When a delayed jobs report finally dropped Tuesday, economists and investors got their first real look under the hood of the U.S. labor market, and the engine is stalled. Payroll growth was modest in November at 64,000, while October showed a net decline of roughly 105,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate rose to a four-year high of 4.6%. Payroll growth hasn’t collapsed, but it hasn’t meaningfully advanced, either. The result is a labor market that’s drifting sideways, quietly losing momentum beneath the surface.

Economists say that kind of stall is more dangerous than it looks.

“There’s just no forward motion,” Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi told Fortune. Job gains bounce slightly from month to month, but net hiring has gone essentially nowhere this year, he said, leaving the labor market “stuck in the mud.”

That stagnation explains why unemployment has continued to rise despite weak labor-force growth. Typically, joblessness climbs when layoffs surge or hiring freezes abruptly. This time, with neither happening, the economy has instead been failing a weaker benchmark, unable to create enough jobs just to absorb even modest population growth.

The dynamic mirrors a warning from analysts at Goldman Sachs, who suggested in October that the U.S. is settling into a phase of “jobless growth” where output rises despite flat hiring. Economists David Mericle and Pierfrancesco Mei wrote that productivity has essentially been doing the job of labor, echoing a prior analysis by Bank of America Research chief U.S. equity analyst Savita Subramanian. As employers increasingly turn to AI to reduce labor costs, this stalled period might turn into a  “a potentially long-lasting headwind to labor demand,” the Goldman economists wrote. 

The unemployment rate has risen by roughly six-tenths of a percentage point since the start of the year, a move that Zandi said carries weight, even if it unfolds gradually.

“You wouldn’t see unemployment rising if labor demand were okay,” Zandi said. “This tells us demand is weak too.”

At the same time, the economy is still growing. Output continues to expand, supported by what Fed Chair Jerome Powell has called “structural productivity gains” and heavy investment in artificial intelligence, which has allowed companies to produce more without adding much headcount. That dynamic has helped keep GDP positive, but it has also masked a labor market that is no longer providing the engine of growth it once did.

One of the clearest signs of that strain appeared beneath the headline payroll numbers. The number of people working part time for economic reasons jumped by nearly 1 million in November, rising to 5.5 million, as more workers reported having their hours cut or being unable to find full-time jobs. 

Businesses are “doing everything they can to avoid laying off workers,” Zandi said, noting that trimming hours and leaning more heavily on part-time or temporary labor is often the first step when demand begins to soften. He cautioned that the size of the increase was likely overstated by data noise related to the recent government shutdown, which disrupted survey collection. Even so, the direction of the decline is consistent with a broader cooling in labor demand.

Private-sector hiring, meanwhile, remains positive but weak. November’s gains offered little reassurance, and upcoming revisions could further soften the picture. Once those adjustments are made, Zandi expects overall job creation to look even closer to flat.

“It’s not hemorrhaging,” he said. “But it’s not creating jobs, either. It’s basically going sideways.”

That kind of stall can be as risky as an outright downturn. Rising unemployment tends to weigh on confidence, and over time that pressure can bleed into consumer spending. 

“The risks of the economy going into recession are uncomfortably high,” Zandi said. 

For now, the economy has avoided that outcome, in part because the AI boom has propped up investment and boosted household wealth through higher stock prices. Harvard economist Jason Furman even recently calculated that without investment into data centers, GDP growth would have been at a near standstill in the first half of 2025. Subtract that, and the economy would have to find another driver or, as Zandi suggests, run the risk of tipping into recession.

“We’re on the edge,” Zandi said. “We haven’t gone over yet. If that boost from AI wanes, then we’ve got a problem.”

“The modest job growth alongside robust GDP growth seen recently is likely to be normal to some degree in the years ahead,” Goldman’s economists also warned in October, speculating that many currently occupied jobs don’t actually need to be filled with human workers and the real toll won’t become apparent until companies get the cover provided by a recession to reduce force en masse. “History also suggests that the full consequences of AI for the labor market might not become apparent until a recession hits.”

This was the spirit in which we convened The Global Exchange. Designed not as a conclave of the elite, but as a symbol of our nation’s hunger for common ground, we gathered on the historic soil of Martha’s Vineyard. We sought to model a new chapter of “common unity,” where shared purpose outweighs division. Our vision, however, extends far beyond its shores.

