Consumer News: Looking for your first job? These 20 companies have the most entry-level openings

Economists had predicted a significant increase in hiring

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• U.S. payrolls fell by 23,000 in July, missing economists forecast for an 83,000 gain by 106,000 jobs.

• Health care remained a bright spot, adding 22,000 jobs, while local government education, retail and financial activities cut workers.

• The unemployment rate slipped to 4.1%, better than the 4.2% economists expected, but participation remained weak and prior payroll figures were revised sharply lower.

U.S. employers unexpectedly cut jobs in July, with losses in education and retail outweighing continued hiring in health care and providing new evidence that the labor market is losing momentum.

Nonfarm payrolls declined by 23,000 last month, the Labor Department reported Friday. It was a big miss because economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected employers to add 83,000 jobs, making the result a 106,000-job shortfall against the consensus forecast.

The unemployment rate edged down from 4.2% to 4.1%, compared with expectations that it would remain at 4.2%.

The headline decline followed an average monthly gain of just 34,000 during the previous 12 months. Downward revisions deepened the signs of weakness: Mays gain was reduced to 63,000 from 129,000, while Junes was cut to 20,000 from 57,000. Together, the two months produced 103,000 fewer jobs than previously reported.

Local government education led the pullback, shedding 50,000 positions after recording little net change over the preceding year.

Big loss among retailers

Retailers cut 19,000 jobs. Warehouse clubs, supercenters and other general merchandise stores eliminated 21,000 positions, while gasoline stations and fuel dealers lost 5,000. Those declines were partly offset by 10,000 new jobs at sporting-goods, hobby, musical-instrument, book and miscellaneous retailers.

Financial services continued to contract, losing 14,000 jobs in July. Credit intermediation and related businesses cut 9,000 positions, while insurance carriers and related companies shed 7,000. The sector has lost 121,000 jobs since its recent peak in May 2025.

Health care was the principal source of hiring, adding 22,000 jobs. Ambulatory health-care services accounted for 18,000 of that increase. Even there, however, growth moderated: health care had added an average of 36,000 jobs a month over the previous year.

Sectors showing little movement

Hiring was largely stagnant elsewhere. Employment showed little change in construction, manufacturing, mining, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, information, professional and business services, social assistance, leisure and hospitality, and other services.

Separate figures from the Labor Departments household survey presented a somewhat steadier picture. The number of unemployed Americans was little changed at 6.9 million, while unemployment declined among teenagers and Hispanic workers. The number of people on temporary layoff, however, rose by 153,000 to 921,000.

Labor-force participation held at 61.4%, but it has fallen by 0.7 percentage point since January. The employment-to-population ratio, unchanged at 58.9% in July, has declined by half a percentage point over the same period. Those decreases suggest the lower unemployment rate partly reflects fewer people participating in the labor market rather than robust hiring.

Wage growth also cooled. Average hourly earnings rose just 2 cents to $37.62, leaving them 3.2% higher than a year earlier. The average private-sector workweek remained unchanged at 34.3 hours.

Telemarketing and suspected scam calls drove the monthly total above 4.35 billion

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• U.S. consumers received more than 4.35 billion robocalls in July, up about 1.5% from June.

• Telemarketing and suspected scam calls rose 5.7% to 2.13 billion, accounting for 49% of the months robocalls.

• A widespread campaign offering supposedly pre-approved personal loans generated more than 40 million calls.

Those pesky robocalls seem to be making a comeback, defying carriers efforts to suppress them.

U.S. robocall volume continued its gradual rise in July, reaching its highest monthly level in a year, according to data released Thursday by call-protection company YouMail.

Consumers received just over 4.35 billion robocalls during July 2026, an increase of approximately 1.5% from June but little changed from July 2025. YouMail estimated an average of 139.3 million robocalls per day, or 1,612 every second.

Up 15% since October

Monthly volume has now risen more than 15% from the recent low recorded in October 2025. Despite the increase, the 48.7 billion calls logged over the past 12 months represented the lowest rolling 12-month total since September 2022.

The composition of the calls shifted toward unwanted activity. Telemarketing and suspected scam calls increased 5.7% to 2.13 billion, representing 49% of all robocalls. Notifications fell 2.6% to 1.56 billion, while payment reminders declined 1.2% to 630 million.

YouMail said one of Julys largest campaigns involved prerecorded messages telling recipients they had qualified for personal loansoften for as much as $45,000even though consumers reported making no loan inquiry and giving no consent to be contacted. The campaign used thousands of originating numbers and generated more than 40 million calls during the month.

Likely illegal telemarketing

The company characterized the activity as likely illegal telemarketing and potentially fraudulent, based on the calling patterns and consumer reports.

Monthly robocall volumes have been slowly creeping upward, YouMail Chief Executive Alex Quilici said, urging consumers to remain vigilant despite volumes remaining below historical highs.

The figures are estimates rather than a complete count of every U.S. robocall. YouMail produces them by extrapolating traffic directed at users of its call-protection services, using call patterns, audio fingerprinting and consumer feedback to identify robocalls.

