Unemployment rate hit 4-year high in November even as economy added jobs

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/unemployment-rate-hit-4-year-high-in-november-even-as-economy-added-jobs-133749371.html?.tsrc=1340&ncid=crm_-1285232-20251216-582–A&bt_user_id=JPZxZ2%2B2950iiQYymBeM6e1wGYjroGnMtjT%2BFo%2BrAtWqAaQtJrAZ0t1kdrjs5V4loa6YUhaN%2BwL2XwxZ%2B0uHvppM1JerRSaVzcBcQFPrD9iD79KdozrKbcgnzdTwMpMM&bt_ts=1765895430253

The US economy added 64,000 jobs in November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The US economy added 64,000 jobs in November as the unemployment rate crept up to 4.6%, according to Labor Department data published Tuesday.

The unemployment rate is now at its highest level since September 2021.

The November jobs report, originally scheduled to be published Dec. 5 before the 43-day government shutdown delayed multiple economic data releases, comes as Americans stress over rising layoffs and a frozen job market that can feel impossible to break into. Tuesday’s report suggested those conditions persisted toward the end of the year.

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg had expected a gain of 50,000 jobs. The healthcare sector, which has fueled job growth this year, added 46,000 positions for the month.

November’s data additionally showed that the number of people employed part-time for economic reasons rose to 5.5 million in November, an increase of 909,000 over September. Meanwhile, the long-term unemployment rate, or the share of unemployed people who have been without jobs for 27 weeks or more, was 24.3% in November, down from August’s high of 25.7% but higher than the rate of 23.1% seen a year ago.

“The US economy is in a hiring recession,” Heather Long, chief economist at the Navy Federal Credit Union, wrote in a post on X.

“Almost no jobs have been added since April,” Long added. “Wage gains are slowing. 710,000 more people are unemployed now versus November 2024.”

Nancy Vanden Houten, lead US Economist at Oxford Economics, said in a statement that the government shutdown appears to have contributed to the increase in the unemployment rate.

“The number of permanent job losers, which had been ticking higher, declined. Labor force growth also contributed to the increase,” she said.

Partial data for October, also published Tuesday, showed a loss of 105,000 positions. The unemployment rate for the month will not be released. Bank of America economist Shruti Mishra had noted that October’s payroll numbers would be affected by the delayed impact of DOGE-led government job cuts, since many federal employees who opted for the “deferred resignation program” officially left their positions Sept. 30.

The federal government lost 162,000 jobs in October and 6,000 in November, according to the Labor Department.

The last official reading of the labor market, published in November, was pushed back by several weeks and had only offered data for September, showing an unexpected uptick in jobs after the economy actually lost jobs in August and June, marking the first negative employment months since 2020.

Consensus-driven leadership prevails

A striking thing about this week’s flow of news out of the Federal Reserve is how normal it was — at least compared to some of the possibilities that appeared in play last month for a breakdown in the institution’s longstanding norms.

Why it matters: 

In the Fed’s decision to cut interest rates on Wednesday, and the unanimous reappointment of 11 of 12 reserve bank presidents announced yesterday, it was clear that Powell has retained his ability to steer a seemingly fractious organization toward consensus.

  • The next chair may yet shift the institution toward a process with more open dissent and count-the-votes proceduralism, as is seen at the Bank of England and as some Trump associates have advocated.
  • But for now, Powell looks clearly in charge despite lame-duck status (his term is up in May).

State of play: 

Just a few weeks ago, it looked plausible that there would be the most open dissent from the Fed’s December interest rate decision in decades. Five officials of 12 Federal Open Market Committee voting members had expressed significant reservations about a rate cut.

  • Three officials who were publicly skeptical of cutting rates further — reserve bank presidents Susan Collins (Boston) and Alberto Musalem (St. Louis), and governor Michael Barr — elected to follow the leader when it was time to cast their vote.
  • While there were three dissents — two opposing the cut, one favoring going further — that’s not terribly abnormal. There were three dissents in September 2019, for example, also in opposite directions.

