APOCALYPSE, HOW?
Anthropic researchers have unveiled a new gauge of AI job-destruction risk called "observed exposure," which Axios describes as "an early-warning system" for potential disruption, particularly among white-collar workers. So far, Anthropic maintains there is "limited evidence" that artificial intelligence is a drag on employment. But it notes those already affected tended to be "older, female, more educated and higher-paid." Separate research shows employment levels decreasing for younger workers, which Anthropic attributes to a slowdown in hiring for early career professionals in AI-exposed fields.
Goldman Sachs executives confronted two of the bank's young employees after they appeared in Interview Magazine as part of an article titled "Meet the Finest Boys in Finance," Bloomberg News reports, citing anonymous sources. Photos show the staffers wearing luxury apparel and accessories, with one telling the magazine he once splurged on a $3,000 jacket he "definitely didn't need." A spokesman for the famously conservative financial institution told Bloomberg, "Goldman Sachs media relations did not approve these interviews."
American consumers pulled back their spending to start 2026, extending the malaise in retail sales that began late last year.
Retail sales fell 0.2% in January, following a flat reading in December, according to the Commerce Department’s report issued on Friday. January’s figure came in below the forecasts of economists, who were expecting another flat reading. The report was delayed because of the 43-day government shutdown.
The January retail figure was weighed down by a sales decline at motor vehicle and auto parts dealerships. Gas stations also saw a drop in business, reflecting lower gas prices in January, though the intensifying war in the Middle East is driving up prices in recent days. The national average price for a gallon of unleaded gasoline was $3.32 Friday; a week ago, it was $2.98, AAA said
Excluding business at gas stations and auto dealers, retail sales rose 0.3% in January, according to the Commerce Department.
Economists also believe that severe winter weather throughout most of the country also hurt sales as shoppers were unable to go to physical stores. In fact, online retailers enjoyed a 1.9% sales increase in January.
Health and personal health stores were among the worst performers, falling 3% from December. And sales at clothing stores fell 1.7% from December. Consumer electronics and appliance retailers also struggled with sales declines.
Among the categories that saw gains were home furnishings and building materials, which includes landscape and gardening supplies.
The snapshot offers only a partial look at consumer spending and doesn’t include many services, including travel and hotel lodges. But the lone services category – restaurants – registered a dip of 0.2%.
The so-called control group — which excludes sales of autos, gas, building materials, and restaurant meals and which is used to calculate economic growth — rose 0.3%, according to economists’ calculations.
Tim Quinlan, an economist at Wells Fargo, noted in a report that spending in January was stronger than the headlines suggest. He noted February looks a bit weaker, hurt by a continuation of severe winter weather. He expects that higher tax refunds will help prop up spending in March, but he’s worried about the rise in gas prices.
“One big caveat will be how gas prices evolve in the wake of the conflict in Iran, with households sensitive to the price at the pump, ” he wrote Friday. Consumers are fairly sensitive to gas prices, and the average price of a gallon of gasoline is already up by 25 cents in the first week of March compared to the average registered in February on the national level. ”
Quinlan noted that higher prices will boost these nominal retail figures, but would translate to “lower real, or inflation-adjusted consumption.”
The government retail sales report comes as major retailers in recent weeks have reported their fiscal fourth-quarter reports, and so far, the results have been a mixed bag.
Walmart Inc. delivered another impressive quarter as lower prices and speedy deliveries attracted Americans ranging from cash-strapped to wealthier households. But rival Target reported earlier this week another quarterly decline in profits and sales during the critical holiday period as the discounter struggles with its own merchandising missteps and confronts a consumer who is focusing more on essentials.
Meanwhile, Home Depot’s fourth-quarter performance was tempered by ongoing caution from American consumers in a weak housing market, but the home improvement retailer’s results topped Wall Street expectations.
Retailers are confronting a shifting tariff landscape, making it hard for retailers to make decisions on hiring and merchandise orders.
The Supreme Court struck down the biggest and boldest of Trump’s tariffs – though President Donald Trump is replacing them with new ones. The job market remains under strain as uncertainty around tariffs and the economy has made employers cautious about hiring.
American employers unexpectedly cut 92,000 jobs last month, according to the Labor Department’s report on Friday. The unemployment rate moved up to 4.4%. Hiring deteriorated from January, when companies, nonprofits, and government agencies added a healthy 126,000 jobs. Economists had anticipated 60,000 new jobs in February.
