Weak Jobs Report Fuels Rate Hike Skeptics — Bloomberg Businessweek Daily 8/7/2026

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Business Week Daily reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay ahead with insight on the people, companies and trends shaping today's complex economy, plus global business, finance and tech news as it happens. Bloomberg Business Week Daily with Carol Masser and Tim Stenevek live on Bloomberg Radio, television and Bloomberg Originals. Yes, indeed, everybody. It is Friday and we are across [00:00:29] Speaker 2: Bloomberg platforms. Carol Masser, Tim Stenevek live here at Bloomberg headquarters in New York City. We made it. It is a jobs Friday. It is August 7th, 2026. It didn't really go as planned. It was a little bit of a shocker when it first crossed. It was, but it's complicated and that's why we're going to spend quite a bit of time digging into the nitty gritty today. It's always complicated. All right. We are going to get it. It's especially complicated. Yeah. We did see a sharp slowdown in the U.S. jobs market. We have seen it put some pressure on the equity trade. We've seen bond yields falling too. There's some speculation out there that the Fed maybe won't have to be forced or rushed to raise interest rates anytime soon. So I got to say this was definitely one of the focal points. We had SpaceX earnings. We had this. One of the key things for investors this week. Right. Next week, inflation. That's what our attention turns to. We do. We'll get to that. We've got a great round table coming up over the next hour. First up, we're going to have Mike McKeon, Deutsche Bank's Matt Luzzetti here. We're going to go wide and deep on that jobs report. The economy, the [00:01:29] Speaker 3: party duo. So we're going to get into that. Hey, plus another read on the labor market. We're going to do that with Indeed Hiring Labs. Laura Ulrich. She's going to be along as well. They've got a new survey. They're talking about AI and what it means for white collar jobs. And then we're going to talk a little bit about sports, the future of FIFA, media rights and all that good stuff. Yeah. Looking forward to that. That World Cup, by the way, the most lucrative ever. The sponsorships were everywhere. So those hydration breaks. That's what it was all about. And apparently they may continue. They may continue. Hey, folks, we'd like to hear from you. You've been sending in questions. Please Please continue to do so. And you can do it. Bloomberg.com slash ask radio. We've got a couple of questions already to bring into our discussion about the U.S. labor market. Again, exclusively for Bloomberg.com subscribers and terminal clients. Just send them to Bloomberg.com slash ask radio. All right. We've got a great hour coming up here on Bloomberg [00:02:17] Speaker 2: Businessweek daily. First up, a check of the day's trade and top business stories. Here he is, Charlie. Hi. Thank you very much, Tim and Carol. Indeed. Green on the screen right now. Jobs Friday. The Dow, the S&P, [00:02:26] Charlie Pellett: NASDAQ all advancing. Even though we had a sharp slowdown in the jobs market, it is driving stocks higher. Bond yields are falling on speculation that the Fed will not be forced to raise rates anytime soon. S&P at 7745 now. Up 35. That is a gain of five tenths of 1%. Dow industrial is up 94. That is a gain of two tenths of 1%. And NASDAQ is up 1% higher by 263 points. NASDAQ 100 index up by nine tenths of 1%. The Sox the Philadelphia Stock Exchange semiconductor index up 2.1%. The two-year, 4.19%. Now the 10-year, 4.65%. And the 30-year is 5.20%. Gold, meanwhile, up $100. The ounce up 2.4%. 43.39 on the precious metal. West Texas Intermediate crude just above 78 a barrel has been fluctuating above and below 78. But right now, it is up by 1%. Barrel of Brent, 83.43. Brent crude up by 1.1%. Keeping an eye on sweet green shares, the stock is now down by 7.7%. It cut its annual outlook due to reduce consumer demand for fresh prepared foods during the cyclospora outbreak. Also, we've got underarmor shares trading lower as well. They're down 5.2%. Underarmor forecast a sharper revenue decline than previously expected as demand softens in several key regions. Recapping S&P higher now by 5 tenths of 1%. I'm Charlie Pellett. Tim and Carol, that's a Bloomberg Business Flash. [00:04:03] Speaker 3: It certainly is. All right. Thank you so much, Charlie Pellett. So let's get to it and let's get to the labor market and that report we got this morning at 8:30 a.m. Eastern. Here's just kind of some of the details. U.S. employers unexpectedly cut jobs in the month of July and hiring the prior two months was revised lower, suggesting that the labor market here in the U.S. is weaker than previously thought after surprising strength, Tim, earlier this year. [00:04:26] Speaker 2: The decline in jobs driven by cuts in government leisure and hospitality, also retail. Private sector payrolls rose by $30,000 for a second month. That was led by health care and social assistance. Manufacturing and construction payrolls, those continue to climb. And then there was the participation rate. [00:04:41] Speaker 3: The share of the population working or looking for work fell to 61.4%, which, excluding the pandemic, was the lowest since the 1970s. Among those between the ages of 25 and 54, known as prime age workers, participation edged higher, but remained near the lowest levels of the last few years. White House Director of the National Economic Council, we're talking about Kevin Hasson, he spoke earlier on Bloomberg TV and radio on open interest with Danny Berger and Michael McKee. [00:05:10] Speaker 5: The labor force participation is kind of on a downward trajectory, which means that the break-even jobs number, that is, the jobs number you need so the unemployment rate doesn't go up, has gone from maybe $120,000, $130,000 a few years ago to maybe about $40,000 now. And so what it means is that what the market is used to looking at, oh, it's like a normal, tread the water kind of jobs number if it's around $100,000, is no longer true. [00:05:36] Speaker 3: All right, that, of course, is White House Director of the National Economic Council, Kevin Hasson, earlier on Bloomberg. Joining us with more is our own Michael McKee, who was talking to Mr. Hasson earlier on Bloomberg. He is, of course, Bloomberg TV and radio, international economics and policy correspondent, joining us here in studio, along with and back with us, Matt Lizetti, his chief economist