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

NYSE - LSE
CMSD 0.78% 23.08 $
JRI 1.38% 13.09 $
RIO 0.44% 100.15 $
CMSC 0.66% 22.77 $
AZN 2.11% 204.8 $
BCC 5.11% 83.04 $
BCE -0.29% 24.09 $
GSK 2.09% 58.35 $
NGG -0.69% 86.92 $
BTI 0.95% 56.68 $
RELX 1.28% 36.68 $
RYCEF 3.17% 17.66 $
BP -6.82% 44.59 $
VOD -1.42% 15.48 $
RBGPF -19.57% 69 $

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.

US China race hits 2027

When NASA’s Artemis II crew splashed down in April 2026 after looping around the Moon, it rekindled interest in human spaceflight. The United States had not sent astronauts near the lunar surface in more than half a century, and its return came amid an unmistakable rivalry with a rising power. Over the last decade China has methodically tested rockets, landers and rovers, assembled its own orbital outpost and dispatched missions across the Solar System. The world’s two largest economies are now openly competing to build a permanent human presence on and around the Moon, to harvest its resources and to set the standards that will govern space for decades to come.Although the race evokes memories of the Cold War, experts stress that today’s contest is more complex. Rather than a sprint to plant a flag, the current competition is a marathon to establish infrastructure and routines for sustained exploration. It also includes commercial players, such as SpaceX and Blue Origin in the United States and a fast‑growing private sector in China. Political leaders in Washington and Beijing frame their objectives in terms of national prestige, economic opportunity and security, while scientists see the potential for breakthroughs in geology, physics and planetary science. In this multifaceted arena, the year 2027 looms as a pivotal test of each nation’s ambitions.Washington’s roadmap: Artemis and a moon baseThe United States is pursuing its lunar return through NASA’s Artemis programme. Artemis II demonstrated that the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft could carry a crew around the Moon and return safely. The next steps are more demanding. NASA plans a complex Earth‑orbit flight in 2027 in which Orion will practice docking with one or both of the commercial lunar landers now under development. This demonstration is essential for subsequent missions that will ferry astronauts to the lunar surface. Without a successful rendezvous and refuelling sequence, the agency cannot meet its goal of up to two crewed landings in 2028 and the construction of a lunar base in the early 2030s. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman has warned that the United States is in a new space race and that failure to keep pace could damage American leadership. He argues that seeing Chinese taikonauts on the Moon before U.S. astronauts return would deliver a blow to American confidence and global influence.Policy makers in Washington view the timeline as tight. The launch of Artemis III, originally targeted for 2024, has slipped to 2028 after interim dates in 2026 and 2027. This drift reflects technical hurdles and shifting political priorities; over the past two decades U.S. lunar goals have changed with each administration. Under President Donald Trump, NASA’s focus returned to the Moon, and Congress has largely sustained funding. Lawmakers such as Senator Ted Cruz emphasise that America must simultaneously maintain leadership in low Earth orbit, where the International Space Station nears the end of its life, and embark on a new era of exploration. The challenge is to integrate commercial capabilities—particularly SpaceX’s Starship system, which will serve as a lunar lander—with NASA’s heavy‑lift rockets and Orion capsule. In low Earth orbit, U.S. companies are also competing to build private space stations as the ISS winds down.Behind the headline missions is a robust commercial ecosystem. SpaceX’s Falcon and Starship rockets have dramatically lowered launch costs, enabling a boom in satellite deployment and paving the way for large‑scale lunar logistics. Other firms are developing lunar landers, cargo services and in‑orbit data processing that uses artificial intelligence to analyze imagery directly in space rather than sending raw data back to Earth. Proponents say these technologies will revolutionize Earth observation, communications and defence, creating an “orbital economy” that could be worth trillions. Critics, however, worry about the potential for an uncontrolled proliferation of satellites, increasing the risk of collision and creating space debris—known as the Kessler syndrome—that could render some orbits unusable.Beijing’s blueprint: Chang’e, Tiangong and mega‑constellationsChina’s lunar ambitions were late to emerge but have progressed steadily since the Chang’e programme began in 2007. In the past decade the China National Space Administration has landed robotic spacecraft on the Moon’s near and far sides, returned lunar samples to Earth and placed two rovers on the surface. Its next steps