Tom Moeller

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 

 <a href="/comment/200403f.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403f.png"></a>
	 <a href="/comment/200403g.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403g.png"></a>

The job market unwound during March. The figures in today's
report derive from a survey taken three weeks ago and, therefore, miss the bulk
of the recent layoff activity due to the coronavirus outbreak.

Nonfarm payroll employment declined 701,000 (+1.0% y/y) with
the majority of the deterioration occurring in service-producing industries. The
plunge in March came after a 275,000 total payroll increase in February, revised
from 273,000. Payrolls rose 214,000 in January, revised from 273,000. A 100,000
fall had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

Average hourly earnings in the private sector actually rose
0.4%, following an unrevised 0.3% February improvement. A 0.2% rise had been
expected. Growth of 3.1% y/y remained below its 12-month peak of 3.5%.

The unemployment rate jumped to 4.4% last month. It was the
highest level since August 2017. A rise to 3.8% had been expected. Employment in
the household survey weakened 2.987 million while the labor force declined 1.633
million. The overall jobless rate, including those who were marginally attached
or working part-time for economic reasons, increased to 8.7%, its highest level
in three years.

From the payroll employment survey, the 701,000
decline in jobs reflected an 18,000 (+0.1% y/y) weakening in factory sector
employment, which was the fourth decline in six months. Construction sector
employment fell an outsized 29,000 (+2.2% y/y) after three straight months of
increase. The number of mining &amp; logging jobs fell 7,000 (-4.7% y/y).

The number of private service sector jobs plunged 659,000
(+1.0% y/y). A 459,000 decline (-0.6% y/y) in leisure &amp; hospitality jobs
accounted for most of the drop, reflecting a 446,300 drop in hotels &amp; restaurants.
Education &amp; health services employment collapsed 76,000 (+2.2% y/y).
Professional &amp; business services employment declined 52,000 (+1.5% y/y)
which included a 49,500 drop (-2.1% y/y) in temporary help jobs. Employment in
trade, transportation and utilities fell 49,000 (+0.4% y/y) which included a
46,200 shrinkage (-0.1% y/y) in retail trade. Information sector employment, in
contrast, rose 2,000 (1.7% y/y.

Public sector employment increased 12,000 (0.9% y/y) as
federal government jobs rose 18,000 (2.3% y/y). An 8,000 rise (1.0% y/y) in
employment by local governments was offset by a 14,000 decline (+0.1% y/y) in
state government jobs.

<a href="/comment/200403h.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403h.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/200403i.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403i.png"></a>

Average hourly earnings increased 0.4% (3.1% y/y), the
strongest increase in four months. It included a 0.4% rise (3.2% y/y) in factory
sector earnings. Private service sector earnings also rose 0.4% (3.1% y/y) as
retail trade earnings also improved 0.4% (4.2% y/y). Professional &amp; business
services pay edged 0.1% higher (3.4% y/y), the weakest increase since January of
last year. Information sector earnings rose 0.3%. The 2.6% y/y rise compared to
a 7.2% y/y peak early last year. Financial sector earnings fell 0.3% with
the 3.3% y/y rise below its 5.4% April 2018 peak. Leisure &amp; hospitality
earnings edged 0.1% lower (+2.6% y/y).

<a href="/comment/200403x.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403x.png" align="left"></a>
The length of the average workweek in private industry shortened
to 34.2 hours, the least since January 2011. It was down from 34.6 hours in June
2018, which matched the expansion's peak. Hours in mining &amp; logging fell to
45.5. Factory sector hours declined to 40.4 and they fell to 39.1 in the
construction sector. Private service sector hours plunged to 33.0. The education
&amp; health services workweek also plunged to 32.9 from a cycle high of 33.1.
The information services workweek lengthened to 36.4 hours. Leisure &amp;
hospitality hours weakened to 24.4 from 25.9 two months earlier.

From the household employment survey, the rise in the
unemployment rate to 4.4% from a 50-year low of 3.5% occurred as the labor force
participation rate fell sharply to 62.7%, equaling the low hit in August 2018.
The teenage participation rate eased from a 12-year high to 35.5%, and for those
aged 20-24, it plummeted 70.3%. For workers aged 25-54, the rate dropped sharply
to 82.6%. For men in that age bracket, the rate eased to 89.0%. For women of
that age, it fell sharply m/m to 76.4%, but remained up from the annual
cycle low of 73.7% during all of 2015. For workers aged 55 &amp; over, the
participation rate eased to 39.8%, but remained increased from the historical
low of 29.4% in 1993. The employment/population ratio fell precipitously to 60.0%,
down from 61.1% in February. It remained up, however, from the cycle low of
58.4% in 2011.

The average duration of unemployment fell sharply to 17.1
weeks, less than half what it was at its high in 2011.

The teenage unemployment rate rose sharply to 14.3%, but
remained below the 25.9% average in 2010. The rate for workers aged 20-24 surged
to 8.7% from 6.4%. For workers aged 25-54, the rate jumped to 3.6%, the highest
level since September 2017. It remained down from the annual average of 8.6% in
2010. For those over 55, the jobless rate surged to 3.3% from 2.6%.

By educational attainment, unemployment of workers without a
high school diploma spiked to 6.8% from 5.7%. High school graduates without a
college degree were 4.4% unemployed, up from 3.6% in February. Those with some
college but no degree were 3.7% without work, up from 2.7% three months earlier.
College graduates were 2.5% unemployed, increased from 1.9% in February and the
most in nearly three years.

The labor market data are contained in Haver's USECON database.
Detailed figures are in the EMPL and LABOR databases. The
expectations figures are in the AS1REPNA database.

