Up First from NPR - Growing Black Unemployment, Taxing California Billionaires, New Supreme Court Cases

Episode Date: October 3, 2026

The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected last month, and Black unemployment spiked. California voters will decide whether the state should charge a one-time tax on billionaires, an idea that has split Democrats. The Supreme Court begins its new term on Monday, with cases involving climate change, guns and religious rights.Want more analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show’s perks include sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

This week's job numbers show that the labor market is holding steady, with a twist. Who you are in the job market matters more than usual. Lack unemployment spiked significantly. I'm Aish Roscoe. And I'm Scott Simon, and this is up first from NPR News. The sector that added the most jobs last month? Healthcare. Californians consider a one-time tax for billionaires.

It could help close some gaping holes in the state budget. or it could drive the ultra-wealthy away for good. And the Supreme Court justices are back on the bench this fall. On the docket is a ban of AR-15 assault rifles and oil and gas companies getting sued for climate change. So please stay with us. We've got the news you need to start your weekend. The U.S. economy added fewer new jobs than expected in September,

and unemployment ticked up a bit, now at 4.2%. That's from the labor doctor. Department jobs report. Betsy Stevenson joins us now. She's a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan and was a member of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. Thanks very much for being with us. It's great talking with you this morning. 29,000 new jobs. What do you see in these latest numbers? Well, what I see is a continuation of a low fire, low higher labor market. And that is a labor market where if you have a job, you're doing okay, you can hang on to it, but it's hard to get a new job. And that hurts not only the people

who need to enter the labor market or have lost their job, but it actually also hurts the people who are employed because most wage gains, big wage gains, come from changing jobs. So that was the other thing we saw in this report is that on average, people's wages are not keeping up with inflation. In recent months, a majority of the new jobs have gone to women, though in this report, it was more equal than previous months. What's going on? Well, you and I have talked about this before, so I looked at this longer trend, because you're right, this month, it was more even. 14,000 of the 29,000 jobs went to women. But if we actually look since July, 100% of the jobs have gone to women, and we now see that women hold 50.1% of the jobs. And this is almost completely explained by the

fact that almost all the hiring in our labor market is being driven by health care. That is a area where we still need people, and women are the majority of the workers in that industry. That is the engine of job growth, which is very confusing for some people because AI is the engine of GDP growth, but it has not been an engine for job growth. Unemployment among black workers rose sharply, full percentage point. That is now more than double the rate for white workers. What do you see in that? What I see is a series of patterns that reflect a labor market that were not in a recession, but I wouldn't call this a strong labor market. And what happens in a weak labor market is all sorts of workers who are used to being able to churn and change jobs

frequently find themselves getting left out. Now, when we break down the unemployment rate to groups like black workers, we do see a lot more volatility. So when you see a big jump in a month, I always want to have a little bit of caution. That's why you're hearing some caution in my voice. but I think it's symbolic of a labor market that matches the K-shaped economy. People who are doing well are still doing well. And any kind of worker who's struggling to get their foot in the door, keep their foot in the door, get a promotion to the next thing, those are the people who are really struggling right now.

And I think that's why we're seeing this real increasing anger over the labor market, because there's no openings and breaks for people to get. Obviously, there's still job openings, but what we've seen is a decline in the availability of opportunities, which has led fewer people to quit jobs. If you're afraid to quit your job, Scott, because you think you'll never find another one, then you can't create another opening for someone else.

And that has the effect of depressing wages, which doesn't keep up with inflation. Exactly. And it's just a vicious cycle that leaves everybody sort of worse off. We're all much better off in the labor market. If we can all chase our dreams, find those new opportunities. And what is the opportunity we're leaving for something else is someone else's opportunity to get ahead.