at Deutsche Bank. Thank you, Mike. Guys, thank you so much. I do want to kick it off with you, though, Mike. We've had a few hours for the dust to settle. Is this a report that was weaker? Like, what's the assessment here? [00:06:07] Speaker 6: I think the bottom line, to just skip to the end of the book, is that the labor market is weaker than it had appeared. But it's not weak. It's not a problem for the Fed to have to deal with. And there were, as you mentioned, some quirks in the data this time. And everything Kevin said was true about with the labor force declining. You need fewer jobs to employ people so the unemployment rate can go down. And that is something that the Fed's going to have to think about in terms of what is the level of interest rates that keeps the unemployment rate steady. [00:06:43] Speaker 2: We'll dig into all of this and more in just a minute. First, I want to bring in Matt Lizetti, chief economist over at Deutsche Bank. Do you agree with Mike's assessment here that, yeah, on the surface it looks weaker, but it's not as bad as sort of the headline number? Yeah, I think absolutely. [00:06:58] Speaker 7: You got a downside surprise on payrolls. You had the 100,000 of downward revisions to prior months. But I think what it does is it confirms that that break-even number is just lower. So there's various Fed estimates out there suggesting that the break-even number could be as low as zero per month. Over the past three or six months, we're running at 20 to 45,000 on headline payroll numbers. With that backdrop, we've seen the unemployment rate decline to the lowest level in 18 months. We've seen other measures of labor market slack actually tighten on the margins as well. And so I think it actually fits more with a story where the break-even number is quite low. We see payroll gains trending kind of around those levels, maybe a little bit above. Labor market slack tightening at the margins. But it takes away some of the upside risks to the labor market that the Fed might have been contemplating. [00:07:40] Speaker 3: All right. So when it comes to -- we've got actually a question I want to bring in from a viewer and listener. It's Mark in Toronto. And he says, "What impact do boomers retiring have on the labor participation rate and unemployment make?" And if we could address that. I have to say, I have some boomers in my family who've retired recently or in the last few years. And they have at least three or four of them that have left the labor market. Matt, is that something that is certainly at play here? Absolutely. [00:08:08] Speaker 7: So if you look at the labor force participation over recent months, in June, there was a big decline in prime age, which I think you alluded to, and specifically the 25 to 34 age group. That partially reversed. I think the bigger structural trend is labor force participation from 55 plus continues to collapse. There's a question about whether or not that's worrying or not. I would actually argue that it's really in line with what you would expect from demographics. So if you look at different age groups with 55 plus, their participation rates are actually not moving around all that much. So what's happening is people are just aging into buckets where they work a lot less, where their participation rates are much lower. And we're in fact much closer to what I would expect from a demographics implied trend from the labor market. [00:08:51] Speaker 2: Mike, what about the other end of the demographic spectrum? And that would traditionally be new entrants to this country entering the labor force and younger immigrants. We've seen that dry up significantly over the past few months, and certainly by design with this administration. You addressed that with Kevin Hassett a little bit in one of the questions that he answered. Does that work in our economy when we're not having enough kids? [00:09:15] Speaker 6: It isn't good news for the overall economy, as we were talking about with Kevin Hassett. The size of the labor force is one input into what potential growth is. And if the labor force isn't growing, you've got to get more out of productivity. Kevin and Warsh thinks you will eventually. Not yet. So it is it is a problem for the economy overall. And you can see that in the overall participation numbers as well. Although prime age has ticked up a little bit. Things have loosened up a little bit compared to where they were. But the demographics at the other end, as Matt was saying, that's been going on for quite a while as baby boomers from 1946 started retiring. And now we're past the peak of baby boomers being 65. So that will be less and less of an issue going forward. But it still takes a lot of people out of the labor force. [00:10:06] Speaker 3: Is it too soon? I feel like there's a million things I want to talk about. Because demographics is things I know we've talked with you about it. But I do think about longer term, if we don't allow immigration into the country and we have an older workforce, you know, how much the economy here in the U.S. is at risk in terms of growth. Matt, is that something you guys are thinking about a lot or studying? [00:10:25] Speaker 7: Sure. I mean, I think if you look at projections for population growth and the size of the U.S. population, as you look out five or ten years, without positive net immigration flows, you have a declining labor force. You have a declining population. The U.S. is not the only economy, global economy, that is dealing with these issues. We've seen this movie, right? We see these issues in various parts of Asia, Europe. Many of these economies are actually worse placed than the U.S. is from that perspective. But no doubt, we rely on positive net immigration flows as we look ahead. I think, as Mike mentioned, you know, the hope is that productivity growth can pick up. It has been pretty robust over these past two to three years, and that that can be the supporting mechanism for overall growth. So far, it's working out okay. Yeah. But it's a bigger question as you look at it. [00:11:10] Speaker 2: Okay. I promise we... [00:11:12] Speaker 6: Oh, go ahead, Mike. I was just going to add on to this. There is one aspect of this that the productivity can't really solve, and that is the fewer people that are working, the lower the dependency ratio is. And so Social Security gets less funding. Medicare gets less funding. Right. And that is an ongoing issue, and nobody has any idea when Congress is going to address this. [00:11:35] Speaker 