Evelyn Reynolds

Claims for the week ended Jan. 29 totaled 238,000, a touch lower than the 245,000 Dow Jones estimate.
Continuing claims on a four-week basis hit their lowest level since 1973.
Productivity rose more than expected in the fourth quarter, while unit labor costs were less than the Wall Street estimate.

Initial filings for unemployment claims totaled a bit fewer than expected last week as companies looked to overcome the impact of the omicron spread.
Claims for the week ended Jan. 29 were 238,000, a touch lower than the 245,000 Dow Jones estimate, the Labor Department reported Thursday. That was also a decline from the previous week’s upwardly revised 261,000.

The report closes out a tough January in which millions of Americans lost work due to the Covid impact.
Census Bureau data shows that more than 8.7 million workers missed time in late January into February due either to having Covid themselves or having to care for someone with the virus. Nearly 2 million more said they were out of work due to their employer closing for Covid-related reasons, while almost 1.5 million more said they lost jobs because their employer shut down permanently due to the pandemic.
Claims have turned higher after briefly dipping below 200,000 in early December and posting their lowest total in more than 50 years.
With cases declining sharply over the past two weeks, economists are optimistic that the trend will reverse itself.
Continuing claims, which run a week behind the headline number, showed a substantial decrease, falling 44,000 to 1.63 million. The four-week moving average for claims, which helps adjust for weekly volatility, slipped to 1.62 million, the lowest total since Aug. 4, 1973.

