Notable weakness in today’s #jobs report for this morning. Payroll employment grew by 29,000 while downward revisions to both July and August totaled 60,000. July is now recording losses. The job growth in September (29,000) is slower than the prior 12 months (45,000).
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 8:39 AM · Oct 2, 2026

Payroll employment growth has averaged 50,000 over the last three months, but it continues to be relatively volatile. Four months of jobs losses over the last year, while some notable gains recorded as well. Economic uncertainty may be at play in the latest spell of weakness and downward revisions.

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 8:51 AM · Oct 2, 2026

Health care employment continues to chug along, adding 17,000 in September. Modest job growth in construction, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing. After a bounce back in August, state and local government recorded losses for September.

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 9:00 AM · Oct 2, 2026

Manufacturing employment grew modestly in September, a gain of 9,000 jobs. But the fact remains that manufacturing employment is still down 21,000 jobs since January 2025. It’s hardly a manufacturing boon.

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 9:00 AM · Oct 2, 2026

Federal employment lost 1,000 jobs in September, but the deficit in the federal workforce remains stark: there are 328,000 fewer federal jobs since January 2025. The vital services federal employees provide cannot be done without these essential workers.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 9:02 AM · Oct 2, 2026

Nominal wage growth continued to decelerate in Sept, rising just 3.0% over the year. Slowing nominal wage growth suggests workers don’t have the leverage to bid up their wages. Even with low unemployment, the depressed hires rate means workers aren’t finding new jobs to raise their wages.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 9:05 AM · Oct 2, 2026

Slower wage growth means that with higher prices, workers and their families continue to find it difficult to make ends meet. Year-over-year real wages fell for five months in a row. When the latest price data is out on October 14, we’ll learn if real wages have fallen for six months straight.

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 9:10 AM · Oct 2, 2026

Today’s #jobs data can be considered a solid bounce back to relative weakness in June and July. Job growth has averaged 71k over the last 3 months. Weaker numbers for leisure and hospitality and unusual July losses in local government education employment seems to have resolved in August.
#econsky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 7:43 AM · Sep 4, 2026

Leisure and hospitality and state/local government led the job growth for August, following by construction. Information and financial activities reported losses. Federal employment continues to trend down.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 7:51 AM · Sep 4, 2026

With August losses, federal employment is now down 336,000 jobs since January 2025. The vital services federal employees provide cannot be done without these essential workers.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 7:52 AM · Sep 4, 2026

The preliminary benchmark revisions were out last week, regular BLS communication needed for timely and accurate data. That release suggests there were 79,000 fewer jobs added than originally reported since Trump took office, including 178,000 fewer private sector jobs.

www.bls.gov/news.release…

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 7:59 AM · Sep 4, 2026

Nominal wage growth decelerated in August, rising just 3.1% over the year. Slowing nominal wage growth suggests workers don’t have the leverage to bid up their wages. Even with low unemployment, the depressed hires rate means workers aren’t finding new jobs to raise their wages.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 8:15 AM · Sep 4, 2026

Even though unemployment held steady, I have continuing concerns about the depressed hires rate. Those who are lucky enough to have a job are sitting tight while new entrants or long-term employed can’t find work. Long-term unemployment has been steadily rising led by those unemployed over a year.

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 8:37 AM · Sep 4, 2026

Weak #jobsreport all around
-Nonfarm payrolls fell by 23,000 (mostly driven by state and local losses)
-The unemployment rate ticked down for the “wrong” reasons as labor force participation and employment-to-population ratio softened
-Nominal wage growth decelerated to 3.2% over the year
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 7:47 AM · Aug 7, 2026

Large losses in the public sector in July (-53k), particularly in local education (-49.6k jobs). An initial look doesn’t suggest an issue with seasonal adjustment because losses were also registered in NSA data for June and July. Local education jobs have fallen by nearly 100k (-98.3k) since March.

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 8:01 AM · Aug 7, 2026

While public sector weakness in July was centered around state and local jobs, federal jobs ticked down by 3,000. Federal employment remains 327,000 below its January level. The vital services federal employees provide cannot be done without these essential workers (e.g. food inspectors).
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 8:12 AM · Aug 7, 2026

Although manufacturing employment ticked up slightly in July (+5k), manufacturing jobs are still down by 62k since January 2025.

Instead of adding these blue collar jobs, the manufacturing sector has lost 62,000 jobs since Trump took office.

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 8:16 AM · Aug 7, 2026

Nominal wage growth decelerates in July, rising just 3.2% over the year. Slowing nominal wage growth suggests workers don’t have the leverage to bid up their wages. And, along with rising prices, workers and their families continue to find it difficult to make ends meet.

