Loading summary
Transcript55 lines
- [00:00]
A
You really want to be better with your finances. You try to put money away in savings. You look for deals. You wrote out a budget once a long time ago, yet you still overdraft from time to time. And you still have debt. The truth is, managing money is not easy, but Rocket Money can help. Rocket Money shows you exactly what you're spending every month. From there, the app helps you make a budget that meets your financial goals. The app even gives you real time alerts when you're about to go over your budget so you don't spend too much time with Rocket Money. You can also see all of your subscriptions at a glance and cancel the ones you don't want right from the app. Rocket Money can even try to get you a refund for some of the money you wasted. Plus, you can use the Smart Savings feature to start putting more money away. Rocket Money analyzes your accounts to determine the optimal time to stow away cash without going over your budget. Our members report that the Rocket Money app saved them more than $700 a year. Getting better with money doesn't have to be a pipe dream. Rocket Money can make it a reality. Go to RocketMoney.com cancel or download the app from the Apple app or GOOG.
- [01:00]
B
What do you think makes the perfect snack?
- [01:02]
C
Hmm, it's gotta be when I'm really craving it and it's convenient.
- [01:06]
A
Could you be more specific when it's cravenient?
- [01:08]
C
Okay, like a freshly baked cookie made with real butter available right down the street at a.m. p.m. Or a savory breakfast sandwich I can grab in just a second at a.m. pM.
- [01:16]
B
I'm seeing a pattern here.
- [01:18]
C
Well yeah, we're talking about what I.
- [01:19]
B
Crave, which is anything from AM pm.
- [01:21]
C
What more could you want?
- [01:22]
D
Stop by AM PM where the snacks.
- [01:24]
C
And drinks are perfectly craveable and convenient. That's cravenience AM PM Too much good stuff everyone. It's me, Sam Stein, managing editor at the Bulwark and I'm joined by Katherine Rampel who's the offer of receipts. You gotta subscribe to it. It's great newsletter on the economy and all things that are going terribly wrong. Hopefully we can start Red Bank. Things are going right.
- [01:44]
B
Yeah, I would love to include more information about good things.
- [01:47]
C
Yeah, this is one of those cases where I'm rooting for a good upbeat newsletter. I don't always feel that way, but in this case I really wish you could write about more lifting things, which is not quite there yet. And that's true, I guess with today's jobs numbers so top line figures. And then I'll let you cook. We had a gain of 64,000 jobs in the past month. The unemployment rate ticked to 4.6%. That's the highest in four years. But the real headline was the October revisions down 105,000. That's primarily, although not exclusively, because of the exit of tens of thousands of federal workers took the buyouts and the riffs and they finally came to fruition in that data set. So, and then I, I would just say one last thing. Wage growth ticked back down or ticked down from where it's been, it's about 3.5%, barely beating inflation. So, you know, we were kind of debating in the morning shots, Slack Channel, how to describe this report. We put mixed and then we said, no, it's not mixed, it's pretty yucky. I don't know yucky. I think yucky is a good way. I don't know if that's the word we use, but maybe you should have been in the Slack Channel to help us out there.
- [02:54]
B
Sorry.
- [02:55]
C
It's all right. No, but how would you put it? How do you describe it?
- [02:57]
B
Yeah, I, I think it was not great, particularly like, even if you take it at face value, and I'm going to say in a second why, maybe you shouldn't. The numbers were not great. We had job losses in three of the past six months. Now beyond that, manufacturing, for example, has been losing months for, for the, excuse me, losing jobs for the past seven consecutive months. So manufacturing appears to be in recession despite all of the promises of a manufacturing renaissance because of Trump's trade wars, which was always BS but whatever, the numbers do not look great. So there are a bunch of things that are not great in there. And then like I said, there's what the numbers say. And then maybe how you should look at the numbers, like what gloss you should put on it.
- [03:45]
C
All right, so how should we look at the numbers?
- [03:47]
B
Yeah. So Fed Chair Jay Powell said last week that his staff at the Federal Reserve think that the numbers are being overstated by about 60,000 jobs each month. Meaning that as lackluster and maybe bad ish as these numbers look on their face, like they're actually overstating how good the economy is. So can I ask you, why would.