The total of those receiving benefits under all programs declined to 2.07 million, a drop of 73,205, according to data through Jan. 15. That compares with 18.5 million from a year ago and has fallen substantially as extended benefits have expired for the unemployed.
The numbers came the day before the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its closely watched January nonfarm payrolls report, which is expected to show a gain of 150,000 though some economists think the U.S. actually may have lost jobs for the period.
In other economic news Thursday, productivity surged 6.6% in the fourth quarter of 2021, well above the estimate of 4.4%, according to preliminary figures from the BLS. At the same time, unit labor costs rose just 0.3%, well below the 1% estimate.
Unit labor costs are measured as the difference between hourly compensation, which rose 6.9%, and productivity. The smaller-than-expected gain provides a sign that productivity is helping offset inflation running at its fastest pace in nearly 40 years.
Correction: Jobless claims for the previous week were upwardly revised to 261,000. An earlier version misstated the figure.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Sarah Bloom Raskin is a longtime Washington policy player with progressive credentials and a track record of speaking out against the fossil fuel industry, qualities that helped her to win the White House’s nomination to be America’s top bank cop.But those same views could leave her with a narrow path to confirmation as the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision — especially if Senator Ben Ray Luján, a New Mexico Democrat who is recovering from a stroke, is not present for her vote before the full Senate. (A senior aide to Mr. Luján said he was expected to make a full recovery, and would return in four to six weeks, barring complications.)And Ms. Raskin’s views are almost certain to ignite sparks at her hearing before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday.Ms. Raskin has been nominated alongside Lisa D. Cook and Philip N. Jefferson, both economists up for seats on the Fed’s Board of Governors. Ms. Raskin, Dr. Cook and Dr. Jefferson will field questions from the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs at 8:45 a.m. on Thursday.Ms. Raskin, a former Fed governor and high-ranking Treasury official who was most recently a professor at Duke Law School, is seen as a known entity by the banking industry that she would oversee. But business groups have been critical of her attention to climate issues — including an opinion piece she wrote in 2020 criticizing the Fed’s decision to design one of its emergency loan programs in a way that allowed fossil fuel companies to access emergency loans.“I’m deeply concerned that Sarah Bloom Raskin has — let’s be honest, she has explicitly, publicly advocated that the Fed use its powers to allocate capital,” Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the committee, said in an interview on Tuesday. “I think that’s disqualifying, and I think that is going to be a topic of discussion.”Such full-throated opposition from Republicans may mean more than just a heated hearing — Ms. Raskin may need to maintain the support of every Democrat in the Senate to stay on the narrow path to confirmation. If Democrats were to lose their fragile grasp on the Senate majority because Mr. Luján has not returned yet, it is not clear that she would garner the votes she would need to pass.Fed nominees need a simple majority to clear the Senate Banking Committee and then to win confirmation from the Senate as a whole, meaning that it is possible that Ms. Raskin could skate through if all 50 senators who caucus with Democrats vote in her favor, with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking a tie.Vice chair for supervision is arguably the most important job in American financial regulation, and given those high stakes, Ms. Raskin’s chances are being closely watched.“I’m not expecting her to get many, if any, Republican votes,” said Ian Katz, a managing director at Capital Alpha Partners, explaining that he thinks she will ultimately secure enough Democratic support to pass, assuming all the Senators, including Mr. Luján, vote. “You hear different things from the industry: You hear some concerns that she is too progressive, but you also hear that she’s well within the mainstream.”Oil and gas businesses are mounting a campaign against more decisive climate monitoring by the Fed, worried that the central bank will subject banks to stringent oversight that dissuades them from lending money to the industry. This could bring skeptical questioning for all three nominees.“I am concerned about all of the Fed nominees and their apparent willingness, despite what some of them said, to include bank and financial regulations designed to prohibit legal industries from operating in the United States borrowing money,” Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas, a Republican who sits on the committee, said on Wednesday.Mr. Toomey said during an interview on Wednesday that he also had some reservations about Dr. Cook.Lisa D. Cook, a Michigan State University economist well known for her work in trying to improve diversity in economics, will also face questions from the committee on Thursday.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesMuch of the opposition coming from Republicans and lobbyists alike is aimed at Ms. Raskin, though. She argued in a Project Syndicate column recently that “all U.S. regulators can — and should — be looking at their existing powers and considering how they might be brought to bear on efforts to mitigate climate risk.”But Ms. Raskin struck a gentler tone in her prepared testimony for the hearing, released Wednesday night, noting that the role does not involve excluding certain sectors and asserting that bank supervisors must ensure that “the safety of banks and the resilience of our financial system are never compromised in favor of short-term political agendas or special interest groups.”It is unclear at this point whether those assurances will be enough for her critics.The Chamber of Commerce, in a letter to the Senate committee last week, urged lawmakers to ask Ms. Raskin about her position on whether the Fed’s regulatory approach should try to curb credit access for oil and gas companies. The business group asked whether Ms. Raskin would be independent of politics. After Democratic members of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation board clashed with and ultimately precipitated the resignation of the Trump appointee Jelena McWilliams, who was the regulator’s chairwoman, some Republicans have raised concerns that something similar could happen at the Fed. In December, partisan politics helped to scupper the nomination of Saule Omarova, who withdrew herself from consideration to be comptroller of the currency after attacks from Republicans and banking lobbyists, and as she struggled to draw wide enough support from Democrats.By contrast, the banking industry has taken a more benign view of Ms. Raskin. The Financial Services Forum, which represents the chief executive officers of the largest banks, congratulated Ms. Raskin and the other White House Fed picks in a statement after their nominations were announced, as did the American Bankers Association.Ms. Raskin is seen as a qualified candidate who understands the roles various regulators play in overseeing banks, according to one banking industry executive who asked not to be identified discussing regulatory matters. Even though bankers expect Ms. Raskin to be confirmed, they are awaiting more clarity around her stance on climate finance and disclosures, the executive said.As she is received as a mainstream pick, centrist Democrats have sounded content with Ms. Raskin.“I’ve been very impressed with her,” Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, said on Tuesday, adding that he had not met her yet but that he was “favorably inclined” and noting that banks have expressed comfort with her.Senator Joe Manchin III from West Virginia, a key centrist Democrat, said on Wednesday that he hadn’t yet studied the nominees, adding that he’s “going to get into that” because he’s “very concerned” about issues including inflation.A Harvard-trained lawyer, Ms. Raskin is a former deputy secretary at the Treasury Department, where she focused on financial system cybersecurity, among other issues. She also spent several years as Maryland’s commissioner of financial regulation. Ms. Raskin is married to Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat.If confirmed, she would be only the second person formally appointed as the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, succeeding Randal K. Quarles, a Trump administration pick who typically favored lighter and more precise regulation. Ms. Raskin, by contrast, has a track record of calling for stricter regulation. Dr. Cook and Dr. Jefferson might both might be quizzed about their views on policy and professional backgrounds. The Fed has seven governors — including its chair, vice chair and vice chair for supervision — who vote on monetary policy alongside five of its 12 regional bank presidents. Governors hold a constant vote on regulation.Philip N. Jefferson, an administrator and economist at Davidson College who has worked as a research economist at the Fed, is also a nominee for the Fed’s board.John Crawford/Davidson CollegeDr. Cook, who would be the first Black woman ever to sit on the Fed’s board, is a Michigan State University economist well known for her work in trying to improve diversity in economics. She earned a doctorate in economics from the University of California, Berkeley, and was an economist on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama.“High inflation is a grave threat to a long, sustained expansion, which we know raises the standard of living for all Americans and leads to broad-based, shared prosperity,” Dr. Cook said, after emphasizing her decades of experience, calling tackling America’s current burst in prices the Fed’s “most important task.”Dr. Jefferson, who is also Black, is an administrator and economist at Davidson College who has worked as a research economist at the Fed. He has written about the economics of poverty, and his research has delved into whether monetary policy that stokes investment with low interest rates helps or hurts less-educated workers.He seconded that the Fed must “ensure that inflation declines to levels consistent with its goals,” speaking in his prepared testimony.Dr. Cook, Dr. Jefferson, and Ms. Raskin are up for confirmation alongside Jerome H. Powell — who had previously been renominated as Fed chair — and Lael Brainard, a Fed governor who is the Biden administration’s pick for vice chair. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the committee chairman, said all five candidates will face a key committee vote on Feb. 15, and that Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, “knows to move quickly” for a full floor vote.If all pass, the Fed’s leadership will be the most diverse in both race and gender that it has ever been — fulfilling a pledge of Mr. Biden’s to make the long heavily male and white central bank more representative of the public that it is intended to serve. More