include launching the Chang’e‑7 mission in late 2026 to explore the lunar south pole and Chang’e‑8 in 2029 to test technologies such as in‑situ resource utilization. These missions will lay the groundwork for an International Lunar Research Station that Beijing plans to build with Russia and other partners in the 2030s. Chinese officials say a crewed landing will occur before 2030, using the new Long March‑10 rocket, Mengzhou spacecraft and Lanyue lander. Tests of these systems began in 2025 and are progressing on schedule, according to state media.The difference between the U.S. and Chinese approaches is striking. China’s lunar timeline has remained largely steady, with milestones set years in advance and executed through successive five‑year plans. Analysts note that the one‑party state does not face the congressional budget battles or policy reversals common in Washington, allowing it to align industries, financing and state priorities around long‑term goals. Xi Jinping has framed space exploration as part of national rejuvenation, and the aerospace sector is listed among the strategic industries of the future. At the same time China is rapidly expanding its presence in Earth orbit. It operates the Tiangong space station, assembled in modules launched between 2021 and 2022, and plans to add a co‑orbiting telescope module. Chinese astronauts routinely conduct long‑duration missions and record‑setting spacewalks from Tiangong.Beyond human spaceflight, China is building its own satellite megaconstellations. The Thousand Sails network aims to deploy more than a thousand satellites by 2027 and potentially 14,000 by the 2030s to provide global broadband and compete with SpaceX’s Starlink. The defence‑oriented Guowang constellation could add another 13,000 satellites by 2035. China had over 800 satellites in orbit at the start of 2025—more than any country except the United States, which has nearly 9,000—but its launch rate is accelerating. In 2024 China launched 68 orbital rockets, second only to the U.S., and is testing reusable boosters and powerful new engines. It is also pursuing a Mars sample‑return mission that could bring material back to Earth by 2031, potentially beating NASA’s delayed Mars campaign. Observers say these achievements reflect an ecosystem that now rivals the U.S. in breadth, even if China still lags in private sector innovation and reusable rocket technology.Why 2027 mattersThe year 2027 stands out as a make‑or‑break point in the unfolding space competition. For NASA, the planned in‑orbit docking demonstration will show whether its architecture—combining the Orion crew capsule with privately built lunar landers—can actually work. This test has already been inserted into the Artemis sequence as a separate mission, and without it the agency cannot risk sending astronauts to the lunar surface. Success would keep the 2028 landing on track and bolster confidence in the United States’ ability to lead; failure could postpone human landings by years and give China a psychological and strategic advantage. Some observers argue that delays would also erode congressional support and funding, since political attention could shift to Mars or Earth‑orbit projects.For China, the mid‑2020s are equally crucial. By the end of 2026 the Chang’e‑7 probe is expected to deliver data from the Moon’s south pole, and the Thousand Sails constellation could surpass the 1,000‑satellite mark a year later. Meanwhile, low‑altitude tests of the Long March‑10 and Mengzhou systems in 2025 and 2026 will set the stage for full‑scale flight tests. If all proceeds as planned, China will enter 2027 with an integrated system for human lunar flight, a mature space station and an expanding commercial sector. The momentum could position Beijing to attempt its first crewed lunar landing by the end of the decade, perhaps just a year or two after Artemis III.The symbolic stakes of who returns to the Moon first resonate beyond space professionals. Many commentators see access to lunar resources such as water ice and helium‑3 as future economic boons, enabling fuel production, life support and even fusion energy. Others worry that these expectations could inflame geopolitical tensions and lead to the partition of the lunar surface. Online discussions are filled with references to science‑fiction series like For All Mankind and Star Wars, a sign of how popular culture shapes perceptions of space. Some people lament the absence of Europe in the high‑profile contest, expressing frustration that the European Space Agency is not competing at the same level. Others note that the proliferation of mega‑constellations could spoil the night sky for astronomy and raise the risk of collisions. A common thread is the belief that space is becoming another arena for geopolitical rivalry and that humanity must balance exploration with responsibility.What’s at stakeAt the heart of the new space race is a struggle over norms and infrastructure. The country that first establishes