3: I keep saying, you know, robots are going to replace us, or AI makes us more productive. But, you know, robots don't buy lunch, or robots don't need their shoes shined, or robots don't need to go shopping for shoes. You know, like, I just... They need to be oiled, though. [00:11:48] Speaker 2: It depends. [00:11:49] Speaker 3: Maybe rebooted sometimes. [00:11:50] Speaker 2: It depends. [00:11:51] Speaker 3: It depends. Mike, I want to get to the conversation with Hassett, Kevin Hassett, this morning. At one point, talking about hourly earnings, and he then brought up weekly earnings. You said something like, I don't know if the president's watching the Oval Office saying, you got your point, though. And Kevin, good job, good job. And Kevin said, I don't know if he's watching, but I'll find out. And I want to get both of your perspectives. But let's, Mike, speak to the president, who watches a lot of TV. We know that, and responds. Is that typical of a president? Is it shows his involvement in what the message is that's getting out? [00:12:22] Speaker 6: I think it's just unique to this president that he likes to do that, and he likes to hear people talking about him. And he spends a lot-- from all the reports we get from the White House, he spends a lot of time watching television and watching the various news programs. I don't know that he was watching Kevin Hassett today. [00:12:37] Speaker 3: But putting pressure on, then, his members of his team when they're on air. [00:12:40] Speaker 6: Well, yes, but every White House does that in the sense that you're sending out a spokesman for the White House. So that person is not going to say, yeah, we blew it. This was a bad policy or something like that. They're always going to try to present the best numbers. And I was thinking when Kevin and I were having that conversation, you know, the old saying about you can torture the statistics any way you want to get the numbers that you want. Right. The bottom line for the White House, though, is that we are-- average hourly earnings are falling behind inflation. And whether you use one measure or another doesn't really matter because the public thinks that's happening. And that's their political problem. [00:13:18] Speaker 2: Well, speaking of communications, you and Danny Berger asked Kevin Hassett about the communications between the president and Kevin Warsh. Let's listen to what he had to say. [00:13:28] Speaker 5: There have been some news stories that the president is talking to Kevin Warsh. And, of course, he is. You know, and he talked to Jay Powell, too. But the other thing is that Kevin Warsh and the president have a very close long-term relationship from New York City, from Florida. And they talk about the economy all the time. It's very, very natural for the president to do something like, say, hey, you know, Chairman Warsh, what do you think about today's job number? And that's a very normal thing for him to do. But I think that's the way you should think about the bounds of the conversations. [00:13:58] Speaker 2: Earlier on Bloomberg TV with Danny Berger and Mike McKee. Matt, I want to toss this over to you because Kevin Hassett also said that the president respects the independence of the Federal Reserve. And I'm curious, based on the reporting that we've seen around the conversations happening between the Fed chair and the president and what the president said publicly and on social media throughout this term and his previous term. Is the view now is the market viewing that the president respects the independence of the Fed? [00:14:24] Speaker 7: Look, I think we don't really know the context of the conversations that are happening. It seems like it might be more frequent than what has the interactions between the president and the Fed chair than in the past. If you look at, you know, market measures, I think what we like to look at are our inflation expectations showing anything that is worrying. Are they suggesting that the Fed's credibility is at risk? I think last week you did see a notable rise in inflation expectations. I don't know that that was anything kind of tied to the president, but I think it was tied to Chair Walsh's specific comments around, you know, willingness to potentially raise rates, unwillingness to say that they were targeting 2% PCE price inflation. And just the overall conversation, I think, and the language that he used, I think, raised some risks from a market perspective about whether or not the Fed would do what's necessary to keep inflation in check. [00:15:11] Speaker 3: President Trump did an interview with Punchbowl today, and he reiterated his preference for lower interest rates, but acknowledged it is not the central bank chief's decision alone. So kind of making or taking a little bit of a softer tone in some of the criticism. I mean, when it comes down to it, I know we are already thinking, OK, what does the Fed do next? We've got inflation prints to get through, right, Mike? We've got more economic data. Who knows where the Fed will be and Kevin Warsh and everybody on the FOMC at the next meeting? [00:15:40] Speaker 6: Well, clearly, you don't trade Fed funds futures. You're right. We don't know. But the people who do trade these things have to decide on a minute-to-minute basis what they're going to do. And they have backed off the idea of a September rate hike. But the important thing is we're going to have two more inflation reports, two more -- well, one more after this jobs report. And so there's going to be a lot of data for them to hang a decision on. We don't know what that data is going to say. And so at this point, it's too early to speculate. I mean, going into this, everybody was saying, well, if we get a bad number, then the Fed might have to back off. And we got a bad number, so they're saying the Fed's going to back off. Now we're all on to, well, let's see what we get on Wednesday with CPI and we'll make a decision. It's our favorite part of the Fed. [00:16:28] Speaker 2: Well, Matt, what is -- what should -- you know, the Fed has a dual mandate, but -- and I think for a lot of people the last few months have said, okay, the labor market is strong. So the focus should be on getting inflation down. After today's print, does that view change? Should the Fed still be squarely focused on that part of the dual mandate? I don't think it changes. [00:16:47] Speaker 7: You know, clearly you had a downside surprise in payrolls. But if you think the breakeven number is close