a few sectors and the rest is flat to negative, many communities and occupations will indeed experience something that feels like collapse—hiring freezes, rescinded offers, and fewer pathways forward. National averages can conceal that unevenness for months.

What to watch next
If the question is whether the economy is “suffocating,” the answer will be decided by breadth and persistence—whether weakness spreads beyond isolated pockets, and whether the slowdown in growth proves temporary or entrenched.

The most important signals in the months ahead will include:
- Whether job gains broaden beyond health care and social assistance.
- Whether long-term unemployment continues to rise as a share of total unemployment.
- Whether participation improves—or whether more would-be workers drift into the margins.
- Whether GDP growth stabilises or weakens further after the Q4 deceleration.
- Whether job losses in interest-sensitive and confidence-sensitive areas (such as finance) extend into other parts of the private economy.

For now, the evidence does not describe an economy that has stopped breathing. It describes one that is breathing more shallowly—still moving forward, but with less air in its lungs, and less margin for error. That is precisely the point at which small shocks become large stories, and when the rhetoric of “suffocation” stops sounding like hyperbole and starts sounding like a warning.



Featured


Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Да здравствует Украина

Es lebe die Ukraine - Да здравствует Украина - Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Nech žije Ukrajina - Länge leve Ukraina - תחי אוקראינה - Lang leve Oekraïne - Да живее Украйна - Elagu Ukraina - Kauan eläköön Ukraina - Vive l'Ukraine - Ζήτω η Ουκρανία - 乌克兰万岁 - Viva Ucrania - Ať žije Ukrajina - Çok yaşa Ukrayna - Viva a Ucrânia - Trăiască Ucraina - ウクライナ万歳 - Tegyvuoja Ukraina - Lai dzīvo Ukraina - Viva l'Ucraina - Hidup Ukraina - تحيا أوكرانيا - Vivat Ucraina - ขอให้ยูเครนจงเจริญ - Ucraina muôn năm - ژوندی دی وی اوکراین - Yashasin Ukraina - Озак яшә Украина - Živjela Ukrajina - 우크라이나 만세 - Mabuhay ang Ukraine - Lenge leve Ukraina - Nyob ntev Ukraine - Да живее Украина - გაუმარჯოს უკრაინას - Hidup Ukraine - Vivu Ukrainio - Længe leve Ukraine - Živjela Ukrajina - Жыве Украіна - Yaşasın Ukrayna - Lengi lifi Úkraína - Lank lewe die Oekraïne

Stargate project, Trump and the AI war...

In a dramatic return to the global political stage, former President Donald J. Trump, as the current 47th President of the United States of America, has unveiled his latest initiative, the so-called ‘Stargate Project,’ in a bid to cement the United States’ dominance in artificial intelligence and outpace China’s meteoric rise in the field. The newly announced programme, cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and ambitious targets, is already stirring intense debate over the future of technological competition between the world’s two largest economies.According to preliminary statements from Trump’s team, the Stargate Project will consolidate the efforts of leading American tech conglomerates, defence contractors, and research universities under a centralised framework. The former president, who has long championed American exceptionalism, claims this approach will provide the United States with a decisive advantage, enabling rapid breakthroughs in cutting-edge AI applications ranging from military strategy to commercial innovation.“America must remain the global leader in technology—no ifs, no buts,” Trump declared at a recent press conference. “China has been trying to surpass us in AI, but with this new project, we will make sure the future remains ours.”Details regarding funding and governance remain scarce, but early indications suggest the initiative will rely heavily on public-private partnerships, tax incentives for research and development, and collaboration with high-profile venture capital firms. Skeptics, however, warn that the endeavour could fan the flames of an increasingly militarised AI race, raising ethical concerns about surveillance, automation of warfare, and data privacy. Critics also question whether the initiative can deliver on its lofty promises, especially in the face of existing economic and geopolitical pressures.Yet for its supporters, the Stargate Project serves as a rallying cry for renewed American leadership and an antidote to worries over China’s technological ascendancy. Proponents argue that accelerating AI research is paramount if the United States wishes to preserve not just military supremacy, but also the economic and cultural influence that has typified its global role for decades.Whether this bold project will succeed—or if it will devolve into a symbolic gesture—remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the Stargate Project has already reignited debate about how best to safeguard America’s strategic future and maintain the balance of power in the fast-evolving arena of artificial intelligence.