What they’re saying: 

“After the high drama/psychodrama from the October press conference onwards, the end result was more business-as-usual on the part of the Powell Fed,” wrote Krishna Guha and colleagues at Evercore ISI in a note.

  • In his news conference, “Powell was calm and poised, not on the ropes as in October, with a governance crisis averted,” they wrote.

The big picture: 

Fed watchers were braced for the possibility that the every-five-years process of reappointing reserve bank presidents would generate fireworks, an opportunity for Trump-appointed governors to try to create some upheaval at the Fed (or at least make some noise).

  • It came and went yesterday without signs of public dissent, as the board announced that 11 of 12 reserve bank presidents had been reappointed with “unanimous concurrence” by members of the Board of Governors.
  • Not only were the 11 officials re-upped, the three Trump-appointed governors did not object.
  • The odd man out, Atlanta Fed president Raphael Bostic, had previously announced his retirement at the end of his term in February. But one bank president stepping down at the end of a term is not unheard of; it last happened at the end of 2015 with Minneapolis Fed president Narayana Kocherlakota.

Between the lines: 

On paper, the Fed chair holds only one vote out of seven on the Board of Governors and one of 12 on the FOMC. Their ability to lead the institution depends on a mix of hard and soft power.

  • In the hard power department, the chair oversees the staff and sets meeting agendas. In the soft power department, they must persuade their colleagues to line up with the policy path they believe is correct.
  • Powell has been skilled at using both — and displayed those skills this week.

CEO sentiment improves, but hiring outlook is gloomy

CEO sentiment increased for the third consecutive quarter, even as America’s most prominent executives expect underlying job market conditions to remain weak.

Why it matters: 

The economic outlook among CEOs has steadily improved since plunging in the aftermath of President Trump’s initiation of the global trade war.

  • Under the hood, however, there is evidence that structural economic changes — including the proliferation of AI — are weighing on hiring intentions, a warning sign for the labor market.

By the numbers: 

The Business Roundtable’s CEO Economic Outlook Index rose by 4 points in its fourth-quarter survey, which was fielded from the final weeks of November through earlier this month.

  • The index is still shy of the highest level of the Trump 2.0 era and slightly below the historical average of 83.

Zoom in: 

The increase reflects a more upbeat view of company revenue in the next six months: Expectations for sales rose 6 points, though the survey does not ask respondents to adjust for the prospect of higher prices.

  • Plans for capital expenditures — investments in equipment, buildings or software — ticked up 2 points, following a 10-point surge in the previous quarter.
  • Hiring plans also improved relative to last quarter — up 4 points — though it is the survey’s lone indicator below the level that signals growth.

What they’re saying: 

“Notably this quarter, more CEOs plan to reduce employment than increase it for the third quarter in a row – the lowest three-quarter average since the Great Recession,” Business Roundtable CEO Joshua Bolten said in a statement.

  • About one-quarter of CEOs say they will increase hiring, while 35% say employment will shrink at their respective firms. The remaining 40% plan to keep hiring steady.
  • A smaller share of CEOs plan to slash workers relative to last quarter, but the figures still show a notable shift among top executives.
  • Consider the results from this time last year: A similar share of CEOs expected no change in employment levels, but just 21% said they anticipated cutting jobs, while 38% planned to increase hiring.

“CEOs’ softening hiring plans reflect an uncertain economic environment in which AI is driving sizeable [capital expenditures] growth and productivity gains while tariff volatility is increasing costs, particularly for tariff-exposed companies, including small businesses,” Bolten said today.

The big picture: 

The in-the-dumps hiring plans signaled by big firm CEOs — alongside a string of layoff announcements in recent months — signal a possible shift for the steady-state labor market that has persisted in recent years.

  • Powell raised the possibility that the labor market might be even weaker than government data suggests.
  • The economy has added a monthly average of 40,000 payroll jobs since April. But “we think there’s an overstatement in these numbers, by about 60,000, so that would be negative 20,000 per month,” Powell said at yesterday’s press conference.
  • “The labor market has continued to cool gradually, maybe just a touch more gradually than we thought,” he added.