In an effort to combat rapid price rises in Britain, the Bank of England raised interest rates on Thursday, its first back-to-back increases in more than 17 years, and said it would start to shrink its enormous holdings of government and corporate bonds.Inflation is already at its fastest pace in three decades: The annual rate rose to 5.4 percent in December. But by April the central bank expects it to climb to about 7.25 percent, the highest projection the bank has ever made. In response, the policymakers voted to raise interest rates by 25 basis points to 0.5 percent.But four of the nine policymakers wanted to do something bolder: a 50-basis point increase, a move twice as big. The bank has never approved a rate increase that large before.The Bank of England raised interest rates in December for the first time in three and half years, looking past the economic uncertainty created by Omicron and focusing on the battle against inflation.In the end, the bank only expects Omicron to have weighed on Britain’s economy in December and January, whereas inflation is proving a much more persistent problem. Inflation far exceeds the central bank’s 2 percent target and even after it’s expected to peak in April will stay above 5 percent for the rest of the year.Half of the increase in inflation between now and April will be because of higher energy prices, the Bank of England said. Earlier on Thursday, Ofgem, Britain’s energy regulator, announced that the price cap on energy bills would rise by 54 percent in April for 22 million households. The government has said it will try to mitigate the pain by giving millions of households £350, or $476, off bills this year in the form of grants and loans.The rest of the projected inflation increase over the next three months is expected to be split between higher prices for goods and services.One of the major concerns for policymakers is that businesses and consumers will begin to assume that rapid cost increases will continue, causing workers to demand higher wages in response and businesses to continue to raise their prices, fueling a cycle that keeps inflation rates higher for longer.In January, Catherine Mann, a member of the bank’s rate-setting committee, said it was the job of monetary policy to “lean against” expectations that could lead to this scenario.But there are already signs it is happening. The central bank’s economists expect wage settlements to rise by nearly 5 percent over the next year, based on surveys with businesses it consults.Still, prices are rising faster than wages. For months, the higher inflation rates have prompted concerns about a cost-of-living crisis in Britain, as the budgets of households, particularly low-income ones, are squeezed by the most rapid food price inflation in a decade, higher energy bills and other rising costs.The squeeze is set to be even worse than the central bank projected just three months ago. For 2022, the bank’s measure of net income after taxes and inflation is expected to fall by 2 percent from last year, and fall again in 2023. In November, the central bank had projected a 1.25 percent decline in 2022.Since 1990, that measure of income has only fallen twice before on an annual basis, in 2008 and 2011.But eventually the squeeze is destined to hamper the overall economy. Growth in gross domestic product is “expected to slow to subdued rates,” according to the minutes of rate-setting meeting which concluded on Wednesday. “The main reason for that is the adverse impact of higher global energy and tradable goods prices” on incomes and spending. The central bank also expects it to push the unemployment rate back up to 5 percent, after falling to 3.8 percent in the first quarter.That economic slowdown is expected to push inflation back below the central bank’s target by 2024.On Thursday, policymakers also voted to begin reducing the bank’s bond holdings. The bank will stop reinvesting the proceeds from bonds that mature in their holdings, which are made up of £875 billion in government bonds and £20 billion in corporate bonds. Over the course of this year and next year, £70 billion in government bonds will mature and shrink the size of the bank’s balance sheet. The bank will also sell its corporate bond holdings over the next two years. More

The January jobs report is arriving at a critical time for the U.S. economy. Inflation is rising. The pandemic is still taking a toll. And the Federal Reserve is trying to decide how best to steer the economy through a swirl of competing threats.Unfortunately, the data, which the Labor Department will release on Friday, is unlikely to provide a clear guide.A slew of measurement issues and data quirks will make it hard to assess exactly how the latest coronavirus wave has affected workers and businesses, or to gauge the underlying health of the labor market.“It’s going to be a mess,” said Skanda Amarnath, executive director of Employ America, a research group.Data for the report was collected in mid-January, near the peak of the wave of cases associated with the Omicron variant. There is no question that the surge in cases was disruptive: A Census Bureau survey estimated that more than 14 million people in late December and early January were not working either because they had Covid-19 or were caring for someone who did, more than at any other point in the pandemic.Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.But exactly how those disruptions will affect the jobs numbers is less certain. Forecasters surveyed by Bloomberg expect the report to show that employers added 150,000 jobs in January, only modestly fewer than the 199,000 added in December. But there is an unusually wide range of estimates, from a gain of 250,000 jobs to a loss of 400,000.The Biden administration and its allies are bracing for a grim report, warning on Twitter and in conversations with reporters that a weak January jobs number would not necessarily be a sign of a sustained slowdown.Economists generally agree. Coronavirus cases have already begun to fall in most of the country, and there is little evidence so far that the latest wave caused lasting economic damage. Layoffs have not spiked, as they did earlier in the pandemic, and employers continue to post job openings.“You could have the possibility of a payroll number that looks really truly horrendous, but you’re pulling on a rubber band,” said Nick Bunker, director of economic research for the job site Indeed. “Things could bounce back really quickly.”Still, the January data will be unusually confusing because Omicron’s impact will affect different particulars in different ways.Two Measures of EmploymentThe number that usually gets the most attention, the count of jobs gained or lost, is based on a government survey that asks thousands of employers how many employees they have on their payrolls in a given pay period. People who miss work — because they are out sick, are quarantining because of coronavirus exposure or are caring for children because their day care arrangements have been upended — might not be counted, even though they haven’t lost their jobs.Forecasting the impact of such absences on the jobs numbers is tricky. The payroll figure is meant to include anyone who worked even a single hour in a pay period, so people who miss only a few days of work will still be counted. Employees taking paid time off count, too. Still, the sheer scale of the Omicron wave means that absences are almost certain to take a toll.The jobs report also includes data from a separate survey of households. That survey considers people “employed” if they report having a job, even if they are out sick or absent for other reasons. The different definitions mean that the report could send conflicting signals, with one measure showing an increase in jobs and the other a decrease.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

Mortgage applications to refinance a home loan jumped 18% week to week, seasonally adjusted but still 50% lower than a year ago.
The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with conforming loan balances ($647,200 or less) increased to 3.78% from 3.72%
Mortgage applications to purchase a home increased 4% for the week, but were 7% lower than the same week one year ago.

A real estate agent stands in the doorway as Giovani and Nicole Quiroz of Brooklyn, New York visit an open house in West Hempstead, New York.
Raychel Brightman | Newsday LLC | Newsday | Getty Images

Mortgage rates continued to surge higher last week, and that brought borrowers out of the woodwork, looking to refinance. While that might seem counterintuitive, given the higher rates, there are still a significant number of borrowers who could benefit from a refinance, and they may have been worried that this was their last chance.
The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with conforming loan balances ($647,200 or less) increased to 3.78% from 3.72%, with points decreasing to 0.41 from 0.43 (including the origination fee) for loans with a 20% down payment, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. That was the highest rate since March 2020. One year ago, the rate was 86 basis points lower.

With rates now clearly on the upward trajectory, mortgage applications to refinance a home loan jumped 18% week to week, seasonally adjusted. Volume was still 50% lower than the same week one year ago. The refinance share of mortgage activity increased to 57.3% of total applications from 55.8% the previous week.

Mortgage rates sat near record lows for the better part of last year, but not everyone who could benefit refinanced. As of now, roughly 5.9 million borrowers could still save enough to make the process worth it, according to a recent analysis by Black Knight, a mortgage technology and data provider. That number was about 11 million at the start of this year and as high as nearly 20 million in late 2020.  
“There has likely been some recent volatility in application counts due to holiday-impacted weeks, as well as from borrowers trying to secure a refinance before rates go even higher,” said Joel Kan, MBA’s associate vice president of economic and industry forecasting.
Mortgage applications to purchase a home increased 4% for the week but were 7% lower than the same week one year ago. Buyers have been uncharacteristically busy this January, with some concerned that rising rates will price them out of the already expensive housing market by spring.
Anecdotally, real estate agents say they could easily have more sales if there were more listings. The current supply of homes for sale is at a record low, with inventory especially lean at the lower end of the market. That’s why most of the activity is now at the higher end.
“The average purchase loan size hit a new survey high once again at $441,100. Stubbornly low inventory levels and swift home-price growth continue to push average loan sizes higher,” Kan said.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Judging by the opinions of some major Wall Street forecasters, employment either slowed to a crawl or perhaps even turned negative in January.
ADP reported Wednesday that companies slashed 301,000 jobs in the month.
PNC is expecting Friday’s payrolls report to show a decline of 400,000 while Goldman Sachs is forecasting a drop of 250,000. Consensus forecast is for a gain of 150,000.

A person walks into a new cookie shop next to a “Help Wanted” sign on January 12, 2022 in New York City.
Alexi Rosenfeld | Getty Images

A jobs market that was on fire for most of 2021 looks like it was dealt a cold splash of reality to start the new year.
Judging by the opinions of some major Wall Street forecasters and fortified Wednesday by data from payroll processing firm ADP, employment in January either slowed to a crawl — or perhaps even turned negative.

