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

NYSE - LSE
CMSC 0.13% 22.77 $
CMSD -0.57% 22.8 $
BCC -1.71% 68.33 $
JRI -2.05% 12.66 $
NGG -1.91% 80 $
BCE -0.2% 25.06 $
RYCEF -4.9% 17.16 $
RIO 2.36% 108.96 $
RBGPF -4.99% 60.52 $
RELX 5.23% 34.6 $
VOD 0.07% 14.97 $
GSK -2.49% 49.31 $
BTI -1.3% 61 $
BP 2.49% 42.94 $
AZN -3.32% 179.71 $

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.

Fentanyl trade unravels

Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid up to 50 times more powerful than heroin, has been at the centre of a catastrophic overdose crisis. After years of relentless expansion, the market that once claimed tens of thousands of lives annually is contracting. Preliminary data from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that estimated drug overdose deaths fell to about 80,000 in 2024, a 27 per cent decline from the record of more than 110,000 in 2023, signalling the largest one‑year drop in modern history. This article examines why the fentanyl business is faltering, exploring the interlocking impacts of supply‑chain disruption, international diplomacy, law‑enforcement operations and public‑health initiatives.From Peak to DownturnDuring the early 2020s, illicitly manufactured fentanyl flooded the North American drug market, becoming the leading cause of overdose deaths. The pandemic exacerbated the situation: social isolation and disrupted addiction treatment services contributed to a spike of nearly 110,000 U.S. overdose deaths in 2023. Most of those deaths involved fentanyl, which dealers used to replace or adulterate heroin, counterfeit prescription pills and cocaine. Yet by 2024 the tide had turned. CDC data show that overdose deaths fell by roughly 30,000 in one year, and preliminary numbers for 2025 suggest the decline is continuing. The decrease extends across most U.S. states, with notable reductions in Ohio and West Virginia. Such a sustained downward trend had not been seen in decades and prompted researchers to look beyond domestic policy interventions for an explanation.Supply‑Chain Disruption and China’s CrackdownOne of the most significant drivers of the decline appears to be a disruption in the global supply of fentanyl and its precursors. Researchers analysing death trends in the United States and Canada found evidence of a sudden shortage of fentanyl on illicit markets beginning in mid‑2023. A Science journal study led by scholars at Stanford and the University of Maryland concluded that Chinese enforcement actions against chemical suppliers have curtailed exports of fentanyl precursors. Officials in Beijing shut down hundreds of companies, removed tens of thousands of online advertisements and arrested about 300 people after agreements with Washington to restrict the trade. The research suggests these moves reduced the availability of 4‑fluoroisobutyryl fentanyl and other precursors, causing the purity of seized fentanyl to fall and the price to rise. According to the DEA’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment, some Chinese suppliers have become wary of shipping controlled chemicals, aware that their government is enforcing updated counter‑narcotics treaties. Mexican fentanyl cooks report difficulty obtaining key precursors and are increasingly relying on designer chemicals to circumvent regulations.Cartel Disruption and EnforcementWhile precursor shortages have choked production, targeted law‑enforcement operations have also shaken the industry. White papers from the National Security Data and Policy Institute detail how the capture of Ovidio Guzmán López — a senior Sinaloa Cartel figure and son of Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán — in 2023 destabilised the cartel’s synthetic‑drug division. Experts point to a correlation between cartel ‘decapitation’ operations and sharp but temporary declines in fentanyl seizures and overdose deaths. The killing of Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel in late 2025, likewise rattled the market, although researchers caution that rival factions can quickly reconstitute production. The National Drug Threat Assessment notes that the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels continue to dominate fentanyl production, but they face greater risk as Mexican and U.S. authorities cooperate to target laboratories and intercept shipments at the southwest border. Seizures at border crossings dropped from 29,000 kilograms in 2023 to 23,000 kilograms in 2024, reinforcing evidence of a supply contraction.Public‑Health Measures and Changing BehaviourThe contraction of the fentanyl trade has amplified the effect of public‑health interventions. Increased distribution of the overdose‑reversal drug naloxone, expansion of medication‑assisted treatment programmes and billions of dollars in opioid settlement funds have collectively improved survival rates. Harm‑reduction services such as supervised consumption sites and drug‑checking kits have proliferated in major cities, allowing users to detect dangerous adulterants like xylazine and medetomidine. Younger Americans appear less likely to initiate opioid use than previous cohorts, and some long‑term users have died or shifted consumption patterns. These behavioural changes mean that a shrinking pool of susceptible individuals is exposed to an increasingly fragmented drug supply.An Evolving Drug MarketDespite the current downturn, the illicit drug market is far from static. The DEA warns that declining fentanyl purity does not equate to reduced danger. To compensate for shortages, traffickers are mixing fentanyl with veterinary tranquilizers and new synthetic opioids such as nitazenes, which can be even more potent. The National Security Data and Policy Institute notes that precursor chemicals still arrive in Mexico’s Pacific ports such as Manzanillo, and cartels are diversifying sourcing through India and alternative trans‑shipment points. According to the DEA, the presence of xylazine in seized powder has risen steadily since 2020, increasing the risk of fatal respiratory depression and flesh‑rotting wounds. Nitazene analogues and other novel substances are appearing in toxicology reports at an accelerating rate in 2026, underscoring how quickly manufacturers pivot when confronted with enforcement pressure.The sharp decline in fentanyl‑related deaths offers a glimmer of hope after years of escalating tragedy, but it is not a definitive victory. The current contraction appears to be driven primarily by disruptions in precursor supply, strategic cartel‑targeting operations and strengthened public‑health responses. Yet the same agility that allowed traffickers to flood markets with fentanyl enables them to adapt to enforcement, shifting to new chemicals, routes and business models. Sustained reductions in opioid mortality will require international cooperation to control chemical exports, continued pressure on manufacturing networks, wider access to treatment and harm‑reduction services, and public education to deter drug initiation. As policy makers debate how to allocate resources, the lesson of the fentanyl collapse is clear: comprehensive, co‑ordinated action across borders and disciplines can save lives.