6月非农就业数据解读:拯救骑虎难下的美联储于水火之中

币界网Published on 2024-07-26Last updated on 2024-07-26

币界网报道:

一、非农数据(Non-farm Payroll)的概念

美国非农就业数据是美国劳工统计局(Bureau of Labor Statistics,简称BLS)发布的一项重要经济指标,它衡量的是美国在农业以外的行业就业情况。这个数据通常在每个月的第一个星期五公布,是投资者、政策制定者、经济学家以及市场分析师密切关注的指标之一,因为它能够提供关于美国经济健康状况的重要指标。

非农就业数据包括就业人数变化、失业率、平均时薪、劳动参与率等多项数据。

二、非农数据的具体计算口径

BLS基于一系列详细的调查和统计方法编制非农数据。以下是计算非农就业数据的一些关键步骤和方法:

  • 样本调查:BLS通过家庭调查(Current Population Survey,CPS)和企业调查(Current Employment Statistics,CES)来收集数据。家庭调查主要用来计算失业率和劳动参与率,而企业调查则用来计算就业人数和平均时薪。

  • 家庭调查(CPS):CPS是一个月度调查,覆盖大约60,000个家庭,旨在收集有关就业、失业和劳动力参与的信息。通过CPS,BLS能够计算出失业率、劳动参与率等指标。

  • 企业调查(CES):CES是一项于企业样本的调查,旨在收集非农业部门的就业、工时和工资数据。BLS根据该调查计算就业人数的变化和平均时薪。

  • 行业分类:非农就业数据将就业分为不同的行业类别,如制造业、建筑业、服务业等,以便更细致地分析各行业的就业情况。

  • 数据调整:为了确保数据的准确性,BLS会对数据进行季节性调整,以消除季节性因素对就业数据的影响。

三、2024年6月非农数据总结

6月非农数据显示,劳动力市场保持稳定,但略有放松。6月美国新增了206,000个工作岗位,符合预期。五月的非农就业人数增长被向下修正,调整为218,000个,而四月份的非农就业人数增长也被向下修正,调整为108,000个。

6月非农就业增长使得三个月的平均就业岗位数增长达到177,000,录得自2021年1月以来的最低增幅。这凸显了美联储紧缩的货币政策正在减缓就业增长的步伐。

m3iKSQhWe0.png

6月非农数据增长主要集中在少数几个领域,政府和医疗保健行业的就业增长几乎占据了总增长的四分之三。政府职位的强劲增长(+70,000)主要由州和地方政府职位的增加(+65,000)所驱动。

私营部门的工资增长在六月份继续放缓,从五月的193,000降至136,000,其中医疗保健和社会援助行业占据了其中的82,000个职位。深入细节来看,六月份商品生产行业的就业人数增加了19,000,建筑行业的强劲增长抵消了制造业就业人数的下降。服务行业在六月份也出现疲软,就业人数增加了117,000,低于五月的181,000。尽管医疗保健行业在六月份取得了强劲增长,但大多数其他服务行业就业增长开始转负。这说明就业市场已经开始温和回调

四、2024年6月非农数据对美联储未来政策影响预期

6月非农就业报告符合美联储的预期目标,即在保证就业市场软着陆和温和降温的前提下维持高利率对通胀的压制,明确2%通胀锚定目标水平和长期预期管理,避免通胀反弹。结合6月CPI超预期降温情形,市场分析业界和衍生品从业员普遍加强了对于9月FOMC美联储降息的预期。

美联储在对待就业数据的态度上一向十分谨慎,由于就业市场冷却会导致国内局势不稳定、民众生活水平降低、消费水平降低,而就业市场过高的热度又会在菲利普斯曲线层面造成通胀压力,美联储在就业议题上常常陷入骑虎难下的两难境地,这也是美联储货币政策调整主要的难点之一。在物价水平全面缓和的背景下,就业市场的温和回调给了美联储更充分的结束高息压制的信心,也给了美联储更多的政策余地。

如果就业市场的冷却更迅速,美联储可能会被迫提前降息以挽救非农和失业率,美国经济已经忍受一年以上的痛苦高息环境可能会由于过早结束,导致美联储压制YCC的努力变为徒劳,无论是美国政界还是美联储都无法接受这样的结局,结合近期回升的能源价格,美国经济未来可能会陷入滞涨的死亡螺旋;

