An overstated US employment re

An overstated US employment report by 80,000 to 100,000 jobs would likely trigger a significant gold price rally. Employment data revisions can be powerful catalysts for gold price movements. Overstated employment suggests the labor market is weaker than previously reported, increase expectations for earlier or more aggressive rate cuts. Lower interest rates reduce the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets like gold.

Forget January NFP! Annual Employment May Be Revised Down by 1 Million, US Jobs Data Systematically Overstated

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Comments

We need your insight to fill this gap

Leave a comment

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":528400181842656,"tweetId":"528400181842656","gmtCreate":1770026117537,"gmtModify":1770028059608,"author":{"id":3577008494818778,"idStr":"3577008494818778","authorId":3577008494818778,"authorIdStr":"3577008494818778","name":"DailyBread","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/58b9501c02b6ba58899545833f11447f","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":1166,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>An overstated US employment report by 80,000 to 100,000 jobs would likely trigger a significant gold price rally. Employment data revisions can be powerful catalysts for gold price movements. Overstated employment suggests the labor market is weaker than previously reported, increase expectations for earlier or more aggressive rate cuts. Lower interest rates reduce the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets like gold.</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>An overstated US employment report by 80,000 to 100,000 jobs would likely trigger a significant gold price rally. Employment data revisions can be powerful catalysts for gold price movements. Overstated employment suggests the labor market is weaker than previously reported, increase expectations for earlier or more aggressive rate cuts. Lower interest rates reduce the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets like gold.</body></html>","text":"An overstated US employment report by 80,000 to 100,000 jobs would likely trigger a significant gold price rally. Employment data revisions can be powerful catalysts for gold price movements. Overstated employment suggests the labor market is weaker than previously reported, increase expectations for earlier or more aggressive rate cuts. Lower interest rates reduce the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets like gold.","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/528400181842656","repostId":1138876223,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1138876223","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Global Stock Market Deep Analysis","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Deep News","id":"1039043262","head_image":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/8296859682db4b478146245e72de1922"},"pubTimestamp":1770021794,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1138876223?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2026-02-02 16:43","market":"fut","language":"en","title":"Forget January NFP! Annual Employment May Be Revised Down by 1 Million, US Jobs Data Systematically Overstated","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1138876223","media":"Deep News","summary":"As the January Non-Farm Payroll (NFP) report approaches, Barclays and Citigroup exhibit significant divergence in their forecasts for the month's job additions, yet they share a high degree of...","content":"As the January Non-Farm Payroll (NFP) report approaches, Barclays and Citigroup exhibit significant divergence in their forecasts for the month's job additions, yet they share a high degree of consensus on a more critical issue—US employment data for 2025 is systematically overestimated. An upcoming annual benchmark revision is poised to expose this discrepancy in one fell swoop, a risk that the market has significantly underpriced.\nBarclays presents the most direct assessment, suggesting that based on the latest Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data, the level of non-farm payrolls for March 2025 could be revised downward by approximately 1 million. This implies that the average monthly job growth over the past year has been overstated by 80,000 to 90,000.\nCitigroup, meanwhile, issues a warning from a data \"quality\" perspective. Even if the January NFP appears strong on the surface, this strength could likely stem from residual seasonal factors and model biases rather than indicating genuine labor market stabilization. Signals that truly reflect a downward trend are more likely to become concentrated and apparent during the spring and summer months.\nIn other words, while the market continues to speculate on whether the January NFP will be \"good or bad,\" the factor with the real potential to reshape the employment narrative is a systemic reassessment of the 2025 employment level.\nOn the surface, the two investment banks offer contrasting answers to the question of whether January's NFP will be strong or weak.\nBarclays forecasts a meager increase of just 50,000 jobs for January, with the private sector adding a similar number—around 50,000—and government employment remaining essentially flat. The unemployment rate is expected to edge down slightly to 4.3%, influenced by rounding and shifts in the labor supply-demand gap.\nCitigroup, in contrast, anticipates a much stronger gain of 135,000 jobs, with the private sector contributing roughly 140,000 new positions—a figure significantly above the market consensus of approximately 70,000. They project the unemployment rate will hold steady at 4.4%.\nIt is noteworthy, however, that both banks explicitly state that the January employment data itself carries limited informational value.\nBarclays emphasizes that fourth-quarter 2025 data was significantly distorted by \"delayed resignation plans\" in the government sector, making short-term volatility an unreliable indicator of the underlying trend. Citigroup points out that January is historically one of the most favorably seasonally adjusted months of the year, often exhibiting a pattern of \"deceptively strong readings at the start of the year, followed by a subsequent pullback.\"\nThus, while their numerical forecasts differ, this divergence does not undermine their shared assessment of the broader trend.\nDespite their differing views on January, Barclays and Citigroup are in complete agreement on one fundamental issue.\nThe core problem with US employment lies not in \"how many jobs were added this month,\" but in \"how many jobs have been cumulatively overcounted over the past year.\"\nBarclays's central evidence comes from the QCEW—a \"near-complete sample\" employment dataset based on mandatory business tax filings, widely regarded as the statistical measure closest to the true level of employment.\nTheir key finding is stark: from March 2024 to March 2025, the establishment survey (CES) indicated a cumulative job increase of approximately 1.8 million, whereas the QCEW measure showed an increase of only about 800,000—a discrepancy approaching 1 million jobs.\nThis implies that the official NFP data has systematically overestimated job growth over the past year, with an average monthly overstatement of around 80,000 to 90,000 positions.\nMore critically, the magnitude of this deviation is significantly larger than the 2024 benchmark revision (-598,000) and the 2023 revision (-187,000), indicating that post-pandemic structural changes in business birth-and-death dynamics are causing persistent disturbances to the statistical models.\nCitigroup does not deny that January's job numbers might appear strong, but its reasoning is inherently counter-intuitive.\nCitigroup highlights three specific sets of warning signals.\nHiring has not recovered: the JOLTS hiring rate continues to decline to around 3.2%; cyclicality-sensitive sectors such as temporary help, retail, and transportation are still contracting.\nSignals from the consumer side are deteriorating: The Conference Board's measure of respondents finding jobs \"hard to get\" increased counter-seasonally in January.\nEmployment data for the latter part of 2025 already shows clear signs of distortion: for instance, private sector job growth for October 2025 was a mere 1,000, but subsequent months' figures were significantly inflated by seasonal adjustment.\nCitigroup's conclusion is unequivocal.\nIf the January data is strong, there are multiple plausible explanations; however, if it is weak, it almost certainly points to underlying fundamental problems. The true pressures within the job market are more likely to become fully apparent in the spring and summer, once the advantage of favorable seasonal adjustments diminishes.\nThe primary reason lies in a misaligned pricing framework.\nThe current market focuses intensely on whether the monthly NFP figure beats or misses expectations and whether the unemployment rate holds below 4.5%.\nIt largely overlooks three critical implications.\nA revision to the employment *level* would alter the historical trajectory: it's not a matter of \"growth being slower,\" but rather \"there wasn't as much growth over the past year\" to begin with.\nThe interpretive framework for wages, consumption, and GDP would need to be rewritten.\nThe Federal Reserve's perceived \"employment safety cushion\" might prove to be non-existent.\nOnce a downward revision of 700,000 to 1 million jobs for 2025 is confirmed.\nThe current unemployment rate would need to be re-evaluated in terms of the actual strength of labor demand it represents.\nThe labor market's proximity to a potential inflection point would be much closer than the market currently anticipates.\nSynthesizing the views from Barclays and Citigroup leads to a highly consistent conclusion.\nThe January NFP is noise; the annual benchmark revision is the true trend confirmation.\nIf employment is revised down by nearly 1 million jobs.\nThe perceived \"resilience\" of the 2025 labor market would be exposed as largely a statistical illusion.