The truck will have a front trunk in addition to a cargo bed

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Fords new Fathom electric pickup will start at $28,350 before destination charges.

• The five-seat truck is scheduled to enter production in Kentucky in 2027.

• Preorders will open in early 2027, with initial deliveries expected later that year.

Ford has introduced the Fathom, a midsize electric pickup with a base price of $28,350, making affordability the centerpiece of its renewed electric-vehicle strategy.

The Fathom will cost $29,945 after a $1,595 destination charge, keeping the standard-range version just below $30,000. Ford plans to begin taking preorders in early 2027 and start production later that year at its Louisville Assembly Plant in Kentucky.

Built on Fords new Universal Electric Vehicle platform, the four-door truck will seat five and offer an open cargo bed and front trunk. Ford says its cabin will provide more passenger space than a Toyota RAV4. The company has not yet disclosed the trucks battery capacity, driving range or full trim lineup.

Standard technology will include a large touchscreen, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility, a digital key and bidirectional power capability. Every Fathom will also carry the hardware needed for Fords BlueCruise hands-free highway-driving system, although activating that service may cost extra. Fords Fathom page confirms that preorder invitations will begin next year.

A reset on EVs

The low price represents a sharp turn from the industrys first wave of large, expensive electric pickups. Ford developed the Fathom through a specialized team tasked with simplifying both the vehicle and its manufacturing process. Its new production method divides assembly into major sections that can be built in parallel before being joined, reducing parts, labor and factory complexity.

At $28,350 before delivery fees, the Fathom will compete not only with upcoming budget electric pickups such as the Slate Truck but also with gasoline-powered and hybrid compact trucks. Its price is close to that of Fords Maverick, potentially widening its appeal beyond traditional EV buyers.

The Fathom will be the first vehicle based on a platform Ford intends to use for a broader family of lower-cost electric models. That makes the pickup more than a new nameplate: it is an important test of whether an established Detroit automaker can profitably sell a practical EV at a mass-market price.

Deliveries are expected to begin in late 2027.

Some consumer groups may take their argument to court

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• The U.S. government has returned about $100 billion of roughly $166 billion collected under President Donald Trumps invalidated emergency tariffs.

• Refunds go to the businesses that imported goods and paid Customsnot directly to shoppers who may have absorbed the cost through higher prices.

• Consumers could benefit from voluntary price cuts, lawsuits or future legislation, but no nationwide compensation program currently exists.

The federal government has refunded approximately $100 billion in tariffs to American businesses after the Supreme Court struck down a central part of President Trumps trade program. For consumers who paid higher prices while the duties were in effect, however, compensation remains far from certain.

The payments represent about 60% of the roughly $166 billion collected under tariffs Trump imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. In February, the Supreme Court ruled that the emergency-powers law did not authorize the president to impose tariffs, clearing the way for importers to recover the duties. The courts decision did not itself establish a consumer-refund system.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection subsequently created an electronic process known as CAPE to receive and validate refund requests. Businesses must identify eligible import entries and maintain an account in the agencys Automated Commercial Environment, including banking information for electronic payments. CBPs guidance is directed toward importers and customs brokersnot individual shoppers.

Consumers on shaky legal ground

That distinction determines who receives the money. Legally, tariffs are paid to the government by the importer of record. Even when a retailer, manufacturer or distributor raises prices to recover that expense, the customer at the end of the supply chain does not become the tariff payer in the eyes of customs law.

As a result, households generally cannot submit receipts to CBP or request a share of a companys refund.

The economic burden is more complicated than the legal one. Importers may absorb a tariff through lower profit margins, negotiate lower prices from suppliers or pass some or all of the cost to wholesalers, retailers and consumers. Because those effects can spread across several companiesand mingle with changes in transportation, labor and commodity costscalculating how much tariff a particular shopper paid for a particular product can be extremely difficult.

Consumers may still receive indirect relief if companies use their refunds to lower prices, issue credits or avoid future increases. But such measures are generally voluntary. Businesses could instead apply the money to debt, wages, investment, dividends or other expenses, and lower wholesale costs do not guarantee that retail prices will fall.

The courts may have a voice

Some shoppers have turned to the courts. Class-action complaints argue that companies raised prices because of tariffs and should not be allowed to retain both those higher revenues and government refunds. Those cases face significant hurdles, including proving that a price increase was tied to an invalidated tariff, tracing the tariff to specific purchases and establishing a legal duty requiring the seller to reimburse customers.

Political pressure is also building. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has asked the administration to provide payments of $1,700 per Illinois family and has called for legislation requiring companies to pass tariff relief to consumers. His proposal is a request, not an approved federal benefit, and the relevant consumer-relief legislation has not advanced in Congress.

Capitol News Illinois reported that the requested payments would total more than $8.6 billion for the state.

For now, the answer for consumers is straightforward but unsatisfying: there is no automatic federal refund, no household claims portal and no guarantee that businesses will share the money.

Shoppers could eventually benefit through lower prices, successful litigation or a new act of Congress. Unless one of those paths produces concrete relief, the governments historic tariff repayment will remain primarily a refund to importerseven where consumers helped carry the original economic burden.