to zero, you're actually running at or near those levels. The unemployment rate's at 4.1%. It is below -- well below what the Fed thought it was going to be at the end of this year. It remains our best measure of labor market slack. I think you have a shift of risk distribution on the labor market. Now there's not as much upside risk. But September will be about the inflation data that we get over the next two months, especially if you get it bounced back in payrolls next month. [00:17:15] Speaker 3: I mean, inflation's still a problem, right? [00:17:17] Speaker 7: So in our view it is. I mean, if you look at PCE inflation, which is what the Fed targets, it is the highest that it's been since 1992 if you strip out COVID. And we agree with an evolving Fed assessment from many officials that it is more broad-based. It is more demand-driven. AI-related investment is a source of inflationary pressures. Underlying inflation has stuck closer to 3%. None of that changed today. You know, we'll get an update on that next week from the CPI. [00:17:46] Speaker 2: Okay, I want to just throw this last one at you, even though we don't have enough time, Mike. Lisa Cook. Because in the conversation about independence of the Fed, since we heard from Kevin Hassett this morning, our Bloomberg News team reporting that President Trump has revived his threat to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over those unproven allegations. Update us here on this. [00:18:03] Speaker 6: Well, they apparently sent Lisa Cook a letter that said the president is considering firing you because of the allegations of mortgage fraud, and you have three weeks to respond to this letter. Remember, the Supreme Court said that the president couldn't fire her, but because she didn't get due process. They didn't decide the legality of her particular case. And so now the White House is coming back and trying to follow the dictate of the court and give her the opportunity to respond. And we don't know how this will all play out, because even if she's found not guilty, the president could come back and say, well, yeah, but she was implicated or something. So this is just a -- it's Friday. Put it that way. And this is the kind of thing you get on Fridays. [00:18:47] Speaker 3: For the lawyers, that's all I'm going to say. Matt Lazzetti, Chief U.S. Economist at Deutsche Bank, thank you so much. And, of course, our own Mike McKee, Bloomberg TV and Radio International Economics and Policy Correspondent. We'll do more on the labor market. We have been reporting U.S. employers unexpectedly cut jobs in the month of July and hiring in the prior two months was revised lower, suggesting the labor market is weaker than previously thought. Man, do I need a weekend? This is after some surprising strength earlier this year. We're going to stay on the labor market. We've been trying to look at this from different vantage points, and that's where our next guest comes in. [00:19:21] Speaker 2: We've got Laura Ulrich with us, director of economic research in North America at Indeed Hiring Lab. She's also a former senior regional economist and senior manager at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, primarily focused on research related to higher education and workforce dynamics, which, by the way, we got some great questions from our audience coming in just about this. She was also an economics professor and associate dean for undergraduate programs at Winthrop University. She joins us from North Carolina. Welcome, welcome, welcome, welcome. How would you describe today's payrolls report and how it changes your view of the labor market, if at all? [00:19:52] Speaker 8: I wouldn't say it necessarily changes my view of the labor market. We at the Hiring Lab and Indeed have been kind of describing the market as a market that is cooled, not necessarily that is cooling. We're kind of bouncing along the bottom. And I see that as the same today as I really did yesterday. However, I do think it is important to acknowledge that the payroll employment report came in about 100,000 jobs below consensus today. And so that's notable, right? It was much softer than than what people were expecting. [00:20:25] Speaker 3: So I am curious, too. And tell us a little bit more, if you would, Laura, about the activity you are seeing on the platform. What are the job listings? What are the jobs people are looking for? Give us an idea and and how gives some context about data today versus maybe six months ago or just trends? Because you guys see a lot. [00:20:41] Speaker 8: We do. We do. We do. We have access to a lot of data, both on labor supply and labor demand. I would tell you that we've been in kind of a I wouldn't call it a steady state because there has been a bit of turbulence. Right. We've been bouncing a bit, but we've been at about a job posting index of 102 ish between about 101 102 since about September of last year. So that that's kind of what leads partially to our viewpoint in that this is kind of a cold market that's bumping along the bottom. One interesting point, though, and you did see this reflected potentially in today's payroll employment report. We have seen some strength in some sectors where we were seeing considerable weak weakness before. So software development jobs, for example, are up 15 percent since early 2025. And we had seen considerable cooling in tech jobs and in the payroll employment report jobs in both information and professional business services were up today. So we are starting to see some of those, I would say, sectors that maybe are more AI exposed that where we had seen a lot of softness to turn the corner of it. [00:21:58] Speaker 2: OK, you know, Brendan down in Maryland sent us a question during our last segment that would be great for you to weigh in on. It's about sort of these different areas of the of the economy and what you're seeing in terms of different sectors. He writes that it seems many jobs were lost in education. To what extent do you think these are permanent job losses as many municipal school districts have exhausted and no longer can use the massive federal funding they received during the pandemic era? [00:22:26] Speaker 8: Here's a great question. I did take note of that that data point this morning, I think that the loss of those local education government jobs that could be a bit of an anomaly with some issues with the seasonal adjustments. I think it'll be interesting to see what the number looks like next month. I will say, though, much