a sustained presence on the Moon will likely influence how lunar resources are allocated, how safety zones are defined and how future claims are adjudicated. China’s plan for an International Lunar Research Station is open to partners but would be led by Beijing and Moscow, while the U.S. promotes the Artemis Accords, a set of principles signed by more than thirty nations that emphasise transparency, peaceful use and the protection of heritage sites. The two frameworks represent competing visions of governance. Some analysts worry that parallel bases could harden rival blocs and complicate cooperation on scientific projects.Economic motives also loom large. The Moon’s south pole contains ice deposits that can be split into oxygen and hydrogen for rocket fuel; its regolith may hold helium‑3, a potential fuel for fusion reactors; and rare earth elements could be mined for electronics. Companies envisage extracting these materials and using them to support lunar factories, orbital refineries and interplanetary missions. Observers point out that many of these prospects are speculative and that the technological and legal challenges are formidable. Nevertheless, the prospect of a trillion‑dollar space economy drives investment from governments and venture capital. Commentators on social media often joke about “all those beautiful minerals” and wonder whether space will become a battlefield for humans. Others warn that competition could trigger an arms race, with anti‑satellite weapons and military platforms turning Earth orbit into a contested zone.Environmental concerns add another layer of complexity. Mega‑constellations of thousands of satellites enable global internet and Earth‑observing services, but they also contribute to light pollution and radio interference that hamper astronomical research. Critics argue that launching tens of thousands of spacecraft to benefit a small fraction of the population is not worth degrading the natural beauty of the night sky. Campaigners call for international regulation to ensure that orbits remain sustainable and that debris is removed. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission and international bodies are beginning to address these issues, but enforcement remains weak.Beyond the U.S. and ChinaWhile the rivalry between Washington and Beijing dominates headlines, other actors are shaping the space landscape. India, which landed a spacecraft near the lunar south pole in 2023, plans its own crewed missions and has an eye on lunar resources. Russia remains formally involved with China’s lunar base plan despite its own economic struggles. Private corporations across the globe are developing lunar landers, communications relays and space‑based manufacturing. Even as the European Space Agency grapples with funding and policy issues, European companies supply critical hardware, such as the service module for Orion and lunar lander technology. Japan, Canada and the United Arab Emirates are all planning missions that will contribute to lunar exploration or the construction of the Lunar Gateway, a planned station in lunar orbit.Taken together, these efforts suggest that the future of space will be multipolar. The outcome of the 2027 milestones will not end the race but will set the trajectory for the coming decade. Whether the United States and China choose to cooperate or compete will influence how quickly humanity establishes a foothold beyond Earth and whether the benefits of space are shared or monopolized.An uncertain finish lineThe United States and China are already locked in a fierce competition for space. Both nations have articulated ambitious lunar roadmaps, invested billions in rockets, spacecraft and infrastructure, and rallied their citizens with promises of national renewal and scientific glory. Yet the space environment today is far more complex than during the Apollo era. Private companies wield unprecedented influence, environmental and legal questions remain unresolved, and the stakes extend from lunar ice to orbital broadband and planetary defence. The year 2027 will be a crucial inflection point: a successful docking test for Artemis and the continued pace of China’s Chang’e and megaconstellation programmes will signal whether each nation can execute its plans on schedule. Failure or delay on either side could alter perceptions of leadership and open space for newcomers.As the countdown to these milestones advances, policymakers, engineers and citizens alike grapple with what the space race means. Will it inspire cooperation and new frontiers of knowledge, or will it deepen divisions and militarize the heavens? Will the Moon become a laboratory for sustainable living or a quarry for minerals? And can humanity develop rules and norms to manage an increasingly crowded sky? The answers will emerge over the next several years. For now, the only certainty is that the competition is real, the challenges are immense and the outcome will shape the cosmic future of us all.