Weekly Update: Jobs Surge as Foreign Nationals Depart, and Government Shrinks

Happy Friday! This is the latest installment of our weekly news roundup—a look back at a week filled with notable events.

This week, employment statistics exceeded forecasts. For the third consecutive month, many foreign nationals returned home, federal employees transitioned to full-time positions, factory production increased significantly, and wages in the manufacturing sector shot up. Elizabeth Warren, once celebrated for her legal insights, expressed outrage over President Trump’s blind trust acquiring some of her stock.

Let’s dive in.

Who Outsources Jobs?

Regrettably for mainstream media, the once-favored narrative about the labor market—low hiring rates and minimal layoffs—is no longer relevant. We are experiencing a boom: there are many jobs available and very few layoffs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the three-month rolling average of payroll growth hit 188,333 in May, marking a solid employment increase by historical measures. Data dating back to 1947 shows that only 41% of the time has the three-month average reached this level or higher. Remarkably, this comes over six years since the pandemic-induced recession’s low point. Job growth remains strong, having persisted for 73 months. Historically, such sustained growth has only been seen in three previous expansions: during the late Reagan years, the dot-com boom of the 1990s, and the recovery following the financial crisis.

This recent growth looks even more robust when considering the civilian workforce. During the same period, the workforce decreased by an average of 135,000 individuals monthly. Since 1948, wage growth has indeed outpaced labor force expansion—only about 6% of three-month intervals have shown such an increase. Six years after the recession, the wage-to-labor force gap is currently wider than at any time during the post-war era.

Even last year, with measly job growth averaging 10,000 monthly, claims of “fewer jobs and fewer layoffs” were misleading. They stemmed from an economic model predicting that an increase in labor supply needed hundreds of thousands of jobs monthly to avoid rising unemployment, a benchmark the economy often missed. In reality, the job market was performing better than it appeared.

Right now, job creation stands well above that critical point. We are witnessing unprecedented growth in a post-World War II context.

As Foreigners Leave, Federal Positions Dwindle

The foreign-born civilian non-institutional population has plummeted, with about 532,000 departures over the past year, as noted in the latest employment report. The foreign-born labor force is down by 94,000 compared to a year earlier, with 107,000 fewer foreign-born individuals currently employed, reflecting the impacts of immigration enforcement on labor statistics.

In May, the federal government added just 1,000 jobs following two months of layoffs. Let’s hope these positions are primarily with Customs and Border Protection. Year-over-year, federal payrolls have declined by 275,000, and compared to the peak in October 2024, this figure represents a drop of 346,000 jobs.

This context makes the overall job growth even more remarkable—it’s not artificially inflated by government hiring or an influx of cheap labor. It demonstrates the positive changes in the economy, signaling a trend toward re-privatization and re-Americanization.

It’s no wonder that some critics are upset about these developments.

Job Market Update

While the salary survey for May offered encouraging insights, there was an unexpected revelation—the household survey did not echo this enthusiasm. Employers reported adding 172,000 jobs, while the household survey noted an increase of 149,000 in employment and a decrease in unemployment.

From a labor data standpoint, it’s akin to a collective embrace. Typically, these two polls clash every week, but this month they seemed to find common ground, acknowledging the positive state of the labor market.

Golden Age of Manufacturing?

“Donald Trump’s vow to initiate a ‘golden age’ of American manufacturing” was highlighted in a notable article this week. That description, however, seems misplaced as we are currently enjoying the largest wage increase for factory workers in over half a century. Real wages for durable goods workers increased by 3.5%, a feat not achieved consistently since the postwar period from 1947 to 1969. For comparison, real wage growth was just 0.2% per year during the decade before the pandemic, remaining stagnant since the 1970s.

Nominal weekly wages surged by 7.4% year-over-year, hourly wages climbed by 5.3%, and the number of overtime hours rose from 3.7 to 4.0 hours weekly. This is accompanied by an overtime tax reduction, enhancing take-home pay beyond the reported figures.

Real output for durable goods increased by 5.8% annually in Q1, with productivity skyrocketing at a 5.5% annual rate, which implies significant gains in output per hour worked by American factory employees, making wage increases both viable and sustainable.

And this growth won’t come at the cost of reducing returns. In fact, the fraction of production workers in the broader non-farm sector fell to its lowest level since 1947. This shift supports capital investment and boosts productivity—workers enjoy genuine profit increases, driven by higher efficiency rather than squeezing profit margins or inciting inflation.

The only voices of dissent come from those frustrated that the facts don’t align with their negative narratives.

Elizabeth Warren’s Critique

It’s almost hard to believe, but there was a time when Elizabeth Warren was seen as a positive force. She penned books on how dual-income families were not necessarily thriving, despite their increasing effort. Many families felt economically insecure, and she vocally criticized the financial system’s bailout terms, rightly pointing out how banks were benefiting from taxpayer investments.

However, since becoming a U.S. senator, her trajectory has skewed negatively. Recently in a Senate hearing, she called for an investigation into Trump, claiming insider trading occurred after his trust bought shares in Bank of New York Mellon and Robinhood just ahead of their announcement of a partnership with the Trump account.

“Of course, both stocks have risen since then,” she declared.

But were there any wrongdoing? Did Trump’s account influence these stocks? Not really.

Bank of New York’s stock is up about 15% since April 6, similar to the S&P 500, and its competitor State Street has surged by 23%. While Robinhood’s stock increased by around 19%, it underperformed against Interactive Brokers’ 28%. In short, there was nothing out of the ordinary; the stocks reacted in line with the market and underperformed against their closest rivals. If the managers of Trump’s trust are doing something wrong, they’re not doing it very effectively.

Historical Context

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia presented his resolution for independence to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. John Adams endorsed the motion. The resolution proclaimed:

“Resolved, That these United Colonies are and ought to be free and independent States, exempt from all allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain, dissolving all political relations with Great Britain. That it be expedient to take immediate steps toward forming a union; that a plan of union be drafted and sent to each of the Colonies for review and approval.”

Congress viewed it as a significant step—before fully committing to independence on July 2nd—with 12 colonial delegates voting in favor. However, New York abstained; their approval came later, on July 9. John Adams later remarked that July 2 would be remembered as a key moment in American history.

However, the public showed less enthusiasm than anticipated. The actual Declaration of Independence—an 18th-century FAQ of sorts—gained more attention when adopted on July 4, likely because Congress wanted to declare independence on Independence Day.

It’s perhaps indicative of historical irony that Lee, who was initially pivotal, later voiced strong opposition to the 1787 Constitution. He warned against centralization of power and argued that a continental republic would struggle to sustain itself.

Despite losing that battle, he accepted the role of one of Virginia’s senators, aiming for constitutional amendments. He proposed the Tenth Amendment, which passed almost entirely as he suggested, and became a supporter of the Washington administration.

In late 1792, Lee requested to retire from the Senate, explaining that serving his country had taken a toll on his health. He remarked that his condition could only be alleviated by retirement. Lee passed away in Virginia on June 19, 1794, a date now recognized as a federal holiday, alongside July 4.