of my background is in education, as you mentioned, and there is considerable pressure both on higher ed but also K through 12 partially because of the federal funding cuts, but also because there are have just been fewer and fewer and fewer students enrolled in public schools. And so if you look at enrollment for many of those districts, it's been declining. And so there there's less need for staff and teachers at some of those districts as well. [00:23:11] Speaker 3: Hey, I want to get to because one of the things we talk about, Laura, when it comes to the labor market is the impact of AI, right? We're still trying to figure all of that out. And we thought both Tim and I, when you talked about strength and software development jobs, we kind of were surprised at that. Yeah, I thought the bots were going to do it. Yeah. So that was that was interesting to us. You have done a new survey, the Indeed Hiring Lab Labor Market Outlook Survey. You talked to more than 100 U.S. economists and labor market experts. Tell us about the findings and what you heard. [00:23:40] Speaker 8: Absolutely. So we're really excited. This is a brand new product for us. We released it earlier this week. So we'll be doing this on a quarterly basis where we asked over 100 very well respected labor economists to predict what they think is going to happen, both to unemployment rates, but also our own job postings and Indeed. And along with that, we're going to be asking them some special questions. This time we had a lot of questions on AI. It was really interesting for us to see the results, because from a macro point of view, there wasn't a lot of disagreement amongst economists. Many of them did see that there would be a slight decline in job postings and unemployment and a slight increase in unemployment rates over the next year, but not a lot of movement. But the AI question got a much broader array of answers. I will say a little over 50 percent of the economists that were that were surveyed. I think it's 57 percent believed that AI would lead to job losses on net about in the 30 percent thought it would lead to job gains on that. And then some are unsure. And I think that that wide array of responses from like I said, this this group of very well respected labor economists really shows how much uncertainty there is in what path this might go in. But I will say at Indeed, we're starting to see I mentioned that that growth in software development. Those jobs where we are seeing growth do tend to be what we're calling a touch jobs. These are jobs that either have a title. So think like a engineer or machine learning specialist, something like that. A data center technicians, another one that's growing a lot. Or they mention a as being a skill or a characteristic of the job in the job description. So those jobs are on the rise on our platform for sure. They're also on the rise in terms of what people are seeking. And so really from our vantage point right now, I would say today from my perspective, it's much easier for me to point to some growth that we're seeing from AI in the labor market to actual destruction from AI doing people's jobs. [00:25:44] Speaker 3: But as you pointed out in the press release, you guys said when a group like this converges on something like AI, as they did, right, in terms of the impact, it's worth paying attention. When it splits, that tells us something, too. In this quarter, it did both. Is that is that fair in terms of how I'm reading it? [00:25:58] Speaker 8: It did. We we asked one really interesting thing was we asked the economists exactly what sectors do you think there will be the largest decline in jobs and what sector do you think they'll be the largest increase. And there were two two occupational sectors from our data that ended up on both lists. That was software development and data and analytics. So some of the economists thought this is where we're actually going to see the most loss and others thought this is where we're going to see the most gain. That was a surprise to me. I didn't expect to see the same sectors end up on both lists. [00:26:27] Speaker 3: It's just it's a reminder that we're figuring our way. People say we're early in on this right and understanding really the impact. I mean, we're trying to figure this out and we don't really know right longer term exactly how it plays out. [00:26:39] Speaker 8: I totally agree. I think one thing that we do know and we did another survey internally at Indeed, where we asked employers if they were seeking what we defined as AI native or AI fluent talent. AI native talent has nothing to do with age. You can be a Gen Xer like me and be AI native. But it basically means that you default to AI technology to help you across multiple workflows. AI fluent is you still feel comfortable across workflows, but you don't necessarily default to it. And 45% of employers said they were actively recruiting AI native talent, but only 14% of workers in the survey considered themselves AI natives. So I think one thing we do know right now is people who do have AI related skills and talent are being hotly demanded in the labor market. [00:27:28] Speaker 2: Well, let's make this a little personal because our team told us that you have a couple of kids. I guess they're not kids anymore, but they're young men entering the labor market right now. And this is, I think it's fair to say, a really interesting time to enter the labor market. You're talking about this AI fluency and being AI native. What do you tell them about the skills that they need to succeed in this market? [00:27:56] Speaker 8: It's a great question. And yes, I have three sons, 16, 19 and 22. [00:28:00] Speaker 2: I'm sorry for the third, the third one that I did not mention. [00:28:04] Speaker 8: You don't know who you are. He won't mind. But the oldest just finished graduate school in data science, which in R&D data has been one of our softest areas. So you can imagine for me and the work that I do doing the research that I do, but also living life as a mom trying to help this young adult. He has landed his first full time job, which is excellent news for our household, but it was very tough. And what I kept stressing to him was that, in my opinion, it's really important for young job seekers to prove to companies that they are better off. The company is better off with AI plus them than AI without them. And that's a tough road to navigate right now, but I do think it's extremely important. So I think being an AI native