YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → July’s Jobs Numbers Hint at a Difficult Economic Road Ahead, feat. Justin Wolfers

July’s Jobs Numbers Hint at a Difficult Economic Road Ahead, feat. Justin Wolfers — Transcript

by Slate · 8,956 words · 1,517 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00one of the biggest stories that we don't
0:01talk about cuz there's so much to talk
0:03about
0:05is
0:06what does a low population growth
0:09economy look like because the US has not
0:12slowly eased its way into it the way
0:13other countries did. The US threw
0:15[music] on the brake.
0:16Um and even if you thought in the long
0:19run it would work out, that could cause
0:21a lot of weird repercussions in the
0:22short run.
0:24And we haven't had time to talk about it
0:25because we've been talking about wars
0:27and trade wars and every other damn
0:28thing.
0:29>> So we're just going to live it.
0:31Welcome to 2026. [music]
0:34Um
0:40So Justin, you spend all your time
0:43thinking about the economy.
0:45I'm sort of wondering um
0:47how concerned are you about the jobs
0:49report that came out last week?
0:52>> Worried.
0:53Um
0:55>> You're an optimist, I should say. Like
0:56you being worried actually makes me
0:58worried.
0:58>> Um Betsy got me this the other day. His
1:01name's Hoppy the Hoppitamist.
1:02>> Betsy's your partner.
1:04>> Um [laughter]
1:04and every time
1:05>> a What is How do I describe what this
1:07is?
1:08>> Hoppy is um a big mouth with a big
1:11spring in between with a big love heart.
1:13And Hoppy's very inclusive, so it's got
1:15a Hoppy's got a bit of a rainbow flag.
1:17>> Rainbow rainbow heart.
1:18>> Um
1:19and Hoppy the Hoppitamist, every time
1:20I'm feeling down, I just come and tap
1:22Hoppy.
1:24At least I feel a little better.
1:26Um
1:27>> So you're tapping Hoppy a lot these
1:28days?
1:29>> Betsy got me Hoppy because of the jobs
1:31report.
1:32She saw how down I looked. [laughter]
1:35Um look, Mary, let me come back. There's
1:39Let's pretend your question actually is
1:40about the emotional life of economists.
1:43Um partly because while it's all of my
1:45life, it's some part of the emotional
1:47life of your audience.
1:49Um they probably spend less time
1:51worrying than I do.
1:53Um
1:54it's been a roller coaster the last year
1:57and a half and it's been emotionally
2:00very draining
2:01um
2:02and I think
2:04there's a part of this which is about
2:06this administration and whether you
2:07voted for them or not you can't get
2:09around the fact that this has been
2:10incredibly chaotic.
2:12You can't get around the fact that many
2:14of our biggest economic challenges are
2:15self-inflicted wounds, trade wars um
2:19shipping out all the immigrants
2:21um
2:22except me. I might be the last one here.
2:25um
2:26you know going to war in Iran
2:28doing everything we can to keep the
2:29Strait of Hormuz closed.
2:32That's
2:33it something is very psychologically
2:35unusual which is
2:37the problem is coming from inside the
2:39house.
2:40>> What do you mean when you say that?
2:42>> These are caused by the White House.
2:45Normally These job losses. Yeah. These
2:4723,000 jobs. Much of the source of our
2:50anxiety economic anxiety right now is
2:52Normally what do we get anxious about?
2:54Look I'll tell you you and I were both
2:56working during the 2008 financial
2:57crisis.
2:59For folks who don't remember it was
3:00terrifying
3:02um and really I'd go home and I was
3:04trying to make sense of it and honestly
3:05I couldn't make sense of it and one of
3:07the few things that helped me sleep at
3:08night
3:09is that Ben Bernanke was the Fed chair.
3:12>> Mhm.
3:12>> And I knew if
3:13>> Like a grown up was in charge.
3:14>> Yeah and I knew if anyone was up to that
3:17moment it was Ben. Ben had studied the
3:19Great Depression, Ben who was a monetary
3:21economist, Ben who understood the
3:23plumbing of the system better than
3:24almost anyone.
3:26That gave me enormous reassurance. Um I
3:30but that was caused by
3:32you can eventually trace it back to
3:34policy maybe but it was really caused by
3:37sort of a financial explosion on Wall
3:38Street not
3:40someone throwing a bomb.
3:42um
3:43and I remember COVID
3:45that was terrifying.
3:47Might even have been more scary.
3:49Um
3:49>> Yeah.
3:50>> But that was
3:50>> accident of nature or maybe.
3:53>> It was caused by a microbe, not a bloke
3:54we elected.
3:56>> Yeah.
3:56>> Not someone whose job was to appoint the
3:58adults and look after us, which I
4:00understand is much more of an Australian
4:01perspective on how you think about
4:03government. In this country, we're much
4:04more suspicious of government.
4:06Um and so the fact that it's coming from
4:08inside the house is a big deal. And then
4:10I want to overlay something on top of
4:11that, because I'm struck time and again,
4:13every time I talk to the parent of a
4:16college age or soon-to-be college age
4:18kid,
4:20they say, "What should I tell my son or
4:21daughter to study?"
4:23>> Yeah, like where is the future?
4:25>> Yeah. Is there anyone on this
4:28conversation who's [laughter] got a
4:29>> Yes, I have I have someone who's setting
4:31off to college in a couple weeks.
4:32>> Yeah, and really bright young bloke. And
4:36the question though, I mean and mom runs
4:39a podcast where she talks about
4:40economics all the time. You got to
4:41figure mom's got this. And so for the
4:44folks at home where mom is not a leading
4:46journalist who follows the economics
4:48news, think how scary it is for you,
4:49Mary. Think how much scarier it is for
4:51them.
4:52>> Yeah.
4:52>> And I've got to say I've got a 17 a
4:5416-year-old, but she's going to turn 17.
4:56And I don't know what advice to give
4:58her, and I'm a labor economist.
5:00And my partner is a labor economist.
5:04And so if we feel this at sea and this
5:07adrift,
5:09that
5:10has got to be really
5:12worrying a lot of folks. And I say in my
5:13family, you know, one of the great joy
5:16I shouldn't admit this. I have tenure, I
5:18can't be fired. But lots of other
5:21households, mom or dad can be fired at
5:22the same time as they're trying to send
5:24the kid off to college and not sure what
5:26job the the
5:27the college is
5:28the kid should study for at college.
5:30This is a
5:32a deeply uncertain time, deeply
5:34uncertain.
5:35>> Yeah, I mean, why was this number the
5:38number that got your attention? Cuz I I
5:40got to say like I look around and I'm
5:42already worried about the economy.