What other data you're looking for between now and election day? Well, I'm looking at consumer confidence because there's always this disconnect. People say that they are really unhappy about the economy, but we did see some job growth and leisure and hospitality, and people going out to work. restaurants. So the question is, are they doing what they believe? Are they showing behavior that's indicative of being frightened? Because that will start to slow the economy down. But I do think it's time for every policymaker to have jobs and affordability front of mind because that's

certainly the front of mind of most Americans. Betsy Stevenson, economist and professors University of Michigan, thanks very much for being with us. I'd love talking with you. A proposal on the ballot in California would charge the state's billionaires a one-time tax worth tens of billions of dollars in revenue. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is scheduled to be in California this weekend at rallies for the proposal. Other Democrats including California's own governor, Gavin Newsom, are campaigning against it. We're joined now by Marisa Lagos from KQED in San Francisco. Thanks so much for being with us. Thanks for having me.

What are voters being asked? Yeah, this is known as Proposition 40. It was proposed by a labor union that represents health care workers. They're asking voters to impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires' overall assets, so a wealth tax, not just on their annual income or capital gains, but things like stocks, bonds, businesses. It's estimated that more than 200 billionaires live in the state, so, you know, a tech executive worth $100 billion might have to pay around $5 billion under this. and the money would be used to backfill the steep federal budget cuts that were made under President Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill. Those cuts will push more than 3 million Californians off Medicaid. Why do proponents say people should vote for it?

Yeah, they say Republicans made those health care reductions in order to pay for deep tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. So the union pushing this argues the tax is fair. I talked to Dave Reagan. He's president of that union that wrote Prop 40. He says the wealth of California billionaires is about 2.4. $2.3 trillion. It has more than tripled in the last seven years. And 70% of that $2.3 trillion is in publicly traded stocks. And when the value of that grows, it's all beyond the reach of the tax system. And so this is also garnering support from other labor groups, the state Democratic Party and some high profile progressives like Senator Bernie Sanders, who's campaigning this week in California alongside Congressman Roe Kana. But Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is opposed. Why?

Yeah, and it's not just Newsom. You have groups like Planned Parenthood, the California Teachers Association lining up against it. And, of course, most of the billionaires who have spoken out themselves, not surprisingly. I mean, they basically say that this is going to drive rich people out of the state, that it's going to result in less business in California, lower state revenues, and that all of that will hurt schools and police and other programs. That's one big reason the teachers' union is opposed. I should note that Newsom says he does support a national wealth tax on billionaires, so it couldn't just drive the rich to move from one state to another. Is there some potential political peril for a Democrat, like Governor Newsom, opposing the tax at a time when, according to polls,

Americans are increasingly concerned about wealth inequality? I've been asking the same question. It certainly seems like a risk for Newsom who's thought to be eyeing a presidential run in 2028. Like, will voters believe him? Will they make a distinction between a state billionaire tax and a federal one? I spoke with Jim Kessler at Third Way, the center-left think tank. He thinks this could actually play to Newsom's advantage if he runs in 2028. Because the top issue for Democratic primary voters in presidential elections is, is this person electable? And they don't think someone overly progressive is electable.

Kessler says if the proposition fails in California, it could be a setback for the goals of progressives and of tax. the rich. But he still thinks that basically every Democrat in 2028 will be running on some sort of platform of taxing the rich. So he doesn't see whatever happens in this race as definitive for the Democratic Party. Marisa Law goes from KQED. She co-host the podcast Political Breakdown where they've been talking about Prop 40 and other midterm politics. Marisa, thanks so much. Thank you. A new term at the Supreme Court opens next week with amazing. case on climate change. The justices will also consider President Trump's power on immigration

and whether religious schools are exempt from anti-discrimination laws. NPR's Carrie Johnson has been studying up on some of the big cases and she's here now to tell us more. Hi, Carrie. Hi there. You'll be at the court on Monday. What will you be watching for? This first case is a big one. It's about a lawsuit Boulder, Colorado filed against Suncor and ExxonMobil over the local cost of climate change. Boulder says these companies knew their products would cause harm, and they deceive the public about that for decades, raising the risks of wildfire, flood, and extreme heat. Corey Radei White is legal director at the Center for Climate Integrity, which supports this lawsuit. More so than it being a climate case or environmental case, this is a case about corporate accountability.