<a href="/comment/200403j.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403j.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/200403k.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403k.png"></a>

<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Employment: (SA, M/M Change,
 000s)</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" >Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" >Jan</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar Y/Y</th>
 <th scope="col" >2019</th>
 <th scope="col" >2018</th>
 <th scope="col" >2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Payroll Employment</td>
 <td>-701</td>
 <td>275</td>
 <td>214</td>
 <td>1.0%</td>
 <td>1.4%</td>
 <td>1.6%</td>
 <td>1.6%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Previous Estimate</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>273</td>
 <td>273</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
 <td>-18</td>
 <td>13</td>
 <td>-22</td>
 <td>0.1</td>
 <td>1.2</td>
 <td>2.0</td>
 <td>0.7</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Construction</td>
 <td>-29</td>
 <td>41</td>
 <td>38</td>
 <td>2.2</td>
 <td>2.8</td>
 <td>4.6</td>
 <td>3.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Private Service-Producing</td>
 <td>-659</td>
 <td>185</td>
 <td>166</td>
 <td>1.0</td>
 <td>1.4</td>
 <td>1.5</td>
 <td>1.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Government</td>
 <td>12</td>
 <td>33</td>
 <td>35</td>
 <td>0.9</td>
 <td>0.6</td>
 <td>0.5</td>
 <td>0.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Average Weekly Hours - Private Sector</td>
 <td>34.2</td>
 <td>34.4</td>
 <td>34.3</td>
 <td>34.5</td>
 <td>34.4</td>
 <td>34.5</td>
 <td>34.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Private Sector Average Hourly Earnings
 (%)</td>
 <td>0.4</td>
 <td>0.3</td>
 <td>0.2</td>
 <td>3.1</td>
 <td>3.3</td>
 <td>3.0</td>
 <td>2.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
 <td>4.4</td>
 <td>3.5</td>
 <td>3.6</td>
 <td>3.8</td>
 <td>3.7</td>
 <td>3.9</td>
 <td>4.3</td>
 </tr>
	 </tbody>
	 </table>
	 
</body></html>

The job market unwound during March. The figures in today's report derive from a survey taken three weeks ago and, therefore, miss the bulk of the recent layoff activity due to the coronavirus outbreak. Nonfarm payroll employment [...]

U.S. Nonfarm Payrolls Collapse; Jobless Rate Surges by Almost One Point

Gerald D. Cohen

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 

<a href="/comment/200403a.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403a.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/200403b.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403b.png"></a>

&bull; ISM Nonmanufacturing index declined substantially less than expected to 52.5.


&bull; COVID-19 related slowdown in supplier deliveries drove this reading.


&bull; Slower supplier deliveries normally suggest economic strength, but in this case it is a sign of weakness.



The Composite Index of Nonmanufacturing Sector Activity from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) decreased to 52.5 during March from 57.3 in February. The Action Economics Forecast Survey anticipated a drop to 46.0 in March.

Business activity, new orders and employment measures all declined, with business activity and employment dropping below the 50-growth mark to levels not seen since 2009/10. However, the supplier delivery index jumped to 62.1 from 52.4, indicating substantially slower supplier deliveries. This measure is inverted since slower supplier deliveries are normally a sign of strength. However, in this case it is a reflection of COVID-19 related supply problems. Supplier deliveries also slowed meaningfully in 2008, during the Great Recession as credit constraints hampered business activity.

Haver Analytics constructs a composite index combining the nonmanufacturing and the manufacturing ISM, which was released on Wednesday. While the manufacturing index declined below the 50-growth mark to 49.1, it would have been meaningfully weaker had it not been for a similar jump in supplier deliveries. The composite index is based on GDP shares. Since nonmanufacturing makes up almost 90% of GDP, the March reading of the composite remained above 50.

Both the export and import orders fell sharply, with the import measure dropping to levels not seen since early 2009, in the midst of the Great Recession. The prices index declined to 50.0 as the number of respondents indicating they were paying lower prices jumped to a four-year high 14.1%. These series are not included in the nonmanufacturing composite nor are they seasonally adjusted.

The ISM figures are available in Haver's USECON database, with additional
detail in the SURVEYS database. The expectations figure from Action Economics is in
the AS1REPNA database.

<a href="/comment/200403c.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403c.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/200403d.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403d.png"></a>

<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >ISM Nonmanufacturing Survey
 (SA)</th>
 <th>Mar</th>
 <th>Feb</th>
 <th>Jan</th>
 <th>Mar'19</th>
 <th>2019</th>
 <th>2018</th>
 <th>2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Composite Diffusion Index</td>
<td >52.5</td>
<td >57.3</td>
<td >55.5</td>
<td >56.3</td>
<td >55.5</td>
<td >59.0</td>
<td >56.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp; Business Activity</td>
<td >48.0</td>
<td >57.8</td>
<td >60.9</td>
<td >58.0</td>
<td >58.0</td>
<td >61.7</td>
<td >60.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp; New Orders</td>
<td >52.9</td>
<td >63.1</td>
<td >56.2</td>
<td >59.2</td>
<td >57.5</td>
<td >61.4</td>
<td >59.3</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp; Employment</td>
<td >47.0</td>
<td >55.6</td>
<td >53.1</td>
<td >55.9</td>
<td >55.0</td>
<td >56.9</td>
<td >55.1</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp; Supplier Deliveries (NSA)</td>
<td >62.1</td>
<td >52.4</td>
<td >51.7</td>
<td >52.0</td>
<td >51.5</td>
<td >55.8</td>
<td >53.2</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Prices Index</td>
<td >50.0</td>
<td >50.8</td>
<td >55.5</td>
<td >57.5</td>
<td >57.6</td>
<td >62.1</td>
<td >57.7</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >ISM Manufacturing and Nonmanufacturing
 Composite</td>
<td >52.1</td>
<td >56.5</td>
<td >55.0</td>
<td >56.1</td>
<td >55.0</td>
<td >59.0</td>
<td >57.0</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
 </table>
 
</body></html>

• ISM Nonmanufacturing index declined substantially less than expected to 52.5. • COVID-19 related slowdown in supplier deliveries drove this reading. • Slower supplier deliveries normally suggest economic strength, but in this case [...]

U.S. ISM Nonmanufacturing Misleadingly Strong in March

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 

 <a href="/comment/200403f.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403f.png"></a>
	 <a href="/comment/200403g.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403g.png"></a>

The job market unwound during March. The figures in today's
report derive from a survey taken three weeks ago and, therefore, miss the bulk
of the recent layoff activity due to the coronavirus outbreak. Those numbers only
take into account payroll activity through March 12, before
the period of social distancing resulting from attempts to halt the coronavirus spread.

Nonfarm payroll employment declined 701,000 (+1.0% y/y) with
the majority of the deterioration occurring in service-producing industries. The
plunge in March came after a 275,000 total payroll increase in February,
revised from 273,000. Payrolls rose 214,000 in January, revised from 273,000. A
100,000 fall had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

Average hourly earnings in the private sector actually rose
0.4%, following an unrevised 0.3% February improvement. A 0.2% rise had been
expected. Growth of 3.1% y/y remained below its 12-month peak of 3.5%.

