US job openings unexpectedly rise in May, hiring falls
U.S. job openings unexpectedly increased in May, but a decline in hiring added to signs that the labor market had shifted into lower gear amid uncertainty over the Trump administration's tariffs on imports, with a 90-day pause on higher reciprocal duties drawing to an end.
Job openings, a measure of labor demand, were up 374,000 to 7.769 million by the last day of May, the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics said in its Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS report, on Tuesday.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast 7.30 million vacancies. Hiring decreased by 112,000 to 5.503 million in May. Layoffs dropped 188,000 to 1.601 million. Economists say the lack of clarity on what happens after July 9, when the 90-day pause on President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs expires, had left businesses unable to make long-term plans. A 90-day temporary reduction in tariffs between the U.S. and China is due to end in mid-August. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Monday that trade partners could still face sharply higher tariffs next Wednesday, adding that any potential negotiating extensions will be up to Trump, who hinted that Japan may soon be notified of higher import duties.
Data last week showed a surge in the number of people collecting unemployment checks to more than a 3-1/2-year high in mid-June. A survey from the Conference Board showed the share of consumers who viewed jobs as being "plentiful" dropped to the lowest level in more than four years in June. Economists polled by Reuters expect the government's closely watched employment report on Thursday to show the jobless rate increased to 4.3% in June from 4.2% in May. Nonfarm payrolls are forecast to rise by 110,000 jobs after advancing by 139,000 in May. The employment report is being published a day early because of the Independence Day holiday on Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
15 minutes ago
- Mint
This is how Google plans to tackle EU pressure over search results and hefty fines
Google has tabled fresh changes to the way it presents search results, in a bid to ease mounting regulatory pressure from the European Union and stave off a potential multibillion-euro fine. The move comes just days ahead of a key workshop in Brussels, where the company will defend its practices under the EU's sweeping Digital Markets Act (DMA). The US-based tech giant, owned by Alphabet, has faced growing scrutiny over allegations that it favours its own specialised services, such as Google Shopping, Hotels and Flights, over rival platforms in its search rankings. In March, the European Commission formally charged the company with violating the DMA, a landmark set of rules designed to rein in the dominance of Big Tech firms and foster fairer competition. You may be interested in According to a document reviewed by Reuters, Google will present its updated proposal, referred to as "Option B," at a stakeholder meeting scheduled for 7–8 July. This follows an earlier offer made last week, which suggested placing a dedicated box at the top of the search page featuring links to vertical search services (VSS) such as comparison websites and sector-specific search engines. Option B builds on this by introducing an additional box beneath the VSS display, containing free links to direct suppliers such as hotels, airlines, restaurants, and transport providers. Notably, Google would curate and organise this supplier information without branding the section as its own vertical search service. 'Option B provides suppliers with opportunities while not creating a box that can be characterised as a Google VSS,' the document notes. The company has stressed that it has already implemented numerous changes to its products to align with DMA requirements. 'We've made hundreds of alterations to our products as part of our DMA compliance,' a Google spokesperson said. 'While we strive for compliance, we remain genuinely concerned about some of the real-world consequences of the DMA, which are leading to worse online products and experiences for Europeans.' If Google is found to be in breach of the Digital Markets Act, it could face penalties of up to 10 per cent of its global annual revenue. (With inputs from Reuters)
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
$16 million, no apology: Paramount settles Trump's '60 minutes' lawsuit
In a rare and stunning move, Paramount Global agreed to pay US President Donald Trump $16 million to settle a lawsuit over the editing of a 2024 60 Minutes interview with then Vice President Kamala Harris. The payment, announced quietly on Tuesday evening, marks one of the most significant capitulations by a major news organisation to a sitting president in US history. And it may be one of the clearest signals yet that the press is losing its most fundamental protections. 'Each settlement weakens the democratic freedoms on which these media organisations depend,' wrote Jameel Jaffer, head of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'They create precedents… that will shape the way that judges and the public think about press freedom and its limits.' Paramount's settlement, which includes Trump's legal fees, comes with no apology. But it does include one unprecedented concession: future 60 Minutes interviews with presidential candidates will now come with full written transcripts. 'Another win for the American people,' a spokesman for Trump's legal team said, delivered by the president who is holding 'the fake news media accountable.' But the implications stretch far beyond a single interview. 