5:44I see the war in Iran, see tariff
5:47shenanigans.
5:49And this just seemed like of a piece.
5:51But I could tell this actually really
5:54got to you.
5:55>> Yeah. Um so, I want to be analytic and
5:57help folks see things here because
5:59economic news very easily gets confused.
6:01So, I want to talk about different time
6:02horizons.
6:03So, when I some of the fears in my gut
6:06are about decades in the future.
6:09And a lot of that is the source of
6:11American prosperity. If you really go
6:13back to 10,000 ft or whatever those
6:15business people say. Is that a business
6:17saying? Look at this from 10,000
6:18>> 10,000 ft.
6:20>> Is that
6:20>> Sure.
6:21>> I feel like I'm in a boardroom when I
6:22say that. Or [laughter] in an economics
6:24classroom. But if I really
6:25>> Let's circle back to that, Justin.
6:26>> Let's put [laughter] a pin in that.
6:28>> Exactly.
6:30>> Uh if I look at this from outer space,
6:34why are some countries rich and some are
6:35poor? The answer fundamentally is that
6:37the wealthy countries like the United
6:39States have
6:41a set of rules of the game. We call them
6:43institutions that set the rules of the
6:45game and that game has created
6:47prosperity. That we have markets
6:49tempered by regulation, that we have a
6:52safety net, that we respect contracts,
6:55the rule of law, that we have democracy,
6:58that when an insider elite gets too
7:00powerful, the punters can kick them out
7:02on and on like that.
7:04We have we're engaged with the rest of
7:05the world. So, those are the most
7:08important thing for the well-being of my
7:10kids or grandkids.
7:11Those are under threat today more than
7:14ever been in my lifetime. So, that's at
7:16the decadal level.
7:18Then we can go to
7:20the individual years over the next
7:21decade. And there there's this
7:23tumultuous change coming with AI.
7:26And then there's the next few months or
7:27the next couple of years, which is
7:29what's going on with what economists
7:30call the ups and downs of the business
7:31cycle. You know, you ask yourself
7:33questions like are we going to enter a
7:34recession, aren't we? The good news is
7:36we're not in a recession.
7:38The bad news is
7:40there's a lot of bad news that's sort of
7:42been building up and some of it might
7:44have stuck its head up above
7:46above water.
7:48>> And I So, are you saying like usually
7:49you're you're worrying about stuff far
7:50down the line, but the reason these job
7:52numbers stand out because this is close,
7:55this is now?
7:56>> Right. And actually, let's stick on that
7:58for a moment, Mary.
8:00So much economic commentary focuses on
8:02next week, next month, next quarter.
8:05But the stuff that really matters is the
8:07stuff that persists. Like we sometimes
8:09have recession, but we bounce back and
8:10we get over it most of the time if we
8:12handle it mostly well. Not always and
8:14not, you know, it's expensive, but it's
8:17it's a short-term trauma.
8:18Um what really matters is can we
8:22sustain ongoing improvements in the
8:25quality of life so each generation
8:28pushes things back and lives a better,
8:29more prosperous, more beautiful life
8:32than the previous one.
8:33That's where we should focus our
8:34attention. The media's super focused on
8:37next month and next quarter.
8:39And so the reason I reason I sort of
8:40gave that long spiel about the different
8:42time horizons is when we ask about this
8:45month's job numbers, I want to be clear
8:46it's about sort of the short-run
8:48traumas, not the long-run prosperity.
8:51Um and, you know, I'm just sort of
8:53worried about what the next few months
8:54hold.
8:56>> There's been no Are you worried about a
8:56recession?
8:57>> Sorry?
8:58>> Are you worried about a recession?
8:59>> I've been worried for 18 months in a
9:01row, which means I'm really happy to
9:02admit that that fear has been unfounded.
9:04I'm thrilled by that. Um I'm not alone
9:07in that.
9:08Um at various points um Wall Street has
9:11been convinced that a recession was just
9:13around the corner and at various points
9:15it has pulled back from that story
9:16altogether. I think Wall Street was
9:18a little short-sighted on both sides. Um
9:21Let me give you a way of thinking about
9:22recessions. Um oh, I can all apologize
9:25to the folks at home, which is I'm going
9:27to just act like I'm a university
9:29professor.
9:30>> Nah.
9:31>> [laughter]
9:31>> So, I'm going to teach rather than, you
9:33know, we could pundit. Do you want to do
9:34some punditry?
9:35>> We could do some punditry. We could do I
9:36mean like
9:38>> Like should let me do the teaching
9:39first. I want to do the teaching first.
9:41>> Okay.
9:42>> E- every roughly speaking over the past
9:44century there's been roughly 14
9:46recessions.
9:47>> Mhm.
9:48>> Another way of saying that is in any
9:49given year there's roughly a 14% chance
9:51of a recession.
9:52Then we spend a lot of time interviewing
9:55experts and I think I'm officially one
9:58>> Yes.
9:59>> saying is there going to be a recession
10:00this year? And it turns out if you look
10:02at the past performance of experts in
10:04predicting recessions, they're almost
10:06unpredictable.
10:08We do a very, very good job at
10:09predicting the economy's in a recession
10:11about two or three months after it
10:12started.
10:14So what that then says is the best
10:17starting point for thinking about how
10:19much should I be worried about a
10:20recession next year actually is to go
10:21back to that 14% number and only change
10:23it a little bit because of whatever
10:25story your talking head is telling.
10:27Because the talking head hasn't been
10:28very including my talking head hasn't
10:30been
10:31>> there's a 14% chance
10:32>> [laughter]
10:33>> still.
10:34>> We might say it's 16%.
10:36>> Right.
10:36>> 18. Um last I saw Goldman Sachs had it
10:39at 25%. That seems about right of a
10:41recession over the next 12 months.
10:44>> Okay. I want to set the scene going into
10:46last week's jobs report a little bit.
10:48Because we're in this moment where the
10:51Trump administration has been playing
10:53defense on the economy. They've been
10:55claiming everything's fine, pay no
10:57attention to your feelings, etc. etc. So
10:59much so that I would say there's been
11:02some denial of reality. Like
11:04>> Wait, from the Trump administration?
11:05[laughter]
11:06>> Well, like okay, I'll give one example.
11:08Last week Treasury Secretary Scott
11:10Bessent was on CNBC Squawk Box and he
11:12said he was getting sick of people
11:14talking about the K-shaped economy, the
11:16idea that like the rich are getting
11:17richer, the poor getting poorer, uh you
11:21know, their prospects going down. Um
11:24he said he thinks oh, it's going to be a
11:25C-shaped economy where, you know, the
11:28just picture it picture it with me.