- [04:16]
C
That be the case? Like, I guess, look, I mean, it doesn't make sense to me that they, I mean, it does, I guess, because there's always revisions. But why would it be overstating versus understating?
- [04:25]
B
Yeah, so he, his staff thinks that they're overstating it by about 60,000 jobs a month. Like I don't know what the exact number is, but it's not that unusual actually to have big revisions like this or to be expecting big revisions when the economy is turning. And that has to do with the fact that, let's say a lot of businesses are closing their doors right now. That messes up the, the methodology, that messes up the survey. Right. So like if you, if you're only getting responses from businesses that are still open and you're losing responses from businesses that are shuttered, that are shuttered entirely, you have, you're gonna have selection issues. It's basically just like whenever the economy turns, you have problems like this in the data because you don't exactly know if you're capturing a representative sample anymore.
- [05:20]
C
Gotcha.
- [05:21]
B
So it doesn't have anything to do with like Donald Trump cooking the books. To be clear, I am worried in the long run about Donald Trump cooking the books in this data, among others. But in this particular case, this is not about conspiracy theories. It's just like a methodological problem that often happens.
- [05:36]
C
I was going to tell my usual joke, which is the only way to solve this issue is to hire EG Antoni to run the bls. But we already lost that option. Okay, let's say you were, let's say Catherine, that they gave you the job of being Caroline Levitt for a day. Okay. And you had to like, please, no, no, you're gonna, you're gonna, you're gonna play as well. And you had to pick a few data points and you could try to create a narrative that made the, put the best gloss possible on these numbers. What would you say?
- [06:05]
B
Well, I guess I would say that job growth on net has been positive. And is that true?
- [06:15]
C
What is, what is the net though?
- [06:17]
B
It's like, it's like 17,000 jobs or something since the beginning.
- [06:22]
C
17,000 jobs a month since April.
- [06:25]
B
Yeah. So it's not great. They would also argue that, well, we're no longer seeing jobs being taken by immigrants. That's the line that they've primarily been using. Now it is true that pre Donald Trump there were indications that most if not all of the job growth for some of the past few years was about, was, was due to immigrants. But I would say that's a good thing. That was about demographics. It was like old native born Americans were retiring and leaving the, the labor force and you had an increase of younger working age immigrants coming in. It's not. That doesn't mean that Younger native born Americans were losing their jobs. No, there just weren't enough of them to fill all of the jobs that were going around. So, so it's like they would tell this story as like all of the immigrants were taking jobs. No, there were more immigrants coming in and, and filling jobs that would have otherwise gone empty. So now they're saying like, oh, there are no, you know, the number of immigrants in jobs or taking new jobs.
- [07:36]
C
Is, but the numbers show that it's not actually. I mean the immigration, the non, the native born unemployment rate has gone from 3.9% to 4.3%. So native born Americans are actually more likely to be unemployed now than at the beginning.
- [07:51]
B
I know, that's why I'm saying doesn't even make sense. I'm trying to like tie myself into knots.
- [07:57]
C
Why don't we.
- [07:57]
B
Defending, defending the data.
- [08:00]
C
Let's just play what they would say. So on this morning, Kevin Hassett, one of the top economic advisers in the administration, went on CNBC to talk about this. And let's play a clip and I'll just get your reaction to it on the other side.
- [08:11]
D
You don't think it'll cause any disruption shorter term though? I guess that's the question. And again, we don't know the longer term because when we have intelligence that exceeds our own. Kevin, I think all, all bets are all off to a certain extent. But you're not concerned at all about even a short term dislocation? I mean, the buggy whip manufacturers certainly had to find something else to do for a period of time. Yeah, they had to be unemployed. No, no, but think about this way. The buggy, the buggy whip guy had to find another job. And how did he do it? Like he maybe had a newspaper with want ads in the back. But now we've got a person who might have to find a new job who can search throughout the whole country on all these websites that tell you where the jobs are. And the number of job openings in the country is in the millions and millions. And so moving people from one job to another has never been easier and faster. And I, and the computer makes that even just more inefficient a process.
- [09:01]
C
Easier to find a job because the Internet.