The unemployment rate jumped to 4.4% last month. It was the
highest level since August 2017. A rise to 3.8% had been expected. Employment in
the household survey weakened 2.987 million while the labor force declined 1.663
million. The overall jobless rate, including those who were marginally attached
or working part-time for economic reasons, increased to 8.7%, its highest level
in three years.

The labor market data are contained in Haver's USECON database.
Detailed figures are in the EMPL and LABOR databases. The
expectations figures are in the AS1REPNA database.

<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Employment: (SA, M/M Change,
 000s)</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" >Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" >Jan</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar Y/Y</th>
 <th scope="col" >2019</th>
 <th scope="col" >2018</th>
 <th scope="col" >2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Payroll Employment</td>
 <td>-701</td>
 <td>275</td>
 <td>214</td>
 <td>1.0%</td>
 <td>1.4%</td>
 <td>1.6%</td>
 <td>1.6%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Previous Estimate</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>273</td>
 <td>273</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
 <td>-18</td>
 <td>13</td>
 <td>-22</td>
 <td>0.1</td>
 <td>1.2</td>
 <td>2.0</td>
 <td>0.7</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Construction</td>
 <td>-29</td>
 <td>41</td>
 <td>38</td>
 <td>2.2</td>
 <td>2.8</td>
 <td>4.6</td>
 <td>3.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Private Service-Producing</td>
 <td>-659</td>
 <td>185</td>
 <td>166</td>
 <td>1.0</td>
 <td>1.4</td>
 <td>1.5</td>
 <td>1.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Government</td>
 <td>12</td>
 <td>33</td>
 <td>35</td>
 <td>0.9</td>
 <td>0.6</td>
 <td>0.5</td>
 <td>0.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Average Weekly Hours - Private Sector</td>
 <td>34.2</td>
 <td>34.4</td>
 <td>34.3</td>
 <td>34.5</td>
 <td>34.4</td>
 <td>34.5</td>
 <td>34.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Private Sector Average Hourly Earnings
 (%)</td>
 <td>0.4</td>
 <td>0.3</td>
 <td>0.2</td>
 <td>3.1</td>
 <td>3.3</td>
 <td>3.0</td>
 <td>2.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
 <td>4.4</td>
 <td>3.5</td>
 <td>3.6</td>
 <td>3.8</td>
 <td>3.7</td>
 <td>3.9</td>
 <td>4.3</td>
 </tr>
	 </tbody>
	 </table>
	 
</body></html>

The job market unwound during March. The figures in today's report derive from a survey taken three weeks ago and, therefore, miss the bulk of the recent layoff activity due to the coronavirus outbreak. Those numbers only take into [...]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 

 <a href="/comment/200403f.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403f.png"></a>
	 <a href="/comment/200403g.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200403g.png"></a>

The job market unwound during March. The figures in today's
report derive from a survey taken three weeks ago and, therefore, miss the bulk
of the recent layoff activity due to the coronavirus outbreak. <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Lyon, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">r,
those numbers only take into account payroll activity through March 12, before
the period of social distancing resulting from attempts to halt the coronavirus
spread.
Nonfarm payroll employment declined 701,000 (+1.0% y/y) with
the majority of the deterioration occurring in service-producing industries. The
plunge in March came after a&nbsp; 275,000 total payroll increase in February,
revised from 273,000. Payrolls rose 214,000 in January, revised from 273,000. A
100,000 fall&nbsp; had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.
Average hourly earnings in the private sector actually rose
0.4%, following an unrevised 0.3% February improvement. A 0.2% rise had been
expected. Growth of 3.1% y/y remained below its 12-month peak of 3.5%.
The unemployment rate jumped to 4.4% last month. It was the
highest level since August 2017. A rise to 3.8% had been expected. Employment in
the household survey weakened 2.987 million while the labor force declined 1.663
million. The overall jobless rate, including those who were marginally attached
or working part-time for economic reasons, increased to 8.7%, its highest level
in three years.
The labor market data are contained in Haver's USECON database.
Detailed figures are in the EMPL and LABOR databases. The
expectations figures are in the AS1REPNA database.

<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Employment: (SA, M/M Change,
 000s)</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" >Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" >Jan</th>
 <th scope="col" >Mar Y/Y</th>
 <th scope="col" >2019</th>
 <th scope="col" >2018</th>
 <th scope="col" >2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Payroll Employment</td>
 <td>-701</td>
 <td>275</td>
 <td>214</td>
 <td>1.0%</td>
 <td>1.4%</td>
 <td>1.6%</td>
 <td>1.6%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Previous Estimate</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>273</td>
 <td>273</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
 <td>-18</td>
 <td>13</td>
 <td>-22</td>
 <td>0.1</td>
 <td>1.2</td>
 <td>2.0</td>
 <td>0.7</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Construction</td>
 <td>-29</td>
 <td>41</td>
 <td>38</td>
 <td>2.2</td>
 <td>2.8</td>
 <td>4.6</td>
 <td>3.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Private Service-Producing</td>
 <td>-659</td>
 <td>185</td>
 <td>166</td>
 <td>1.0</td>
 <td>1.4</td>
 <td>1.5</td>
 <td>1.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp; Government</td>
 <td>12</td>
 <td>33</td>
 <td>35</td>
 <td>0.9</td>
 <td>0.6</td>
 <td>0.5</td>
 <td>0.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Average Weekly Hours - Private Sector</td>
 <td>34.2</td>
 <td>34.4</td>
 <td>34.3</td>
 <td>34.5</td>
 <td>34.4</td>
 <td>34.5</td>
 <td>34.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Private Sector Average Hourly Earnings
 (%)</td>
 <td>0.4</td>
 <td>0.3</td>
 <td>0.2</td>
 <td>3.1</td>
 <td>3.3</td>
 <td>3.0</td>
 <td>2.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
 <td>4.4</td>
 <td>3.5</td>
 <td>3.6</td>
 <td>3.8</td>
 <td>3.7</td>
 <td>3.9</td>
 <td>4.3</td>
 </tr>
	 </tbody>
	 </table>
	 
</body></html>

The job market unwound during March. The figures in today's report derive from a survey taken three weeks ago and, therefore, miss the bulk of the recent layoff activity due to the coronavirus outbreak. r, those numbers only take into [...]