11:30Uh you know, we're coming together. The
11:32lower branch is going up.
11:34First of all,
11:35is that true?
11:37>> I just like the fact Scott Morrison's
11:38sick of the K-shaped economy. You know,
11:40it's good so much.
11:41>> Aren't we all?
11:42>> Yeah. Mate, welcome to the club. And
11:44good news, Scott,
11:46you're the Treasury Secretary.
11:48>> You have a little bit of power here.
11:49>> One thing you could do is not pass a
11:51budget that does that is the largest
11:53redistribution from poor to rich in a
11:54single bill in America's history. Just
11:57an idea, just spitballing, just a
11:59thought.
12:00I've got another idea. Just
12:02if you want ideas,
12:04tariffs are aggressive tax that take
12:06from the poor. Maybe we could back off
12:08on that.
12:09I don't know.
12:10>> Not likely.
12:11>> Just a thought.
12:13>> Right.
12:13>> You know what? Like, actually this
12:15administration's got all these popular
12:16and populist ideas about how it wants to
12:18help working and middle-class Americans.
12:20No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no
12:21tax on social security. I don't love
12:24them, but I noticed something in the
12:25budget.
12:26Those all expired a couple of days after
12:29the next election, but the tax cuts for
12:31the rich you made permanent. Hey, Scott.
12:34Scott, one thing you could do is if you
12:35actually care,
12:38is you could make permanent the stuff
12:39that helps working and middle-class
12:40Americans. And maybe we'll just make
12:42temporary the stuff that redistributes
12:44to the rich.
12:45Just spitballing. Sorry, mate. You just
12:47pressed my I just got my I'm just going
12:49to have to go back to Happy the
12:49Optimist.
12:50>> [laughter]
12:53>> Yeah. Okay. So, that's the environment
12:55in which these job numbers come out on
12:58Friday.
12:59Um,
13:00and what they showed was, you know, we
13:02were expecting modest, what's called
13:05modest growth, 80,000 jobs. And does it
13:07mean like 80,000 new jobs injected into
13:09the economy is that we're talking about
13:11here?
13:12>> It on net. So, literally each month
13:15millions of people get fired, roughly 3
13:17million, and roughly 3 million get
13:19hired.
13:20But when one of those numbers is bigger
13:21than the other, say we hire 3.1 and fire
13:233,
13:25then we say we created 100,000 jobs.
13:27Um, and that's roughly speaking what
13:28we're hoping for,
13:30but actually more people got fired than
13:32hired.
13:33>> Yeah, the report showed we'd actually
13:34lost 23,000 jobs. And not just that, but
13:38it revised down previous months numbers,
13:40where we thought there had been some
13:42growth. There was actually like, "Oh,
13:44not really that much growth." Um
13:47dumb question.
13:49Does that mean that maybe this number
13:51that you didn't love, that we lost
13:5323,000 jobs, that could then be revised
13:55down even further in coming months?
13:57>> Yes, it could also be revised up. Okay.
14:00So, this whole revision thing is very
14:01tricky, and
14:03>> Yeah, why do we not know what the number
14:04is?
14:04>> Cuz it's hard to know.
14:07If you If the government knew what every
14:10worker was doing at every point in time,
14:12or whatever firm was doing at every
14:14point in time, all of our data would be
14:15perfect. And in fact, that's how it
14:17works in a bunch of Nordic countries.
14:20But it turns out America's Americans
14:22don't like it when the government knows
14:23things about them.
14:25So, therefore, we have to come up with
14:27other ways of doing it. So, here's how
14:29the payrolls numbers work. So, it's a
14:31very difficult thing measuring an
14:32economy of the size, complexity, and the
14:35degree of constant change as the US
14:37economy.
14:38So, basically, what the Bureau of Labor
14:39Statistics Statistics does is it calls
14:42up a bunch of firms, and it says, "How
14:44many people are on your payrolls?" And
14:45then it calls them back the next month,
14:47and so on.
14:48Now, the good thing is, if it calls all
14:50the big firms, then it's actually
14:51getting a lot of employment. So, that's
14:55why this is a better number than there's
14:56another way of measuring it, which is
14:57you call people instead of calling
14:58firms.
14:59>> And you say like, "Has anyone lost their
15:01job in your house? What's the employment
15:02situation?"
15:03>> Yep. And that's what's called the
15:04household survey. So, we do do both, but
15:07we tend to
15:08focus on the firm survey, the payroll
15:10survey.
15:11>> It's more reliable.
15:12>> Yeah. Now, here's the problem. Let me
15:14say I've surveyed 100 firms. It's
15:17actually much more than that.
15:20And then what I need to do is realize
15:21that's a share of the of all firms.
15:24And so then all I need to do is blow
15:26that number up by what share of it
15:29is it of all firms? Here's the problem.
15:31How many firms are there in America?
15:33>> Man- many.
15:35>> No one knows.
15:36>> Ha.
15:37>> [laughter]
15:37>> Okay, because every day
15:39>> So it's a guess. Okay.
15:40>> new businesses are being born and old
15:42businesses are dying.
15:44And so we know what happened with this
15:45one sample of firms, but we don't know
15:47how many how representative they are,
15:49how many new firms were born and how
15:51many old firms died.
15:52Which means we don't actually know So
15:55that's a big part of it. Now, the other
15:56That's actually a very deep problem. We
15:59re-benchmark once a year. Never look up
16:01the word benchmark.
16:03Um
16:04Uh but the other problem is literally
16:07some firms send in their forms late.
16:09When I said literally, I meant that in
16:10the Joe Biden sense of not literally.
16:13Um
16:14because they connect their computers and
16:16they you know, there's they don't always
16:19have forms. But when there's a lot to do
16:21at work, sometimes you don't answer the
16:22government straight away. And the
16:24revisions come because
16:25as you wait longer, more forms come back
16:29and therefore you know more about the
16:30truth. So the old estimate is just like
16:33the new estimate, but in every way
16:34worse. It has fewer firms.
16:37Um
16:38and then you could say, "Well, if these
16:39revisions are such a big deal, why do we
16:41even bother with following this?" And
16:43the answer is every other economic
16:45indicator is worse.
16:48So this is the most timely, least bad
16:51way of figuring out what's going on. And
16:53now let me give a little bit more
16:54context. Mary, when you and I were
16:56talking at the beginning of the year, I
16:57was like, "Oh, we've got this new normal
16:59where we're not creating many jobs.
17:01Things are kind of drab."
17:03A lot of that might be due to the fact
17:05we have much less immigration.