is very important. I have stressed that to my my sons and I've stressed it to myself, too. As someone who is older, only 11% of Gen Xers in our survey even define themselves as AI fluent. And I've had to work hard as an older worker myself to become an AI native and to really dig into it. So I think it's something that, in my view, is extraordinarily important. As we do go into this period, that is going to be so uncertain, because I believe that for my children's generation, one of the most important skills they can have is adaptability. [00:29:24] Speaker 3: I've got to ask you about one more data point from your survey finding. We've only got about a minute or so left. But you guys found a larger majority, 57% of panelists said they expect downward pressure on the wages of college-educated workers over the next year versus 34% who said the same for workers without a degree. Forgive me, but just about 40 seconds. Why do you think that is? [00:29:44] Speaker 8: Yeah, I think that the sectors that are most likely to be impacted, especially in the short run, are many white-collar sectors that college-educated people flow into. I'll say, too, we've done some work at Indeed looking at how that collides with the demographic shifts that you guys were talking about before. And what we've kind of predicted through this is that we might have an excess of workers moving into these white-collar roles with the combination of demographic shifts and AI. And so if that happens and supply exceeds demand, seeing downward pressure on wages would be pretty rational to expect. [00:30:22] Speaker 3: All right, great stuff. Please, please come back and join us again. We would love to have you. Have a good weekend. Laura Ulrich, she's director of economic research in North America at Indeed Hiring Lab. When we come back, we're shifting gears to sports. [00:30:35] Speaker 2: Yeah, it turns out fans are staring down $2,000 in streaming bills. That's next on Bloomberg. [00:30:40] Speaker 3: It is a jobs Friday. It means we're getting into the weekend. [00:30:44] Speaker 2: You've got to earn that money to pay for the streaming services to watch all the sports. [00:30:47] Speaker 3: Well done. I wasn't going to... Nice. Thank you. Sometimes, sometimes. No moss growing over there. Sometimes. This story definitely caught our attention. Tim set it up so well. It's about one sports fan and what he's paying to watch all of the streaming channels and sports that he loves on streaming channels. And it turns out to be more than $2,000 a year. Yeah, he's got to share some passwords. Yeah. Like, what is he doing? We know what goes on at the Stenevek household. [00:31:12] Speaker 2: Okay, why so much? As our team reports out, the rise of streaming services has made it difficult for U.S. sports fans to follow their favorite teams without special subscriptions, with pro leagues signing deals with multiple services and creating a bewildering schedule and some steep costs. We've got Randall Williams, Bloomberg News senior reporter and the co-host of the Bloomberg Business of Sports podcast. That podcast is available at Bloomberg.com, Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. [00:31:37] Speaker 3: Also means it's the weekend because it's dropped. Hey, good to have you here. Lots to talk about. [00:31:41] Speaker 9: Thank you for having me. [00:31:42] Speaker 3: Well, it's great to have you. We're going to get into the streaming costs. I feel like we have to go to FIFA, though. Okay, we can start there. Right, because last week we talked about, and it looked like they were trying to get outside investors and all this stuff. Yep, yep. That's done, right? [00:31:54] Speaker 9: It's dead. They died after we talked to you. No, literally, shortly after it died. And I think I ended up reporting on it like maybe three hours after, which is nuts. The thing that remains to be seen is if Gianni Infantino, the FIFA president, is going to win his reelection next year. He was, I would say, reaffirmed as president this week in Morocco, where I believe he said the final is probably going to be played there. But UEFA has not, they have not said anything different. They still are not supporting him. [00:32:23] Speaker 2: Many people who are just sort of joining the conversation right now about FIFA and post-World Cup might not understand. I certainly don't. I can paint the picture. The tension between UEFA and FIFA. Was this just the straw that broke the camel's back, or have there been tensions for a while? [00:32:43] Speaker 9: There have been tensions for a while. I think that when Gianni Infantino, of course, is looking at FIFA as a business, as most executives do. But there's also a purest mentality in all sports, in golf and tennis and football and basketball and everything else. And so you think about the innovations that Gianni Infantino, that's what he would call it and say, like such as hydration breaks, commercial breaks that are used to sell ads. That's not typical in football. UEFA is very strongly opposed to that. And it's even said in the Euros that they won't be doing it. But that is something that if UEFA was trying to maximize TV dollars, that they could sell. But they're talking about the purity of the game of soccer. And they're saying, no, absolutely not. So then you, you, you know, relay that into what's happened recently. FIFA made 15 billion dollars from the World Cup. And then after that, they're going to be like, you know, we're going to sell stakes. We're going to do this with Thrive Capital's Joshua Kushner. And UEFA is like, listen, no, we've had enough of you. And we're going to be trying to probably get rid of you come next year. Yeah. Do they have the power to do that? I think it's going to take some rallying and they need, they need, there has to be another potential candidate. I have not seen any reports that someone has been trying to rally against them. It's just that they do not support him. I also don't anticipate that Gianni Infantino in four months is going to be able to change UEFA's mind. So who can UEFA find to really go up against Gianni Infantino? And the reality is Infantino, as much as he has done with the Trump administration and for the World Cup, it's hard to argue that he hasn't done a good job. Right. You make $15 billion the most ever. It's going to be hard to get rid of anybody who's just made record-setting profit. [00:34:23] Speaker 3: And won't there always be that tension between FIFA and kind of the regionals? [00:34:26] Speaker 