ADP reported that companies subtracted 301,000 jobs during the month, spurred largely by swelling Covid-19 omicron cases and a wider slowdown in business conditions.
The report comes two days before the U.S. Labor Department releases its widely watched nonfarm payrolls count. Consensus estimates see a gain of 150,000 jobs, according to Dow Jones, but the drumbeat is building on Wall Street that the actual tally will be far lower. Even the White House last week cautioned that the report could be weak due to the impact of the omicron surge in January.
“The good news is that the job market should quickly bounce back as the omicron variant fades. Underlying demand in the economy is still strong, and businesses are still trying to hire,” said Gus Faucher, chief U.S. economist at PNC. “But the January drop in employment is another reminder that the economy will not fully return to normal until the pandemic is over.”

PNC is possibly the most pessimistic voice on the Street, with a projection that nonfarm payrolls contracted by 400,000 in January, including a 350,000 decline in the private sector.
The losses, Faucher said, “were likely due to a combination of factors,” most of them related to Covid. They include workers either dealing with their own virus infections, or having to take care of sick family members, parents who managed kids who were not being able to go to school, and weaker demand in pandemic-sensitive industries like bars, restaurants and hotels.

That has become a familiar refrain in the economic community.
Goldman Sachs forecasts a 250,000 drop in payrolls due to “a large and likely temporary drag” due to the pandemic, while Citigroup sees a modest upside, with growth of just 70,000 jobs.
“The downside risk to payrolls has been well telegraphed and we would not be surprised, nor necessarily concerned, to see an outright decline in January employment that would likely bounce back in the coming months,” Citi economist Veronica Clark said in a note.
Economists believe a sharp decline in Covid cases, in which the seven-day moving average has dropped about 45% in the past two weeks, will help resuscitate the jobs market. However, that average peaked on Jan. 15, which is the same week the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses as its sample for the monthly report.

A big reversal

The changing winds follow a record year for jobs — nearly 6.5 million payroll additions despite a modest pullback in the pace over the last two months of the year. The last time the BLS report showed a negative number was in December 2020.
However, the employment level remains 2.9 million below where it was pre-pandemic in February 2020. That’s due to another confluence of events, including a surge in retirements, a general labor shortage that has seen job openings outnumber available workers by 4.6 million, and myriad impacts from the pandemic.
A decline in January would push the labor market even further back and could spur an early-year growth scare in which first-quarter GDP could show little gain and possibly a loss.
From a market perspective, stocks have been rallying the past four days, with some of the high-growth tech names leading the charge. But jitters over an economy slowing while the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates could inject some volatility back to Wall Street.
“If [Friday’s report] comes in at minus [300,000], that might have some near-term impact,” said Jim Paulsen, chief investment strategist at the Leuthold Group. “Even if you think we’re going to get through it, it will scare you until that point.”
Paulsen, though, is in the camp that sees the January numbers as temporary, a feeling generally shared among economists. He said it was likely that the market will look through the report and that the Fed likely will not be swayed off its course of raising rates to combat swelling inflation.
“As far as [the jobs market] being weak, I don’t know if anyone’s going to give it much credence,” Paulsen said. “You’ve clearly got omicron cases collapsing. You’re seeing some high-frequency data showing some pretty significant pickups. I just think that calms a lot of the marketplace.”

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Private payrolls fell by 301,000 for January versus the estimate for a 200,000 gain, according to payrolls processing firm ADP.
This was the first reported net job less since December 2020 and came as surging omicron cases hit hiring.
The pandemic-sensitive leisure and hospitality industry was the hardest hit, losing 154,000 jobs.

Companies cut jobs in January for the first time in more than a year as the spread of the Covid omicron variant appeared to hit hiring, payroll processing firm ADP reported Wednesday.
Private payrolls fell by 301,000 for the month, well below the Dow Jones estimate for growth of 200,000 and a marked plunge from the downwardly revised 776,000 gain in December. It was the first time ADP reported negative job growth since December 2020.