It's about what we believe as a society we should expect from corporations. Now, there are a lot of other lawsuits around the country involving big oil companies, so what the justices do here could have repercussions. Now, Suncorr and Exxon say climate change is way too big an issue for states to be able to take it on one by one. They say the federal government should be in charge and that all of these cases in state courts should be stopped in their tracks. The Supreme Court is also going to venture into the Second Amendment again this term with this case. about those popular assault-style rifles. Tell us more about that. This is a case challenging the bans on AR-15s and places like Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut. Connecticut banned that

weapon after it was used in the massacre of children and teachers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. But the AR-15 is legal in most states. This could in part be a fight about history because the way the Supreme Court evaluates Second Amendment cases looks to the country's historical tradition. Now, the people supporting these weapons say they're in common use that more than 10 million Americans own them, and that means you cannot ban them. But Chicago and Connecticut say these rifles are unusually dangerous, that they're used in a lot of mass shootings. The argument's going to come up in a couple of months in early December. One of the hallmarks of the court in recent years has been its approach to cases involving religion. Is there a new case?

that stands out to you on that issue? Yeah, it's another case out of Colorado. It's called St. Mary's Catholic Parish v. Roy. Colorado has a universal preschool program that gives parents money to use at the school of their choice. Participating schools need to pledge to give kids an equal opportunity

to enroll no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. And that clashes with teachings of the Catholic Church on LGBTQ issue. So the question here is whether the free exercise of a religion clause requires Colorado to make an exception for these Catholic schools. The conservative justices on the court have really been siding with religious groups for years now,

and six of the current justices on the court are Catholic. We all know that immigration is at the center of President Trump's political agenda, and a lot of those cases make their way to the Supreme Court. Can you explain the key immigration case coming up? Yeah, just this week on the Emergency Document. the justices have allowed President Trump to restart deportations of immigrants to places where those people had no prior ties. Those are called third country deportations. Lower court said that violated these immigrants due process rights and didn't give them

enough time to raise concerns about torture or persecution. But the Supreme Court's conservative majority has for now let the Trump administration fast-track those deportations. The justices are going to hear broader arguments about that policy and And they've also accepted yet another immigration case about President Trump's effort to deny people bond hearings, even if they've been in the country for a long time. Well, all of that sounds like a pretty full plate. Is there anything else on your radar? There's one more that caught my eye. It involves a pilot in Alaska who had his plane seized because one of his passengers tried to bring cases of beer on the plane to a place that's a dry village because of, problems with alcohol there. The pilot says taking his plane away was an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, and they also have time to add even more cases, so I'll be watching for that, too.

That's NPR's Carrie Johnson. Thank you so much. Thanks for having me. That's up first for Saturday, October 3rd, 26. I'm Scott Simon. I'm Ayesha Roscoe, Elena Twardc, produced today's podcast with help from Chris Harlan Dunaway, Michael Radcliffe and Dave Mistich. Our editor has been Diana Douglas, working alongside Jacob Fenced and Larry Kaplow, Anna Yucaninoff, and Melissa Gray. In the control room is our director, Michael Radcliffe,

and our technical director, David Greenberg. They're helped along the way by Zoe Van Goghchenhoven, Simon Laslow Janssen, and Jay Sizz. Our deputy managing editor is Catherine Laidlaw, our executive producers, E.B. Stone, and Shannon Rhodes is our senior supervising editor. those three are double, double toil and trouble. Tomorrow on the Sunday story,

a Fox News reporting trip to Ukraine ended with two journalists killed and another gravely wounded. The journalist families are suing Fox saying the network put the story ahead of its people. Thanks very much for listening and for supporting your local NPR station. And if you need to find yours, grab a cauldron. Throw in an eye of newt and toe of frog, wool of, bat and tongue of dog.

Or go to Stations.NPR.org. That's probably a little easier, isn't it? Yes, or do both. Do both. Why not?