- [09:04]
B
Look, I understand the point he is trying to make. Yes, it is probably a more efficient process today than it was 100 years ago to find new jobs. But it's not like losing your job suddenly becomes a lot easier. Like would he use this same argument when talking with manufacturing workers whose plants, whose plants have closed no, obviously not. Like we, we saw this, including in the, you know, the industry that this administration has been promising to revive. They've been promising this manufacturing renaissance. Again, we've seen seven straight months of job losses in manufacturing. And that is, is just like one great example of how there are these disproportionate localized effects of job loss of major technological change. I mean, like a part of the, a large part of the reason why we've seen a longer term decline, by the way, in manufacturing is a, is, is not just trade. It's largely about robots, like people being replaced by robots. AI is a grander version of people being replaced by robots. And it's really hard to retrain people immediately, particularly if like your area has been, the one employer in your area has been depressed, has been, has closed. It's not like it's a seamless transition you might have seen. So the, the most charitable way to interpret what he said is that like, maybe AI will create jobs. We don't know.
- [10:43]
C
Well, I remember Howard Lutnick at one point in the administration was talking about all the people who are going to have tiny little screwdrivers screwing in the things. But yeah, no, that's dislocation and we've tried various versions of this before. I, I mean the whole sort of thing. Yeah, it's like when the steel, when the steel business was falling apart and you're going to retrain people to be, I don't know, tech workers or something like that. And it's just like in theory, I guess as an academic exercise, you could do one for one. But like, are you going to relocate your entire family? Are you going to actually, are people going to take pride in those jobs? Are they going to be good at those jobs? I mean, it's not just transferable skill sets.
- [11:18]
B
So yeah, whenever, whenever there's a big technological disruption, it is true that there is creative destruction, that some jobs are lost and new jobs are created. But the new jobs that are created don't necessarily go to the people who lost their jobs. There are winners, losers. And the mistake we have made as a country over and over and over and over again is not compensating the losers and not helping them get back on their feet. Whether we're talking about trade or we're talking about technological disruption. And this is exactly the plan going into what is likely to be a major disruption by AI from this administration, they're like, oh, well, it'll just solve itself.
- [11:57]
C
I was just going to ask you that. Like, that was my next Question, which is, okay, let's say, and I think this isn't a controversial assessment, that we're just at the beginning of this AI process and it's going to be far more disruptive in the months and years ahead. What would you do if you were an administration trying to, I don't know, put up some buffers for the economy around that you would at least take seriously the idea of some sort of regulatory framework. Right. And I don't detect that at all from this white as it's sort of like a Wild west approach.
- [12:27]
B
Well, I think it's actually a very difficult problem to solve. Like, I'm sympathetic to the idea that there should be some regulatory guardrails, but I don't know what they should be, to be honest. And I think it takes people a lot smarter than I am in this particular area to figure out what we need. What's going to, like, just inhibit innovation and not actually protect anyone, or what's going to protect people and allow 1,000 flowers to bloom? I think it's a really. I think it is genuinely a really, like, I know it's easy to be flip and be like, oh, you know, just shut it all down and this is going to destroy the economy. And I think actually we want to make sure that AI brings the benefits that AI could potentially bring, whether it's about productivity or inventing new drugs or whatever. Like, there are a lot of great applications that might be in the offing because of AI.
- [13:18]
C
But what would you do with respect to the labor market?
- [13:20]
B
With respect to the labor market, I think it's about making sure that people have access to retraining and education. And for all I know, we might want to have some sort of, you know, like, we have trade adjustment assistance right now for people who are displaced by jobs. You may want to have some kind of safety net program. I'm just thinking aloud that helps people get on their feet or pay their bills if they've been displaced by this kind of technological change. I don't know that it needs to be tailored to AI specifically. I don't even know how you would prove that your job was taken by AI. But having a robust safety net so that if people lose their jobs, they're not destitute and that they have the ability to feed their families, I think is generally a good thing. Whatever the cause is.
- [14:10]
C
Start with the podcasters losing their jobs.