U.S. Nonfarm Payrolls Collapse; Jobless Rate Surges by Almost One Poin

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<title>U</title>
</head>

<body>

 

The job market unwound during March. The figures in today's
report derive from a survey taken three weeks ago and, therefore, miss the bulk
of the recent layoff activity due to the coronavirus outbreak.&nbsp;
Nonfarm payroll employment declined 701,000 (+1.0% y/y) with
the majority of the deterioration occurring in service-producing industries. The
plunge in March came after a 275,000 total payroll increase in February, revised
from 273,000. Payrolls rose 214,000 in January, revised from 273,000. A 100,000
fall&nbsp; had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.
Average hourly earnings in the private sector actually rose
0.4%, following an unrevised 0.3% February improvement. A 0.2% rise had been
expected. Growth of 3.1% y/y remained below its 12-month peak of 3.5%.
The unemployment rate jumped to 4.4% last month. It was the
highest level since August 2017. A rise to 3.8% had been expected. Employment in
the household survey weakened 2.987 million while the labor force declined 1.663
million. The overall jobless rate, including those who were marginally attached
or working part-time for economic reasons, increased to 8.7%, its highest level
in three years.
From the payroll employment survey, the 701,000
decline in jobs reflected an 18,000 (+0.1% y/y) weakening in factory sector
employment, which was the fourth decline in six months. Construction sector
employment fell an outsized 29,000 (+2.2% y/y) after three straight months of
increase. The number of mining &amp; logging jobs fell 7,000 (-4.7% y/y).
The number of private service sector jobs plunged 659,000
(+1.0% y/y). A 459,000 decline (-0.6% y/y) in leisure &amp; hospitality jobs
accounted for most of the drop, reflecting a 446,300 drop in hotels &amp; restaurants.
Education &amp; health services employment collapsed 76,000 (+2.2% y/y).
Professional &amp; business services employment declined 52,000 (+1.5% y/y)
which included a 49,500 drop (-2.1% y/y) in temporary help jobs. Employment in
trade, transportation and utilities fell 49,000 (+0.4% y/y) which included a
46,200 shrinkage (-0.1% y/y) in retail trade. Information sector employment, in
contrast, rose 2,000 (1.7% y/y.
Public sector employment increased 12,000 (0.9% y/y) as
federal government jobs rose 18,000 (2.3% y/y). An 8,000 rise (1.0% y/y) in
employment by local governments was offset by a 14,000 decline (+0.1% y/y) in
state government jobs.
Average hourly earnings increased 0.4% (3.1% y/y), the
strongest increase in four months. It included a 0.4% rise (3.2% y/y) in factory
sector earnings. Private service sector earnings also rose 0.4% (3.1% y/y) as
retail trade earnings also improved 0.4% (4.2% y/y). Professional &amp; business
services pay edged 0.1% higher (3.4% y/y), the weakest increase since January of
last year. Information sector earnings rose 0.3%. The 2.6% y/y rise compared to
a 7.2% y/y peak early last year.&nbsp; Financial sector earnings fell 0.3% with
the 3.3% y/y rise below its 5.4% April 2018 peak. Leisure &amp; hospitality
earnings edged 0.1% lower (+2.6% y/y).
The length of the average workweek in private industry shortened
to 34.2 hours, the least since January 2011. It was down from 34.6 hours in June
2018, which matched the expansion's peak. Hours in mining &amp; logging fell to
45.5. Factory sector hours declined to 40.4 and they fell to 39.1 in the
construction sector. Private service sector hours plunged to 33.0. The education
&amp; health services workweek also plunged to 32.9 from a cycle high of 33.1.
The information services workweek lengthened to 36.4 hours. Leisure &amp;
hospitality hours weakened to 24.4 from 25.9 two months earlier.&nbsp;
From the household employment survey, the rise in the
unemployment rate to 4.4% from a 50-year low of 3.5% occurred as the labor force
participation rate fell sharply to 62.7%, equaling the low hit in August 2018.
The teenage participation rate eased from a 12-year high to 35.5%, and for those
aged 20-24, it plummeted 70.3%. For workers aged 25-54, the rate dropped sharply
to 82.6%. For men in that age bracket, the rate eased to 89.0%. For women of
that age, it fell sharply&nbsp; m/m to 76.4%, but remained up from the annual
cycle low of 73.7% during all of 2015. For workers aged 55 &amp; over, the
participation rate eased to 39.8%, but remained increased from the historical
low of 29.4% in 1993. The employment/population ratio fell precipitously to 60.0%,
down from 61.1% in February. It remained up, however, from the cycle low of
58.4% in 2011.
The average duration of unemployment fell sharply to 17.1
weeks, less than half what it was at its high in 2011.
The teenage unemployment rate rose sharply to 14.3%, but
remained below the 25.9% average in 2010. The rate for workers aged 20-24 surged
to 8.7% from 6.4%. For workers aged 25-54, the rate jumped to 3.6%, the highest
level since September 2017. It remained down from the annual average of 8.6% in
2010. For those over 55, the jobless rate surged to 3.3% from 2.6%.
By educational attainment, unemployment of workers without a
high school diploma spiked to 6.8% from 5.7%. High school graduates without a
college degree were 4.4% unemployed, up from 3.6% in February. Those with some
college but no degree were 3.7% without work, up from 2.7% three months earlier.
College graduates were 2.5% unemployed, increased from 1.9% in February and the
most in nearly three years.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
The labor market data are contained in Haver's USECON database.
Detailed figures are in the EMPL and LABOR databases. The
expectations figures are in the AS1REPNA database.
<table width="1871" class="centered" border="0" cellSpacing="0">
 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" width="967">Employment: (SA, M/M Change,
 000s)</th>
 <th scope="col" width="128">Mar</th>
 <th scope="col" width="128">Feb</th>
 <th scope="col" width="128">Jan</th>
 <th scope="col" width="129">Mar Y/Y</th>
 <th scope="col" width="129">2019</th>
 <th scope="col" width="129">2018</th>
 <th scope="col" width="129">2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="967">Payroll Employment</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">-701</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">275</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">214</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">1.0%</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">1.4%</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">1.6%</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">1.6%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="967">&nbsp;Previous Estimate</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">--</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">273</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">273</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">--</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">--</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">--</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">--</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="967">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">-18</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">13</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">-22</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">0.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">1.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">2.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">0.7</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="967">&nbsp; Construction</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">-29</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">41</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">38</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">2.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">2.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">4.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">3.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="967">&nbsp; Private Service-Producing</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">-659</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">185</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">166</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">1.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">1.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">1.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">1.8</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="967">&nbsp; Government</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">12</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">33</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">35</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">0.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">0.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">0.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">0.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="967">Average Weekly Hours - Private Sector</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">34.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">34.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">34.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">34.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">34.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">34.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">34.4</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" width="967">Private Sector Average Hourly Earnings
 (%)</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">0.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">0.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">0.2</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">3.1</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">3.3</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">3.0</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">2.6</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" width="967">Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">4.4</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">3.5</td>
 <td align="center" width="128">3.6</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">3.8</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">3.7</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">3.9</td>
 <td align="center" width="129">4.3</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
</table>


</body>

</html>

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 

 <a href="/comment/200402f.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200402f.png"></a>
	 <a href="/comment/200402g.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200402g.png"></a>

&bull; Auto showrooms quiet as coronavirus flares up.