A New Chapter: From Potential to Partnership

By 2050, Africa will represent one in four people on Earth. The continent’s economic potential, alongside its global diaspora, positions it as a critical partner in shaping the future of innovation, labor, and influence. 

This unprecedented alignment of demographic shifts and economic power presents an opportunity for collaboration that transcends borders and benefits all who engage with it. The fractures of history have long separated us. Yet silence cannot repair what was broken. We must speak across oceans, unify our faith, ingenuity, and capital. This isn’t a long-term aspiration; it’s a present-day imperative.

This is not about charity, but collaboration. It is about redefining Africa as an equal partner in global prosperity, a continent whose innovation, resources, and human capital offer solutions to challenges facing us all.

From Words to Work: The Blueprint for a Movement

At The Global Exchange, we brought together architects of change and innovators of impact, embodying principles of cross-cultural dialogue, healing, and shared purpose. These representatives wrestled with issues demanding immediate attention:

• Healing the divide of mental health and masculinity: Creating accessible, culturally competent pathways to healing.
• Expanding capital investment in Africa: Moving beyond rhetoric to concrete investment vehicles where innovation can thrive.
• Harnessing technology: Leveraging digital solutions to bridge gaps and empower communities.
• Reclaiming real estate: Strategically investing in initiatives that generate returns and build community.

Year-Round, Worldwide: The Digital Bridge to Action

The work cannot be seasonal, nor can it be confined to an island. History teaches us that the most powerful movements are built through sustained, open-hearted dialogue—the kind that once happened on front porches and in sacred gathering places. Our ancestors understood that community was not built in grand gestures alone, but in the patient, persistent work of conversation.

The spirit of The Global Exchange lives on in platforms like our conversational podcast, NXT Chapter with T.D. Jakes. It is a digital extension of those front porches on the Vineyard—a space where vital conversations about our shared future continue. It is an invitation to everyone, everywhere, to participate in building a global community. Whether you’re an entrepreneur in Lagos, a student in Atlanta, or a leader in London, this is your front porch too.

We stand at a crossroads where our collective power can either dissipate into empty rhetoric or crystallize into a force altering the trajectory of nations. As we look toward 2026, let the lesson be that our greatest deficit is not economic, but relational. Our resolution must be to close that gap, to invest in the currency of connection, and to build the infrastructure of empathy. This is the work of our time, our call to common unity, and the next chapter we must write together.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Thai and Cambodian forces clashed earlier this year, which ended after the Trump administration helped to broker a peace deal between the two countries, both members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a bloc of eleven Southeast Asian countries. Trump announced the deal with great fanfare on Oct. 26, on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, and since touted the deal as evidence of his dealmaking prowess.

With skirmishes continuing along the border this week, Trump has tried to get both sides to honor the ceasefire, to no avail. The conflict’s repercussions are expanding beyond Thailand and Cambodia: on Tuesday, Thailand cut fuel trade across the border to neighboring Laos, due to concerns that shipments were being diverted to Cambodian forces. 

ASEAN experts Fortune spoke with are skeptical that an agreement will stand the test of time.

“The ceasefire is inevitably fragile because it deals only with temporary matters—such as military withdrawal and monitoring—and does not address the fundamental territorial boundary issue,” says Pasha L. Hsieh, a law professor from the Singapore Management University.

Joanne Lin, a senior fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, agrees, adding that a key objective of the ceasefire was to secure Trump’s attendance at the ASEAN summit. As such, the truce was rushed and concluded quickly, with limited negotiation and few safeguards.

“It was too basic to manage a complex dispute involving border demarcation…and deep mistrust,” Lin says. “It helped pause the fighting, but once an incident occurred and nationalist sentiments took hold, the ceasefire had very little to anchor it.” 

The economic fallout

The Thai-Cambodia conflict has paralyzed trade across the shared border, particularly at the Klong Luek-Poipet crossing, halting commerce worth about $4.7 billion annually, according to The Nation, a Thai newspaper.

“In any conflict, economic lifelines are among the first to be affected, and this situation is no different,” says Lin of the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. “When fighting intensifies, everything along the conflict zone from businesses, trade routes, tourism facilities to services will inevitably be disrupted, regardless of whether they are deliberately targeted or not.”

Thailand has also bombed at least five Cambodian casinos, which experts think is political signaling to the Thai public.