Europe’s arms money maze

Europe’s rearmament has acquired an uncomfortable companion: uncertainty about what the money actually buys. In Germany, an argument over defence-related borrowing has raised questions about whether exceptional debt is producing genuinely additional expenditure. In Estonia, unreliable inventory records and disputed ammunition contracts have brought ministerial accountability into the foreground. These are different problems, but they meet at the same point: a larger budget is not a reliable measure of a stronger defence.The contention that nobody knows what is happening to Europe’s weapons money goes too far. Budgets are published, procurement bodies operate and auditors are identifying failures. Nor do these cases establish that funds have disappeared into Russian hands or that the Kremlin engineered the difficulties. The more defensible conclusion is also more useful: Europe cannot judge rearmament by the volume of money announced. It must establish what has been purchased, accepted and made ready for use.That distinction matters strategically. An adversary need not steal the money to benefit from delays, unusable equipment or a loss of confidence in the governments spending it.What the €800 billion actually meansThe scale of the spending is substantial. Combined defence expenditure across the European Union reached €418 billion in 2025, with €454 billion estimated for 2026. Those annual totals should not be confused with the much larger, multi-year headline attached to the EU’s rearmament financing plan. The widely cited €800 billion is potential financing capacity, not a single fund already transferred to arms manufacturers. Its main components are approximately €650 billion in possible additional national expenditure enabled by fiscal flexibility over four years, and €150 billion in loans through the Security Action for Europe instrument, known as SAFE. The loans must be repaid; the additional national spending depends on governments choosing to use the available room.These distinctions are indispensable to any honest assessment. Permission to borrow is not an order placed with a factory. An order is not a completed delivery. Equipment delivered to a warehouse is not necessarily equipment that troops can operate, maintain and replenish. Treating all these stages as interchangeable allows governments to claim progress before the military benefit exists.It also creates a temptation to add together figures that describe different periods or overlapping flows of money. A credible account of rearmament should distinguish financing arrangements from annual expenditure, and both from verified outputs. Otherwise, the public is left comparing impressive totals whose practical meaning is unclear.Germany’s argument over additional spendingOn 10 September, the Ifo Institute challenged the use of Germany’s defence-related borrowing exemption. It calculated an €11 billion gap between additional borrowing and the year-on-year increase in the relevant expenditure. Ifo’s argument was that 38.5 per cent of the additional debt had not produced additional defence and security spending, instead freeing room for other purposes in the ordinary budget. The Finance Ministry rejected the comparison as legally and methodologically flawed. The exemption concerns qualifying expenditure above one per cent of gross domestic product, rather than an increase over the previous year. Ifo, for its part, said its analysis concerned additional spending, not constitutionality.This is not evidence that €11 billion was stolen. It is a dispute over the relationship between an exceptional borrowing mechanism and the political expectation attached to it. The difference is important: an arrangement can comply with its legal design while delivering less additional expenditure than citizens understand the announcement to promise.The practical question is whether new borrowing expands defence capacity or changes the way existing commitments are financed. Those outcomes can coexist within the same budget. Refinancing an established obligation may be lawful and fiscally useful, but it should not be presented as though an equivalent amount of new military capability has been purchased. Germany’s dispute therefore points to a straightforward transparency test. Governments should identify the expenditure that would have occurred anyway, the genuinely additional commitments and the delivery milestones attached to them. Without that comparison, the argument risks becoming a contest between accounting definitions while the central question—what the armed forces actually gain—remains unanswered.Estonia’s warning from the accountsIn Estonia, the problems are more immediate. Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur announced on 2 September that he would step down, accepting political responsibility for failures exposed in defence administration and procurement. His announcement did not amount to an admission of personal corruption.The National Audit Office issued a qualified opinion concerning defence inventories valued at approximately €1.2 billion because their quantities, composition and valuation could not be established reliably. It also questioned an unexplained retrospective adjustment of €99.7 million to the previous year’s inventory figures. That does not mean €1.2 billion of weapons has vanished. An unreliable balance is not the same thing as a proven loss. It means the records are insufficiently dependable to establish what the balance represents—a serious weakness in any organisation, and particularly consequential in one responsible for military readiness.Inadequate records can obstruct decisions long before a final financial loss is demonstrated. Commanders and purchasing authorities need to distinguish usable stock from equipment awaiting inspection, repair or replacement. If those categories are unclear, another procurement decision may rest on a mistaken understanding