&bull; Car &amp; light truck sales fall in tandem.


The Autodata Corporation reported that sales of light vehicles
during March declined 33.4% (-34.6% y/y) to 11.35 million (SAAR) from 17.04
million in February. It was the lowest level of sales since April 2010 when the
economy was just emerging from the recession. Sales have been easing since the
2016 sales peak of 17.55 million units.

Sales of light trucks were off 32 .9% (-31.6% y/y) to 8.43
million units. Purchases of domestically-made light trucks fell 31.4% (-30.2%
y/y) to 6.81 million units. Sales of imported light trucks weakened 38.6% (-37.0%
y/y) to 1.62 million units.

Trucks' share of the U.S. light vehicle market reached a
record 74.3%, up from a low of 48.8% during all of 2012.

Auto sales weakened 34.8% (-42.2% y/y) to 2.92 million units
and remained below a peak level of 7.71 million unit sales reached in 2014.
Purchases of domestically-produced cars fell 32.9% (-43.0% y/y) to 2.16 million
units. Sales of imported cars weakened 39.7% both m/m and y/y to 0.76 million units.

Imports' share of the U.S. vehicle market fell last month to
21.0%. Imports' share of the passenger car market declined to 26.0%. Imports
share of the light truck market fell to 19.2% but remained up from the 12.0% low
in January 2015.

U.S. vehicle sales figures can be found in Haver's USECON
database. Additional detail by manufacturer is in the INDUSTRY database.

<a href="/comment/200402h.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200402h.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/200402i.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200402i.png"></a>

<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Light Weight Vehicle Sales
 (SAAR, Million Units)</th>
 <th>Mar</th>
 <th>Feb</th>
 <th>Jan</th>
 <th>Mar Y/Y %</th>
 <th>2019</th>
 <th>2018</th>
 <th>2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Total</td>
 <td>11.35</td>
 <td>17.04</td>
 <td>17.07</td>
 <td>-34.6</td>
 <td>16.99</td>
 <td>17.27</td>
 <td>17.23</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Autos</td>
 <td>2.92</td>
 <td>4.48</td>
 <td>4.49</td>
 <td>-42.2</td>
 <td>4.80</td>
 <td>5.36</td>
 <td>6.16</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Domestic</td>
 <td>2.16</td>
 <td>3.22</td>
 <td>3.33</td>
 <td>-43.0</td>
 <td>3.52</td>
 <td>4.00</td>
 <td>4.58</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Imported</td>
 <td>0.76</td>
 <td>1.26</td>
 <td>1.17</td>
 <td>-39.7</td>
 <td>1.28</td>
 <td>1.36</td>
 <td>1.59</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;Light Trucks</td>
 <td>8.43</td>
 <td>12.56</td>
 <td>12.57</td>
 <td>-31.6</td>
 <td>12.18</td>
 <td>11.92</td>
 <td>11.07</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Domestic</td>
 <td>6.81</td>
 <td>9.92</td>
 <td>10.00</td>
 <td>-30.2</td>
 <td>9.65</td>
 <td>9.44</td>
 <td>9.00</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >&nbsp;&nbsp;Imported</td>
 <td>1.62</td>
 <td>2.64</td>
 <td>2.57</td>
 <td>-37.0</td>
 <td>2.53</td>
 <td>2.48</td>
 <td>2.07</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
 </table>
 
</body></html>

• Auto showrooms quiet as coronavirus flares up. • Car & light truck sales fall in tandem. The Autodata Corporation reported that sales of light vehicles during March declined 33.4% (-34.6% y/y) to 11.35 million (SAAR) from 17.04 [...]

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Tumble

Carol Stone, CBE

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 

<a href="/comment/200402a.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200402a.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/200402b.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200402b.png"></a>



&bull;


&bull;


&bull;



PREVIOUS>>>Initial jobless claims for unemployment insurance jumped 3.001 million to a record 3.283 million

Continuing claims for unemployment insurance increased 101,000 to 1.803 million



Data on weekly unemployment claims going back to 1967 are contained in Haver's WEEKLY database,
and they are summarized monthly in USECON. Data for individual states are in REGIONW. The expectations
figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey, carried in the AS1REPNA database.

<a href="/comment/200402c.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200402c.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/200402d.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200402d.png"></a>

<table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" >Unemployment Insurance (SA, 000s)</th>
 <th>03/28/20</th>
 <th>03/21/20</th>
 <th>03/14/20</th>
 <th>Y/Y %</th>
 <th>2019</th>
 <th>2018</th>
 <th>2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Initial Claims</td>
 <td>6,648</td>
 <td>3,307</td>
 <td>282</td>
 <td>3,050.7</td>
 <td>218</td>
 <td>221</td>
 <td>244</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >4-wk avg</td>
 <td>2,612.00</td>
 <td>1,004.25</td>
 <td>232.50</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>--</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Continuing Claims</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>3,029</td>
 <td>1,784</td>
 <td>76.2</td>
 <td>1,701</td>
 <td>1,756</td>
 <td>1,961</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
	 <td class="firstcol" >4-wk avg</td>
	 <td>--</td>
	 <td>2,053.50</td>
	 <td>1,726.25</td>
	 <td>--</td>
	 <td>--</td>
	 <td>--</td>
	 <td>--</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Insured Unemployment Rate (%)</td>
 <td>--</td>
 <td>2.1</td>
 <td>1.2</td>
 <td>
 1.2 
 (Mar. 2019)
 </td>
 <td>1.2</td>
 <td>1.2</td>
 <td>1.4</td>
 </tr>
 </tbody>
 </table>
 
</body></html>

• • • PREVIOUS>>>Initial jobless claims for unemployment insurance jumped 3.001 million to a record 3.283 million Continuing claims for unemployment insurance increased 101,000 to 1.803 million Data on weekly unemployment claims going [...]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
</head>
<body>
	 
 
 
 

 <a href="/comment/200402n.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200402n.png"></a>
	 <a href="/comment/200402o.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200402o.png"></a>

Factory orders fell slightly (+0.1% y/y) during February following a 0.5%
January decline. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected a 0.2% gain.
Durable goods orders jumped 1.2% (-0.0% y/y) following a 0.1% improvement.
Machinery orders eased 0.6% (-2.6% y/y) but electrical machinery orders jumped
1.3% (3.2% y/y). Orders for computers &amp; electronic products fell 0.7% (-0.2%
y/y). Orders for nondurable products, which equal shipments, declined 1.2%
(+0.3% y/y) as the value of petroleum refinery shipments fell 4.1% (-2.8% y/y),
down sharply for the second straight month due to lower prices. Basic chemical
shipments fell 0.4% (+1.8% y/y) but apparel shipments declined 2.4% (-0.9% y/y).