17:07And then what happened a few months ago
17:09is we got a few positive numbers. And I
17:11did what you're meant to do, which is
17:13when you get a new information, you
17:14change your mind.
17:16So I changed my mind and became more
17:18optimistic. But now, we learned last
17:20month some of that optimism was
17:21misplaced. It was statistical error.
17:24And actually, we're back to sort of the
17:26drabness that we might have been talking
17:28about. So, maybe Mary, that just means
17:29we have to talk half as often.
17:31>> [laughter]
17:32>> Well, you had an immediate reaction to
17:34this, an immediate and strong reaction.
17:35I know this because I was about to go on
17:36cable news and I was like, "I wonder
17:38what Justin's thinking about these
17:39numbers." And like, 3 minutes after they
17:41posted, you were like, "This isn't good.
17:44This is bad." Um here's a weird thing
17:47about these numbers.
17:49Well,
17:51the job loss is happening, uh it seems.
17:55Also, unemployment is low, like seems
17:57pretty good. It's at 4.1%. How do you
17:59square those things?
18:00>> Right. Let me give you a short-run
18:01answer and a long-run answer. The
18:02long-run's more important. The short-run
18:04is what most journalists ask about.
18:06So, what we had was actually the number
18:08of jobs in the economy probably shrunk
18:10last week. Notice I said probably cuz we
18:12don't know the truth. We just know the
18:13measure.
18:14Um now, the thing is the unemployment
18:16rate is the share of the labor force
18:18that is unemployed.
18:19To be unemployed requires a few things,
18:21one of which is joblessness.
18:23But beyond being jobless, you actually
18:25also have to be ready and willing to
18:26work and searching.
18:29So, if there are fewer jobs, but a bunch
18:31of folks give up searching,
18:33then unemployment falls. So, the
18:35language economics journalists sometimes
18:37use here
18:38is unemployment fell for the wrong for
18:41bad reasons or the wrong reason. And
18:43that's simple language.
18:45>> fell because people are giving up.
18:47>> Right. And that language is roughly
18:49correct and that's roughly hopeful. So,
18:51that's what happened this month.
18:53Mary, I think the more interesting thing
18:54is pan back and look at the last 2
18:56years. So,
18:58you can say there are three different
19:00lenses you could look at this. You say,
19:01"What happened this month? The
19:01unemployment rate fell." And that's what
19:03people in Washington will do. You could
19:05say, "What happened over the last 6
19:06months?" It's actually been falling
19:07slightly, which is quite good. But
19:09slightly there's doing a lot of work.
19:11So, you could just pan back and say,
19:12what's happened over the past 2 years or
19:14year and a half if you want to be
19:15political.
19:16Uh and it turns out unemployment's been
19:17basically stable.
19:19That's really important because at the
19:21same time job growth has been really
19:23low.
19:25>> So, what does that mean?
19:26>> Right, so we've been through an
19:27emotional roller coaster up and down,
19:28but basically the first-order facts are
19:30we've created very few jobs and
19:31unemployment has remained remarkably
19:33stable.
19:34A large part of this is we are all
19:37having to learn a new language for what
19:39does a low immigration economy look
19:41like.
19:43You see what normally happens is the US
19:44population normally grows. And if it
19:46normally grows, there are more workers,
19:48but also there are more people buying
19:49more stuff. So, the ongoing what happens
19:52is we're naturally creating more jobs
19:54just to keep the new workers employed.
19:57There's a concept that
19:59people on Wall Street talk about they
20:00call it break-even jobs growth. How many
20:01jobs
20:03does the economy need to create each
20:04month in order to keep up with the fact
20:06that more people are being born than are
20:07dying or born and arriving than are
20:11dying or leaving.
20:13And so, back in the late Biden years,
20:15that was probably 150,000 jobs.
20:17And so, people have an instinct, which
20:18is if we're not creating 150,000 jobs,
20:21the economy's going backwards. But
20:24that's not right because what's happened
20:25is we've basically stopped immigration.
20:29Um and the US population is awfully
20:31close to stalling, which means
20:33>> Feels like we're in neutral.
20:36>> on population growth, yes.
20:37>> Yeah.
20:38>> Um which basically means that the number
20:40of jobs we need to keep up with the not
20:43growing population
20:44>> Smaller.
20:45>> Much smaller. And there's a range of
20:47estimates here. So, at the low end, some
20:50people could say if we create zero jobs,
20:52that's enough to keep up with the fact
20:54that the working-age population's barely
20:56growing. At the higher end, some people
20:58might say 80,000 jobs is what we need.
21:00You know, given it used to be 150, maybe
21:0280, you know,
21:04probably a respectable number that's
21:07close to the consensus would be we need
21:09to create 30 or 40,000 jobs a month.
21:11So now you can see how we can have very
21:14low job growth if it had average 30 or
21:1640,000 a month.
21:17That's enough to keep the unemployment
21:19rate stable.
21:20And actually for a low immigration
21:23economy
21:24that's okay. If we can keep that. If we
21:27can keep creating the number of jobs we
21:29need and it just happens we need less.
21:31Obviously tough for the immigrants who
21:33can't come in start lives.
21:35Um and tough for the businesses for whom
21:37part of their growth story had always
21:39been well as the American population
21:40grows we'll get a bigger and bigger
21:42market. We'll be able to sell more
21:43stuff.
21:44>> The growth thing seems to be the real
21:45problem which is like it just seems like
21:47everyone is stuck in this scenario.
21:50>> Yes.
21:50>> Not really moving up.
21:52>> And so one of the biggest stories that
21:54we don't talk about cuz there's so much
21:56to talk about.
21:57>> Yeah.
21:58>> Is
21:59what does a low population growth
22:02economy look like because the US has not
22:05slowly eased its way into it the way
22:07other countries did. The US threw on the
22:08brake.
22:10Um and even if you thought in the long
22:13run it would work out that could cause a
22:14lot of weird repercussions in the short
22:16run.
22:17And we haven't had time to talk about it
22:19because we've been talking about wars
22:20and trade wars and every other damn
22:21thing.
22:22>> So we're just going to live it.
22:24>> Welcome to 2026.
22:27Um
22:28you know, look Mary, you started by
22:30asking about my emotional reaction to
22:32this and
22:33um
22:35you know, I think the only advice I give
22:36people is Botox is the way. Um Botox is
22:40now an economist's best friend.
22:42It's the only way to
22:44>> Cuz it keeps you happy? Keeps you
22:45looking perky?
22:46>> It look look at look how smooth my
22:48forehead is.
22:51>> The worry's gone.