\nThe US job market in 2026 would not be \"stabilizing once again,\" but rather continuing to decelerate from a significantly lower starting point.\nThis is a risk for which the market remains inadequately priced.","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Forget January NFP! Annual Employment May Be Revised Down by 1 Million, US Jobs Data Systematically Overstated</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nForget January NFP! Annual Employment May Be Revised Down by 1 Million, US Jobs Data Systematically Overstated\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1039043262\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/8296859682db4b478146245e72de1922);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\nDeep News \n2026-02-02 16:43\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\nAs the January Non-Farm Payroll (NFP) report approaches, Barclays and Citigroup exhibit significant divergence in their forecasts for the month's job additions, yet they share a high degree of consensus on a more critical issue—US employment data for 2025 is systematically overestimated. An upcoming annual benchmark revision is poised to expose this discrepancy in one fell swoop, a risk that the market has significantly underpriced.\nBarclays presents the most direct assessment, suggesting that based on the latest Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data, the level of non-farm payrolls for March 2025 could be revised downward by approximately 1 million. This implies that the average monthly job growth over the past year has been overstated by 80,000 to 90,000.\nCitigroup, meanwhile, issues a warning from a data \"quality\" perspective. Even if the January NFP appears strong on the surface, this strength could likely stem from residual seasonal factors and model biases rather than indicating genuine labor market stabilization. Signals that truly reflect a downward trend are more likely to become concentrated and apparent during the spring and summer months.\nIn other words, while the market continues to speculate on whether the January NFP will be \"good or bad,\" the factor with the real potential to reshape the employment narrative is a systemic reassessment of the 2025 employment level.\nOn the surface, the two investment banks offer contrasting answers to the question of whether January's NFP will be strong or weak.\nBarclays forecasts a meager increase of just 50,000 jobs for January, with the private sector adding a similar number—around 50,000—and government employment remaining essentially flat. The unemployment rate is expected to edge down slightly to 4.3%, influenced by rounding and shifts in the labor supply-demand gap.\nCitigroup, in contrast, anticipates a much stronger gain of 135,000 jobs, with the private sector contributing roughly 140,000 new positions—a figure significantly above the market consensus of approximately 70,000. They project the unemployment rate will hold steady at 4.4%.\nIt is noteworthy, however, that both banks explicitly state that the January employment data itself carries limited informational value.\nBarclays emphasizes that fourth-quarter 2025 data was significantly distorted by \"delayed resignation plans\" in the government sector, making short-term volatility an unreliable indicator of the underlying trend. Citigroup points out that January is historically one of the most favorably seasonally adjusted months of the year, often exhibiting a pattern of \"deceptively strong readings at the start of the year, followed by a subsequent pullback.\"\nThus, while their numerical forecasts differ, this divergence does not undermine their shared assessment of the broader trend.\nDespite their differing views on January, Barclays and Citigroup are in complete agreement on one fundamental issue.\nThe core problem with US employment lies not in \"how many jobs were added this month,\" but in \"how many jobs have been cumulatively overcounted over the past year.\"\nBarclays's central evidence comes from the QCEW—a \"near-complete sample\" employment dataset based on mandatory business tax filings, widely regarded as the statistical measure closest to the true level of employment.\nTheir key finding is stark: from March 2024 to March 2025, the establishment survey (CES) indicated a cumulative job increase of approximately 1.8 million, whereas the QCEW measure showed an increase of only about 800,000—a discrepancy approaching 1 million jobs.\nThis implies that the official NFP data has systematically overestimated job growth over the past year, with an average monthly overstatement of around 80,000 to 90,000 positions.\nMore critically, the magnitude of this deviation is significantly larger than the 2024 benchmark revision (-598,000) and the 2023 revision (-187,000), indicating that post-pandemic structural changes in business birth-and-death dynamics are causing persistent disturbances to the statistical models.\nCitigroup does not deny that January's job numbers might appear strong, but its reasoning is inherently counter-intuitive.\nCitigroup highlights three specific sets of warning signals.\nHiring has not recovered: the JOLTS hiring rate continues to decline to around 3.2%; cyclicality-sensitive sectors such as temporary help, retail, and transportation are still contracting.\nSignals from the consumer side are deteriorating: The Conference Board's measure of respondents finding jobs \"hard to get\" increased counter-seasonally in January.\nEmployment data for the latter part of 2025 already shows clear signs of distortion: for instance, private sector job growth for October 2025 was a mere 1,000, but subsequent months' figures were significantly inflated by seasonal adjustment.\nCitigroup's conclusion is unequivocal.\nIf the January data is strong, there are multiple plausible explanations; however, if it is weak, it almost certainly points to underlying fundamental problems. The true pressures within the job market are more likely to become fully apparent in the spring and summer, once the advantage of favorable seasonal adjustments diminishes.\nThe primary reason lies in a misaligned pricing framework.\nThe current market focuses intensely on whether the monthly NFP figure beats or misses expectations and whether the unemployment rate holds below 4.5%.\nIt largely overlooks three critical implications.\nA revision to the employment *level* would alter the historical trajectory: it's not a matter of \"growth being slower,\" but rather \"there wasn't as much growth over the past year\" to begin with.\nThe interpretive framework for wages, consumption, and GDP would need to be rewritten.\nThe Federal Reserve's perceived \"employment safety cushion\" might prove to be non-existent.\nOnce a downward revision of 700,000 to 1 million jobs for 2025 is confirmed.\nThe current unemployment rate would need to be re-evaluated in terms of the actual strength of labor demand it represents.\nThe labor market's proximity to a potential inflection point would be much closer than the market currently anticipates.\nSynthesizing the views from Barclays and Citigroup leads to a highly consistent conclusion.\nThe January NFP is noise; the annual benchmark revision is the true trend confirmation.\nIf employment is revised down by nearly 1 million jobs.\nThe perceived \"resilience\" of the 2025 labor market would be exposed as largely a statistical illusion.\nThe US job market in 2026 would not be \"stabilizing once again,\" but rather continuing to decelerate from a significantly lower starting point.\nThis is a risk for which the market remains inadequately priced.\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"159934":"黄金ETF","518880":"黄金ETF","DUST":"二倍做空黄金矿业指数ETF-Direxion","NUGT":"二倍做多黄金矿业指数ETF-Direxion","IAU":"黄金信托ETF-iShares","GDX":"黄金矿业ETF-VanEck","GLD":"黄金ETF-SPDR"},"source_url":"","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1138876223","content_text":"As the January Non-Farm Payroll (NFP) report approaches, Barclays and Citigroup exhibit significant divergence in their forecasts for the month's job additions, yet they share a high degree of consensus on a more critical issue—US employment data for 2025 is systematically overestimated. An upcoming annual benchmark revision is poised to expose this discrepancy in one fell swoop, a risk that the market has significantly underpriced.\nBarclays presents the most direct assessment, suggesting that based on the latest Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data, the level of non-farm payrolls for March 2025 could be revised downward by approximately 1 million. This implies that the average monthly job growth over the past year has been overstated by 80,000 to 90,000.\nCitigroup, meanwhile, issues a warning from a data \"quality\" perspective. Even if the January NFP appears strong on the surface, this strength could likely stem from residual seasonal factors and model biases rather than indicating genuine labor market stabilization. Signals that truly reflect a downward trend are more likely to become concentrated and apparent during the spring and summer months.\nIn other words, while the market continues to speculate on whether the January NFP will be \"good or bad,\" the factor with the real potential to reshape the employment narrative is a systemic reassessment of the 2025 employment level.\nOn the surface, the two investment banks offer contrasting answers to the question of whether January's NFP will be strong or weak.\nBarclays forecasts a meager increase of just 50,000 jobs for January, with the private sector adding a similar number—around 50,000—and government employment remaining essentially flat. The unemployment rate is expected to edge down slightly to 4.3%, influenced by rounding and shifts in the labor supply-demand gap.\nCitigroup, in contrast, anticipates a much stronger gain of 135,000 jobs, with the private sector contributing roughly 140,000 new positions—a figure significantly above the market consensus of approximately 70,000. They project the unemployment rate will hold steady at 4.4%.