Shipments of durable goods rose 0.9% (-2.4% y/y) as
transportation shipments increased 2.9% (-5.2% y/y). Shipments outside of the
transportation sector fell 0.8% (-0.2% y/y). Machinery shipments were off 1.3%
(-3.4% y/y) while electrical equipment &amp; appliance shipments improved 1.6%
(2.7% y/y). Transportation sector shipments strengthened 2.9% (-5.2% y/y) as
nondefense aircraft shipments rebounded 17.5%. They remained down by one third
y/y. Shipments of computers &amp; electronic products rose 0.3% (-0.6% y/y).

Unfilled orders for manufactured products improved 0.1%
(-1.7% y/y) after holding steady for two consecutive months. Transportation
sector backlogs rose 0.2% (-2.3% y/y). Excluding transportation, unfilled orders
eased 0.2% (-0.6% y/y). Machinery backlogs rose 0.1% (-3.5% y/y) while computer
&amp; electronic equipment order backlogs fell 0.1% (+0.6% y/y). Electronic
equipment &amp; appliance order backlogs rose 0.2% (6.7% y/y).

Factory sector inventories declined 0.4% (+1.6% y/y).
Transportation equipment inventories rose 0.4% (13.0% y/y) but auto inventories
fell 2.8% (+6.9% y/y). Excluding the transportation sector, inventories fell
0.6% (-1.1% y/y). Electrical equipment inventories were off 0.2% (+1.1% y/y)
while computer &amp; electronic product inventories slipped 0.8% (+0.2% y/y).
Nondurable product inventories fell 0.9% (-1.5% y/y) as the value of petroleum
refinery stockpiles dropped 6.1% (-4.8% y/y). Apparel inventories eased 0.6%
(-3.3% y/y) and food product inventories rose slightly (1.0% y/y).

The factory sector figures are available in Haver's USECON
database. The expectation figure is in the AS1REPNA database.

<a href="/comment/200402p.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200402p.png"></a>
 <a href="/comment/200402q.png" name="modal"><img class="small" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/200402q.png"></a>

 <table class="centered" width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0">
	 	<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>

 <thead>
 <tr>
 <th class="firstcol" scope="col" >Factory Sector (% chg) -
 NAICS Classification</th>
 <th>Feb</th>
 <th>Jan</th>
 <th>Dec</th>
 <th>Feb Y/Y</th>
 <th>2019</th>
 <th>2018</th>
 <th>2017</th>
 </tr>
 </thead>
 <tbody>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >New Orders</td>
 <td >-0.0</td>
 <td >-0.5</td>
 <td >1.9</td>
 <td >0.1</td>
 <td >-0.5</td>
 <td >7.3</td>
 <td >5.7</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Shipments</td>
 <td >-0.2</td>
 <td >-0.6</td>
 <td >0.5</td>
 <td >-1.1</td>
 <td >0.7</td>
 <td >6.9</td>
 <td >5.0</td>
 </tr>
 <tr class="odd">
 <td class="firstcol" >Unfilled Orders</td>
 <td >0.1</td>
 <td >0.0</td>
 <td >0.0</td>
 <td >-1.7</td>
 <td >-2.1</td>
 <td >3.9</td>
 <td >1.9</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td class="firstcol" >Inventories</td>
 <td >-0.4</td>
 <td >-0.3</td>
 <td >0.4</td>
 <td >1.6</td>
 <td >3.1</td>
 <td >3.5</td>
 <td >4.5</td>
 </tr>
	 </tbody>
	 </table>
	 
</body></html>

Factory orders fell slightly (+0.1% y/y) during February following a 0.5% January decline. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected a 0.2% gain. Durable goods orders jumped 1.2% (-0.0% y/y) following a 0.1% improvement. Machinery [...]

U.S. Factory Orders, Shipments & Inventories Ease Ahead of Coronavirus

Even with expected tariff-induced increases in inflation, BCFF forecasters look for a more aggressive round of monetary easing

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

Wage growth slowing in the US and Euro area; elevated and sticky in the UK

Stagflation-lite: Blue Chip forecasts below-trend growth and elevated inflation

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

US and Japan ended 2024 on solid ground in contrast to Europe

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

Only modest evidence of AI-related surge in US productivity growth

Previous Trump tariffs fading. A boost from new tariffs ahead?

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

US financial market concerns shifting from growth to inflation

Economic activity is picking up in the US but remains lackluster abroad

Policy uncertainty has surged since the US national elections.

Recent turnaround in US economic surprises leading to increases in rate-cut expectations

The outlook has brightened in the US, while it has dimmed for other major economies

Headline US PCE inflation elevated by sticky services prices

US and global equity prices have recently diverged

US leading global upturn in economic surprises

Blue Chip forecasters look for further significant monetary easing apart from Japan

Recent rise in global supply chain pressures could augur a pickup in global inflation pressures

Our global data offering is unparalleled in terms of coverage, quality, and organization. We offer 290+ databases from 2500 government and private sources, a wealth of key survey and forecast data covering the world’s economies, and a robust offering of archive databases that drive machine learning for big data applications.

Optimized for precision analytics, our data is seamlessly integrated with Microsoft Office and all leading statistical packages through our DLX® software and platform independent HaverView™ website. We further offer direct database feeds, client server or cloud-based delivery, and RESTful API.


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

A premier time series data platform for the global strategy, research, and quant communities. 