The pandemic-sensitive leisure and hospitality industry was responsible for more than half of the decline, as companies reported a drop of 154,000. Trade, transportation and utilities cut 62,000 while the other services category declined by 23,000.
Manufacturing also lost 21,000 positions, while education and health services reported a drawdown of 15,000 and construction fell by 10,000.
Service-providing industries were responsible for 274,000 of the job losses, with goods producers falling by 27,000.
“The labor market recovery took a step back at the start of 2022 due to the effect of the omicron variant and its significant, though likely temporary, impact to job growth,” ADP’s chief economist, Nela Richardson, said.
The ADP numbers come two days before the more closely watched nonfarm payrolls count from the Labor Department. Wall Street expects that report to show a gain of just 150,000 jobs, though economists and White House officials are warning the month’s numbers could be rough due to omicron and statistical effects from the way the Labor Department compiles the data.

While ADP’s report could signal a weak number Friday, the two counts can differ substantially. In December alone, ADP’s total — initially put at 807,000 before the revision — was well above the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ count of 211,000 for private payrolls and 199,000 for the total nonfarm number.
From a business-size standpoint, the job losses were concentrated at small firms, with companies employing fewer than 50 people seeing a drop of 144,000. Businesses with more than 500 employees lost 98,000, while medium-sized firms declined by 59,000.
Federal Reserve officials are watching the jobs numbers closely. Policymakers have said they think the U.S. economy is around full employment, and they have teed up a series of interest rate increases this year.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

HOUSTON — Oil prices are increasing, again, casting a shadow over the economy, driving up inflation and eroding consumer confidence.Crude prices rose more than 15 percent in January alone, with the global benchmark price crossing $90 a barrel for the first time in more than seven years, as fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine grew.Though the summer driving season is still months away, the average price for regular gasoline is fast approaching $3.40 a gallon, roughly a dollar higher than it was a year ago, according to AAA.The Biden administration said in November that it would release 50 million barrels of oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to relieve the pressure on consumers, but the move hasn’t made much of a difference.Many energy analysts predict that oil could soon touch $100 a barrel, even as electric cars become more popular and the coronavirus pandemic persists. Exxon Mobil and other oil companies that only a year ago were considered endangered dinosaurs by some Wall Street analysts are thriving, raking in their biggest profits in years.Why are oil prices suddenly so high?The pandemic depressed energy prices in 2020, even sending the U.S. benchmark oil price below zero for the first time ever. But prices have snapped back faster and more than many analysts had expected in large part because supply has not kept up with demand.Oil prices are at their highest point since 2014.Price of a barrel of Brent crude, the global benchmark, and West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. standard

