Three important fundamentals-based indicators of the consumer economy: are they turning?

 

 - by New Deal democrat

Today is one day of quiet before a slew of updated statistics, including the November jobs and inflation reports, are to be reported next week (it is unclear whether others originally scheduled for next week, like building permits and starts, will also be updated). There was some housing and rental inventory and pricing data for Q3 released yesterday, but I will integrate reporting on that when the next housing data comes out.

Which means that today is a good day to highlight three fundamental datapoints that have in the past been very (although not perfectly!) reliable, all of which either may have just turned or may be on the verge of turning, down.

One fundamentals-based indicator which has a very long history (as in over 70 years) that has been a very good long leading indicator is per capita real retail sales, i.e., retail sales adjusted for both population and inflation (red in the graphs below). This on average turns down about a year before a recession begins. When people begin to cut back on spending for their households, unless things change it isn’t too long before it cascades into things like employment and hours of work, triggering a recession. Like many other indicators, it misfired in 2022-23 when a tsunami of supply-sided deflation created a positive “real” shock - but there is no such deus ex machina lurking now.

A second similar indicator is real personal consumption spending on goods, which is a broader measure of spending, and uses a different deflator (gold). In the graphs below below I have also normed it by population.

Finally, as I have pointed out many times, real aggregate payrolls of nonsupervisory workers has an almost perfect record of turning in the months before a recession has begun, going back over 60 years (blue). This is fundamentals-based as well; when workers in real terms are earning less money in the aggregate, they have less to spend, and this is usually an immediate trigger for a recession.

With all of that as background, here are all three indicators normed to 100 as of last December:

Neither real retail sales nor real spending on goods per capita have ever matched that level since, although their three month moving average has continued to improve in a decelerating fashion. Meanwhile, real aggregate payrolls have increased by 1.2% since, although only 0.3% of that has been during the last six months.

Typically, the immediate recession signal is when these indicators turn negative YoY. Here’s what that metric looks like now:

All of these have decelerated, several sharply, since the March-April timeframe when consumers and producers alike were front-running tariffs. None have turned negative yet, although if their present rate of deceleration continues, that is likely to occur within 4-6 months of their last datapoint for September. Next week all of them are scheduled to be updated through November, so we will have a much more current view of whether fundamental economic conditions are stormy for the average American household.

Is Thanksgiving seasonality masking a possible longer term positive regime change in jobless claims?

 

 - by New Deal democrat

This week’s update of initial and continuing jobless claims is a demonstration of two frames of seasonality: one in the immediate term, and one longer term stretching back several years. When we parse them out together, they suggest there may have been somewhat of a regime change that began in July and is still ongoing. 

Let’s start as usual with the raw numbers. Initial claims rebounded from last week’s near 50 year low by 44,000 to 236,000. The four week moving average, which irons out most of this seasonality, rose 2,000 to 216,250. Continuing claims, which it is especially important this week to note lag one week, declined dramatically, by -99,000 to 1.838 million, the lowest since early April:

Of course, the prior week was Thanksgiving, and as I wrote last week, the seasonal adjustment “expects” a big decline, but this year’s was even bigger. I expected a rebound this week, and we got it. Next week I expect a similar rebound in continuing claims.

That’s the immediate term seasonality issue.

But this week the graph above covers not just my usual frame of two years, but three years, to show that a regime change may be afoot. That’s because in the immediate post-pandemic years of 2023 and 2024, there were apparent pandemic related unresolved seasonality issues: claims rose from January until mid-year, and then declined during the second half of the year until the next January. This year the unresolved seasonality has been much more muted, especially in the second half of this year. Claims did rise into June, but then sharply declined in July, and have generally remained in that range since.

Of course, seasonality issues should be negated in the YoY% comparisons, which as I always point out, is more important for forecasting purposes. There, initial claims were lower by -1.3% this week, the four week average by -3.2%, and continuing claims by -1.9%:

As per usual, I score this as a positive, as this is what happens during expansions. In other words, it forecasts no recession in the very near term, which is good news compared with some other data we have recently received, including the JOLTS report for September I wrote about on Tuesday.