- [14:13]
B
Yeah, I mean, one thing that's one thing that's going to be different here. Most likely about the job losses due to the AI versus job losses due to other technological disruptions is that it's mostly going to be white collar job, white collar workers who are displaced as opposed to blue collar workers. So, you know, it's a different population. It's not a population that this administration is particularly sympathetic to. Right. Because white collar workers more educated, more liberal. Yep. Tend to be more liberal. We've seen this huge bifurcation along educational lines, So I don't know that they're super motivated to help people, but it's going to be very disruptive. And the destruction or the attempted destruction of our entire education system, our higher education system in particular, is probably not going to be complementary to all of this either.
- [15:03]
C
Right. Well, I guess to put a bow on this, the reason I was, I kind of veered towards the AI component about the discussion is, well, you hear from the administrations, you know, and I guess they have to because of the politics of it. But in a very bullish assessment of what 2026 is going to bring, they say, well, you know, the big beautiful bill, it's really going to kick in. The stimulus from the tax cuts is really going to kick in. We're still sort of the doldrums of the Biden administration will finally be passed us. All the cuts that Elon and Doge did to the, you know, federal workforce are finally baked in, so we don't have to deal with any of that. And 2026 is just going to be gangbusters. And that's obviously quite an optimistic.
- [15:43]
B
Yeah, take.
- [15:44]
C
I don't know if that's.
- [15:45]
B
I think it is, it is willfully.
- [15:47]
C
Stupid to explain why, to close this.
- [15:50]
B
Out because there's a lot of fragility in the economy right now, largely caused by Donald Trump's own policies, including the trade wars, the deportations, the attempt to crush the Fed, you know, attempt to crush the statistical agencies. All of those things are bad for the economy. To the extent that we're talking about AI's effects on the economy right now, I think AI is probably going to have big productivity gains in the long run. In the near term, as we've been discussing, there's going to be some severe pain from people who are displaced by AI who are laid off because they're no longer needed. Graphic designers, podcasters, I don't know, lots of white collar workers. Yeah, I know. Tiny, tiny violins for us. So there's going to be some pain in the near term that's not about Donald Trump per se. There's also potentially going to be some pain if the AI bubble pops. And what I mean by that is while there is a lot of potential for AI to improve productivity and maybe living standards in the long run, there's so much money chasing after being the big AI winner right now that that is essentially propping up the stock market. It's propping up investment in the United States. And not all of that is going to pay off. Somebody will win big, maybe a few somebodies will win big, and we'll have, you know, big gains, I hope that are shared more broadly by the population. I don't know that they will be, but I hope so. In the meantime, all of the companies that turn out to be also rans that have been investing big in these data centers, you know, they may all, they may simultaneously pull out and say, like, okay, like we've been chasing this big win, we lost, and now we're pulling our investment out. If everybody does that simultaneously, that's going to be really painful. To the extent that all of that investment has been propping up economic activity and the administration doesn't seem to be paying any attention or giving any credence to that big risk. They're like, oh, look, the economy is doing well. Everybody said that the economy is going to crash because of tariffs. And look, it's doing super well. The stock market's doing super well. It's doing well because of these big investments. And by the way, the things that are, that are being purchased, the inputs that are being purchased for these data centers, those are largely exempt from, from tariffs. So they've been insulated from all of this. If that sector implodes because there's one winner and everybody else loses, you could see massive, massive pain ricocheting around the rest of the economy. Again, this administration is not paying any attention to that either.
- [18:43]
C
Well, you're so uplifting. Thank you so much for this. On that, I come back to the fact that if just EJ and Tony were at the bls, all this would be fine. No, I'm just joking. And if EJ's out there, he does a bunch of stuff. I kid ej, thank you for your service. Katherine Rampel, author of the Receipts Newsletter. Everyone should subscribe to it. You have a good one coming out. What is it Tuesday? You have one coming on Thursday that I'm really excited about. It's not about the, the numbers, although it has to do with the economy. Obviously. Everyone should subscribe to that. Subscribe to this feed for great bull work takes. Thank you all for watching. We'll talk to you soon.
- [19:16]
D
Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half price, not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price.
- [19:32]
B
So that means a half day.
- [19:35]
D
Yeah, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront.
- [19:39]
B
Payment of 45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first 3 months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of network's busy taxes and fees extra. See mint mobile.com.