22:52>> Yeah, and actually I know that's goofy
22:54I know that's goofy and because you talk
22:56to people from media and lots of people
22:58in entertainment and media do this but
22:59for a middle-aged academic economist
23:02that's not a thing we do. But, I have
23:04needed to do it. Otherwise, my furrow
23:06lines would just be terrible.
23:09>> This is This is transformed into a
23:10self-care show.
23:12Um
23:13>> Can we talk about whether men should do
23:14Botox? I feel like there's there's not
23:16enough discussion about that, Mary.
23:18>> Is it worth talking about the difference
23:19between the payroll survey and the
23:22household survey when it comes to these
23:24unemployment numbers?
23:26>> I love how nerdy you are.
23:27>> Wait, super nerdy. We're getting into
23:29it, Justin.
23:30>> Brooklyn nerdy.
23:31Um
23:33Okay. So, remember before I was saying
23:35the way we measure employment is we send
23:36forms to a bunch of firms. The other
23:38thing we do is send forms to a bunch of
23:39people. And that's called the household
23:41survey.
23:42Um so, those are the differences.
23:43Typically, we pay much more attention to
23:45the to the survey of firms, not because
23:47we love firms, but because it has better
23:48statistical properties because it covers
23:51a larger share of the American
23:52workforce.
23:53Um
23:54So, month-to-month, I would almost never
23:56talk to you about what's going on in the
23:57household survey relative to the payroll
23:58survey.
23:59But, over time, then we get enough
24:02household surveys, you start to think,
24:03"So, maybe I should have a look at
24:04this."
24:05And I had a look at that, and it
24:07actually suggests that we've lost jobs,
24:09a substantial number of jobs, over the
24:11past year and a half.
24:12Whereas, the firm survey says we've
24:14gained them. Now, what's going to happen
24:17next is a bunch of my colleagues,
24:19academic economists, will write
24:20complicated papers trying to figure out
24:21what's going on.
24:23But, the first thing to say is it's a
24:25puzzle. And when there are two measures
24:27of the same thing and you're not sure
24:29which one's right,
24:30then you should listen a little bit to
24:31both of them. And so, when I say today
24:33is US economy is growing, but weakly,
24:37and I'm, you know, sort of saying the
24:38last month was really weak, but, you
24:40know,
24:41I want to put an asterisk.
24:43I've been practicing saying that word,
24:44asterisk.
24:46People keep trying to say [laughter]
24:47asterix, which is true,
24:49cuz I used to like obliques, asterix and
24:51obliques.
24:52Asterix. Aster-
24:54There's an asterisk
24:55>> Say it three times.
24:56>> next to
24:57saying things are going modestly okay,
25:00which is this other survey says actually
25:02look out below, you might be doing
25:04worse.
25:05>> Yeah, it's like looking under the rock,
25:08right? Cuz the people are saying
25:09something
25:10less positive. And And the thing that's
25:12interesting is like what the
25:15what the firm surveys are saying are not
25:17that positive. What the household
25:19surveys are saying is really not good.
25:22And so you look at that and you just
25:24think, oh, this really could not work
25:27out in a positive way.
25:29>> And so if folks in the audience are
25:30thinking, wait a minute, I thought we
25:31knew what was going on with the economy
25:32with some precision. No, we're always
25:35sailing through fog.
25:37The
25:38economic measurement is hard in a way
25:40that
25:42is very hard to really understand until
25:44you really spend a lot of time with it.
25:46The answer is no one knows. We all have
25:49guesses and inclinations. And when all
25:50the indicators start to point one way,
25:52you feel a little better about it, but I
25:55feel quite unsure about myself. And
25:57there's a gen- there's a there's another
25:58side to that, which is anytime, not just
26:00now, anytime which you hear an economist
26:03confidently proclaim they know what's
26:05going on,
26:06you're learning about that person's
26:08propensity for overconfidence more than
26:09you're learning about the economy.
26:12>> Okay.
26:13Here's what I thought when I saw these
26:14jobs numbers. I thought
26:16there's been a lot of debate in some
26:18circles, especially online, about
26:19whether Americans are not really
26:21understanding economic data. Cuz they're
26:24cuz they're A lot of Americans have been
26:26pessimistic. They've said the economy's
26:28bad, and yet at the same time, it seems
26:30like the economy's the fundamentals are
26:32okay.
26:34I looked at these jobs numbers and I
26:35thought,
26:38is this the numbers catching up with the
26:39people? Like reflecting actually what
26:41people are experiencing on a delay?
26:44>> So what I suggested to Elliot no one
26:47actually knows where we are. We just
26:49sort of have it We're like a ship at sea
26:51and you gaze up the stars.
26:53And you can probably tell from the
26:54stars, if you can see the Southern
26:56Cross, you're you're in the Southern
26:57Hemisphere and if you can see
27:00What stars do you have in America, Mary?
27:03>> Uh what stars do we have in America?
27:07Uh Orion's Belt is like the one I know.
27:09>> I love Orion's Belt. It's my favorite
27:10belt. Um good belt.
27:12>> Three little stars in a row.
27:13>> Yeah, those ones. Aren't they called the
27:15Saucepan or something?
27:16>> Uh maybe.
27:17>> So many people are going to be at us in
27:19the comments.
27:20>> I know.
27:20>> [laughter]
27:21>> Like get on your astronomy people.
27:23[snorts]
27:24>> Anyway, I'm going to say this to you and
27:25call it astrology. Anyway, continue.
27:28>> [clears throat]
27:28[laughter]
27:29>> Uh
27:30So we never really know. We What we can
27:32do is we can look up and see the stars
27:33and sort of know we can put our finger
27:34in and realize that we're in the ocean
27:36and not on land.
27:38Um and a lot of people are feeling bad
27:40and it could be that they're feeling
27:42wrong or it could be that they're seeing
27:44reality and our statistics haven't
27:45caught up. And you've always got to be
27:47open to both possibilities. And so
27:48remember we talked about the firm survey
27:50says one thing, the household survey
27:51actually says that the US economy has
27:53been shedding jobs, which if true,
27:56would cohere with the sort of doom and
27:58gloom. Um and I know people want better
28:02and sharper and straighter answers, but
28:03the only way to do that is to spend more
28:05money on economic statistics, which are
28:06expensive.
28:07>> Mhm.
28:09Yeah. Okay, here are some things I
28:10didn't get about the jobs data that I
28:12want you to straighten out for me.
28:13First of all, the stock market seemed
28:15totally unfazed by them. Like actually
28:16sort of zazed. Why is that?
28:19>> Stock market's having a weird moment. Um
28:22so
28:23there are occasional weird moments where
28:25So look, you're right. We just learned
28:27the US economy is doing worse than you
28:28think. So therefore, you would think the
28:30value of firms that sell stuff to
28:32Americans should be lower.
