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

NYSE - LSE
BCC 1.77% 77.84 $
RYCEF -1% 18.07 $
NGG -0.09% 82.3 $
CMSC -0.3% 21.725 $
RBGPF -1.11% 66 $
RIO -0.32% 91.22 $
BTI 1.84% 60.96 $
GSK 1.19% 51.35 $
CMSD -0.09% 21.98 $
JRI 1.23% 13.06 $
VOD -0.66% 15.15 $
AZN 0.58% 169.26 $
RELX 4.5% 34.41 $
BCE 0.42% 21.3 $
BP -0.25% 43.82 $

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.

Latin America’s age trap

Latin America has spent generations thinking of demography as a problem of abundance. Governments built schools for swelling classes, cities spread to absorb millions of new residents, and economists worried about whether jobs, housing and food production could keep pace with a rapidly expanding population. That assumption now belongs to the past. The region is entering an era in which there will be fewer children, a slower-growing workforce and many more older people, and the transition is unfolding far faster than most political systems are prepared to admit.The shift is already measurable. Fertility in Latin America has fallen to about 1.8 children per woman and has remained below the replacement level of 2.1 since 2015. The Caribbean is lower still, at roughly 1.5. In 2024, Latin America and the Caribbean had about 663 million inhabitants, nearly 26 million fewer than projections made at the beginning of the century had anticipated. The population is now expected to peak at about 730 million in 2053 before beginning a long decline.A peak in the middle of the century does not sound like an immediate emergency. That is precisely why the risk is easy to underestimate. Demographic crises rarely arrive as a single shock. They emerge through thousands of local changes: maternity wards with fewer patients, primary schools with empty desks, small towns losing young adults, companies unable to recruit skilled staff, pension systems collecting too little and families trying to care for elderly relatives with fewer hands available.Latin America does not yet have the lowest fertility in the world, and it is not yet the oldest region. Parts of East Asia have much lower birth rates, while Europe already has a substantially larger elderly population. The reason Latin America’s predicament could prove harsher is the sequence in which the change is occurring. The region is ageing before it has become broadly prosperous, before much of its workforce has entered formal employment and before durable welfare states have been built. Europe grew old after decades of industrialisation, capital accumulation and the expansion of tax-funded social protection. Several East Asian economies face extreme demographic contraction, but many entered it with high savings, advanced infrastructure, strong education systems and highly productive firms. Latin America is approaching the same pressure with weak productivity growth, deeply unequal access to public services, fragile fiscal positions and labour markets in which informality remains normal rather than exceptional.The speed of the transformation leaves little room for complacency. In 1950, about 41 per cent of the region’s population was under the age of 15. By 2024, that share had fallen to 22.5 per cent. In the same year, roughly 65 million people were aged 65 or older, representing 9.9 per cent of the population. By 2050, that group is projected to reach about 138 million and almost 19 per cent of the total. The median age, just 18 in 1950, reached 31 in 2024 and is expected to approach 40 by mid-century.This is not simply a story about people refusing to have children. Much of the fertility decline reflects social progress. Infant mortality has fallen, contraception has become more accessible, women have gained education and economic independence, and adolescent pregnancy has declined sharply. Families no longer need many births to ensure that several children survive to adulthood. Women are also more able to decide whether and when motherhood fits their lives.The trouble is that institutions have not adapted to the freedom and expectations of modern adulthood. In many cities, secure housing is expensive, formal jobs are scarce, commuting is exhausting and childcare is limited. Parenthood can carry a severe career penalty, especially for women, while domestic and caring responsibilities remain distributed unequally. Young adults often spend years moving between temporary work, informal employment and dependence on relatives before they feel able to form a household.Low fertility therefore reflects both choice and constraint. Some people do not want children. Others want fewer than previous generations. Many would like to become parents but postpone the decision because the economic and practical conditions never appear sufficiently stable. The postponement of first births explains part of the fall, but not all of it. Completed family size is also declining, meaning that later births are not fully compensating for those deferred in early adulthood.Chile offers one of the clearest warnings. Its fertility rate fell to about 1.03 children per woman in 2024, below Japan’s level and dramatically lower than it had been only a decade earlier. Uruguay now records far fewer births than deaths. Cuba is losing population through the combined effects of low fertility, ageing and large-scale emigration. Brazil and Mexico still have enormous populations, but their national size conceals shrinking school cohorts and ageing communities across many states and municipalities. Central America remains younger on average, yet fertility there is falling rapidly as well.The economic consequences will not be determined by headcounts alone. A smaller workforce can support a larger retired population if each worker becomes more productive, if more women enter well-paid employment, if healthy older people remain active and if technology raises output. Demographic decline is not an automatic sentence to recession. It becomes dangerous when productivity stagnates and institutions fail to mobilise the people who are already present.Latin America enters this test with a serious structural weakness. Nearly 47 per cent of employed people were working informally in the first half of 2025. Among young workers, the share was about 56 per cent. Informal work often means low and unstable earnings, limited training, weak legal protection and irregular or nonexistent pension contributions. It also narrows the tax base from which governments must finance health care, pensions and long-term support. For decades, a relatively large working-age population offered the region a demographic dividend. There were more potential workers in relation to children and older dependants, creating an opportunity for faster growth and higher savings. Yet a dividend is only an opportunity, not a guarantee. Much of it was consumed during years of modest investment, unequal education and poor productivity. The favourable age structure is now beginning to close before the region has completed the economic transformation it was supposed to finance.The labour force will continue to grow for some time at regional level, but more slowly and with an older profile. Young cohorts entering employment will become smaller. Employers will face recruitment problems in areas that require technical skills, health professionals, teachers and care workers. Rural districts and smaller cities may lose working-age residents even while major metropolitan areas remain crowded. National averages will therefore hide acute local decline.Ageing will also expose the weaknesses of pension systems designed around continuous formal employment. The basic arithmetic is unforgiving. More people will draw benefits for longer periods, while growth in the number of contributors will slow. Yet raising contribution rates, reducing benefits or delaying retirement is politically difficult in societies where many people already receive inadequate support and where physically demanding work makes longer careers unrealistic.Pension coverage has expanded, including through non-contributory schemes, but adequacy remains a major problem. Around 43 per cent of older people receive pension income that is insufficient to meet minimum consumption needs. Roughly a quarter of people aged 65 and over were still participating in the labour market in 2024. For some, work in later life is a welcome source of purpose and income. For many others, it is not active ageing but economic necessity.Health systems face a related challenge. Longer lives are a major achievement, but longevity does not automatically mean more years in good health. Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and disability will demand sustained treatment, rehabilitation and assistance with daily life. Systems that remain divided between public programmes, employment-based insurance and private provision often deliver fragmented care precisely when older patients need continuity.The most immediate strain may appear not in hospitals or treasury accounts but inside homes. Long-term care remains limited or absent in much of the region, so families provide most assistance to elderly and disabled relatives. Women perform a disproportionate share of this work, often reducing paid hours or leaving employment altogether. That response becomes less viable as families become smaller, adult children migrate and more women participate in the labour market.The region’s need for professional long-term care workers could nearly triple by 2050. Without planning, the result will be a severe shortage of trained staff, a larger burden on unpaid carers and widening inequality between households that can purchase private support and those that cannot. A demographic model built on the assumption that daughters and daughters-in-law will provide unlimited free care is already breaking down.Migration complicates the picture. Latin America is simultaneously a region of emigration, immigration and large movements within its own borders. The departure of young adults can accelerate ageing in countries and communities of origin, leaving older relatives behind and draining scarce professional skills. Remittances may protect household incomes, but money sent from abroad cannot provide daily physical care.For receiving countries, migration can slow workforce decline and bring younger taxpayers into the system. It is not, however, a demographic switch that governments can simply turn on. Migrants need legal status, housing, language support where relevant, recognition of qualifications and access to formal employment. Poor integration can reproduce the same informality that already weakens public finances. Migration can redistribute population across the region, but it cannot reverse low fertility everywhere at once.Political incentives may make preparation harder. Older voters will form a growing share of electorates and will understandably defend pensions, health services and financial security. Younger households will demand affordable housing, education, childcare and better employment. Governments with limited revenue may present these needs as a competition between generations. That would be a costly mistake. Families span generations, and underinvestment in children today produces less productive workers and weaker pension finances tomorrow. The decline in the number of children also creates an opportunity. Smaller cohorts make it possible to spend more effectively on each child, improve early development, repair weak schools and expand technical education. A country with fewer young people cannot afford to waste their potential through poor teaching, malnutrition, violence or exclusion from employment. Human capital must replace population growth as the main engine of expansion.Policy should begin by abandoning the illusion that a cash payment for each birth can restore the family patterns of the twentieth century. One-off bonuses may change the timing of some births, but they do not resolve insecure work, expensive housing, inadequate childcare or the unequal division of care. Coercive or moralising pronatalism is even more dangerous. It treats women’s autonomy as the problem while ignoring the economic conditions that make desired parenthood difficult.A more credible family policy would make having children compatible with a modern life. That means reliable childcare, paid leave for both mothers and fathers, protection against workplace discrimination, predictable hours, affordable housing and reproductive health services. It also means reducing the burden of care that falls on women. Supporting families is not the same as demanding larger families. The objective should be to close the gap between the number of children people want and the number they believe they can responsibly raise.The second priority is productivity and formalisation. Governments need tax and social insurance systems that make formal employment easier for small firms and portable for workers who change jobs. Better technical education, digital infrastructure, access to finance and competition can help productive businesses expand. Higher female employment would soften workforce decline, but only if jobs provide sufficient pay and if childcare and eldercare are available.Pension reform must combine financial sustainability with social legitimacy. A universal floor can protect older people from poverty, while contributory benefits should reward formal work without excluding those whose careers were interrupted by unemployment, care or informality. Retirement ages may need gradual adjustment as healthy life expectancy rises, but rules should recognise differences in health, occupation and lifetime income. A construction worker and an office professional cannot be treated as though ageing affects them in the same way.Health policy must move towards prevention, primary care and the management of chronic disease long before old age. Long-term care should be treated as essential social infrastructure rather than a private family matter. Training carers, setting quality standards, supporting home and community services and giving respite to family members would create employment while allowing more women to remain in paid work.Older workers will also need a different labour market. Lifelong learning, flexible hours, anti-discrimination rules and adapted workplaces can help people remain productive voluntarily. The purpose is not to compel everyone to work indefinitely. It is to remove barriers that force capable people out while protecting those whose health or occupations make continued employment unreasonable.Latin America still has time, but not much. The region remains younger than Europe, and its total labour force has not yet begun a broad decline. That creates a final window in which reforms can be introduced before fiscal pressure intensifies. Waiting until the 2040s would mean attempting to build care systems, repair pensions and raise productivity after the ratio of workers to older dependants has already deteriorated sharply. The demographic crisis could become the worst of all not because Latin America will necessarily have the fewest babies or the oldest citizens, but because it risks combining rapid ageing with unfinished development. The decisive variable is no longer fertility alone. It is institutional readiness.A smaller and older population need not be poorer, lonelier or less dynamic. It can be healthier, more productive and better educated. Reaching that outcome requires governments to treat demography as a central economic issue rather than a distant social trend. Latin America does not need to force people to have children. It needs to make ordinary adulthood viable, parenthood compatible with aspiration and old age secure. Demography is not destiny, but prolonged political delay can make it feel like one.