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 8:26 AM · Aug 7, 2026

Today's jobs report came in weaker than expected. The economy added 57k jobs in June and prior months were revised down. April and May are a combined 74k lower than previously reported. Analysts believe the World Cup added 40k to June numbers—without that, job growth would have been 17k.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) July 2, 2026 at 8:48 AM

The household survey came in even weaker. While the topline unemployment rate ticked down, it happened for the wrong reasons as labor force participation fell by 720k while employment fell by 507k. Even the prime-age employment-to-population ratio, which had remained resilient, fell 0.6ppts in June.

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) July 2, 2026 at 8:58 AM

Given expectations around the World Cup, it's surprising to me that leisure and hospitality fell by 61k in June (and May growth was revised down by 30k). Perhaps those gains are offset by reduced discretionary spending as real wages fall.
#NumbersDay #EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) July 2, 2026 at 9:18 AM

We won't get the inflation data for June until July 14, but recent price data suggest year over year real wages likely fell in June. Workers and their families are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet and real wages are most surely now below where they were in January 2025.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) July 2, 2026 at 9:18 AM

Manufacturing employment is crawling along, gaining 3k jobs in June, all in durable goods. After downward revisions, manufacturing lost jobs in May.

Since January 2025 when Trump took office, the manufacturing sector has lost 75,000 jobs.

#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) July 2, 2026 at 9:30 AM

While there's been little change this year, federal employment has shrunk an alarming 324,000 jobs since January 2025. The vital services federal employees provide cannot be done without these essential workers.
#NumbersDay #EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) July 2, 2026 at 9:31 AM

The latest jobs report came in stronger than expected this morning. The economy added 172,000 jobs in May and the unemployment rate held steady at 4.3%. Nominal wage growth continued to decelerate, further exacerbating affordability as prices rise.
#EconSky #NumbersDay @epi.org

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 7:46 AM · Jun 5, 2026

Job growth was strongest in leisure and hospitality, state and local governments, and health care. Losses continued in financial activities in May.

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 7:58 AM · Jun 5, 2026

Manufacturing employment rose by 7,000 in May, slowly clawing back the large losses last year.

Since January 2025 when Trump took office, the manufacturing sector has lost 68,000 jobs.

#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 8:00 AM · Jun 5, 2026

While there’s been little change this year, federal employment has shrunk an alarming 333k jobs since Jan 2025. The vital services federal employees provide cannot be done without these essential workers.
#NumbersDay #EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 8:08 AM · Jun 5, 2026

Nominal wage growth continued to slow in May, now 3.4% over the year. While we don’t get the May inflation data until next week, it’s very likely, given recent trends, that real wages will continue to fall and workers and their families will find it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) 8:14 AM · Jun 5, 2026

Key takeaways:

• The vast majority (85%) of young college graduates work in occupations that have seen strong employment growth in recent years.

• Young college graduates, like college graduates in general, are more likely to work in AI-exposed occupations than the overall workforce—and considerably more likely than young noncollege workers.
• But both young college graduates and young noncollege workers have experienced rising unemployment over the last three years, suggesting AI is not likely to be driving labor market weakness.

In the first blog post of our Class of 2026 series, we showed that the strong labor market for young college graduates of the early 2020s had begun softening in recent years. A growing share of young college graduates are seeking employment, but because their employment rates have not kept up with this job search, their unemployment rate has risen faster than the overall rate. The second blog post in the series discussed the industries where young college graduates worked. We found that recent graduates work in growing industries, but are forced to enter a weakened labor market with less job turnover, deteriorating their ability to break in. Young college graduates work in the tech sector at a similar rate to college graduates, and there is no clear evidence that tech sector employment is significantly decreased despite warnings about the advancement of AI.

In this blog post, we delve deeper into the occupations where young college graduates are likely to work.1 We examine whether it has been relatively more difficult to secure employment in these fields as the labor market has weakened. We also scour the data for signs that exposure to AI-related occupations may disproportionately affect the prospects for young college graduates as they enter the labor market.

Most young college graduates work in occupations with strong growth

Over 60% of young college graduates work in professional and related occupations or management, business, and financial occupations. Figure A displays the share of employment in each occupation or occupation grouping for young college graduates ages 22 to 27, all college graduates, and young workers without a four-year college degree. Occupations in the figure appear in order of the share of young college graduates employed in each, from largest to smallest. Over half (62.8%) of young college graduates work in professional, management, business, and financial occupations. Workers of any age with a college degree are slightly more likely to work in those two occupations (64.5%), though more likely in management occupations than professional occupations. On the other hand, nearly half (48.3%) of young noncollege workers are in service occupations or farming, construction, installation, and production occupations.

Figure A

Figure B shows the change in employment in each occupation between 2019 and 2026 and between 2023 and 2026, arranged in the same order as Figure A for comparison. Since 2019, management, business, and financial occupations and transportation and material moving occupations experienced the most growth, followed by professional and related occupations.

The top four occupations for job growth since 2023 account for 85% of young college graduate employment. The occupations with employment losses over the last three years were more likely to employ young noncollege workers than college graduates. It doesn’t appear that the occupations where young college graduates tend to work have been hit particularly hard in the last couple of years.

Figure B

While there has been job growth among occupations that tend to be filled by young college graduates, some worry about an increase in labor market underutilization, i.e., when workers with a college degree wind up working in jobs that typically don’t require one. Using O*NET data2, the New York Federal Reserve tracks this type of labor market underutilization. While the share of recent college graduates working at a job that doesn’t require a college degree has ticked up slightly over the last three years, it remains lower than it was for workers who graduated in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Even as late as 2017, young college graduates were working at these noncollege jobs at higher rates than they are today.

While college-educated workers are in more AI-exposed occupations, this does not appear to be driving labor market weakness

Much has been written in the last few years about AI exposure and its impact on the labor market. Using data from ADP, a large payroll processing company, Brynjolfsson, Chandar, and Chen find that entry-level workers in AI-exposed occupations—particularly AI uses that automate, not augment their work—have experienced an employment decline larger than that of older workers in the same occupations and all workers in less exposed occupations, explaining some of their stagnant overall employment growth. Atkinson and Yamco also find that declines in AI-exposed occupations are tied to lack of hiring rather than layoffs, hitting harder for young people attempting to enter the labor market. The second blog post in our series noted an across-the-board slowdown in hiring—which hurts the job prospects of all young workers, not only those in the industries most affected by AI.

On the other hand, researchers at the Yale Budget Lab argue that there has only been a slight increase in the shift in the occupation mix of employment, which would be evidence of AI automating jobs. They find that high AI-exposed occupations—determined by the top quintile of AI exposure—have yet to show declining employment, so no “dissimilarity” between young and older college graduates in terms of occupation mix has materialized. Raderman also finds that there isn’t strong evidence that AI is responsible for weaker labor market outcomes for recent college graduates, using evidence from Tillerman on college majors paired with change in unemployment.

Given the variation in assessments, we wanted to take a look at the data ourselves. Gimbel, Kendall, and Kulsakdinun have done an admirable job of summarizing the literature that attempts to classify AI exposure and propose a weighted aggregate measure of AI exposure.3 We employ this measure to investigate whether young college graduates may be more likely to be at risk in AI-exposed occupations than other workers.

In Figure C, we display the AI exposure of occupations weighted by the share of the entire workforce in each occupation. Moving from the left to the right on the figure increases AI intensity. For instance, professional and office & administrative support occupations are more AI exposed (to the right), while production, transportation, and service occupations are less AI exposed (to the left). Overall, the mean AI exposure score is 0.23.4

Figure C

In Figure D, we show the distribution of select demographic groups by occupation and AI exposure. As with earlier analysis, we compare young college graduates with all college graduates and young noncollege workers, in separate panels in the figure.

According to the aggregate measure, college graduates do have higher AI exposure in the labor market than the overall workforce. It is clear there is more mass in the direction of higher exposure (to the right) and their mean exposure is 1.07, higher than that of workers writ large. But the AI exposure of young college graduates isn’t any higher than that of college graduates in general. Mean AI exposure among young college graduates is 1.00.

Figure D

What is striking is that the AI exposure among young college graduates (1.00) is considerably higher than that of young noncollege workers (-0.61). If AI was driving labor market outcomes, we’d expect young college graduates to fare worse in today’s economy, e.g., see larger declines in employment or faster increases in unemployment. But, when we compare unemployment rates as we did in the first blog post of this series, both groups experienced similar increases in unemployment over the last two to three years. Trends in employment rates were also consistent across these groups.

Since the weakening labor market is hitting both young college and noncollege workers alike, it’s hard to argue that AI is uniquely causing job losses for new labor market entrants graduating from college now or in recent years. These findings are consistent with the literature, as there is currently no consensus about the effects of working in AI-exposed occupations on employment thus far.