The bottom line: 

CEOs feel more optimistic, though that confidence boost is not expected to translate into more hiring — an unusual dynamic for the economy.

  • “Although the results signal that CEOs are approaching the first half of 2026 with some caution, they are starting to see opportunities for growth,” Cisco CEO Chuck Robbins, who chairs the Business Roundtable, said in a statement.
  • “With the Index near its average, it reflects the resilience of the U.S. economy,” he added, citing pro-growth tax policies and fewer regulations.

America’s Three Economies: Vibes Sinking, Data Treading Water, Elites Sailing Away

Roosevelt Forward bar chart showing the share of jobs added in Health Care and Social Assistance from 2015 to 2025. 2024 has a large spike near 90%, while other years, except 2020-2021, are below 30%. 2020 and 2021 data are missing.

As we approach the end of 2025, it’s a good time to take stock of the US economy. There’s justifiable concern that this year has entrenched a K-shaped economy, where the have-mores leave the haves and have-nots behind. But there are more than two stories going on right now.

First, the vibes are bad (just ask anyone coming out of a grocery store). Second, the real economy—prices, jobs, and consumer and business spending, among other factors—is worse than it was a year ago, but holding up OK (4.4 percent unemployment, GDP growth over 2 percent, and inflation around 3 percent is hardly the stuff of recession). Third, a small number of people and companies are doing extremely well.

Depending on where you stand, you’re hearing very different things about the economy, but a pretty consistent theme is an administration that has not delivered on promises made to voters—while delivering to the president’s family and friends.

Under the Hood, the Story Gets More Complicated

It’s been a predictably rough year for the US economy. Tariffs have raised goods prices and hit manufacturing jobs, immigration crackdowns have crippled the labor force, and reversing energy policies dramatically has unwound an energy investment boom. As a result, the job market is softer, prices are still high, and inflation is up and apparently rising based on the data flow that has (finally) started to trickle back in.

That said, if the data are weaker, the economic mood of the country is, in a word, awful. Consumer sentiment in October was only exceeded by lows from the worst of the early 1980s recession, the peak of the 2022 inflation, and the months following the “Liberation Day” tariff announcement this year. Since January, consumer sentiment has plunged, giving up essentially all gains from a steady rise after the inflation peak of 2022.

That pessimism isn’t purely emotional—it reflects months of higher grocery and utility bills. In fact, across both the major household expectations surveys, families expect inflation to keep going up next year—which most economists expect as well. And roughly twice as many consumers surveyed by the Conference Board expect the jobs picture to be weaker rather than stronger in the next six months.

This view is both pessimistic and realistic given the data we’ve seen so far this year. It’s unmistakably true that the labor market and the inflation picture are weaker than last fall. What’s worrying to the wonkier economy watchers, however, is that the pressures on both inflation and unemployment are in the wrong direction. There are real risks that both inflation and the jobs picture could get worse, but (short of policy reversals) few predictable shocks are likely to make either improve in the near term.

Job growth has stayed positive but slowed dramatically, from an average 167,000 jobs a month in January to just 109,000 in September (and will likely be revised down further with annual revisions early next year). Over 87 percent of all jobs added this year are in health care and social assistance (a given in an aging country), while the rest of the economy has added just 71,000 jobs all year. And there’s little sign that tariffs are about to bring down prices, nor are there signs that the demand side of the economy is about to pick up.

It’s Not Great, but There’s Plenty of Time to Panic Later

The closer you are to the data, the less pessimistic you probably are right now. But, as we can see in recent Fed meeting minutes, the debate is largely between two camps: The first is those who think the labor market is middling and the risks of rising inflation are serious. The second is those who think the risks of rising inflation are less worrisome than the chances the labor market deteriorates further.

It’s clearly too soon to panic about a recession, and the best labor market data we have say things are holding up well by historical standards—September’s 4.4 percent unemployment is better than about 80 percent of months since 2000—it’s just that there’s little to suggest things are about to improve significantly.

That said, the economy continues to chug along on the strength of spending by resilient, yet quite frustrated, consumers. The final reading on second quarter GDP shows US consumer spending keeping the economy going, even as savings deplete.

Early holiday spending numbers look strong, so it seems like US consumers are going to muddle through tariffs. The distribution of consumer spending remains pretty narrow—high earners are doing much more of the broad-based spending in the economy

However, if you get your news from stock markets, or even from retirement statements, the world is different entirely, and much more optimistic—at least from a high level. After a massive swoon in April, the US stock market has had a great year, powered by tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy and an AI investment boom that looks bubble-like to some inside it.

Yet, like in the real economy, the more you dig into the data the farther from the extremes your views can go. Job and corporate earnings growth are concentrated in increasingly narrow slices of the economy. Corporate earnings are notoriously concentrated at this point, with the top 1.4 percent of S&P 500 companies accounting for almost all of stock market gains this year—just seven companies are now one-third of the value of S&P 500.

How Do We Square These Takes?

Overall, the data are on a more even keel than either the awful vibes most Americans are feeling from an affordability crisis or the anxiously warm vibes of investors. We’re not living through the economic boom tech investors see everywhere, nor the near-term dystopia consumers are feeling. The economy is weaker than last year and likely to continue to soften a bit more over the first part of next year, but the good news is at least for now things are not as bad in the data as in the headlines. The bad news is . . . that’s the good news.

Segment 5 – Why Is U.S. Healthcare So Expensive?

Segment 5 – Why Is U.S. Healthcare So Expensive?

Slide06

 

This segment reviews the “Perfect Storm” of reasons for unrestrained increase of healthcare spending in the U.S.

In Episode 4, we zeroed in on what I call the Real Problem with healthcare — relentlessly rising costs.

In this Episode, we will look at why the US spends so much on healthcare. As you can imagine, there are many reasons, not just one. In fact, it’s a perfect storm of bad reasons. We will also look whether we are getting our money’s worth.

Here’s the list. Part 1 & Part 2.

Slide06

Slide07

We will go through each one.

Natural Spending Drivers

Let’s start with some natural drivers of health spending, which are understandable and expected. First, as the population grows, so will health spending. Likewise, as the proportion of older people increases, so will spending. We also expect health spending to increase slowly with inflation. New technologies and medicines increase cost, but we hope will give dramatic benefits. For example, during my 40-year practice lifetime I have seen the introduction of new drugs for diabetes, blood pressure, and virus infections including HIV and flu. I have seen new ultrasound, CT and MRI diagnostics. I have seen cardiac caths, by-passes and joint replacements. These new things are expensive but well worth the cost.

Slide08

But health spending grows from 1-1/2 to 4 times the rate of inflation, much more than would be explained by natural drivers, as we saw previously.

Slide09

Fee for Service Payments

So, let’s look at the other reasons. First and foremost, to my way of thinking, is fee-for-service. Doctors in the US – unlike other countries where they are salaried – get paid for piecework. If a surgeon doesn’t operate, he doesn’t get paid. If a specialist doesn’t have a patient scheduled, HE doesn’t get paid. Money is a powerful incentive. So we should not be surprised if doctors increase their own volume of services, many times unconsciously.

Health Insurance Hides Cost

The next big reason is our health insurance. Until recently premiums were paid by the employer and out-of-pocket copays were minimal. Healthcare felt free to most of us. Most of us had no idea what our care was costing the system, and cared little. Talk about a perfect storm!

Imperfect Market 

Why didn’t market forces keep down costs and spending. Many politicians and reformers think competition as the simple solution to the healthcare cost problem. But economists will tell you that healthcare is not a pure market;  they refer to it as “imperfect.” The reasons are first that no one knows the true price of anything. Have you ever tried to sort out a hospital bill? Ridiculous!

Second, markets rely on buyer and seller having equal footing to negotiate, but most patients dare not quibble with their doctor. Doctors get their feathers ruffled when patients challenge their advice. Third, to make matters worse, patients are a “captive market” – they are often suffering, frightened for their life, and desperate for immediate relief, not exactly a strong bargaining position. Fourth, doctors can control demand. There’s an old joke about the level of eyesight loss that needs a cataract operation – if there’s one doctor in town it’s 20/100, if two doctors it’s 20/80 and if three doctors in town it’s only 20/60.

Administrative Costs

Next is administrative costs. Some economists estimate that up to ¼ of all health spending is for administration, not actual care. This is not surprising knowing how complicated we make our delivery system and financing system. Other countries have one delivery system and one payment system. US has 600,000 separate doctors, 5,500 separate hospitals, and 35 different insurance companies, not counting Medicare and Medicaid. Doctors used to drown in papers; now we spend up to 2 hours doing computer work for every hour of patient care. Don’t you love it?

For comparison, Medicare reports only 2% administrative costs (but some other costs are hidden elsewhere in government).

Inefficiency & Waste

Some other spending drivers include inefficiency. I include in this category unnecessary tests and treatments, as well as wasted effort due to incompatible computerized record systems – there are 632 separate electronics vendors in the US. If airports ran this way, each airline at each airport would have its own unique air traffic control computer that did not connect with each other. All in the name of free market.

Regards unnecessary treatments and procedures, a doctor at Dartmouth named John Wennberg pioneered using Big Data in the 1980s to look at numbers of prostate operations in each individual ZIP code, and found that surgeons in some regions were operating 13 times for often in highest areas than the lowest. Since prostate disease is relatively constant everywhere, this can only mean that doctors practice varies widely – the highest utilizers are doing too many operations.

Monopolies

Next is monopolies. Many small- and medium-sized towns and rural areas can only support one hospital. This creates monopolies with no market forces whatsoever to hold down charges.

Cost Shifting

Cost-shifting means that uninsured patients come to the ER for care. Since the ER doesn’t get paid, the ER shifts the Uninsured cost into the bill for INSURED and Medicare patients. The cost-shifting itself doesn’t increase the costs, but getting care in an ER instead of doctor’s office is the most expensive possible place for care.

New-Technology Policy

The FDA new-technology policy means that FDA rules say that it will approve any new drug or treatment if it shows even the slightest statistical benefit, no matter how small. Some cancer drugs are approved that extend life by only a few weeks. Some medicines are approved, even if the number needed to treat is 100. For example, for some new cholesterol medications, 100 patients need to be treated for 5 years before we see even 1 heart attack prevented. That’s a lot of patients, and a lot of doses, and a lot of dollars. By comparison, since half of appendicitis patients die without treatment, and almost all with appendectomy surgery survive and live happily ever after, the calculated number-needed-to-treat is only 2. So appendectomies are a good valued, but cholesterol medication (for otherwise healthy people) is questionable value.

Non-Costworthy Marginal Benefit

Here is another way of looking at value. As we go from left to right in this graph, we are spending more and more on health care. The more we spend, the higher the cumulative health benefit, at least to start. The first section (Roman number I) are very high value interventions like public health, sanitation, immunizations. The next section (Roman number II) are good value routine health treatments, including kidney dialysis and first-line chemotherapy for treatable cancers. But when we reach the third section (Roman number III), the benefits level off. Bypass surgery is less effective for older patients (and more risky); dying patients don’t survive in intensive care units and are miserable with tubes and futile breathing machines. If we spend even more we reach section Roman numeral IV in which no additional benefit is gained, just a lot of extra testing, treatments or drugs – these are wasted dollars. And if we keep spending more yet, we actually do more harm than good, and can even have deaths on the operating table or reactions to too many drugs. The US is well into section IV and in some cases section V. A lot of other richer countries think that they have already reached the point where spending more will give no benefit or possibly do more harm than good, even though they spend less than the US.

Slide19

In the next episode we will look at the ramifications of so much health spending on the US economy, politics and society. We will look at some potential threats if we do not start to control costs better.

I’ll see your then.