\nIt is noteworthy, however, that both banks explicitly state that the January employment data itself carries limited informational value.\nBarclays emphasizes that fourth-quarter 2025 data was significantly distorted by \"delayed resignation plans\" in the government sector, making short-term volatility an unreliable indicator of the underlying trend. Citigroup points out that January is historically one of the most favorably seasonally adjusted months of the year, often exhibiting a pattern of \"deceptively strong readings at the start of the year, followed by a subsequent pullback.\"\nThus, while their numerical forecasts differ, this divergence does not undermine their shared assessment of the broader trend.\nDespite their differing views on January, Barclays and Citigroup are in complete agreement on one fundamental issue.\nThe core problem with US employment lies not in \"how many jobs were added this month,\" but in \"how many jobs have been cumulatively overcounted over the past year.\"\nBarclays's central evidence comes from the QCEW—a \"near-complete sample\" employment dataset based on mandatory business tax filings, widely regarded as the statistical measure closest to the true level of employment.\nTheir key finding is stark: from March 2024 to March 2025, the establishment survey (CES) indicated a cumulative job increase of approximately 1.8 million, whereas the QCEW measure showed an increase of only about 800,000—a discrepancy approaching 1 million jobs.\nThis implies that the official NFP data has systematically overestimated job growth over the past year, with an average monthly overstatement of around 80,000 to 90,000 positions.\nMore critically, the magnitude of this deviation is significantly larger than the 2024 benchmark revision (-598,000) and the 2023 revision (-187,000), indicating that post-pandemic structural changes in business birth-and-death dynamics are causing persistent disturbances to the statistical models.\nCitigroup does not deny that January's job numbers might appear strong, but its reasoning is inherently counter-intuitive.\nCitigroup highlights three specific sets of warning signals.\nHiring has not recovered: the JOLTS hiring rate continues to decline to around 3.2%; cyclicality-sensitive sectors such as temporary help, retail, and transportation are still contracting.\nSignals from the consumer side are deteriorating: The Conference Board's measure of respondents finding jobs \"hard to get\" increased counter-seasonally in January.\nEmployment data for the latter part of 2025 already shows clear signs of distortion: for instance, private sector job growth for October 2025 was a mere 1,000, but subsequent months' figures were significantly inflated by seasonal adjustment.\nCitigroup's conclusion is unequivocal.\nIf the January data is strong, there are multiple plausible explanations; however, if it is weak, it almost certainly points to underlying fundamental problems. The true pressures within the job market are more likely to become fully apparent in the spring and summer, once the advantage of favorable seasonal adjustments diminishes.\nThe primary reason lies in a misaligned pricing framework.\nThe current market focuses intensely on whether the monthly NFP figure beats or misses expectations and whether the unemployment rate holds below 4.5%.\nIt largely overlooks three critical implications.\nA revision to the employment *level* would alter the historical trajectory: it's not a matter of \"growth being slower,\" but rather \"there wasn't as much growth over the past year\" to begin with.\nThe interpretive framework for wages, consumption, and GDP would need to be rewritten.\nThe Federal Reserve's perceived \"employment safety cushion\" might prove to be non-existent.\nOnce a downward revision of 700,000 to 1 million jobs for 2025 is confirmed.\nThe current unemployment rate would need to be re-evaluated in terms of the actual strength of labor demand it represents.\nThe labor market's proximity to a potential inflection point would be much closer than the market currently anticipates.\nSynthesizing the views from Barclays and Citigroup leads to a highly consistent conclusion.\nThe January NFP is noise; the annual benchmark revision is the true trend confirmation.\nIf employment is revised down by nearly 1 million jobs.\nThe perceived \"resilience\" of the 2025 labor market would be exposed as largely a statistical illusion.\nThe US job market in 2026 would not be \"stabilizing once again,\" but rather continuing to decelerate from a significantly lower starting point.\nThis is a risk for which the market remains inadequately priced.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"159934":1,"518880":1,"SGCmain":1,"IAU":1,"GLD":1,"SGUmain":1,"MGCmain":1,"GCmain":1,"SImain":1,"GDX":1,"DUST":1,"NUGT":1}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":216,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":["UGL","GDX","1OZmain","GLDM","IAU"],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":369,"optionInvolvedFlag":false,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/528400181842656"}