1. Throughout this brief, we define young college graduates as people between the ages of 22 and 27 with only a four-year college degree. Unlike similar analyses of young workers, we do not exclude young college graduates who are currently enrolled in school, but the results here are robust either way. Unless otherwise noted, data for 2026 represent a 12-month average from April 2025 through March 2026 for the most up to date and reliable estimates, which removes seasonality and increases sample sizes.

2. O*NET or the Occupational Information Network provides the largest up-to-date database of information about workers sorted into detailed occupations. Information provided is about skills, abilities, education, training, and more.

3. We use an updated summary AI exposure PCA score (principal component analysis weighted standardized z-score) provided by the authors, May 13, 2026.

4. The PCA score scale is centered at 0, the unweighted mean across occupations.

The unemployment rate for U.S.-born workers was 4.0% in 2024 under Biden’s administration, and it has risen under Trump. With today’s jobs report, the three-month average for 2026 shows the U.S.-born unemployment rate is at 4.3% (the non-seasonally adjusted average for 2026 is 4.6%).

Claims that mass deportations have helped U.S.-born workers are simply inconsistent with the data. This is no surprise, given that economic research has repeatedly shown that increased immigration enforcement harms everyone in the labor market, including U.S.-born workers. Part of the explanation for this is that immigrants are not only workers, but also consumers, which generates demand and helps the economy grow. Another part is that immigrants and U.S.-born workers complement each other in the labor market. For example, when immigrant roofers and framers disappear, there is less work available for the native-born electricians and plumbers. And when child care workers and cleaners are detained, deported, or terrorized by the Trump administration’s reckless and indiscriminate immigration enforcement, U.S.-born mothers work fewer hours to cover increased care responsibilities at home.

U.S.-born workers are faring worse under Trump’s assault on immigrants–which has included going after not just undocumented immigrants, but also those with green cards, temporary statuses like parole and DACA, and refugees and asylum-seekers. Mass deportations, arrests, detentions, and the stripping of work permits from millions have devastated communities and failed to deliver the promised jobs boom.

Today’s jobs report was much weaker than expected. Payroll jobs fell 92k in Feb, and revisions to Dec data show a loss of 17k jobs. Average job growth over the last 3 months now under 6k.

Household survey population controls indicate a significant drop in the labor force.

#NumbersDay #EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Mar 6, 2026 at 7:48 AM

Job losses in Feb were most acute in health care, due to striking workers who have since gone back to work. Notable losses as well in leisure and hospitality and educational services. Job were added in financial activities and social assistance. On net, 92k job losses for Feb.

#EconSky #NumbersDay

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Mar 6, 2026 at 8:03 AM

Manufacturing jobs fell again, down 12,000 between January and February 2026. Since January 2025, the manufacturing sector has lost 100,000 jobs. I repeat: The manufacturing sector lost 100k jobs since Trump took office.

#EconSky #NumbersDay

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Mar 6, 2026 at 8:19 AM

Attacks on the federal workforce continue. Federal employment has shrunk an alarming 327,000 jobs since January 2025. The vital services federal employees provide cannot be done without these essential workers. The cost of these losses are only beginning to be felt.
#EconSky #NumbersDay

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Mar 6, 2026 at 8:19 AM

The overall unemployment ticked up slightly in February, while the unemployment rate rose for Black, Asian, and Hispanic workers. Notably volatile series, but Black unemployment is now back up at 7.7% compared to only 3.7% for white workers.
#EconSky #NumbersDay

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Mar 6, 2026 at 8:51 AM

Child labor violations have been on the rise nationally and in Indiana, and fundamental federal child labor standards have recently come under threat. There is no reason to eliminate Indiana’s simple, easy-to-use system for documenting youth employment, except to make it easier for employers to violate child labor laws and harder for investigators to find out about violations.

Lawmakers in at least five other states have introduced bills to weaken child labor standards this year. Florida, Missouri, and Nebraska lawmakers have proposed allowing employers to pay minors less than the minimum wage, with the Nebraska bill recently being signed into law. Virginia and West Virginia lawmakers proposed bills to weaken hazardous work protections for minors who participate in work-based learning programs. Advocates in Virginia and West Virginia are working to amend both bills to limit their harm and ensure these programs do not come at the expense of youth education and safety.

Bill would eliminate employer registration system that replaced Indiana’s youth work permit process

In 2020, lawmakers eliminated Indiana’s youth work permit process and replaced it with the new Youth Employment System (YES), which requires certain employers of five or more minor workers to register key details about that employment in an online database, with penalties of up to $400 for each failure to register employment of a minor. Less than five years after they were implemented, lawmakers are now seeking to eliminate these requirements through House Bill (HB) 1302. If signed into law, there will no longer be any state oversight system in place for ensuring legal, age-appropriate work for minors or for state agencies to use in investigating suspected violations.

The legislation being considered is especially concerning because Indiana lawmakers have already made some of the country’s most extreme changes to child labor protections in recent years. Lawmakers made other substantial changes to Indiana child labor law in 2020, including eliminating rest breaks for minor workers and extending maximum weekly hours for 16- and 17-year-olds.

State systems for documenting youth employment are key to preventing child labor violations

Recent research shows that requiring the documentation of youth employment—like youth work permits—play an important role in preventing child labor violations, but Indiana got rid of work permits in 2020, and now they are hoping to get rid of the system that replaced them. In an analysis of federal child labor violations between 2008 and 2020, states with work permit mandates had 13.3% fewer violation cases and 31.8% fewer minors involved in these violations. That’s because youth work permits ensure employers know the law and create a paper trail to aid in enforcement when state investigators suspect violations. According to the new study, requiring that work permits clearly state permitted working hours reduces the number of minors involved in violations by 24.0%.

Often, employers that violate mandated documentation requirements are also violating other child labor standards. For example, a recent audit of a major Burger King franchisee in Wisconsin found over 1,600 child labor violations affecting nearly 1,400 young workers, the largest in the state’s history. In addition to employing minors without a work permit, violations included failing to provide mandated rest breaks, employing minors beyond permissible working hours, and failing to pay overtime.

Sadly, lawmakers’ desire to eliminate the YES system may be precisely because the system has been working as intended. Last year, the Indiana DOL assessed over $250,000 in penalties on employers that failed to register youth employment. Indiana’s youth employment registration system allowed investigators to identify employers out of compliance with the registration law and may have played a role in deterring future, more serious violations.

As violations increase, lawmakers should seek to strengthen—not weaken—youth employment standards

Child labor violations have risen significantly in recent years across the U.S. and in Indiana, where a 2025 IndyStar analysis found an uptick in violations in recent years, particularly driven by instances of illegal hazardous child labor and illegal employment of children under age 14. According to state fiscal analysts who assessed HB 1302’s impact, the change “will likely reduce the efficiency of on-site employer inspections for compliance with child labor laws.” In other words, the legislature’s own analysts acknowledge that this bill will make it harder to protect Indiana children from illegal and potentially dangerous, exploitative, and abusive employment conditions.

There is no rationale for eliminating basic documentation requirements that prevent child labor violations and aid in enforcement, except to make it easier for unscrupulous employers to get away with breaking the laws that keep kids safe on the job. Coming on the heels of multiple bills that weakened Indiana’s child labor standards in the past few years, HB 1302 represents another shameful step backward for the state. But it is not too late for Indiana to reverse course. If the bill is sent to the governor, Indiana Governor Mike Braun can break with his party to veto the bill, just like Ohio Republican Governor Mike DeWine did when he vetoed a bill to extend working hours for minors late last year. At a time when federal child labor standards are under threat, state lawmakers have an opportunity and responsibility to resist efforts to weaken child labor protections and, instead, consider any of the numerous, proven options to strengthen them.

Today’s #JobsReport highlights:
– payroll job growth 130k in January, but benchmark revisions show 2025 much weaker than originally reported
– unemployment rate at 4.3%, up from 4.0% last January
– federal government continues to lose jobs
#EconSky @epi.org #NumbersDay

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Feb 11, 2026 at 7:54 AM

Jobs continue to be added in health care and social assistance in January 2026 while the federal government experienced another set of losses. Manufacturing gained 5,000 jobs but is still down 83,000 jobs since last January.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Feb 11, 2026 at 8:12 AM

Attacks on the federal workforce have been astounding. Federal employment has shrunk an alarming 324,000 jobs since January 2025. The vital services federal employees provide cannot be done without these essential workers. The cost of these losses are only beginning to be felt.
#EconSky #NumbersDay

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Feb 11, 2026 at 8:12 AM

Over the last year, the unemployment rate increased from 4.0% to 4.3%. In addition, the labor market has weakened for U.S.-born workers: unemployment rose to 4.7% in Jan, up from 4.3% a year earlier. (Seasonally adjusted data aren’t available by immigration status)
#EconSky #NumbersDay

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Feb 11, 2026 at 8:21 AM

The big story in today’s jobs report is about the final benchmark revisions. With the downward revisions to prior data, the labor market added only 181,000 jobs total in 2025, just 15,000 per month on average.
#EconSky #NumbersDay @epi.org

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Feb 11, 2026 at 8:46 AM