28:33>> Yes.
28:34>> Your intuition is exactly right.
28:36Occasionally, the stock market is like,
28:38I am convinced that the Fed is about to
28:40make a mistake.
28:42And they're worried that the Fed was
28:43going to raise rates, which might really
28:45slow the economy. And so, if this data
28:49prevents the Fed from making a mistake,
28:51and it's true these numbers will make it
28:53less likely we get a a rise in interest
28:55rates,
28:57then the stock market celebrates the
28:59fact that fate intervened and prevented
29:01the Fed from making a mistake. That
29:03>> So, this is like a woo, cheap money.
29:06>> Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
29:07>> Okay.
29:07>> They're all very excited that interest
29:08rates
29:09>> sense.
29:09>> for longer. Um
29:11uh it's not a game I'm particularly a
29:13fan of, partly because they're abs- it's
29:15absolutely correct to say the Fed could
29:17make a mistake, but what's less clear is
29:18which mistake it will make.
29:21The Fed could have interest rates too
29:22high, could also have them too low. Um
29:25so, this sort of
29:26story of bad news is good news is what
29:29the financial press calls it, um doesn't
29:32make a lot of sense if you're a little
29:34more humble, and I always like to preach
29:36intellectual humility here, um if you're
29:39a little more humble, you don't know
29:40which mistake the Fed's going to make.
29:42>> Yeah. Okay. There's also interesting
29:45data showing that Americans are still
29:46spending money. Like, even people who
29:49don't have a lot are still doing
29:51discretionary spending. And so, I don't
29:54know how to fit that understanding
29:57into
29:58what we've just talked about about the
30:01job market being weaker than we thought.
30:03>> Right. So, welcome to weekonomics. There
30:05are conflicting signals, and your job is
30:08to try to figure out the golden thread
30:09that runs through them, that recognizes
30:11that they're all messy indicators, some
30:13of them are probably wrong. The
30:14economic, social, and political meaning
30:16of these things changes through time.
30:18The measurement technologies are
30:19constantly changing. And nothing no
30:21measurement is ever perfect. So, thank
30:23goodness we're not architects, because
30:25if we economists are architects,
30:27there would be a lot of leaning towers
30:29of Pisa.
30:30Um
30:31So, I think you're right, though, to
30:33What you always want to do whenever you
30:34got a story is stress test it against
30:36other source of information. And so, if
30:38the story is the economy's weak and
30:40people are miserable, that doesn't
30:42cohere with
30:43um reasonably strong consumer spending.
30:47I tend to
30:48You can tell tortured stories, but
30:49generally speaking, if I'm worried about
30:50the future, I pull back. If I'm excited
30:52about the future, I go and buy all the
30:54avo toast.
30:55Um let me just recommend to your
30:58audience, avocado toast is amazing.
31:02>> [laughter]
31:02>> Well, you you have Justin's permission
31:03to enjoy it.
31:04>> Yeah. Well,
31:05>> But so what So we just don't know what's
31:06happening here? I mean, like I'm
31:07referring to specifics.
31:09>> coping strategy?
31:10>> Yeah.
31:11>> This I'm going to get kicked out of
31:12Australia for this, and then we'll get
31:13to real economics, but Costco has an avo
31:17toast spread, these little packets.
31:20>> Yeah.
31:21>> And compared to the quality of avo toast
31:23you can get in America, this is actually
31:25really good.
31:26So, [snorts]
31:28my advice
31:30is buy Costco avo toast.
31:33>> So you're buying but you're so Costco.
31:36>> Yeah.
31:37And then you can both have the
31:38indulgence and not blow your budget.
31:41>> [laughter]
31:41>> But do you think that's what's happening
31:42here? Do you think people are basically
31:43like indulging themselves where they
31:45can? And
31:47>> That That sounds like a complicated
31:48story. Um I still think the overall
31:51story surely is, if you feel more
31:52optimistic, you spend more.
31:54So, um I'm not drawn to the story you
31:57just told. Um a different possibility
32:00that threads the line is the economy's
32:02doing okay.
32:03Which, by the way, is quite embarrassing
32:05to liberals who wanted to preach doom
32:06and gloom, right? So,
32:08if
32:09I think two things can be true. The
32:10president's done a bunch of genuinely
32:12stupid things,
32:14and the economy might be the little
32:15engine that could. And if you want to be
32:18optimistic, you call it A minus, and if
32:19you want to be pessimistic, you call it
32:21a B plus.
32:22And people are kind of spending as if
32:24they're in that range. Now, you still
32:26got another problem, which is then why
32:28do people tell pollsters they're so
32:29miserable?
32:31And that I don't want to get a story
32:33that's too complicated, but, you know,
32:35one there's
32:37increasingly when you ask people how the
32:38economy is do doing they answer the
32:40question instead what do you think of
32:42the president?
32:44And people are really unhappy at the
32:46president. Also, how you feel about the
32:48economy might be changed by whether this
32:49is what feels like dark and personal
32:51forces like inflation rather than things
32:54that are in your control.
32:55And there are a lot of dark and personal
32:57forces right now inflation a war AI
33:02>> But we've just said that like we're
33:03losing jobs. The people like the you
33:05know, so I guess but and that is a real
33:07thing.
33:08>> We think.
33:10>> We think.
33:10>> know.
33:11I'm look I might never be allowed in a
33:14room full of economists again
33:15>> [laughter]
33:15>> because I told you this.
33:17>> I want a final answer.
33:19>> It's not that the
33:21emperor here being economists are
33:23wearing no clothes but we've sort of got
33:24a robe on and we're a little bit huddled
33:26in the corner and the truth is
33:29look at two things can be true. We don't
33:31know with any certainty what's going on
33:33and
33:35I still know better than other people.
33:38It could be that economics gives us the
33:40least fuzzy look at a very fuzzy
33:42picture.
33:43>> Mhm.
33:44Okay.
33:45I mean look the Trump the Trump
33:47administration is walking right into
33:48that ambiguity. They're looking at these
33:51jobs numbers. They are saying listen
33:53there's evidence here that there's
33:55re-industrialization
33:57happening.
33:58>> Can we just can we just be a little more
34:00honest? Um it's very polite of you to
34:03say that they're walking into that
34:04fuzziness. They would say what they're
34:06saying no matter what the truth is. What
34:08they're doing is lying. Um and there
34:10hasn't been a moment of truth come out
34:12of uh happy Kevin Hassett.
34:15>> Happy Kevin.
