The United States remained close to full employment in April with a stable unemployment rate of 4.3%, according to official data released on Friday. Economists pointed out that it is too early to observe any potential impact from the war in the Middle East. The world’s largest economy added 105,000 jobs during the period, exceeding investors’ expectations of around 60,000, according to Trading Economics. March had seen even more job creations (185,000).
Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which is published quickly after the end of the month, is often subject to significant revisions. They have experienced abrupt changes in recent months, with job creations well above expectations, as well as spectacular job losses (156,000 in February). On average, net job creations remained significantly below the levels before Donald Trump came back to power.
This has not translated into additional unemployment, as the labor force remained stagnant during the period. Economists attribute this to the aging population and harsh immigration policies of the government. “It is still a little early to fully measure the impact of the war on the labor market,” observed KPMG economist Diane Swonk this week, noting that “many companies were counting on a quick resolution” of the conflict, which began over two months ago.
She also stated, “One should expect a further weakening (of the labor market) in the coming months, given the increase in costs and disruptions in supply chains.” “April is too early” to see an impact, according to economics professor Guy Berger. “But if the energy crisis continues into the second half, it could undermine the early signs of recovery in the labor market,” added the labor market specialist.
“While it is still too early to observe the direct impact of the conflict in the Middle East on the labor market, the combination of supply shocks, margin pressures, and uncertainties about customs and energy costs encourages companies to prioritize investments aimed at improving productivity and cost control rather than increasing staff,” highlighted EY economists in parallel.