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

250508N2.jpg

250508O2.jpg

Nonfarm labor productivity fell 0.8% (SAAR) during Q1’25 after increasing 1.7% in Q4’24, revised from 1.5%. A 0.6% decline had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. It was the first productivity decline since Q2’22. The y/y increase during Q1 fell to 1.4% from 2.1% in Q4. It was below a 3.3% high in the first quarter of last year. Productivity fell as real value-added output dropped 0.3% last quarter (+2.2% y/y) after increasing 2.5% in Q4, and hours worked lengthened 0.6% (0.8% y/y) following a 0.8% gain.

Compensation per hour increased 4.8% last quarter following a 3.7% Q4 rise. Despite the strength of these last two increases, y/y growth decelerated to 2.7% from a 6.8% high one year earlier. Nevertheless, the productivity decline raised unit labor costs by 5.7% (1.3% y/y) in Q1 versus expectations for a 5.2% increase. It followed a 2.0% gain during Q4 and was the strongest quarterly increase in a year.

Factory sector productivity surged 4.5% (1.5% y/y) during Q1’25 following three consecutive increases of roughly 0.5%. This strength was accompanied by a 6.2% rise (2.2% y/y) in hourly compensation which came after two consecutive increases of approximately 4.1%. The strength in productivity lowered the rise in unit labor costs to 1.6% from 3.8% in Q4. The y/y gain fell to 0.7% from 2.0% in Q4 and stood below the 6.2% y/y increase in Q1’24.

The productivity and labor cost data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database. The Action Economics expectations figures are in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250508P2.jpg

250508Q2.jpg

- Productivity declines with lower output.
- Compensation surge exacerbates labor market stress.
- Factory sector productivity surge lessens cost pressure.

U.S. Productivity Declines in Q1’25; Unit Labor Costs Surge

250508F0.jpg

250508G0.jpg

The National Association of Realtors' Fixed Rate Mortgage Housing Affordability Index (HAI) rose 0.6% (3.2% y/y) in March to 103.2 after rising 0.9% to 102.6 in February and rising 0.8% in January to 101.7. The level of home affordability has risen 14.8% from its low of 89.9 in October 2023. It remains 42.4% below the high of 179.2 in April 2020.

The rise in affordability in March occurred as the median price of an existing single-family home rose 1.8% (2.9% y/y) to $408,000 which was offset by a decline in mortgage rates to 6.73% from 6.92% in February. The price compared to the record $432,900 in June 2024. The decline in mortgage rates compared to a recent low of 6.26% in September of last year and a 7.70% high during October of 2023. It remained well above a December 2020 low of 2.73%. These changes lowered the principal & interest payment by 0.2% (+1.1% y/y) to $2,113 per month. That was well above the most recent low of $984 in February 2020. Monthly mortgage payments averaged a lessened 24.2% of income during March. They remained up from a low of 14.0% of income in April 2020.

The rise in housing costs in March was accompanied by improvement in median family income. It increased 0.4% (4.4% y/y) to a record $104,705 after rising 0.4% in February and 0.7% in January.

Housing affordability improved m/m across the country in March. The index edged 0.1% higher (2.8% y/y) to 134.5 in the Midwest. It remains the most affordable region of the country. In the South, the index 0.9% (5.4% y/y) to 106.6 and the affordability index in the Northeast increased 2.1% (-2.6% y/y) to 95.7. In the West, where homes are the least affordable, the index rose 0.8% (3.3% y/y) to 71.8 in March.

The Housing Affordability Index (HAI) equals 100 when a median-income borrower qualifies for an 80% mortgage on a median-priced existing single-family home. The HAI had exceeded 100 in each month since July 1990 and reached its all-time high of 213.3 in January 2013; since then, it fell below 100 for the first time in June 2022.

Data on Housing Affordability can be found in Haver’s **REALTOR** database. Median home sales prices are also available in **USECON**. Higher frequency interest rate data are found in **SURVEYS**, **WEEKLY**, and **DAILY**.

250508H0.jpg

250508I0.jpg

- Home prices rise but mortgage rates decline.
- Median income improves.
- Affordability increases across the country.

U.S. Housing Affordability Improves Slightly in March

250508A5.jpg

250508B5.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance were 228,000 seasonally adjusted in the week ended May 3, down from 241,000 in the previous week, which was unrevised. For the latest week, the Action Economics Forecast Survey had expected a smaller decline to 233,000.

In the week ended April 26, the total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries – also known as “continuing claims” – was 1.879 million, down from 1.908 million in the April 19 week.

The insured unemployment rate, that is, the number of beneficiaries as a percentage of covered employment, returned to its longstanding rate of 1.2% in the April 26 week; this rate has held that amount since continuously since the week of January 6, 2024, except for the prior week’s 1.3%.

As we do highlight in every week’s discussion, economic conditions vary widely across individual states and territories. In the week ended April 19, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey and Rhode Island (both at 2.48%), California (2.26%), Washington (2.14%) and New York (1.85%). The lowest were in Florida (0.36%), South Dakota (0.37%), Alabama (0.41%), Virginia (0.45%) and Nebraska (0.47%). Rates in other notable states include Illinois (1.78%), Pennsylvania (1.53%) and Texas (1.14%). These state data are not seasonally adjusted.

Data on weekly unemployment claims are from the Department of Labor itself, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They begin in 1967 and are contained in Haver’s **WEEKLY** database and summarized monthly in **USECON**. Data for individual states are in **REGIONW** back to December 1986. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250508C5.jpg

250508D5.jpg

- Continued claims for unemployment insurance decreased 29, 000 in the week ended April 26.
- Insured unemployment rate returns to longstanding 1.2%.
- Across the states, the insured unemployment rate ranges from 0.36% to 2.48%.

U.S. Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims Ease 13,000 in the May 3 Week

Andrew Cates

**The global business cycle** 
The recent sharp decline in the Future Output Balance in the global composite PMI survey reflects a sudden deterioration in global business expectations. The sweeping tariffs, introduced in April 2025, have generated heightened uncertainty around trade policy and sparked fears of retaliatory actions from key trading partners. As a result, businesses worldwide are scaling back their expectations for future output, wary of rising costs, disrupted demand flows, and a broader shift toward protectionism that could undermine global economic momentum.

250507Z1.jpg

Note: The extreme declines in the Future Output Balance that were recorded in the early months of 2020 (at the height of the COVID pandemic) have been removed from this chart.