34:16>> There hasn't been a moment of truth come
34:18out of Secretary Bessette and there
34:20and President Trump recently declared he
34:22deserved a 150% economic approval rating
34:26which you don't even need to have gotten
34:28past third grade third grade math to
34:30think is problematic on its face.
34:33>> Yeah.
34:35As I've been sitting with these numbers
34:37and how much we don't know about what's
34:39happening,
34:40I've been thinking about what we what we
34:41do know. Which is like we we really do
34:44know
34:46that
34:49there's trouble ahead.
34:51And I say that not because of jobs
34:53numbers or anything else, but because a
34:55year ago Congress passed the one big
34:58beautiful bill.
35:00There were
35:01big cuts in there to pay for tax cuts
35:04for the wealthy and for lots of people,
35:06but for the wealthy. Uh cuts to food
35:10assistance, cuts to Medicaid, cuts that
35:13are going to go online shortly,
35:16basically. So, if you don't like the
35:19numbers you're seeing now, Justin
35:20Wolfers,
35:23does knowing that
35:26mean
35:27is that part of your understanding here?
35:30That like this will get worse because as
35:33much as Scott Basson says he doesn't
35:34like that K-shaped economy,
35:37essentially the Trump administration is
35:38like
35:40putting its elbow on the neck of that
35:43lower K and essentially saying, "Yeah,
35:45health care, we don't care if that's
35:46affordable. Food stamps, mhm,
35:49I don't know if you need those." That
35:50sort of thing.
35:51>> Um
35:53yes, and
35:55the issues here is so serious, I'm not
35:57going to pretend to joke about them.
35:59>> Yeah.
36:00>> Um
36:01the cuts to food stamps, food stamps in
36:03the United States gives you $6 a week
36:07to help put food on the table.
36:09We have a very a safety net with all
36:12sorts of holes in it.
36:14And if we were in an economy where
36:16everyone can find work,
36:18that might be okay.
36:20But capitalist economies do not always
36:22work that way.
36:24And there are times in all of our lives.
36:26This is not them. This is not other
36:29people. This could be
36:31your parents get divorced. It could be
36:33an injury at work. It could be
36:36a miscarriage that puts you out of the
36:38office for a while.
36:39And you might find yourself on food
36:41stamps. And if you don't, your cousin
36:43will or your neighbor will.
36:45And what the administration has done
36:47over recent months is kicked 4 million
36:50people off food stamps.
36:52>> Yep.
36:53>> Um I made a a video
36:54>> beginning. We really have to say that's
36:56the beginning. Like
36:58cuts will become more cuts are coming.
37:00>> Yeah. And if you think about it for even
37:03a few short seconds
37:05and you have a heart, you might cry.
37:08Um
37:09economics can feel abstract.
37:12And the numbers that we sometimes deal
37:14with when you're talking about the top
37:15end of town are really big. But when
37:17you're talking about $6 a day
37:20and the difference between being able to
37:21put food on the table for your kids or
37:23not, because the amount of need out
37:25there for food assistance has not gone
37:26down.
37:28So we have an economic
37:29>> it go up? I mean, like the Sen- the
37:30Senate just voted to give the president
37:33additional tariff powers.
37:35Um
37:36>> Right. So stuff at the store costs more.
37:37We're not giving it to folks.
37:40And you know, these are also the folks
37:41who the war in Iran
37:44a larger share of low-income low-income
37:46households
37:48fuel and food is a much larger share of
37:50their budget than it is for the rest of
37:52us. So the war in Iran was a regressive
37:54tax. The tariffs were a regressive tax.
37:56And then we ripped the safety net. We
37:58haven't ripped it away. We've just torn
37:59huge holes in it.
38:02And basic- It's a very complicated way
38:04they've done it. But basically the
38:05federal government has given states an
38:07incentive to say,
38:09"You don't qualify for food stamps even
38:11if you do." They've basically said, "If
38:12you make the mistake of kicking someone
38:14off food stamps who needs it,
38:16the federal government, which typically
38:17pays the bill for this, says, "That's
38:18fine by us."
38:19>> Right. Not a problem.
38:21>> I would like Scott Morrison to knock on
38:23that family's door
38:25and tell them.
38:27I
38:28I know I sound sanctimonious now, mate,
38:30but I do think there are some issues
38:32where the stakes are very, very real. Um
38:34and these jokers feel like they're
38:37playing games. But at the end of the
38:39day, the reason we think about economics
38:40is cuz we care about people and we care
38:42about their lives and we want them to
38:43live lives of dignity.
38:45And that is being taken from people
38:47right now.
38:49>> You know, later this week we're going to
38:50get more numbers, inflation numbers.
38:52>> So, when do you think that is?
38:54>> Wednesday.
38:55>> I know.
38:56>> How's that data going to mix with what
38:57we just talked about, this jobs
38:59information?
39:01>> So,
39:02it's a really big deal because um
39:05I could I'm going to give you the most
39:06boring pivot in economics. It's the most
39:08>> [laughter]
39:08>> It's the end of the Fed. The reason we
39:09always talk about the Fed is because
39:10everyone understands what how to do that
39:12very easily. Basically, the Fed is at a
39:14point right now where before this jobs
39:17numbers it thought the job market was
39:19okay, inflation was too high, it was
39:20going to hike rates to slow the economy
39:22to knock inflation down.
39:24Now we learn that maybe the labor
39:26market's not okay. Although maybe it is.
39:28I want to make sure we hold that full
39:30story there, but definitely and then
39:32inflation's a little bit too high. And
39:33so, what you have is, you know, we went
39:36from a difficult situation to a
39:38devilishly hard one.
39:40Um inflation's going to tell us how much
39:42is the cost of living risen, therefore
39:44how far behind are ordinary Americans
39:46falling because prices are what are
39:48rising faster than wages. That that
39:51thing you feel, it's a reality.
39:53Um but if that's a higher number, that's
39:55more likely to lead the Fed to raise
39:57rates, which would be more likely to
39:59slow the economy further.
40:01Which would endanger the one great part
40:04of the current
40:05uh economy, which is that unemployment
40:07has been remarkably, stubbornly, happily
40:09low, which makes me so happy.
40:12Um so, uh look, this isn't a football
40:15game, so cheering from the sidelines
40:17doesn't make a difference.
40:19Well, actually, I'm told that doesn't
40:20make a difference at football, either.
40:22Um I've tried that.
40:24>> if inflation is high and we have this
40:27jobs report
40:28>> Yep.
40:30>> That's
40:31That's bad, right? That's That's
40:33>> So, if you want the word of the day, we
40:34call that a supply shock when you get
40:36higher prices and less economic
40:38activity, and that's two bad things
40:39happening at the same time.
