Economist Peter Schiff Dismisses June Job Gains, Sparking Debate Over Labor Market Health

Economist Peter Schiff sharply criticized the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report, contending that 92% of the 147,000 jobs created in June were in “non-productive” government, health, or social services sectors.

Non-Productive Jobs and the U.S. Debt

Economist Peter Schiff has downplayed the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which indicated that 147,000 jobs were created in June. Schiff asserted that 92% of these jobs were in government, health services, or social services—sectors he characterized as non-productive.

Schiff argues that these jobs, rather than advancing the Trump administration’s goal to narrow the country’s trade deficit, actually expand it and “lead to more government debt and higher inflation.” The economist’s remarks came hours after the BLS unveiled its Employment Situation Summary for June.

According to the summary, nonfarm payroll employment increased by 147,000 in June, a figure that reportedly surpassed economists’ forecasts of around 110,000 new jobs. Consequently, the unemployment rate saw a slight improvement, dipping to 4.1% in June from 4.2% in May. The report portrays a resilient, though possibly cooling, labor market that continues to add jobs, albeit with a focus on specific sectors and signs of slowing wage growth.

Despite this, Schiff, who has repeatedly attacked the Trump administration’s economic policies, insisted in another post on X that the data depicts a weak labor market.

“Almost half the June jobs created were non-productive government jobs. The 4.1% official unemployment rate is a joke. Before 1994, the BLS used a broader definition—more like today’s 7.7% U-6 rate, which better reflects reality. The labor market is weak. Don’t believe the hype,” Schiff claimed.

Manufacturing Decline Tied to Offshoring

However, as has become customary of late, Schiff’s dismissal of the job gains was met with strong, sometimes angry, responses from users. Many questioned the economist’s tendency to seemingly dismiss anything positive achieved by the Trump administration.

One user, identified as Erick, slammed Schiff’s attempt to demean certain jobs as unproductive in the export or trade sense. Erick argued that blaming these jobs for inflation or the trade deficits “flips the logic.” According to Erick, “manufacturing’s decline wasn’t caused by hiring teachers.” Instead, years of offshoring, automation, and what the user called “Wall Street gutting reinvestment” are to blame for the decline.

Erick concluded his response to Schiff by emphasizing the importance of robust infrastructure and a strong education system.

“Gov debt doesn’t cause inflation unless we run out of real resources. Most of these jobs are spent locally. They’re demand stabilizers, not trade leeches. The real risk isn’t that investors wake up. It’s that we keep gutting the foundation, schools, health, and infrastructure while pretending that cutting nurses will bring factories back. You want more exports? Start with a country worth investing in,” the social media user asserted.

Initial reaction to the labor data has been largely positive with some economists highlighting a stronger-than-expected labor market. While the headline unemployment rate fell, a notable increase in the long-term unemployed (1.6 million, up 190,000) raised some concerns.