“One of the most salient public grievances in Thailand is the perception of Cambodia as a hub for online scams, with widespread belief that some scam operations are based in casino complexes along the border,” says Pongkwan Sawasdipakdi, a lecturer in international relations at Bangkok’s Thammasat University. “By striking these sites, the military can demonstrate to the Thai public that it is taking concrete action against what many see as a major cross-border threat.”

At the same time, striking these Cambodian casinos serves the dual purpose of undermining Cambodia’s local economy, the academic adds. “There is a popular belief in Thailand that scam networks are connected to Cambodian political elites, so targeting casinos resonates not only as a security measure but also as a way of applying pressure on Phnom Penh.”

A history of conflict

The Thai-Cambodia border dispute stems from competing territorial claims that date back to colonial times, and are centered around the Preah Vihear Temple—an 11th-century Khmer temple complex within Cambodia’s Dângrêk Mountains.

After France withdrew from Indochina in 1954, Thailand stationed troops in the area to replace withdrawing colonial forces. In 1959, Cambodia took the dispute to the International Court of Justice, which ultimately ruled in its favor in 1962.

“Standard Thai textbooks recount how Thailand lost territories—now part of Cambodia—to France during the colonial period, regained them during World War II, and was then forced to return them after the war,” says Pongkwan. The dispute thus occupies a “uniquely sensitive place in Thai historical memory.”

Nationalist sentiments and poor conflict management are making things worse, says Lin of the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. Southeast Asia has largely been able to stop conflicts before they begin, thanks to organizations like ASEAN. But “the problem arises when that equilibrium breaks down and there are no strong mechanisms to contain escalation,” she says.

Social media is also fueling division, Pongkwan says. Cambodian netizens claim that some practices widely regarded as Thai in origin—such as Muay Thai and traditional Thai dress—are actually from Cambodia, angering their Thai counterparts.

Trump’s peace deals

Trump claims to have “ended eight wars” since taking office in January, including conflicts between Thailand and Cambodia, Israel and Iran, Pakistan and India, and Armenia and Azerbaijan, among others. The president used this track record to demand this year’s Nobel Peace Prize (which eventually went to Venezuelan opposition politician María Corina Machado).

Experts say these shallow motivations explains the fragility of the Thai-Cambodian ceasefire.

“The truce fell apart largely because Bangkok calculated—probably correctly—that the Trump administration was transactional and not deeply invested in the substance of the conflict,” says Pongkwan of Thammasat University. 

Thai leaders played along since there was little downside, she says, as being cooperative kept the country on Trump’s good side. This paid off as the U.S. and Thailand inked a rare earths agreement, paving the way for more trade between the two nations. (America is seeking to diversify supply chains after China’s tightened export curbs, signing trade agreements with four ASEAN nations at the recent summit.)

Yet now, Thailand appears to be pushing back against U.S. pressure to end the conflict. Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul has fiercely pushed back against Trump’s characterization of the renewed fighting and pledged to protect Thai “sovereignty.” Anutin has also called elections for early February, which may cement nationalist and populist sentiments. 

Is an off-ramp possible?

Some experts like Lin say that an off-ramp from the conflict is possible, though it is unlikely to come from another “headline deal” like Trump’s.

“It has to involve sustained de-escalation, credible monitoring through ASEAN mechanisms and parallel political and technical talks, including reviving the Thailand-Cambodia Joint Border Commission,” Lin says, referring to the bilateral body that was established to manage and resolve disputes over the contested land.

Pongkwan too believes that an end to the conflict is possible, but adds that it’s more likely to happen after Thailand’s national elections next February.

“Given that the [Thai] government was operating as a minority coalition and elections are approaching, riding a nationalist wave was politically safer than appearing conciliatory,” she says, adding that an end to the conflict could be possible following the country’s elections—given that a government emerges with a strong electoral mandate and adopts a more conciliatory approach.

Others, like Tita Sanglee, an associate fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, say that ending the ongoing conflict may prove difficult.

“The case of Thailand as the stronger power is straightforward—it has no reason to stop without external pressure,” says Tita. She adds that Cambodia’s repeated calls for peace were made to international audiences rather than to Thailand, and that the former continues to engage in actions which the latter deems provocative. 

“I’m afraid there is no off-ramp for the conflict as things stand,” says Tita. “In the near term, the two countries would have to live with this “no war, yet no peace” situation.”