如果非农数据指示就业市场持续火热,对于美联储来说可能也会非常难以处理,可能还要继续延长高利率政策并继续延迟预期的降息时间,导致美元指数持续处于高位,进一步加剧美国政府国债利息支付压力。由于目前处于总统选举期间,美国财政无法采取过激的缩表措施,必须保证拜登政府关于医保、学贷、基建等方面的承诺至少在选举周期内落实。因此,从财政压力的角度,6月非农数据也给了美联储喘息之机,提供了减弱鹰派预期、降息正式提上日程的基础。

END

本文内容仅用于信息分享,不对任何经营与投资行为进行推广与背书,请读者严格遵守所在地区法律法规,不参与任何非法金融行为。不为任何虚拟货币、数字藏品相关的发行、交易与融资等提供交易入口、指引、发行渠道引导等。

4Alpha Research内容未经许可,禁止进行转载、复制等,违者将追究法律责任。

Related Reads

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

According to an analysis published by ZeroDrift on June 22, 2026, attackers have stolen approximately $16.9 million over 40 days from five deprecated but still operational smart contracts across various blockchains. The primary issue is not a specific vulnerability but the incomplete decommissioning of legacy contracts. These "zombie contracts" often retain economic value, operational permissions, and callable functions, making them prime targets long after teams cease active development. The most significant loss occurred at DxSale, where an old locker contract lost about $7.3 million due to a forgotten control path becoming accessible again. Other affected projects include TrustedVolumes (~$5.87M), Raydium's legacy AMM pool (~$1.34M), Aztec Connect (~$2.28M), and Huma Finance V1 pool (~$101k). These incidents involved diverse systems—RFQ settlement, credit pools, liquidity lockers, AMMs—demonstrating the widespread nature of the risk. The analysis highlights that automated tools are lowering the cost for attackers to systematically scan for these long-tail targets, which have public code and weaker monitoring. In contrast, defensive practices for contract retirement remain underdeveloped. While the DeFi industry has mature audit processes for new deployments, it lacks strict protocols for securely sunsetting old contracts, which only become truly "retired" after all funds, permissions, authorizations, and trust assumptions are removed.

marsbit15m ago

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

marsbit15m ago

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbit22m ago

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbit22m ago

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Title: STRC Deeply Discounted, mNAV Falls Below Break-even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Redefined The recent volatility in MSTR and STRC highlights the need to reassess the core business model of Bitcoin reserve companies. These entities function more like leveraged, single-asset banks rather than software/tech firms. Consequently, they should be valued using banking metrics, not based on their total Bitcoin holdings. The key valuation metric is mNAV (market net asset value), akin to a price-to-book ratio. It compares the company's market capitalization to the equity value of its Bitcoin holdings after deducting all senior debt and preferred equity (like STRC). As of June 24, Strategy's mNAV was 1.10x. The focus should be on "net Bitcoin per share" (the Bitcoin claim per share after senior claims) and its growth rate, equivalent to a bank's book value and return on assets. Given STRC's 19% discount to its $100 par value (yielding 14.2%), issuing new MSTR equity at the current price to buy more Bitcoin is inefficient. It slightly dilutes the widely watched "total Bitcoin per share" metric while providing minimal improvement to the more critical "net Bitcoin per share." The article analyzes four potential uses for $1 billion in new equity: 1. **Buy Bitcoin:** Least effective. Improves net Bitcoin per share only marginally while diluting total Bitcoin per share. 2. **Repurchase STRC:** Most effective for balance sheet repair. The discount creates immediate value, increasing net Bitcoin per share by 1.0%, reducing debt burden, and lowering future dividend obligations. 3. **Boost Cash Reserves:** Dramatically improves the "cash coverage ratio" for STRC dividends from 9.8 months to 16.8 months, a crucial liquidity metric in a tightening funding environment. 4. **50/50 Split (STRC buyback & cash):** A balanced approach improving all key metrics. Strategy's own Q1 report indicates its internal break-even mNAV for profitable equity issuance to buy Bitcoin is 1.22x. With the current mNAV at 1.10x, such a move would be value-destructive. The core assumptions of its previous expansion model—issuing STRC at par and maintaining ample dividend coverage—have broken down. The recommended path is to use new capital to optimize core financial health: repurchasing discounted STRC and/or bolstering cash reserves. This would repair the balance sheet, signal liquidity strength, support STRC's price, lower its yield, and potentially reopen the par-value issuance channel. The current STRC discount represents a low-cost capital opportunity to restart this positive cycle. Bitcoin reserve companies must be evaluated as banks, focusing on book value, leverage, and liquidity resilience.

Foresight News23m ago

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Foresight News23m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片