9: Of course, because FIFA owns the World Cup, which is the, you know, it's over the entire world. Whereas, you know, you have your CONCACAF, you have your soccer federation in South America, you have UEFA, and each of them have their own tournaments. You have the Euro, you have Copa America, but the World Cup is when everybody competes. So there's always going to be some tension there. [00:34:46] Speaker 3: They've got to be a little jealous that this went so well. [00:34:49] Speaker 9: Just a little bit. [00:34:50] Speaker 3: So listen, there was a story on the Bloomberg too, the next World Cup and the money deals, Randall. FIFA exploring selling U.S. media rights for the next two World Cups together, which would keep the hydration breaks that boosted it, right? Yes, they would. They're not going away, are they? I don't think so. [00:35:04] Speaker 9: I mean, once you get a taste of advertiser money in 30 seconds and all, and you've got to think about it, this is exclusivity. At the Super Bowl and at other events, those 30-second ads sell for $8 million apiece, but they never really rerun. And when you're watching the World Cup, you see the same ads over and over and over and over again. [00:35:22] Speaker 2: Well, yeah, my son's like talking to me about Bank of America, Home Depot, and like he's seven years old and never watches other commercials and he knows. And by the way, David Beckham's in all of these. Of course. So this is great news for David Beckham, I guess. [00:35:34] Speaker 9: It's great news for all of FIFA's partners because it really is one of the most exclusive, you know, advertisements that you can possibly have because it's going to run in every single match across various continents and regions. So they are going to take this to market. They're probably going to shop around to whoever's willing to pay the most. But of course, you want the reach angle of this. There's not one inch of that screen that is not taken up by an ad, even when the game is going. Absolutely not. Everything is an ad in there. It's so much so, so much so that even the stadiums. Think about the stadiums. We're not calling MetLife Stadium, MetLife. We're calling it New York, New Jersey Stadium. [00:36:09] Speaker 3: That blew my mind. How the heck did they get that done? [00:36:12] Speaker 9: I mean, they obviously have an insurance partner and, you know, SoFi Stadium became Los Angeles State and so on and so forth. I just could not believe that they're willing to go that far to protect sponsors, but if sponsors are paying a premium and that's what they're asking for. So that's why they did it. [00:36:27] Speaker 2: I think it's part of it. Because those, those, but the naming rights that, you know, you get naming rights for a stadium. It's a protection. You expect that, that those, that name to be used when the stadium is mentioned. [00:36:40] Speaker 9: It's, it's twofold. The stadiums and their owners were willing. They wanted the World Cup and they wanted those matches and that revenue that came from FIFA. And so they were willing to cover up the names. At the same time, FIFA is like, we don't want anybody profiting off the World Cup except for us and our partners. And so even if it's Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta, you know, Hard Rock Stadium in Miami, there were banners that were hung up that said New York, New Jersey Stadium. And it's like, it's hard for me to say New York, New Jersey Stadium when the stadium is in New Jersey. [00:37:11] Speaker 3: We saw it. We're like, is that a mistake? Like, I was like, isn't that our, isn't that the stadium in our backyard? [00:37:17] Speaker 9: The, the, the host committee is called New York, New Jersey host committee. And so that's why the stadium was named that. But nonetheless, it is a bit far fetched. Like I'm like, ah, that's too far. But anyways. [00:37:28] Speaker 3: Hey, we mentioned streaming costs coming into this. Of course. Media rights. What were they for the past World Cup? What might they be for the future World Cup? [00:37:34] Speaker 9: I believe the media rights were around $485 million, around that half a million dollar, half a billion dollar mark. I believe they will probably go for double that. I mean, this is, this was probably one of the most successful World Cups. [00:37:45] Speaker 3: So if they, so if they sell them for two, you're talking about a $2 billion deal? I'm saying at minimum a billion. [00:37:50] Speaker 9: But I, I could see $2 billion, but that depends on who shows up for, who shows up and wants it. But that's US media rights? Yes. But the challenge with that is going to be the time zone for the next one. Time zone. It's five hours ahead. Yeah, it's, it's five hours, six hours ahead, I believe in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. That, I think it's doable. Um, they have to figure out the schedule and when the players are going to be playing. I, we're not going to see, I would be shocked unless the US somehow ends up in the final in 2030. I would be shocked that if the number surpasses what it was this year, which was, I believe, 64 million viewers, which is probably the most watched soccer ever here in the US. I think you're going to go. Uh, I probably will. Yeah. Bloomberg grants me permission. Are you listening? You got four years to make it. [00:38:35] Speaker 3: Are you listening, anybody? [00:38:36] Speaker 9: No. [00:38:37] Speaker 3: Randall Williams, Bloomberg News senior reporter, co-host of the Bloomberg Business of Sports podcast. Check it out. You can find it wherever you get your podcasts also on Bloomberg Radio this weekend. Coming up, Stocks on the Move. [00:38:48] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Business Week Daily with Carol Masser and Tim Stenevek on Bloomberg Radio and Television. [00:38:57] Speaker 3: All right, everybody, getting ready to head into the last hour of trade, getting ready to wrap up the trading day as well as the week overall. It's the first trading week, full trading week, I should say. Well, first trading week of August. Let's go there because I forgot it was, yeah, August 3rd on Monday. Okay. Wow. It's been a long week. [00:39:14] Speaker 2: It has been a long week. [00:39:15] Speaker 3: We were, like, having a show meeting and it was SpaceX earnings. Uh, yeah. [00:39:19] Speaker 2: Payrolls report. Payrolls report. Inflation data next week. Right. [00:39:23] Speaker 3: I'm just saying this week. [00:39:24] Speaker 2: And more consumer companies reporting, too. Retail, right? The