**Global supply chain pressures**
Still, despite the marked deterioration in global business expectations, this second chart below provides a reassuring counterpoint: as of now, there is little evidence that global supply chain pressures have materially intensified. Both the New York Fed’s Global Supply Chain Pressure Index and the Baltic Exchange Dry Index remain relatively subdued, especially compared to the pandemic-era spikes of 2020–2022. While there has been heightened concern following the April 2025 US tariff announcements, these trade policy shifts have yet to translate into measurable physical disruption in logistics or freight rates. The stability of these indices suggests that although sentiment has taken a hit, global shipping networks and supply flows are, for now, absorbing the shock. However, this calm may prove fragile if the policy environment hardens further or retaliatory trade actions begin to compound the strain.

250507Z2.jpg

**Expectations for central banks’ policy rates** 
Adding to the picture of mounting economic caution, the latest Blue Chip Financial Forecasts survey reveals that expectations for policy easing over the next 12 months have become even more pronounced than in previous months. While earlier surveys had already pointed to a further extension of the global rate-cutting cycle, the latest results suggest forecasters now anticipate a deeper and more aggressive round of monetary easing—most notably from the US Federal Reserve, which is now expected to deliver nearly a full percentage point in rate cuts over the next 12 months. The sharp deterioration in business sentiment is reshaping the macro narrative: central banks are no longer simply guiding inflation lower, but are instead preparing to confront the risk of a deeper, demand-driven slowdown.

250507Z3.jpg

**Energy prices and inflation** 
Adding further context to the growing expectations for policy easing, oil prices have dropped sharply in recent weeks—driven by mounting concerns over global growth, as reflected in weakening business sentiment and softer demand indicators. The chart below provides a longer-run perspective on why this matters: energy prices have historically played a central role in shaping the global inflation trajectory. The strong positive correlation (r = 0.83) between median world energy price inflation and median core consumer price inflation underscores the powerful pass-through effects energy costs can have on broader price dynamics. While core inflation tends to be stickier, this historical relationship makes clear that sustained declines in energy prices often foreshadow broader disinflationary trends.

250507Z4.jpg

**Intangibles versus tangibles** 
Shifting focus from short-term cyclical risks to longer-term structural dynamics, the next chart below underscores a fundamental transformation in the composition of US investment: the economy has increasingly been built on intangibles. Over the past several decades, investment in intangible assets—such as software, intellectual property, R&D, and brand equity—has steadily climbed and, since the mid-2010s, has overtaken investment in both structures and equipment as a share of GDP. This shift reflects the rise of a knowledge-based, innovation-driven economy, but it also introduces new forms of vulnerability. Unlike physical capital, intangible assets rely heavily on trust, reputation, legal protections, and global openness. In this context, escalating trade frictions and a more confrontational US economic stance—as signalled by the recent tariff wave—risk eroding the goodwill and institutional credibility that underpin much of the value created by intangibles. If geopolitical uncertainty undermines the perceived reliability of US intellectual property protections or weakens global collaboration, it could pose a deeper structural challenge to future growth than any immediate cyclical downturn.

250507Z5.jpg

**Investment in Artificial Intelligence**
The centrality of intangibles to the US growth model is nowhere more evident than in the explosion of private investment in artificial intelligence. As this chart illustrates, global AI investment has surged over the past decade—reaching new highs in 2024—and the United States has consistently accounted for the lion’s share of that spending. This reflects not only America’s previous leadership in frontier technologies but also its dependence on intangible capital, from algorithms and data infrastructure to human expertise and institutional trust. However, this dominance also underscores the strategic stakes of current policy choices. In an environment of rising trade tensions and potential fragmentation, the foundations of US leadership in AI—cross-border collaboration, data openness, and global market access—could be at risk.

250507Z6.jpg

Financial market sentiment has rebounded in recent weeks, buoyed by signs of de-escalation in the US-led trade war and growing confidence that central banks—particularly the Federal Reserve—will step in with more rate cuts to cushion any fallout. Yet beneath the surface, a more sobering picture of the global economy persists. For example, latest PMI surveys reveal that global business expectations have slumped to their lowest levels since the pandemic, reflecting widespread unease about the growth outlook (chart 1). While supply chain pressures have so far remained contained, suggesting no repeat of the logistical chaos seen during the pandemic (chart 2), the latest Blue Chip Financial Forecasts survey reveals that forecasters are now pencilling in deeper and more widespread monetary easing than previously anticipated—an acknowledgment that demand is faltering (chart 3). Falling oil prices further reinforce this view: they are both a symptom of weakening global demand and a potential source of disinflation, reducing the urgency for central banks to maintain tight policy (chart 4). At the structural level, the US economy's increasing reliance on intangible assets—ranging from intellectual property to reputation—has made it more vulnerable to geopolitical frictions and the erosion of global trust (chart 5). This risk is compounded by America's dominant role in AI investment, a sector symbolic of both its economic strengths and its exposure to international perceptions (chart 6). The longer-term challenge, then, is not just navigating the current downturn, but ensuring that the institutional goodwill and cross-border openness that support the modern US economy are not sacrificed in a more fragmented and uncertain global order.

Charts of the Week: Relief Rally Meets Recession Risk

250507J1.jpg

250507K1.jpg

At today’s meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, the target range for the Fed funds rate was left unchanged at 4.25% to 4.50%. This followed reductions at three consecutive meetings in the fall of 2024. Rates remain below the high of 5.25% to 5.50% in place in mid-September. Today’s target range matched expectations in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

The statement following the meeting indicated that, “The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. Uncertainty about the economic outlook has increased further. The Committee is attentive to the risks to both sides of its dual mandate and judges that the risks of higher unemployment and higher inflation have risen.”

“The Committee's assessments will take into account a wide range of information, including readings on labor market conditions, inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments.”

The Fed continued, “The Committee will continue reducing its holdings of Treasury securities and agency debt and agency mortgage backed securities.”

250507L1.jpg

250507M1.jpg

- FOMC holds funds rate target at late-December level.
- Risk assessments include higher unemployment & inflation.

Economy in Brief: April 2020

Jump to:

U.S. Nonfarm Payrolls Collapse; Jobless Rate Surges by Almost One Point

U.S. ISM Nonmanufacturing Misleadingly Strong in March

U.S. Nonfarm Payrolls Collapse; Jobless Rate Surges by Almost One Point

U.S. Nonfarm Payrolls Collapse; Jobless Rate Surges by Almost One Poin

U.S. Nonfarm Payrolls Collapse; Jobless Rate Surges by Almost One Point

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Tumble

TT

U.S. Factory Orders, Shipments & Inventories Ease Ahead of Coronavirus