'The deal is the clearest sign yet that Mr. Trump's ability to intimidate major American institutions extends to the media industry,' The New York Times wrote. Inside CBS, the mood was grim. Journalists at 60 Minutes had seen the lawsuit not only as frivolous but as a direct challenge to their ability to report freely. Scott Pelley, a CBS correspondent, called any settlement 'very damaging to CBS, to Paramount, to the reputation of those companies.' Veteran CBS reporter Lesley Stahl was even more blunt in an interview with the New Yorker. 'There aren't any damages. I mean, he accused us of editing Kamala Harris in a way to help her win the election. But he won the election,' she said. 'It is a frivolous lawsuit.' Still, Paramount folded. Why? Part of the answer lies in the network's fragile corporate situation. Paramount+, the company's flagship streaming service, is bleeding hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Its CEO was ousted and replaced with an awkward 'office of the C.E.O.' Its cable business is in long-term decline, and its stock has plummeted more than 70 per cent over the last five years. All this while the company is negotiating a high-stakes merger with Skydance Media, one that needs the blessing of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to go through. While FCC Chairman Brendan Carr publicly claimed the Trump lawsuit was unrelated to the FCC's review of the Skydance deal, others weren't so sure. The Times reported that some Paramount executives believed settling the lawsuit might smooth the path forward with regulators. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders warned that such a payout 'could be construed as a bribe' and suggested congressional hearings might follow. Even though the FCC regulates Paramount's 27 local stations and not CBS News directly, Carr has taken a notably aggressive stance toward liberal media outlets. He opened inquiries into NPR and PBS, questioned public broadcasting funding, and revived reviews into the programming choices of ABC and NBC. The lawsuit against CBS wasn't even about Trump himself, who didn't appear in the segment. Instead, Trump claims that 60 Minutes violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a law typically used by consumers against false advertising. His claim centered on how CBS edited Kamala Harris' remarks about Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Twenty-one seconds of the Harris interview aired on Face the Nation, and seven different seconds on 60 Minutes. CBS said it was edited for time, a standard practice in television, but Trump argued that it was designed to sway voters towards the Democratic nominee. Legal scholars were baffled. 'CBS' speech is not commercial, It's news,' wrote Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor for Bloomberg. 'If news on a network with advertising counted as commercial speech, the First Amendment as we know it would be gutted.' Yet the case found a home in Amarillo, Texas, where there's only one federal judge – Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee with a record of hardline rulings. But the CBS settlement wasn't an outlier. In recent years, Trump has extracted millions from media giants. Disney paid $15 million (plus $1 million in legal fees) over a defamation claim tied to George Stephanopoulos. Meta paid $25 million over Trump's Facebook ban. Trump still has pending suits against the Des Moines Register and even the Pulitzer Prize committee. In many cases, these lawsuits are legally shaky—but politically potent. At the Pentagon, former Fox News host Pete Hegseth, now Defence Secretary, reassigned press workspace away from outlets like Politico, NPR, NBC, and The New York Times in favour of Breitbart, One America News, and HuffPost – which hadn't even asked for a spot. Reporters weren't banned, but the message was clear. 'The opposition party is the media,' former advisor Steve Bannon told Frontline in 2019. On the campaign trail in 2022, Trump said he would jail reporters who refuse to reveal confidential sources, even joking about prison rape. 'When this person realises that he is going to be the bride of another prisoner shortly, he will say, 'I'd very much like to tell you exactly who that was,'' Trump warned at a rally. Then, in 2023, he called on NBC to be investigated for treason over its coverage of criminal charges he faces. Similarly, after a contentious 2024 debate, he called for ABC News to lose its license. 'They oughta take away their license for the way they do that,' he told Fox & Friends. Trump's campaign has already changed how some major outlets operate. Jeff Bezos of The Washington Post and Patrick Soon-Shiong of The Los Angeles Times both refused to endorse Kamala Harris in 2024, citing public mistrust in media and the political risks of alienating federal regulators. Inside The New York Times, leadership is bracing for more to come. Executive Editor Joseph Kahn told NPR, 'we shouldn't pretend that [press protections] are only vulnerable in a place like Hungary or Turkey. They are also vulnerable here.' And while Trump and his allies criticised the Biden administration for pressuring social media companies to remove offensive content, Trump is doing the same thing, just more aggressively. '[Trump] is demanding that a private company kowtow to him—or else,' wrote Reason magazine. 'But his chilling crusade against the press… is an assault on the values that distinguish a liberal democracy from one that elects autocrats.'
New Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Trump backs bill pushing 500% tariffs on Russia's trade partners; India and China in dilemma
In a development that could reshape US foreign trade policy and geopolitical alignments, US President Donald Trump has backed a Senate bill proposing sweeping 500% tariffs on countries maintaining economic ties with Russia. The legislation, known as the 'Sanctioning Russia Act', seeks to economically isolate Moscow by penalising third-party nations — including India and China — that continue importing large volumes of Russian oil.