retailers. Yeah, I got a nice little view on how the consumer is doing. [00:39:29] Speaker 3: All right. So, where are we doing? How's the market doing? As we have just about an hour to go to wrap up this week. And you are looking at an S&P 500 kind of bouncing around. We're just up about 27 points, up almost four tenths of a percentage point on the S&P 500. Flip it on over to the NASDAQ 100, the tech heavy index. It is up 218 points, up three quarters of a percent. We're off our highs and lows of the session. [00:39:52] Speaker 2: We're also seeing oil move higher today. Futures of Brent above $83 a barrel, another 1% to the upside right now. WTI also higher by about 1.2%, 7821 for a barrel. [00:40:05] Speaker 3: And a quick check on yields on this jobs Friday. Two-year note, most sensitive to what the Fed may or may not do. We're looking at it. It bounced down initially on that jobs report, came off the lows. We're looking at 4.2 on the two-year note. 10-year note, you're looking at a yield of 4.65. But again, we saw a pullback in rates right after that weaker-than-expected jobs report on the thinking that the Fed's not going to do anything, certainly not raise rates anytime soon. And then it came off some of those lows. So we got a lot to go before we get to that September FOMC decision. [00:40:36] Speaker 2: We also got a lot of stocks making big moves today. I'm Tim Stanovic along with Carol Masser. Let's take a look at some stocks on the move. We've got Matthew Griffin with us, Bloomberg News, U.S. EQUITIES reporter with today's stock movers. Hey, Matthew. Hey, Tim. How are you doing at the end of the week? Yeah, I mean, we got here, kind of. We're on our way there. I'll tell you in about two and a half hours. [00:40:54] Speaker 3: Let's talk about some of the stocks on the move. We had some big moves this week, even in today's session. We're going to kick it off with Atlassian. [00:41:02] Speaker 10: Yes. Well, Carol, Atlassian is one of the biggest movers today. That stock ticker TEAM up about 36% now, actually having its best day ever. The software company gave a revenue outlook for the current quarter that was better than Wall Street expected. That's for revenue of as much as $1.72 billion, analysts looking for just 1.67. And as is usually the case with software companies, that's being interpreted in the context of the AI story, the SaaSpocalypse story, what it says about the future. Seems like that number is comforting investors a little bit about Atlassian's place in the age of AI. Maybe even some of the benefits they'll get from software that works with AI. [00:41:49] Speaker 2: I'm really glad you went there, because if you look at a longer-term chart for this company, I mean, this was a stock that was above $450 a share. It hit a high in 2021 of $458. It's now trading at $150 a share. So it's still down about 67% from that high back in 2021. So even with today's move of, what, 36% right now, 37% to the upside, it's got a long way to go to get back there. [00:42:12] Speaker 3: Yeah, still down 7% year-to-date, and you've got 11% of the float short. So the sentiment on a name like this, Matthew, right? It's a negative sentiment, but we understand what's been going on in this space. But definitely an outperformer in today's session. I might steal it from my gainers, actually. [00:42:26] Speaker 2: Oh, I actually kind of looked over there and saw you taking notes on what Matthew was saying. [00:42:30] Speaker 3: I haven't done my list yet, but this may make it. All right, let's flip it on over to also another high flyer today, and we're talking about Airbnb. [00:42:38] Speaker 10: Yes, and Airbnb also in tech, but we've got a different reason here, which is travel demand is really strong and it's very resilient. That stock, ticker AB&B, up 15% right now after Airbnb raised its revenue outlook for the second time this year. They now see at least a mid-teens percentage increase in revenue for the full year. That prior outlook was for low to mid-teens. Demand, they said, strong in North America, strong in other important markets like the U.K., like Australia. One thing I thought was interesting, they have this kind of newer business of renting out boutique hotel rooms. This is fascinating. Go, yeah. They got into that or at least really expanded it because cities were putting restrictions on short-term rentals, but it has proven to be such a strong growth driver growing multiple times the rate of their core, you know, renting out homes business that they're expanding it into other cities that don't have this kind of restriction. It's a small part of the business right now, but really contributing to those growth numbers. [00:43:43] Speaker 2: That's so interesting. [00:43:44] Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, okay. So it's like basically, I guess, a hotel, like just-- Yeah. They're on their website, right? [00:43:49] Speaker 2: 20 destinations, New York, Paris, London, Madrid. The services business, it's also begun selling resort passes to give guests access to amenities at hotels. So, sort of like a one-stop shop. [00:43:59] Speaker 3: Yeah, better than, right, for a hotel, like, it's staying empty, right? So you get some revenue. Speaking of empty, I went to Sweetgreen today and it was empty. [00:44:07] Speaker 2: No. Truly. I couldn't believe it. Granted, it's a Friday, but tell us what the stock is doing and why. Just quickly, yeah. [00:44:13] Speaker 10: Well, consumers, they're wary. That stock, ticker SG, down almost 9%. They cut a full-year outlook for sales at established restaurants. Now see that down as much as 8% because of this cyclospora parasite outbreak. They haven't been personally affected. They don't even sell iceberg lettuce, which is, you know, what's been connected to it by health authorities. But they say consumers are very cautious right now. [00:44:37] Speaker 3: Yeah. It's kind of tough. And I get it. Like, if you're a consumer, you just kind of are going to be careful. Yeah. I know. How are you doing there, buddy? I'm fine. How are you feeling? I feel great. How's your tummy? It's great. All right. We're going to keep an eye on him. All right. Yeah. I'm a U.S. equities reporter with Stock Movers. Check out our Stock Movers podcast. You can find it on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you get your podcasts. [00:45:00] Speaker 2: Coming up next on Bloomberg Business Week Daily, the latest on the war in Iran. If you're watching on TV, the close starts now.