Additionally, because jobless claims lead the unemployment rate, our usual look suggests that there is no upward pressure on that rate, and if anything there is an increased likelihood of a small decline in the unemployment rate in the next several months:

That’s good news. And that plays into the possibility of a regime change in the trend in claims since the middle of this year.

Below is a graph of the YoY change in the actual number of initial claims filed plotted both weekly (thinner, gray) and monthly (thicker, blue) in 2025:

In the first half of this year, jobless claims typically were in the +10,000 range YoY. That all changed since the end of June. In the 23 weeks since, jobless claims have averaged just under -4,000 lower YoY. While I speculated during the summer that the change was school year related, and indeed there was payback in the form of sharply higher numbers early in September, the trend of lower YoY numbers has continued, even against the comparisons of very low numbers at this time last year (remember the residual seasonality of 2023-24 meant low numbers in December into January).

This suggests to me that the post-pandemic residual seasonality has been evaporating in large part, and further it is evidence, contrary to most of the monthly data we have gotten this year - including most recently from both the regional Feds and the ISM as I have documented in the last few weeks - that have suggested that the labor market may have tipped over. Instead, initial claims may point to at least a slight recovery.

Weekly data is noisy, but it always captures trend changes first. While the official monthly government data is still stale, I will pay especially attention to the regional Feds reports on employment trends in their districts, the first of which is scheduled to be released on Monday.

Q3 employment costs: probably the “least positive” since the pandemic

 

 - by New Deal democrat

The employment cost index, which was updated this morning through Q3, typically gets much less attention than the monthly payrolls report. But in this circumstance it is entitled to more notice, since the monthly data has only been posted through September as well.

Additionally, one important advantange of the Employment Cost Index is that it is adjusted for the type of job performed, while the monthly average statistics are not. Thus, for example, since many low-paid service workers were laid off during the COVID lockdowns, the latter metric was distorted by the job mix, whereas the former measure was not.

The news from this morning’s report was mixed. On the one hand, quarterly compensation increased just under 0.8%, whether measured by wages and salaries alone (blue) or by total compensation including benefits (red). On the other hand, the quarterly increase in wages was among the lowest in four years, and for total compensation it was the lowest (note: graph subtracts this quarter’s changes from both datapoints so that they norm to 0 for easier comparison):

On a YoY% basis, median wage compensation increased 3.6%, on par with the previous two quarters, while total compensation was the lowest since the pandemic, although higher than at any point between the Great Recession and the pandemic:

Although it is somewhat noisy, the employment cost index tends to in tandem with, but inversely to, the unemployment rate:

There really is not any leading/lagging relationship here, and my reading of this graph is that both median compensation and the unemployment rate were relatively stable this year though September, as the uptick in each is within the range of noise.

Finally, since the employment cost index measures wages and other compensation normed by occupation, an interesting comparison is with the Atlanta Fed’s wage tracker, which measures wage increases between those who switch jobs (presumably for better pay and/or benefits) and job stayers (updated through August):

During most of the post-pandemic era, when the unemployment rate was especially low, employees could get substantially better wage increases by switching to a new job. This year that has ended. Job switchers are doing no better than job stayers.

In sum, this morning’s data tells us that when it comes to wage growth, workers are still doing better than they were at any point during the last long expansion before the pandemic, but although the news was still positive, it was the least positive, relatively speaking, since then. This is especially true given the increase in inflation since early this year.

October JOLTS report: red flag warning for employment sector in worst report since the pandemic

 

 - by New Deal democrat

This morning’s JOLTS report for October is now the most current official monthly indicator for the jobs sector.

And it was emphatically not good. In fact, it was red flag recessionary.

In the past year, in contrast to much other data in the jobs sector, the JOLTS reports had been very much consistent with a “soft landing” jobs scenario. Not so this month.