Washington’s perennial pessimists had plenty to talk about on Friday. Oil prices rose sharply, and the Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy lost jobs in February. Stock markets declined on the news, but the situation does not warrant panic.
The February employment report was clearly weak. The economy lost 92,000 jobs, and previously reported gains for December and January were revised downward by a combined 69,000. The key question, however, is how to interpret these numbers.
First, the report is unrelated to the war with Iran, despite attempts by Democrats to link the two issues. The Labor Department’s household and employer surveys were conducted in the middle of the month, before the bombing campaign began.
A closer look at the data shows that 28,000 of the job losses occurred in healthcare, largely because of union labor actions. Other sectors experiencing declines included leisure and hospitality (27,000 jobs), manufacturing (12,000), construction (11,000), and motion picture production (9,500). Monthly employment data have been volatile recently, and the household survey painted a somewhat less negative picture.
According to that survey, the number of people working part-time for economic reasons fell by about one million over the past two months. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate has remained relatively stable at 4.4%, roughly the same level as in 2017. Other indicators also present a different view: the ADP payroll report and the Institute for Supply Management’s services survey both showed job growth in the past month.
Still, the labor market appears to be cooling. Recent job gains have been concentrated mainly in healthcare and social assistance. Several factors may be contributing to the slowdown. Hiring growth stalled after President Trump began imposing tariffs last April, increasing uncertainty and raising costs for businesses. Immigration enforcement actions have also reduced the available workforce, particularly in industries such as construction.
Employers also report difficulty finding workers due to an aging population and persistent skills shortages in trade professions. At the same time, productivity growth—2.8% over the past year—may allow companies to operate with fewer employees. This could explain why wage growth remains strong even as hiring slows. Average hourly earnings rose 0.4% last month and are up 3.8% over the past year.
Another factor unsettling markets on Friday was the sharp rise in oil prices, with crude climbing above $93 per barrel. The increase reflects shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz caused by fighting in the Persian Gulf. Kuwait has indicated it may temporarily reduce production as storage facilities fill, and other producers could take similar steps. Qatar has added to concerns by warning that prices could potentially reach $150 per barrel.
Oil prices may continue to rise if the conflict persists, and American consumers will likely see higher gasoline prices in the short term. However, current prices should be viewed in context. Brent crude traded above $90 for much of 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and exceeded $100 between 2011 and 2014. Neither of those periods led to a recession.
Prices could decline if shipping disruptions ease. The threat level in the Persian Gulf has already moderated somewhat, with fewer Iranian missile and drone attacks reported. President Trump has also said the U.S. Navy could escort oil tankers if necessary.
Disrupting oil flows appears to be part of Iran’s strategy—creating economic pressure in the Gulf and the United States in hopes that Washington and Israel will halt their military operations. For that reason, the editorial argues, policymakers should avoid overreacting to a temporary surge in oil prices and continue efforts to eliminate Iran’s missile and drone capabilities as well as the regime’s enforcement apparatus.
Finally, the article suggests that if President Trump wants to provide an economic boost during the conflict, he could reconsider his newly imposed 15% universal tariff—an action the editorial presents as a potential way to ease broader economic anxiety.
Another update on the IEEPA tariff refund case: CBP says it can’t yet comply with CIT order, but it has outlined a pathway to do so, involving new ACE functionality and a declaration-based process.
Here's what happened. This morning, the DOJ filed a declaration in the Amtus Filtration v. United States case stating that CBP currently cannot comply with the court’s March 4 order requiring liquidation of affected entries without the IEEPA duties.
Why? According to the filing, CBP’s current systems are not capable of processing the refunds at scale.
Instead, CBP says it is working to build a new ACE functionality, which it estimates could be operational in about 45 days. The proposed process would likely look something like this:
• Importers submit an ACE declaration listing entries where IEEPA duties were paid
• ACE validates the entries and recalculates duties without the IEEPA tariffs (including interest)
• CBP verifies the submission
• Entries are liquidated or reliquidated automatically
• Refunds and interest are aggregated by the importer
• Treasury then issues the refunds electronically
In other words: the court ordered refunds — but the operational mechanics of actually issuing them are still being built.
For importers that paid IEEPA duties, the key takeaway is that the refund process is likely coming, but not immediately. Much will depend on how the court responds to CBP’s inability to comply and whether this proposed ACE mechanism becomes the pathway for issuing refunds.