Source: FactSetBy The New York TimesWestern oil companies, partly under pressure from investors and environmental activists, are drilling fewer wells than they did before the pandemic to restrain the increase in supply. Industry executives say they are trying not to make the same mistake they made in the past when they pumped too much oil when prices were high, leading to a collapse in prices.Elsewhere, in countries like Ecuador, Kazakhstan and Libya, natural disasters and political turbulence have curbed output in recent months.Understand Russia’s Relationship With the WestThe tension between the regions is growing and Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly willing to take geopolitical risks and assert his demands.Competing for Influence: For months, the threat of confrontation has been growing in a stretch of Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Threat of Invasion: As the Russian military builds its presence near Ukraine, Western nations are seeking to avert a worsening of the situation.Energy Politics: Europe is a huge customer of Russia’s fossil fuels. The rising tensions in Ukraine are driving fears of a midwinter cutoff.Migrant Crisis: As people gathered on the eastern border of the European Union, Russia’s uneasy alliance with Belarus triggered additional friction.Militarizing Society: With a “youth army” and initiatives promoting patriotism, the Russian government is pushing the idea that a fight might be coming.“Unplanned outages have flipped what was thought to be a pivot towards surplus into a deep production gap,” said Louise Dickson, an oil markets analyst at Rystad Energy, a research and consulting firm.On the demand side, much of the world is learning to cope with the pandemic and people are eager to shop and make other trips. Wary of coming in contact with an infectious virus, many are choosing to drive rather than taking public transportation.But the most immediate and critical factor is geopolitical.A potential Russian invasion of Ukraine has “the oil market on edge,” said Ben Cahill, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “In a tight market, any significant disruptions could send prices well above $100 per barrel,” Mr. Cahill wrote in a report this week.Russia produces 10 million barrels of oil a day, or roughly one of every 10 barrels used around the world on any given day. Americans would not be directly hurt in a significant way if Russian exports stopped, because the country sends only about 700,000 barrels a day to the United States. That relatively modest amount could easily be replaced with oil from Canada and other countries.A Russian invasion of Ukraine could interrupt oil and gas shipments, which would increase prices further.Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesBut any interruption of Russian shipments that transit through Ukraine, or the sabotage of other pipelines in northern Europe, would cripple much of the continent and distort the global energy supply chain. That’s because, traders say, the rest of the world does not have the spare capacity to replace Russian oil.Even if Russian oil shipments are not interrupted, the United States and its allies could impose sanctions or export controls on Russian companies, limiting their access to equipment, which could gradually reduce production in that country.In addition, interruptions of Russian natural gas exports to Europe could force some utilities to produce more electricity by burning oil rather than gas. That would raise demand and prices worldwide.What can the United States and its allies do if Russian production is disrupted?The United States, Japan, European countries and even China could release more crude from their strategic reserves. Such moves could help, especially if a crisis is short-lived. But the reserves would not be nearly enough if Russian oil supplies were interrupted for months or years.Western oil companies that have pledged not to produce too much oil would most likely change their approach if Russia was unable or unwilling to supply as much oil as it did. They would have big financial incentives — from a surging oil price — to drill more wells. That said, it would take those businesses months to ramp up production.What is OPEC doing?President Biden has been urging the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to pump more oil, but several members have been falling short of their monthly production quotas, and some may not have the capacity to quickly increase output. OPEC members and their allies, Russia among them, are meeting on Wednesday, and will probably agree to continue gradually increasing production.In addition, if Russian supplies are suddenly reduced, Washington will most likely put pressure on Saudi Arabia to raise production independently of the cartel. Analysts think that the kingdom has several million barrels of spare capacity that it could tap in a crisis.What impact would higher oil prices have on the U.S. economy?A big jump in oil prices would push gasoline prices even higher, and that would hurt consumers. Working-class and rural Americans would be hurt the most because they tend to drive more. They also drive older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. And energy costs tend to represent a larger percentage of their incomes, so price increases hit them harder than more affluent people or city dwellers who have access to trains and buses.Rising oil and gas prices would pinch consumers, especially the less affluent and rural residents.Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA, via ShutterstockBut the direct economic impact on the nation would be more modest than in previous decades because the United States produces more and imports less oil since drilling in shale fields exploded around 2010 because of hydraulic fracturing. The United States is now a net exporter of fossil fuels, and the economies of several states, particularly Texas and Louisiana, could benefit from higher prices.What would it take for oil prices to fall?Oil prices go up and down in cycles, and there are several reasons prices could fall in the next few months. The pandemic is far from over, and China has shut down several cities to stop the spread of the virus, slowing its economy and demand for energy. Russia and the West could reach an agreement — formal or tacit — that forestalls a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.And the United States and its allies could restore a 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran that former President Donald J. Trump abandoned. Such a deal would allow Iran to sell oil much more easily than now. Analysts think the country could export a million or more barrels daily if the nuclear deal is revived.Ultimately, high prices could depress demand for oil enough that prices begin to come down. One of the main financial incentives for buying electric cars, for example, is that electricity tends to be cheaper per mile than gasoline. Sales of electric cars are growing fast in Europe and China and increasingly also in the United States. More