40:41A supply shock reflects the cost of
40:43doing business going up. And so, then
40:45you might say, "How is it possible the
40:47cost of doing business has gone up?" And
40:48then I would simply point you to
40:51the war in Iran and the closure of the
40:52Strait of Hormuz, ongoing tariffs, and
40:55immigration making it harder for folks
40:57to find the workers that they need. So,
40:59three self-inflicted supply shocks.
41:01There was a
41:02There was a period where we went
41:03literally decades without a supply
41:05shock. Um in fact, when we teach
41:06economics 101, sometimes we'd get to
41:08that bit and we'd be like, "Ah, do I
41:09have to teach that?" That was about the
41:101970s.
41:12And it turns out that
41:13>> self-imposed supply shock, potentially.
41:15>> Yeah. Now, we had some that were not
41:16self-imposed. That's really terrific
41:18news. We had COVID and we had Russia
41:21invading Ukraine. They were other supply
41:23shocks. So, they was were not
41:24self-imposed, but then we got to 20 uh
41:26the where the 2024 election and we
41:28started imposing our own, I guess,
41:31um
41:32you know, who doesn't enjoy a supply
41:33shock? Everyone. Sorry. That was me
41:35being glib or sarcastic or just dealing
41:38with my issues.
41:40>> [laughter]
41:41>> I mean, I don't know how you spend your
41:42way out of that, though.
41:44I mean, I'm sure they'll try. I'm sure
41:45the administration will try. But
41:48>> Mary, I'm sort of at a point I I maybe
41:50it's interesting for your audience to
41:52draw you out on this. Why do we keep
41:54talking about what the administration
41:55says?
41:57I cuz there's no information.
41:58>> They're in charge, though.
41:59>> But there's no information. They don't
42:01do what they say they'll do. What's
42:03true, they don't talk about. What's
42:05false, they do talk about. There's this
42:07old journalistic impulse to report on
42:09what happened in Washington. I guess cuz
42:11they're the guys in charge,
42:12but um the number of times I've been
42:14asked to comment on things where the
42:16answer is this is false on its face, why
42:17are we talking about it? And I'm not
42:19saying this about you, Mary, you're
42:20>> No, no, I am
42:21>> um
42:22but I sort of wonder why
42:26why we keep talking about this. Um how
42:28will they spin their way out of it? They
42:30won't, they'll lie.
42:31It's easy.
42:32>> They don't need to spin when you can
42:33lie.
42:34>> Right.
42:35That's right.
42:36Right, it makes the job a lot easier. By
42:37the way, they used to have to employ
42:39highly qualified analysts to go
42:41searching for the one fact that went
42:42their way. Now they just make them up.
42:44That, by the way, is not a joke.
42:45>> But you still trust the numbers? You
42:47still trust the Bureau of Labor
42:48Statistics? This is like a whole other
42:49thing. I'm probably
42:51>> No, no, no. I am very grateful you asked
42:53me that question.
42:54>> Okay.
42:54>> I'm sick of it, but it's not your fault,
42:57it's the administration's fault. Um
43:01the information environment for regular
43:03folks is just unbelievably hard because
43:05you have falsehood after falsehood being
43:07pumped out at us from the
43:08administration.
43:09Those of us who know all the acronyms in
43:11Washington know that there's a
43:13distinction between what's called an
43:14independent statistical agency, the
43:16Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census
43:17Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
43:20and political actors.
43:21Um the political actors, basically
43:24anyone whose name is Secretary,
43:27they lie all the time.
43:29The independent statistical agencies
43:31always relentlessly tell you their best,
43:34albeit imperfect, estimate of the truth.
43:38And so, that's made stuff hard because
43:41every time you hear a statement now you
43:42have to find out who said it. And then
43:44it gets even worse, which is, for
43:45instance, the Bureau of Economic
43:46Analysis lives under the Commerce
43:48Department.
43:49Everything the Commerce Department says
43:50is a lie, but everything the Bureau of
43:52Economic Analysis says is true.
43:54And sometimes the Commerce Department
43:55lies about what the Bureau of Economic
43:57Analysis is saying. So,
44:00I think it's hard.
44:01For folks at home, you can either learn
44:03the alphabet soup or you can find people
44:04you can trust.
44:05Um and if what you want to do is not
44:07talk about numbers anymore, I
44:10I think it's a great failure. I think
44:12the failure is the administrations. I
44:14think what's even worse is I want folks
44:15at home to realize you, your tax taxes
44:17are paying for these numbers.
44:19And they're much less useful if no one
44:21knows what to believe, which is another
44:22way of saying the administration is
44:24burning your tax dollars
44:26in order for its department of
44:27propaganda to keep lying to you even as
44:30we're actually creating facts. And yes,
44:33that also gets me mad.
44:35>> It's Well, it's just confusing. It's
44:37like what how do you even The people in
44:38charge of the independent agency are the
44:40political actors, right? So,
44:42theoretically they could be messing
44:43around with stuff. But, it sounds like
44:45you trust the actual statisticians.
44:47>> So,
44:48the thing is these independent
44:49statistical agencies The number of
44:51people involved in putting together the
44:52data for nonfarm payrolls or the
44:53unemployment rate is very, very large.
44:56Those people are not political actors.
44:58They have a I know them. They're
45:00friends, they're past students, they're
45:02colleagues.
45:03They have a dedication and devotion to
45:05the truth. And yes, someone high above
45:08could try to change the numbers, but the
45:10thing is the only way you could do that
45:12is dozens of people would know on the
45:14inside.
45:15And I guarantee you one of them would
45:17call me by the end of the afternoon.
45:19And Mary, I'll make you a promise. If
45:22one of them call me, I will call you and
45:24we will tell your audience.
45:27>> Deal.
45:28Deal. Let's do that.
45:30>> Yeah.
45:31>> Justin, it's always a wild ride to have
45:33you on the show. I'm grateful for you.
45:35Thank you.
45:36>> Thanks, [snorts] Mary. Let's do
45:37something Can you say something happy? I
45:38want to I want to get you to laugh.
45:39>> Get out of Get out your little plastic
45:41guy. Let's bounce him around.
45:42>> Be the optimist.
45:43>> [laughter]
45:44>> Be optimistic, everyone. There's always
45:47something beautiful out the window, and
45:48there is. I want to share with you I met
45:50Mary's beautiful family this week, and
45:52they gave me [laughter] every reason
45:55to be optimistic about our future.
45:57>> Justin, I'm grateful for you.
45:59>> Thank you.
46:10>> Hey.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of July’s Jobs Numbers Hint at a Difficult Economic Road Ahead, feat. Justin Wolfers by Slate, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,956 words across 1,517 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.