of what is already available.Auditing is therefore more than an exercise in retrospective blame. A trustworthy inventory helps determine what must be bought next, how urgently it is needed and whether previous purchases fulfilled their purpose. Poor accounting can undermine operational planning even where no theft is established.Paid for is not the same as usableEstonia’s ammunition procurement for Ukraine illustrates a second difficulty. The audit identified disputed advance payments and warned of a potential exposure to the state budget of around €70 million. That figure describes a risk, not a final, adjudicated loss.The controversy includes contracts involving the Italian company Datasel. Pevkur described ammunition delivered under the disputed arrangements as incomplete and of insufficient quality, rather than simply non-existent. Datasel disputes the criticism and has said that goods delivered and invoiced were worth approximately €58 million against about €59 million in advances. The company’s account is a contested position, not a judicial finding.The disagreement exposes a distinction that matters beyond this particular supplier. A payment record, an invoice, the physical presence of goods and acceptance of those goods for their intended use answer different questions. A supplier may point to shipments while a purchasing authority disputes whether the contractual requirement has been met. The existence of equipment does not, by itself, resolve an argument over quality or completeness.For Ukraine, the decisive consideration is usable military support. For the public authorities financing it, the additional questions are whether payment conditions were appropriate, inspections were timely and contractual protections can recover money when performance is disputed. Those questions should be settled through evidence and the relevant proceedings, not through premature declarations of guilt.The procurement lesson is nonetheless clear. Emergency purchasing needs traceable contracts, independently verified acceptance and a dependable record linking each payment to performance. Urgency may justify faster decisions. It cannot make the distinction between an invoice and a functioning delivery disappear.An oversight system split across institutionsEurope’s defence financing does not sit within a single system of scrutiny. National budgets, EU programmes, loans and off-budget arrangements have different institutional responsibilities. The European Court of Auditors’ September review described complex governance and uneven oversight arrangements, rather than a continent-wide absence of auditing.SAFE falls within the European Court of Auditors’ remit. The European Peace Facility, outside the ordinary EU budget, has its own College of Auditors. National defence expenditure is scrutinised through national institutions. The distinction is between different mandates, not between money that is automatically checked and money that is automatically unaccountable. The difficulty arises at the joins. A public explanation may follow the announcement of a financing package, while a procurement body follows the contract and an operational authority follows the equipment. Unless those accounts can be reconciled, citizens and legislators may struggle to establish the complete journey from political promise to accepted delivery.Secrecy complicates that task, but it need not prevent it. Publishing ammunition locations or technical vulnerabilities would be irresponsible. Giving properly authorised auditors access to contracts, inspections and payment records is a different matter. The need to protect operational information should not become a general excuse for withholding financial evidence.Nor should procurement integrity be treated as a rival to speed. Clearly assigned responsibility, verifiable milestones and early checks can prevent disputes from developing into expensive attempts to recover money after the event. The relevant choice is between controls that work during procurement and explanations demanded after something has gone wrong.Where Putin could benefitThese failures do not establish that Vladimir Putin has obtained everything he wanted. A Europe that turns rising expenditure into effective forces would represent a very different outcome. There is also no demonstrated Russian role in the particular German budget dispute or the Estonian accounting and contractual problems described here.The potential advantage for Moscow is indirect. Delayed or disputed deliveries can leave the intended recipient weaker than the expenditure suggests. Confusing financial claims can make it harder to defend further commitments. A succession of procurement controversies could erode confidence not only in individual contracts, but in the wider case for supporting Ukraine and strengthening European defence.That is a strategic risk, not proof of an accomplished Russian victory. The public identification of problems is itself evidence that scrutiny exists. A minister accepting political responsibility, auditors challenging unreliable balances and a government being pressed to explain its borrowing are mechanisms through which democratic systems can correct failure. Their value depends on what happens afterwards.The answer is neither to abandon rearmament nor to shield it from criticism. Governments should report progress in terms that connect money to results: contracts awarded, payments made, equipment accepted and capabilities available, with sensitive details reserved for secure oversight. Disputed transactions should remain visible until resolved rather than disappearing beneath the next spending announcement.Europe does not need to prove its determination by producing another larger number. It needs to demonstrate that the money already committed is becoming usable strength. Until it does, the distance between those two things remains an opportunity for the adversary it is trying to deter.