I’m glad I waited a day to write about yesterday’s JOLTS report for December, because I got to read a lot of other commentary on the report, which convinced me to add some additional commentary about the entire JOLTS series. 

Let’s start with the fact that it was not “stale” inasmuch as the report was only delayed by two days. Still, it was for December, so a look in the rear view mirror. Secondly, too much commentary continues to focus on the “soft” job openings number, which over the course of its history has increased far more than any of the other series, as shown in this graph:

(Click on image to enlarge)

There are simply thousands of phantom job postings that are either permanent or designed to convince people that companies are hiring when they really aren’t. It has been a secular trend at least since the Great Recession. 

A second issue is that the monthly variations with all of the series are very noisy. For example,  for most of 2025, in contrast to much other data in the jobs sector, the JOLTS reports had been very much consistent with a “soft landing” jobs scenario. Then in October, all of the numbers were strongly recessionary. At the time I wrote that I would want confirmation for at least one or two more months before hopping on that bandwagon. And indeed, between revisions and improvements in November, October now very much appears to have been an outlier.

Similarly, yesterday there was a fair amount of commentary about a big decline in the job openings data to a new post-pandemic low. So let’s take my usual look at job openings (blue), hires (red), and quits (gold) all normed to 100 as of just before the pandemic:

(Click on image to enlarge)

The “soft” data of openings did decline -386,000 to 6.542 million, as indicated above a new low since the pandemic. On the other hand, actual hires rose 172,000 to 5.293 million, in line with the monthly average over the previous six months. Quits also rose 11,000 to 3.2.04 million, also solidly in their 18 month recent range. In other words, with the exception of openings, what we see is a sideways trend in all of these for the past 18 months, with a slight downward step in the past 6+ months.

On the negative side, layoffs and discharges increased 61,000 to 1.762 million, again right in the middle of its average for the past 6+ months, which range has been slightly higher than earlier in 2025:

(Click on image to enlarge)

In short, the numbers paint a picture of an employment sector that weakened in the second half of 2025, compared with the first half, but with no ongoing declining trend.

Now let me get to some additional commentary about the series as a whole. 

1. Historically, job openings have been much more volatile than hires, but on a YoY basis tend to cross the “0” threshold from expansion to contraction and visa versa contemporaneously with hires:

(Click on image to enlarge)

2. On a YoY basis, the one series for which there is some evidence of a slightly leading characteristic is layoffs and discharges (purple, inverted in the YoY graph below; all series averaged quarterly to cut down on noise):

(Click on image to enlarge)

Here is a close-up of the last year of all four data series YoY, monthly. Again, layoffs and discharges are inverted so that an increase shows as a negative number:

(Click on image to enlarge)

With just a few exceptions (March, September, November), the trend in all of the series has been negative, although quits has been positive for the past several months. This suggests a labor market which has continued to decelerate, but on a very slow basis, fitting a “soft landing” scenario.

3. Although layoffs and discharges may be slightly leading (and as I wrote a month ago, they generally lead the unemployment rate and continuing jobless claims), they are quite noisy as compared with the monthly average of initial jobless claims, which also generate fewer false signals. First, here’s the historical look:

(Click on image to enlarge)

And here is the post-pandemic look:

(Click on image to enlarge)

In other words, initial jobless claims YoY, especially as averaged monthly or on a 4 week average basis, continue to be the better indicator, and they are much more timely.

4. Finally, as I have pointed out before, the quits rate (left scale), which typically leads the YoY% change in average hourly wages for nonsupervisory workers (red, right scale), held steady in December, also in the middle of its range for the past 12+ months:

(Click on image to enlarge)

This suggests that nominal wage growth, is likely to remain stable with little variation in the next few months. at least this month. 

To conclude, December’s monthly report continued to be consistent with a “soft landing” despite the noisy downside lurch of job openings. Again, I would want to see another month or two of confirming lower readings before treating this as much other than noise in a “soft data” indicator. To the extent there is leading data in the JOLTS series which helps us forecast, as indicated just above the improvement in Quits suggests nominal wage growth will continue on trend. And layoffs and discharges suggest further slow deceleration in the employment market, but the much less noisy and current initial jobless claims data disagrees, suggesting stability albeit at a near stall over the next several months

More By This Author: