US Strategy Weekly: Job Contradictions

The 3-week-old Trump presidency continues to generate multiple headlines every day and this week was no exception. The big news was that the United States imposed a 25% tariff on imports of aluminum and steel and also cancelled exemptions for major suppliers such as Canada and Brazil. Trump also imposed a blanket 10% tariff on imports from top trading partner China and threatened a 25% barrier on all imports from Canada and Mexico, as well as looking at new reciprocal tariffs on imports of cars, computer chips and pharmaceuticals. These actions triggered condemnations by Mexico, Canada, and the European Union and ignited fears of a trade war; yet the stock market was unmoved. In our view, this stoic reaction by the market was rational because from a purely economic perspective these tariffs will be very troublesome for Mexico, Canada, China, and other major exporters to the US, but they are unlikely to be much of an issue domestically. And as we noted previously, a strong dollar will help to mute the impact of tariffs. More importantly, these tariffs are more likely to change the behavior of consumers and corporations and nullify much of the impact of tariffs. At least this is the long-term goal and US equities appear to have figured this out.

Gold has risen 16% since Trump was elected and the media has attributed this to the unpredictability of President Trump and the potential of trade wars; however, many precious metal analysts have noticed that demand for gold from abroad, particularly China, has increased and this is a reaction to their concern of weakness in their own currencies and a fear that tariffs will pressure their already declining economies. However, our favorite event of the week was the 30-minute press conference in the Oval Office with President Trump, Elon Musk, and X Musk, where Elon detailed much of what DOGE is doing and finding. Plus, Elon gave a mini course in business discipline and accounting. Nevertheless, the star was little X who clearly stole the show. (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6368671861112)

Overall, the story of the week was the resilience of the stock market even though a wave of tariffs were being imposed. Perhaps more surprisingly, our technical indicators improved this week. The 25-day up/down volume oscillator is at 1.42 this week, neutral and down a bit from two weeks ago when it was closing in on an overbought reading of 3.0 or greater. Nevertheless, it has a bullish bias. See page 14. The 10-day average of daily new highs is 162 this week and new lows are averaging 75. This combination of daily new highs above 100 and new lows below 100 is definitely positive. But the surprise of the week was the NYSE cumulative advance/decline line which made a new high on February 6, 2025. The previous high was made in November, generating a period of nonconfirmation; however, this new high confirms the current advance. See page 15. Last week’s AAII survey showed bullishness fell 7.7% to 33.3% and bearishness rose 8.9% to 42.9%. Bullishness is now below average, and bearishness is above average, which is a favorable combination for the equity market. See page 16. All in all, these indicators, along with the charts of the popular indices, are all bullish.

What is not bullish is the growing federal deficit. This is shown on page 3, with newly released data from the CBO, the fiscal 2024 (September 30, 2024) deficit was 6.2% of GDP. However, new Treasury data show federal debt subsequently grew $711 billion in the last three months of 2024, and the 12-month deficits-to-GDP rose to 6.9% (October), 7.1% (November), and 6.8% (December). This combination of rising deficits and rising interest rates has lifted interest payments as a percentage of outlays from 5.3% in 2020 to 13.1% in 2024. These deficit trends are unsustainable. See page 3.

Nonetheless, economic data has been favorable. The ISM nonmanufacturing index fell 1.2 points in January but continues to show an expanding service sector. See page 4. The NFIB small business survey dipped 2.3 points in January but remained above the long-term average of 98 for the third consecutive month. See page 5. The January employment report showed a 143,000 increase in the month of January, while revisions to previous months added an additional 100,000 more jobs. The household survey showed the unemployment rate fell slightly from 4.1% to 4.0% in the month. See page 6.

Unfortunately, the January employment release is a difficult report to analyze due to the annual benchmark revisions in the establishment survey, the Census population revisions to the household survey, and the updating of seasonal adjustments in both surveys. This year the establishment survey benchmark revision for March 2024, without seasonal adjustments, lowered employment by 598,000 workers, or 0.4%. This was unusually large since the typical revision is plus or minus 0.1%.

The population adjustment to the household survey increased the civilian noninstitutional population (age 16 and over) by 2.9 million and increases were substantial for Asians and Hispanics. The total civilian labor force increased 2.1 million, including an increase of 2.0 million in employment and 105,000 in unemployment. The number of people not in the labor force increased by 765,000. As is its usual practice, the BLS does not revise official household survey estimates for earlier months and therefore this bump in population is very obvious in many of the charts on the following pages. The uptick in January employment in the household survey depicts a 1.7% YOY growth rate, which is well above the long-term average of 1.5%. However, this spike in employment could be less an increase in real workers and more an increase in the Census Bureau’s estimate of population growth. Still, we are relieved that the household survey, which had been showing no employment growth for much of 2024, could simply have been an undercounting of both population and employment.

Nevertheless, the January report is dubious for a variety of reasons. We know that seasonal adjustments were revised in both surveys, however there were unusually large differences between the seasonal adjusted data and the not-seasonally-adjusted data this month. For example, January’s establishment survey showed the addition of 143,000 new jobs in seasonally adjusted data, and a loss of 2.85 million jobs in the not-seasonally adjusted data. That is a strangely large discrepancy.

In the household survey, January’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell from 4.1% to 4.0%, but the unadjusted unemployment rate for those 16 and over rose from 3.7% to 4.2%. Unadjusted unemployment rates for men, women, and workers by level of education also rose in January. Only the not seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for those with less than a high school diploma actually fell from 5.6% to 5.2%. Those with a bachelor’s degree or higher saw their unemployment rate ease from 2.4% to 2.3%. But other educational categories saw a rise in their unemployment rates, contrary to the decline in the overall rate. Similarly, native versus foreign employment statistics, which are not seasonally adjusted, showed the native unemployment rate rising from 3.7% to 4.3% and the foreign unemployment rate rising from 4.3% to 4.6%. The seasonally adjusted employment-population ratio and labor force participation rates both rose 0.1% due to Census revisions, but the unadjusted employment population ratio fell from 59.3% to 57.6%. In sum, January’s job report is filled with contradictions. We wonder if Elon Musk and his minions can do something to improve government agency data.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download