The survey decomposes the employment market into openings, hires, quits, and layoffs. The first of those, openings, is soft data that can be influenced by stale or false postings, and trolling for new resumes. It has been on a general uptrend ever since the inception of the series 25 years ago. In contrast, the other series are hard data representing actual actions - and all of those were bad.

Let’s begin with job openings (blue), hires (red), and quits (gold) all normed to 100 as of just before the pandemic:

The “soft” data of openings has been rangebound between 7.103 million and 8.031 million for the past 18 months, and this month came right down the middle at 7.670 million. But actual hires declined a sharp -218,000 to 5.149 million, the lowest reading since the pandemic except for June of last year and August of this year.  But quits were at their worst level of all since the pandemic, down -187,000 to 2.941 million.

And the bad news doesn’t end there. Layoffs and discharges, which while noisy lead both continued jobless claims (gold) and the unemployment rate (red) rose 73,000 to 1.854 million, except for one month a four year high:

Finally, the quits rate (left scale), which typically leads the YoY% change in average hourly wages for nonsupervisory workers (red, right scale), also declined -0.2% to a post-pandemic low of 1.8%:

This suggests that nominal wage growth, which has already been trending slightly downward, is likely to decelerate further in the next several months. Since inflation has been rising, it will put a further squeeze on ordinary working Americans, and may cause real aggregate payrolls to turn negative.

This was a bad, even recessionary, report consistent with actual job losses in October, which every other non-governmental survey has suggested as well. Unfortunately, since most other new releases are stale data from September, we will have to await better data for October and November to be more confident that we have arrived at a turning point.

While capital spending increased sharply, yet more evidence of consumer weakness

 

 - by New Deal democrat

On Friday I noted that real personal spending on goods, especially durable goods, had declined in September. If we have reached a tipping point on that metric, a recession in the near future looks much more likely, even as spending on services continues.

Late last week we also got further evidence of the bifurcation between the consumer economy and the AI-fueled production economy, in the form of durable goods orders and motor vehicle sales.

Let’s look at motor vehicle sales, updated right through November first. On a month over month basis, both light vehicle (sedans, SUVs, pickup trucks) increased, as did sales of heavy weight trucks:

That’s the good news.

The bad news is when we put this improvement in perspective by looking at the long term historical data:

Heavy truck sales carry much more, and more reliable, signal than light vehicle sales, and they always turn down sharply first. Which is exactly what they have done in the past few months. The long leading signal of housing construction turned recessionary many months ago, and now the next shoe has clearly dropped.

But the other news last week, on manufacturers’ new durable and capital goods orders, told a completely different story, as both increased to among their best readings since the pandemic:

In the case of core capital goods orders, it was the best reading since the pandemic except for one month. This is a strong uptrend that began over a year ago and really accelerated this year.

But the intersection between these two metrics is production of, and spending on, consumer durable goods. Here is headline durable goods orders (blue) vs. consumer durable goods orders (red), updated through September:

As per the above, the former was in a strong uptrend. But the latter remained flat, just as it has been for two years.

So let’s compare consumer spending on durables YoY (blue) vs. manufacturers orders for consumer durables YoY (red):

Since the latter are much noisier and more volatile than the former, I have supplied the quarterly average as well as the monthly YoY change, divided by 1.5 for scale.

In general, consumer spending on durables turns first, giving manufacturers their cue to produce more or less. This was complicated by the “China shock” beginning in 1999, where goods imports from China increased sharply, and for a generation.

Finally, here is the post-pandemic look:

Consumer spending on durables increased last autumn and winter, particularly in anticipation of T—-p’s tariffs. The YoY comparisons are still positive, but less so. As per usual, the producer response occurred afterward. 

It is especially important to reiterate than the most recent durable goods and spending data has only been released through September. The motor vehicle data, as well as other types of data such as tax withholding, have indicated a sharp slowdown since. But we’ll have to wait at least one more month to see if that has truly broadened into a contraction in consumer spending on goods.